said, he wished to repeat the question which he had put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General a short time previously, of which ample notice had been given, and to which he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have distinctly answered. The question he had put then, and repeated now, amounted to this: whether the persons appointed by Her Majesty to make laws for the colony of Western Australia can at present legally levy taxes on the inhabitants or property of that colony?

said, the hon. Baronet had certainly given notice to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies that he meant to put some questions, but whether the question as now put was one of them, he (the Attorney General) knew not. But of this question he had not had ample notice. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that it ought to have been answered distinctly and at once; but it was doubtful whether he (the Attorney General) was bound in all cases to answer on points of law, and without being afforded time for reference. He should have answered it last night, but that it had been repeated in a form which led him to believe there was more in it than might have been at first supposed. He had now again considered the question, and he would give it a short answer. He was of opinion that the persons appointed by Her Majesty to make laws for the colony of Western Australia could at present legally levy taxes on the inhabitants or property of that colony.

said, that he had given ample notice of his question to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, and that hon. Gentleman had desired him to put it to the hon. and learned Attorney General. He now wished to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that, under the Act relative to Western Australia which had expired. Parliament had vested in the Crown the permanent power of legislating and of levying taxes, of which the Crown could not be deprived without consent.

said, the question must be put in writing before he answered it.

desired to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the portion of the Act in question referring to the continuance of that statute. If it expired, what was to be the state of the law? Its continuance and its expiration were matters clearly contemplated by the framers of the Act, and he wished to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman reconciled the words regarding its continuance with the opinion that he had just pronounced?

said, that this question also must be reduced to writing before he answered it. He did not conceive himself bound to reply at once to every query that might be asked touching Acts of Parliament.

begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War if a fund, called the St. Patrick's Fund, in the 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards, had been arranged; and if so, if he had any objection to lay on the table the particulars of that arrangement, and how the sum of 3,000l and upwards, belonging to that fund, had been divided and disposed of?

said, that, with reference to this and other funds in certain regiments of the line, the House would recollect that an Act of Parliament had been passed last year, appointing a commission, consisting of the Secretary at War, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Commander-in-chief, to examine into the nature of those funds, into their amount, and to settle in an equitable manner the way in which they should be distributed amongst those presently entitled to their advantage. That commission had lately met; they had revised the various funds of the benefit societies, and, among the rest, the fund belonging to the 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards. They had arranged the mode of distributing all those funds equitably among those entitled to claim anything from them, and as soon as their report should have been adjusted, and put in form, they would have no objection to lay it on the table of the House, whereby the public would know the mode in which it was proposed to distribute those benefit funds. He might add that, from the nature of the Act of Parliament, and the in- structions from the Commander-in-chief, no benefit society of any kind would be permitted to exist in future in any regiment of the line.

