In rising to move the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply, I think it advisable to state the course which Her Majesty's Ministers consider it fit to pursue with regard to some of the estimates which have been already laid on the table of the House. I find on the Notice-paper a notice given by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) of a Motion for postponing altogether a Committee of Supply on the Navy and Army Estimates, until the House shall have decided on the proposal made by my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on Friday night. To that Motion of the hon. Member it is impossible that Her Majesty's Ministers can accede, for it reverses entirely the constitutional mode of proceeding, which always requires that a Vote of Supply should precede a Committee of Ways and Means. If I were to propose in a Committee of Ways and Means any vote not warranted by a previous vote in a Committee of Supply, you Sir, according to the principle and practice of Parliamentary proceedings, would at once stop the vote. The invariable course of proceeding, first by a vote in Committee of Supply, and afterwards by a vote in Committee of Ways and Means, is fully justified by reason and common sense; because it is the duty of the House in the first place to determine what expenditure is required for the purpose of maintaining all those establishments which are indispen- sably necessary for upholding the honour and interests of the country. Votes for these purposes are passed in a Committee of Supply Then comes the consideration of the means by which this expenditure is to be provided for; but there is no man, I conceive, who would say, that although in determining how those means are to be provided it is our duty to consider the manner by which it may be done in the least burdensome form to the people, yet that the amount of the vote itself is to be regulated by the productiveness of the taxes from year to year. If, on the one hand, there happened to be a surplus revenue, it would be no justification of an extravagant vote in a Committee of Supply; and so, on the other hand, if occasionally it happened that adverse circumstances should diminish the amount of revenue, we should not on that account be warranted in determining that a just and necessary expenditure should not be maintained. The practice, therefore, always has been, and always must be, in the first instance, to determine what money shall be granted to Her Majesty for the purpose of defraying the necessary expenses of the country; and when that has been determined by the House in a Committee of Supply, it then, and not till then, becomes the duty of the Government to propose to the House to consider in what way the means can be raised in the least objectionable manner to meet the previous Votes of Supply. Therefore the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, is one which it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to adopt. On Monday next it will be my duty to state the reason why Her Majesty's Ministers propose that mode of taxation which my noble Friend stated on Friday night. On that subject, therefore, I shall on this occasion make no observation. I am now merely stating the order in which our proceedings must take place; namely, that a Vote of Supply must necessarily precede a Vote of Ways and Means. In determining what the amount of supply ought to be, Her Majesty's Government, after taking into consideration the circumstances of the country, have felt it their duty to propose a sum which is not a very great increase on the estimates of the previous year. There appeared to prevail an impression among some hon. Members on the former evening, and which impression seems to have in some degree operated out of doors, that the increased taxation now proposed, is solely owing to increased estimates, and that those estimates were entirely of a military and warlike character. It seemed to be the opinion that increased taxation was rendered necessary by some enormous scheme of military defence; in fact, that Her Majesty's Ministers were proposing additional taxation for the purposes of war. Now, I do hope that both this House and the country have since given a little further consideration to what actually fell from my noble Friend on Friday night; and that, having duly attended to the figures stated by my noble Friend, they are now convinced that such an impression is entirely mistaken and unfounded. Referring to the statement made by my noble Friend, it must be obvious to all that the figures stated by him, founded upon estimates sanctioned by the last Parliament, and upon an expenditure over which we had no control, which was past and gone, showed a deficiency of no less than 2,500,000l., which acccording to the usual practice must be provided for out of the taxation for the next year. That, therefore, is a cause, without any increase in the estimates for the present year, why there should be a demand made for further taxation. But, in addition to that, much of the increased expenditure is for purposes of as pacific a nature as it is possible to conceive. Whoever will take the trouble to go over the statement made by my noble Friend, will see that there is a great increase in the Miscellaneous Estimates, arising chiefly from additional expenses consequent on the maintenance of convicts, the burden of which is now thrown upon the general taxation of the country, instead of being, as heretofore, borne by local taxation. This, indeed, is rather a transfer than an increase of charge on the nation. Then there are charges relating to the fittings up of the New Houses of Parliament, and likewise charges connected with the British Museum, and also to an increase of charge for printing and for other purposes of a similar character. Now, surely, these have not the slightest connexion with either the Military or Naval Estimates. But these are not all; there are other expenses which swell the deficiency for the present year, which, although in the Naval Estimates, are not for military purposes. Among these may be mentioned the cost for sending out ships in search of Sir J. Franklin, and the expedition under his care on a voyage of discovery to the North Pole; and also a charge which can- not strictly be considered to be of a military character, but, even if so, was nevertheless sanctioned, or rather, I may say, suggested by this House—I mean, the increased pay given to certain petty officers, and the expenses incurred by giving up the poundage hitherto deducted on paying the pensions of seamen and marines. All these expenses, the House will see, were in no degree for military purposes—not for purposes even of defence, still less of aggression. Another impression, I find, has also gone abroad, that such an increase of force, small as it is, as is now proposed, is only the beginning of a large and permanent increase of our naval and military establishments. How any such impression could be derived from what fell from my noble Friend on Friday last, I am quite at a loss to understand. There was nothing, I think I may venture to say, in the proceedings of the past Government, and there has been nothing, I unhesitatingly affirm, in the conduct of the present Government, that could warrant any such conclusion. Nothing, in my opinion, is more to be deprecated on the part of any Government than to make a great parade of the armaments of the country, or to make any ostentatious preparation for war. What I understood to fall from my noble Friend on a previous occasion was, that he considered nothing more mischievous than the adoption of a course of that kind; because he believed that any misapprehension as to our intentions was more likely than any other course of proceeding, to lead to those evil consequences which Her Majesty's Ministers deprecate above all things. The view which Her Majesty's Government take in respect to any deficiency in the Navy or Army establishments is, that whenever any such deficiency becomes evident the subject should from time to time be brought under the consideration of Parliament. That is the course which has been pursued by all previous Governments. Whenever a deficiency appeared, the matter was brought before Parliament, and the deficiency was duly supplied. What is now proposed to be done is in strict accordance with the course which has hitherto been pursued, of making those additions to our national defences which it is absolutely necessary from time to time to adopt. Of this the House and the people may be well assured, that Her Majesty's Ministers will do nothing which they do not consider to be essentially necessary, and at the same time conducive to the preservation of the peace of this country and of Europe. Sir, that so much apprehension should have prevailed on this subject, is to me not more a matter of astonishment than regret. There is, I can venture to affirm, no object which Her Majesty's Ministers have so much at heart as the preservation of peace, and that the House of Commons should be satisfied on the necessity for the proposed expenditure for this year. But it must be obvious that many of the explanations which it is desirable to afford, are of such a nature that they cannot very conveniently be made in this House. There are many subjects on which it is not convenient to go into detail in the House of Commons itself, but which, nevertheless, should be stated in justification of many measures which Her Majesty's Government may deem it essentially necessary to adopt. And therefore it is of necessity that Her Majesty's Ministers propose that a Select and Secret Committee be appointed to examine into the expenditure of the Navy, Army, and Ordnance Departments, and to which generally the expenses for those services may be referred. To that Committee will be referred all papers and documents prepared by the heads of the various Departments; and both they and other persons the most capable of affording information on the subjects to be inquired into, will of course appear before the Committee for examination. This Committee will be distinct from the one for the appointment of which I shall move to-morrow. That Committee will be one to inquire into the expenditure for Miscellaneous Services, and to report to the House whether any reductions can be effected, or improvements made, in the mode of submitting that branch of the public expenditure to Parliament. I may state that Committees of the nature of that to which I have just referred, namely, to inquire into the circumstances connected with the finances of the country, especially in relation to the expenditure of the Navy, Army, and Ordnance, have been appointed by the House of Commons at various times. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) was Minister in 1828, he moved for an appointment of a Finance Committee, which was the last Committee of the kind that has been appointed. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that from the year 1786 downwards, when the first Committee of that description was appointed, Finance Committees had been pretty nearly at equal intervals of ten years appointed down to 1828. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the first Committee was appointed in 1786, after which similar Committees were appointed in 1791, in 1796, in 1807, and in 1817; and the right hon. Gentleman was then proposing the appointment of a like Committee in 1828. It is now twenty years since such a Committee sat. A somewhat similar Committee sat in 1834 on the subject of the Colonial Military Expenditure. Lord Stanley was at that time Colonial Secretary; and the Committee was afterwards reappointed on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), who was in 1835 Under Secretary for the Colonial Department. Under all the circumstances, therefore, I am of opinion that it would afford much more complete information to the House on the subject of the expenditure which may be deemed necessary for the public service, if all the information bearing upon the various causes for that expenditure should be laid before a Select Committee, than could be obtained by any partial, and, therefore, necessarily imperfect information, that could be given in a Committee of the whole House. As to the mode in which the Committee should be constituted, I beg to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have no wish but that it should be fairly and impartially appointed. With regard to the vote of this evening, I find, on referring to the course pursued in 1845, that when it was proposed to renew the income-tax, no discussion of the estimates occurred during the interval of the proposal being made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), and the time when the House came to a decision upon the question. We now propose to follow that example, so far as any full discussion of the estimates is concerned; but it is necessary for the public service that a vote of the House should immediately be taken; and I hope, after this explanation, the House will not object to agree to such votes as are necessary for carrying on the service of the country. I hope the House will allow my hon. Friends the Secretary at War and the Secretary for the Navy to propose votes for those great heads of expenditure which are required at this period of the year. It was with a view to this that on Friday I recommended my right hon. Friend the Secretary at War to give notice of the Army Estimates, and my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty of the Navy Estimates, for to-night, in order that money might be provided to meet some of those great heads of expenditure; and I hope the House will not object to the votes being taken. I have only further to say, that I hope this will induce hon. Gentlemen to abstain from pressing any discussion, either on the estimates or the budget to-night. On Monday it will be my duty to state very fully the views of the Government with regard to the proposal for taxation; and I submit that with reference to the detailed discussion on the estimates, it clearly will be far better to postpone it, and allow the subject to be referred to the Committee, as a desultory discussion cannot but be most unsatisfactory, as it does not disclose a full and fair view of any subject discussed, and as the opinion of the House cannot be taken—hardly indicated—on any one proposition submitted to it, it really will conduce to the despatch of public business, and to the satisfactory consideration of every one of the elements of future discussion, if hon. Members will abstain until the subject shall be fairly brought before the House. With these observations, stating what the course of the Government will be, I beg to move the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply.

