, in moving the Second Reading of these Bills, said, he was not aware that any distinct objection had been taken to the principle of them. As to the complaints which had been made of the time at which they had been brought forward, he begged to remind the House that both the principle of the measures and the machinery by which it was proposed to carry them out had been already fully discussed. Bills had been introduced, read a second time, and passed through Committee pro formâ, and then withdrawn for certain alterations. The present Bills had been introduced in the House of Lords at the beginning of the year, and copies of them had been sent, by his direction, to every town and borough in Scotland. Since March not fewer than 300 copies had been so distributed. With respect to the principle of the measures, the same considerations which in 1837 had led to the introduction of a system of registering births, deaths, and marriages in England, must equally lead to the adoption of such a system for Scotland; and the object was to establish there what had been found to work so advantageously in this country. The expense for the whole of Scotland would not exceed 9,500l., It would be regulated in the same manner as in England, and would be subject to the control of Parliament by an annual vote. One ground of opposition to the Bill was, that it was proposed to connect the payment of the expenses with the; charges for the relief of the poor. If the rate were large, he should not he prepared to connect it with the poor-rate; both the establishments would be distinct, and there would be no mixture of accounts; and if there was a proper machinery, and if the accounts of what was to be applied to the poor, and what was to be applied to registration, were kept distinct, there could be no objection to the connexion. No one denied that the expense of registration should be borne by a parochial rate the re was another Bill, for altering and amending the law of marriage in Scotland. It would he useless to introduce a Bill for registering marriages without altering the law of marriage. The law of Scotland as to marriage was this—it adopted the principle that consent alone made marriage. That was the principle of the general law of Europe, and at one time was the law of England. The law of Scotland did not require the presence of a priest, nor the intervention of any religious ceremony. The law of Scotland considered marriage to be a civil contract, but it did not provide any particular mode by which that contract was to be proved. Marriages in Scotland might be had in this way—parties might say to each other, no witnesses being present—" We agree to marry;" that would be a good marriage if the parties acknowledged their marriage afterwards, or without such acknowledgment if witnesses were present at the agreement. Or writings might be interchanged between the parties, which would constitute a valid marriage, and this was often done, not for the legitimate purpose of marriage, but in order to enable a woman to establish her status as a widow, and thereby to obtain a large sum from an insurance office, or other funds. There were other modes of marriage. If a man promised a woman to marry her, and if intercourse took place between the parties, that gave effect to the promise, and the marriage was hold to be rendered effectual by consummation. Formerly the oath of the party was required, but now consummation alone was held sufficient. A looser marriage law, he believed, was not known in any civilised country, and it was a reproach to Scotland that such uncertainty should exist. Cases occurred of conflicting decisions of the courts as to the validity of Scotch marriages. There was a recent case upon which the Lord Ordinary decided (me way, and the Court of Session another; and when the case went before the House of Lords last Session, after hearing an argument which lasted a fortnight or three weeks, the House of Lords overruled the decision of the Court of Session, and affirmed that of the Lord Ordinary, whereby the validity of the marriage was established, whereas the parties in that case never intended to contract a marriage, and the decision led to the grossest hardship. There was a case in which a man in the presence of his servants said of a woman with whom he lived, "This is my wife, she saying nothing, and a few hours afterwards he shot himself. It was decided that he was sane, and after a litigation of many years it was decided by the House of Lords that the marriage was good; and under that decision an estate of 20,000l. a year went from the heir-at-law. He did not mean to interfere with the principle of the marriage law of Scotland or with those parties who chose to go through a religious ceremony before a clergyman—he left that as it was; but with regard to other marriages, called irregular marriages, what he proposed to do was this:—Here was a registry; if parties did not wish to marry before a clergyman—and he did not propose to compel them—they must go to the registrar, and have their marriage recorded, and thereby secure themselves and their issue, as well as the public, against the evils which did and must arise from marriages so loosely and easily contracted. Was the Legislature to encourage clandestine marriages? He had never heard a person bold enough to say that such a relation might be contracted and the contract concealed, and that each of the parties might have an opportunity of denying it. Wishing not to interfere with the principle, but only to establish a record, he said that if parties did not go before a clergyman, they should not resort to an equivocal mode of proving their marriage; they should go before the registrar, and if they did neither, he said all other modes should be excluded, and the marriage should he no marriage. It had been objected that he was giving validity to irregular marriages. What was an irregular marriage? If bans were not proclaimed in church, and if, without proclaiming bans, the parties went to a clergyman and he married them, that was an irregular marriage; and, in that case, the contriver of the marriage was liable to a certain penalty. What were these bans? It was not said that the bans should be published in a certain manner; they might be read three times on one Sunday, when only servants were present in the church, or nobody might hear them, and if a certificate were given that the bans had been proclaimed, the marriage might be celebrated by a clergyman, who was not subject to a penalty. That was the security which the law of Scotland afforded to marriages, and that was called encouraging regular marriages, and discouraging irregular ones. Suppose the bans were not proclaimed, and no clergyman was applied to, and the marriage was absolutely irregular. Suppose two parties stopped a man in the street, and said, "This is my wife," and "this is my husband;" or suppose they went before a magistrate—all these were irregular modes of marriage; but there was no penalty by the law of Scotland. But if some of the decencies of life were preserved—if a clergyman married the parties—the law of Scotland said, because you resorted to any religious ceremony at all, the clergyman shall be liable to a heavy penalty because the bans were not proclaimed. If you resort to religion without proclaiming the bans, the clergyman is subject to penalties; but if you give up religion altogether, and have nothing to do with a clergyman, it is no matter; the marriage is good, though irregular, and there is no penalty. It could not be said that he encouraged clandestine marriages by putting down all modes of marriage except by a clergyman or before a registrar; yet petitions had been sent to that House complaining that this Bill encouraged clandestine and irregular marriages. The learned Lord concluded with moving that the Bill be read a second time.

