in presenting it to the House, said,—Looking at the vast proportions of this petition—looking, too, at the importance attaching to it, not only from the matter it contains, but from the millions who have signed it, I am quite satisfied, that if I were to ask the House to relax the rules which it has laid down to govern the presentation of petitions, it would grant me the indulgence; but as I have given notice of a motion for to-morrow, that the petition should be taken into the serious consideration of the House, and that those who have signed it, should by their counsel and agents, be heard at the Bar of your House, in support of the allegations which the petition contains, I shall not ask the House to grant me that indulgence, but will keep myself strictly within the limits which have been laid down for the presentation of all petitions. I beg respectfully to offer to the acceptance of this House, a petition signed by 3,315,752 of the industrious classes of this country. The petition proceeds from those upon whose toil, upon whose industry, upon whose affection, and upon whose attachment, I may say, every institution, every law, nay, even the very Government, and the whole property and commerce of the country depend. These persons now most respectfully come before you, to state the manifold grievances under which they are suffering. They state those grievances at some length; I need not now go through them, because I mean to ask your Clerk to read them at the Table. I may state, however, that they attribute the manifold grievances and distresses, which they are now enduring, and have for a considerable length of time endured, to class-legislation and to the misrepresentation of their interests in this House. They state, that for a considerable length of time their interests have been grossly neglected, and that no interests beyond your own, have ever been thought of "within your walls. They are ready to prove this at your Bar. In the first place, they ask you to hear them. They state in their prayer:—

"That they cannot within the limits of this their petition, set forth even a tithe of the many grievances of which they may justly complain; but should your honourable House be pleased to grant your petitioners a hearing, by representatives at the Bar of your honourable House, your petitioners will be enabled to unfold a tale of wrong and suffering—of intolerable injustice—which will create utter astonishment in the minds of all benevolent and good men, that the people of Great Britain and Ireland, have so long quietly endured their wretched condition, brought upon them, as it has been, by unjust exclusion from political authority, and by the manifold corruptions of class legislation."

This petition proceeds, as I have stated, from 3,315,752 of the industrious classes. I have in my hand, a short analysis of the places in which the greater number of the signatures to the petition were obtained. The list of hamlets and towns from which less than 10,000 signatures were procured, is so very long, that I will not detain the House by reading it. 1 will name those towns only from which more than 10,000 have been obtained. They are these: Manchester, 99,680; Newcastle and districts, 92,000; Glasgow and Lanarkshire, 78,062; Halifax, 36,400; Nottingham, 40,000; Leeds, 41,000; Birmingham, 43,000; Norwich, 21,560; Bolton, 18,500; Leicester, 18,000; Rochdale, 19,600; Loughborough and districts, 10,000; Sal-ford, 19,600; East Riding, Yorkshire, agricultural districts, 14,840; Worcester, 10,000; Merthyr Tydvil and districts, 13,900; Aberdeen, 17,600; Keithly, 11,000; Brighton, 12,700; Bristol, 12,800; Huddersfield, 23,180; Sheffield, 27,200; Scotland, West Midland districts, 18,000; Dunfermline, 16,000; Cheltenham, 10,400; Liverpool, 23,000; Staley. bridge and districts, 10,000; Stockport, 14,000; Macclesfield and suburbs, 10,000; North Lancashire, 52,000; Oldham, 15,000; Ashton, 14,200; Bradford and district, Yorkshire, 45,100; Burnley, and district, 14,000; Preston and district, 24,000; Wigan, 10,000; London and suburbs, 200,000; from 371 other towns, villages, &c.2,154,807—Total, 3,315,752. I believe these to be every one of them bonâ fide signatures. The remedies that the petitioners suggest would be that they should have a voice in the election of representatives; that they should be represented in this House. They complain that at present they are totally and grossly misrepresented; and they pray that, after having heard them, if you should be satisfied with their arguments, you do immediately, without alteration, deduction, or addition, pass into a law the document entitled "The People's Charter;" which embraces the representation of male adults, vote by ballot, annual Parliaments, no property qualification, payment of members, and equal electoral districts. And your petitioners, desiring to promote the peace of the United Kingdom, security of property, and prosperity of commerce, seri- ously and earnestly press this their petition on the attention of your honourable House. I beg leave to move that this petition be brought up and read by the Clerk at the Table. The petition was read by the Clerk, as follows:—

"TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.

"The petition of the undersigned people of the United Kingdom,

"Sheweth—That Government originated from, was designed to protect the freedom and promote the happiness of, and ought to be responsible to, the whole people.

"That the only authority on which any body of men can make laws and govern society, is delegation from the people.

"That as Government was designed for the benefit and protection of, and must be obeyed and supported by all, therefore all should be equally represented.

"That any form of Government which fails to effect the purposes for which it was designed, and does not fully and completely represent the whole people, who are compelled to pay taxes to its support and obey the laws resolved upon by it, is unconstitutional, tyrannical, and ought to be amended or resisted.

"That your honourable House, as at present constituted, has not been elected by, and acts irresponsibly of, the people; and hitherto has only represented parties, and benefitted the few, regardless of the miseries, grievances, and petitions of the many. Your honourable House has enacted laws contrary to the expressed wishes of the people, and by unconstitutional means enforced obedience to them, thereby creating an unbearable despotism on the one hand, and degrading slavery on the other.

"That if your honourable House is of opinion that the people of Great Britain and Ireland ought not to be fully represented, your petitioners pray that such opinion may be unequivocally made known, that the people may fully understand what they can or cannot expect from your honourable House; because if such be the decision of your honourable House, your petitioners are of opinion that where representation is denied, taxation ought to be resisted.

"That your petitioners instance, in proof of their assertion, that your honourable House has not been elected by the people; that the population of Great Britain and Ireland is at the present time about twenty-six millions of persons; and that yet, out of this number, little more than nine hundred thousand have been permitted to vote in the recent election of representatives to make laws to govern the whole.

"That the existing state of representation is not only extremely limited and unjust, but unequally divided, and gives preponderating influence to the landed and monied interests, to the utter ruin of the small-trading and labouring classes.

"That the borough of Guilford, with a population of 3,920 returns to Parliament as many members as the Tower Hamlets, with a population of 300,000; Evesham, with a population of 3,998, elects as many representatives as Manchester, with a population of 200,000; and Buckingham, Evesham, Totness, Guildford, Honiton, and Bridport, with a total population of 23,000, return as many representatives as Manchester, Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, Liverpool, Marylebone, and Lambeth, with a population of 1,400,000! these being but a very few instances of the enormous inequalities existing in what is called the representation of this country.