rose to move the appointment of a Committee to report on practical plans for the improvement of the working classes. He should in the first instance refer to the reports of commissions on the state of the poor of this country in 1817, 1819, 1824, 1830, and 1834, many of which dwelt upon those remediable abuses which interfered with the moral and physical improvement of the working and poorer classes. He would ask hon. Members opposite whether a peasant of unblemished character and industrious habits were not an exception to the general rule if he had any prospect before him at seventy years of age, except that of becoming an almoner on the parish bounty? If his wife lived with him, and brought up a family in industry and respectability, had she any chance, on the death of her husband, or on his inability to work, except becoming a recipient of parish relief? Well, was this the condition in which the industrious agricultural classes should remain? He would now turn to the large class of persons engaged in towns, in mines, and in great cities, and what was their condition, as it had appeared from reports laid before the House, and resting upon the evidence of commissioners and of committees appointed by that House, who were fair and impartial witnesses to the facts they related. During the last fifty years the increase of working men in towns had doubled the number of residents in rural districts. In 1838 a poor-law report drew attention to their condition, which was followed in 1839 by a further account of the sufferings of the poorer classes. In 1840 a commission was granted for the purpose of investigating the condition of the inhabitants of great towns. The result of their inquiries showed that evils of the most afflicting nature prevailed regarding the health and comfort of the poor in large cities. In 1842 the report of Mr. Chad-wick fortified that of the commission, and in 1843 a commission was appointed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth to inquire into those matters. In 1844 the first report of that commission was issued, and in 1845 a second report appeared, both of which demonstrated gross neglect in large towns of all regulations for the health and comfort of the working classes. In 1845 further proofs were obtained of the extensive injury to the public health arising from causes capable of removal. In 1840 the Children's Employment Commission reported that in the great majority of instances the places of work were defective in ventilation, in cleanliness, and that nothing had been done to provide innocent amusement and healthful recreation to the children employed in factories, the consequence being, that their moral and physical health were alike injured; they were stunted in growth, pale, and sickly. This state of things remained to the present day. The summary of the report of the Children's Employment Commission was, that in a large portion of the kingdom the moral condition of the children was lamentably low, and that no means appeared to exist of effecting any improvement in the physical or moral condition of the young children employed in factories. That report was made in January, 1843, and since that period nothing effectual had been done. Another numerous body consisted of nearly 600,000 hand-loom weavers, dispersed through different parts of the country. They were reported to be, as a body, in a state of distress, and the only hope of improving their condition was, that they should betake themselves to other avocations, wherever practicable, and use as much economy and forethought as possible, when wages were good. There were also 600,000 railway labourers at work in different parts of the country, for whoso comfort and means of living no provision was made, and who were compelled to live in close and unwholesome dwellings. What had been the effect of this neglect on the part of the Legislature? That there had been an immense increase of crime, pauperism, disease, and discontent throughout the country, and an excessive mortality among the humbler classes, whose expectation of life was in some towns only twenty years, while that of the upper and middle classes was thirty-seven and twenty-seven years respectively. The illness from preventible causes was doubled, and it was proved that for every person among the working classes who died three were ill, and their illness extended over a period of six weeks. Crime had also increased in a rapid ratio. The committals in England and Wales in 1805 was 4,600; in 1815, it was 7,800; in 1821, 16,500; in 1831, 19,600; in 1841, 27,000 and upwards; in 1847, 28,800; and in 1848, 30,300. So that the commitments had increased six times as fast as the population of the country, notwithstanding all the improvements that had been in progress amongst the upper classes. Now, he wished a deliberative Committee to be appointed, to consider what had prevented the humbler classes from reaping a fail-share in these improvements. In Ireland the commitments were 21,000 in 1842; and in 1848, 38,000; but he would not lay any stress on the case of Ireland, because it had been affected by peculiar circumstances. But take the number of summary convictions. In 1837, in England and Wales, they were 14,800; in 1845, 35,700; showing that they had advanced much faster than the population, and giving an index of what must be the state of great bodies of the working classes. A return of the prisoners brought before the justices in the second seaport of the kingdom showed that the number in 1840 was 17,400; in 1845,16,000; in 1847,19,000; and in 1848, 22,000. The commitments at the same place were, in 1845, 3,800; in 1846, 4,700; in 1847, 6,500; in 1848, 7,700. In London, the capital of the country, what was the state of these statistics? In 1828 the commitments numbered 3,200; in 1840, 4,000; in 1844, 4,300; in 1846, 5,100; in 1847, 5,900. Now, contrast this with the crime of France. In France, in 1825, the commitments were 7,000; in 1835, 6,900; and in 1845 about the same number. So that whilst crime increased three times as fast as the population in this country, offences of a graver nature remained almost stationary in the neighbouring kingdom. Now, it might be thought that this increase was confined to populous cities; but it could be shown, by most accurate accounts, that from 1806 to 1841, in six agricultural counties, with an increase of the population of 55 per cent, the increase of crime was equal to that of six manufacturing counties, with an increase of 92 per cent in the population. He had made a short calculation of the cost entailed on the country by neglecting the welfare and improvement of these numerous classes, A Government commission had estimated the cost of crime in Liverpool preparatory to the establishment of the police force, and its cost to the community. This statement was subsequently investigated by a Committee of that House, which declared it to be rather understated than exaggerated. Taking that, with due allowances, as a criterion of the cost of crime throughout the country, he ventured to say the annual cost of crime was not less than 11,000,000l. The cost of poor-rates in 1847 was 5,400,000l.; in 1848, it had increased between 10 and 15 per cent over the previous year. The expense of hospitals for preventible illness among the neglected classes was 5,400,000l. also. The cost of the police, gaols, transportation, and penitentiaries, was 1,500,000l. The cost of preventible illness among working men, independently of hospitals and infirmaries, was not less than 2,000,000l. more. On the whole, he calculated that crime, poor-rates, subscriptions to hospitals, loss of time, and other cognate causes, which would be greatly diminished by measures for the improvement of the working classes, cost the country no less than 27,500,000l. yearly. This was only for England and Wales; and if we added the fair proportion for Ireland and Scotland, the total would be no less than 40,000,000l. per annum. Now, the condition of the great body of the people had never yet been looked into by the Government; all that had been done in that direction had been accomplished by the unassisted efforts of private Members; but he believed it was daily becoming the opinion of mankind at large, that it was the duty as it was the interest of the Government to take up this great question, and provide, first, instruction for the children of the large masses of the people; next, protection for their health; and, thirdly, to give them fair play and reasonable facilities to aid their forethought and stimulate their industry. Now, he asked for no more than this, and less than this would not be justice. If we had had a department of the State—a standing commission, chosen irrespective of party motives from each side of the House—to inquire what practical measures could be devised for the improvement of the working classes, to protect them from fraud, and give them the same advantages as were afforded to other classes; long before this he believed remedies would have been discovered and applied for the great social evils to which he had alluded. He would briefly exemplify his meaning. In 1830 it was proved before a Committee on manufacturing employment, that in the three great trades of England—the cotton, woollen, and hardware trades—there were three different grades of workmen in each trade; and that in each grade of workmen, in all these trades, the wages were amply sufficient, for their comfort and support, if the men had only the means of duly spreading them over a given period of seven years. But it was utterly impossible for them to do this, because they had no means of ensuring themselves, from the abundance of work and high wages of one period, against the want of work and wages at another period. Now, he said it would be a practical measure to consider how this might be effected. A Bill to secure this desideratum, by the extension of the Benefit Society Act, had passed through that House; but it was afterwards found that it contained words liable to technical objections; and up to this hour the working classes had no power to associate in order to provide against these constantly recurring calamities. With regard to sickness, benefit societies entirely confined their relief to the artisan himself; but no society existed to relieve him when any member of his family was afflicted, or to ensure himself or his wife a small annuity that would maintain them in independence when they were past labour. They had lately had their attention directed to the miserable condition of a number of poor women who could find no employment in this great metropolis; and the generous interposition of the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire had called forth public sympathy and aid towards that noble subscription which had assisted in relieving the sorrows of some of that depressed class. He had contributed his humble mite towards that effort, and rejoiced to think that it had been in some measure successful; but let hon. Gentlemen remember that the distress of the needlewomen was but a symptom and not a cause—a symptom of the great excess in the supply of labourers in proportion to the demand which prevailed, not in one kind of employment only, but in almost all the varied trades of the country. So that taking a few persons from this country and placing them in another, was only like removing one drop of water from the ocean, where its place would be immediately filled up again. The Government should turn its attention to how the supply of labour should be adjusted to the demand, the solution of which would do far more for the working classes than any amount of charity. An admirable work on the moral statistics of this country showed most clearly and distinctly that in those neglected districts where gross ignorance and defective sanitary arrangements most prevailed, there the greatest number of improvident marriages and illegitimate chil- dren were invariably found. And was this the fault of these neglected poor people? No, it was the fault of that House, and of the great opulent classes who had benefited by the industry of the labourer, and neglected him in his hour of necessity. He hoped, however, they would speedily change their policy; and, instead of spending immense sums in gaols, penitentiaries, and workhouses, turn to remedial processes, that would commence by instructing the young, and saving them from contamination. Where did we provide a safe investment for the humble gains of the industrial classes? He might be answered—la the savings banks. Now, although the extent to which savings banks had been resorted to showed how eager the people were to embrace any means of providing against misfortune, yet in many rural districts they were hardly known. But suppose an artisan saved 60l. or 100l., that amount was not receivable at a savings bank. Talk about an investment in the funds—the working classes knew not what it was; and, besides, the funds were liable to fluctuation. But what the humble working man most of all desired, after a long life of thrift and industry, was to see a little bit of land that he could call his own; but the legal difficulties and expense of title and conveyance deprived him of all chance of enjoying such a prospect.