felt bound to state to the House, in a few words, the grounds upon which he had expressed his dissatisfaction with the proposal of the noble Lord. He had expressed himself warmly, because he felt warmly, having been much disappointed; and he would explain to the House why he did so, and in what way he differed from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with regard to the course which the House and the country ought to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was the duty of the House to look to the estimate first, without any regard to the means of providing for it. He had always contested that point, on the ground that the Government ought to act upon the same principle that actuated the head of a family in entering upon any new expenditure. Every one would admit that it was the duty of a man, before he set up a carriage or a new house, to see that he had the means of supporting it; and no one would sympathise with him, if, instead of following that rule, he started his carriage and then found he had not the means of maintaining it. Upon the same principle he felt it to be his duty to object to the House going into these estimates till they had considered whether the means could be obtained. The impression which had been created in his mind by the speech of the noble Lord on Friday night was shared in by many of his (Mr. Hume's) Friends around him. His own impression and that of Gentlemen around him was, that a more hostile speech with respect to France had not for a long time been made. However, he was glad that the impression was an erroneous one. With respect to the expenditure and income of the country, he held in his hand two balance-sheets, one for 1846, and the other for 1847. The first balance-sheet was signed by Mr. Card well, and showed the amount of income for the year 1846 to be 51,217,000l.; the other balance-sheet was signed by Mr. Parker, and showed the income for the year ending 5th April, 1847, to be 51,240,000l. The House would bear in mind that there were 4,500,000l. expended in the collection, which would make the revenue nearly 56,000,000l. in both years. The former showed an excess of income over expenditure of 3,800,000l., and the latter an excess of expenditure over income of 2,956,000l.; thus making a difference in the two periods of not less than 6,756,000l. He would ask whether, with such a statement before him, he was not justified in endeavouring to stop the proceedings of the Government until some inquiry was instituted? Whether it were not the duty of the House to ascertain whether a reduction of the public expenditure could not be made; or whether it were absolutely necessary to incur this great expense in order to support the institutions of the country? This suggestion was made by him before the noble Lord opened his financial statement. On hearing that statement, he learned, to his surprise, that instead of retrenching the expenditure, the Government actually felt it necessary to increase the taxation to the extent of 3,500,000l.; and he could not resist making the observations which he did on Friday night. In the year 1846 the interest on the funded and unfunded debt was increased by half a million. The year before the interest amounted to 28,140,000l., and in 1846 it was 28,530,000l., being a difference of upwards of 400,000l. He had always advocated the plan of converting the whole debt into terminable annuities; but he would not go into that now. In the time of which he spoke between 400,000l. and 500,000l. of terminable annuities fell in, which ought to have made a reduction by that amount. Considering these things, he was certainly startled when the noble Lord proposed to increase the income-tax. This was a subject really of grave consideration, looking to the distress which existed—distress which was felt not only by the working classes, but by the shopkeepers and small householders, and others dependent upon daily trade. Let any Member of the Government or of that House take any public street of shops, and inquire of the inhabitants the state of trade—he would find a most lamentable state of things. Few were buying, and the shopkeepers were scarcely able to pay their parish rates; and if this were so, there must be something wrong in the distribution of the national income, and that instead of increasing the expenditure they ought to see if some retrenchments could not be made. For instance, he held in his hand a paper moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, containing an account of the naval force we had in Portugal. From that paper it appeared that there had been from ten to eighteen ships there. In September there were ten ships with 754 guns, and nearly 7,000 men. Why, the maintenance of that force would make up the deficiency of which they were complaining. He was prepared to lay before the House the expenses incurred in the attempt to put a stop to the slave trade. At the commencement of the present Session he moved for returns, for the purpose of showing what had been the number of ships employed on the coast of Africa for that purpose. He did that thinking that the estimates required to be reduced; but no such returns had yet been laid before the House. One return had been furnished; but it appeared to him to be so incorrect that he required other returns in order to test its accuracy. It appeared by a paper on the table of the House, that there were 46 ships, mounting 279 guns, and carrying a very large number of men, cruising on the coast of Africa to suppress the slave trade. In addition to this, there was a great waste of the resources of the country. He only mentioned these things as examples. Then again it appeared that both France and America were forced into expenses on account of our measures relating to the slave trade. It appeared that in 1846 the cost to France was 5,119,256 francs, and the House must also take into the account the alienation from England which the loss of this money produced on the French mind. He found by a paper which he had got from Washington, that the charge for this item in the United States was 384,000 dollars—a charge which was still further increased by the destruction of provisions and stock. The question then was, whether the House should advise Her Majesty to continue this policy, and whether it would not be better to ascertain beforehand whether this policy was satisfactory to the nation. There were so many points connected with the consideration of the Estimates, that he thought it but reasonable that an inquiry should take place; but the right hon. Baronet proposed to give the House only half an inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman would not allow an inquiry into the departments of the Customs and Excise, but only into the estimates connected with the Navy, the Army, and the Ordnance. The expense of managing the Customs was 1,800,000l., and yet, though 700 articles on which duties were formerly levied were now passed without any trouble, he was still to learn that there was one custom-house officer appointed less than be-fore. A reduction to the extent of 57,000l. had been made in the establishment of the Excise; and he thought that Government ought to order this inquiry on their own account, even if they should be obliged to go on with their present rate of taxation. He must say that the House ought not to be prevented from examining the whole of the expenditure of the country; and some inquiry should be made whether the mode of taxation might not be improved. He was aware that there was a great difference of opinion in that House whether there should be direct or indirect taxation; but it was important that they should see what taxes could be raised with the least charge and burden to the people, and what could be brought with the least expense into the Exchequer. For the last eighteen or nineteen years there had been no Committee on this subject. The Committee which sat in 1828 was "burked"—they were a whole year in collecting information, and yet no proper inquiry had taken place. Sir H. Parnell was chairman of that Committee, and Lord Althorp and other Gentlemen willing to work were members of it; and if that Committee had been allowed to proceed, important changes would have taken place, not only in the mode of collecting the revenue, but in the expenditure. Lord Hardinge was on that Committee, and he must say that his arrangements in the War Office were highly creditable to him. He did not mean to say that Lord Hardinge's arrangements were brought about by any recommendations made by the Committee; but Lord Hardiage saw well what the opinion and feeling of the Committee was, and he applied himself to remedy the abuses and evils which prevailed in his department. He maintained, therefore, that when there was a difficulty in collecting money and adding to the taxes, it was not fair to ask the House to consider that question without satisfying the country that everything had been done that could be done. There was another point which he wished to notice before he sat down. He thought he had heard the right hon. Gentleman say that this was to be a Secret Committee. He did not like Secret Committees, and he would therefore submit for the reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government, whether a Secret Committee would be satisfactory to the people of this country, and whether it would produce a conviction on their minds that everything that might have been done had been done? No man, however, was more unwilling to incommode the public departments than himself, and therefore he should not oppose the Motion for going into a Committee of Supply, the only condition which he should require of the right hon. Baronet being, that he should not take too much; now and then, if more were were wanted, he might come again. In the meantime, the Committee might go on with the inquiry proposed by the Government.

was convinced of the necessity of sooner or later taking into consideration the whole question of the taxation of the country. His hon. Friend had truly stated that, in consequence of the reductions made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, the cost of collecting the Excise had diminished 50,000l. or 60,000l., while no corresponding diminution had taken place in the Customs. He saw no reason why a similar reduction should not be effected. He was anxious, for one reason, that some such Committee as that which had been recommended by his hon. Friend should be appointed. Some important reports connected with the Excise had never been submitted to the House, and among them was a report which had been prepared by the late Lord Congleton. The whole of those reports ought to be taken into consideration, and that could only be done by a Committee of that House on the subject of general taxation. He was sure that the people of this country felt that it ought to be considered whether many of those taxes which were collected by means of the Customs and Excise, might not be levied upon the realised property of the country. With regard to the speech made by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on Friday night, he must say that he thought its tone anything but pacific. Even if the noble Lord was convinced of the necessity of an increase in our naval, military, or ordnance establishments, the noble Lord should not have put that proposal in the foreground of his speech, but as an appendix to it. For his own part, he was most anxious that peaceful relations with France should be maintained, and he should be happy to see the duties taken off French wines, in order to extend our commercial intercourse with that country.

expressed his astonishment that the proposal made on Friday night should proceed from a Government professing to act on the principles of retrenchment, economy, and reform. He had hoped that the noble Lord would not have set an example of extravagance. He had expected that our expenditure would have been reduced, as he did not think that we were ever in a condition when there was less necessity to take warlike precautions. He should feel it his duty to give every opposition in his power to the proposition now made for incressing our expenditure and taxation.

could not allow the House to go into Committee without protesting even at that stage against the proposition to appoint a Secret and Select Committee on the Navy, Army, and Ordnance expenditure. He thought that they were bound to proceed in this matter in the usual manner; and he must say it appeared to him very much as if there had been a compromise between the Government and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hume). He would venture to say, that if it had not been for the Motion of which that hon. Gentleman gave notice on Friday, they would not have heard of the appointment of any Committee that night. Why should the questions arising out of the expenditure of the Army and Navy not be brought before the whole House? When the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) brought in the income-tax, the estimates were laid before the House in the usual manner; and why should not the same course be taken by the Govern- ment now? The appointment of this Committee threw an air of mystery over the matter which could not but awaken suspicion and dissatisfaction in the country.

could only say that he had had no communication by writing, word, or letter on the subject with any one person connected with the Government; and it was not fair on the part of the hon. Gentleman to throw out insinuations of the kind just uttered by him, unless he had good grounds for doing so.

moved a vote of 245,410l. 19s. 7d. to defray the excess of the Naval expenditure beyond the grant of last year.