"That bribery, intimidation, corruption, perjury, and riot, prevail at all parliamentary elections, to an extent best understood by the Members of your honourable House.

"That your petitioners complain that they are enormously taxed to pay the interest of what is termed the national debt, a debt amounting at present to 800,000,000l., being only a portion of the enormous amount expended in cruel and expensive wars for the suppression of all liberty, by men not authorised by the people, and who, consequently, had no right to tax posterity for the outrages committed by them upon mankind. And your petitioners loudly complain of the augmentation of that debt, after twenty-six years of almost uninterrupted peace, and whilst poverty and discontent rage over the land.

"That taxation, both general and local, is at this time too enormous to be borne; and in the opinion of your petitioners is contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, wherein it is clearly expressed that no subject shall be compelled to contribute to any tax, talliage, or aid, unless imposed by common consent in Parliament.

"That in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, thousands of people are dying from actual want; and your petitioners, whilst sensible that poverty is the great exciting cause of crime, view with mingled astonishment and alarm the ill provision made for the poor, the aged, and infirm; and likewise perceive, with feelings of indignation, the determination of your honourable House to continue the Poor-law Bill in operation, notwithstanding the many proofs which have been afforded by sad experience of the unconstitutional principal of that bill, of its unchristian character, and of the cruel and murderous effects produced upon the wages of working men, and the lives of the subjects of this realm."

"That your petitioners conceive that bill to be contrary to all previous statutes, opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and an actual violation of the precepts of the Christian re- ligion; and, therefore, your petitioners look with apprehension to the results which may flow from its continuance.

"That your petitioners would direct the attention of your honourable House to the great disparity existing between the wages of the producing millions, and the salaries of those whose comparative usefulness ought to be questioned, where riches and luxury prevail amongst the rulers, and poverty and starvation amongst the ruled.

"That your petitioners, with all due respect and loyalty, would compare the daily income of the Sovereign Majesty with that of thousands of the working men of this nation; and whilst your petitioners have learned that her Majesty receives daily for her private use the sum of 164l. 17s. l0d., they have also ascertained that many thousands of the families of the labourers are only in the receipt of 3¾d. per head per day.

"That your petitioners have also learned that his royal Highness Prince Albert receives each day the sum of 104l. 2s., whilst thousands have to exist upon 3d. per head per day.

"That your petitioners have also heard with astonishment, that the King of Hanover daily receives 57l. 10s. whilst thousands of the tax-payers of this empire live upon 2¾d. per head per day.

" That your petitioners have, with pain and regret, also learned that the Archbishop of Canterbury is daily in the receipt of 52l. 10s. per day, whilst thousands of the poor have to maintain their families upon an income not exceeding 2d. per head per day.

"That notwithstanding the wretched and unparalleled condition of the people, your honourable House has manifested no disposition to curtail the expenses of the State, to diminish taxation, or promote general prosperity.

"That unless immediate remedial measures be adopted, your petitioners fear the increasing distress of the people will lead to results fearful to contemplate; because your petitioners can produce evidence of the gradual decline of wages, at the same time that the constant increase of the national burdens must be apparent to all.

"That your petitioners know that it is the undoubted constitutional right of the people, to meet freely, when, how, and where they choose, in public places, peaceably, in the day, to discuss their grievances, and political or other subjects, or for the purpose of framing discussing, or passing any vote, petition, or remonstrance, upon any subject whatsoever.

"That your petitioners complain that the right has unconstitutionally been infringed; and 500 well disposed persons have been arrested, excessive bail demanded, tried by packed juries, sentenced to imprisonment, and treated as felons of the worst description.

"That an unconstitutional police force is distributed all over the country, at enormous cost, to prevent the due exercise of the peo- ple's rights. And your petitioners are of opinion that the Poor-law Bastiles and the police stations, being co-existent, have originated from the same cause, viz., the increased desire on the part of the irresponsible few to oppress and starve the many.

"That a vast and unconstitutional army is upheld at the public expense, for the purpose of repressing public opinion in the three kingdoms, and likewise to intimidate the millions in the due exercise of those rights and privileges which ought to belong to them.

"That your petitioners complain that the hours of labour, particularly of the factory workers, are protracted beyond the limits of human endurance, and that the wages earned, after unnatural application to toil in heated and unhealthy workshops, are inadequate to sustain the bodily strength, and supply those comforts which are so imperative after an excessive waste of physical energy.

"That your petitioners also direct the attention of your honourable House to the starvation wages of the agricultural labourer, and view with horror and indignation the paltry income of those whose toil gives being to the staple food of this people.

"That your petitioners, deeply deplore the existence of any kind of monopoly in this nation, and whilst they unequivocally condemn the levying of any tax upon the necessaries of life, and upon those articles principally required by the labouring classes, they are also sensible that the abolition of any one monopoly will never unshackle labour from its misery until the people possess that power under which all monopoly and oppression must cease; and your petitioners respectfully mention the existing monopolies of the suffrage, of paper money, of machinery, of land, of the public press, of religious privileges, of the means of travelling and transit, and a host of other evils too numerous to mention, all arising from class legislation, but which your honourable House has always consistently endeavoured to increase instead of diminish.

"That your petitioners are sensible, from the numerous petitions presented to your honourable House, that your honourable House is fully acquainted with the grievances of the working men; and your petitioners pray that the rights and wrongs of labour may be considered, with a view to the protection of the one, and to the removal of the other; because your petitioners are of opinion that it is the worst species of legislation which leaves the grievances of society to be removed only by violence or revolution, both of which may be apprehended if complaints are unattended to and petitions despised.

"That your petitioners complain that upwards of nine millions of pounds per annum are unjustly abstracted from them to maintain a church establishment, from which they principally dissent; and beg to Call the attention of your honourable House to the fact, that this enormous sum is equal to, if it does not ex- ceed, the cost of upholding Christianity in all parts of the world beside. Your petitioners complain that it is unjust, and not in accordance with the Christian religion, to enforce compulsory support of religious creeds, and expensive church establishments, with which the people do not agree.

"That your petitioners believe all men have a right to worship God as may appear best to their consciences, and that no legislative enactments should interfere between man and his Creator.