said, it was impossible not to feel that this Motion had been brought forward from motives of benevolence; but he should oppose it on this ground, that he was afraid it would tend to disappoint the expectations of the working classes. He valued the working classes as much as any Member in that House; the more he had known them the more he had admired them, and the more he had felt disposed to extend the franchise. At the same time he would not be a party to practising a deception upon them; and he thought such a measure as this would have no other effect than that of deception. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury talked of interfering in all sorts of cases wherever misery existed. If that meant anything, it meant that as soon as a grievance existed, the Legislature should interfere. But the hon. Gentleman did not give thorn anything like a plan to remove these great grievances. He told them there were three things they might do; they might educate, they might give health, and they might stimulate industry. With regard to education, the hon. Member told them it had always boon the work of some private Member of the House to introduce measures. Now, so far from that being the case, during the time he (Mr. Trelawny) had been a Member of the House, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had brought in a measure to promote education. Again, the present Government had brought in a measure for education, which was already working efficaciously. With regard to health, it was also true that there were parish doctors in various parts of the country, and the poor, in cases of illness, could have medical aid. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury begged the whole question in making it a function of the Government. [Mr. SLANEY: I never said that; I spoke only of remedial measures.] It amounted to the same thing. He (Mr. Trelawny) was one of those that wished the people not to depend upon Government. He wished them, by means of their own savings, to provide a sum for their own wants; and if they claimed an extension of the franchise he was one of those who would readily accede to it. He did not think the working classes were in the habit of putting forward claims of this sort. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury told them Government ought to bring in an Act of Parliament to give the poorer classes forethought. [Mr. SLANEV: No, I said nothing of the kind.] He (Mr. Trelawny) did not mean to say that the hon. Gentleman said a Bill should be brought in to give the working classes forethought, but that was the tendency of his remark. It came to precisely the same thing. It was getting the working classes into a habit of thinking that those things would be done for them which could only be done by themselves. There was one thing in which the Government had interfered, and that was in the corn laws, which were repealed for the benefit of the working classes. He would not go into the question of the policy of the corn laws, but it must be admitted that the practical effect of repealing the corn laws was voting a sum from the higher classes to the lower. It might be said that it was originally taken from the poor. That he was ready to admit; but when the measure was passed, it was practically taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

said, he was fully convinced of the benevolent motives which had induced the hon. Member for Shrewsbury to bring forward this Motion. He was bound also to testify, from private communications he had had with the hon. Member on this subject, to the liberality of his intentions with regard to defraying any expense which might be incurred in the plan he had proposed for improving the condition of the working classes. The hon. Gentleman had given ample proofs of his readiness to devote his time, attention, and property, to that great object. But he did not think that the measure he had propounded to the House would be a practical plan. The proposal itself was very vague and indefinite; and, after listening with great attention to the hon. Gentleman's statement, he had been unable to ascertain what was the precise nature of the duties which he proposed to devolve on this Standing Committee, or unpaid Commission. He presumed that by a Standing Committee was meant a Committee of this House to act continuously during the recess; or if a commission, that it should be selected by the Crown from the various parties in that House, without any exclusive political complexion—that it should not be an exclusive body in any sense, and should merely receive suggestions with regard to the improvement of the working classes, and consider any plans that might originate with others for that object—an object most important in itself, but which he thought would not be promoted by the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. It would load to the collection of a largo number of blue books, whereby Parliament would be overwhelmed with information of which they were in possession of a great deal at the present moment, and would be no better able than now to remove the causes of distress which might be proved to exist. The hon. Gentleman appeared to him to be wrong in supposing that Parliament had the power of removing many of the causes of those evils which he had enumerated. He proposed that the body whom he would constitute should consult as to public health, education, industry, crime, emigration, and the poor laws; and he presumed they would have to recommend any changes which might be deemed expedient in the laws affecting these subjects. Was it possible that a Committee of five or six gentlemen, taken from the different parties in that House, could, with any practical benefit to the public, devote so much of their time to the consideration of extensive changes of the law on these subjects as their importance required? The very instances which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward, in which, through the exertions of individual Members of that House, great and important changes had been made, showed that it was not necessary that there should be any Standing Committee or unpaid commission of the kind proposed; but that we happily lived in a time when the obligation and duty were generally felt of attending to measures which were calculated to promote the social improvement of the working and poorer classes. There was much force in the objection taken by the hon. Member for Tavistock as to the undefined expectations of great legislative changes, which would be excited in the working classes, by the appointment of such a Committee or Commission. With regard to some of the objects, means were already provided, as far as could be done by the Legislature, for their attainment. There was now a board of health, which combined with its deliberative functions the executive powers that had been confided to it by Parliament, and which he believed had been exercised with benefit to all classes of the community. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury proposed that this Committee should be altogether excluded from considering any measures connected with political changes. How the line was to be drawn, he confessed he could not see. Many of the subjects which the hon. Gentleman had alluded to were political questions; and it was absolutely impossible to draw the distinction, unless by political measures were meant only those affecting the composition of Parliament, or the exercise of the franchise. With so small a limitation as that, and regarding the vast range of other subjects which legislation embraced, and which would be confided to the consideration of the Committee, he thought it would be absolutely unable to perform its functions with any advantage to the public; and he feared that great evil would arise from the indefinite expectation of legislative measures, which would rather lead people away from the use of those means which they might employ with effect for the amelioration of the condition of the working classes. He was far from saying that Parliament ought not, by legislation, to encourage habits of prudence and in- dustry, as was done by Acts relating to savings' banks, and other subjects, with great advantage; but Parliament could do but little directly with this object. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division; as in that case, while giving him full credit for the benevolence of his views, and admitting the importance of the subject, but differing from him in the means which he proposed for attaining the end, he should be obliged to vote against it.

thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury deserved great credit for the perseverance with which he had endeavoured to induce the House to attend to a subject which was most deserving of their notice; but it was a question whether the objects he contemplated could not be better effected by the private combination of benevolent gentlemen. He quite agreed with many of the points mentioned by his hon. Friend, and could bear this testimony in his favour. Last year he (Mr. Sotheron) was a Member of a Committee, and there was scarcely any person conversant with the affairs of friendly societies brought before them who did not recommend the formation, not of a tribunal, but of a union of competent persons, who would give the best advice as to the best mode of settling disputes in those societies. If his hon. Friend would only turn his mind to devise some means by which an association could be formed, through means of which persons in the country, who had no other means of getting advice, could obtain information, it would be very desirable.

did not think the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury could be carried out by any Committee that could be proposed; but for the establishment of a benevolent society an excellent precedent would be found in the one established by Sir John Barnard, a full explanation of the principles of which was to be had, along with the rules, in the library. The improving the condition of the working classes could not be so well attained by a Parliamentary Committee, as by an asssociation of benevolent individuals.