did not think it was understood that any votes that might be proposed were to be taken without discussion in Committee of Supply, merely because another Committee was to be appointed. He held that whatever vote they were called upon to pass in the extremely disastrous circumstances of the country at the present moment, the House was hound to consider most seriously; and that House would be abandoning the most important of its duties if it passed one vote without bestowing upon it the utmost attention that it was capable of giving. He must say that the word "secret," in reference to the Committee to be appointed, had rather indisposed him to meet the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The use of the word "select" alone would have been much better than those employed, namely, "secret and select;" and he could not help saying that he had a great repugnance to such a Committee. If their object was to withdraw from public notice all those votes that formed part of the naval and military estimates of this year, they might be sure that that course would not lessen the difficulties staring them in the face; and he hoped the Members of that House would pause before they gave their consent to such a Committee. He had heard nothing to reconcile him to the proposition made of referring these votes to a Secret and Select Committee, though no doubt that subject would more properly fall to be discussed when the proposal was formally before the House.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be highly improper to take any whole vote on the present occa- sion, and that no such vote should be proposed without the fullest information being given as to its nature and objects. The first vote that had now been asked for was one that could not be reasonably objected to, seeing that it was a vote for the payment of past expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman must he aware that it was not necessary in such a vote to give a complete statement, especially as a full explanation would be given when the whole vote was taken.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would state whether this was or was not a vote with relation to which there had been a controversy between the Treasury and the Admiralty; the Treasury finding fault with the Admiralty for the way in which the amount had been incurred, alleging that it had been done in an irregular manner? If such was the case, the sooner an explanation was given the better; for it sounded rather unpleasant to hear that two departments of the State were at variance the one with the other. With regard to the vote, he hardly knew what effect it might have upon the public mind; for it was already fonnd that the House of Commons was no sufficient check between the Minister and the public, as the amount which they voted was frequently not the whole amount expended, as the excess of expenditure showed. He thought the vote ought not to pass without a very full explanation, as a question not only between the two departments who had come into collision, but also as a question between them and the public and the Government. As to the question of a Secret Committee, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow him also to ask in what respect there was a difference between a Select and a Secret Committee? Were the Members of the House not selected to sit on that Committee to know how persons voted who sat upon it? With regard to other Committees, it was well known that the way in which parties voted was made public; was the same course to be adopted with reference to this Committee? and, if so, would it be got immediately, so as to enable the House to give its judgment upon any decision they might arrive at?

said, this was a vote on which a correspondence, such as he had alluded to, had taken place. The hon. Gentleman was aware that, in old times, the balance of former votes was handed over to the particular departments in which they oc- curred, and that those departments had the power of applying and sometimes misapplying the sums thus put into their hands. An Act was passed, however, in 1832, with reference to the Admiralty, and another Act was passed last year with regard to the Army, which did away with this practice, so liable to abuse. Those departments could no longer hold a balance; after the 5th of April in each year they were bound to pay over all unappropriated balances into the Exchequer, and therefore it was necessary to have a vote of that House to defray the excess of expenditure which might be incurred. The object of taking that vote now, was to have it brought at the earliest possible moment before Parliament; and he need not tell the hon. Gentleman, what he must know perfectly well, that it was impossible in all cases to keep the expenditure within the estimates. With regard to the point as respected the Admiralty, they had not done what they ought to do according to the Act. The hon. Gentleman had asked a question as to what constituted the difference between a Select and Secret Committee, A Select Committee was, in his estimation, one that was open to the whole world, and therefore could have nothing secret about its composition; a Secret Committee was one to which the whole world had not the right of admission. The only Secret Committee on which he ever sat was one in 1840 and 1841, on the subject of banks of issue; and, at the termination of their sittings, the result was laid before the House. A Secret Committee sat also, he believed, in 1828. He believed that a good deal depended on what came before Secret Committees, whether, on the whole, they deemed it expedient to publish the result of their proceedings, or the grounds on which any decision they might come to was founded.

understood no very important vote was to be taken, and he saw no reason to object to the sum that had been proposed.

was completely opposed to this Secret Committee, which was no doubt to be proposed by the Government to suit their own particular purposes. The evidence taken before it, whatever it might be, was to be kept entirely from the public; and they would know nothing about the matter till perhaps a garbled and unsatisfactory statement was laid by somebody or other before the House. This he thought a very dangerous mode of proceeding; and he had hoped that the hon. Member for Montrose would not have consented to wave his important Motion for any such proposal. He trusted that the House would firmly refuse to vote the estimates till they had a full and satisfactory explanation. He wanted all Committees to be before the House and the public, and that gallery, so that a report of everything might reach the world through that excellent organ, the press. He was sorry to say the House of Commons was not disposed to serve the public, but to back up a Ministry which did not deserve the confidence of the public.

was by no means satisfied either with the explanation of the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He conceived it to be entirely unconstitutional to propose a Secret Committee to inquire into the state of Her Majesty's Navy. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to draw an analogy between a Secret Committee to inquire into the defences of the country, and a Secret Committee to inquire into a Bank Bill, or into the general credit of the country. He apprehended there was a most essential difference between an inquiry which concerned the credit and commerce of the country, and an inquiry that concerned the national defences; and unless the noble Lord was prepared to say that there were grave reasons of State for such a course, and evident peril surrounding the country, he, for one, would not consent that that House should delegate its powers to a Secret Committee. What was to take place in that Committee? What inquiries were to be made? Were they not to know the nature of the inquiry, or who and what were the witnesses to be called before it? Were they not to know whether it was to inquire into the diplomatic relations of this country, or how near or how distant was the danger of an invasion from Prance? Were they to go blindfold into the appointment of a Secret Committee without being told anything of the objects of the inquiry? Was it that perhaps the country was in imminent danger of foreign invasion, and that it was proposed to go into a Committee to inquire what were to be the defences and fortifications, and what the number of steamers or ships that were to be added to the Navy? He confessed, for one, that if it could be shown to him that there was imminent peril—that some expedition was projected, and that it was not safe for the country that the enemy should know anything of our preparations—that might be a reason for assenting to a Secret Committee; though he might then say, that the Executive Government was not fit to hold its position when it deputed the executive power and authority, which properly belonged to the Crown or the Ministers of the Crown, to a Select Committee. For these reasons, unless the noble Lord was prepared to state some better grounds than he had yet heard, he would not consent to refer the Navy Estimates to any Secret Committee.

believed that a Select Committee had the power within itself to exclude the public from its sittings, as occasion might require; and that course was agreed to be taken by a Committee of which he was a Member last year. That Committee thought it expedient to come to a resolution on the subject; but he apprehended that it was at all times in the power of a Committee to exclude the public, and to prevent the publication of any part of the evidence taken before it. He quite agreed with the noble Lord in thinking that it would be inexpedient if there was to be no publication at all; and, therefore, if this Committee were appointed, reports of its proceedings should be published, leaving with the Committee, however, the liberty of excluding any portion of those proceedings which they might think it inexpedient to give to the world. He would ask the noble Lord whether his understanding of the Secret Committee was such as he had described it; or whether he intended that no publication whatever should take place of the proceedings?

The question has been put, why a Select and Secret Committee is to be appointed? I shall, however, not enter into the reasons why such Committee should be appointed, but rather confine myself to the apprehensions which have been expressed with respect to the consequences of such a course. The noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) says, the appointment of a Secret and Select Committee is unconstitutional; but, in 1788, in 1797, 1807, 1817, and 1828, and under various Ministers—such as Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, Lord Liverpool, and the Duke of Wellington, this House appointed Committees of Inquiry into the whole expenditure of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance. Those Committees were all not only Select but Secret Committees; that is to say, not only were the public in general excluded, but Members of the House had no right to walk into those Committees and insist on being present. Why it should be unconstitutional in 1848 to do that which was done on all these several occasions, I own passes my comprehension. I should have thought that a proceeding sanctioned by such names, though it might be considered objectionable on other grounds, could not be, at all events, characterised as essentially unconstitutional. Upon one of those occasions Mr. Pitt stated why he thought the Committee ought to be secret. He said the heads of departments might be examined, and that the statements which they might have to make before the Committee might involve facts which it was not desirable to publish to the world. That was a practical and sound reason. It was a reason which applied to the present time. Statements might be required from the heads of departments; but if every Member of Committee were to ask those persons whatever questions suggested themselves, there might be considerable inconvenience in at once publishing those statements. I hope these considerations will satisfy my noble Friend. I have to express my own conviction that it would be highly inconvenient if such a Committee were an open Committee; and if, every Member of Committee putting what questions he pleased, the examinations were given at once to the world. I shall not enter on the question whether it is convenient to appoint a Committee. My right hon. Friend has given notice of his Motion for to-morrow, when he will state the grounds on which he proposes a Committee. My own impression is, that it will be for the public advantage that such a Committee should be appointed. All we want is to obtain such a sum of money as public convenience requires. We are far from wishing to avoid discussion. On the contrary, we think that there ought to be a fair and open discussion on these estimates; and I, for myself, have only to state that, in my opinion, they are neither war estimates nor are they framed with any view to a rupture with any foreign Power. Our relations with foreign Powers are most amicable; and, in that view the estimates are framed, and I am prepared to take my share of the responsibility of those estimates.

observed, that they were now discussing what was to be the nature of a Committee which had not yet been proposed. If the proper course had been taken, and the Committee been proposed in the first instance, then with great propriety might the proposition have been made that the House should vote on account such sums as the public service required. But Her Majesty's Government were resolved to refer the whole to a Select Committee. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had referred to various dates when Committees had been appointed. But those Committees were not of such a nature as that which it was now proposed to appoint; they were general Finance Committees, appointed to inquire with reference to all departments of the Government. Did the Government intend at present to propose a general Finance Committee before they proceeded with the votes? If so, the votes should be postponed. From what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he gathered that the Committee was to inquire specifically only into those estimates for the present year. If they were to adopt the precedent to which allusion had been made, and institute an inquiry into all the financial arrangements in regard to the whole income and expenditure of the country, then the question as to the income-tax ought also to be referred to the Committee. He wished to know why they should be called upon to give votes ad interim? The noble Lord adverted to cases in which secrecy was observed by Committees. One case was mentioned as occurring in the time of Mr. Pitt. [Lord J. RUSSELL: In 1785.] It would, he believed, be found that such cases had occurred in time of war, when it would have been inconvenient to make revelations on the subjects brought before the Committees.