"That your petitioners direct the attention of your honourable House to the enormous revenue annually swallowed up by the bishops and the clergy, and entreat you to contrast their deeds with the conduct of the founder of the Christian religion, who denounced worshippers of Mammon, and taught charity, meekness, and brotherly love.

"That your petitioners strongly complain that the people of this kingdom are subject to the rule of irresponsible law-makers, to whom they have given no authority, and are enormously taxed to uphold a corrupt system, to which they have never in person or by representation given their assent.

"That your petitioners maintain that it is the inherent, indubitable, and constitutional right, founded upon the ancient practice of the realm of England, and supported by well approved statutes, of every male inhabitant of the United Kingdom, he being of age and of sound mind, non-convict of crime, and not confined under any judicial process, to exercise the elective franchise in the choice of Members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament.

"That your petitioners can prove, that by the ancient customs and statutes of this realm, Parliament should be held once in each year.

"That your petitioners maintain that Members elected to serve in Parliament ought to be the servants of the people, and should, at short and stated intervals, return to their constituencies, to ascertain if their conduct is approved of, and to give the people power to reject all who have not acted honestly and justly.

"That your petitioners complain that possession of property is made the test of men's qualification to sit in Parliament.

"That your petitioners can give proof that such qualification is irrational, unnecessary, and not in accordance with the ancient usages of England.

"That your petitioners complain, that by influence, patronage, and intimidation, there is at present no purity of election; and your petitioners contend for the right of voting by ballot.

"That your petitioners complain that seats in your honourable House are sought for at a most extravagant rate of expense; which proves an enormous degree of fraud and corruption.

"That your petitioners, therefore, contend, that to put an end to secret political traffic, all representatives should be paid a limited amount for their services.

"That your petitioners complain of the inequality of representation; and contend for the division of the country into equal electoral districts.

"That your petitioners complain of the many grievances borne by the people of Ireland, and contend that they are fully entitled to a repeal of the legislative union.

"That your petitioners have viewed with great indignation the partiality shown to the aristocracy in the courts of justice, and the cruelty of that system of law which deprived Frost, Williams, and Jones, of the benefit of the objection offered by Sir Frederick Pollock during the trial at Monmouth, and which was approved of by a large majority of the judges.

"That your petitioners beg to assure your honourable House that they cannot, within the limits of this their petition, set forth even a tithe of the many grievances of which they may justly complain; but should your honourable House be pleased to grant your petitioners a hearing by representatives at the Bar of your honourable House, your petitioners will be enabled to unfold a tale of wrong and suffering —of intolerable injustice—which will create utter astonishment in the minds of all benevolent and good men, that the people of Great Britain and Ireland have so long quietly endured their wretched condition, brought upon them as it has been by unjust exclusion from political authority, and by the manifold corruptions of class-legislation.

"That your petitioners, therefore, exercising their just constitutional right, demand that your honourable House do remedy the many gross and manifest evils of which your petitioners complain, do immediately, without alteration, deduction, or addition, pass into a law the document entitled 'The People's Charter,' which embraces the representation of male adults, vote by ballot, annual Parliaments, no property qualification, payment of Members, and equal electoral districts.

"And that your petitioners, desiring to promote the peace of the United Kingdom, security of property, and prosperity of commerce, seriously and earnestly press this, their petition, on the attention of your honourable House.

"And your petitioners, &c."

Petition to be printed.

seeing the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty in his place, wished to inquire whether it were the intention of the Admiralty to make any change in the West-India line of packet station. Considerable delay had taken place with respect to the delivery of letters from the West Indies, and he wished to know whether it were the intention of the Ad- miralty to take this question into consideration, and whether, if any change were made, Southampton would be one of the new stations.

said, the delay arose from accidental circumstances, but it was the intention of the Admiralty to take the question into consideration. A recommendation had been made of certain towns to be made packet stations, and Southampton was one.

wished to put a question to the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. He wished to renew the question he had more than once put as to whether it was the intention of the hon. Baronet, at an early period, to bring under the notice of the House the subject of Church Extension [Cheers].

said, that in reply to the question of the hon. Member, and in reply to the cheer with which that question had been received, he would repeat the answer which he had given on a former occasion, that he retained his intention with respect to bringing the subject forward this Session, and he would give ample notice to the hon. Gentleman, and the House, of the time at which he intended to bring it forward.

objected to placing the duties under the management of the commissioners of stamps and taxes. The clause would, in his opinion, confer upon them powers of the most objectionable and inquisitorial character. They might, as they in fact did at present, appoint informers and send spies over the whole country. After what had taken place, he did not consider it worth his while to propose amendments, but he thought the powers proposed to be given to the commissioners of stamps ought to be more strictly defined.

said, that the powers of the commissioners would be regulated by the Land Tax Commissioners Act.

said, that that would lessen but not remove the evil of which he complained.

said, that he had an amendment to make in this clause, in order to give the commissioners of stamps the power of giving notice where the district commissioners should meet, and as to the manner in which the provisions should be carried out.

thought such powers would best be entrusted to the Government, more particularly as regarded the manner of choosing acting commissioners.

did n6t think the Government the best party to be entrusted with such powers.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, as a Member of the Government, be responsible for the appointments he might make; but the commissioners of land-tax might be considered as virtually irresponsible for the exercise of their powers. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked as narrowly into this subject as he (Mr. Hume) had done in 1822, he would find that many crying evils existed in regard to these appointments. It was infinitely better that the power of making these appointments should be vested in the head of the Board of Taxes than in a Board of fifty or sixty men appointed by the Members for the county. He objected to the clause as it stood, for it would be productive of a great deal of political partisanship. He knew it was needless for him to bring forward any amendment, for Government had determined that the bill should pass, and he admitted that it was of the utmost importance to the commercial interests that the bill should pass with as little delay as possible. He could not express in too strong terms the injury sustained by the commerce and manufactures of the country in consequence of the uncertainty in which they now were. Until the tariff was settled, the domestic and foreign commerce would, to a certain degree, remain paralysed; and, bad as affairs were, this uncertainty made them a great deal worse. He would not, therefore, propose any amendment of the clause; but he hoped that Government would give every consideration to the suggestion as made by hon. Members, and adopt them whenever they could conscientiously do so.