would suggest that this commission would have the effect of enabling a Government to cast from its shoulders its responsibility, instead of exciting it to what it should be continually excited, namely, the remembrance that it was the first duty of a constitutional Government to consider how far it was pos- sible for the Executive to advance the charitable and wise intentions of every man at both sides of the House, and of the citizens generally, with regard to the improvement of the social habits of the people. It was the imperative duty not only of this Government, but of all Governments, to assist the Members of that House and the citizens generally' in attempting in some degree to remedy the enormous social evils that pressed upon the country. It was the belief of the lower classes of the country that the upper classes were not careless about; their grievances, and it was to that conviction they owed the general and permanent peace and order of the community, which was particularly apparent when contrasted with the conduct of the people of many other portions of the civilised world. He trusted his hon. Friend would not be discouraged by the way in which his Motion was received on this occasion, and be hoped that on future occasions he would continue to urge upon the Government the great duty of giving to such exertions all the assistance they could. He did not participate in the fears of his hon. Friend, that the people would look to the Government as their great stay in all cases, for it must be recollected that the progress of the country had mainly arisen from the development of the individual character of the people. There were several matters in which the Executive might interfere most usefully. He would take, for instance, those cases whore in great cities there was a destruction of the dwellings of the poor to make way for improvements. They had seen streets of palaces built, while the poor were driven away to some distant corner, and no attempt was made, by the building of lodging houses fit for their accommodation, to remedy this evil. That was one instance amongst many which it would be well for the Government to remember; and in all cases where the Executive interfered, they were above all things bound to keep in mind that it was their duty to omit no possible opportunity of remedying the great social evils which the enormously crowded state of a city pressed upon them. He entreated of the Government to lose no opportunity of earning the praise and gratitude of the people by attending, even in the slightest degree, to those matters which affect their social condition.

must take that opportunity of calling the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to one or two words which fell from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury on the subject of savings banks. He had in his possession a petition on the subject, which he would present to the House if the hon. Member for Rochdale did not shortly appear in his place, signed by 3,000 persons in the town of Rochdale. Those 3,000 persons, together with a number of individuals connected with friendly societies, had sustained an enormous loss by reason of the failure of one of those institutions which they had been led to believe they might look to with confidence as one of the institutions of the country. If the people were allowed to think that those institutions were under the management of Government, and if then they were suddenly told that the savings of a whole life of industry were to be swept away by them, no greater blow could be given to those habits which it was their duty to encourage. As the subject had been mentioned, he had taken the opportunity of calling the attention of the noble Lord to the subject, and he would ask him whether it was not right, while the Government provided for the future, that they should take into consideration the condition of those parties, and others similarly situated, who had suffered from the past. He did not know what was the intention of the Government with respect to the Bill relating to savings banks, but he hoped that some system would be adopted to give to those people what they had a right to demand. Let them either have Government security or let them inform the people that Government had nothing whatever to do with those establishments. The Government had for a series of years just interfered so far as to foster the idea amongst the working classes that they had Government security; but when they came to look into the Act of Parliament it was found they had not that security, and as the Government had taken away the security that formerly existed from the trustees of those establishments, it was obviously their duty to take care that no such occurrences should take place in future, and he thought the parties who had sustained a loss had strong claims on the Government for compensation for the past.

said, that while his noble Friend at the head of the Government was reflecting on the observations which had been just addressed to him with regard to savings banks, he was anxious to make some remarks upon the Motion. He was anxious to do this, because he intended to oppose the Motion on grounds not entirely identical, although very far from being conflicting, with those on which it was opposed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. His (Mr. Campbell's) argument was twofold, and suggested by the terms in which the Motion was presented to them. They were asked to constitute an unpaid commission to conduct a very large inquiry, and to promote an object of immense importance. He did not think that an unpaid commission would be equal to the duties which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury desired to devolve upon it, or sufficient for the ends to which it was now proposed to render it subservient. A useful and magnificent inquiry had recently been instituted by the conductors of the Morning Chronicle into the social circumstances and condition of the working classes. It had been remarkably effective. The House of Commons was familiar with it. It had been the salient feature and the striking topic of the autumn. It had, in his opinion, so influenced the public mind as nearly to arrest the democratic and resuscitate the social movement of the country. Did any one suppose that so vast, so vivid, and so substantial a collection of data on the habits and the circumstances of the working classes, could in the nature of things be accomplished by an unpaid commission? An unpaid commission, he contended, would do no sort of justice to the case, by which the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to obtain it. He (Mr. Campbell) declined to enlarge any further upon this topic. He objected, in the next place, to the proposed exclusion of all political inquiry from the labours of the body—whether paid or unpaid—which the House was asked to call into existence. It appeared to him that an advantage of no ordinary magnitude would be secured if a commission to collect facts, and to authenticate them, on the subject of the working classes, were instructed at the same time to ascertain whether, in what manner, or to what extent, their improvement might be driven forward by the creation of new franchises among them. He desired to refer to the first speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government in defence of the Reform Act, and in reply to the hon. Member for Montrose, delivered June 20, 1848. In that memorable speech, the noble Lord had scattered before the House of Commons and the public his ideas of the principle on which some new franchise ought to be created. It was generally acknowledged that neither the noble Lord himself, nor any other Member of the House of Commons, nor any politician out of doors, had yet explained in what way that principle might be translated into practice, incorporated in the laws, and engrafted on the institutions of the country. In point of fact, the data were deficent; and if the principle was sound, the data ought to be acquired. A commission of effective character, and able Members, might, by means of an inquiry devoted to social objects, and not debarred from constitutional researches, acquire the materials without which the principle enunciated by the noble Lord would never be a practical discovery. He (Mr. Campbell) desired to make a further and a somewhat wider observation. Since the debate of Thursday, Feb. 28th, it seemed to be the general conviction of all reflecting politicians, that the time had not yet arrived for any change to be effectedin the Reform Act. Concurrently with this conviction, it was not easy to deny that there existed something like a popular distrust and popular impatience on the subject. Would it not be, therefore, satisfactory—would it not be calculated to place the House of Commons in a good relation to the public, if the fact stood out before their notice that a process was going on of which the result would be the acquisition of facts, the accumulation of materials to provide a basis for the franchises which the noble Lord had offered—in theory at least—two years ago to the reflection of the country. He (Mr. Campbell) was bound to state—and anxious to be understood in what he then stated—that he did not come down to that House to-night in order to initiate a proposition, or propound a scheme. Inasmuch, however, as a Motion to constitute an unpaid commission, from which all political inquiry was to be kept apart, might preclude any Member whose position warranted the step from suggesting a commission of such a kind as he had ventured to delineate—inasmuch as it was possible that a commission of that sort might be the means of strengthening, and at the same time of amending the Reform Bill, of averting crude change, of accelerating ripe and permanent correction—he would be compelled, like his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, to meet this Mo- tion with a clear but also a reluctant negative.

