wished to know what course Government meant to pursue in regard to the private bills before the House, in the event of a dissolution of Parliament.

said, that he had given the matter his consideration, and he had no hesitation in saying, that if he held the same situation in the next Parliament which he held in the present, he would recommend that the course pursued in regard to private business at the dissolution of 1831 should be adopted on the present occasion. He did not believe, that any great amount of private business would be stopped by the dissolution of Parliament, but at the same time as there were one or two bills of great importance, he thought it but just that the House should take the same course in this respect as they did in 1831. It was impossible for the present House to pledge itself in any respect, but he had no doubt that the two Houses of Parliament would relieve those parties who had proceeded with private business, so far as to put any bills which might be stopped by the dissolution, in the same situation in the next Parliament as they stood at the time of the dissolution.

having brought up the report of the committee on the Appropriation Bill,

wished to offer one or two observations in regard to what he had asserted the other evening, that, under the Corn-laws as they at present existed, the agricultural interest levied from the community a greater sum than the whole amount of the taxes paid to the State. He wished to show that his assertion was not of so vague a nature as it was represented to be by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He had stated that he considered the landed proprietors of England to be in a much more favoured condition than the landed proprietors of any other part of the world, and he was prepared to prove, that while the landed proprietors of this country were almost free from taxation, those of France paid nearly forty per cent, of the whole revenue of that country. He stated this on the authority of a statement of M. Humann, minister of finance—a statement which he considered unanswerable, and which had never been contradicted. In Belgium he found that the land-tax was 22 per cent., and in Holland 25 per cent, of the whole revenue of the state. He had stated that England was in the same situation in which France was in 1789, when the nobility were exempted from taxation, and when the whole revenue was levied from the working classes. He repeated, that the people of England were now in the same situation in which the people of France were at that period, and that while they paid the greater part of the revenue, the landed proprietors paid no portion of the revenue whatever —the amount they received in the shape of protective duties being considerably more than the taxes which they were called on to pay. The landed interest in this country, consisting principally of the aristocracy, he thought sufficiently showed that it was for the benefit of the aristocracy alone that the Corn-laws were maintained. They enjoyed in addition a large portion of the twenty millions paid to the army and navy; and the journals of the House proved that every possible burden bearing on the land of the country had been removed by acts of Parliament. He had in his hand a list of taxes formerly levied on the whole of the community, but which, since 1816, had been gradually taken off the land while they were suffered to remain on the community at large. Taxes on husbandry, agricultural servants, horses, and so forth, had been repealed. The statement in his hand showed that 130,000 farmhouses were exempt from all taxes whatever, while taxes on houses were continued. The paper he had in his hand also showed that there was no less a sum than 983,000l. annual taxation which was formerly borne by the land, and which it did not now pay, but which other portions of the community still continued to pay. It was an attempt to delude the community to say that there were burdens on the land which the community did not bear. He would refer to the evidence before the committee in 1835, on the distress which existed at that time in the agricultural districts; and he thought he could satisfy the House how completely the landed proprietors in both Houses had passed laws to favour property; and he would tell the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, that when he proposed to give 8s. protection to the landed proprietor for every quarter of wheat, he was imposing a tax of the most onerous nature, and one which the landowners were not entitled to. Now, he begged the attention of the House to the evidence given before the committee on agricultural distress, which sat in 1835:—

" Mr. John Rolfe, a farmer and appraiser of farming stock, renting from 200 to 300 acres, in the county of Bucks, was asked, ' Is there any other tax than the malt tax, which presses immoderately upon the farmer?—No, except the assessed taxes. I pay for my riding horse 1l. 8s. 9d., and for my groom, 1l. No tax but the window tax presses on the farmer, and I pay for that 4l. a year. There is a county rate, the removal of which would amount to something, but not a great deal. Is there any other tax that presses on the farmer?—No direct tax that I know of.'

Mr. Henry Morton was asked,

"What do you pay for your assessed taxes? —A mere nothing; our direct taxes are very small. I do not pay on all the land I hold above 10l."

