Somerset reported from the General Committee of Elections the names of the members of the select committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the petition complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Cardigan. Names of the committee read, as follow:—Sir Charles Henry Coote, Bart., Mark Blake, Esq., Earl of Leicester, William Smith O'Brien, Esq., George Dodd, Esq., Edmund Turner, Esq.; Chairman, William Goodenough Hayter, Esq. Whereupon the names of the said seven Members were called over; and Mark Blake, Esq., not appearing within one hour after the meeting of the House, Act (4 and 5 Vic, c. 58, s. 64) read;

"Ordered, That Mark Blake, Esq., Member for the county of Mayo, having been appointed to serve as one of the members of the select committee to try and determine the matter of the petition complaining of the election and return for the borough of Cardigan, and not having attended in his place within one hour after the meeting of the House this day, being the day appointed for the swearing of the said committee, be taken into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms attending this House."

having made default in like manner on the Wakefield committee, of which he had been appointed a member, a similar order was made in his case.

rose, in pursuance of notice, to present a petition from Hertford against the Income-tax. He trusted that after the expressions of opinion which had recently taken place, in two debates, relative to the reception of petitions like the present, and considering that the Government had been reduced to within one unit of a defeat on this question, the hon. Gen tie-men opposite would not offer any further objection to the exercise of that which was the inherent and indisputable right of Englishmen, namely, the right of petitioning; and that they would not attempt to close the avenues of that House to the petitions of the people. He was much disappointed at the course taken by the right hon. Baronet opposite on this question; for he had reason to hope that the right hon. Baronet, since he had been at the head of the Government, was advancing towards sound and liberal opinions. It was absurd to keep up a practice when the original reason for it no longer existed, and nothing could more clearly show the inexpediency of last night's decision than the fact that he was now obliged, in order that the sentiments of his constituents might be heard, to interfere with the progress of the public business of the House. He moved that the petition be brought up.

said, that in the course of the debate yesterday evening he stated his opinion on a motion analogous to that of the hon. Member for Hertford, and he should have been satisfied with merely repeating, on this occasion, the vote which he then gave; but the inconvenience of such discussions must be obvious; and although he had himself exhibited the tendency of his own opinion as to the merits of this question, yet, as it was apparent that there was a considerable difference of opinion in the House, as to the propriety of abrogating a practice which had lasted for so long a period as the one now under consideration, he thought it would be of advantage to the settlement of the question, and to the future discussions of the House, if the regulation were placed on some better footing. He would not go into the question of how it could be best settled, although his own view would be in strict consonance with the vote he gave last night; but he wished that those petitions which, by the practice of the House for some 150 years, were not allowed to be received should be accepted, and in that he concurred, he believed, with many hon. Gentlemen of authority upon this subject on the other side of the House. He wished also that they should adhere to the rule which they had for some time observed, of preventing a discussion on the reception of petitions. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member who presented this petition, whether he might not avoid the discussion now by withdrawing the petition for the present, and allowing him to bring forward the question in a more substantive shape on the earliest day possible. If that were allowed, he would undertake to make such a proposition as the House would then have ample time and opportunity to consider.

would support the motion of the hon. Member for Hertford, and expressed his regret that, upon such an occasion he should feel himself called upon to give his vote in opposition to those with whom he had acted for so many years.

did not mean, any more than the noble Lord who had just spoken, to argue this question again; but he wished to state to the House in what position the proposition of the noble Lord left those who inclined to favour the reception of petitions. The House at the last sitting agreed by the majority of only one to reject the petitions, the number being 221 in favour of their reception. It was clear, therefore, that there was a strong opinion in the House in favour of receiving those petitions. His hon. Friend, therefore, naturally thought that, upon reconsideration, petitions of this nature might be received. The noble Lord thought that such petitions might be received if the present one was withdrawn, but the noble Lord only engaged that some proposition should be submitted to the House at some future day. He must say, that upon a question in which the issue was so clear and decided, no such proposition could be satisfactory to those who were in favour of the reception of the petitions. They all remembered that when his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury proposed that the present practice should be discontinued, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said, he could take no other course than to give to the proposition a direct negative, and he had heard no different opinion from the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. The noble Lord said he understood there was a willingness to maintain that resolution which prevented discussion on petitions. That resolution, though a resolution of the late Parliament, was so far considered binding in the present Parliament that the Speaker, at the commencement of the present Parliament, enforced it, and when the question was raised the House adhered to that resolution and that practice. If any greater weight could be attached to that resolution by making it a standing order, or by any other means, he should not object to that course being taken, if it were proposed by the noble Lord; but, in the absence of any proposition of that kind, he could only vote on this occasion as he did on the former one—in favour of the petitions being received. He thought it better, when the debate was still going on in respect of the Income-tax, and at the moment he held in his hand two petitions on the subject, that they should not put off to some future day, after the House had divided upon the other question, the consideration of the question whether they should reject or receive petitions.

said, that the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire had ended his speech without any proposition, and he therefore did not see how they should escape the difficulty if they adjourned the consideration of this question. They were called upon to support the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government in the course he was taking— the course, he considered, he was bound to take in the circumstances of the country; and, although he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire, and his hon. Friend the Member for one of the ridings of Yorkshire, that they should give the people every possible liberty to lay their opinions before the House; yet, feeling that the House was so suddenly called upon to abrogate a custom which had prevailed for 150 years, he must say that they took a very narrow view of the question. The question was, yesterday, put on a much fairer ground, when it was stated to be a remnant of the protection of the Crown—a protection to the Crown through this House—so that the passing of a tax might not be obstructed by the presentation of petitions, which, as Mr. Hatsell remarked, would, on such a subject, be sent in from every part of the kingdom. He knew not whether the change of circumstances which had placed the noble Lord on the other side of the House might not have had some effect on his opinion on this question. From the course taken by the noble Lord when the question of privilege was anxiously debated, he doubted very much whether the noble Lord, if this question had been brought forward last year, when the noble Lord was in the position now occupied by the right hon. Baronet, would have adopted the course which he now proposed.

"— Credat Judæus Apella,

"Non ego—."

["Divide."] He was as anxious as hon. Gentlemen for a division; but if they divided now, and the question were again renewed, he asked what possible advantage could occur by attempting to cut short the discussion by calling for a division. He might trouble the House with reading long extracts from Mr. Hatsell's work, but if hon. Gentlemen would consider the question as it was then stated, he thought they would see that sufficient grounds were there given why they should not suddenly determine to depart from a practice which had been so long observed. This was not a question between the Government and the Opposition. It was for the convenience of the House, and it was for the House to consider whether for that purpose they would adhere to this rule. The Government should consider the reasons why the rule was not established: they were the guardians of the rights of the Crown, and the rule was considered essential to their protection: and although it might tend to their popularity if they took an opposite course, still they were bound to vole in opposition to the motion. He thought, therefore, that this much might be asked—that no sudden determination should be come to; that the question might not be decided on the mere semblance of a division with regard to a particular tax, but that it should be considered with reference to the future convenience of the House. On those grounds he voted against the motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite last night, and upon the same grounds he should vote in the same way on this occasion.

was not ready to state the distinct terms of his motion, but he was quite ready to give notice that he would bring forward a motion on the subject on the earliest day that suited the convenience of the House.

said, there were only two ways of getting out of the present difficulty; the one was for the House at once to receive the petition, the other was for her Majesty's Ministers to come down with a Standing Order, and pass that Order to the effect that no petition against a lax should be received. That, as he had said yesterday, was the proper way, considering the views of the right hon. Baronet opposite, of dealing with the subject. But what did the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire (Lord F. Egerton) propose? He proposed, that this petition should be withdrawn, and he would see, in the course of a few days, whether he could not make a sort of feather bed, for her Majesty's Ministers to fall gently down upon—whether he could not devise some course by which her Majesty's Ministers might escape the difficulty in which they had placed themselves, and thus escape the mortification of a defeat. He, and the Gentlemen on his side of the House, were not prepared, in the slightest degree, to compromise the principle at issue. They had placed before the House and the country, the grounds which induced them to think, that the people had a right to address that House by petition on the subject of taxation, as upon all other measures under the consideration of Parliament. He maintained, that as the guardians of the public purse, and as the representatives of the people, they were bound to entertain those petitions, and that the people were entitled to advise them as to the disposal of their own money in the same way as any proprietor of an estate, had a right to direct his steward in the application of his rent. That was his case; and until they were prepared to controvert that position, it was no use to come down and talk about a practice of 150 years. Such arguments might have done remarkably well in the days of Gatton and Old Sarum, but they would not do at the present day. Public opinion was against the course, that the Ministers were pursuing; the press was against them, common sense was against them, and justice was against them. Of what use was it, then, for the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, to propose delay? The noble Lord had voted last night for receiving the petition presented by him, and the noble Lord, he trusted, would vote in a similar way now. At all events, he hoped his horn Friend, the Member for Hertford, would not compromise the interests of those who had charged him with their petition, but would take the sense of the House on the motion he had made.

I assure the hon. Gentleman I am not acting under the apprehension of any fall whatever, nor do I want any feather bed. I have done that which I believed to be the duty I owed to the Crown. I believed it to be my duty to maintain the practice which I found had been established for 150 years, not because it had prevailed for 150 years, but because the repeated proofs of the inconvenience of a departure from the rule had gradually confirmed the advantages of that course which was originally adopted. I thought it my duty to maintain the rule because I saw that the service of the Crown and of the country might be most materially prejudiced, and the necessary supplies might be impeded by the joint operation of the practice of presenting petitions against taxes for the service of the year, and debating those petitions; and I now hold the opinion, that if the House sanction that practice, if petitions may be received against taxes for the current service of the year, and those petitions may be debated, controlled only as to length by the discretion of individuals, then you are establishing a rule from which great public inconvenience will arise. I, therefore, opposed the relaxation of the rule, and the House having decided, by a majority of thirty-one, that they would not depart from it, that common sense, upon which the hon. Member opposite laid so much stress, dictated to me that when it was proposed to present a petition on the following day, I should act upon that rule. That is the position, therefore, in which we stand. 1 perfectly admit, and I wish explicitly to state, that I do not think a rule of this kind, not having the force of a law or of a standing order, can be maintained unless there is a very strong opinion predominant in its favour. I feel that the narrow majority of last night evinces that there is no general feeling in favour of the general maintenance of the usage. That opinion does not alter my own; but, at the same time, feeling what I have just Stated, and feeling that upon the right which any hon. Member possesses, of per- petually presenting petitions for reception, as I have no power—in consistency with the performance of other duties—nor, perhaps, have many other Members the power of coming down constantly at four o'clock to oppose such reception, it is probable that at some time the hon. Members opposite might succeed. I am willing to admit all this. At the same time, there is a duty which we owe to the House of Commons. Therefore, though it is desirable that we should hot leave the door open for future discussion, which would be a great consumption of public time, and a great hindrance of public business, and not very creditable to us, yet I think the decision of the House ought to appear upon its records in a clear and intelligible manner. And not at all departing from my opinions upon the question—if there be a determination to uphold the other regulation against perpetual debating on petitions, I think, provided there be some mode of rendering our decision clear and intelligible on our records, it is perfectly open to me to desist from further opposition to the claim set up, not hesitating to avow at the same time that I do so in deference only to the feeling so widely pervading the House. I, therefore, think, the proposition is reasonable for a few days delay, in order to devise means for settling the subject on a satisfactory footing. The withdrawal of the hon. Member's motion seems a proper course. If, however, the hon. Member resist this proposal, I shall give my vote against him, and I hope that all who voted in favour of the presentation of the petitions yesterday, under the impression that nothing was to be done towards it, will to-night support me in obtaining a short interval of reasonable delay. I assure the House I am far more anxious (and am desirous that they should be) about the precedent we may set for future practice, than for the immediate result of the change. I doubt not if public meetings are invited, public meetings will take place. I doubt not that they will be real public meetings, not hole-and-corner meetings; and I, therefore, hope, that all those who object to the extension of the assessed taxes, or to the increase of the house taxes, or to the re-imposition of taxes on articles of common consumption. All those who, having incomes under 150l. a-year will not be affected by my tax, and all those who think that the alterations to be effected by my tariff will be of benefit to them, will attend at these public meetings, and will take the opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had come to a perfectly just conclusion as to the necessity for a general support in order to sustain any regulation of the House. The right hon. Gentleman also acted quite fairly in offering the concession which he had expressed his readiness to make to the feeling of the House. Further than this, the right hon. Baronet had been perfectly just in calling on them to take care that their decision was entered on the journals in a clear and intelligible manner. But when the right hon. Baronet asked for a withdrawal of the petition in order to a delay of some days, he could not concur with the right hon. Baronet, for there had not been anything sufficiently definite in the statement of the noble Lord; and if the question were to be settled (as it was best that it should be) by a resolution of the House, considering the right hon. Baronet's position in the House, perhaps he himself would be the most fitting person to undertake the proposition of this resolution; were he to give this undertaking, the withdrawal of the petition might be agreed to.

Undoubtedly, Sir, there are many occasions on which the person who stands in my position—the leader (as he is rather unparliamentarily, perhaps, called) of the House—should take a certain course of proceeding; but I think there are others on which it would be rather hard to commit to such an individual the duty of proposing—as in this instance, for example—a measure to which be is sincerely opposed. I am perfectly ready to declare my intention of relinquishing the opposition I have hitherto given. Could not a committee be appointed on the subject.

said, he had intended last night (had he been able to catch the Speaker's eye) to propose the course just suggested by the right hon. Baronet.

said, it might be for the advantage of the House, that the right bon. Gentleman in the Chair should state the difference between a resolution of the House and a standing order to the same effect.

The distinction between a resolution and a standing order is this— that the resolution is binding only throughout the present Parliament; and, therefore, during the present Session, it cannot be questioned, though it may be during any other Session of Parliament; but a standing order is binding not only on this present Parliament, but on all future Parliaments.

as one of the Members for the place whence this petition proceeded, and also as one of the minority last evening, wished to address a few observations to the House. He had voted in that minority not from any doubt as to the propriety of the Income-tax itself, not from any apprehension of any feeling against it out of doors, but because in his opinion it was not merely a longstanding precedent, it required some strong and stringent reason to justify them in refusing the petitions of the people. Such a reason was in the first instance supplied by the rule which permitted a discussion to be raised on each separate petition, and therefore enabled any factious man or knot of men, to obstruct the passing of even the most just and needful impost. But the instant that licence was abrogated, that instant the reason and the justification for excluding petitions against imposts ceased also, on these grounds he (Lord Mahon) had felt himself compelled on a former evening to vote against his right bon. Friend at the head of the Government, and however painful the duty, if this question were not adjusted, he would not shrink from thus voting again. But there was now a fair prospect of adjusting it. His noble Friend the Member for South Lancashire had given notice that he would move resolutions upon this subject on Thursday next. Under these circumstances the aspect of the question was changed, and he (Lord Mahon) much wished and recommended that his hon. Colleague, should accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, as to the withdrawal of the petition for a few days; until after the resolutions had been proposed and discussed. His noble Friend had not indeed been as explicit as might have been desired as to the nature of the resolution which he intended to bring forward. But at leas the had stated thus much, that they would be in conformity with his noble Friend's vote the other evening for the reception of petitions. Now, then, it was surely no very extraordinary stretch of confidence for the House to suppose that the resolutions would go to authorise and establish for the future the claim, in support of which he (Lord Mahon) had voted, for the reception of such petitions, and along with which the necessary securities could be established against a re lapse into the old system of debating on petitions. He therefore strongly urged that the petition now before the House should be withdrawn by his hon. colleague. ["No, no," from the Opposition Benches] Well, then, if his hon. Colleagues or those around him would (not consent to the withdrawal of the petition with this view, he (Lord Mahon) should move the adjournment of the debate till Friday, or the day after the resolutions of his noble Friend should have been discussed.

begged to read his notice of the resolution he meant to propose—

"It would be first confirmatory of the practice of the House as laid down by the Speaker, in 1839, with respect to the reception of petitions; and (secondly) permitting the presentation of petitions against taxes imposed for the services of the year; also (thirdly), that such resolutions be made standing orders."

would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford, to accede to the adjournment of the debate till after those resolutions should have been discussed, provided the right hon. Baronet would give his assurance of support.