took a great interest in the social welfare of the working classes, but thought it was impossible for any individual Member of the House to bring forward with success any measure for their benefit; if, however, he came down to the House backed by the voice of a public-body, his recommendation would be attended to. As a proof of the truth of what he asserted, he might refer to what had been done with respect to the baths and wash houses and model lodginghouses. If any individual Member brought forward measures of that kind he could not obtain a patient hearing—at least they must think so, if they were to judge of the way in which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had been listened to, though his speech expressed as sincere a desire for the welfare of the working classes as he had ever seen evinced in that House. He thought that an hon. Gentleman who had devoted so much of his time to the subject should be listened to with greater attention, particularly when they heard debates carried on for ten hours on speculative questions, which, even if carried into effect, could confer little or no benefit on the working classes. He thought that an hon. Member who got up for the purpose of discussing a social question ought to be treated with more respect, and he drew from it the deduction that there was a necessity for an unpaid commission. There was a variety of questions that could be brought before such an unpaid commission. If gentlemen could be found who would be sufficiently philanthropic to devote their time to it, what objection could there be made to it? If the Government were really sincere in their desire to alleviate the moral and material condition of the people, would it not be of considerable importance to have the assistance of such an auxiliary who would come down to them with reports framed to act upon and take into consideration. If the Motion was pressed to a division, he should support it.

expressed his thanks to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury for having performed the unavailing task which he had undertaken. It was a Motion less open to the usual objection made to propositions of this kind, viz. that it would encourage unfounded hopes on the part of the working classes, than any he had ever known. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) did not intend charging the House, or the present or any preceding Government, with being peculiarly hard hearted in resisting, or in giving a reluctant hearing to Motions of this description; but of this he was quite sure, that the oftener the fact was stated in that House that the working classes were at the present moment suffering under the greatest evils, the better it would be for them. After what had been stated in the report of the commission of inquiry into the sanitary condition of the various towns in this country, and after the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the state of the labouring women and children in mines, he felt convinced of the necessity of a commission such as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Shrews-I bury to point out the practical mode by which those and other evils affecting the working classes might be remedied and removed. He felt all the difficulty of appointing such a commission; but no Session should be allowed to pass without some report on the state of the working classes, emanating from a commission to that House, and from that House to the country One objection to the Motion was that it was too general, and that the number of subjects it embraced were too numerous. Now, he really hoped that when hon. Members should at any time come forward and state special grievances, and bring forward remedies for them, the House would not reject those remedies on the same fanciful grounds as those on which the present Motion had been met.

said, that after the kind feeling which had been evinced towards him during the debate, and the kind manner in which he had been alluded to by the right Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he felt that under all the circumstances of the case, he should not be doing justice to the cause which he had humbly endeavoured to advocate, if he were to press his Motion to a division, He hoped, however, that the subject which he had brought before the House would sink into the minds of many hon. Members who had never before paid attention to them. He would merely venture to say, that there were three points which might servo as barometers of the state and condition of the working classes; the progress of mortality as compared with population; the increase of the poor-rates; and the proportion of criminals to the population. Those three points appeared to him to speak with the loudest voice in favour of some measure of the kind which he had proposed being adopted. He should have been happy to have left his Motion in the hands of the Government in any form which they might have thought proper; but as they had given their reasons for opposing the Motion, he would consent to withdraw it, in the sincere hope that the Government would themselves take up the subject. He had had the good fortune to bring forward Motions, some of which were met by smiles from hon. Members, but which, notwithstanding, had been subsequently carried. He thanked the House for the kindness with which it had listened to a subject which, although he considered it one of importance, many hon. Members might consider as uninteresting. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to withdraw his Motion. Motion by leave withdrawn.

suggested to the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster who had a notice on the paper on the subject of the qualification of Members, whether it would be advisable for him to bring it on upon the present occasion. The same subject had been brought before the House but a few days since, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, on which occasion it was fully discussed by the House, and a division come to upon the subject. There was also a Bill at present before the House with respect to the franchise in Ireland; he would therefore submit to the hon. and gallant Member that, after the debate which had so recently taken place on a similar subject, and the fact of a Bill being before the House, no public advantage would be obtained by bringing forward again a question of this kind.

said, that the subject was one in which he felt a deep interest, and that interest was also shared by many hon. Members in the House, as well as by a considerable number of people out of doors. There was always considerable disadvantage to any individual Member arising from not proceeding with his notice when he had an opportunity of doing so; but as he was informed by one hon. Member of high authority in the House that the present moment was rather inopportune, and might possibly damage the object which he had at heart, he would certainly sooner incur some personal disadvantage than run the risk of doing any injury to a cause which he was anxious to promote. Feeling, as he did, that Ireland stood more in need of Parliamentary reform than England, he would not feel justified in pressing his Motion, but would take the earliest opportunity after Easter, and the passing of the Irish Franchise Bill, to bring the matter forward. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, it is here quite unnecessary to enter into the advantages which arise to both France and England, from a facility of communication: the mutual benefits are evident, and need not be expatiated on at present; I will, therefore, at once enter into the subject. Formerly, in days of sailing vessels, before steamboats came into general use, the communication between England and France was usually by Dover and Calais; and gradually as steamboats were used, the route to Boulogne was preferred by the public—for example, in the year 1831, about thirty-oight thousand persons went to Calais from England, and only eleven thousand to Boulogne, but in the year 1847, we find seventy-eight thousand to Boulogne, and sixteen thousand to Calais. Now, if the mass of the public preferred the route by Folkestone and Boulogne, it seems that route must be the shortest and the best, and this supposition seems confirmed by the distance saved, as appears by the following statement:—

COMPARISON OF THE ROUTES BY BOULOGNE AND CALAIS, AS TO DISTANCES.
It is 82	miles from London to Folkestone,
27	miles from Folkestone to Boulogne,
169	miles from Boulogne to Paris.
278	miles from London to Paris, by Folkestone and Boulogne.
It is 88	miles from London to Dover,
28	miles from Dover to Boulogne,
169	miles from Boulogne to Paris.
285	miles from London to Paris, by Dover and Boulogne.
It is 88	miles from London to Dover,
23	miles from Dover to Calais,
235	miles from Calais to Paris (by railway viâ Lille).
346	miles from London to Paris, by this route.