said, this Bill had been considered in almost every district in Scotland, and it was a matter well worthy the attention of the House, that in the course of the last year as many as two hundred and thirty-nine petitions from various parts of Scotland were presented against the Bill, and in favour of it only five petitions. At present there existed but one feeling on the subject, and that was decidedly opposed to the measure. Now, supposing that there was not clear evidence of that fact, he would ask the House, did their experience of the Scottish people load them to think that that portion of Her Majesty's subjects were so fickle as to entertain strong opinions at one side of such a question last year, and change those opinions to the other side in the present Session? He thought he had very strong grounds for complaining that at this period of the Session the Bill now before them was hurried forward with unseemly haste. It was only on the 28th of July, that it had been printed, and it was therefore impossible that copies could even by this time have been transmitted to the north of Scotland. He was not opposed to a Registration Bill, but he was decidedly opposed to the Bill then before them; and he should now move as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day three months.

said, that as he was not opposed to the principle of either Bill, he should rather not vote in favour of the Amendment. He should wish to take the second reading of the Marriages Bill then, and postpone further proceeding on the subject until next Session. He did not deny many of the inconveniences which had been pointed out by the learned Lord, and he felt no indisposition to support a measure the object of which would be to make people cautious; but he thought it extremely unfair at such a period of the Session as the present, to press forward a measure of this kind, without giving the parties principally interested an opportunity of being heard. They were proceeding with this Bill without any request from the people of Scotland to that effect. The learned Lord, in bringing this Bill forward, plainly wished to carry the House with him; but what sort of a House did he address? Throughout the whole of his speech there were not forty Members present. It was like the manner in which it was endeavoured to pass the Bank Bill last year; and what was the result—a universal condemnation of the whole proceeding. He wished registration to take effect; but he objected to the first Bill, because he did not think it would furnish a fair and honest registration. Under it any man might register his own death or the birth of a child, or that of a child which was dead. He wanted to see something like the system of registration which prevailed on the Continent, where no registration was effected till witnesses were examined, and every species of fair investigation instituted. It was really too bad thus at the close of a Session to bring in such a measure. The Bill, in its present form, had been submitted to the Statistical Society—a body very competent to judge of its merits and its demerits. By them very serious imperfections had been pointed out; and the learned Lord agreed then to refer Bill to a Committee upstairs, after which the Bill was for a time at least withdrawn. That, certainly, was not an inexpedient proceeding, for the society had detected and exposed many grave errors. Let them make it a perfect measure, and it should have his support, but not otherwise. He could not assent to an imperfect measure, which was to be worked at an expense of 10,000l.; and he thought that the people of Scotland were fairly entitled to have such a Bill considered by a Committee upstairs. He should be well pleased, therefore, if the Lord Advocate did not at present call upon them to go into Committee, especially when it was recollected that during the present year not one petition had come from Scotland in favour of the Bill. He should vote against the further progress of the Bill in every stage; but as he was not against the principle, he should agree to the second reading upon the understanding that they were in the present Session to proceed no further, otherwise he should vote in favour of the Amendment.

was most anxious to carry out the wishes of his constituents by opposing the Bill which the learned Lord had brought under their consideration. But, however desirous he might be to resist every stage of the measure, he could not remain in town for that purpose, for a corps of yeomanry to which he had the honour to belong had been called out upon service in the disturbed districts, and he therefore must bring his Parliamentary attendance to a close. Serious opposition had been raised against the measure, and though many persons approved of the Bill, and admitted the soundness of its principle, yet they had never been told what the expenses of it were to be. Ought they, under such circumstances, to proceed to deliberate upon the details of such a measure? The Session was just closing—he saw by the newspapers that the Ministerial Gentlemen were to have their fish dinner on the 19th. Was it reasonable, then, to ask them to go on discussing such a Bill when there was not even a quorum present? He should move that the House be counted.

said, a question before the House, connected with this Marriage Bill, was, whether it was politic and wise to cut off the outlet for hasty, and it might be irregular, marriages, which existed in consequence of the actual state of the law in Scotland? The point for a father of a family to decide, was, whether, if his daughter was unhappily carried off in the way that sometimes happened, he would wish she should be married within twelve hours, or kept for a fortnight. Both English and Irish Gentlemen were interested in this subject; and it appeared extremely likely that it would be for the welfare of the female part of the community that the law should continue as it was. He knew that hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were anxious for what an English classic called "the preservation of the female game;" but if they would suppose the case applied to themselves, they would discover that they had a countervailing interest in maintaining the law as it stood.

said, the religious ceremony ought to be that portion of the proceedings connected with marriage which the House should especially recognise, and he wished that they could enforce a greater degree of strictness than had yet been put into operation with respect to the law of marriage. He believed that no one now denied the necessity of registration; at the same time, he hoped the House would not at so advanced a period of the Session proceed further with the Bill.

observed, that every one agreed in this, that the Bill then before them was the same measure that had been before the people of Scotland since last April twelvemonth, and, although everybody agreed in the principle, yet hon. Members seemed to contend that there was not now time to consider the measure—they agreed in the principle, but they did not like the machinery; and that reasoning, if good for anything, went to show that they ought at once to go into Committee on the Bill. He felt considerable suprise that hon. Members did not appear to be aware of the inconvenience which resulted from the present state of the law upon all occasions where it became necessary to inquire into cases of disputed succession. One case he might mention, it was that of a woman, who for some time was known in Glasgow by a particular name; she afterwards went to America, and in consequence of some legal proceedings which had been taken, as many as 300 persons of the same name started into existence, which stopped the whole of the proceedings that had been instituted with regard to the property that had in the first instance occasioned the litigation. Marriage consisted of two parts, the religious part and the civil contract. With the latter alone had the State to do, in order that it might know to whom property should descend, leaving every person of right feeling, who desired also to receive the Messing of God in respect to the act of marriage, to decide where he would go for that blessing. He therefore thought it would he necessary to leave out of the Bill all the religious part; but he trusted that the learned Lord would press both Bills through Parliament during the present Session.