The noble Lord assumes, I am acting in concert with my noble Friend as to the proposition of his resolutions. That is not the case; and, therefore, without seeing the resolutions themselves, I surely cannot be expected to commit myself by a promise of future support. This, however, I will say, that I am quite prepared to give a general adherence to the resolutions. I reserve myself on one point expressly—as to its being made a standing order that such petitions should be received. The hon. Member for Finsbury's original proposal it would be remembered was for the suspension, not the abolition, of the existing practice.

regretted that the proposition of the right hon. Baronet should have been at all sanctioned on that (the Opposition) side of the House. The right of petitioning was of no consequence so long as the practice of debating on petitions was restrained. The emancipation of the West-Indian slaves was an object accomplished through the agency of petitions addressed to that House, and by means of the debates consequent upon those petitions. By the same means, and by debating on petitions, the question of Catholic emancipation was also carried. Now, if petitions on the subject of the Income-tax were to be presented, and made subject to the old rule, it was clear that such petitions would be presented to the House, and would, according to the recent practice, be disregarded. On that ground, he was opposed to anything in the shape of compromise. He conceived, that those who were favourable to the unrestrained practice of petitioning could accomplish the object which they had in view without making any compromise whatever; they wanted no new regulation still more odious and objectionable than the existing practice; why should they have such a thing without a necessity? Let hon. Members only remember what they had gained by debating on petitions, and were they now to fall into the gross error of becoming willing parties to gagging themselves? He was unable to conceive anything more reasonable than the petition presented by the hon. Member for Hertford; nor could he conceive anything more repugnant to the most obvious principles of justice than an attempt to deprive the people of their right to give free expression to their opinions. He decidedly objected to entering into a compromise on a subject so important. He thought that they had much better take the division on the question now before them, and leave to the Government the responsibility of adopting whatever course they might think proper upon the subject.

said, that nothing had been said on either side which amounted to a compromise. The resolution of the House regarding debating on petitions was now in full force. As he understood the proposition of the noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, it would only go to reiterate that resolution which now regulated the practice of the House. The practice of the House be altered by the adoption of the resolution which the noble Lord intended to propose. The supporters of the right of petition would, therefore, lose nothing by agreeing to the proposition of the noble Lord, and on that ground he thought that it would be keeping up discussion unnecessarily if they were to reject the concession offered and were not to avail themselves of the opportunity to throw open their doors to the reception of petitions. They were not entitled to delay the exercise for a moment of that right upon any such ground as that stated by the last speaker.

was of opinion that if they did not then go to a division, an important occasion would be lost for promoting the public interest. For his part, he was resolved, in the next Session of Parliament, to move that the resolution which prevented debating upon petitions, should be rescinded. He was decidedly favourable to going to a division on the present occasion.

observed, that he should say to the noble Lord sic vos non vobis. He saw no reason why the matter should be taken out of the hands of the hon. Member for Finsbury; he, therefore, took the liberty of suggesting that it should be confided jointly to the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Finsbury. He thought that no part of the honour of the proceeding ought to be taken out of the hands of the latter Gentlemen.

was favourable to allowing the matter to stand over till Friday, in order that the proposition now made, might be put into proper form. He thought that this extension of time might very fairly be agreed to, and in his judgment such an assent involved no compromise whatever; he therefore moved that the debate be adjourned.

said, he would persist in dividing the House, if he could see that any possible advantage was likely to accrue from pursuing that course, but thinking that the manner in which the right hon. Baronet had given in upon this occasion was creditable to him, he should readily consent to adjourn the debate.—Debate adjourned.

wished to know whether any Members of the late Government would oppose the production of papers concerning the commencement of the war in Afghanistan in the year 1839.

said, that in the year 1839, various papers had been laid before both Houses of Parliament giving the fullest information that could be required upon the subject. He begged to remind the House of what then occurred. At the opening of Parliament, in the year 1839, the Queen, in her Speech from the Throne, called attention to the sub- ject, and it was then stated that all necessary information should be laid before Parliament respecting the intended expedition. The Duke of Wellington and the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Government expressed a hope that full information would be given. Both in the Lords and in that House frequent reference had been made to the subject in the course of the year 1839, and seven different sets of papers were laid upon the Table of the House of Commons, but from the moment the papers were produced, nothing further was heard on the subject, and, if silence gave consent, there could be no doubt that the Members of the present Government were satisfied with the information which they then received, for the right hon. Baronet now at the Home-office gave notice of a motion which he did not take the trouble to bring forward so soon as he found "that the papers were produced, and, whatever might have been previously threatened, no motion condemnatory of their conduct was brought forward. All he had to say was, that full information had already been given, that the papers laid before Parliament went into the question in great detail, and that at the time, he and his Friends were prepared to discuss the whole question.

with reference to a motion of his which related to the en franchisement of ecclesiastical leasehold property, requested to know if the right hon. Baronet intended to bring forward any measure On the subject. He probably was too much occupied with other and more urgent matters, to be able to give his attention to the subject.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had anticipated his answer. He had not given much attention to the subject, and was not prepared to submit to the House any motion relating to it.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Trade with respect to the proposed duty on hops in the new tariff. Was it intended to leave the duties on coculus indicus and other ingredients used in the adulteration of beer at a lower rate than the duty on hops? Was the duty on bops to remain at a prohibitory figure? He wished to know from the right hon. Gen- tleman whether the tariff, with regard to hops, was still open to consideration, and whether the duty upon hops would be lowered?

replied, that the duties on quassia, coculus indicus, and other articles used in adulterating beer, had been considered altogether independently of the duties on hops, and as prohibitory duties. A very small amount of revenue had been collected from the old duties, and the advice which had been furnished by the Board of Customs to the Board of Trade, was quite sufficient to carry conviction to the mind of any man that those duties were ineffective for their object. The next step to be taken then, was to lay upon them the highest duties that could be collected; and upon that principle the present rates had been printed in the list, and though they might appear low as compared to the former duties, yet they were as high as the Government could venture to fix them without running the risk of defeating the very object they had in view—namely, at 60 or 70 per cent upon the value of the article. The subject of the duty on hops was passed over, because it was considered in the light of a prohibitory duty, as was the duty on malt; that was to say, a prohibitory duty on hops was considered as standing in the same position as a prohibitory duty on malt. The old duty having been printed in the list, the Government were anxious to give all parties concerned an opportunity of considering the subject, and of making known their views with reference to it. He might, therefore, say in answer to the noble Lord, that the question was still open to consideration, and under consideration whether or not the duty should be allowed to remain provisionally the same as before.

rose pursuant to a notice which he had placed on the motion paper—

"To call the attention of the House to the practice adopted by counsel before its committees, with the view of providing a remedy, having for its object the advantage of the suitors, and upholding the dignity of the judi- dicial tribunals of this House."

The hon. Member proceeded to point out to the House the inconvenience, expense, and injustice of the present system of counsel engaging to attend several committees of the House at the same time, and urged that the House should follow the example of the Court of Chancery, compelling counsel, with the aid of the solicitors, to select a particular court, and not to run from one to another, to the great confusion and delay of business, as well as to the damage of their clients. According to the present mode of doing business — or rather of not doing it— counsel would be retained to appear before several committees simultaneously, and the consequence was that in the evening they had what were called consultations, not for the purpose of advising but of being advised what had been done during their absence in the day, and of furnishing them with that knowledge of which they ought to have obtained full possession by personal attention to the business which they had undertaken. The remedy which he was about to propose would not, he thought, decrease the actual fees of counsel, while it would have the effect of diminishing the expenses of their clients. The present practice was to keep suitors before committees as long as possible; but he would have the practice altered, so as to make counsel discharge their duties as speedily as possible. At present a nominal fee was inscribed on the brief, and the counsel was paid at so much a-day, and then followed the evening consultation; and by these means some hundreds of pounds were paid to the counsel before the proceedings terminated. It would be much better to pay him the whole sum at first, and the business would be expedited. It was common to hear people say that the courts of justice were open to all parties; so was the London Tavern, if you had plenty of money in your pocket. In 1705 a grievance existed with regard to election petitions, which drew upon it the attention of the House, and a committee was appointed, according to whose report the system was fraught with abuse, inasmuch as the practice was to employ twelve or fourteen counsel, and put parties to so much expense that it amounted almost to a denial of justice. The case was the same in the present day. He recollected in 1832, a noble Lord, still a Member of the House, upon a petition against his return being presented, standing up in a manly manner and saying, that although he believed his seat to be quite secure, he candidly confessed that he had not money sufficient to pay the enormous expenses of defending his return. His constituents then, in a manner as honourable to the noble Lord as it was to themselves met together and came to the determination of defending the noble Lord at their own cost, and the consequence was that he retained his seat. So, then, justice could not be obtained without an immense cost; and the House would recollect the case of an hon. Member, and some of his family, whose return had been repeatedly petitioned against for the avowed purpose of putting them to extraordinary expenses. Was it not a monstrous injustice that a seat in that House could not be defended but at the expense of many thousands of pounds, and that questions which in the ordinary courts of law might be settled at the cost of a few hundreds must put a suitor before a committee of the House of Commons to the expense of as many thousands? He had known cases in which hon. Gentlemen, after having engaged their counsel, could not obtain the assistance of one of them, and in one instance he knew that four counsel had been retained, and yet the committee after waiting some time, were obliged to adjourn their sitting, because they could not get counsel to attend. Then, again, suppose, there were twenty or thirty witnesses, as often there were, and even more, either the petitioner or the sitting Member must pay their expenses, and those expenses were constantly increased by the neglect of counsel. The House was much indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Monmouthshire for the part he had taken with regard to private and election committees; but he did not know that he had done anything to meet this difficulty; and he would, therefore, solicit the attention of the noble Lord to the subject. Counsel themselves had been heard to complain that they were retained in so many election committees. There was a story told of the late Mr. Harrison, whom a Member of that House found warming himself in the Exchequer Coffee-house one morning, and who, when informed that twenty persons were calling out for him at the House, replied to the effect that it was very likely, since he was engaged in at least a dozen election committees, and since he could not properly attend to them all, he thought the fairest course he could pursue was not to go near any. That he was told by an hon. Member of the House for a fact. ["The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It is an old Joe Miller."] He did not think so; but if the right hon. Gentleman would point out the page in Joe Miller where the story was told, then, of course, he must have been deceived by his friend. If he could prevail upon the House to adopt the resolutions which he was about to submit, he thought the evils of which he complained would be remedied, and the present regulation of the House applicable to the subject might be rescinded. The resolutions he should propose in pursuance of his notice were—

"1. That parties attending any committee of this House, and having liberty to appear by counsel, do at the first sitting of the committee deliver to the chairman the names of the counsel retained, which shall be inserted in the minutes of the committee.

"2. That upon no account shall any counsel appear before two committees on the same day, unless one of them shall have previously closed its proceedings."

He could not conceive what possible objection there was to the adoption of those resolutions. He called upon the House to agree to them in order to put an end to a system which he considered discreditable to all parties. He thought that the door to the administration of justice ought to be opened as widely as possible. The House ought not to allow hon. Members to retain possession of their seats unjustly, or to give them the power to shake their purses in the faces of the petitioners, and thus set them at defiance. The standing order of the House relating to the hearing of counsel in committees was read by the clerk at the Table, after which,

wished to ask the Speaker whether it were competent for the hon. Member to proceed with his two resolutions before the standing order of the House which had just been read, with reference to hearing counsel, was formally rescinded?

thought it was necessary first to rescind the resolution of the House to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, before the motion of the hon. Member could be put from the Chair.

observed, that it was not his object to interfere with the present standing order of the House. He wished only to make an addition to it.

said, he had understood the hon. Member to state that it was his object to confine one counsel to one election committee.

said, that was not the pur- port of his resolution. He had been misunderstood.

said, that the object of the hon. Member was to limit the counsel employed before election committees to one inquiry. He had not had much personal experience in such matters, but from the result of his observations in those courts, he did not hesitate to affirm that the counsel who were generally engaged in such investigations conducted the business intrusted to their care with great ability, and with satisfaction to those whose interests they represented. It was not his intention to resist the motion of the hon. Member, with the view of supporting the pecuniary interests of those employed in election committees, but he did so on behalf of the suitors. He did not see any of the inconveniences which the hon. Member said resulted from the present practice of employing men of great talent and experience. He was not aware that the suitors had any ground of complaint. The hon. Member who had brought forward the present resolutions was on the eve of being personally engaged with an election committee, and he had no doubt but that the hon. Gentleman would avail himself of the best legal assistance he could obtain at the bar. He did not think that the hon. Member had any satisfactory ground for his motion.

perfectly agreed in the opinion that the expense incurred in prosecuting an inquiry in an election committee of the House of Commons in many instances prevented justice from being done to the parties concerned. In fact, there was often a complete denial of justice under such circumstances. Let the House look at the time often occupied in such investigations. He remembered a committee which sat some years ago to enquire into the Middlesex election. That committee sat for four months, with the intermission of one week. In fact, the committee sat more hours than did the House of Lords during the seven years they were engaged in the impeachment of Warren Hastings. The hon. Member said that he wished to secure for Members the best legal assistance they could obtain. The counsel who were to be employed were to be engaged in no other inquiry, or to receive no other retaining fee. How was the counsel to know when the other petitions would be presented, and the other inquiries commence? He was, anxious if possible, to further the object of the hon. Members. His main objection was that it would be impossible to ascertain the duration of the inquiry before the election committees. If that could be effected, then no injury would be done to the counsel employed. He did not see how the resolutions of the hon. Member could practically be carried into effect.