thought they were getting very fast into a very curious position. The Government had brought forward a proposition for taxing the country. They had also expressed their formal judgment, as a Government, in regard to the expenditure which they considered necessary for the country during the coming year. Part of that estimate was printed and before hon. Gentlemen; but they could not look at the printed figures, and take into account what had been stated by the noble Lord the other night, without seeing an expenditure stated running hard upon 60,000,000l. He (Mr. Henley) should not refer to the palmy Whig days of 1835 and 1836; but, looking to 1840 and 1845, he found that there had been a periodical increase. That might be right; he ex- pressed no opinion whether it was so or not. But the fact no man could deny, that there had been a great and heavy increase. What was the remedy proposed? Was the House of Commons to look into the matter? Why, instead of standing the ventilation of the estimates as those estimates ought to be ventilated—instead of coming forward and assigning their reasons why this item and that should be allowed—the Government proposed to refer the subject to a Committee. The Navy Estimates, he ventured to say, would be found to have rapidly increased for several years: they had increased at the rate of 1,000,000l. a year. The proper course was for the Government to stand fight on the estimates in an open Committee. If Ministers thought the country would be satisfied with refering such a matter to thirteen, or fourteen, or fifteen Gentlemen, a majority of whom might be expected to adopt the views of the Government—if those estimates were approved, nobody knowing why and wherefore, by a Committee so constituted—if, in point of fact, they were not proposed on the responsibility of Government, the Government throwing its responsibility on the Committee—it seemed to him that such a course amounted as nearly as possible to an abdications of the functions of Government. He did not see what other inference he could draw, if those persons who were most conversant with all the circumstances of the country did not come forward and give an account of what they thought was proper to be expended on them: he repeated, if they did not in open fight before Parliament defend their propositions. He did not pretend to say that the Committee should not be appointed, or that the estimates were not just; but he confessed that the course now proposed had struck him with so strong a sense of the inability of Ministers to conduct the government of the country—their inability to stand upon their own measures, and justify them—that he could not abstain from adverting to so singular a state of matters. The unusual thing in the condition of the country now was, that the expenditure ran up in a year some 2,000,000l. or 3,000,000l. It was not very easy to say why the position of the country should make it necessary to expend more this year than was expended some years ago. He did not say the additional expenditure might not be justifiable, but it ought to be fairly placed before them. Many of the instances in which Secret Committees had sat occurred during the war, when the country had to spend, possibly, 100,000,000l. a year additional, and when their establishments far exceeded the rules applicable to peaceful times. It was very natural that the Government, under these circumstances, should seek to have the estimates considered in such a Committee. He knew not whether one of these was not appointed when the property-tax ceased to be paid. But what occurred on former occasions did not afford any precedent. With regard to the vote for arrears which was immediately before the House, he thought it ought to be postponed. There could, however, be no objection to going so far as might be necessary to enable the Government to bring in the Mutiny Bill.

It was my duty to move the appointment of the last Committee on public expenditure. I made that Motion in 1820, as the representative in the House of Commons of the Government of that day. In the year 1828, shortly after the Duke of Wellington was called to the Government, and in fulfilment of engagements given the preceding year by Mr. Canning, I moved the appointment of a Committee to consider the military expenditure. Ten years had then elapsed since the appointment of a Committee on finance. A Committee had been appointed at the instance of Mr. Pitt in 1786; the next was appointed in 1797; the next under the Administration of Grey and Grenville, in 1807. After an interval of ten years, another was appointed in 1817; and after the lapse of other ten years I proposed in 1828 the appointment of a Committee to consider the military expenditure of the country. I agree with the noble Lord in thinking that this is not the moment to determine whether the appointment of a Committee is fitting or not. But, in reference to the question, so far as it has been raised, as to the Committee being a secret one, I apprehend that if the precedents of former periods are to be followed, the Committee should be a Select Committee. But it will have full power to withhold from the House all information the discovery of which would be injurious to the public service; it will, therefore, be secret. This Committee, which is nominally a Select Committee, has, I apprehend, the power of conducting inquiries in secret, and of excluding from the public knowledge any evidence which it might be important to abstain from disclosing. If you turn to the report made on the Ordnance Estimates, so far from its being a Secret Committee, you will find that Sir H. Hardinge was examined for ten days, and the evidence was given almost without reserve to the public. And the course which seems expedient in such cases is, that any opinion, testimony, and information which can be given without detriment to the public service ought to be given. No Committee that may be appointed ought, therefore, to be a Secret Committee in that sense. Though the Committee to which I refer published most important evidence given by my noble Friend, then Sir H. Hardinge, who was at that time actuated by the same spirit, and pursuing the same course of conduct as has since distinguished him in India, and had led him before demitting his government to adopt measures which would effect a saving of nearly 1,000,000l. per annum on the military expenditure there—most important evidence also was given by my noble Friend, which would not have been given had the House confined itself to a general Committee on the subject. It related to military works; and the Committee felt justified in withholding it under the circumstances of the time. In their report they speak of the military defences of Canada. They state that—

"The documents which relate to the subject will be found in the appendix. The Committee regret that they are prevented by important prudential considerations from annexing all the evidence given to them respecting these."

I hope that no Committee we may appoint will prosecute its inquiries without following the course then taken, namely, that all the information which can be given without detriment to the public service should be given; yet that the Committee, when it thinks necessary, shall conduct its proceedings in secret, and withhold what it believes would, if disclosed, be injurious to the public service. I reserve my opinion on the question whether those estimates should be referred to a Select Committee; but if they are referred to such a Committee, I have indicated the course which it appears advisable for the Committee to follow.

thought that those who wished reduction of expenditure should hail with pleasure the appointment of such a Committee as the Government proposed to appoint. He hoped it would be made, not a Secret but a Select Committee. Unless the rules had been changed since he was formerly a Member of the House, no Member had a right to be present if the Committee were secret. If the Committee were a Select Committee, any Member had a right to be present. No one would wish to exclude Members of the House from such a Committee, and he should therefore think it unwise to appoint a Secret Committee if a Select Committee could gain the same object. A Select Committee would also be more satisfactory to the public.

considered the only distinction between a Select and a Secret Committee was, that in the former Members of the House might attend, in the latter they might not. But the Select Committee had power to exclude when it chose; and therefore it appeared to him to be as much a Secret Committee as if it were appointed so. After what had passed on the subject of Supply, the proposal to refer those estimates to some such Committee appeared to be nothing else than putting the powers of the Government into commission. But the suddenness of the resolution of Government was the most remarkable part of the whole. The precedents of 1797 and 1817 had been quoted; but he doubted if such a precipitancy had been exhibited on those occasions as there was at present in vesting their Committees with powers, except, perhaps, in 1797; for that was the year in which cash payments were suspended. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some such intention on the present occasion. If he had, it would astonish some of his friends. But without some such emergency he certainly thought it was an unusual and undignified course to make an announcement on Friday, and then run away from it on Monday. His principal object in rising, however, was to ask the noble Lord whether it was his intention to ask the consent of the Committee to-night for some round sum for the current expenses which he might deem necessary, or to some specific vote? The former course he was quite sure would not be objected to by hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, though several might object to the latter.

said, that if it was contrary to the understanding of the House that he should take a specific vote to-night, he was ready to withdraw it. The proposed vote was one which it was essential to take on an early day; but if it was the wish of the House, he would withdraw it for the present, and ask nothing but a vote to account.

said that he, for one, would not consent to vote a single shilling, either on a specific estimate or to account, nor would he agree to the appointment of a Secret Committee, until an opportunity had been given to the public to express its opinion upon the budget of last week. In saying this he disclaimed any wish to offer any factious opposition to Government, or to obstruct the public business.

was at a loss to understand the conduct of Government on the present occasion. If they intended, as they said, to refer the estimates to a Committee, why call upon the House in the mean time for an increase of the property and income-tax? They first told the House that they had found it necessary to propose an increase of the income-tax, in order to meet the increased estimates which they were prepared to submit; and then they stated that it was their intention to submit these estimates to a Secret Committee: was that with a view of throwing upon the Committee the responsibility of the estimates, or were the Committee to be at liberty to reduce them if they should find it to be desirable? Supposing this to be the result, then, according to the course proposed by Ministers, the country would be saddled with an increased property and income-tax, which they might afterwards find they did not want. He must say, he thought that this was trifling with the country. It seemed to him, like another Committee that had been appointed, a mere farce; an expedient adopted for the simple purpose of taking from the shoulders of Government that responsibility which properly belonged to them. He would ask the noble Lord whether on Monday next he intended to call upon the House to vote an increased incometax?

I don't think the hon. Gentleman has properly understood the statement I made to the House the other night. What I stated was, that supposing the expenses of the country to remain the same as last year, there was an excess of expenditure already incurred which must be paid for—that, supposing we made no increase in the estimates, there would still be a deficiency of between 2,000,000l. and 3,000,000l., which we must meet by increased taxation. If I could suppose that this Committee which we intend to propose, or any other Committee of the whole House or otherwise, could diminish by upwards of 3,000,000l. the estimates we have laid on the table, I should concur with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that we might go on without any increase of the income and property-tax. But I cannot hope that any such reduction could be made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no desire to get rid of a responsibility by the appointment of a Committee, On the contrary, we are quite willing to undergo any inquiry that can be made into the estimates before a Committee of the whole House, and an inquiry before a Secret Committee over and above the inquiry before the Committee of the whole House. We are quite ready to submit them to both these modes of invesgation. I repeat, however, that I cannot believe that the result of such investigation will be to reduce the estimates by 3,000,000l.; and I cannot believe, therefore, that an increased taxation will not be necessary.

was afraid that, in their efforts to prevent an increase in the taxation of the country, they need not hope for much assistance from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite, whose silence on the present occasion must be very agreeable to the Government. But he rose merely for the purpose of saying, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the Committee, he should be extremely obliged to him if the right hon. Gentleman would furnish the House with the precedents for the step which he recommended. He certainly could not find any precedent in the report which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel). That right hon. Gentleman had appointed the Committee of 1828, which he said was a Select Committee, to examine the military estimates of the country. Such, however, was not the title of the Committee. The title of the Committee, as was well known, was a Committee to inquire into the state of the public income and expenditure. Now, that was a great difference. The object of that Committee was to see whether it were possible or not for the House of Commons, consistently with the public safety, to diminish the public expenditure; but the military estimates for the current year were not brought before the Committee. It afforded no precedent, therefore, for the present proposal; and he had every reason to suspect that the previous precedents that had been referred to would be found as little germane to the present instance as the one referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth. He begged to impress upon hon. Members the importance of this consideration. If the House were called upon to appoint a Secret Committee to investigate the military expenses of the year, no one could suppose it was for economical purposes. On the contrary, it was for considerations of a much graver character; such as whether the defences of the country were deficient or not; or whether there were not other circumstances to justify the expenditure, of which it was probable a portion of the House of Commons would be kept entirely ignorant, and which would be concealed from the knowledge of the public. At all events, it could not be said that it was identical with the Committees of 1787, 1817, or 1828, which had been already referred to. He repeated, that he feared the Government would be found steering without the light of precedent. He called upon hon. Members to recollect that if the estimates were discussed in that House, and if it should be found in the course of the discussion that they could not obtain proper information, or could not form a correct judgment of the case without the presence of the public officers, that might be a legitimate ground for referring the matter to a Secret Committee. But it did not follow that they would require the presence of the public officers any more than on previous occasions.