The law of marriage in Scotland was disgraceful, and attended with serious consequences, particularly to the female part of the community. He thought that the statements of the learned Lord must convince the House of the absolute necessity of some change in respect to it. He saw no reason for putting off the Bills, as their nature was perfectly well known by the people of Scotland.

was sensible of the mischiefs experienced by the present state of the marriage law in Scotland, and of the imperious necessity of some change. Therefore, if the learned Lord would be satisfied simply with the affirmation of the principle, that some alteration of the nature proposed should take place, both in respect to marriages and registration in Scotland, he would readily assent to the second reading of each of the Bills; but, thinking it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give anything like due consideration to the details of the measures in the present Session, he felt bound to urge the hon. and learned Lord not to press them beyond the second reading. If the Marriage Bill stood alone, so great was the necessity of some change in the law, that it might possibly pass during the present Session; but, mixed up as it was with the machinery of the other Bill, it would require an elaborate discussion; and he would ask whether there was any reasonable prospect of an opportunity for such discussion being afforded at that period?

said, in reference to the course suggested by the right hon. Member for Buteshire, that he must press the second reading of the Bills unconditionally. At the same time he did not mean to say that he was not aware of the importance of some observations which had fallen from Scotch Members; and he should consider whether those observations were such as to induce him, in reference to the period of the Session or the state of the House, not to proceed with the Bills. He must, however, be understood as not pledging himself not to proceed with them.

asked whether Ministers, seeing the great and intense interest upon the subject of emigration, were prepared to take that subject into consideration during the recess, with a view to diffuse information, and afford facilities to those who desired to emigrate; he did not mean by an advance of money from the public funds?

could assure the noble Lord that the Government would be very happy to take any steps that might tend to diffuse information upon the subject. He thought that it would not be desirable, even if they had the means, to propose at present any large grant for the purpose, and that those who were desirous of emigrating would do much better to concert among themselves to make their emigration regular and well conducted than to look to the Government.

With the aid of whatever facilities the Government can afford.

rose to ask, whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government, cither singly or in concert with her Allies, to mediate between Sardinia and Austria, for the pacification of the North of Italy?

In answer to the question of my hon. Friend, I can assure him and the House that Her Majesty's Government are deeply sensible of the great importance of seeing a termination put to that unfortunate warfare which is now taking place in the north of Italy; and I am able—although I have no right to speak for another Government—yet I believe I may assure the House that that desire is equally shared by the Government of France. Her Majesty's Government arc, therefore, about—I may say, already engaged, but about to take stops, in conjunction I trust with the Government of France, for the purpose of endeavouring by amicable negotiation to bring that warfare to an end.

had given no notice of the question he was about to put to the Foreign Secretary, but no doubt the noble Lord could answer it at once: it was, whether he was not in possession of an official report of the Belgian Government, giving a distinct contradiction to the statement made the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson); and if so, whether the document would be laid on the table?

believed the Belgian Government was better engaged than in contradicting statements of Members of this House. But he really did not know to what the noble Lord referred.

referred to the statement made respecting the sugar duties, and the premium given by the Belgian Government on the exportation of refined sugar.

would ascertain whether there was such a document.

You have got it.

was aware that peculiar importance was attached to this clause, owing to the circumstances under which it had been introduced into the Bill. It must at once be admitted, the clause was at variance with the principle of the important Amendment made in the Bill when it was before the House of Commons, on the proposition of the hon. Member for Oxford, and assented to by the Government. In the House of Lords this Bill had been referred to a Select Committee; and he believed that in determining on that course their Lordships were actuated by no desire to infringe upon the constitutional privileges of the House of Commons, but solely by a wish to make the Bill as efficacious as possible. The clause was proposed by a right rev. Prelate, who, perhaps, had a more intimate acquaintance with the condition and requirements of the poor than any other Member of his sacred order; for his Lordship had derived his knowledge upon those points partly from having performed his duties in the most exemplary manner, partly from being the bishop of the most densely peopled diocese, and partly from having acted as a Member of the Commission appointed to inquire into the health of towns. But although the clause came to the House recommended by what he at once admitted to be very high authority, he was about to ask the House to consent to make an alteration in it. Having placed himself in communication with the Registrar General—whose official reports, by the way, were the most valuable documents in a statistical point of view which ever appeared in this or any other country—that officer had expressed an opinion that the state of diseases enumerated in the clause would not always afford a fair criterion of the sanitary condition of the district, and therefore he was about to propose au alteration in the clause, which would effect the object which the framer of the clause and the House of Lords had in view in a more simple manner. The returns of the Registrar General gave for every registration and sub-registration district in England an accurate account of mortality, and the proportion of the number of deaths, calculated on an average of seven years, to the population at large; and he intended to make that information available for the purpose of the amendment which he wished the House to effect in the clause. He would propose that all the words in the clause relating to particular diseases should be omitted, and their place supplied by other words, which would provide that where the deaths in any city, town, borough, parish, or Place" should amount to twenty-three to a thousand of the population for such "city, town, borough, parish, or place," the General Board of Health might direct inquiry to be made for the purpose stated in the clause. The proportion of twenty-three to 1,000 would afford security that the Act would not be put into operation except in cases where there was such a manifest amount of unhealthiness indicated by the high rate of mortality, that no persons possessed of the ordinary feelings of humanity would object to the application of sanitary regulations. Te average of deaths for all England, according to the Registrar General's returns, was twenty-one to 1,000 of the population. The average in the most healthy districts—Reigate, Godstone, and Barnet—was fifteen and sixteen to 1,000; and the average in the most unhealthy districts was twenty-nine and thirty to 1,000. When, therefore, he took twenty-three to 1,000 as the proportion of deaths necessary to justify the application of the Act to any district, it could not with justice be alleged that he had fixed upon too low an average. Before resuming his seat, he was anxious to address a few observations to the House upon a topic of the deepest interest. It was far from his wish to excite undue alarm on the subject of the cholera; but he would not be acting a fair and friendly part to the public, were he to conceal the fact that it had been ascertained that the cholera was advancing in precisely the same direction as that which it pursued in 1832—that it had been heralded in this country by the same precursor as on the former occasion, namely, a great amount of influenza, which prevailed a few months ago, and by a great increase of diarrhœa, ending fatally in many cases, now prevalent—and that by recent accounts it had spread as far west as Riga, Narva, and Revel. It would be most gratifying to his feelings to be able to state that this frightful visitation was approaching us in a more mild form than that under which we had already had dreadful experience of its mortal effects; but unfortunately that was not the case, as would appear from the communications received from our Ministers and Consuls abroad, some of which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. A return of the casualties from cholera at St. Petersburgh to the latest date, July 24, gave the following results:—Cases, 17,742; deaths, 10,138; cures, 4,618; under treatment, 1,986—Proportions per 100—deaths, 57; cures, 26; under treatment, 17. At Moscow the cases were 9,754; deaths, 4,309. The account from Odessa was almost as afflicting:—