was sure that every one must have felt much indebted to the right hon. Member who had just sat down, and who had devoted so much of his valuable time to the practices of election committees, for the expression of his opinions on this question, and he was quite certain that the opinions of the right hon. Member would sink into the minds of those who were opposed to them. The expense of election committees was a grievous evil —it was a growing evil—and he hoped to see some remedy. One great objection to the present system was that counsel ran from place to place, and from committee to committee. He did not know whether this was a Joe Miller story or not, but it was notoriously true. The late eminent counsel, Mr. Harrison, had said, or if he had not actually said it, he might have said, that he was engaged on so many cases, that it would be no more than justice to the parties to keep his fees in his pocket without speaking a word. If the counsel could not do their duty, was it just for them to take their fees? He could not understand how Gentlemen, knowing that they could not be in more places than one at one time—he could not understand how their friends in that House could defend them in taking money without giving value for it. Lord Den-man had set an example to the House. He would not allow himself to be imposed upon, and he at once adjourned the court, considering he had been insulted, by counsel, running from court to court, and thereby obstructing the business of his. He believed that the first counsel at the bar—the first official Member of that House, was one upon whom that visitation was made. He believed Sir W. Follett was one upon whom Lord Denman shut his court. He hoped to see this principle followed in the present case. But he was afraid there was too much professional interest in that House—as almost every family of any note in England comprised Members of the profession—that it was almost impossible to find a favourable consideration in that House for the purpose of mitigating this great evil. There was also another case. Hitherto, they had spoken only of election committees, but he wished also to speak of parties to private bills; before committees on these bills, counsel acted in the same manner. Two or three would come and go on with the business for some time; then the stars would gradually leave, and one of the junior counsel would in their absence get up and speak — not to the point that ought to occupy the committee, but, as Members of that House sometimes did, he speaks against time; thereby wasting the time of hon. Members of the House who had no right to be called, on such terms, to do such additional duty. He contended that if Members were bound to declare that they would be present "from first to last," doing the duties imposed on them as members of committees of that House, and an exceedingly proper declaration it was—if they were obliged to attend in the committee-room at a certain time and stay there without quitting the room till the Speaker took the chair, was it fair that Gentlemen who were well paid—ay, confoundedly well paid—for their time, should be also paid for wasting the time of those who served their country gratuitously? There really was a monstrous waste of time on private bills, and it would be an immense benefit to the parties concerned in them, if both counsel and Members were bound to stay in the room till they had settled the business that had called them together. He should wish if he could, to prevent at present in committee, and pursue a plan similar to that of quarter sessions, where the business went on, and the opinion of the counsel was asked as to points of law, if necessary. He believed that all counsel before committees of that House, whether for private bills or elections, did nothing but misrepresent the case on each side to the best of their ability. He believed that it was their duty, as he was sure it was their practice, and he thought they would not be feed unless they adopted it. In a conflict between a wealthy body, such as the Corporation of London and a poorer interest, it was impossible to say what confusion might not be introduced by the power of the purse, by employing three or four counsel: the smaller party would be driven to the wall, or forced to make an unfavourable compromise. That was done every day; and it was a practice of which constant complaints were made. He was aware, however, that it was difficult to come to a satisfactory adjustment upon the question. He confessed that he did not clearly see his way in the matter, but he was equally certain that the hon. Gentleman who had brought the subject under the consideration of the House, deserved their best acknowledgments. There was a rule in force to the effect that two counsel only should be heard before a committee. Now, it appeared to him that it would be desirable, whether this rule were continued or not, that two counsel should be compelled to remain in each committee, and not be allowed to run from place to place during the proceedings, in the same way as Lord Denman had prevented counsel from running from court to court in Westminster Hall. He believed that the course his Lordship had taken upon that occasion had given general satisfaction. He hoped the House would take the entire occasion of the proceedings before committees into its serious consideration; and if any improvement were suggested upon the plan proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, he was sure that he would not refuse to it his support.

said, there was one method of lessening the expenses before election committees which had not yet been referred to—that was to establish a more satisfactory and a more competent tribunal. He had the greatest respect for the opinions and judgment of the right disposed to look at his measure with the utmost impartiality, but in its working he had seen much reason, and that more and more every day, to say that it had totally failed in attaining the objects the right hon. Baronet had in view. The right hon. Baronet could not perform impossibilities; and he thought that it was quite impossible that they could construct a proper tribunal—one which by its decisions could give satisfaction to the public, while they confined themselves to the materials to be found in the House. If they could form a competent, but above all, if they could form a judicial tribunal for the trial of election petitions, they would do more to lessen the expenses of such trials than any other plan they could adopt. Were such a tribunal formed as he had sketched out, many of the petitions which were now prosecuted would never have been presented. The parties who now speculated upon the ignorance of the committees on matters of law would never have brought their petitions before a properly constituted judicial tribunal. The great fault of the present system was that the Members of the committee were generally not only ignorant of law, but they were called upon to act upon precedents of the most discordant nature—upon precedents which might be referred to, not only upon both sides of a question, but upon both sides of every question that could possibly arise. The present tribunals came to such uncertain decisions that they tempted speculation upon the chance of success before a committee, and he must protest against so very partial a remedy as that proposed by the hon. Member for Ipswich being applied to so great an evil.

having been alluded to by the hon. Member for Ipswich, begged leave to have it distinctly understood that he made no complaint against the learned counsel. He retained them, well knowing that he could not obtain the whole of their valuable time; he took his chance of having as much of it as possible—that was the understanding between them, and faithfully they had performed their part; therefore he had no complaint to make. In reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wynn), he would only say, that most frequently the examination of witnesses was the most important part of the duty of a counsel, and therefore demanded the care and attention of the man of ability and experience. He was afraid that the prophecy he had ventured had turned out too true, and that the experiment of the right hon. Baronet and of the House had totally failed. True, it was not asked now of what opinions were the majority of the committee, but every one asked what were the politics of the chairman. And it must ever be so, so long as the House retained the exclusive jurisdiction in such cases within themselves. He trusted that the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, whose time of life, whose experience, and whose position in the House qualified him for the task, would come forward with some plan for the formation of a better and more competent tribunal. It was absolutely necessary that it should be done, and as the hon. Member had found out the evils of the present system, he owed it to the country that he should turn his attention to the subject, The amendment must be twofold—it must begin with the registry, form an appeal court, and then a man having been placed on the registry, let him enjoy the franchise for a certain time under all or any circumstances; and after an election, if there must be a committee, let it be one where justice was sure to be had. Let them form the tribunal, not from the House but from that class from which they selected the judges. Let them be well paid, and he would answer for it there would be a saving in the end, for the contests would not only be fewer, but the proceedings in those which were prosecuted would be much shortened. The hon. Member had committed himself to the task, and, whatever service the advice of an ancient lawyer could be to him, his was entirely at his command.

was of opinion that the defects of the present system, and the great expense to which parties were put, arose from defects in the registration of electors and the want of a defined franchise. As it was intended that both should be placed on a better footing, he did not think that the House ought to part with its jurisdiction until the system had had a fair trial,

agreed very strongly in the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Yorkshire and the hon. and learned Member for Cork. The present tribunals did not give more satisfaction than those which had been abolished. He also agreed that they must commence any reformation of the system by amending the registration of electors, and after that amend the constitution of the tribunals to be appointed for the trial of disputed cases. But he was disposed to go further, and commence with the simplification of the franchise. The question which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Ipswich was one of great difficulty, and he did not think they would find many Members in that House competent to do justice to its importance. He did not think the hon. Member would gain anything by dividing; he should suggest that he should change his motion, and move for a committee. They were bound, as far as they could by law, to-lessen the great expenses incurred in these petitions, but he did not think that the plan of the hon. Member for Ipswich would have that effect. As long as talent was appreciated, so long would they have the race run by men of the highest attainments, and he believed it would be impossible for that House to prevent such a proceeding. If counsel were only permitted to attend one committee, what would be the consequence? Why, eminent counsel would calculate on the length to which committees might extend, and would exact an enormous fee for their attendance on those committees. He thought if a committee were appointed before which counsel and agents may be examined, that an intermediate course might be adopted which would lessen the expense of the parties. He thought the advantages to the members of the bar were but as a feather in the scale, and that the interests of the public should alone be regarded. He hoped the hon. Member would change his motion, and would ask for a committee to investigate the subject.

entirely agreed in opinion with his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire; yet, at the same time, as the decision of the House forming the present system had been given so recently, any one attempting in the present Session to moot the question of amending it, would meet with a very slight chance of success. There was one means, he thought, which the House had the power of adopting by which these committees might retrieve their character. Let them put in the chair of all election committees men of distinguished abilities at the bar—men of high standing and character, many of whom they had in the House. They had Sir W. Follett, Sir T. Wilde, and many others—he cared not from what side such men were chosen—let them be placed in the chair of such committees, and the object desired by all would be very speedily attained. Time was now lost because hon. Gentlemen who were placed on committees were not fully aware of the value of evidence; they, therefore, allowed much that was irregular to be given—much that had no practical bearing on the case— such evidence would be at once rejected by such Gentlemen as he had named. Again, much time was now consumed by counsel mooting points of objection for the mere purpose of delay. He had not yet served upon any election com- mittee, but he had often attended them, and he had seen points mooted which the counsel laughed heartily to see the committee entertain. With such Gentlemen as he had named in the chair, all the time so wasted would be saved. He could see no difficulty or objection to his proposal. If Gentlemen of their standing, in order to gratify their ambition, chose to obtain seats in that House, he thought the House had a right to demand from them the exercise of their talents and experience in a matter of such vast importance. The hon. and learned Member for Cork was perfectly right in saying that the only inquiry on the appointment of an election committee was as to the politics of the chairman. That was the inquiry both in the House and out of it. Not one man either in the House or amongst the public, but looked with the utmost suspicion upon the decisions of committees, and it was of the utmost possible importance that some change should be made. He thought the one he suggested was deserving of the attention of the House.

said, the question of appointing Gentlemen of the legal profession as chairmen of election committees, had engaged the anxious attention of a committee of that House which had considered this subject in a former Session. He thought it would be difficult to obtain men of eminence in the profession to preside over all the committees; and, unless they could have men of first rate eminence to occupy such stations, he considered it would be most unwise to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman now under consideration, although its object was a. good one, he thought its results would be most mischievous. If the hon. Gentleman wished to diminish the expense attending proceedings before election committees, he must go further than he proposed to do—he must limit the number of agents and attorneys employed, and alter the whole machinery of the system. Although the expense of counsel might be considerable, yet he thought that many other items in the expense attending such proceedings were equally as extravagant, and much less justifiable. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the convenience of counsel alone ought not to be considered; but it was frequently advantageous to the suitors to consult their convenience. He did not think that suitors, in cases of election petitions, would be benefited by the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, but that it would rather tend to their disadvantage.

in reply, said, he conceived the resolution he had proposed was quite adequate to attain the object he was desirous of effecting. Hon. Gentlemen, on both sides of the House had agreed in admitting the failure of the measure of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). The only question now asked, in the House, as well as out of it, was, "What sort of a Chairman have you got? Is he a man of your own political opinions or is he opposed to you?" If you say, the Chairman differs from you in political opinions, the observation is, "I am afraid, then, you won't succeed." If you say the Chairman is one of your own party, the reply is, "Then you're all right." It was not now asked, what were the sentiments of the majority of the committee, for by the, measure of the right hon. Baronet, three Members were selected from each side of the House; but the opinions of the Chairman were alone regarded, for his casting vote decided any question which might arise in the committee. If the noble Lord (Lord G. Somerset) would take the subject into his consideration, and move for a committee to inquire into it, he was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the noble Lord; or if the committee to which the selection of Chairmen of Election Committees was confided, and of which the noble Lord was the Chairman, would adopt measures for lessening the enormous expenses attending these investigations, it would meet his views. He would withdraw his motion; and if it appeared to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that this question should be referred to a committee, he would not lose sight of the subject.

thought that the great objection to the constitution of election committees was the want of qualification on the part of its Members to decide the legal questions that were raised before them. In fact, the counsel were much too clever for the judges. The counsel raised as many points as they could; and Gentlemen on the committee were too apt to give great weight to objections raised by counsel on their own side in politics, and to disregard the objections raised by the counsel on the other side. He had sat on a committee, and he believed that there never was a fairer committee, still the decisions to which they came left no strong and satisfactory impression on the mind as to their soundness. But he did not ascribe this to party bias so much as to the inability of the Members of the committee to decide the difficult points that came before them. As committees were now constituted, no counsel, however confident of the goodness of his cause, could go before a committee with an assurance of success. In a committee of which he had been a Member, there were six or seven and twenty divisions, and he did not believe, that more than one of them was at all of a party character. On that occasion, four were on one side, and three on the other; the four were Conservatives, and the three Whigs.

thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman was the strongest demonstration of the perfect fairness of the jurisdiction that could be given. Out of twenty-six or twenty-seven decisions, there was only one or two, said the hon. Gentleman. [Mr. Childers: Only one.] Only one; and why should that one be considered a party decision? Observe, these Gentlemen had acted together twenty-seven times without reference to party, and because there happened on one occasion to be four Members on one side and three on the other, the hon. Gentleman called that a party decision. Why should it not be presumed that on that particular occasion the decision was according to the honest opinion of those hon. Gentlemen? He hoped the House would not always be governed by what the losing party said with respect to a committee. Whatever tribunal they might constitute, he would venture to say, that the loser would complain, and would be very much disposed to impute some improper motive. With respect to the appointment of a chairman, he might observe that it was not a part of his original proposition. It was the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for London; and he being anxious to keep the jurisdiction to the House, gave his assent to the proposition. He hoped the House would not, because of the complaints against counsel or against the committee, consider that the decisions of these tribunals were not perfectly honourable and fair.

did not impute motives to the committees, he merely thought them not qualified to decide the points that were brought before them by counsel, and, therefore, could not do justice to the parties.

was quite surprised that any committee should allow counsel to take any unwarrantable liberty with them. The committee ought to prescribe limits within which counsel should conduct their case.

said, he did not understand the hon. Member to attribute any partiality to the committee, but to their inability to understand legal questions. For his own part, he did not think that with regard to private bills and those committees, they were as perfect as they should be, and with respect to the latter, they should have judges to control both counsel and Members of the House.