Now, as to the time occupied in the transit. It appears, that on the 11th of December, 1849, an express of the Times went from London to Paris in 8½ hours; it started with the morning paper at half-past four A. M., and arrived in Paris, at one o'clock P. M. Again, on the 3rd of January, 1850, an express through Boulogne and Folkestone reached London from Paris at 7h. 15m. A.M., having started from Paris at 8h. 30m. P.M. about eleven hours, having been detained some time on the road by peculiar circumstances: this express reached London as stated, at half-past eight o'clock, A.M.; whilst the mail which started from Paris at the same time, only reached London for letters to be delivered at four o'clock, P.M., making a difference of nearly seven hours. Now, it seems strange that the official intercourse between the two countries, should, in so short a distance, he greater by seven hours in private than in official communication: such ought not to be case. Now, as to the great question which has been stated—the difficulty of reaching the harbour of Boulogne, when a strong westerly wind was prevalent, and the greater facilities found in Calais harbour—this is not proved. It appears by the tables, that in one year, the irregularities by Calais were twenty-six, and by Boulogne thirty-two, making a difference of only six, and even these six were from causes not likely again to occur. Besides, it appears that when a strong westerly wind renders the entrance into the harbour or off the harbour of Boulogne difficult, the boat can with case make the harbour of Calais; and no time is lost, for then you are only, as you are at present, going to Calais; whereas, if your route is always through Calais, if a strong easterly wind blows, you return in that case to Dovor. As a proof that the Boulogne harbour is not unsafe, it appears that since 1843, the South Eastern Company's packets have made 4,000 voyages there and back from Folkestone without a single accident. Now, if the accelerated communication between Folkestone and Boulogne is adopted, it would appear that a day mail would be unnecessary, whereby an immense saving of expense would be gained. Added to this, it is possible to save from twenty to twenty five thousand a year to the country by the conveyance of the mails by contract, as the South Eastern Company, it is asserted, will undertake to convey the bags for the Post Office at a saving of that sum to the public. It seems. Sir, needless for me to expatiate more at length at present on the subject, and I will only move that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose to which I have alluded. Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a Select Committee be appointed, to ascertain the most expeditious and least expensive mode of Postal Communication between London and Paris."

seconded the Motion.

said, there was no objection on the part of the Government to the appointment of the Committee moved for by the hon. Gentleman; but he did not anticipate any very great advantage from it, except that the statements which the hon. Gentleman had made would then be sifted and examined. He thought the hon. Gentleman attached too much importance to the express which he had referred to; for he believed it would appear that an express which went by the line of Calais arrived within sixteen minutes of the one on which the hon. Gentleman so much relied; but the point to be looked to in making these postal arrangements was not the question by which line they could on a particular occasion travel with the utmost rapidity; but by which line the greatest amount of certainty could be maintained through the whole year. Now, from the peculiarities of Boulogne harbour, it did appear to the Government, from their experiments of one year, that there was the greatest uncertainty and irregularity; and it was a greater evil to those receiving correspondence to receive it at at different hours than to have it regularly at a later hour. The harbour at Boulogne had such disadvantages for landing the mails, that during the period they were sent by that route the Admiralty were obliged to allow them five hours and a half between the one railway station and the other; whereas on the Calais route the time allowed was only four hours. He could only say, that as a Committee was to be appointed, it might be better to survey the whole subject; and in addition to that branch of the mail-packet service at Dover which ran through France, to consider the other branch that ran to Ostend, because there were many reasons for supposing that the mails might be sent to the north of Europe through France without any additional expense, thus merging the two lines in one, and at the same time keeping up the same amount of speed as at present.

said, that as the Government did not oppose this Motion, it was not his intention to object to it; but it appeared to him that this question would be more satisfactorily settled by the Government themselves than it possibly could be by a Committee. It should be determined by the principle so correctly stated by the hon. Member for Hertford, that they were not to look to a route upon which, upon any particular occasion, under special circumstances, with all preparations beforehand, they could establish a communication, but to that which, in all states of the weather and tides, they could conduct their postal communications with the greatest regularity; for whether they were to receive their letters from the Continent at an earlier or later hour in the day was of small importance compared with their receiving them regularly. The question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford had mentioned, of the mails to Belgium and the north of Europe, was a very important one, and the attention of the Committee ought to be directed to it. But, it was stated in the very able report of the Earl of Dalhousie, as chairman of the Railway Committee of the Board of Trade, it was of the greatest importance that a quick communication between London and Dovor should be established. The present route from London by Reigate was most circuitous and inconvenient as a route for transmitting the mails from London to the Continent. The Board of Trade, at the time he was connected with the Government, pointed out the importance of having a direct communication between London and Dovor; and the South Eastern Company proposed a scheme by which they would transmit the mails direct from London to Dovor; and the Board of Trade, thinking the guarantees then offered would have secured the completion of it within a short time, gave the preference to the South Eastern Company; but five years had now passed, and nothing whatever had been done with it. A petition for the Bill was presented this year, but it was checked in its progress on the Standing Orders. He hoped the Committee would not lose sight of that important part of the subject, to sec how much the means of accelerating the mails from the Continent were in our own hands, by completing a direct line from London to Dovor, and which could now he done with comparative facility, whilst on the other hand they had little control over the routes on the other side of the Channel. These were matters deserving of deliberate consideration. They were not able sometimes to take the shortest lines, but must take into consideration the peculiarities of ports and harbours, and also the shortness of sea passage. He had no doubt whatever that the port of Dovor did possess facilities which had caused it at all times to be the port of departure, and the important works which had been for some time in progress when completed, would give to it the peculiar advantage, besides being a tidal harbour, of rendering it accessible at all times. He believed also that the works that had recently been carried on at Calais would enable vessels, except at very low water, to get alongside of the harbour. Those were circumstances which justified the opinion stated by the hon. Member for Hertford, that they were not to look for quickness of communication so much as to security and regularity.

said, that anything which would facilitate and expedite the postal communication between the two countries would be of great importance to the commercial and every other interest in the country. But he rose on the present occasion to suggest that the advantages of the penny post should be extended to the communications between this country and the colonies. He looked on the penny postage as the greatest boon which had been conferred on this country, at least since he sat in Parliament; and as they paid a certain sum to a vessel for taking out letters, it could make no difference whether it took out fifteen boxes or thirty-five.