"Odessa, Juno 28,1847.

"My Lord—The presence of the cholera in this town was for the first time acknowledged by public authority yesterday. According to official report there were on that day—New cases, 133; deaths, 44; recoveries, 23, And from the 19th of May to the present day, in town and in the port—total number of cases, 824; of deaths, 332; of recoveries, 235; remaining sick, 257. The present population of Odessa is stated to exceed 90,000 inhabitants. I am not yet prepared to speak on the mode of treatment adopted here, which, in the hands of professional men, varies very materially under different circumstances. All condemn neglect of first symptoms, however trifling, recommending instant and energetic remedies; and the simplest means thus applied, in numerous cases, have proved successful; such as large doses of the essence of peppermint, even brandy with pepper or ginger, and, in particular, violent friction. The cholera is reported to be very severe in Nicolaveff and Cherson, and in parts of Bessarabia. It is spreading throughout the country, and is advancing rapidly westward. It has likewise reappeared in the towns on the Azoff, though in a very slight degree.—I have, &c.

"JAMES YEAMES.

"The Right Hon. Viscount Palmerston, G.C.B."

The noble Lord read several other letters to show the progress of the disease. It could not be expected that the adoption of the Bill now under consideration would arrest the approach of this most malignant and mysterious disease, which was spreading over the whole territory from the Neva to the Nile; but all testimony derived from experience, both in this country and abroad, showed that if we could not arrest its progress or prevent its arrival, still it was possible to modify materially its effects, if not to save some districts from its ravages altogether. A recent number of a most able publication called the British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review proved by induction from a mass of facts that certain atmospheric conditions and electrical states concurred in the production of cholera; "but," the Review observed—

"Whatever be the electrical or the atmospheric conditions of the air during epidemic visitations of cholera, there is no doubt that, in any given country, we can with tolerable certainty foretell both the locality and the class of people which will be chiefly affected. The locality will be that in which, from situation, or from the habits of the inhabitants, the air is damp from the exhalations from rivers or marshes, and is at the same time rendered impure by the animal and vegetable exhalations which steam up from a crowd of people, ignorant or careless of sanitary precautions; and the class of people will be those who are subjected to these influences. These simple principles—so simple, that it appears almost unnecessary thus formally to announce them—have been proved by a multitude of observations, both in this country and in India."

Knowing, then, that the victims of this dread and mysterious disease were chiefly to be found amongst those classes who were unable to adopt sanitary precautions, he felt justified in calling upon the House to adopt the Amendment which he had offered to their consideration. If after Parliament had broken up, the cholera should suddenly appear in this country, spreading dismay and consternation in every quarter, hon. Members would not like to have their conscience accuse them of having neglected an Amendment which would probably have the effect of mitigating the ravages of that dreadful pestilence.

was surprised that the noble Lord, after expressing the greatest respect for the right rev. Prelate who had proposed the clause now under the consideration of the House, should have taken the extraordinary course of proposing the omission of the most important portion. As to the cholera, if it should please God that that dreadful disease should come here, the cumbrous machinery of the Bill and the immense time which would be necessary to put it in motion, would prevent its being of any use in staying its ravages. The noble Lord's statements on that subject were all very well as a moans of exciting public attention upon an important matter, but they had no practical bearing upon the clause before the House. He thought Members should be allowed some time for consideration; it was hardly fair to call upon them to pronounce "aye" or "no" with respect to such an important proposition.

said he had opposed every Smoke Bill that had been introduced to the House, and he thought this clause contained all the absurdities of all the former measures put together. It would only tend to turn into ridicule the legislation of that House, as it was quite impossible to work out any Smoke Bill. For example, the kind of smoke to be put down was "opaque smoke," and it was to be considered opaque when it was not transparent. But, did not everybody see that the opacity of smoke coming out of a chimney would, by this description of it, depend very much upon whether there was a black or a white cloud behind it? By the clause, opaque smoke was only to be permitted during a certain time, which was allowed for putting on fires; but this would be found utterly unworkable. Sometimes the smoke of ten or twelve smithies adjoining each other was sent out by one common chimney. The fires of these smithies were renewed several times an hour; and how, then, was it possible to enforce the Act in such cases? In point of fact, the clause was ridiculous, and it would he impossible to carry it out. Parties producing smoke were to provide a "well-approved plan" for consuming it; but who was to decide what the well-approved plan was? In Lancashire, no three men were ever found to agree upon any effectual plan for preventing smoke.