said, he had moved the adjournment of the debate last night, in order that hon. Members should have an opportunity of consulting their constituents. As the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire had thought proper to denounce those who were guilty of the presumption of asking for more time for the discussion of this question, he hoped the House would allow him to state in a very few words the reasons which he had for the vote which he had given for the adjournment of the debate on a former occasion. In the first place, he would frankly own to the right hon. Baronet, and to the House, that when he had voted in the minority for the adjournment till after Easter, he had been fully impressed with the opinion that the country was against the measure; but he would frankly acknowledge to the right hon. Baronet, that he did not think there was that opposition to the measure of the right hon. Baronet in Manchester and the neighbourhood which he had anticipated. [Loud cries of "Hear, hear," from Sir Robert Peel and the Treasury Bench.] He had no hesitation in saying it. He had no interest to serve; but he had anticipated a different feeling from that which he had observed. He recollected being at a large meeting in 1816, when a most unanimous feeling was exhibited against the Income-tax, and he had thought that there would be the same feeling now. He could scarcely account for it why there was not; but perhaps a new generation had arisen up that did not know the Income-tax, and not having experience of it, they did not know what they had to expect, and would not be convinced till they had felt the tax-gatherers' hands in their pockets. Another reason might be that many might be ready to sacrifice their own and their neighbours' interests to the interest of their party. A petition had been presented to the House, signed by 24,000 of the inhabitants of Manchester, in favour of the tax and against delay. He was ready to admit, that many respectable individuals had signed that petition; but it had not been a petition emanating from a public meeting. He would not designate it as a hole and corner petition; it had been laid in the Exchange Rooms at Manchester, and in the offices of certain newspapers; but no doubt there must have been very great diligence to obtain 24,000 signatures to it. ["Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.] But there had been two public meetings in Manchester, one in the Town-ball, which had been very respectably attended, and the resolutions proposed at which had been carried unanimously. There had also been a meeting of the Town-council, and resolutions had, he understood, been unanimously carried there against the Income-tax. His opinion was, that another reason might have operated with the people; he believed that they had not understood the distinction between a tax on property, realized capital, and a tax on income. ["Hear, hear,"from Sir R. Peel] However that might be, there was a divided feeling on the subject. Another reason had been stated to him by a friend of his, whom he (Mr. Brotherton) should have expected to have opposed this tax, for the quiescence of the people; his friend said, there was a clause introduced into the measure allowing a composition for the three years' income; and "now," said he, "as we have not had any profits for the last three years, we can compound, and we think we shall make a pretty good bargain." Many of the clergy of Manchester had signed this petition. He had had a good deal of experience with regard to the opinion of the clergy of the town of Manchester, and he must confess that it had little weight with him. They had almost to a man supported the first French war; they had supported and justified the proceeding at Peterloo, and had been ready enough to subscribe their names to justify that occasion; and when the case of Queen Caroline was before the country, scarcely a clergyman of Manchester but had been opposed to her. He knew that they had been over and over again asked to lend their efforts for the repeal of the Corn-laws, in order to give the poor cheap bread and employment, and he would ask whether the clergy of Manchester had ever come forward on behalf of this measure? He knew that the Independents and the Dissenters had come forward on this question, because they considered it a Christian duty to obtain food for the poor and clothing for the naked. He was always of opinion that a man should be judged according to his principles; and he would rather have a man in favour of just laws, which would enable every man to earn his bread honestly, than a man ready to relieve with the pittance of charity; but who was the advocate of bad laws. He had honestly stated the case with regard to the feelings of the people, as to this tax, and he hoped that when the tax. came to be levied, the petitioners in its favour would be as much disposed to pay it, as they had been to petition for it, With regard to his own opinion of the tax he believed it to be unnecessary, and he could not vote for it. He conceived that if monopolies had been removed, it would not have been necessary. It had been stated, in the petition presented by the noble Lord (Lord Francis Egerton) the previous night, that it was unwise and wicked to take up the lime of the House in discussing trifling omissions in the tariff. Why, the trifling omissions were corn, and sugar, the principal articles which related to the food and comforts of the people. He therefore said, that it was the monopolies which rendered this tax necessary; remit the monopolies of corn and sugar, and they needed not the tax. He bad always been in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws, but he was not insensible to the measure of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), a moderate fixed duty being in his opinion, much superior to that of the sliding-scale, because by that the people were taxed to a ranch greater extent, not for the benefit of the revenue, but for the benefit of a particular class, and then those for whom the sliding-scale of 20s. a quarter was imposed, wished to show their liberality to the people by throwing them back a shilling in the pound in the payment of the Income tax. He considered that if the plan of the noble Lord had been adopted, there would have been no necessity whatever for any increase of taxation. He was of the opinion of the late Mr. Cobbett, that let them lay the taxes where they would, they would be shifted from one shoulder to another, till they came to the lowest, and if they increased the taxes of the people, they would most certainly fall heaviest on the poorer classes. He was for reducing taxation, and not increasing it; but he had never seen that House much disposed to lessen the expenses. The late Government had been much blamed for increasing the expenditure of the country, and not keeping up the revenue equal to it. But hon. Gentlemen must recollect that for the last three or four years hon. Members opposite, when they had sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House, had been continually goading them to increased expenditure. The naval gentlemen on one side, and the military gentlemen on the other, had been continually voting for this. He had always voted against it, for he was of opinion, whenever they increased the army and navy, they would contrive to employ them. With regard to the war in India, he was against the war as unjust; and if unjust in the commencement, it was equally unjust to carry it on. If we had been unjust in our attack, we ought to be defeated. He did not participate in that feeling of the glory of the country in military exploits; he considered that the victories of peace were more glorious than the trophies of war; and although there were others who were possessed with different feelings, and imagined that the glory of this country depended upon its arms, he was more for seeing the glory of the country displayed in the prosperity and happiness of its inhabitants, and that could only be done by pursuing the arts of peace. He had always noticed that there was a different mode adopted in the House of Commons to what was adopted in private life. When a poor man was told he must be reduced a shilling in his wages, he went home to his wife and said, "we must di- minish our comforts and make our wants conform to our means," but in the House of Commons the course was quite the reverse. They met together and considered how much they wanted, and there Was scarcely any end of their wants, and then they had to consider the means of supplying those wants. There could be no doubt that in the present state of the country the Income-tax was unnecessary, and as little that it was unjust, for how could that tax be called just which required as much from a man whose property was worth only three years' purchase, as from a man whose property was worth thirty years' purchase? He had always been of opinion, that realised property, and not income from trades and professions, ought to be taxed; but it had always been the policy of Parliament to couple the tax upon income with a tax upon property. When it was proposed to take off the malt-tax, Lord Althorp had answered, that an Income-tax must be the consequence of the repeal. It was then suggested that a tax upon income derived from realised property would answer the purpose; but no, a property-tax, unaccompanied by an Income-tax, could not be tolerated. A tax upon real property might be levied without much injustice, and he would make it a landlord's tax, and not a tenant's. He would also tax money in the funds and mortgages, but would exempt farmers, tradesmen, and professions. It might be said, that it was unfair not to tax tradesmen, but it was not to be forgotten that trade had for many years borne much more than its share of the public burden. The taxes upon raw materials used in manufactures amounted to not less than 1,200,000l. a-year. Cotton alone paid 600,000l. of this sum, and the rest was contributed by dyewoods, wool, silk, &c, even the flour used in manufactures was taxed to a large amount. His (Mr. Brotherton's) plan would have many advantages; for, although a tax upon houses merely would be unjust, he would include not only houses, but mills, warehouses, and manufactories, in the same way as they were assessed to the poor's rate. The tradesman would thus be exempted, while the lower classes would reap the greatest benefit from the arrangement. It seemed to him that there was a broad and obvious distinction between a tax upon income and a tax upon property, and of this distinction he wished to avail himself. Having shown that the tax was unnecessary and unjust, and that it would cripple and limit the operations of trade, he had no hesitation in giving his vote against it. Persons in trade and belonging to professions, would soon find how odious, inquisitorial, and vexatious, the Income-tax was, and he had no doubt, that before long, such an opposition would be raised against it, that it must be repealed.

said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had told them, that a very large number of persons in Manchester were favourable to the tax. He hoped he should be able to show, that the great mass of the people, not only at Manchester, but in every other part of the kingdom, took the same view. The deficiency in the revenue was admitted to exist by which Gentlemen on both sides of the House could not be permitted to continue, and it must be made up either by direct or indirect taxation. They must determine whether they would look their difficulties manfully in the face or go on from year to year endeavouring to prop up the revenue of the country by indirect taxation and miserable expedients. He had in his possession a return which he had found amongst some Parliamentary papers which would show what was the number of persons who had paid towards the last property-tax, and what was the probable number that would be exempt from the present contribution. The accuracy of the returns might be ascertained by reference to the papers in the library of the House. He found, that the occupiers of land with incomes under 50l. a-year, and, who were exempt from the tax when last imposed amounted to 114,778; they would be exempt now. He found that the occupiers of land from 50l. to 150l. a-year, who were not exempt in 1815, but who would now be exempt, amounted then to no less a number than 432,534; making the total number of occupiers of land including those then taxed, but exempt from the proposed tax now, no less than 547,312. Now, what number of occupiers of land, did the House suppose contributed to the tax in 1815, whose incomes exceeded 150l. per annum. Only 42,062 out of the whole mass of the community. Then he found in trades and professions, that there were 100,000 persons whose profits from trades and professions were under 50l.; he found 117,306 persons whose incomes from trades and professions varied from 50l. to 150l., making 217,306 persons in trades and professions who would be exempt from the operation of the proposed tax. He had ascertained these numbers to show why the tax should be not unpopular. The total number of persons occupying land, and the total number of persons in trades and professions who would contribute to the tax, exempting those liable to the tax of 1815, and whose incomes were under 150l. per annum, amounted to no more than 77,682 out of a population of 12,000,000 souls. But, what might now, be the number of persons who had incomes and who would now be exempt. It could not be got at by returns, and could only be reached by calculation. The population since the time he had spoken of had increased to 18,500,000 souls—in other words, one-third. Was it then, a fair calculation, to add now one-third to all the numbers included in the return of 1815, he proposed to make that addition. Now, the House would bear in mind, that the numbers in trades and professions, and occupiers of land, who contributed towards the property-tax in 1815, and whose income exceeded 150l. per annum, was no more than 77,682. To that number adding as he proposed, one-third, the result would give in the present times, 103,578 persons as contributors. This addition must be admitted to be liberal, because the number of occupiers of land had rather diminished within the period to which he referred. There then remained to be added to this number the owners of land, and for errors in calculation, and for other additions he would propose to add 96,422, and this would give 200,000 as the number of contributors to the property-tax, as proposed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. Nay, he firmly believed, that the number of persons liable to be called on in England, Scotland, and Wales, to contribute to that property-tax, would not amount to 200,000 souls out of a population of 18,500,000 souls, could this be the case, it must be remembered that the 18,500,000 must be divided into families, as the heads of families only constituted, dividing that number by five it would give 3,500,000 families. He found from the re-turns which had been laid upon the Table, that the number of inhabited houses amounted to 3,444,848, and calculating at the rate of 5 persons to each house it would give nearly 3,500,000 families. He had already stated, that in the year 1814, the returns showed, that of persons, whose incomes were under 150l. per annum, there were 547,362 occupiers of land, and 217,066 who exercised trades and professions, thus giving a total of 765,428 who would be exempt under the provisions of the proposed measure. To this, adding one-third for the increase of population, the result would be 1,048,136 individuals whose incomes were under 150l., and who would consequently be exempted from the payment of the tax. He had already stated, that the number of families was to be taken by calculation at 3,500,000. He had shown the number exempt (their incomes being under 150l.) to be 1,048,136, while the number of families who had no income was 2,231,864, would leave, as he had already stated, 200,000 individuals only liable to the tax proposed. This was a return which convinced him, that an Income-tax was by far the most honest and least oppressive tax to the great mass of their fellow-countrymen. He thought it placed the burden on those who ought to bear it, and shifted the burden from the lower classes, inasmuch as it would be accompanied by the removal of taxes which now pressed upon the necessaries of life. The noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, had objected to the property-tax, because it was an impost which ought to be reserved for times of war, and ought not to be resorted to in time of peace. Now, he thought no individual could foretell either the extent of the expense or the result of the war in India. He did not wish to paint in gloomy colours the misfortunes which had recently happened west of the Indus, but it was impossible not to entertain the utmost anxiety on behalf of the brave men now locked up in the fortresses of Affghanistan, or to say, looking at passing event3, that this country was at peace; but whether the country was at peace or war, if the tax proposed was a right tax, it ought, in his opinion, to be imposed. Hon. Members on his side of the House had been taunted by hon. Gentlemen opposite with having given their support to the measure which had now passed this House with respect to the Corn-laws. For himself, he could say, that the support he had given that measure was quite consistent with the promises he had given on the hustings to his constituents. There was not a man who could hesitate to admit, that in the late Corn-laws, there were deformities which called for correction. The bill which happily had passed this House gave to the landed interest all the security and protection which it was necessary for them to have, and he should be sorry if that interest attempted to retain more protection than was necessary, to draw down on that great interest odium and obloquy instead of any earthly advantage. The promise he had made to his constituents was, that he never would vote for a tax on corn for the purpose of revenue. He contended, that the laws regulating the importation of corn were designed for protection, and not taxation, and, therefore, he would not vote for a fixed duty, which in effect would be no protection. In years of abundance Importation would take place under a fixed duty and glut the market, and in years of scarcity would aggravate distress, and besides that it could not be collected. He should have no hesitation in giving his decided negative to the proposition of the noble Lord opposite, and having done so he should support the motion for bringing up the report on the resolutions proposed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, fully convinced that by so doing he should fulfil the promise he had given to his constituents, and should act not only for their interests, but also for the good of the country at large.

said, that he had attentively listened to the speeches of the right hon. Baronet, and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, without conviction—he was least of all convinced of the necessity of introducing the state of affairs in India as a reason for imposing the Income-tax upon this country. He was aware that he might be charged with resumption in opposing himself to such high authorities, and he was well aware, after the treatment which the speech of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh had last night received, of the danger which he ran of misconstruction, in speaking even with qualification of the misfortune which had befallen our arms in Cabul. In some points of that speech he entirely concurred, from other parts he dissented; but while he admitted the misfortune the British arms had sustained in Affghanistan, and sincerely sympathised with the sufferers, he contended that it was not the greatest disaster our troops had ever experienced. The present was not, however, a question of sympathy, and it did not at all follow because the late news had been highly distressing, that it was on that account to be made the ground for laying upon the people of Great Britain an odious and most oppressive tax. The question, as brought before them by the Ministers, was, whether the state of affairs in India amounted to a justification of the Income-tax. Upon that point, with all humility, he begged to join issue with the right hon. Baronet. He did not deny, that there was financial difficulty in India, but not difficulty of such a nature or degree as to render it a valid plea for the imposition of an Income-tax on the people of England. There had been an abundance of wars, and expensive wars, too, in India, during which the arms of this country had not been exempt from severe disaster, yet he was not aware that on any former occasion the Finance Minister of the day had thought fit to come down to Parliament in order to make the affairs of India a reason for calling upon the people of this country to submit to great pecuniary sacrifices. The right hon. Baronet was therefore bound to make out some peculiar case, and reverting again to Affghanistan, it would surely not be said, that the disaster recently sustained was to be compared with some of those which had occurred during the American war. It was an observation at least as old as the time of Solomon, that men's minds always magnified things present, whether mournful or satisfactory; and it applied to what so opportunely, as far only as regarded the imposition of the Income-tax, had happened in India. He begged the House to compare the financial state of India during the triumphant administration of Lord Wellesley, with its present condition. In 1797 the debt of India at home and abroad was 17,059,192l; and in 1805, at the close of Lord Wellesley's government, it had risen to 31,638,827l. In 1805-6 (as the Indian financial year did not terminate until April), the charges alone, with out reckoning the interest of the debt and the supplies to Malacca, the Mauritius, &c, exceeded the revenue by the sum of 157,000l. Let the House compare also the rate of the interest of money as paid by the Indian government for its loans, in the time of Lord Wellesley, and at the present moment.