said, that he had heard with the greatest satisfaction the opinion of the hon. Member for Montrose in respect to the advantage of their being enabled, at as early a period as they could consistently with their performance of their public duty, to apply themselves to the consideration of the tariff. He thought it right that measures of such importance should undergo the serious consideration of the House. In regard to those motions for adjournment, he had never complained that they offered any unfair obstacle to the progress of the present measure. At the same time, he must say, that during those discussions, he entertained the strongest opinion, formed on the representations made to him, that it was of the utmost importance to settle as soon as they could the commercial state of the country. That uncertainty removed, he thought there was every prospect of increased trade, and a greater demand for labour. Since the hon. Member had admitted that the House had marked its sense of the principle of the present measure, he trusted that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with him in thinking that as little delay as possible should take place in regard to the details and machinery of the bill. In regard to the objection urged by the hon. Member against the present clause, he thought it would be liable to great exception, if Government had proposed to supersede the local authorities, and to appoint officers of their own. If the principle recommended by the hon. Member for Montrose was a good one for the present tax, it would also be a good one for the assessed taxes. Now the Government proposed to take the land-tax commissioners as they found them. The bill contained two principles in regard to the collection of the tax. In the first place, the tax would be collected and the scrutiny made by local authorities, but inasmuch as it was said that many parties would object to the scrutiny being made by local authorities, the bill gave them the power of going before the local authorities, if they thought fit to do so, but if they objected to this, they had the option of going before the special commissioners appointed by Government. There would therefore be a local and a Government tribunal, and the party aggrieved could go before either of them. It was more consistent to leave the local tribunals in the hands of the local authorities, and those of the Government in the hands of the Government. If the hon. Member for Montrose was of opinion, that the land-tax commissioners should be abolished, that was a subject for general consideration, but not one to be effected under a temporary act. He very much doubted whether they could constitutionally abolish altogether those privileges which the counties had of assessing themselves, and of collecting the tax by means of local authorities. He would, however, reserve his opinion on that point, but he could not acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose, and he hoped he had said enough to convince him that it was not desirable.

quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose in regard to proceeding with as little delay as possible, in the settlement of this question. He could not help thinking, however, that a great deal of misapprehension prevailed on that subject, not only among Members of that House, but also, and to a still greater extent, among those out of doors. The hon. Member had talked as if there had been delay in the consideration of the tariff. Now, not one single day, not one single hour, had been lost, for the tariff, in the form which Government meant to propose it, was not even yet on the Table of the House. It was right he should remind the House of this. The discussion on the Income-tax could not have delayed the tariff. Having agreed to the principle of the Income-tax, he had no wish to see that principle broken in upon, but it was rather hard to put a sort of duresse on the House, and to deny to hon. Members who differed from him in opinion the liberty of bringing forward whatever amendments in the details of the measure they might feel it their duty to propose, merely on the assertion that it would produce great public evil. Government might be perfectly justified in taking all the time they had to consider the tariff, but it ought to be recollected that the House were not even now in a condition to debate the tariff. If the right hon. Gentleman really considered that the delay of the tariff was so great an evil to the commerce of the country, that it ought to be avoided, he should have introduced the tariff before he proceeded further with the Income-tax; but if, as he had stated, the right hon. Gentleman considered that the Income-tax ought to be decided before the House proceeded to discuss the tariff, he had no right to turn round upon them (the Opposition), and charge them with the mischief which might result from the necessary delay occasioned by the consideration of the former measure. No doubt Government were right in taking time to consider the whole of the details of the tariff before they brought it forward, but, until they had it before them, the House could not possibly be in a condition to discuss it, nor were they to be held answerable for any delay that had occurred in the settlement of the question. He would take this opportunity of asking the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he could give the House any idea of what would be the probable expense of the machinery by which the provisions of the Income-tax were proposed to be carried out? He thought it was highly desirable, that they should have some information upon this point before they proceeded to the third reading of the bill.

could not give any such account as that required by the right hon. Gentleman, nor should he be enabled to do so until he had some knowledge of the number of special commissioners it might be necessary to appoint, to give the right hon. Gentleman the necessary information, but he had no doubt he should be enabled to do so before the time stated by the right hon. Gentleman.

was sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not, on consideration, charge him with the intention to impose upon the House any such duresse as that to which he had referred. He should not even have alluded to the delay that had taken place but that the hon. Member for Montrose had, under the influence of a sense of public duty, stated the necessity of discussing the proposed alterations in the tariff with as little delay as possible. He said, at once, that he had heard that declaration of the hon. Member with satisfaction, and admitted, that it was of the highest importance to the commercial interests of the country that they should be enabled to take time for the full consideration of the tariff; and that at as early a period as possible, consistent with their due consideration, the question should be settled. He did not by that imply, that any hon. Member had interposed or wished to interpose any unnecessary delay, and to relieve the mind of the hon. Gentleman he was prepared to declare that the interval that had elapsed since the introduction of the tariff had had this advantage, that it had en- abled the Government to hold intercourse with and receive communications from persons connected with commerce, who would be affected by the proposed alterations, and the information so obtained had been found most valuable in completing the tariff, There were three or four calculations which were not yet concluded; but he might say, that the measure was so far completed, that they should be prepared to enter into the discussion of it as soon as the report of the committee upon the Income-tax should have passed.

asked why the consideration of the tariff could not be commenced tomorrow, without waiting for the report of the present committee?

hoped, that no unnecessary delay was attributed to him. He appealed to every hon. Member of that House, whether there had been any thing in his conduct dishonourable or ungentlemauly? If that were admitted, he must beg to say, that when he proposed the adjournment of the debate the other night, he did so from the belief, that the subject required further consideration, and that, in point of constitutional practice, the tariff ought to be considered before the Income-tax. Having made that observation, he hoped he would be considered as having made his peace with the House.

said, that he did not mean to make any complaint relative to the course which had been taken in former discussions. He was sure that the hon. Member had acted solely from his sense of public duty, and not for the purpose of interposing any other obstruction.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Government had taken into their consideration the proposition which he had made on a former evening, that a party should be allowed to set off his losses under one schedule, against his gains under another. He thought it would be better that the subject should be taken up by the Government than by any individual Member.

said, the time for bringing up the clause of the hon. Gentleman had not yet arrived. The proper occasion for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House would be after the bill had gone through committee. For his own part he had only to say, that he adhered to his promise, and had given it his fullest consideration, and he was bound to say, that he had found such objections to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, that it would be exceedingly difficult for him (Sir R. Peel) to give to it his sanction. The Government were of opinion, after maturely considering the matter, that the proposal would give opportunities for the commission of the most extensive frauds, and it was for the purpose of guarding against that inconvenience that they had introduced the bill in its present shape.