could, without much trouble, satisfy the House at once on the point referred to; but to do so would be only adding to the inconvenience which had been already felt in discussing a subject not then before them. To-morrow, however, he should be prepared to lay before the House the grounds and the precedents for the proposal which he would then submit to them.

said, it was evident the Government must have felt that their financial statement was highly objectionable; that it had excited dislike and reprobation on all sides of the House; and that it was absolutely necessary to do something to conciliate the opposition. And what had they done? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had come down to the House and proposed a Secret Committee. He (Lord Dudley Stuart) did not believe that the appointment of a Committee would afford any satisfaction whatsoever to the country. He did not believe that it would reconcile the people in any degree to the proposal which had issued from the Government. He did think that there never had been such a budget as this one. He believed it was generally anticipated that the income-tax might be continued; but it was supposed it would be accompanied by something which would mitigate the evil; that, at least, it would be levied upon a principle which was less unequal than at present, and therefore less objectionable. If the window-tax had been taken off, or the tea and tobacco duties reduced, or some other been of that kind given to the country, it might have been considered as some compensation for what he had always considered a great evil, viz., the income-tax. In fact, he had always marvelled how that House and the country had so quietly submitted to that tax in a time of profound peace. It had been obtained from the House, he would not say on a false pretence, but a pretence which had certainly not been fulfilled. It had been said that it was only to last for three years; then it had been extended other three; and now it was to be extended still further. He could not agree, however, with some Gentlemen on his side of the House in their view of the observations of the noble Lord in introducing the budget. He had never understood that the noble Lord had brought forward his statement as a war statement, or that he had sounded any alarm; and he was very glad that the noble Lord had that night disabused the minds of this House and the country upon that point. He admitted, however, that he thought it would be highly culpable if they suffered this country to be in a state which would offer temptation to a warlike people to come over and invade us. He firmly believed, that on both sides of the Channel it was the desire of all sensible and reflecting men to preserve the relations of peace and amity. At the same time, he considered that war was not impossible; on the contrary, he knew that there were a number of turbulent spirits in France who would be glad to go to war with this country if an opportunity should offer; and he could not feel that, if the French nation should ever be ruled by a monarch of headstrong disposition and military predilections, or by a weak monarch guided by an ambitious and unscrupulous Minister, that there would be no danger of so deplorable a contingency as war. Without, therefore, filling the coun- try with armed men, or covering it with forts, a moderate and reasonable state of defence ought to be maintained. He was much inclined to the opinion that this might be effected without any augmentation of our armaments by a more judicious distribution of them. There were squadrons in different parts of the world that were of no other use than that of creating a lavish expenditure. The squadron upon the coast of Africa cost at the very lowest estimate 300,000l. a year, and was employed in an inglorious service, in which numbers of gallant officers and men lost their lives miserably in trying to accomplish that which they could not effect. The object proposed to be attained by that squadron was undoubtedly one of the noblest, the most humane, and the most righteous that could be imagined; and he was satisfied that if it were in any degree attained, there was not a man in the country who would grudge the sacrifice of money, or even of life attendant upon it. But it was notorious that all our efforts to put down the slave trade by our cruisers had wholly failed; we did not liberate more than one out of ten of the negroes who were carried off; and by driving those engaged in this most nefarious traffic to employ smaller vessels, wholly insufficient for the number of slaves they conveyed, we caused a frightful aggravation of the horrors of the middle passage, and occasioned a much greater number to perish by a horrible death than we succeeded in liberating from captivity. He thought that Government would do well to suppress that squadron, and devote the money to a more useful purpose. He would only add, that he was glad the Government had acquiesced in the suggestion that had been made.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had expressed his astonishment at the silence of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and said he thought that silence must be extremely gratifying to Her Majesty's Ministers. He was very sorry that that gratification would be of very short duration. But the hon. Gentleman could not be surprised that they should be reluctant to speak upon a painful subject. He thought it was one of extreme pain. Nevertheless, as he knew it to be his duty to intimate to the Government what he had ascertained to be the opinion of great numbers of his constituents—a repugnance to the proposal that the noble Lord had submitted to the House—he should not shrink from briefly discharging that duty. The proposal of the noble Lord, in brief, he might state, had been received by them with astonishment, indignation, and disgust. He always liked to express himself in plain and intelligible terms. Why should he talk for an hour—as he was sorry to say was the practice with some persons—and at the end of the hour leave his hearers in doubt as to what the speaker intended to express? There could be no difficulty, he hoped, in understanding what he had said. The noble Lord could scarcely be aware of the feeling which his proposition had raised out of doors. The people were angry to a certain extent with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth when he proposed a tax of 3 per cent upon property and income for "the short period of three years." There was a fascination in the manner of the right hon. Gentleman which made his proposition acceptable to the House. He so paved the way—he laid the ground for it so nicely—that it was next to impossible to be angry with him. The noble Lord, he must say, resorted to no expedient of that kind. He came out in a very broad and manly way; and it was quite evident that he considered his proposition would not be unacceptable to the public. The noble Lord, however, would find that it would have been of advantage if he had used some stratagem. He thought honesty was the best policy; but honesty, upon this occasion, would bring him into a dilemma. It was his deliberately-formed opinion, that although the proposition to extend the continuation of the tax might be carried for three years, it was not in the power of the Government to increase it to 5 per cent. He might be wrong; but he was sure the public would make such representations to their representatives in the House, that those representatives would not dare to support Ministers in carrying out that proposition. Let it be continued for three years; what man was there in his senses, out of a lunatic asylum, who believed that at the end of that time, after the experience they had had, it would be abandoned? No. If it were carried for two years, it would be as perpetual as any Administration could make it. He said, then, the public were right in resisting the proposal at once, because it really involved one of the most dishonest, and, in his opinion, one of the most disgraceful species of taxes that could be tolerated by any country; and if John Bull would bear the spur, then, he said, let them give him more, and punish him for his stupidity. If the proposition were carried, he hoped that before the end of the Session it would be raised to 7½ per cent; and he should be delighted to hear that it soon became 10 per cent. It would serve John Bull right. He must be the dullest of beasts if he bore the burden quietly. Upon this occasion they had the doctors in office, holding a consultation on the state of the patient. The causes that led to his complaint were not very minutely examined; but one of the doctors said to the others, "What shall we do? what was done last time?" "Oh," was the answer, "we gave him a property and income-tax." "Then double the dose," and the dose was doubled, and bitter enough it was. But did the doctors show upon this occasion that they had applied their minds really to the condition of the patient? He could not endure drastic purges for ever—they had drained him to exhaustion already, and yet they wanted to bleed him more. He came down that evening to support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose; he regretted that that Motion was not made. He was not in the House to hear the reasons that induced the hon. Member to withdraw it. If Ministers would make such a proposal as they had submitted to the House, let them take the responsibility of it. It was not his hon. Friend, but Ministers, who should suffer for it. Let them only reflect; it was but a few weeks back, before Christmas, that the House was called together to consider of the dreadful condition in which the commerce of this country was involved—of the sufferings of all classes of the community—of the threatened bankruptcies of merchants—of the failures of bankers—of the loss of work and wages by workpeople. Immediately after Christmas, within a few short weeks, what was the proposition? Was there any attempt to reduce the burdens of the country? No. A new proposition was made to increase the pressure upon an already impoverished people. If Ministers had applied their minds to the subject, was it not possible for them to have found that retrenchments could have been made in some of the public departments? His opinion was, that there was no difficulty whatever in bringing down the expenditure to the income of the country, as that income was at present constituted. It was all fudge to talk about war with France or any other country. Suppose war were to come, and that they were not prepared for it. How soon could they get prepared for it? But where was it to come from? Did not Ministers see that the people of foreign countries were too actively engaged in improving their own domestic institutions to desire to go abroad to destroy the institutions of other nations? War was a game at which Government would never be allowed to play if the people were wise; and, as intelligence throughout the world increased, they were getting the best security for peace, and that security was increasing. War was the merest bugbear, fudge, and nonsense possible—he knew not how to express himself in appropriate terms in regard to the folly of such a conception having entered into the heads of Ministers. There was not the remotest chance or prospect of foreign invasion; and yet, at peace with all the world, it was proposed to increase our naval and military armaments—at least our expenditure was to be increased; and how was it to be done? By increasing a tax that was a robbery on a large class of the people. A tax to be just should be equal, and a man ought to be called upon to pay it in proportion to his means. But the income-tax pressed most heavily on the poor man, whilst the property-tax, as at present constituted, scarcely touched the rich man. In all taxation they ought to press heavily upon wealth before they touched poverty and industry; but the income-tax, as it was now constituted, was one of the vilest and most iniquitous imposts ever placed upon the industry and ability of a country. Since he had come to town that afternoon, he had received a letter from one of his constituents, who, upon this subject, made a case which the noble Lord ought to be aware of before he came forward on Monday and asked for a confirmation of the proposal contained in his budget. But the noble Lord and his Government had already given way to a very considerable extent, in making a proposal for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate this matter, and he considered that the budget was given up. They were not to have it as an entire proposal; and he trusted that by Monday next, as the public would have sat in Committee upon the proposal before that day, the noble Lord would come down to the House with a new proposition, and would spare the House the pain of discussing this extremely disgraceful one. But this was the letter he had received, 'and he begged the attention of the House to the simple manner in which the writer put his own case:—

"Sir—Will you allow me to say a few words to you, as one of the representatives of the borough of which I am an inhabitant as well as one of your constituents, on the subject of the income-tax, as bearing so heavily on persons in my situation, and which, from Lord J. Russell's speech last night, it is sought to augment to a fearful degree, as affecting persons so situated as myself; and to request your strenuous opposition to the re-enacting of so obnoxious a tax, particularly in its proposed altered form? I am one of a class of persons who have succeeded, after many years of exertion, in obtaining an income exceeding by a few pounds the sum which makes me liable to the payment of this impost. Its operation in my case may be taken as an illustration of hundreds of others. I have a wife and children. I have to maintain my wife and self in decent respectability, and to supply the wants of both the bodies and minds of my children; this I do, and as long as health is given me, I may hope to continue to do so. But my income is dependent entirely upon the continuance of my health; and should I die (except a small sum, to secure which I have annually further to reduce my heavily-taxed income), my wife and children would be left entirely destitute; and yet I am called upon to pay from this precarious source as much as the man who has 5,000l. in the Funds, or property to that amount, of which no contingency can deprive him, and which will remain to support his family should he die! A Government seeking to preserve people from indigence, and to enable them to maintain their independence, would encourage as much as possible the practice of saving something from their present income to provide for future wants; but this tax assumes that the future is the same with all, and that the income, a portion of which should be devoted to the demands of a future day, is as fair a subject for taxation, and should be called upon to yield up as much for the wants of the State, as the income upon which there are no provident claims—an income derived from property, which, indeed, testifies for itself that the owner is in possession for himself and posterity of a decent independence. Is this fair? Ought one to be expected to pay without discontent a tax which thus confounds appearances with facts, and makes a man with 150l. pay as much as another man with 5,000l.? These facts will probably induce you to become the advocate in the House of Commons of persons similarly situated as I am—a class of persons who perhaps are without an advocate; and, should you fall into these views, your advocacy in the House of Commons might do a great deal to open the 'mind's eye' of persons who might by their influence and example effect so desirable an object. I would just add, that during the first three years of this tax, it cost me upwards of 100l. for medical attendance, &c, all of which I have had to pay out of my small salary, as well as the income-tax, assurance of my life, assessed taxes, &c."