In 1798 it was	12 per cent.
In 1799 it was	11 per cent.
In 1800 it was	9 per cent.
In 1801 it was	11½ per cent.
In 1802 it was	10 per cent.
In 1803 it was	8 per cent.
In 1804 it was	8 per cent.
In 1805 it was	9 per cent.

At that period the revenue of India was 15,403,409l., so that the debt was a little more than double the annual amount of the revenue. Now, in 1839, the whole debt was 31,987,000l., only a few hundred thousands more than it had been at the close of the administration of Lord Wellesley. It was needless for him to detail to the House the mode in which the debt of India had been kept down; but the revenue had increased from 15,403,409l. to about 20,000,000l. As to the present rate of interest, he might inform the House that the East India Company had at this moment a loan open. It was not the custom for them to raise money from large capitalists, but to propose a loan to all who were willing to contribute any sums at a certain rate of interest, and to keep it open as long as money was wanted. The loan now open was only at the rate of 5 per cent., and 5 per cent, in India was not so high as 3 per cent, in this country. Thus, at the very moment when the state of affairs in India was made the pretence for an Income-tax, the Company was obtaining money at a rate of interest equal only to 3 per cent. How high, too, the character of the India Company stood at this moment, might be judged from another fact. There were but two banks in Calcutta, the bank of Bengal and the Union bank. Whilst the first was discounting the best private bills, having only three months to run, at 8 per cent., and the latter at 9 per cent., the Company was able to raise money at 5 per cent. Did this fact show that it was necessary to impose an Income-tax in consequence of the deficient finances of India? Another circumstance deserved remark. In the time of Lord Wellesley the pay of the army, the Sepoys, and the civil servants, was often six, nine, and even twelve months in arrear, whereas at the present moment he would stake his credit that there was not a single servant who was not paid month by month as his salary became due. Yet this was the time when the financial state of our Indian empire was to be laid as a ground for imposing the heavy burden of the Income-tax upon the shoulders of the already heavily loaded people of Great Britain. The present condition of the revenue of India was peculiarly flourishing; and upon this subject he had received by the last mail two letters, one from the secretary of the Government, and the other from a member of the revenue board. In both letters he was told that the revenues of the lower pro- vince of Bengal and Behar, the treasury and the granary of India, were now in a more flourishing state than they ever were; and in the last letter he was told that the result of the new laws for the sale of land was, that while at the periodical sales the land jobbers had abundance of money to purchase estates, they had not succeeded in a single instance, the revenue had been paid up with such punctuality. He had endeavoured to contrast the state of things in India at the time of Lord Wellesley's administration and the present moment, so far as the financial condition and revenues of the country were concerned. He would now say a few words on the recent most disastrous loss of life and troops; and he thought that he could find instances in our Indian history where there was a parallel to those disasters, which were encountered without calling for the intervention of this country. He alluded to the Burmese war — a war, by the by, which imposed a debt of 13,000,000l. on India. It was true that the loss of life in that war did not occur so much from the sword of the enemy, as from fever and from sickness among the troops. Probably the individual sufferings of the troops were greater then than now, but that was a matter of very little importance in a financial point of view. It appeared from the papers of Major Tulloch, which had been laid before Parliament some years since, that in the

"General summary of the Rangoon and Arracan expeditions, contained in the latest volumes of the Statistical Reports of sickness, mortality, &c, among her Majesty's troops, printed by order of Parliament, that, in the first year of the Burmese war, ninety-six were killed in action, out of an average force of 2,716 British soldiers serving under Sir Archibald Campbell, being 3½ per cent., and 1,215 died by disease and other causes, being 45 per cent. He added, the deaths will be found to have nearly equalled the number of British troops originally employed in this service; and but for the seasonable reinforcements which arrived, the whole force would have been annihilated. Major Tulloch considered it as proved that the native troops suffered from disease in nearly the same proportion as the Europeans, and had more killed in action."

He believed, that we had suffered a larger numerical loss of men in the two years of the Burmese war than we had in the Affghan war; yet we had never heard of a proposal to support that war by imposing fresh burdens on the people of England. He begged also to state his humble opinion, that India, well governed and well managed, was amply able to bear all her own burdens. He did not mean to say, that if, by information possessed by the right hon. Baronet, or by the papers already produced, or to be produced thereafter, it should appear that the Affghan war was begun for European objects, England ought not justly to bear a proportion of the expenses, but that was a point remaining to be investigated; it might be— it certainly had not yet been proved, and he would not prejudge that question; but it appeared to him, from the ambiguous manner in which the right hon. Gentleman intimated the way in which he meant to give assistance to India, that he would not cause an actual outlay to this country. The right hon. Gentleman might contemplate what he thought ought to have been done long ago, without reference to the present disastrous state of things, or to any peculiar circumstances, namely, to give the guarantee of England to support the Indian revenue. That was a mode of assisting India which did not call for any sacrifice from the pockets of Englishmen, or render necessary the imposition of any fresh taxes. In his opinion, such assistance as he had indicated would not only be proper now, but it would at all times have been proper. The debt of India was now 32,000,000l., the interest upon which would be 1,600,000l., for the loan was as an interest of about 5 per cent: if the guarantee of England were given to the Indian revenue, the interest might be reduced to 4 per cent., and a saving of 320,000l. a year would be effected, a sum nearly equal to the expenses of the whole addition to the European part of the army, now about to be made. At the same time he must call upon the House to look at the advantage of which India was to this country. India yearly sent to this country about 3,000,000l. sterling, making a net addition to the spending income of this country. One word as to the force which it was understood was about to be sent out to India, because last night credit was taken by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House for the whole expense of this force, and the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley) spoke of the expenses of the Chinese expedition as a burden to be paid out of Indian revenue. It was true that the primary expenses were to be paid out of the Indian revenue, but as India was making great remittances to this country, it was the same thing to the Indian government, if it made the payments in India, and the home Government, provided it were honest and prompt in its payments, repaid the amount to the India-house here. Then credit was taken, as new burdens incidental to the war in Affghanistan, for six regiments, which were stated to be going out to India. Now, if he were not very much misinformed, two of these regiments were in substitution of two others sent to China, therefore the Indian revenue would have only to bear the expenses of four out of the six regiments, and one of these was in substitution for the unfortunate regiment that had ceased to exist; thus there were but three additional regiments to be provided for. He had done with that part of the subject. He would now venture further to offer to the House his general opinion as to the state of India, and the demands which that country was likely to make on this. He did not participate in the great alarm which had been expressed relative to the state of our Indian possessions, whether on the other side of the House, or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay). He did not participate in those feelings which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed yesterday as to the greatness of the danger to be apprehended from the Mahomedan powers of India; he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had much over-stated that danger. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that the Mahomedan powers had lost their ascendancy in India before we assumed the reins of Government. He forgot that the Mahomedans were detested by the Hindoos, who recollected but too vividly the cruelties and the oppressions of their former sway, and who would, therefore, lend their aid to us against the Mahomedans. The noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley) had also said that our empire in India was founded upon the prestige of opinion) and the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Tamworth had put an imaginary case as a reason for raising the additional revenue; he asked what we were to do "if our native army proved untrue." He put the hypothetical case of some disaffection in the ranks of the native army. ["No, no."] The right hon. Gentleman had put some such case; and, as he did not think that there was any great danger to be apprehended from the Mahomedan power, so he did not think that our empire in India stood only on the prestige of opinion, or that there was to be dreaded a disaffection in the native army. He believed that our power in India stood upon a much firmer basis than the prestige of opinion. It was an empire of opinion, no doubt, just as all moral strength was derived from public opinion—but our empire in India was not only supported by our bayonets, but also from the circumstances remarked upon by the sage in Rasselas, who, when asked, "why the European was stronger than the Asiatic," said that the "European was stronger because he was wiser; but why he was wiser, He only who made both could tell." He believed that our empire in India was founded on our truthfulness, on the sense entertained of our justice, and on the manner in which we had maintained our great character and reputation; for although there had been repeated instances in which we had acted with guilt and with cruelty, yet our general conduct had been marked with truthfulness, with uprightness, and with justice and good faith. There were two instances which he could bring forward in favour of his opinion, that there was no danger to be apprehended to our Indian possessions from the rising of the Mahomedans, or from the disaffection of our native troops. With regard, first, to the Mahomedan power. In 1816 there was a revolt in the chief place of the Rohilla country, peopled by some of the bravest men in India, deriving their origin from the same stock as the Affghans. An insult had been offered to them, in the person of their high priest; they rose in a body to murder the assailants; and he mentioned the fact to show the superiority in discipline of the native troops over the Mahomedan population — for the troops withstood the whole population. There were only three companies of Sepoys in the place; they had not men enough to form a square, they could only form a triangle, and even then they were obliged to press in some irregular troops, and yet they were successful. The population of the Rohilla country were the élile of the Mahomedan population, and if they had so signally failed, when so weakly opposed, why should we dread them now? Again, in 1819, in Benares, a disturbance broke out between the Mahomedans and the Hindoos, and it was absolutely necessary to call out a native regiment to prevent the Mahomedan inhabitants of the great city of Benares from being torn to pieces by the Hindoos. When troops were called out, to prevent the Hindoos from destroying the Mahomedans, the Brahmins threw themselves before the muskets of the Hindoo Sepoys, to prevent them from firing upon the Hindoo mob; but nevertheless the troops at the command of those officers did fire. There might be circumstances within the knowledge of the right hon. Baronet, and not as yet before the House, which might justify the raising of a sum of money by the hateful means of an Income-tax, for relieving the wants of our Indian empire; but these circumstances were not before the House, and till they were he, for one, would not consent to this tax.

said, that the hon. Member for Guildford had administered some consolation to him by the statement he had made of the flourishing state of the finances of India, but he thought, the measures of the Government were quite independent of what might be the financial prospects of India for the next year. It was the duty of a wise and prudent statesman to grapple with whatever difficulties presented themselves prospectively, instead of resorting to any temporary expedients to meet them — and the right hon. Baronet deserved the thanks of the country for the promptitude with which he had acted when seeing a cloud, perhaps no bigger than a man's hand in the horizon, he had taken vigorous measures to meet the difficulty, instead of temporizing and producing greater evils hereafter. The statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite, as regarded Indian finances, had only come down to 1839; and he feared, that that could be of as little avail in determining the present prospects of that country, as if the right hon. Baronet had taken the financial affairs of England in the same year as the basis of his financial measures. He felt, however, the greater readiness in supporting the proposition of an Income-tax after the statement of the hon. Member for Guildford, because the flourishing state of the finances of India would be a guarantee that it would not be continued for more than three or five years. The most alarming ground for opposing this tax was, that if they once let in the wedge and admitted the principle, it would become a perpetual tax; if the permanent expenditure were to be increased in proportion to the amount levied by the tax, it might be objectionable; but the best way to prevent such an expenditure was to grant a tax to last for a short time. The tax could not have any reference to the affairs of India, for when, at the commencement of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman said, that he was ready with the budget, it was very evident that the Government bad made up their minds to introduce some vigorous measures. He would not then enter into a discussion of the policy of the war in Affghanistan, or of the foreign policy of this country during the last few years, further than to remark that he viewed the extension of our Indian possessions with the greatest horror and distrust. The Russo-phobia which the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) had evinced in the documents submitted to Parliament, a feeling too much partaken of by hon. Members on both sides of the House, had led to the war in Affghanistan. It arose from a mistaken view of Russian influence, and instead of lessening that influence, every step in the war had led to the abolition of that barrier which the wilds of Affghan would have kept between Russia and our Indian possessions. It had been stated to him by able Russian diplomatists and officers, that if we produced by our interference an impression at Herat and in Affghanistan, it was absolutely necessary for Russia to undertake the expedition to Chiva, for the Indian tribes were moved by a kind of freemasonry, and if any European power seemed to receive a check, it would be fatal to its influence. Then the late Ministry had left China as an expensive legacy to their successors; the position of America also rendered necessary the preservation of a large force on the borders of Canada. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not pretend that we could spare a single ship from our fleets watching the seas, or that we could reduce the army. It had been thought necessary, in the Oriental question, to bully Europe, it was deemed proper to attack Asia, a violent conquest of China was determined upon, Africa was to be civilized; it was said to be necessary to colonise Australia; and if right hon. Gentlemen opposite did all these things, we must incur heavy bills, and when those bills were brought in for payment, they must not refuse to honour them, or to provide the means of payment. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite then tendered a budget, which they said would go some way, and then said that they left to others to find out some means of making up the deficiency. It was clear, that the effect of the budget of the late Government had been overrated, for if corn had been at the price it now held, there would have been received under an 8s. duty little more than the year before, neither would the sugar duties have increased the revenue this year. There would have been a deficiency, and they would have had no means of improving the commercial tariff, and ameliorating the condition of the manufacturing communities at Manchester and elsewhere, who were looking forward with such sanguine hope to the result of the change now proposed. He approved, therefore, of the proposed means of meeting the deficiency. The question was not whether taxation was good in the abstract. It was easy to speak against the Income-tax, but it was a very thankless office to speak in favour of any mode of taxation. As the hon. Member for Bolton said the other night, two millions of taxation raised in one way, was not the same as two millions raised in another, and he thought, that they might take three millions by an income-tax with as little injury to the community at large, as they could take two millions from articles of consumption. I took the same view, observed the hon. Gentleman, in the year 1816; it was a view which was perfectly disinterested, for I had then only one constituent, and that constituent was the Duke of Newcastle. The Duke of Newcastle, after deeply considering the subject, came to the determination to resist the renewal of the Income-tax. His Grace communicated to me his feelings and wishes upon the subject. ["Hear, hear."] Aye, I wish you would hear, and you shall hear every word of it. I had considered this to be a most useful tax; I told him that I disagreed with his opinion, and that if there was any difficulty as to my vote, I would gladly accept the Chiltern Hundreds. He stated,

"I have said the same thing with all my Members, but you need have no scruples about the matter, for I find that half my Members will vote for it, and half against it."