said, that he wished to know in what stage of the proceedings the discussion of the point might be expected to take place. It was one clearly entitled to the consideration of the House. The question, in his opinion, was simply this; whether a man should pay a tax upon that income which he had, or upon that income which he had not.

said, that he should give the hon. Gentleman a fair opportunity of submitting his proposal to the House should the Government decline to adopt it.

proposed to omit the following words:—

"The annual value of all the properties hereinafter described shall be understood to be the full amount for one year, or the average amount for one year, of the profits received therefrom within the respective time herein limited,"

For the purpose of inserting

"That the annual value of properties hereinafter described shall be computed at the rate of 5l. for every 100l. of all capital engaged in such property."

opposed the amendment, which he thought would be much more injurious than the original proposition. Besides, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of capital employed in many descriptions of work.

withdrew his amendment, expressing his intention to propose a clause on the bringing up of the report.

proposed to allow a deduction for payments to schoolmasters, for manses, and for the repairs of churches in Scotland.

was not disposed to accede to the deduction, on the ground that the landlord received a greater rent if he paid the sums, which were paid by the tenant in England.

thought the Scotchman had a right to this deduction.

proposed to exempt all literary and scientific institutions,

did not feel disposed to extend the allowances to the property of these institutions.

wished to know why the Mechanics' Institutions in large towns should not have the same exemptions as the schools for the higher classes.

thought that these institutions were not, in the strict sense of the word, schools.

knew at least one institution in which a large subscription had been raised for the purpose of schools.

enquired whether proprietary schools, and public buildings occupied only for scientific purposes, would be exempted? And he suggested the postponement of this part of the clause. If proprietary schools were not exempted, he saw no reason why the universities should be exempted, and would divide the House against the clause.

thought it would be a hardship on subscription schools if endowed schools were allowed an exclusive exemption.

said, no part of the colleges was exempted which was occupied by the students; the exemption only embraced the halls and gardens. Proprietary schools frequently gave a profit to the parties.

contended, that the numerous buildings devoted to the education of the humbler classes had an equal claim on attention. There was a difficulty in drawing a line. The question was of such importance that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take it into consideration, or give some sound and valid reason for not assenting to it. He agreed that proprietary schools, which were a matter of speculation, would not be properly exempted; but any Building used for education ought to be exempt, whether devoted to the education of the higher or the humbler classes.

said, that the exemption was limited in the same degree as exemption from the assessed taxes. His apprehension was, that by giving way to exemption you might make such an inroad on taxation that he thought it right to adhere to those previously-recognised exemptions. He would take the subject into consideration.

was pleased to hear that promise, and would not press his amendment.

suggested a postponement of this rule; for he was sure that, after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the exemption. If any one would support him, he would move the postponement.

thought, that the almost gratuitous education of large numbers of the poorer classes in the large schools, and the fact that in the smaller schools a profit was made by such education being imparted, ought not to be forgotten in the consideration of this question.

thought the exemption should only extend to almshouses and hospitals, but if they went one step beyond that, then the exemption as regarded public schools should be full and general, instead of confining it, as the right hon. Gentleman proposed, to particular instances.

begged to inquire whether the London University was exempt under this clause?

answered in the affirmative; the exemption, of course, only applying, provided there was no residence in it.

would be glad to be informed whether schools, of royal foundation, such as the Charter-house, and Christ's-hospital, were exempt?

was not at present prepared to answer the question.

begged to call the attention of the committee to the circumstances that a great portion of shares and dividends were payable in a half-yearly proportion in July. According to the present clause, all such dividends and shares would pay a quarter of a year's proportion of tax which they were not justly called upon to pay, as the act did not come into operation till the 5th of April. He, therefore, thought that the quota payable on such shares and dividends ought to be calculated only for the quarter of the year from April to July.

said, the landed proprietor was precisely in the same position with respect to his rents, as the proprietor of dividends and shares.

said, that in order to bring the matter in a practical way before the committee, he would move, to add the following words:—

"Provided always, that when any annuities, dividends, or shares of annuities, shall be payable half yearly or yearly, such annuities, dividends, or shares of annuities shall be apportioned, and the amount shall be charge-able only upon so much of such annuities, dividends, or shares of annuities as shall have accrued after the 5th day of April."

The hon. Gentleman added, that he thought the same principle should be applied to the rents of land.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman were to carry his amendment, the bill, which as it now stood, would expire in April, 1845, must be extended to July, 1845, in order to meet the cases of dividends then due and payable; great inconvenience must arise from any such course, and he must, therefore, oppose the amendment.

moved, for the purpose of exempting Dissenters, to add the words "and other places of public worship."

opposed the amendment.

asked the right hon. Baronet whether this was dealing out equal justice to all parties? Were Roman Catholics and Presbyterians to be subject to this, and not members of the Established Church?

moved as an addition to the exemptions under the rules—

"The annuities, dividends, and shares bonâ fide belonging to any person not being a subject of her Majesty, and not being resident in Great Britain, or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, during such time as the same shall continue the property of such person, and such person shall not be resident in Great Britain, or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, as aforesaid; provided that such annuities, dividends, or shares, shall have been bonâfide the property of such persons on the 22nd day of April, 1842, and shall be duly claimed and ascertained in the manner hereinafter mentioned."