said, the question was certainly beset with difficulties, and he must admit that the clause contained inconsistencies which it would not be easy to reconcile. If his noble Friend took his advice, he would not press the clause upon the House.

supported the clause. If there were in it any inconsistencies which would prevent its working well, let those be amended; but let them not, on that account, throw out the clause. It should be recollected that a Committee of that House, which contained several manufacturers, had unanimously decided in favour of a measure for the prevention of smoke. If the clause were not operative, as had been alleged, then it would do no harm; and it would have a salutary effect at least in inducing owners of factories to abate the nuisance, and require their stokers to be more careful.

thought the hon. Gentleman ought to weigh well the meaning of the word "nuisance;" for the question might be raised whether black smoke was prejudicial to health. The only justification for such a clause as this was, that smoke had an effect on the public health. That House, in legislating, ought always to be very chary of entering on scientific subjects. They ought not to forget the lesson their experience had road to them in the matter of the excise on malt. The more he had seen of this Bill the more he was satisfied that there was a great deal of quackery and mock philosophy in such questions, and that this clause was manufactured by some quack. It ought not too hastily to be presumed that what were called nuisances were necessarily injurious to health. All persons connected with butchers and knackers were known to be more free from disease than any other trade whatever; and it was a fact which was also well known that every trade had a class of diseases peculiar to itself.

did not think it possible to apply the clause to any manufacturing town.

was aware his hon. Friend (Mr. P. Howard) represented the highest chimney in England. When he had been told on authority he could not fail to respect, that this clause would not work, he hardly should think it worth while to incur the odium which, rightly or wrongly, seemed to attach to its adoption; more especially as it was not intended to put any thing into the Bill which should unnecessarily raise objections, and so frustrate the expectation of carrying the measure into effective operation. Nothing, he hoped, which might fall from him would tend to create the impression that he was not alive to the smoke nuisance. He held himself perfectly free, and perhaps bound, to be a party to the introduction or furtherance of a Bill having the abatement of that nuisance for its specific object.