I am at the present moment in a different but an equally independent position, for I now represent a constituency of 3,000 voters, and they will exercise the same generosity as that noble Duke in desiring me to express my independent conviction. It was impossible for him, the hon. Member continued, to deny that there was inequality and unfairness in this tax, with all the advantages which belonged to it; but the same objection may be alleged against all taxes on consumption, and against all rates on occupation, which can never be adjusted to the ultimate ability of the party on whom they are levied, but have relation only to his immediate wants and means. The protection afforded to the subject for the time being, is the foundation of the claim of the Government or the municipal authority, to receive an equal proportion from each of his income for the time being, the benefit and the change are thus correlative, the question was, whether a sum equivalent to the deficit, could be raised from any other mode of taxation, which would not involve equal or greater evils. He believed, that no better tax could be adopted, considering the position of the finances of the country. It appeared to him, that the course resorted to, for the purpose of obstructing the measure, was not a very just or fair proceeding, when he recollected the approbation expressed on the benches opposite, when the First Lord of the Treasury opened the measure. On that occasion, he felt proud of being led by so able a statesman, he felt proud of his country, while it exhibited a noble spectacle, which had been admired by foreign nations for its oblivion of party feeling, when the honour and interest of Great Britain had been felt to be involved in meeting with vigour and probity financial difficulties, but he congratulated the House upon the probability of its failure; and when the time for the division arrived, he should most conscientiously give his vote in favour of the measure of the right hon. Baronet. Before he sat down, he would say one word in reference to a detail of this measure, which he thought deserving of consideration. He alluded to a regulation which had been already introduced, to a great extent, into our rules of fiscal Government, by which affirmations or declarations were substituted for oaths. This was a subject, he thought, well deserving the attention of the right hon. Baronet, and he should leave it in his hands.