He (Mr. Hume) agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that if the landowners were burdened with any tax that other classes of the community were not subject to, protection should be afforded to them to that extent, but he saw that they were not, while up to the present time upwards of 20,000,000l. had been repealed for the benefit of agriculture. He would proceed to state some of the burdens to which personal property was subject, but from which landed property was exempt. In 1798 Mr. Pitt had brought in two bills, the one for raising a revenue from the descent of landed property, the other for raising a revenue from the descent of personal property. The latter bill passed into a law; the former one was rejected on the third reading, and up to the present hour, personal property had continued liable to the tax. Since the act had passed, personal property had paid altogether 60,108,084l. 16s. 8d. to that tax, while landed property was entirely exempt from any such charge. Now this relief from direct taxation was a point which hon. Gentlemen who wished to continue to tax the food of the community, ought fairly to consider. Then, besides this relief from direct taxation, the landed interest had had, through the weakness of the ministry in yielding to the country gentlemen, upwards of 80,000l. annually paid to them in aid of county rates, which amounted altogether to nearly 500,000l. Besides this, the landed proprietors had, during the last four years, received every year, in consequence of the rise in the price of corn, and other articles of food, a tax exceeding 50,000,000l. sterling, being more than the whole amount paid towards the wants of the state. It was useless to deny that the landed interest received 50,000,000l. per annum from the taxes on food. In the evidence taken before the import duties committee, Mr. Macgregor stated

"That there were import duties on the following articles:—malt; beef and pork, fresh or slightly cured; lamb and mutton; cattle, sheep, and swine. High duties are levied on the following articles, to protect British agricultural and grazing interests:—tongues, 3d. each; bacon, 28s. per cwt.; pork, salted, 12s. per cwt.; sausages, 4d. per lb.; potatoes, 2d. per lb.; beer and mum, 3l. 1s, 1d., or about 21s. per gallon; ale, other than mum, 2l. 13s.; beans, kidney or French, l0d. per bushel; fruits various duties; cider, 21l. 10s. per tun; hay, 24s. per load of 36 trusses; lard, 8s. per cwt.; onions, 3s. per bushel; lentils, l0d. per bushel; pearl barley, 17s. 6d. per cwt.; mustard and carraway, and many other seeds."

The witness was then asked,

" Have you ever heard any estimate of that kind with respect to bread or flour? With respect to bread and flour, the difference which the labourer pays in money is from forty to eighty per cent more than the foreign consumer. Taking the gross amount of revenue paid into the Treasury at 50,000,000l, a year, have you been able to form an opinion what proportion this additional taxation on the food of the country would be?—I consider that the taxation imposed upon the country upon the production of wealth, through labour and ingenuity, by our duty on corn, and the provision duties and prohibitions, are far greater, probably much more than double the amount of taxation paid into the Treasury."

Another witness, Mr. Deacon Hume, was asked,

"You are of opinion, that all those protective duties are, in fact, a direct tax upon the community, by raising the price of every one of those articles to the consumer?—Most decidedly. I cannot analyse the charge which I pay in any other way, than that part of it is the prices of the commodity, and part is a duty, though it goes out of my private pocket, into another private pocket, instead of into that of the public. Have you ever made a calculation as to the amount of taxation which the community pay in consequence of the increased price of wheat and butchers' meat, which is occasioned by the monopoly now held by land?—I think that a tolerable calculation may be made of that increased charge. It is generally calculated that each person, upon the average, consumes a quarter of wheat a year. Assuming, then, the amount of duty that this wheat paid, or the price enhanced by protection, whatever that is, as far as bread goes, to be 10s., it would be that amount upon the whole population. Then you could hardly say less than, perhaps, double that for butchers' meat and other matters; so that if we were to say, that the corn is enhanced by 10s. a quarter, there would be that 10s. and 20s. more as the increase of the price of meat, and other agricultural productions, including hay and oats for horses, barley for beer, as well as butter and cheese. That would be 36,000,000l. a year, and the public are in fact paying that as effectually out of their pockets, as if it did go to the revenue in the form of direct taxes."