This species of property, the right hon. Gentleman said, was always exempted in every Income-tax. Mr. Pitt exempted it on the ground that such a tax would be a breach of public faith, and likewise because he did not think it right, or that he had the power, to tax foreigners residing abroad, as it would not be taxing income but the funds, and the exemption continued through the whole of Mr. Pitt's Administration. Mr. Addington made similar exemptions upon similar grounds; and in 1806, when a further addition was about to be made to the Income-tax, a motion made by Sir P. Francis, for taxing the property of foreigners in the British funds, was resisted by Mr. Fox. That statesman considered such a proposition a shameful confiscation, involving a flagrant breach of faith, so that, let the revenue resulting from it be what it might, he should think it his duty to reject it. Lord H. Petty concurred entirely in that opinion. It also appeared that Mr. Rose, the Secretary of the Treasury under Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson agreed in the propriety of exempting these fundholders from taxation. They had the authority of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Addington, Mr. Fox, Lord Grenville, Lord Bexley, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Perceval in favour of the principle of the motion he now submitted to the consideration of the committee. The foreign holders had advanced their money under an implied contract resulting from an uniform practice during twenty years of war, and the declarations of various Ministers of the Crown. The right hon. Baronet opposite had argued that some change of circumstances had taken place, which now made a difference in the case. But in his opinion, the case was even now stronger in favour of the proposition he was making. If it was thought prudent to exempt the foreign fundholder during twenty years of war, when it was reasonable to suppose he would he the party least favoured, why should they now, in a time of peace, when friendly relations existed, act contrary to those expectations, which their previous uniform course of proceeding had naturally excited! The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued, in reference to the terminable annuities, that it was no breach of faith to tax them, because on all occasions they had been taxed in the same way as the permanent funds. He would turn this argument against the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion, and would contend that they had no right to tax the foreign fund-holder, because their previous practice was calculated to make him believe that he would be exempt. How had the right hon. Gentleman opposite acted in the case of Exchequer-bills? That was an actual bargain under an act of Parliament, and on the face of an Exchequer-bill itself 100l. was lent on condition that at the end of the year that sum should be returned or a new bill given. Now, in 1829, the right hon. Gentleman bad occasion to fund Exchequer-bills. They were then at 30s. premium, and the right hon. Gentleman gave that premium to the party holding the bills. He was asked upon what ground he did so, and his answer was that he had given the premium on account of good faith, and upon the understanding on which the bill was given. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he now considered the foreign holder in the same manner as he then considered the home holder? In the former case, the parties had had no previous notice that they would be there- after liable to the imposition of a property-tax; on the contrary, every notice, every argument, and every expectation there could be was this:—that foreign holders would not be dealt with differently from the manner in which they had been dealt with by every Minister of the Crown hitherto, and by every act of Parliament brought in by any Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the foreign holder had no right to complain, because the funds had risen since the present Government came into office; but that was no argument in favour of this imposition of the tax, but was rather a reason why the foreign holder should complain of the party who held the Government before. It was not a fair answer to say that, by exempting foreign holders the Government would be liable to be cheated; but, after all, they were likely to be cheated of only a comparatively small sum. He argued this question, however, as one of public faith and of bargain; and he would venture to ask the committee whether, even if there were a doubt upon this question, if he had not satisfactorily proved to the House that the implied bargain was, that these parties should be relieved from the Income-tax— it was not better, considering the assembly that were dealing with them, and the great interests of the country, to let the scale fall on the side of public faith rather than to take what they might even consider themselves in justice entitled to take, and to give up this small sum of money than to doubt and hesitate on the case? The right hon. Gentleman in conclusion said, that he should urge no argument founded upon the obligations which they were under to keep inviolate the public faith. He would not insult the House by dwelling on such a topic.

was sure the House would agree with him when he said that upon the present occasion there was no necessity for his making any lengthened reply, as he had already gone through the exhausting process of defending the details of the measure through all the clauses. The right hon. Gentleman who just sat down had concluded his speech by an observation, from which it would seem that he took for granted it was utterly unnecessary for him to support his motion by any argument, as there could be no doubt whatever that to reject his amendment would be a breach of faith. Now, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have avoided that topic, for it appeared to him an exceedingly difficult thing to prove that the bill involved any breach of faith whatever. There was no distinction drawn in the loan acts between the cases of foreigners and of native-born subjects. The rule was made to apply equally to all, and, if he understood anything of good faith as applied to these transactions, he should say that the question of good faith was to be decided by reference to the original loan acts, and most assuredly every one of them applied equally to all men, whether British subjects or aliens. In 1798 Mr. Pitt argued the question upon grounds totally different from those now taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He never took any distinction between foreigners and British subjects in reference to funded property, as far as good faith was concerned, nor did he ever appear to imagine it possible that any one would think of attempting to establish a difference between them on that ground. He exempted foreigners from payment of Income-tax on grounds which had reference to the peculiar state of public credit at the time. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to induce the House to attach some importance to the expectations entertained by foreigners on this subject. He attached no weight to these expectations. The right hon. Gentleman did not profess to satisfy them. His proposal of exemption was limited to foreigners who now had funded property, and who were resident in foreign possessions. Now, he would put the ease of a foreigner living in the Isle of Bourbon, for example, he would not be subject to the tax. The moment he transferred himself to a British colony he instantly found himself under the tax. It appeared to him that no principle could be more calculated than that was to discourage persons of property from settling in our colonies, nor any practice more impolitic or unjust. He begged the House to turn its attention to the form of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. It was proposed by this amendment that the rule should apply to all who had property in the funds on the 22nd of April in the present year. If a man then were to die on the 33rd, his heir would have no claim to the exemption. On the injustice of that be thought it unnecessary to trouble the House with any observations. The Income-tax Bill of 1806, brought in by Mr. Pitt, distinctly stated, that every person residing within the kingdom of Great Britain, whether foreigner or native born, should pay a portion of his annual receipts towards the necessities of the State, and the present bill did nothing more than affirm the same principle. With respect to the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman of the Government having voluntarily assented to pay the premium of 30s. per cent. upon the Exchequer-bills paid off in 1829, all he would say was, that, without entertaining any particular recollection of the facts of that transaction, he would affirm, upon a general knowledge of the circumstances, that the Government acted in the manner described in consequence of the premium upon Exchequer-bills having been taken advantage of, and realised by the Treasury in their issue, and consequently the Government felt bound to repay that additional amount on their stipulated contract price when the same issue of bills was called in, and this was, he apprehended, the reason given at the time for that proceeding. On the whole, therefore, not deeming the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently supported, or adequately borne out by his arguments, he could adopt no other course than that which he had already intimated it to be his intention to do—namely, to oppose it by a simple negative.