said, that nothing, at this late period of the Session, and at this hour of the evening, would have induced him to introduce his proposal for a "Revision of our present System of Taxation," except his deep conviction that the Parliament ought not to part without some consideration of that important subject. He had sought for opportunities of bringing it forward sooner, and he had been disappointed, He desired, in limine, to guard himself against the charge of desiring to propose any sweeping theoretical change in the system of our customs duties. So long-as we had such enormous charges to meet, we must derive a largo proportion of our taxes from this source. But the question was, whether they might not be reduced with immediate benefit to the consumers, and with ultimate benefit to the revenue. Cur whole system of taxation, however, required to be reviewed. It was still "a mighty maze, and all without a plan;" every portion of it should be reduced into harmony and order. Eighteen years had elapsed since Mr. Poulett Thompson proposed its revision. He suggested a Select Committee on the subject. But to him (Mr. Ewart) it appeared advisable that the Government should not devolve on a Committee, but should itself assume, the responsibility of so vast an inquiry. They had the means of investigation; they had the instruments of action; they should inquire, and they should act. It had been hoped that something in the spirit of the reforms so successfully made in our taxa- tion by Sir Robert Peel would have been accomplished in the present Session. But what had they done? They had been constantly engaged, it was true. They had Patched up the sugar duties, and they had abolished the duty on copper ore; but they had spent their time in a sort of "strenuous idleness;" of much motion and of little progress. And yet, if over there were a time when consideration was due to the conduct, as well as the condition, of the people, it was now. Amid the convulsions which had shaken Europe, amid "this rocking of the battlements," England almost alone remained calm and unshaken. Was not sonic requital due to the sound Common sense and wise sobriety of the people? Two modes of requiting them were obvious: by extending their commerce, and increasing their employment. The state of the Continent of Europe had closed many sources of our Continental trade. Now, therefore, if ever, was the time when we should open our trade with China and America. It was well known that our exports to the European Continent amounted generally to about 26,000,000l. sterling. They had decreased, on the 5th of May this year, by 2,500,000l. It was probable that in this month (August) the diminution was at least 4,000,000l. sterling. But he (Mr. Ewart) confessed that he was principally urged to make this pro-position by a sense of our duty to the poor. No political economist denied (he apprehended) these propositions: the labouring) art of the population pays the greater Proportion of our customs duties; the relative proportion of duty paid by them on the cost price of the article is much greater than that paid by the rich; as the cost price goes on decreasing, the disproportionate pressure on the poor goes on increasing also (this remark had been made by Mr. Huskisson); lastly, the poor were the principal, often the only, sufferers by adulteration of the articles consumed. But they suffered prospectively as well as actually; because our present system of taxation, by limiting the extent of our trade, limits the extent of their employment. The first change which should be effected in our customs duties was obviously a reduction of the duty on tea. In the consumption of all such articles a great social revolution had been silently creeping on. They were once a luxury of the rich; they had now become a necessity of the poor. Half a century ago the tea duty must have fallen principally on the luxurious—it was now principally paid by the working, classes. In 1785, only 768.520 lbs. of tea were consumed; we now consumed between forty and fifty millions yearly. The same change had taken place in other articles. The question was, therefore, whether by lowering the duty we could not extend the consumption still further—whether we could not make it descend, as it were, into a lower stratum of society. That we could do so was probable, because in our colonies, where the duty is so much lower, the consumption is so much greater than it is in the mother country. In some colonies, it was even stated to be ten times as great for each individual. Again, let us consider the question in reference to our trade and manufactures. The duty on tea has been truly described as a duty on our manufactures. This part of the subject was abundantly elucidated before the Committee on the China trade last year. Recent facts have additionally confirmed it. In the first six months of this year, the export of our plain calicoes to China had fallen from about 46,000,000 yards, which they were in 1844, to about 23,000,000 in 1848. The export of our printed calicoes had fallen in the same period from about 2,700,000 yards, to 800,000. Consequently our shipments of tea from China had declined. They had declined by nearly 4,000,000 lbs. since April, as compared with the same period last year. The shipments of the United States, on the contrary, had increased in the same period, by about 1,250,000 lbs. And at this time he was assured that our manufactures had almost ceased to be exported. Yet what could be more promising, even to the eye of sober reason, than the futurity of our China trade? The great northern port of Shanghai had been opened to us. Shanghai was the Liverpool of China. It was the great centre of water-communication; and, unlocking to us the north of China, might largely extend the demand for our woollens. There was another reason for the reduction of the tea duty. If, at any time hereafter, the consumption of tea increased on the Continent of Europe, it was most desirable that this country should become the great depot of tea, as of every other article. But he (Mr. Ewart) reverted to the employment of the people as his main object; and he would conclude his remarks on this subject with the words of Mr. Macculloch: "Nothing can justify the magnitude of this simple duty (the tea duty); beyond all question the most ob- jectionable on our tariff." At some future, he hoped no distant, period, the tobacco duty would demand the consideration of the Government. It was true that tobacco was a good subject of duty; but at its present high rate, the duty was not only (like that on tea) oppressive to the poor; it was most injurious to their morality. On the one hand tobacco was largely smuggled; on the other, it was largely adulterated. The duty to the poorest consumer (in relation to the cost price) was almost in the proportion of 1,000 per cent. Yet it was stated before the Committee on Tobacco, in the year 1844, that nine-tenths of the consumers were among the labouring poor. Could the temptation to smuggling be, in such a case, withstood? Could the Custom House itself withstand it? He found that Mr. Dean (late Chairman of the Board of Customs) made this avowal: "After what has been discovered, it is clear that no increase of pay to our officers can guarantee their morality." Since that declaration was made, the facilities of smuggling had been increasing. The augmentation of our Continental and American steamers—of our coasting vessels—encouraged it. On the other hand, the progress of chemical science facilitated adulteration. Under those circumstances, it was no wonder that in one year 800 persons were committed for smuggling tobacco; (how many more cases were compromised or undiscovered!) it was no wonder that children were taught smuggling in a regular school of contrabandists; and that adulteration was an established business of our tobacconists. But in a commercial point of view, in reference to our trade with the United States; in a pacific point of view, as binding together two great nations, the tobacco duty must come under future, and no distant, consideration. This country had, thirty years since, been the great European entrepôt of tobacco; he hoped it was destined to become so hereafter. In the meantime, as a kind of modified reform, he recommended the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish the excise survey on tobacco (as had been done in the case of tea and wine); especially as tobacco had now been proved, in its natural state, to contain sugar, the presence of which, on analysis, had been hitherto deemed a test of adulteration. He would now willingly have entered on the question of the wine duty. Material as he deemed its reduction to the interests of commerce and the concord of two great nations, he acknowledged that, like tobacco, it was a subject of prospective, though not remote, consideration; and the present agitated state of France diverted attention to questions of more indispensable necessity. But he still maintained a strong opinion that it was a link in the series of required commercial reforms. But turning from our Customs Duties to our Customs Board, he asked whether it might not be possible to effect a saving in that department? A vast number of duties had been reduced, but no salaries. In the Excise Department, on the other hand, he remembered that a saving had been effected, by reduced salaries, to the extent of 54,000l. a year. If, indeed, a sufficient reduction could hereafter be effected in the tobacco duty, there appeared to be no reason why the coast-guard might not be dispensed with, and the country thereby spared the cost of 300,000l. or 400,000l. a year. It would be remembered that a Commission was appointed a few years since on the subject of frauds in the Customs Department. They had recommended certain reforms in detail, but no comprehensive measures. It appeared from a return which he had procured, that these suggestions had been to a great extent adopted. But he feared it was a case in which the old Lucretian doctrine è nihilo nil fit would apply; and the deeds of the Board had kept pace with the projects of the Commissioners. He turned now again to the Excise Department, in which many reforms had been accomplished most beneficial to the people. The system of surveys and permits had been almost abolished. Duties had been repealed on such articles as sweet wines, starch, and vinegar. More recently Sir Robert Peel had wisely repealed the auction duty, (a reform founded on the soundest principles,) and lastly the abolition of the glass duty had been a boon to commerce, society, and art. In 1848, in his work on Taxation, Mr. Mac-culloch had made the following prediction, which events had fully justified:—" Were the duty on glass abolished, the fair presumption is that it would be used to an incomparably greater extent in mirrors, for prints, (thus encouraging the arts,) and in the windows of shops and houses." No one could walk through the new streets of any suburb of London, of any town, almost any village, without perceiving that this prediction had been not only accom- plished but surpassed. Glass was moulding itself into a thousand new forms. Art, as well as trade, was deriving benefits from the change, of vast and unforeseen importance. Would not our success in this amendment encourage us to proceed? The soap duty was a subject of increasing reprobation. We had just passed a Sanatory Reform Bill. Could we add a more obvious or indispensable corollary to such a measure than a repeal of the duty on soap? He believed that the soap trade (including the manufacture of alkali) employed 100,000 workmen. The present duty discouraged enterprise and science. As formerly in the glass trade, as now in the brick manufacture, an article spoilt in making a new experiment in the soap trade still paid the soap duty. An eminent manufacturer, now retired from an occupation which he could no longer pursue with satisfaction, had made the following statement:—

"No improvement has been introduced into the soap manufacture during the forty years we have been in the trade." "It is a purely chemical operation. But the interference of the Excise precludes that class of experiments which alone can lead to new processes. In 14 years 449 traders have withdrawn from the trade…… We attribute this constant change to the temptation afforded by a high duty to a class of men who evade it, and who steadily destroy the respectable maker."