said, that he did not attach much importance to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lymington, and when he had been conducting the Committee for some time, he thought the hon. Member would see reason to change the opinion which he appeared at present to entertain. His hon. Friend said that the communication would be shortened two hours. He believed it would be shown that the real difference between the two routes of communication was forty-two minutes, and not two hours. The reason why so many persons went formerly by Boulogne instead of Calais was that they avoided the three hours' journey by diligence between Calais and Boulogne. But it was different now that the railway from Calais was opened. His hon. Friend said, that during the prevalence of a south-westerly wind, if the boat could not make Boulogne, it could go to Calais, but that a boat going to Calais, and not being able to reach in consequence of a northeasterly wind, must return to Dovor. Now, if a south-westerly wind would bring a boat going to Boulogne into Calais, it was clear that a north-eastern wind would take a boat going to Calais into Boulogne, so that it need not return to Dovor. Passengers might go to Boulogne because they could go when the tide answered, and in the day time; but Boulogne would not answer for boats reaching it at night, as the mails must do, because it had a steep shore, and afforded no soundings. The fact was, there had been a constant system of puffing, in the public papers, and in pamphlets, in favour of the route by Boulogne. But if they wished to shorten the transit between Loudon and Paris, they must facilitate the making of a direct railway between London and Dovor. He believed that all the landlords in the county of Kent were prepared to support such a line, and he hoped that in another Session it would be carried out.

considered the subject a very important one, which should be fully investigated before a Committee, with a view to elicit further information. It was to be regretted that there existed no direct line of railway between London and Dovor; but he hoped public spirit, backed by the exertions of the hon. Members for Dovor, would soon establish such direct line of communication.

said, that although the saving of time proposed to be effected—be it two hours or only forty minutes—might be of comparatively little importance to London, it would be of great value to Manchester, Liverpool, and the other great towns in the north of England, because it would enable the Post Office to despatch letters to those places by the morning mail, which, at present, were sent by the evening mail, and were not delivered until the following morning. He rejoiced at the prospect of the appointment of a Committee by which the question would be fairly investigated.

said, that two hours might be saved by having an early express from Dovor.

was not surprised that the hon. Members for Dovor should advocate the interests of the town which they represented, even though they clashed with those of the public. It was perhaps material the House should know that if the Government should think fit to enter into a contract with the South Eastern Company for carrying the mails, they would undertake to do so at a saving to the public of from 20,000l. to 25,000l. The Com- mittee would be governed solely by the evidence placed before them. He was perfectly willing to make the addition to his Motion that was suggested by the hon. Member for Hertford.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the payment of fines and stamp duties on the admission of freemen into corporations. He thought it right to give some explanation of the Rill which he was then seeking to introduce. It would be in the recollection of the House that, by the 5th and 6th William IV., the Corporation Act, under the third clause all fines upon freedom were abolished, so far as regarded municipal towns and cities in England and Wales, with the exception of the metropolis of London. He was willing to acknowledge, when he first gave notice of the present Bill, it was more with regard to London itself; but, on submitting it to inspection, hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial bench were kind enough to inform him it came under the denomination of a private Bill. He, therefore, enlarged his notice, and included all the municipal cities of England and Wales; and he rejoiced at having done so, because great injustice was being enacted to a large portion of the electors of this country by the present system. He asked the House to consider the privileges burgesses enjoyed. Every person who served an apprenticeship was compellable to be enrolled by the town clerk. The fines on that enrolment were very serious, amounting from 6s. to 38s. and 40s., and that merely for servitude. He asked the House to consider was that a matter of justice to those persons, many of whom were extremely poor, after having served an apprenticeship to an humble calling, to be required, on attaining their majority, to pay for enrolment some 38s. or 40s.? He had heard in that House many denunciations of the corruption of the old burgesses connected with the boroughs. But there could be no doubt whatever, if they charged persons 38s. and 40s. for their freedom by way of enrolment, they taught them in effect the way to sell their votes, as well as to purchase their freedom. He bad no hesitation whatever in saying, that it was owing to that system the old burgesses were called the corrupt burgesses, and said to be purchaseable. The Municipal Act had abolished all fines upon residence in every city with the exception of London; and it was most unjust and impolitic not to have included London also. In London the lowest and poorest persons who got into business—whether retail shopkeeper, tailor, greengrocer, or publican—all were alike compellable to take out their freedom, and pay down a sum of money before they were permitted to become inhabitant householders of the city. If the practice had the merit of uniformity, it might be entitled to some support. But the wealthy merchants, professional men, and bankers, as well as wealthy private individuals, put to scorn all attempts to impose fines on them for residence. The question was not of small importance or insignificance regarded either in a pecuniary or political sense. He might state that the city solicitor had, within the last four years instructions to prosecute upwards of 3,000 persons for not paying up their enrolment fees, and there were at present before the Court of Aldermen 2,000 persons who refused to pay the fine of residence. Now, he conceived such proceedings as these were contrary to the spirit of the ancient charters of London; because, by the ancient charters, occupiers were entitled to residency and citizenship. He did not ask the House for power to bring in a Bill which would have the effect of depriving the corporation of an iota of the property possessed by those bodies, or that would in anyway curtail their privileges; but he asked permission to bring in a Bill which would have the effect of removing a great injustice from many poor voters. If the House considered it of small importance that these parties should pay 2l. to obtain their freedom, why lot it be pronounced, that it might go forth that they should pay for the privilege of exercising an independent trust, and that they were to be mulcted for the benefit of other classes; at the same time, he cautioned them they would be teaching these persons how to sell their votes. In London the matter was of more importance than a pecuniary fine involved. They had had for centuries a constituency of municipal voters of 50,000 or 60,000, with a Parliamentary constituency of some 30,000 or 40,000 voters; whilst at the present moment he believed they had not more than 5,000 or 6,000 persons entitled to exercise the civic franchise in London, with a Parliamentary constituency ranging over 20,000 voters. The municipal roll of the city of London contained only 6,018 names, and the Parliamentary roll comprised 20,000; whilst in Manchester, Leeds, and most other largo towns, the proportions were reversed. Then, again, the 6,018 municipal electors were scattered through 25 wards, in five of which the number of voters did not amount to more than 70 or 100, whilst in others it reached to only 100 or 120. Now, he asked was that right, in such a community as the inhabitants of the city of London—the wealthiest in the world? The corporation of that city possessed funds to the amount of 200,000l. per annum, clear of taxation. Yet, notwithstanding, their constituencies went down from between 30,000 and 40,000 to 5,000 individuals. He asked was it right that they should not have even a fourth of municipal voters compared with Parliamentary, when it was well known that in every other town and city the inverse ratio existed? When these fines were first originated, they no doubt were enforced to recruit the exchequer of the corporation; but that excuse could not now be pleaded, because the funds in that exchequer had been greatly increased in amount. In the year 1750, the corporate funds amounted to some 50,000l. per annum; in 1808, they increased to 100,000l.; and in 1848, to nearly 200,000l,; therefore, it could not be justified in continuing to exact the fine of residence for the purpose of recruiting the municipal funds. If he should be asked, "was the fine serious?" he would admit it had been greatly reduced. At present it was comparatively small, being 3l. 6s. 4d. on a government stamp of 3l., whilst formerly it amounted to 30l. However, he did not intend occupying the time of the House; though he should say it was with surprise he had heard it was the intention of the Government to oppose the introduction of the Bill. The only argument he had hoard against the Bill was, that its effect might be to affect the revenue some 700l. to 1,000l. annum. But that ought not to form a reason why Government should object to the introduction of a Bill. He submitted that, as in 1835 the Government repealed the stamp duties in every city with the exception of London, they should not at present seek to perpetuate an injustice on that city, which they had abolished in every other. If he were given the opportunity of bringing in the Bill, hon. Gentlemen would see that he sought nothing but the removal of a very great injustice.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the Bill which the worthy Alderman wished to bring in was one of that class to which the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department referred at the commencement of the Session, when he suggested the propriety of the House refusing to permit measures to be introduced which there was no probability of ultimately carrying. Moreover, the Members of Her Majesty's Government had reason to complain of the course adopted by the hon. Gentleman who sought to introduce the measure. The hon. Gentleman admitted that his object heretofore had been to remove the fines within the city of London, and for that purpose he submitted a Bill to the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker; but finding from his opinion that the Bill was a private one, and that notice should be given in order that the corporation of London, whose interests were certain to be affected by it, might be made aware, the hon. Gentleman renewed his Motion, and embraced within it other cities and towns in England and Wales, with a view to the wholesale confiscation of their corporate funds. The hon. Gentleman assigned as a reason, that the municipal constituency of London decreased in proportion as the Parliamentary constituency increased. Why then did not the worthy Alderman bring in a Bill to make the municipal vote depend upon rating, as it did in Manchester and the other towns to which he had referred? But the remedy for the city of London was simple, and might be effected by the corporation of the city of London, bringing in a Municipal Reform Bill if they saw the necessity for it? But surely it was no reason for the abolition of municipal fines, because the municipal constituency did not keep pace with the Parliamentary. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman went directly to touch the property of the corporations of England and Wales; and he (the Attorney General) wished to know what right the hon. Gentleman had to interfere to such an extent without the consent of these corporations, and without even having made application to a single member of the London corporation to inform him of his intention to endeavour to abolish these fines? The corporations, if they wished, could abolish these fines themselves; and if the House interfered at present, they would be depriving the corporation of the principle of self-government invested in them. He begged to ask the hon. Gentleman why not allow the corporations to remove these fines themselves? The Common Council was at present an elective body, returned every twelve months; and their constituencies, if they thought fit, could make it a condition of their return at the time of election that they should vote for such abolition of fines. He warned the House, if they recognised the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, they would be entrenching on the principle of self-government, and interfering with property without solicitation or invitation. Now, as regarded the corporation of the city of London, he wished to know did the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill express the wish of the burgesses of that city? [Alderman SIDNEY: Yes, yes!] Well, there had been no petitions to that House from them.