The House would see, from this statement, that the estimate which he had given was extremely low. He considered that it was impossible for the House longer to persist in maintaining such a state of things, when they saw the misery and distress existing at this moment in every part of the country. He had statements from Birmingham, Bolton, and other places, which he would submit to the House to-morrow, when he intended to enter into the subject at greater length. Before they persisted in refusing to admit an amelioration, he begged them to understand what were likely to be the consequences, and not to throw away the examples which history furnished of countries driven to desperation by famine and want. These were the grounds upon which he considered they had been defrauded of the opportunity of discussing the question of Corn-laws by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth's majority of one in the recent vote of want of confidence. If the right hon. Baronet had not introduced that motion, they would have had the question of the Corn-laws properly discussed. If the right hon. Gentleman had been candid, as he (Mr. Hume) expected he would have been, he would have stated the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Corn-laws.

thought that it was not only the height of impropriety to delude the people on a question like the present, but that it was wicked in the extreme, and the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the landed interest bore no share in the taxation of the country was a statement which would only tend to delude the public. The land-tax, the poor-rates, and tithes, all which were borne by the landed interest, did not amount to less than 50 per cent of the whole revenue.

moved the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the Debts of Parishes Bill for the purpose of having it discharged.

said, he objected to the Bill, as it provided for the payment of certain debts—one upwards of seven years, the amount and number of which were not specified. He was desirous to ascertain what was the real object of the Bill, and was glad that the hon. Gentleman meant to withdraw it, as next session he trusted such information would be laid before the House as would enable it to legislate on the subject.

said, as far as he was concerned, he had no objection whatever to the Bill going through another stage. He was not responsible for the Bill not going through another stage. It would be most unreasonable to pass the Bill at once, involving, as it did, parish property to an enormous amount, without instituting a full inquiry into the circumstances connected with the subject. He knew a parish in the metropolis which forty years ago borrowed a sum of money for the repair of a church, agreeing to pay 12 per cent, interest on the sum, and it was most unreasonable that parishes at the present time should be answerable for such contracts. He hoped the returns which his hon. Friend had moved for would procure the requisite information whenever the subject came again under the consideration of the House.

said, that the Bill referred principally to the technical objections in the present law, which it was desirable to amend. The clauses of the Bill were mostly of an unimportant character, but still, on the eve of a general election, with the probability that many election petitions would soon be presented, it appeared to him advisable to make the Bill as complete as possible. It should be remembered that the act would expire at the end of the first session of the ensuing Parliament. There were, however, some alterations of rather an important character. Under the proposed alteration of the law, a Member was disqualified for serving on the Select Committee, on the grounds of certain degrees of relationship, or of his having voted at the election. It had been found that in one or two instances Members had inadvertently been placed on committees against whom reasonable objections might be urged. Such, for instance, as their having taken an active part in the election; and in those instances Members had expressed a regret that they had not an opportunity of disqualifying themselves. He proposed in the amended measure, for the purpose of remedying that inconvenience, that any Member who had satisfied the majority of the committee that there were good reasons, not having reference to considerations of personal convenience, but affecting the impartiality of the committee, why he should be excused from serving, that in such a case the committee should have the power of dispensing with his services. The amended act also provided for the more impartial appointment of chairman, and for a better arrangement in the selection of the committee. He thought these substantial alterations ought to be made with the decisive opinion of the House in their favour. He was afraid it would be very difficult to obtain the voluntary consent of Members to fill the office of chairman, and if it was a necessary duty, he thought the House ought to provide for its execution. He would suggest, that the extent of the duty that might be imposed upon any Member to act as chairman should be limited, and that if he were called upon to preside at several committees, it should be provided that if he claimed exemption (having once served the office) he should be entitled to it during the Session, and that the general committee should have the power of nominating another chairman. He felt exceedingly grateful to those Gentlemen who had performed those duties. He thought the bill a great improvement; at all events every one must feel it a relief to have got rid of those painful scenes which were formerly exhibited in the nomination of a select committee. At all events that law must be acted on during the next Session, and therefore it was desirable to make the experiment perfect if possible. He trusted the House would approve of the course he had pursued in re-enacting the whole bill, instead of merely introducing a separate bill to make the alteration, so that one law might contain the whole law of the subject.