He believed it to be a fact, that the liabilities of the soap manufacturers who had failed in Liverpool alone, in 1846, amounted to 700,000l. And those with whom he had corresponded, attributed such failures to the effects of the high duty, which tempted speculation and dishonesty to disturb the regular application of capital and the steady course of trade. But if we could not repeal this duty, we might follow the advice of Mr. Macculloch and the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, and reduce it (without involving a serious loss of revenue) to the rate of 1d. in the pound. The paper duty ought also to be a subject of early fiscal reform. It combined three bad qualities. It was a tax on an implement; on an implement of business; and on an implement of instruction. The processes it involved were more worthy of the Perverse ingenuity of China than of the direct simplicity of England. Need he advert—he had before adverted—to such burdensome complications as labelling, writing, numbering, dating, weighing, recording, and stamping. Then, if the paper was to be exported, the labels were to be cancelled. But the consequence of the duty (notwith-standing the concession of a drawback) was, that we had scarcely any export. There was no complaint, he believed, against the Excise Board as a body, but against the system. He did not believe that a man existed more inclined to give facilities to trade, or more capable of appreciating and comprehending their value, than the Chairman of the Excise Department, Mr. Wood. But trade, under the excise system, was often not submitted to the discretion of a department, but to the mercy of an individual. The trader might have confidence in the equity of the Board, but how could he trust to the equity of the officer? He (Mr. Ewart) had already argued for the repeal of the paper duty, on account of its oppressiveness on the literature and language of the country. By the enlargement of our commerce, our language must gradually become, to a great extent, the language of the world. He considered therefore the paper duty and another (to which he should afterward allude)—the duty on advertisements—to be most hostile to literature and trade; and he trusted we might live to see them both abolished. But, if neither the soap duty nor the paper duty could be repealed, another obnoxious duty might be sacrificed—he meant the brick duty. Mr. Pitt who proposed, Sir Henry Parnell who investigated it, both coincided in deeming it an unjust duty. It was scarcely felt where there happened to be a stratum of stone. It stinted the building of cottages for the poor. When first imposed it only amounted to 2s. 6d. on the thousand bricks; it amounted now to 6s. In the United States there was no such duty. He had learnt that the cost of bricks there was 12s. 6d. per thousand; on our great brick grounds (for instance at Cowley) the cost was about 24s. Even in France, bricks used in the country for cottages were free from duty. He had shown last year that the material of bricks might be made an instrument of art—as we saw in our great buildings, at Hampton Court, in our ancient mansions, and elsewhere. He therefore reiterated against this duty the charge of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry in 1836, "that it was one of the most impolitic of duties "—the admission of Mr. Pitt, and the conclusion of Mr. Macculloch, that it was "partial and unequal in its pressure." He now turned from the Customs and Ex- cise to duties of a loss general character. Among them the first duty which might be abolished was the duty on advertisements. This was a tax on a vehicle of commerce. In this respect it resembled the auction duty. The proportion of advertisements published in the United States (where no such duty existed) was enormous as compared with this country. Mr. Poulett Thompson (the late Lord Sydenham) had many years ago represented it to be more than ten to one. Such a duty was disgraceful to a commercial nation. It was against the interests of literature. Beneath its influence the humblest applicant for the meanest situation suffered equally with the most extensive advertiser. Its amount, combining Great Britain and Ireland, was only about 162,000l. It would be an act of policy and justice to repeal it altogether. There were, however, various duties to which—if the principle of repeal or reduction could not be applied—we might at least apply the principles of commutation or equalisation. Might not the window duty be commuted? Under the present system of sanatory reform it was almost impossible that the window duty could continue to exist. It had always appeared to him that a house duty (not interfering with trade) or some other direct and impartial tax, would be better than a window duty. Might not the impolitic and almost immoral duty on insurances be commuted? Mr. Macculloch recommended its reduction to to per cent. and affirmed that the property insured would be nearly doubled in amount. In applying the principle of equalisation, the most obvious subject of it was the Stamp Duties, Their inequality, especially in reference to the poorer classes, had often been complained of. In a speech, which he thought never had been answered, Mr. Cobbett had formerly called the attention of Parliament to this subject. It was elucidated by Mr. Baxter and other experienced legal authorities in their evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords two years ago, on "The Burthens on Land," and by Mr. Macculloch in his various works on Taxation and Revenue. To these authorities he begged to refer, as proving the grievance. It was especially on the transfer of land in case of poor capitalists—a transfer which it was now deemed most politic to promote—that the inequality was experienced. For instance, in the case of a 20l. purchase of freehold property, the stamp duty amounts to 2l. In the case of 200,000l. or 300,000l. purchase it is only 1l. 5s. So, likewise, if in conveyances or assignments, covenants for the production of title-deeds are required, the stamp duty is the same, whether the purchase he for 20l. or for 200,000l. And in the case of mortgages he believed that the stamp duty amounts to 2s. per cent for 50l., but only to 6d. for 100,000l.: the proportions being eighty times as great on 50l. as on 100,000l. In short, as Mr. Macculloch suggested, two: reforms were required in the Stamp Duties: "a simplification of the acts, and a just adaptation of the ad valorem principle, instead of an inversion of it. "Again, the application of the Stamp Duties to settlements was most unfair. It appeared that the only settlements liable to stamp duty were "definite and certain sums of money," and "definite and certain amounts of the Government funds, or Bank or East India or South Sea stock." Under these terms many kinds of personal property, and all landed property, were exempted from the stamp duty on settlements. Yet, as had been most justly observed by the eminent economist whom he had already quoted, "the settlement of landed property is one of the fairest subjects of taxation: the object of a settlement being to withdraw land from commerce" The operation of the stamp duty on probates and letters of administration also was unfair. Great properties were in this case also favoured, to the detriment of proper parties. He would avoid detail on this subject; since it was abundantly illustrated in the works of Mr. Macculloch and other political economists. Here, however, our attention was naturally called to the ex-emption of landed property from the Probate and Legacy Duties; a subject which had often engaged the attention of Parliament, and often would again, until either directly or indirectly that inequality should be removed. In reference to the whole of this subject, he thought the recommendation was a sound one, that we should abolish the present probate and administration duties, and replace them by a new duty equally affecting all legacies or beneficial successions, whatever their nature or amount. Lastly, he thought the Government was bound to inquire at least, and satisfy the public, whether any difference could be made between the taxation of fixed property and income. The next thing to the removal of an evil was to show that it could not be removed. What then was the brief object of his (Mr. Ewart's) Motion? That the Government should inquire. It was his firm opinion that they ought to have reviewed the whole subject last year. But now the necessity for their doing so was still more obvious and urgent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might answer, "Your scheme is only a comprehensive theory; show me a plain and practicable plan." He (Mr. Ewart) then proposed this plan; one, in his opinion, not beyond the powers of a resolute and energetic Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let him reduce the tea duty: repeal the soap duty, the paper duty, or the brick duty. Let him repeal the advertisement duty. Let him replace these by direct taxation. Let him com-mute the window duty: let him rearrange and extend to the now-exempted parties the probate and legacy duties; and let him reform and render just the stamp duties. He (Mr. Ewart) thought that the accomplishment of some such scheme would do immense good. He thought that it was worth the while of those who owned the property of the country to consent to the proposal. The property of the country ought to come in aid of the commerce of the country. Even a small addition to direct taxation would enable us to accomplish considerable good. He had endeavoured to show last year that an approximation to a more direct system of taxation would be attended by greater cheapness of collection. This must be the case, he repeated, as society advanced. Capital would be more and more invested in publie undertakings and in loans: and in almost all those cases the tax might be collected in transitu, without the intervention of any system of collection whatsoever. On the other hand, the liberation of commerce would reproduce capital and call labour into life and action. Our present position had been foreseen by statesmen of the most comprehensive views on commercial and financial questions. These were the words of Mr. Huskisson; he (Mr. Ewart) had heard them with his own ears in the year 1830; the memorable year in which Mr. Huskisson died:—