But the noble Lord was himself an opponent of the tax; he strenuously resisted the imposition of it when it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and the noble Lord has not adduced one argument or reason to show that his opposition at the time was founded upon injustice, or that it was irrational. He would ask whether the House was disposed to do justice with reference to taxation? and, as a great many hon. Gentlemen opposite were attached to the principle of a sliding-scale, he would ask why they should not have a sliding-scale here, and why the people should not be taxed in proportion to their means? But, instead of that, hundreds and thousands of industrious men, with incomes derived from their own industry and exertions, were called upon to pay this tax; whilst others of a great amount of property were entirely excused. In many respects, the Government could not be aware of the manner in which this tax fell upon the poor. Take a man with 150l. a year, keeping a servant boy or girl at 42. or 5l. a year, to discharge a great deal of the household work. As soon as he found he was to lose 71. 10s. by this tax out of his income, he and his wife, calculating the manner in which they could make their expenditure meet their income, determined to discharge the servant. The poor creature is sent home to a distressed family, and thus misery is produced to two families by a single act of the Government, and that act an unjust one. He trusted that the noble Lord would be induced to reflect seriously on the nature of the proposal before Monday next, and would then propose some modification of it. He would beseech the noble Lord not to throw the country into agitation and angry discussion by persisting in raising this tax to 5 per cent; or, if the noble Lord thought it right for the public service, let him increase the tax to 5 per cent on real property only. But if the noble Lord was desirous, as a reformer, of acting upon public opinion, he would abandon his proposition on Monday, and propose some other in its place.

moved the sum of 800,0002. for the wages of seamen for the ensuing year. Having heard so many animadversions made on the estimates proposed, he would state that nothing could be more gratifying to the Admiralty than to have the opportunity of submitting those estimates to the closest investigation, and every item of them to calm discussion; and, if any saving could be suggested, they would have no hesitation in adopting it. There was an addition to the estimates this year for the marines; but it arose from taking the vote for twelve months, whilst last year it was taken only for six. Every First Lord of the Admiralty for the last ten years—Lord Minto, Lord Ellen-borough, and Lord Auckland—had been of opinion that the marine force of 10,000 was not strong enough, and that it was advisable to add 3,000 men to the force. The House had last year assented to the vote of an additional 1,500 marines without comment; and the Government asked now for the other 1,500 men, He had certainly not expected the storm that had broken over their heads, for proposing a vote which it was announced last year would be required. With respect to the expenditure of 30,000l. for improving the condition of officers and petty seamen after a long term of service, it had been forced upon the Government from the other side of the House.

said, he did not remember what had passed last year when the Naval Estimates were before them; but the House was very neglectful of its duty as far as passing the estimates was concerned. He did not profess to be conversant with naval affairs, but he was prepared to say that a reduction of 500,000l. might be made in the Naval Estimates without injury to the service, or diminishing the number of seamen employed.

wished to know whether the 420,0002. China ransom-money detained at the Cape was to be deducted from the l,300,000l. which represented the expenses of the Caffre war?

said, the 420,000l. China money detained at the Cape was paid into the Commissariat chest; and, not having been remitted, he was unable to draw upon the Commissariat for that amount. When the 1,300,000l. should be voted by the House for the expenses of the Caffre war, the sum of 420,000l. China money would appear as a portion of the income of this year.

His hon. Friend had asked whether the noble Lord had given the nation credit in his financial statement for this 424,000l. China money? He (Lord G. Bentinck) thought the noble Lord had not done so, and, if that were the case, there would be a surplus of that sum beyond what appeared in his statement. If it were not irregular he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the noble Lord made his financial statement, he had taken credit for the duties on corn which would be received between the 1st of March, 1848, and the 1st of February, 1849, when the Bill of 1846 came into operation.

With regard to the China money, credit would be given for it in the income of the present year, ending April, 1849. He expected to have received it early in the summer, and if it had arrived it would have appeared in the accounts ending the 5th of January, Credit had been taken in the estimate of 19,750,000l. for the Customs duties, by his noble Friend, for the probable receipts of corn between March 1 and the month of February in the next year.

moved for a part of the sum which would be necessary for the land forces. The total sum required was 3,836,000l. He proposed to take a vote for 1,800,000l. on account, leaving 2,036,000l. to be voted hereafter.

objected to so large a vote being taken, and would move that only 500,000l. be voted upon account. It was thought that the Army Estimates would not come on to-night, and that those for the Navy would alone be taken. The affairs of the Government appeared to be in a very uncertain and unsatisfactory state. There was not one single Member who appeared to know what was to happen. He was astonished to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to move for a Secret Committee to which the Navy Estimates were to be referred. If the Government would grant a Select Committee to inquire into the public expenditure of the country, some beneficial result might follow. The House would not be doing its duty to the public by voting 1,800,000l. on account for the land forces, and he would move to reduce the sum to 500,000l.

would vote with the hon. Member for Middlesex, if they went out alone. The House was asked to vote money before they knew where it was to come from. The Government asked for money on account, and the House was weak enough to grant it; and then when once the votes had been passed, should any explanation be required, it would be asked for in vain. He wondered that the House should submit to such treatment. He protested against the proceeding as a dangerous precedent, and it proved to him that the Government were ashamed or afraid to give the account they were bound to do before coming to the House for the votes.

said that the Govern- ment had asked for such a portion of this vote as was absolutely necessary for the public service, and no more. The sum asked for was not a moiety of the entire vote.

said he had heard from the Government the assurance that it was necessary for the public service some advance should be made, and he knew that the sum now proposed fell very far short of what must be voted. Under these circumstances he could not concur in any step calculated to impede the public service.

appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex to withdraw his Motion after the distinct statement of the Secretary at War.

did not wish to persist against the general impression of the House, and if the right hon. Gentleman said it was positively necessary for the public service that 1,800,000l. should be voted that night, he would give way.

moved the Second Reading of the Public Health Bill; he hoped that the House would consent to the second reading now, on the understanding that a fair interval should be given for the consideration of the clauses.

said, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he thought it tended to increase that mode of foreign government which was known by the name of "centralization." He reserved to himself full power of objecting, in Committee, to all clauses which seemed to him to have such a tendency.

said, the noble Lord was aware that medical men had made great exertions with respect to sanitary measures—that they had applied unremitting industry, great ability, and incessant labour to this important subject. And how were they rewarded? As usual, the lawyers who drew this Bill had excluded from it everything relating to medical officers. Now the lawyers never missed an opportunity of getting their own body into places; but it would scarcely be credited that in this Bill relating to the public health there was not a single provision for the introduction of medical officers. He had no doubt there were lawyer candidates twenty feet deep, for all places that could be filled by lawyers; but, from the way in which the medical practitioners were treated by the Bill, they might regard themselves as insulted, not by the noble Lord, who took an interest in medical matters, and was a supporter of an institution in the metropolis; but which, however, medical men did not very much admire. In this Bill the noble Lord had suddenly mesmerised the medical profession. Under this Bill the general Board of Health was to consist of five persons, the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and four others, two of whom were to be paid. Would the noble Lord object to the introduction of a clause providing that the two who were to be paid—who were to do the work and ought to be men of ability and knowledge—should be duly qualified members of the medical profession?

said, he was glad of the opportunity of explaining a misapprehension which he believed prevailed; he had heard the same objection which now came authoritatively from the hon. Member. He could not admit that the medical profession were slighted; for, in the first place, the Bill gave power to the Treasury of appointing such a number of superintending inspectors as might be thought fit; and from the nature of the thing a considerable number of them ought to consist of medical men or engineers, as circumstances might require. Then the Bill gave power to the local boards to appoint officers to carry out the provisions of the Bill, who might be medical men. With respect to the two members of the general board in London, it was the determination of the Government, if called upon, to exercise a choice, to select the two fittest men they could find, and he could not bind himself by any more stringent declaration as to who they might be.

did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the second reading of this Bill; on the contrary, he was convinced that some measure for promoting the public health and providing for those objects which the Bill contemplated was imperatively requisite. The subject, however, was too important to be discussed in so thin a House; and it was his opinion, that if it had not been for what fell from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was understood to say that the Bill should not be considered that evening, although it stood in the list of Orders of the Day, the House would have been in a very different condition. He was quite ready to give his noble Friend at the head of the Woods and Forests every possible credit for the ability, the diligence, and the perseverance he had displayed in preparing this measure; but there was one part of his noble Friend's conduct which he did not quite understand. The noble Lord declared that it was not his intention to make this Bill applicable to the metropolis; and yet on being asked to introduce a clause, similar to that which there was in the Bill of last year, exempting the metropolis, he declined to do so. Why should the noble Lord object to bring in a clause, the object of which was to give effect to his own intentions? The hon. Baronet his (Lord Dudley Stuart's) Colleague, had, however, given notice of his intention to move such a clause. He hoped he would persevere in it; and he should have his (Lord Dudley Stuart's) best support.

was glad that steps had at last been taken to ensure good sanitary legislation; but he was afraid that this Bill was not a hopeful one, and that it would not get on well. The clause relating to powers of appeal would, he anticipated, occasion the noble Lord some difficulty when it came to be discussed in Committee. There was no use in concealing the fact that some dissatisfaction had arisen on finding that the country districts would be dragged in to pay the expenses of the towns with which they had nothing to do. This would be pointed out as a serious objection to the measure, and he trusted that the noble Lord would reconsider the matter. There was no doubt that the Bill would be productive of a large amount of public good, but it would require some amendments.