said, that the bill of the right hon. Baronet was a great improvement on the former system; it altered the original system in the right direction, and whatever defects it might leave, they might be easily repaired. There was one alteration, however, which the right hon. Baronet proposed to make, to which he felt an objection. The original committee on controverted elections, of which he was the chairman, proposed a plan by which election committees were to be selected as before, by chance; but in order to secure the permanence and competence of one person at least on the committee, that committee proposed that an assessor should be chosen out of the House, who should act as chairman. But the right hon. Baronet proposed a bill as an improvement, which did away with the selection by chance. The committee on controverted elections did not venture so far as this, which he admitted was the better plan; but the right hon. Gentleman refused to act upon the suggestion with regard to a permanent chairman. When that suggestion was made in the House, there was a general feeling evidenced in its favour, and though the House did not adopt an assessor, they adopted the present panel of chairmen. Now, what he (Mr. Buller) objected to in the proposal of the right hon. Baronet was, that it did away with the whole of the permanence of the system. It was true that, by the existing mode, they did not secure men of legal knowledge or of legal experience; but at any rate, they had the experience which was acquired by the hon. Members of that panel having before sat on election committees; and the committees were presided over by Gentlemen who understood the prominent points. The right hon. Baronet also proposed to make one man chairman of a committee during the whole of a Session; but that, he thought, would be imposing a duty on Members of this House of a very onerous nature; and would, in fact, do away with the advantages derived from the present method. It would be very difficult to find in a new Session many Members of this House qualified to take such an office. He felt that a permanent chairman would be of great importance; so important, that he desired to have the sense of the House upon the subject, but he would not take advantage of the lateness of the Session to press his opposition.

concurred in the opinions of the hon. Member for Liskeard, as to the advantages of the bill of the right hon. Baronet Sir R. Peel; and he thought that [the object of that bill would be destroyed unless they had a permanent chairman, and that it would be impossible to impose on any Gentleman of this House, at the commencement of a new Parliament, a duty so onerous as that of permanent chairman of a committee during the whole of a Session. Having himself had the misfortune to serve ou a committee since the new act came into operation, his experience confirmed him in the opinion that it was necessary to give these committees the benefit of professional assistance in some shape or other. Difficulties and embarrassments were experi- enced by the committee, in consequence of questions which were raised by counsel on each side; and which, he was convinced, a Gentleman with the advantages of a professional education would have been able to settle at once. He believed that the appointment of professional Gentlemen as assessors or permanent chairmen, who should be paid for their labours, was a plan which the Legislature would be forced to adopt at no very distant period.

in order to obviate the objection made with regard to the onerous-ness of the duty of chairman to a committee during the whole of a Session, moved the introduction of a proviso, to the effect that every Member on the chairman's panel who had served on one or more election committees during a Session, should be excused from serving on such committee, either as chairman or member, and he should be discharged from attendance on such committee, upon making an application to that effect. If the House did not adopt something like that which he now proposed, in the next Session of Parliament they would have to depend on the services of a voluntary chairman, who, perhaps, would find something onerous in a pecuniary way in the performance of his duties, and, therefore, would refuse to serve, leaving only the alternative of selecting persons for the office who were hot qualified to fill it. That was the danger which he apprehended, and he hoped that those hon. Gentlemen who might accept the office of chairman would endure the suspicion which was inseparable from that acceptance, and which could only attach for a very short time to those who honourably and honestly performed their duty, a suspicion which would not press heavily upon their minds, and which would be counterbalanced by the consideration that the proper discharge of their duty had gained them the approbation of this House. The balance was in favour of an alteration in the law, and he hoped the House would express an opinion strongly in approbation of the clause.

thought the right hon. Baronet was acting judiciously in proposing this amendment.

concurred that all the argument was in favour of the right hon. Baronet's amendment.

agreed with the noble Lord, that it would be a great advantage to get a permanent chairman; but as a permanent chairman could not be obtained under any system which could be adopted, the right hon. Baronet's amendment was the only one which the House could agree to.