"The profits of stock and the wages of labour pay more then their just share of taxation. If we are in danger of falling into this state of things, may we not guard ourselves against it by some change in the principle and distribution of our taxation? I know I am treading upon tender ground. It is impossible to touch upon it without coming into collision with the interests of many, and those, perhaps, the most powerful in this House and in the country. But I fool myself bound to state a strong doubt whether we shall afford adequate relief without removing a large amount of those taxes which press directly on income arising from capital engaged in industry, and upon the income of labour to which that capital gives employment: transferring the burden upon all that class of income which arises from capital not so employed."

Subsequently the late Lord Sydenham assented to this doctrine as one "which would be beneficial in the highest degree to the industry and improvement of the country;" and it was supported by the authorities of Sir Henry Parnell and Lord Althorp. In conclusion, he (Mr. Ewart) asked for no sweeping change. What he demanded was, a reconsideration of the subject, for the general good of all. So far, amid the perturbation and chaos of Europe, our situation had been secure. But, while we maintained order as indispensable to the security and improvement of society, let us promote improvement as the best justification of the maintenance of order. Let us do justice to our working classes. While other nations are trying visionary and Utopian schemes of labour; spinning their cobwebs in the sunshine (or rather in the storm) of their newly risen constitutions, let us, at least, set them a different example. Let us pursue the more old-fashioned, but sounder, system of extending our commerce, developing the powers of labour, and doing justice to a suffering and deserving people. The hon. Gentleman then moved—

"That it is expedient that there be a revision of our present system of taxation; especially with a view to extend the commerce of the country, and to increase the employment and comforts of the people."

was aware that it was his duty to do that which his hon. Friend had called upon him to do, namely, to consider the taxation of the country. In a great deal of what his hon. Friend had said, he expressed his concurrence; but he was not prepared to deal so largely as to reduce duties amounting to 9,000,000l., and to impose that sum upon the realised property of the country. [Mr. EWART: I did not propose that.] He must have proposed a much larger increase of taxation than he had done if he had intended to repeal the duties mentioned by the hon. Member. And the reception which he had met with, in proposing an increase of taxation, had certainly not been such as to induce him very lightly to make a similar proposition to that recommended by his hon. Friend. To a large and considerable extent the principle recommended by his hon. Friend had been of late years carried into effect. But at this time of the Session, and at that hour of the night, he should not be consulting the wishes or the convenience of the House if he went into a long discussion of the points raised by his hon. Friend. He hoped the hon. Member would permit the House to go into Committee.

considered it unfortunate that his hon. Friend had not had an opportunity of introducing the subject at an earlier period of the evening, before the attention of the House had been exhausted. The stamp duties were in no country so unjust and so oppressive as in this, nor did they anywhere else bear so heavily upon the poor man, or so lightly on the rich. Under our excise laws also, all articles paid double or treble what they ought to pay, not only in the direct tax, but in the interference with labour and industry at every stage. He believed that if there were no excise duty on soap, that article would be manufactured better, and in greater quantities, and that it would become an article of export, instead of being, as it was until lately, an article of import. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the money to spare to carry out the views of his hon. Friend. Why, he never would have the money to spare, because in proportion as he increased the income, the expenditure was increased. The whole of the income-tax might been avoided; but as soon as they added 5,000,000l. to the taxation, the expenditure had increased in a direct proportion. The assessed taxes ought to be removed, interfering, as they did, with the labour and industry of the country. The tax upon carriages, to take one instance, was highly injudicious. Then there was the probate duty; why should one class of property be exempt, while another paid? Why, the country gentlemen, after they had passed the tax on personal property, would not pass the further vote which would have extended it to real property. It was to be hoped that Parliament would occupy itself with this whole subject next Session; but there was no hope from the Government, unless Parliament interfered.