moved the Second Reading of the Passengers' Bill.

considered it absolutely imperative on the House to adopt some such measure as this for the prevention, in future, of the sufferings to which emigrants to Canada and other countries had hitherto been exposed in the crowded and badly-arranged emigrant ships. He found that during the last emigration season to the Canadas, the mortality on the whole number of emigrants had amounted to between 17 and 18 per cent—death in most cases being attributable to fever brought on while on board ship; and it was a well- known fact that the mass of those who were landed were left in a state of utter destitution, and that through them the seeds of disease were spread through the whole colony. The evils which were thus occasioned arose entirely from the want of proper regulation in the emigrant ships, and he was glad that means were now proposed to be taken to remedy such a state of things henceforward. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would endeavour to simplify legislation on this matter; and if he repealed the two Acts which now existed, and consolidated their provisions into one measure, the public would be better satisfied, and the law would be much more intelligible. An improved mode of ventilation in the emigrant vessels was the first requisite, and it was recommended by those best acquainted with the subject that the cook-room should be always fixed on the second deck, in order that the passengers might have, as they now had not, ready access to the hot water, &c. Every precaution ought to be taken to secure the necessary comforts and conveniences to the unfortunate people who were driven by poverty from our own shores, and compelled to seek a livelihood in other countries; and no vessel ought to be allowed to clear from harbour here until it was proved on inspection that she was safe, properly fitted up, and in her cabin accommodation well ventilated. The hon. Member referred to letters from the Members of Council at Canada, describing the condition of the emigrants on arrival out from Ireland last year. It was disgraceful to this country that she had ever permitted such evils to continue unnoticed. We had by our neglect inflicted serious injury on the inhabitants of our own colonies in introducing annually among them fever and disease; and if the House had any regard to humanity or to the sufferings entailed in this way on helpless fellow-creatures, it would at once take the matter into consideration.

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to his hon. Friend, and he entirely agreed with him that it was the bounden duty of that House and of the Government to apply themselves most earnestly to prevent if possible a recurrence of the dreadful calamities which the system of emigration to North America, especially from Ireland, was accompanied by during the last year, both to the emigrants themselves and the colonists. He thought the colonists would have every reason to complain if this country did not take care to prevent a recurrence of the scenes of last year, and which had the effect of depriving them of some of the most valuable lives in the community. Lord Elgin, writing on this subject, after describing the general prosperity which he (Mr. Labouchere) was happy to say prevailed in Canada, proceeded to remark, that he was compelled to make a considerable deduction from the favourable character of the report on account of the distress and suffering occasioned in the province by the emigration of the present year; that its disastrous consequences were felt not only in the large towns but even in remote hamlets; that the subject had been forced on his attention in every part he came to through the province; and that he regretted to say he found a disposition prevailing, to contrast the sufferings experienced by Canada, as a province, compared with the immunity enjoyed by the States, who were able to take care of themselves. He would beg leave to remind the shipowners that it was impossible for this country to prevent the North American Colonies to take what steps they might find necessary to protect themselves, if Parliament here neglected to adopt measures for saving the colonists from a recurrence of such dangers. In order to show the necessity of legislating on the matter, he need only state the one fact, that in former years the average mortality among emigrants to Canada was not more than a half per cent, whereas last year it amounted to the frightful rate of 17 per cent. It was true that that proportion did not perish in the vessels, but they died either on the voyage or in quarantine, or in the hospitals immediately after arriving. Such a state of things deserved the most serious consideration of Parliament; and he should deeply regret if the emigration of the coming season—which, he might remark, promised to be quite as large from Ireland as it was last year—was allowed to go on without the House doing what it could to prevent a recurrence of evils so shocking to humanity, and so destructive to all sound policy in matters of the kind. He was aware that a great cause—perhaps the principal cause—of the sufferings of last year, was one against which it was impossible for them to guard by legislation, namely, the prevalence of fever in Ireland during the last season. The emigrants brought the seeds of fever out with them, which it was impossible to discover until after the ship had put to sea; but if any hon. Gentleman would look to the evidence that had been laid on the table of the House, he would see that that cause had been infinitely aggravated by the course of mismanagement which had been pursued, and by the want of any proper regulations or control in the vessels into which these unfortunate creatures entered. In this state of things the Colonial Office, and more especially the Commissioners of Emigration, had applied themselves seriously to consider what alterations in the law had been best to recommend for the adoption of the House. The result was the Bill which he had the honour to submit to the House. The main alterations which it proposed in the existing law were—In the first place it proposed to increase the space allotted to the emigrants on board from ten feet for each person to twelve feet; but even then the British law would be less restrictive than the American law, which provided that a -vessel could carry only one for every fourteen feet. Another point on which he thought it right to introduce an alteration in the law was that which provided that a certain quantity of food should be carried for each emigrant. The quantity was by no means sufficient for the support of an emigrant during the voyage, as it was expected that the emigrants would always bring some food for themselves. During last year, however, it was found that in the unfortunate position of Ireland whole crowds threw themselves almost without any food into the vessels, relying entirely upon what they might get on board. This alone was sufficient to account for the dreadful state of things that had been reported to the House in the papers lately presented. One very important alteration was proposed to be made in this respect: it was that emigrant ships to America, like those to Australia, should be provided with a sufficient quantity of food to sustain the lives of the passengers. He came now to the provision which had excited the greatest alarm among the parties interested in emigrant vessels, namely, that each ship should carry a respectable Government officer to protect the emigrants by seeing that the regulations for the voyage were properly enforced, and if necessary to complain of the conduct of those who had violated them upon the arrival of the vessel at its destination. Many of the emigrants who had arrived bore most abundant proof that no care was taken on board to observe the law; they were afraid to make complaints, and he feared that whatever laws might be made, the emigrants had no redress. The Government officer and superintendent, however, would attend to these complaints—he would attend to the proper ventilation of the ship, and provide for decent habits of cleanliness and some moral restraint among the emigrants—both of which had been sadly wanting in some instances that had come under his notice. A proposal had been strongly urged upon the attention of the Government, which was most deserving of consideration. It was that every emigrant ship should be obliged to take out a surgeon. He wished he was in a condition to recommend with confidence the House to pass an enactment of this kind, for he admitted that not even the respectable persons to be appointed superintendents, who would be taken generally from the warrant officers in the Navy, would be sufficient. His noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had been most anxious to make such a proposal; but, after the fullest inquiry, his noble Friend and the Emigration Commissioners had come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to find surgeons for so great a number of emigrant ships as were expected to sail this year. With these opinions, expressed by competent medical authority, the Government had reluctantly abstained from proposing that every emigrant ship should be obliged to carry a surgeon; but he was not without the hope, if the House sanctioned the regulation for taking out Government superintendents, that that would be the means of inducing captains to carry surgeons in their vessels in far more instances than they did at present. It was the intention of the Emigration Commissioners and of the Colonial Office, in cases where the vessel carried a surgeon, to appoint the surgeon to be the superintendent, by which the expense would be a very slight addition to that borne by the captain. The cost of the superintendents would be made as light as possible consistent with the objects of the Bill. It would be, as at present proposed, 20l. and 1s. per head, on taking out the emigrants, which would have to be defrayed by the owners of the vessels; but the Government would undertake the charge of bringing back the superintendents, which he estimated at not more than 10l. It was of importance that this measure should come into operation before the emigration season commenced; and having that object in view as well as the efficiency of its provisions, he should propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, from which he hoped it would be presented to the House in a shape which would prevent any lengthened discussion on its future stages. Before he sat down he would read an account of what had actually taken place last year on board one of the emigrant ships for America—an account contained in a private letter, but which the Colonial Office thought of so much importance that it would be made a public document, and presented to the House. The letter was written by an Irish gentleman of station and family, Mr. Stephen De Vere, brother of Sir Aubrey De Vere, who, having occasion to go to British North America, and knowing that some emigrants from his own part of Ireland were going out, actuated by the most honourable and humane motives, determined to go himself in the condition of a steerage passenger, that he might make himself personally acquainted with the condition of the steerage passengers when crossing the Atlantic. The picture drawn by this gentleman of what had actually taken place, afforded the strongest evidence of the absolute necessity of some more stringent regulations than those which now existed:—

"No moral restraint is attempted; the voice of prayer is never heard; drunkenness, with its consequent train of ruffianly debasement, is not discouraged, because it is profitable to the captain, who traffics in grog. In the ship which brought me out from London last April, the passengers were found in provisions by the owners, according to a contract, and a furnished scale of dietary. The meat was of the worst quality. The supply of water shipped on board was abundant; but the quantity served out to the passengers was so scanty that they were frequently obliged to throw overboard their salt provisions, and rice (a most important article of their food), because they had not water enough both for the necessary cooking and the satisfying of their raging thirst afterwards. They could only afford water for washing by withdrawing it from all the cooking of their food. I have known persons to remain for four days together in their dark close berths because they suffered less from hunger, though compelled at the same time by want of water to heave overboard their salt provisions and rice. No cleanliness was enforced, the beds never aired, the master during the whole voyage never entered the steerage, and would listen to no complaints; the dietary contracted for was, with some exceptions, nominally supplied, though at irregular periods, but false measures were used (in which the water and several articles of dry food were served), the gallon measure containing but three quarts, which fact I proved in Quebec, and had the captain fined for. Once or twice a week ardent spirits were sold indiscriminately to the passengers, producing scenes of unchecked blackguardism beyond description; and lights were prohibited, because the ship, with her open firegrates upon deck, with lucifer matches and lighted pipes used secretly in the sleeping berths, was freighted with Government powder for the garrison of Quebec. The case of this ship was not one of peculiar misconduct; on the contrary, I have the strongest reason to know, from information which I have received from very many emigrants, well known to me, who came over this year in different vessels, that this ship was better regulated and more comfortable than many."