I am far too much obliged to the House for the very long time for which it allowed me to occupy its attention on the subject of the Income-tax the other night, to think of troubling it by repeating any of the observations which I then made, with respect to the tax itself. I will only beg leave to remark, that by all that has occurred since that evening, those convictions which I then expressed have been forced upon me with greater strength than I felt before. First, we have had some language from the right hon. Baronet, which appears to me to be peculiarly ominous as to the duration of this tax. When the right hon. Baronet first proposed this tax he spoke of it as one which was to be imposed for three years only, barely hinting at the remote and improbable possibility of its being continued for a longer time. A few nights afterwards, the right hon. Baronet appeared peculiarly careful not to limit the tax to a duration of three years. On a subsequent occasion, he spoke of five years; but what alarmed me still more was, that he would not assure the House that it should be taken off even at the end of five years, but said, that it would then be taken into the consideration of the Government, and that, according as public feeling, and the feeling of the Ministry might be, the Government would consider whether a continued revenue from such a tax was requisite. I must say, in spite of all that has been said, of the great satisfaction with which this tax has been received, that I have seen such indications of public feeling against it, that I am sure, that when it comes into operation, and the people feel its pressure, you will have a constant agitation going on against it—an agitation which will be continued until it is successful in its effort to procure the abandonment of this impost. Therefore it is, that I see this step taken with alarm, because, instead of giving stability to the finances of the country, it will only have the effect of placing a large portion of the revenue of the country on a very insecure ground. And hence besides the mischief, of producing a general apprehension for the credit of the country, it really will expose it to some peril. I am indeed, loth to enter into a discussion of the arguments which have been brought forward on this subject, because in doing so I should have to enter upon a wide field of recriminatory observations, which appear to me to be irrelevant to the question at issue. For not only do I not much relish, but I really can not see the logical bearing of all those recriminatory arguments which have been urged. This is in some degree the fashion of them. We say that this tax is an unequal tax. "Ah! but," say hon. Gentlemen opposite, "did you not give us the war in Affghanistan?" We say it is inquisitorial. "How can you think so," say they," when you remember China?" We say, that it is unnecessary. "But," say hon. Gentlemen opposite, "you deprived us of the revenue derived from the Post-office." [Cheers.] And that cheer of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House reminds me, that whenever these arguments are advanced, however irrelevant and absurd they may be, Gentlemen on the opposite benches are ever ready to cheer, provided they be sufficiently personal, without the slightest consideration of their utter inapplicability. But suppose—what indeed it is impossible to suppose—that you should happen to be right—that there should be some sense in what you say—I mean, of course, suppose that your reproaches should be valid, how could they bear out your inference that I ought in consequence to support the Income-tax? Suppose you made out to me, that I placed the country in its present position—that I took away its revenues, and increased its expenditure, does it follow from that, as a logical result, that therefore I should vote in favour of a proposition for supplying the deficiency by means which would only, in my opinion, increase the evil? That is an argument which can surely have no force; but I am sorry to say that a great deal more weight is attached to party hits than to solid argument. And after all, supposing that there is in all these arguments of recrimination anything to which any attention is due—are they arguments which hon. Gentlemen opposite have such a particular right to employ? Do they not hit them sometimes as well as us? They tell us that all the increase of expenditure is owing to us. They are particularly fond of referring to the Chinese war. We had a long debate in this House two years ago upon this subject, and the position then taken by those who defended the policy of the then Government was never refuted. We said that this dispute was attributable to the policy of the Government and of this House nine years ago, when, in spite of all practical authority on this subject, the China trade was opened, and some collision was rendered absolutely inevitable. Of that policy the House approved; and some Gentlemen opposite, were actually parties to it. You then are as much chargeable with the war in China as we are. Then the expenses incurred in Canada were referred to. Upon this subject every body must know that this is a reproach which I might urge against the late Government, because I voted against almost every one of the measures proposed by that Government in which the disorders of Canada, and the consequent expense of repressing them originated. But how does the case stand with reference to those who bring forward this argument? What part of the Canadian policy of the late Government was there of which they did not approve? Unpopular and odious as those measures were to the people of Canada, what measure of violence was there which they did not back up? And let me remind you that it was the language of one of the despatched of the noble Lord the present Secretary for the Colonies, that mainly contributed to the result which was produced, by the offence which the people of Canada took at it. A facetious county Member— a county Member, at least, who was facetious after the manner of county Members, told us, that one of the legacies which the late ministry left to their successors was that of the disputed boundary in America. I should have thought that that gentleman's information, or, at all events, his respectable age, would have enabled him to know upon what horse to place the saddle of this question. Allow me to introduce him to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; allow me to present to him the distinguished negociator of the treaty of Ghent—the gentleman to whose industry and energy it is, that after a long-continued negotiation with America, we did succeed in securing a right of passage for British vessels through an impassable branch of the St. Lawrence. This is the gentleman in whose adoption of the dubious words of the treaty, this dispute had its origin. It was to that right hon. Gentleman that the care of settling this dispute was committed; it was he who might, in the year 1816, before the territory was of value to any one, have settled the dispute easily; it was his carelessness or mistake which entailed upon his successors the difficulty of a negotiation, to which I confess I can hardly see any satisfactory result. The only chance of such a result proceeds, in my opinion, I am bound to say, from my high opinion of the noble Lord, who is now entrusted with the negotiation of this question, and who, I believe, will if any man can so conduct the negotiation upon that, and the other more difficult questions pending with the United States, as to bring about the best results. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to say, that they were then told that if any bad blood existed between this country and France, it was attributable, as the hon. Member for Bolton had suggested, to the Syrian expedition to which we made ourselves parties. But the hon. Member for Bolton was consistent: he had from the first disapproved of the policy which had suggested that step. But had hon. Gentlemen opposite also disapproved of it? It was palpable to the world, that they had participated in it—the noble Lord the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, (having, as is well known to all persons conversant with what then passed) unequivocally approved of the treaty of the 15th of July. Then came the question of the Affghan war, in reference to which certain predictions of the Duke of Wellington were adverted to, and the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had reminded the House that his Grace had then uttered oracles like Cassandra's, warning an inattentive country that its success would lead it into danger. But hon. Gentlemen opposite had no more heeded that warning than those on his own side. They had, indeed, given notice of a motion for an inquiry into the matter, but startled perhaps by the news of the first successes of our arms, they withdrew that notice— they abandoned their attack, and, by a silence more significant than language, gave their approval of a policy which they durst not condemn. If gentlemen opposite disapproved of our policy with respect to these regions, why had they not pursued another course? For if they had then entertained the opinions they now expressed, they would have made similar complaints against our policy in Affghanistan to those which the right hon. Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham) had not scrupled to make against another portion of our foreign policy in his China motion. In their anxiety, however, to get credit for knowing what ought to have been done on any particular occasion, they always manifested a singular forgetfulness of what course they had actually taken at the time. They could not, he thought, expect to get much credit for a foresight which as he had once before remembered, never displayed itself until the result was actually known; but they must be content to be classed among those reasoners, of whom events are said to be the only masters. In the same way he would now proceed to ask with what face could hon. Gentlemen opposite urge the charge of extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure which had been brought against the late Government. He would ask on which or in how many of the several votes proposed by the late Go- vernment did Gentlemen opposite support a reduction? He confessed he could not recollect more than two or three at the very utmost There was one vote about the income proposed to be given to Prince Albert by which Gentlemen by their conduct saved the country 20,000l. a year; and the other occasion which he recollected was the attempt to cut down the scanty grant to Maynooth College. These were the only votes which he recollected that they had ever given on the side of economy. On all other occasions what happened? Why, when the army estimates were before the House, the military Gentlemen opposite cried out against the injustice done to the army, and said, that there were not sufficient men kept up to retain and defend our possessions in case of attack, and that the British army would be destroyed in case of a sudden war, in consequence of the miserable system of economy that had been adopted. Again, when the navy estimates were under consideration, he heard hon. Gentlemen opposite who were officers in that branch of the service complain of the inefficiency of the navy, and exclaim against the economy which led to its decay. He did not recollect a single instance of Gentlemen opposite connected with either branch of the service coming down and complaining of the large amount of the votes to the army or navy, and calling for economy. Some hon. Gentlemen had also complained of the great reduction in taxation which had been made within those few years. No doubt there were somewhat too many taxes taken off soon after the Reform Bill came into effect; but Gentlemen opposite must be aware that the Government and the House were induced to give up much in this respect, chiefly owing to the pressure of public opinion. This was particularly observable in the case of the house tax. He would ask, however, whether the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, were not members of the Cabinet which took off the house-tax. They were as much parties as any members of Lord Melbourne's Government to taking off this tax, which produced 1,500,000l. a-year Did the right hon. Member for Tamworth ever object to the remission of this tax at the time, or did he say, that if the House took off the house-tax, that it must lay on a property-tax? The right hon. Gentleman was fully aware, that on that occasion the House and the Government bowed to the irresistible force of public opinion, and he remained silent. Some hon. Gentle- man also had said, that the reduction with respect to postage was a matter of great blame to the late Ministers. But how and by whom be would ask were the Ministers supported in the change in the Post-office? Their usual majority, generally of about twenty, swelled upon that occasion to 100; and many Gentlemen who were amongst the ranks opposite voted with them, and amongst others who did so was the noble Lord, the present Postmaster-General, a Member of the Cabinet. [" No."] He wished then that he were, but at any rate he was a Member of the Government. But this was a serious charge against the late Government; if these taxes should not have been taken off at all, and could have been kept on, why do you not, when you complain of the deficiency of the revenue, put them on again? If you, with your majority, entertain the opinions which you express, and if you reproach us with the reduction of those taxes, why not put on these taxes again, which you say should never have been taken off? You do not charge the late Government with having, by unwise financial and commercial policy, or by the mode in which they administered offices, so impoverished the country, as to have made it incapable of paying taxes. You do not charge them with having entailed such losses and disasters on the country as were calculated to ruin it, but you merely say, that they have taken off certain taxes improperly, which you cannot summon up courage to put on again. There was another topic which had been taken up in the course of the debate, the tone of which he could not sufficiently condemn, coming as it did from Members of the Government. He never recollected an instance before of such deliberate and repeated attempts being made from such a quarter to depreciate the resources and condition of the country. A great deal had been said with respect to the disasters in Affghanistan, and he must add, a great deal more than ought to hare been said on an occasion like the present. If the grief of Gentlemen apposite was so great with regard to the unhappy affairs which had occurred in that country as they wished to make it appear, he thought that they would have adopted another course on the subject. He believed, that if their grief had been really great, and their sorrow sincere, it would bare been, perhaps, rather more silent. Those who really felt acutely on account of such a disaster, would not have come forward and prated of it in the House of Commons; and if they had respected the memory of those brave men whose bones lie unburied amid the snows of the Indian mountains, they would not have desecrated by using them as missiles of party warfare. He well knew how apt party feeling was to induce us to form unfair prospects of the conduct and arguments of political opponents; but he never had seen this disposition carried to so great a length as during the present debates. He had heard with great pain a misrepresentation last night by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, of the language which fell from his right hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh. The noble Lord, on its being pointed out to him, came at once forward as a man of honour, and retracted the observations which he had made; but this was not the case with respect to the cheer which followed the noble Lord's misstatement; that cheer remained unretracted; those who, by allowing it, had recorded their approval of a statement acknowledged to be unjust, had made no reparation for it; but remained still responsible for a cheer, which in his opinion was the most discreditable that he had ever heard in the House of Commons, for it was the cheer of bad feeling and bad taste. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was so determined to make out the present as the worst of all disasters that had ever occurred, that he had manifested a good deal of irritability at any allusion to the disasters which had attended our arms elsewhere than in Affghanistan, and more particularly that of Walcheren. He had always been accustomed to look on the Walcheren expedition as the most disastrous one that had ever been attempted by a British armament, and he was, therefore, a little surprised at the irritability manifested at the comparison. He found, how-ever, that the right hon. Baronet's very first speech in Parliament, in the year 1810, was in defence of that expedition. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members opposite, whether nominees of the Duke of Newcastle or other noble Lords, knowing the amount of the majority they possessed, were not satisfied with negativing the charges and complaints of the Opposition, but actually came forward with a direct vote of approbation for the planning of the expedition, as well as the mode in which it had been carried into effect, and expressly voted in favour of the wisdom and good conduct exemplified both in the conception and in the execution of those operations. He did not wish to reproach the right hon. Baronet with the opinion which he had then entertained, but he did think, that when he could form and express so very favourable an opinion of that unfortunate expedition to Walcheren, he might have been a little more charitable under present circumstances, in his judgment of the disaster in Affghanistan. Another point of the right hon. Baronet's speech which depreciated the resources of the country, was his allusion to a deficiency in the revenue of India, which the right hon. Baronet stated might ultimately fall upon the revenue of this country. The right hon. Baronet had, as usual, gradually insinuated this fallacy into their minds. At first he had merely alluded to this Indian deficiency as a contingent cause of some undefined embarrassment. Afterwards he had gone on dwelling more and more on it, until he put it so strongly in the speech which he addressed to the House on Friday, that Gentlemen opposite had now got into the habit of assuming, that this India deficit was to be treated as a part of the deficit of our finances, and that so there was a deficiency in the annual income of the country to the amount of 5,000,000l., and that the country would be called upon to make up the whole sum. [Sir Robert Peel asked who had stated so.] The hon. Member for Nottingamshire (Mr. Gaily Knight) said so distinctly in his speech of yesterday. The right hon. Baronet now said, that England was not to make up the whole of the deficiency. If England was not to make up the deficiency of the Indian revenue, leave it out of your calculations. Leave Indian finances, to the consideration of the Indian Government, and on every account leave it out of these debates; for you now admit, that it has nothing whatever to do with the Income-tax. He confessed, when he first heard the observations of the right hon. Baronet with respect to the deficiency in the Indian revenue, that it made an impression on him, and he had no doubt, that the right hon. Gentleman's language had produced an effect on the country, and that many old persons of both sexes had been greatly alarmed at such a declaration. They would exclaim, "What! a deficiency in the Indian revenue as well as in the revenue of this country. This is another instance of the rapacity of the villainous Whigs, whom not only the revenues of England, but not even the wealth of India could satisfy. After this, nothing else will do but to cut off Lord John Russell's head." He had thought at first, from the right hon. Baronet's mode of speaking of it, that the present deficiency in the Indian revenue was a remarkable instance of the kind, but he found that this was not the case. There was almost a constant deficiency in the revenue of that country until a few years ago. This habitual deficit had not ceased until the Government of Lord W. Bentinck whose economy in the administration of the affairs of that country the party opposite had always made a matter of reproach to that nobleman. This was, then, by no means the first instance of a deficit in the Indian revenue? But had any Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the present one, ever urged this deficit as a ground for taxing the people of this country? Only look to what had been the history of the revenue of India. In the five years prior to 1814, the deficiency was 516,000l.; in the five years to 1819, it was 736,000l.; in the five years to 1824, it was 2,610,000l.; and in the five years to 1829, it was 2,781,700l. In addition to this, the Indian government had to provide, during the latter period, for the charge of the Burmese war and other expenses, and were compelled to borrow 13,000,000l. For many preceding years our Government had been taking off taxes right and left, without once giving a thought about the deficiencies in the Indian revenue. It was reserved for the year 1830, however, to witness the most extraordinary reduction of taxation ever made at once by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had to meet a deficiency of nearly 3,000,000l. in India. The right hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer then held the same post; and he would ask him if, when he came down to the House with his budget that year, he then called on the Parliament to consider the deficit in the Indian revenue? Did the right hon. Gentleman then, according to his present plan, talk of a deficiency of 2,878,000l.; half as much again, by the by, as the deficiency regarding which such an outcry was made now? Did he then propose, that the people at home should meet the deficit in the revenue of India; that we should bear an Income-tax in order to meet the excess of expenditure over the income of that country? Not a bit of it. The right hon. Gentle- man did no such thing. In the face of this awful Indian deficit, he came down and proposed to take off the beer-tax—a tax which brought in a revenue of 3,000,000l., and which, being taken off, might be supposed to leave a further deficiency to that extent. But the fact was, that the Indian Government had always been able to cope with their own financial difficulties, and there was no reason to suppose, that they would not be able to do so now. Their debt was, after all, no such very serious matter. What was it? Why, its extent was 32,000,000l., or not more than a year and a half's income. The East-India Company, when they enjoyed a great commercial monopoly, and carried on a most extensive commerce, generally found, that at the end of the year there was a deficiency in the revenue; but since they had been restricted from engaging in commercial pursuits, and been obliged to look to the resources of the country they held for their revenue, their deficiencies of revenue had, till very lately, been very little. It was stated, that there was at present a deficiency to the amount of two millions, and were the people of this country to be frightened out of their propriety by this bugbear of an Indian deficiency? Were they to be called on to bear an Income-tax on such an account as this? Let them not be affrighted by such a story; let them not be scared by a tale which was trumped up now for the first time, not because there was anything in it worth consideration, but because it went to supply the place of more substantial arguments that were wanting. In addition, however, to the increase of expenditure owing to war, there had been another obvious cause of the present deficiency in the Indian revenue which had not been adverted to by either the right hon. Baronet, or the noble Lord, namely, the falling-off in the revenue of the Company on account of the proceedings which had taken place with regard to opium. Were they going to charge the deficiency in the opium revenue on her Majesty's late advisers? Why, it was their own particular friend and protegé, the Emperor of China, who deprived India of that resource; so let them not blame the late Government for that. It appeared to him, that the deficiency was not of that alarming character which had been described, and even with the war of Affghanistan he did not believe, that India would have to contend with the same fiscal difficulties which it had to meet in order to carry on the Burmese war. But he would quit this subject of the topics of the debate, and he frankly owned, that he did so with the more pleasure, because, as it seemed to him, a really large and inviting question of principle had been submitted for the decision of the House by his noble Friend, the Member for the city of London. Certainly, the noble Lord had adopted a very different course on this question from that which had been pursued by the right hon. Baronet opposite on like occasions. The right hon. Baronet had always been most explicit as to what he would not do, but most cautious in stating anything respecting what he intended to do. The noble Lord, however, had fairly laid his own plan down for consideration. It might be said, that he was taking an impolitic course in thus running Budget against Budget, but, whether impolitic or not, the proceeding was fair and manly, and one which could not but meet with general approval. Now, the noble Lord who had spoken last night (Lord Stanley) had said there were some points on which the supporters of the Income-tax and of the resolution in amendment were mutually agreed. Both parties were agreed as to the fact of a deficiency, which must be supplied by some new tax, and both were also agreed on that which seemed to be a new discovery with hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, that trade, commerce, and manufactures were in a languishing state and required an alteration of the tariff to give them full play and opportunity for restoration. Now, being satisfied with the fact of hon. Gentlemen opposite having made this discovery, he would ask the House to compare the two plans under their consideration. They must recollect that both plans adopted the necessity of taxation, and also the principle of free-trade, in a greater or in a less degree. The right hon. Baronet proposed to obtain the means for meeting the ordinary expenditure of the country and the extra cost entailed by his free-trade experiments, by a large amount of direct taxation, imposed upon the people in its most oppressive and obnoxious form. He proposed, also to maintain the great monopolies, and for that purpose he had sent up his Corn-bill to the House of Peers, whilst, in order to make some show with the principle, he had dealt vigorously with a number of little matters. On the other hand, let them look at the plan of the noble Lord. The noble Lord at once boldly grappled with the great monopolies. He proposed to make a great alteration in the duties upon the chief necessaries of human subsistence which at the present time were unduly taxed; and from this source, with the additional pressure of only a comparatively small amount of taxation, he proposed to make the revenue equal to the expenditure. These were the main characteristics of the two plans, and he would confidently ask which was the best, the fairest, and the most calculated to benefit the people. An hon. Member who had spoken on the other side had with vast arithmetical ability entered upon a calculation of the greater amount of saving to the people which would arise from a reduction of the sugar duties than from freedom from the Income-tax. Now, the hon. Member might be right, but if he were right, he certainly ought not to forget that the proposition to alter the sugar duties happened to no part of the present budget, but was part of the plan of the noble Lord. This should be remembered before they could answer the question as to which plan was the more likely to give relief to the commerce and the people of the country—the plan which dealt with the minor or that which was intended to operate on the chief monopolies? The plan of the right hon. Baronet might be good as far as it went, but its order of free-trade was a wrong one. Unfortunately the poorer classes of the country were unable to consume butcher's meat, and certainly none of them consumed much copper or tin ores, but all the people consumed bread and sugar, and relief from the taxes on those articles would come home immediately and largely to all. But they were told of the benefit of the Income-tax to the poor classes of the people—of the immense advantages they would derive from it—of the small extent to which it would burden them. Why, with what object did they impose this tax, but to maintain and keep up the worst system of taxation with which the working classes could be oppressed—a taxation which made their bread and their sugar dear—a taxation which prevented their enjoying all the luxuries and most of the necessaries of life? The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Brecon had said, that he had told his constituents most emphatically that he would never consent to a tax upon bread for the purposes of the public revenue. The hon. Gentleman, however, had not gone far enough. He should have finished by telling his constituents that he would not consent to the imposition of this tax for the benefit not only of the State but also not for that of any persons besides the State. And now, if he might be allowed to diverge to a somewhat curious and rather nice question, he would take the liberty of addressing himself to a part of the subject, which he would argue with candour, and to a class of his hearers whose good opinion he was very desirous to conciliate, He would take leave to ask the Gentlemen who represented the protected interest in that House, which of the two plans before them they conceived the best for those protected interests on the whole? And in the outset he would take leave to observe that he thought the right hon. Baronet had acted with great unfairness towards all the protected interests. He was quite sensible that the adoption of this principle of free-trade could not but be accompanied with harm and injury to some parties. It was impossible to deal with such a measure without doing harm to some, but the people who suffered surely had a right to say, if you injure us by free-trade, relieve us by free-trade. The parties who complained —the cork-cutter, the leather-dealer, the liquorice grower, whose claims were urged by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract — his own constituents who were more especially interested in copper —all these, all the parties who felt they had any right to complain of a loss of protection were surely justified in calling for relief, if the same principle which operated against them could be made by its application to another class of articles to work in their favour. All parties had a right to say, "Let us all start fair;" The right hon. Baronet had been very eloquent in stating objections to throwing open the corn trade, on account of the peculiar burdens sustained by land; but he had quite kept out of view, and, unfortunately, out of his recollection, the peculiar burdens which the trading interests were subjected to for the benefit of the landlords. But he would ask Gentlemen opposite, who belonged to the favoured class—to the agricultural interest—an interest, he begged to say, that he for one never for a moment wished to see stripped of any part of its just power and its due influence—he would ask them what they really thought of the plan of the right hon. Baronet, as compared with the plan of the late Government, in the ultimate effect which the one and the other were calculated to produce upon their interests? Were he called upon to do what he thought most advisable for their real interests, he would, in the first instance, take away that protection which was more especially obnoxious to the country—that protection against which the people most loudly inveighed—that protection which constituted the great evil, the increasing price of bread—that protection which animated the Anti-Corn-law League. It was cheap bread that the League, on behalf of the country, wanted. Cheap butchers' meat was not their rallying cry, and still less cheap boots. The right hon. Baronet very kindly diminished the protection on barley, and oats, and Canada timber, and so on; but let hon. Gentlemen opposite put the question to themselves, whether, by acceding to such reductions of protections as these, they thought they diminished the public feeling against the Corn-laws, and whether they did not acknowledge to themselves that this feeling must go on increasing and increasing, year after year, until it triumphed to the fullest extent. The fate of the great monopolists was sealed; they must give way ere long; and though he did not think that the right hon. Baronet had taken the most fair or humane mode of bringing it about, he certainly had taken the most effectual, by his summary mode of proceeding with all the minor monopolies, and thus leaving the great monopolies alone and unsupported. With this feeling as to the approaching removal of the master-evil, he should lend the right hon. Baronet his cordial support in all the improvements which he proposed in the tariff. He was sorry, from the manner of the right hon. Baronet, that his offer of support was not received with the degree of gratitude which he naturally ought to look for; but gratitude was one of those feelings which grow upon emergencies, and there was little doubt that, after a few nights on the Tariff debate, the right hon. Baronet would show himself somewhat more grateful to those who expressed any intention of yielding him their support. He did not wish to deal in retort, but there was one topic in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire to which he could not help adverting. It was that in which the noble Lord stated, that the plan of his noble Friend had been scouted by the voice of Parliament, and that its condem- nation had been fully pronounced at the last general election. He rejoiced at the judicial phrase which the noble Lord had introduced, for be would ask the noble Lord by what means that condemnation had been brought about? Did not the noble Lord know how often false evidence was resorted to for the condemnation of innocence? Was the evidence adduced at the hustings fair evidence, when it was stated that the Government of the right hon. Baronet would when in power, resist to the death every and any alteration of the Corn-laws? He hoped the noble Lord would excuse him, if he referred to what took place in Lancashire. [An hon. Member: South Lancashire.] No! in the North as well as in the South of Lancashire. When the budget of his noble Friend lately at the head of the Government was discussed on the hustings of North Lancashire, what was the character given of it to the farmers of that county, by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley)? Was it not such as would induce them to hang, without hesitation or remorse, any budget which might be arraigned before them on such testimony? They were told there was a place called Tamboff, in Russia, a place by the way not much bigger than Yorkshire, which annually grew 38,000,000 quarters of wheat, a quantity double the amount of the consumption of this whole island, and that the consequence of an 8s. duty would be, that all that quantity of corn would come in at a price of 13s 4d the quarter. He did not know whether the noble Lord stated the amount in rubles, but at all events he translated it into English currency for the benefit of his hearers. When the farmers were told this by one whom they presumed to know much more of the matter than they themselves could do, they of course at once agreed to a verdict against a budget which would let in 38,000,000 quarters of Tamboff wheat at this low price. The noble Lord was perhaps unacquainted with statistics, however deeply he might be versed in other politics, and perhaps derived his information from some other authority, but if the noble Lord was so "let in" on any authority, who could blame the Lancashire farmers for swallowing the bait on his? There could be no doubt in the minds of any one who knew the high character of the noble Lord, that in this matter he had been deceived; that he himself had taken I in the little misconception about Tamboff and its productions; and, indeed, the right hon. Baronet opposite, he believed, was the first Member of the House who had shown himself labouring under so extraordinary a delusion; but, at all events, it was not to be wondered at, that what the noble Lord had taken in, the poor farmers, too, should have swallowed. This was a mistake on the part of the noble Lord; but was some of the other evidence brought forward on the hustings and elsewhere among the people, against the late Government and their budget, equally a mere matter of mistake? In Lincolnshire, among other counties, had not one Gentleman after another assured the farmers that they themselves, wise people, living half the year in Lon Premier's intentions as he was himself, and that the right hon. Baronet was not going to alter the Corn-laws a bit, and that were he to exhibit such a tendency for a single moment, they would throw all their weight into the scale against him and turn him out; yet these Gentlemen, who contented themselves by supporting the Corn-laws by a ludicrous sham opposition to the right hon. Baronet—these gentlemen, with pledges unredeemed, with promises violated—these gentlemen were among the loudest in cheering the assurance that the late budget had been condemned at the late election. He meant no personal disrespect to the hon. Members for Lincolnshire, but really Lincolnshire had of late held so prominent a part in the debates, that when one wanted to typify agriculture, he naturally said Lincolnshire. Before the late budget was to be get down as really condemned, let it have a new trial, side by side, with the alternative budget now proposed; Jet the whole case be laid before the country in its real bearing and extent, and it was a very great question whether the majority of constituencies would again spend their time and money on behalf of the persons and party whom they had recently favoured. But, for his own part, he had no sort of wish that this new trial should be had just yet. He would rather that the country should have more experience of the promises so frequently made and so suddenly falsified. He would not ask for a fair hearing for the old budget, nor did he think it could have one until it was seen who were the supporters of the new tariff—until it was known in what manner the Poor-law would be disposed of,—and until it was ascertained how punctual the present Go- vernment would prove in fulfilling the other hopes which had been held out, and the promises which had been made by its present supporters. Upon this point of the Poor-laws, however, he must do the Government the justice of saying, that he had seen no inclination on their part of shrinking or truckling on this subject; their conduct in this matter, more especially that of the right hon. Member for Dorchester, did them great honour. On what ground then did those who used the Poor-law on the hustings hope to find that the right hon. Baronet would prove more pliable upon that question? Would those who complained that the poor of this country were the laws of morality and religion were violated at the will of three devil-kings— insist that such a state of things should continue, to preserve in power the best of all possible Governments? When these questions, to which the attention of the country was now closely turned, were once decided, then, and then only, could a fair verdict be pronounced as to the merits of the two contending parties. In closing the observations which he addressed to the House, he would adopt the metaphor which had been already used by an hen. Gentleman opposite, and adhering to his legal illustration, conclude in a testamentary spirit. The hon. Member for Nottinghamshire had entertained the House with a description of a will, which, according to him, the late Government left behind them; but the will set forth by the hon. Gentleman was not the real will, it was a spurious one the hon. Gentleman had picked up in the street somewhere, in some corner. The will which the late Government left was made publicly, and promulgated in the face of the country. It ran somewhat thus: — My noble Friend, finding that his. Ministerial existence was approaching to a close, called his friends around him, and through them 6poke to the country thus:—"We are not exactly in a position now to do as much for you as we could wish, but you will remember, that that is because we have done so much for you before. To you, electors of England, we have given the elective franchise, which you have just used against us. To you, Roman Catholics and Dissenters of England, we have given religious equality and religious freedom. To you, negroes of the West Indies, we have given per- sonal freedom." [Some marks of dissent.] He thought he might claim those boons for the major part of the Ministry of which his noble Friend was a Member. He might claim for the Liberal party the credit of these triumphs, owing solely to their exertions, which they supported through years of opposition; and when they succeeded to political power and predominance, the first use they made of it was to carry those measures. They might have said to the inhabitants of every town in Great Britain, "To you we gave the enjoyment of municipal privileges, and freedom from the disgraceful corruptions of your corporations. We have one thing besides left to give you, and we intended to give it—commercial freedom, and the cheapening of the necessaries of life." They might, perhaps, have added, with a little self reproach, "We ought to have provided for this before; we are conscious that our neglect puts you in a less favourable position to assert your rights; but we have done thus much—we have placed you in a position to stand bravely up in defence of your just claims, and however powerful the interests now arrayed against you, and however weakened our hands may be at present, be assured that the cause of truth, and justice, and national expediency, must triumph over every adverse interest." They might further have added:—"To this our last will and testament, we appoint as executors, those who have hitherto been our constant opponents; to them we leave it, the first moment they acquire that power for which they have been so anxious to grapple with the prejudices which they have fomented, to carry out the policy which they have obstructed; and, above all, to vindicate the memory and character of those whom, through ten years of hostility, they have unsparingly, unceasingly, and unscrupulously defamed."