said, he had entertained a very strong opinion upon this question when his right hon. Friend resumed his seat, but after the arguments of the Finance Minister of the Crown, he must say that the opinion he held before was still stronger. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that he did not find in Mr. Pitt's speeches any statement that it was not lawful to tax foreigners. Why? It was not necessary for Mr. Pitt to make such a statement, for every act that was brought forward expressly excluded foreigners. But had the right hon. Gentleman met the argument of his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth? When Sir Philip Francis, in 1806, proposed to include foreigners within the scope of the Income-tax, Mr. Fox said it would not only be bad policy, but a breach of good faith so scandalous in its nature that nothing should induce him to be a party to it And what course did Mr. Huskisson, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Canning pursue? Did they differ from Mr. Fox? If they did, it was extraordinary that they should not have said so. Let any man read the debates of 1806, and he could not fail to come to the conclusion that, in the opinion of Lord Grenville's Administration, consistently with good faith, it was not possible to apply the principle of the Income-tax to those foreigners who held property in the English funds. This was the first time that any doubt had been thrown upon the accuracy of that conclusion by a Minister of the Crown; and he thought it unfortunate for the country that we should appear less scrupulous with regard to our public credit than heretofore. He would not charge the proposers of this measure with laxity of principle; but he could not help thinking that they had adopted the clause without due consideration, and he therefore hoped that if they saw any reason to doubt the propriety of persisting in their present course, they would, as the defenders of the honour of this country, frankly avow it, and rescue the country from a position which he conceived to be one of very considerable danger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have mistaken the facts of the case; he said that no objection was made to taxing foreigners residing in this country. Under the acts of Mr. Pitt and Lord Lansdowne they were taxed. But then Mr. Fox drew this distinction, that foreigners residing in this country, enjoying the protection of its Government and its laws, were bound to pay their share of the expense of keeping up that protection. To tax foreigners who were not resident here, but who derived their incomes from our funds, would be to tax the funds; but to tax foreigners resident in this country was fair, because they had an identity of interest. He could not help calling the attention of the committee to a petition which had been presented by one of the Members for the city of London, which was signed by some of the most eminent mercantile firms, whose names were known all over the world as the representatives of British enterprise and honour. He would read a few of the signatures—"Smith, Payne, and Smith; Robarts and Co.; Stone and Co.; Glyn, Hallifax, and Co.; Overend, Gurney, and Co.; Reid, Irving, and Co.;" two Members of that House, who were present, he hoped, to support the prayer of the petition, in which it was stated that this proposal on the part of the Government was contrary to public faith. Then there were Messrs. Barclay and Co., and he might go on to mention twenty or thirty other names of the principal houses in the city. Let the House then pause before they consented to adopt a proposition of which those petitioners spoke in the following emphatic terms:—

"Your petitioners have learned with great regret that it is proposed in a bill now under the consideration of your hon. House to au- thorize a deduction of 7d. from every pound sterling payable to foreigners in the shape of dividends and annuities from the public funds of this country, and your petitioners respectfully submit to your hon. House that such a deduction is contrary to the public engagements entered into by this country, and opposed to its uniform custom and practice; and that if adopted it will be a tax upon the debt of the country, and not a tax upon incomes fairly liable, and therefore it will be a violation of public faith, inasmuch as a less dividend will be paid than was contracted to be paid."

He had argued the question hitherto simply as one of public faith. Speaking in that House upon such a subject, he was almost ashamed to have recourse to arguments of a lower description; yet he felt bound to ask her Majesty's Ministers, whether it were really for the interest of this country—this country, which, with reference to other countries, was to be regarded as a great creditor country—to hold out these novel maxims upon the subject of public faith. There were states and countries—and he feared that recent experience had shown that the tone of public feeling throughout the world upon these subjects was not altogether what it ought to be—there were states and countries, in the funds of which our fellow subjects had a deep interest, and in which it might be that the citizens of those countries had themselves a similar interest, but in which the chief part of the national debt consisted almost entirely of funds belonging to foreigners, and principally, he feared, to Englishmen. Were her Majesty's Ministers quite sure that the Chancellors of the Exchequer of those countries might not consider it a very convenient source of revenue to levy a considerable impost upon those funds? He ought to hesitate before he set an example which was likely to be followed in such a manner. One word more, and he would have done. All he asked them was to consider how the clause would practically work. They proposed to tax the funds of foreigners, he would suppose, to the extent of 10 per cent.; they would tax the funds as funds, and as the foreigner might be a resident in his native or some other foreign state, which state would, of course, tax his property in the funds, not because they were funds, but because they were income. He would thus be taxed 10 per cent. on his funds in England as funds, and 10 per cent. because they were income. He had stated this as an instance of the hardship which might be expected, in order that the subject might be well considered. He regretted that Government had adopted a course which was entirely novel in the legislation of this country, different from any which their predecessors had adopted, and which he feared would lead to consequences the most serious to this country. Under these circumstances he earnestly entreated the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, on whose character and reputation great reliance was placed, and who had a deeper interest in this subject than any other man in the House or in the country—he entreated the right hon. Baronet to consider whether it would really be consulting his own character, the honour of the House, or the interests of the country, in persisting in the course which he had adopted.

said, that he was quite ready to take the advice of the hon. Member, and consider maturely whether it would not be better for his own character, as well as for the character of the House and country, to exempt foreigners not subjects of Great Britain from the tax which was now proposed. He was quite ready to consider that question. Let the House consider what the amount was which they expected to gain from this source. It was calculated that the sum would be between 10,000l.and 20,000l.Really, that sum was so trifling, that if they should be induced to commit an act of the slightest injustice towards any body of men, it would hardly have been worth while to do so for so small an amount. The principal arguments which had been advanced by the two hon. Members who had addressed the House in favour of the motion had been based on the former practice of Parliament, and the dicta of Mr. Fox. Now, what were the dicta of Mr. Fox? He, Mr. Fox, said, it would be inconsistent with the principles upon which Parliamentary representation subsisted to give to the Crown the property of foreigners, in addition to that derived from those whom we represent; and how could her Majesty thank her good and loyal subjects for their benevolence, when the grant would not be wholly from themselves, but partly from foreigners? Mr. Fox said, that we could not tax foreigners who were not subjects of Great Britain. What did the bill say on this subject? He would refer to schedule D. It says—

"Upon the annual profits or gains, arising or accruing to any person residing in Great Britain, for any kind of property whatever, whether situated in Great Britain or elsewhere, upon any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, whether the same shall be respectively carried on in Great Britain or elsewhere, there shall be charged yearly for every 20s. of the amount of such profits or gains, the sum of 7d."