It was fortunate that the House was able to have the testimony of so competent a witness as this gentleman. He (Mr. Labouchere) believed what was here said was true, and by no means a single instance. It showed that any legal provisions, without a Government officer to see them carried into effect, would be nugatory and ineffective. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, whether he would take this opportunity to consolidate all the Passenger Acts into one, he agreed that as a general proposition it was desirable that Bills of this kind should be compressed into a single statute, rather than scattered over three or four. On the other hand, as the subject was very pressing, and it was expedient that the law should be settled soon, he considered he was acting prudently in not undertaking to consolidate all the existing Acts.

was unable to understand why this Bill should be hung up in Committee, except Select Committees were so much in fashion that Her Majesty's Ministers could do nothing without them. The value of the measure consisted in its being carried rapidly, because the season for emigration had already begun. Indeed there had been a winter emigration, for since November last 4,000 persons had emigrated to Canada. He was glad the Emigration Commissioners and the Board of Trade were attending to this matter; but unless the owners of emigrant ships could be bound not to oppose it, as he believed they would, the Bill would have to be discussed in the House, as well as in Committee. Indeed, unless Her Majesty's Ministers were not satisfied with their own measure, he could not understand what object would be gained by sending it to a Select Committee upstairs. The cases quoted by the right hon. Gentleman proved the necessity of strong regulations; and he hoped that no mongrel notions of free trade would stop the progress of the Bill. He hoped there would be no free trade in pestilence, for many emigrant vessels, underlet as they had been, conveyed double destruction—destruction to those on board, and in many instances to those on whose shores they landed, some of which were not under the sway of the British Crown. The ordinary number of deaths was stated to be 17 per cent; but he believed it would be four or five per cent more if the mortality was taken into consideration that occurred in the colonies themselves. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to the quantity of room to be afforded to each emigrant, to the food, and to the superintendence. With regard to the food there was generally a want of variety, which was the cause of many diseases on board. He approved of the inspection; but unless it was strictly enforced, owners and masters would set it at nought; and he thought the Bill would be improved if it provided for a better inspection of the seaworthiness of vessels. As to consolidation, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not try it yet; let him secure this Bill, and try to consolidate about the end of the Session.

admitted the importance of the Bill passing as rapidly as possible; but its consideration by a Select Committee would involve no delay. The object of the Select Committee would not be to take evidence, and two days would be sufficient time for them to consider the measure. It was undesirable, however, to pledge the Government to meet the views of the hon. Member for Montrose, as to the consolidation of the several Bills on this subject. It would be wiser first to pass this measure, and then direct attention to consolidation. Any other course would create delay, and cause matters to remain as they were.

was in favour of consolidating the different Acts, but believed a measure of that nature would not pass if it were delayed till the end of the Session. Neither did he think this Bill calculated to check or stint the emigration now going on from Ireland; and he hoped that shipowners, however stringent the regulations might be, would consider that the loss of one ship was much more calculated to deter emigration than those regulations. With regard to the superintendence, if the superintendent was not a surgeon he could not see how he would be available. How could the superintendent be invested with power, if he were not a surgeon? Unless he were a man with authority his office would have no value, and the captain would have him under his control the whole voyage. If his right hon. Friend looked at some of the cases which had occurred, he would find there had been a great deficiency in the number of emigration agents at the different ports. He hoped, therefore, that the Emigration Commissioners would appoint more emigration agents at the outports, to inspect the ships before they started, and to look after and provide for the emigrants on their arrival.

thought the provisions of the Bill were as perfect as they could be under the circumstances of the case; and on the part of his constituents he felt bound to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the enactments of the Bill, and for the pains which he had taken to see those enactments carried out. He also begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) for his suggestion relative to the independence of the superintendent, which he thought well worthy the consideration of the Government. He trusted the Bill would be cordially received by the poor of the country, for whose benefit he was sure it was intended.

thought the present system of emigration was highly discreditable to the Government and to the Legislature. It had been officially stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) that deaths had occurred in emigrant ships to the extent of seventeen per cent. The Emigration Commissioners might be justified, by the evidence they had received, in making the report they had made to the House with regard to the difficulty of providing surgeons for emigrant ships; but this subject had been under the consideration of the House last year; and he then said, that if surgeons were adequately paid, there would be no difficulty in obtaining their services. The Emigration Commissioners, however, had derived their information from some of the most eminent men in the profession, who unfortunately knew nothing of the subject. He believed that no persons could be more efficient as superintendents of emigrant ships than medical practitioners, who were men of good education, who were fully aware of the necessity of preserving discipline, and who were well acquainted with the requisites for ensuring the comfort and health of the passengers. But was it likely that legally qualified members of the medical profession could be obtained as surgeons to emigrant ships for 20l. a voyage, with the prospect of some 10l., 15l., or 20l., which might be given them by the owners in addition to that miserable stipend? The average duration of the voyage was six or seven weeks; and for a voyage outwards of seven weeks, and homewards of seven weeks, the surgeon was to receive 20l.! Why, it was preposterous to suppose that competent medical men could be obtained for so paltry a pittance. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that as the persons who chartered emigrant ships did so as a pecuniary speculation, their object was to get everything done at the lowest possible cost; and he considered that the Government ought to step in and to insist that proper measures should be taken to insure the comfort of the miserable beings who were compelled to leave this country to seek a subsistence in a foreign land. The Government, however, had not struck at the root of the evil; and he was satisfied that without placing in every emigrant ship a competent medical practitioner, it was impossible to remedy many of those evils which had been deplored by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. He regretted to express his conviction that this measure fell far short of what the unfortunate people of Ireland and the public had a right to expect; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the subject with a view of ascertaining whether, by adopting proper measures, it was not possible to obtain a sufficient number of competent medical practitioners. In connexion with the three medical colleges in England, Ireland, and Scotland, there were not less than 17,000 surgeons, besides licentiates of the various colleges of physicians of other societies; and he was satisfied that if a proper remuneration was offered no difficulty would be experienced in obtaining the services of duly qualified medical men. He wished to state, however, that these services were not likely to be obtained for such a reward as was offered by the Government last year to the medical officers of fever hospitals in Ireland. Would the House believe that the pay of physicians and surgeons, whose duty it was to attend persons suffering from typhus fever in the fever hospitals of Ireland, had been 5s. a day? And what had been the mortality among those men? One in fifteen had fallen victims to the discharge of their perilous duties; and he hoped if an appeal were made to that House by their widows and orphans, it would not be made in vain. He was convinced that if a proper inducement was held out, there would be no diffi- culty in obtaining a sufficient number of medical men as surgeons of emigrant ships.

observed, that the hon. Member for Kerry had stated that the only objection he anticipated to this Bill was from the shipowners. Now, he must plead guilty to being a shipowner; but no one could hail with more satisfaction than himself the introduction of this Bill, for no one could more strongly reprobate the practice which was generally adopted with regard to emigrant ships. He was only afraid that the clauses of the Bill would not be sufficiently stringent to prevent the awful sacrifice of human life which took place for want of arrangements which might easily be carried out in emigrant ships. He considered, however, that other matters connected with this subject deserved attention; for it was well known to every shipowner that the greater part of the ships employed in the Quebec trade in carrying out emigrants would never return with the weight of cargo they brought from Quebec, if it were not that the cargo carried the ship instead of the ship carrying the cargo. He thought, therefore, it was most advisable that emigrant ships should be subjected to proper inspection before they sailed.

considered that all that could be done ought to be done to promote the comfort of emigrants; but there was one simple remedy for many of the evils that had been alluded to, which did not seem to have occurred to any hon. Member. He saw no great hardship in prohibiting all spirituous liquors from being taken on board emigrant ships. If the passengers were kept sober he would answer for it their health would be improved. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) was always recommending the employment of medical men of great talent; but his (Mr. Brotherton's) opinion was, that the best physicians they could employ were Doctor Diet, Doctor Quiet, and Doctor Merriment.

begged to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) for the pains he had taken in the preparation of this Bill; but he certainly considered that the measure would not be altogether effectual in promoting the objects the right hon. Gentleman had in view; and he thought, therefore, it was most advisable that its provisions should be discussed in a Committee upstairs. There were one or two respects in which he considered that the Bill was susceptible of improvement; and he might refer particularly to one of the last clauses, which provided that the measure should not apply to the description of passengers generally known as cabin passengers. He had had the misfortune to be a cabin passenger on board a vessel the greater part of which was appropriated to emigrants; and he might mention the plan which was adopted by the owners to evade the provisions of the Acts then in force to regulate the conveyance of emigrants. The part of the vessel appropriated to emigrants was under the main deck; and the after part of the ship was separated from the fore part by bulkheads of sufficient thickness to prevent the passage of bad air fore and aft. To make room for a greater number of passengers the whole of these bulkheads were removed, an entire communication was established throughout the vessel, and as many as eight men were introduced into one cabin as intermediate passengers. He considered, then, that unless very stringent provisions were adopted, interested parties would contrive to evade the provisions of the Bill; and he begged to suggest the propriety of altogether omitting the clause relating to cabin passengers.

called the attention of the House to the numerous shipwrecks, with the extensive loss of life, which occasionally occurred off the Shetland Islands, and to the great deficiency of coast lights on those islands. By an extract from Lloyd's books it appeared that no less than fourteen shipwrecks occurred from between the end of December to the 12th of February on those islands, the crews of seven or eight of which perished altogether. There was only one light on the islands; at least two other lights were required. Why were they not erected? It could not be for want of funds, for the Board of Northern Lights in Scotland levied a heavy charge on the shipping of the country for the purpose of maintaining lights on the coast, and they had a balance of upwards of 39,000l. in hand. The hon. Member expressed a hope that the Government would turn their attention to this subject, and concluded by moving for an abstract account of the amount of money levied by the Trinity-house and the Board of Northern Lights, Scotland, for the year 1847.

did not wonder the hon. Member should have thought it his duty to bring the subject before the House. It was one which deserved the attention of the Government. The construction of the Board at Trinity-house, and of the Commissioners of Northern Lights in Scotland, was most objectionable. The members were tradesmen, lawyers, or civilians of some other description, with hardly a sailor amongst them. But the whole system of lighting on our coasts, and of light dues levied on English and foreign ships, was objectionable. The United States never made any charge on account of lights, while we levied a charge on the ships of all nations. He hoped soon to see the mercantile navy of this country placed upon as respectable a footing as the navy of America or any other country. There ought to be a national board in England as in every other country, and one uniform system of lights established in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

would not on the present occasion say anything as to the manner in which the lights on the coasts of this country ought to be managed; neither did he intend to offer any opposition to the production of the accounts asked for by the hon. Gentleman. He was quite sure that the Board of Northern Lights would stand the test of any inquiry which the House might think proper to institute. They had just finished a lighthouse on the highway between England and America, at an expense of nearly 100,000l., and they had expended every sixpence which they had in their possession. He did not mean to say that if they had funds, they should not build lighthouses; but at this moment all their funds were absorbed. The deficiency in their funds might be accounted for by the reduction which they had made in the dues receivable from shipping.