was well aware that he owed an apology to the House for offering himself to their attention after the eloquent appeal which they had just heard, and not only at the late period of the debate, but at that late hour of the evening. Whatever might be the generosity of the late Government in bequeathing the legacy to which the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had alluded, it was quite evident that the heirs to which it had been left were not prepared to administer to it, and that those to whom its execution had been en- trusted were not likely to take the duty of executors in a very kindly spirit. Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the plan which had been proposed by her Majesty's Ministers for supplying the deficiencies in our finances, it was certain that the House and the country generally had pronounced a decided negative on the plan of the noble Lord opposite. Now the real question for consideration was not how the financial difficulties under which we suffer had been produced, but what were the means by which we were to extricate ourselves from them, and it was of little importance to those upon whom the duty had fallen whether those difficulties arose from the mismanagement of the late Government or from want of forethought upon the part of those who had preceded them. It was enough to know that grave deficiencies, the heavy accumulation of years now required to be made good. The business of the House was, therefore, to inquire how those deficiencies could be best supplied consistently with safety to the country and justice to all parties concerned. In reference to an observation which had been made with respect to the affairs of India, as connected with our financial difficulties, he should observe that it was not for him to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet had specially conceived the case of India when he was framing his measure. It was enough for him to know that the affairs of India were at that moment such as to require that our financial means should be immediately strengthened. It had been stated that there ought to be a distinction made between the financial loss which would result from the occurrences in the East and the loss of human life that had resulted. God forbid he should institute any comparison between things so essentially and widely distinct. But it ought to be recollected that we did not know to what extent the financial deficiencies might be increased in consequence of those occurrences, for a great deal would depend upon their moral effect in India. It was upon that moral effect that it would depend whether the additional financial loss would be great or small, but whatever might be our ultimate financial loss, there could be no doubt that formidable danger threatened us in that quarter, which if not speedily and vigorously checked, might eventually lead to the loss of that mighty empire. When it had been urged on that House that British arms had never before suffered such a defeat, it was stated, in answer, that something like a similar disaster had occurred during the war in America. Yes, but he (Mr. Borthwick) would ask, did they not lose America shortly after that disaster? Did they wish to preserve India? Then it was necessary to convince those upon whom those occurrences might have a moral effect, that British valour was indomitable, and could not be overcome, and that British policy was just and could not be out-manœuvred. If it were necessary to increase the number of troops in India' and China, was it not also necessary to increase the means by replenishing our Exchequer? Whatever might be said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last as to the course which hon. Members who supported the measure of the right hon. Baronet had adopted, he (Mr. Borthwick) could say for himself that he had been sent to that House by his constituency without being bound by any special pledge or ties as to his conduct in that House, and he should therefore always give his most mature consideration to any proposal for the improvement of the country, without reference to what minister brought it forward. He was of opinion that the measures which the right hon. Baronet had proposed ought to be taken as a whole; and that, in viewing his exertions to supply the existing deficiencies, they ought to look upon his policy as calculated not to affect a temporary deficiency alone, but also to affect the ultimate fortunes of this great country. It was customary to hear it stated in that House that great distress existed amongst the commercial community, and that that distress had been created by the Corn-laws. But when hon. Members made statements of this kind, did they forget what changes and what social revolutions had taken place in great empires? The Peninsula at one time consumed 14,000,000l. of our manufactures annually, and never less than 8,000,000l. The revolutions that had taken place in the Peninsula prevented them from being consumers of the manufactures of this country to the extent of fifties for each precedent thousand. [Interruption."] He threw himself upon the indulgence of the House. He knew the inconvenience of the hour, but he was compelled by imperative duty to entreat the patience of the House. He had for every successive night and hour of the debate sought in vain for the Speaker's eye, and he was sure the House would now permit him to proceed with the few observations he had to offer in explanation of his vote. [Cries of "Go on,"and of "Divide," and of "Adjourn."] If he found he could not proceed, he must beg leave to move that the debate be now adjourned. [Cries of"Go on," and of "Divide," and of"Adjourn."] Those causes which he had enumerated were some of the causes of the commercial distress and not the Corn-laws. [Renewed interruption."] As he found that certain hon. Members were determined to interrupt the proceedings, he would now move that the debate be adjourned. [Cries of "Divide," "Bar," "Adjourn."]

Am I to understand that the hon. Member moves the adjournment of the debate?

said he was in the hands of the House. [Cries of "Go on."] He did not wish on the one hand to force himself on the House against its will, but on the other hand he would not consent to suppress the arguments which he was prepared to bring forward. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate, unless the House would give him a hearing. [Cries of "Spoke," "Divide," and interruption.]

then put the question of adjournment, and the gallery was cleared for a division, but the hon. Member was called on to proceed.

confessed he was surprised at the quarter from which these interruptions proceeded. For they did not come from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but from those around him, who with this signal ingratitude met the steady services of years in that cause which they pretended to have at heart, but did not understand; they seemed to be careless of the distinction conferred upon them by the noble Lord opposite of having heads composed of the thick clay which they imagined they could protect. They might proceed in this conduct, unworthy of them in that House and of any but them out of it; they might violate courtesy, decency, and gratitude in safety, for they could not affect any vote he would give in that House. He had placed himself in ungenerous hands, but he had proved for years that his conduct was based upon principles more stable than the approbation or disapprobation of any party; and he trusted, so long as he had a seat in that House, he would continue to act upon the same principles. He could not avoid viewing with some jealousy the measure which had been submitted to the House by the right hon. Baronet. If the circumstances of the country obliged the right hon. Baronet to call for an Income-tax, not of 3 but of 30 per cent., there was no amount of sacrifice which the country was not prepared to submit to when its honour, and those great interests of humanity which were involved in its honour, called for that sacrifice. He believed the right hon. Baronet would obtain most readily the amount of income which he required. But he could not look upon the Income-tax or the tariff which the right hon. Baronet had proposed without viewing them in connexion with the speech which he had addressed to his constituents at Tamworth, and through them to the country. In that speech the right hon. Baronet stated that he saw in 1830, in consequence of events in France, the necessity of forming a great party in this country, which should be made up of moderate men of all parties—that it should contain sufficient Conservative spirit to maintain the great institutions of the country, but that it should also contain sufficient liberality of sentiment to keep pace with the spirit and necessities of the times. This spirit had been greatly changed in its character and urgency by continental changes. We were now in a peace of five and twenty years, but it has been and is a peace of feverish and troubled excitement, like the uneasy slumbers of one on whose senses press the changing forms of some horrid incubus. In that time the greatest thrones had been upset, the most ancient lines of royalty changed. France, Spain, Portugal and Holland had felt the effects of this spirit, yet in some sort the right hon. Baronet seemed to wish that England —aye England, who had crushed mightier revolutions than that of 1830 without yielding to their influence, should in a greater or less degree adopt the current of change. He for one could not avoid looking with jealousy to any party having in its formation any portion, however little of that spirit of change. Since the revolutions of France in 1830, Portugal, and subsequently Spain, had been revolutionized. This was a great cause of the commercial distress of this country, as our manufacturers were deprived of those markets for their commodities which they had heretofore enjoyed. The hon. Member for Stockport was of opinion that if the Corn-laws were done away with altogether, the effect would be to cheapen the poor man's loaf. But he did not see how, according to the argument of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that could happen. The argument used on the part of the manufacturers was, that they "would be enabled to compete on better terms with foreigners if the Corn-laws were repealed. How could this result follow from the repeal of the Corn-laws, unless by lowering wages, and if wages were reduced, where would be the advantage to the operative? He felt that agriculture was the base on which rested the stability of their throne and their constitution. It was therefore that he looked with jealousy on these propositions of the right hon. Baronet. The measures were, however, of a magnitude proportioned to the magnitude of existing evils, and had this great recommendation —that they were calculated to give present and immediate relief. All the other plans that had been proposed were inadequate. They might go on increasing the deficiency for a while, but that would only lead to still more inextricable embarrassments. For these reasons he should, on the whole view of the case, vote with the right hon. Baronet, though he was not unaware that his proposals contained many evils in detail-What had occurred that night would prove that his vote was an independent one, as it ever should be while he continued to hold a seat in that House.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said: Sir, I do not mean to resist the hon. Gentleman's motion for adjournment, but I must express my regret that the House does not feel itself in a situation to pronounce to-night on the report on the resolutions. There have already been four nights' debate on the resolutions, and three I believe on the report. Regretting, then, as I do, that we are not to come to a decision to-night, I do hope that, by to-morrow night, the House will feel that there has been sufficient debating on the subject. I wish, as soon as possible to bring in the bill, in order that I may be able to submit to the House the propositions with respect to the tariff. The House will feel that, considering the connection between the Income-tax and the tariff, the remissions in taxation which are to be proposed, and the relaxation in the taxes on raw materials and elements of manufactures, I cannot well bring on the tariff until there is some understanding whether or not it will pass the Income-tax. The matter does not rest with me. I regret the uncertainty that must exist pending the discussion of these measures. It would, of course, be impossible to expect that a decision would be come to with undue precipitancy; but I must reiterate my hope that, after eight nights' debate previous to the bringing in of the bill, it will be considered that the subject has been sufficiently discussed. I hope, too, that under the peculiar circumstances of this proposition, and it being desirable that it should be proceeded with as little interruption as possible—I hope, I say, that their sense of the public convenience will induce hon. Gentlemen opposite who have motions for to-morrow, to have the goodness to allow precedence to the renewal of this debate. This request, I do think, is not an unreasonable one, considering that the present is an in limine proceeding essential to the introduction of the bill. It is, therefore, to be hoped that hon. Gentlemen will permit it to be resumed at an early period of the evening, in order that it may be brought to a conclusion to-morrow night. This must depend on the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I hope that even those who are most strenuously opposed to the measure, and the noble Lord himself, will think that this request is only fair.

felt it to be a grievous disappointment on the present occasion, to be forced to depart without the House having come to a division. He had the honour of being one of the representatives of the City of London, and it was his duty to state that his constituents felt it to be a great grievance that the House did not come to some conclusion upon the subject under its notice. He had the honour of representing in part the commercial interests of the great city for which he was a Member, and he must say that the stagnation which existed in commerce was such that, if hon. Members were aware of the inconvenience it caused, they would not hesitate about continuing the debate to a still later hour than that which they had then arrived at. He was sorry to intrude upon the House, but he could not leave it without expressing his conviction that its separation, night after night, without a division, was most detrimental to the commercial interests of the country.

concurred with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the City of London, in what he had just stated. The delay which had been experienced in pro- ceeding with the measure before the House had been deeply felt by the commercial world. He would remind the House of the season of the year. It was spring— the period at which great merchants were sending vessels to all parts of the world. Hon. Gentlemen could have little idea of the extent of the injury inflicted upon the wealthier of the commercial classes by the delay which was taking place in the progress of commercial legislation, and he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite who profess to feel such interest in the cause of the poor, that it was impossible that the depression felt in commerce did not extend to all classes of the community.

also regretted that the debate had not been brought to a close; but although he was fully sensible of the inconvenience its protraction might have the effect of occasioning, yet still he could not but expect that upon a great question like the present many hon. Gentlemen who had not yet spoken should still be anxious to deliver their opinions. He felt, however, great confidence that the debate would close to-morrow—at least in so far as his resolutions were concerned. Of course, he was not aware of the intentions of other hon. Members who had notices of motion on the paper; but he trusted, that every facility would be given by those hon. Gentlemen to the House pronouncing its decision to-morrow night. The hon. Member for Liskeard made an able speech, and if a Minister had replied to it that would probably have conduced to bring about a division.

said, that the country had waited with the utmost anxiety for the measures of the Government for five dreary months. Now, that an Income-tax was proposed as a means for obviating the difficulties of the country, instead of the measures brought forward by the late Government last year, Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House could not make up their minds to accede to it with so much alacrity as hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had thrown themselves into the arms of the right hon. Baronet.

was not aware that he had said anything to justify the tone of the hon. Member who spoke last. If the hon. Member could be aware of the number of communications which he received complaining of the slow progress which was made with the measures introduced by the Government, he would not be sur- prised at the anxiety which he manifested upon the subject. He thought the House was justified in taking ample time to consider this particular measure, but he must confess he thought it was hardly fair to the country that the efficient debating should be limited to about two hours. When he moved the Order of the Day for resuming the debate, at half-past eight o'clock that evening, there were only forty-eight Members in the House. He admitted, that there were as many on one side of the House as the other. However, he thought it would be more satisfactory to the country, if instead of these repeated adjournments, they were to proceed with a debate in good earnest, and then divide.