He thought it would appear clear, from what he had just read to the House, that they had acted upon the constitutional doctrines of Mr. Fox. Foreigners were not exempt from this tax imposed on all mortgaged property. If they had property invested in railroad speculations, the profits were deducted from the expenses; but if they held property in the British funds, then it was said they ought to be exempted from the payment of any deduction, and to tax their property under these circumstances was declared to be a great and flagrant act of injustice. This was to be the only exception, it was only to be viewed as unjust when applied to money invested by foreigners in the English funds. On what account, he would ask, was it so unjust? Did the public records or acts of Parliament make any distinction between British subjects and foreigners? There was no clause in any act of Parliament to exempt foreigners from any of the responsibilities or privileges which result from loans granted to the State. The British funds were as open to the foreigner as to the subjects of this country; they were, in fact, open to the whole world, and every individual, without any distinction of country, may derive all the protection which the British funds offered. It was well known, that the English funds bad lately been advancing, and although he had no doubt, that several circumstances had contributed to that event, still it was a fact, that since the Income-tax had been proposed for the adoption of Parliament, the funds had risen 4 per cent. Now, what was the fact with reference to the English funds? The foreigner had the advantage of relieving himself if he thought proper by removing his money from the British funds under certainly very favourable circumstances. He had the option of doing so at this time, if he wished to escape the Income, tax. The foreigner saw a disposition on the part of Government to increase the value of funded property, not by having recourse to fresh loans, but by making a great sacrifice to meet the financial embarrassments of the State. It did appear unjust to him, that the foreigner should derive the sole advantage which resulted from this national sacrifice, and should not contribute his share towards the exigencies of the country. He thought the natural consequences of not incurring any additional public debt would be considerably to enhance the public credit. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. F. Baring) would exempt all foreigners not being resident in any part of her Majesty's dominions from this tax He would like to know whether foreigners resident in any of our colonial possessions, in the Cape of Good Hope or in Canada, were to be exempted? What constituted residence, according to the opinion of the right hon. Member, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said,—

"The annuities, dividends, and shares bonâ belonging to any person not being a subject of her Majesty, and not being resident in Great Britain or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, during such time as the same shall continue the property of such person, and such person shall not be resident in Great Britain or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, as aforesaid; provided that such annuities, dividends, or shares, shall have been bonâ fide the property of such persons on the 22nd of April, 1842, and shall be duly claimed and ascertained in the manner hereinafter mentioned".

Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox exempted foreigners from the tax during the war upon political and prudential reasons, and totally without relation to any abstract considerations of justice. He was quite aware that the sum to be derived from the taxation of stock held by foreigners would be very inconsiderable, but he also felt that there was no valid claim for exemption. A full consideration of justice to all had led him to impose a tax upon all. The foreigner had purchased into our funds because of the security which it offered him—that property was now more Valuable in consequence of the sacrifices which the people of England was about to make, and it would be very unfair that he should go wholly free from taxation while the Englishman bore it patiently.

could not vote with the right hon. Gentleman on his side of the House, because he had assigned a reason why the foreigner should escape while the Englishman was taxed. The law which created the debt made the same bargain with all. The condition was, that every man who took a portion of the loan should be ex- empted from all expenses of transfer or other tax at the Bank of England, and from all charges at all times. The reason why he objected to the motion of the right hon. Gentleman was, because he did not make it general. There was no distinction made in the contract. The British public had forfeited their faith with the public creditor, and, that being the case, he could see no reason why the foreigner should be exempted while the Englishman was made to pay. The only question in his opinion was, whether the present exigency was of sufficient magnitude to justify a violation of the public faith; in his opinion it certainly was not. Admitting that to be the case, however, he saw no reason for making a distinction between the foreigner and the Englishman.

said, that although the petition alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was signed undoubtedly by a great number of the mercantile community of the City of London, still to his knowledge there were a large number also who had not signed. For his own part, he would assert, that if he thought the proposition of the right hon. Baronet calculated to defraud the foreigner by subjecting him to the same tax as the British subject, he would not give it his support. He, however, did not view the matter in this light, and he asked any hon. Gentleman in that House whether the foreigner did not hold that property with the idea that it was held on the same security as that of the British subject?

said, that a parallel had been instituted between the foreigner holding shares and the foreigner who held property in the English funds; but there was a wide distinction between the two cases. The railway shareholder invested his property in a speculation, and was in the situation of a proprietor. The holder of funded property, on the contrary, stood in the position of a creditor, and there was consequently a material difference between the two; but he would remind the right hon. Baronet, that in former bills this property was always respected. He had lent money to the British Government upon the faith of British acts of Parliament, he could not now be taxed by such a bill as this without affecting the honour and the credit of the country.

replied. He said that he was of opinion with Mr. Fox that it was a breach of public faith to tax the foreign fund- holder. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him, with regard to evidence; why he would prove it in the same way as it had been proved when argued under former acts of Parliament, and it would be just as easy to prove evidence in this instance as it was in the case of the Irish landlords resident in this country.

said, his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), who had been compelled to quit the House in consequence of domestic affliction, had requested him to propose a motion of which the noble Lord had given notice. He begged, therefore, to move for a statement of the differences in the resolutions of Customs duties intended to be proposed by Sir R. Peel, laid on the Table of the House on the 11th day of March last, and the resolutions on the same subject laid on the Table on the 11th day of April last. It was, he believed, the intention of his noble Friend to have defended himself from imputations which had been attempted to be cast on. the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, of having by their conduct impeded in some degree the progress of the measures of Government with respect to the tariff. He thought it would be convenient if, during the discussions on the tariff, the House could have before them at one view the two proposals made by Government. He hoped the House would agree to the motion, which he was perfectly ready to put in any other form to meet the wishes of the right hon. Baronet.

said, there was an informality in the notice of the noble Lord. Certain papers moved for by a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) were referred to in the motion as having been "laid on the Table of the House." Those documents had not yet come before that House; they had merely been brought before a committee of the House.

said, in consequence of this informality he would withdraw the motion. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Baronet would furnish the information he asked for to the House without any motion being made on the subject.

said, the alterations which had been made in the proposed tariff had been entirely made in consequence of a sense of justice, where it appeared that there were good grounds for making them, and he did not at all oppose the proposed alterations being laid before the House, The last edition of the tariff had been prepared in two columns, the tariff of last year showing the amount of duty imposed, and what that duty had produced in one, and the proposed tariff in another. If he understood the motion of the noble Lord, it was to have the tariff as at first proposed, and the tariff with the alterations that had been since made, laid on the Table together. The best paper he could produce for the satisfaction of the noble Lord would be to produce the first copy of the tariff and the last copy of it, printed in two columns, and these papers, with the existing tariff, he thought would supply every information. But whatever information was desired he was quite ready to afford.

could have very little doubt but that this would meet his noble Friend's wishes. He thought it advisable to know what the alterations in the intentions of the Government were.