Yes, I myself presented one on the subject.

did not know of that; but he did know that the corporation of the city of London did not agree in thinking with the hon. Gentleman.

I believe they do; and a great portion of the Court of Aldermen also.

The corporation was invested with the principle of local government, and it was not fair that, because one member of it, who happened to be a Member of that House also, differed with the entire body, the hon. Gentleman should seek to convert that House into a high court of appeal on the question. He (the Attorney General) would not stop to consider the question of the propriety of increasing the freemen. The hon. Gentleman said his Bill would merely affect fines and stamps; but if he proposed to abolish the creation of freemen by purchase, he was taking a strong measure wherewith to alter the entire constitution of the corporation of the city of London, without even the justification of an application on their part. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that the question did not involve more than about 600l. a year, which was a mistake, as the amount would reach between 2,400l. and 3,000l, no inconsiderable sum. There was no complaint on the part of the citizens as regarded the corporation; and, therefore, he thought the corporation should be left to effect such change as they deemed improvements, particularly when they possessed the power within themselves to do so. He should therefore oppose the introduction of the Bill.

considered there should be a thorough and searching reform in all corporations. The hon. and learned Attorney General asked, why not leave these reforms to the corporation itself? Now, he (Mr. Forster) was certain that the hon. and learned Gentleman was the last man that expected they would ever do so. There certainly had of late been some improvements in corporations, but it was not creditable to the Government to allow of such practices as still existed under the London corporation. The hon. and learned Gentleman inquired for the petitions; but it was well known how such could be prevented. To expect that the corporations would amend themselves, was simply absurd. However, he thought it would be better to allow matters to remain as they were until they could have a thorough and searching reform.

could not give the Motion his support, as he looked upon the Bill as one which was only introduced for the city of London, and not for all municipal towns in England and Wales. There would never be a reform in the corporation of London, as long as the Prime Minister was one of its representatives. He agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that this Bill was an improper interference with private property, and he therefore recommended the worthy Alderman to withdraw his Motion.

said, that the House probably was not aware of what had been done in the city of London. It had been ststed that no inquiry had taken place into that corporation, whereas one of the most searching inquiries which had ever been made into an institution of the kind had been carried on and completed under the superintendence of Mr. Blackburn, the late eminent counsel, and Sir E. Palgrave, with regard to the corporation of the city of London. Their report would be found in the library. They had carried out the reform of the municipal corporations in spite of the resistance of those bodies; but he regretted that the principle was not applied to the city of London. As he understood the matter, the worthy Alderman wished to abolish the fines and stamp duties on the admission of freemen in the city of London, as in other places. This had been effected by the Bill introduced by Mr. Williams, the late Member for Coventry; but the Government at the time, at the instigation of the corporation of London, exempted it from the operation of the Bill. It probably would have been better if the hon. Member had postponed his Bill until the returns on the subject were laid on the table. He would ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether it was not their duty to redeem their pledge, and carry out the same principle of reform to the corporation of London, which they had applied to other municipal boroughs?

did not suppose that the Bill would be attended with any great advantage if it should be allowed to be introduced; but he did not think the time of the House had been thrown away, as it had introduced the subject of the unreformed state of the corporation of the city of London. He was a Member of that House when the Municipal Corporations Act was brought forward, and carried; and he regretted that it was not made to apply to the city of London; but at that time there was a distinct pledge on the part of the Government that a distinct measure should be brought forward for the purpose. He was glad that that conversation had taken place, as it would direct public attention to the subject. The hon. and worthy Alderman said that the funds of the corporation exceeded 200,000l. a year, over which Parliament and the public had no control; and he (Sir B. Hall) thought this was a sufficient reason for the condition of the corporation being fully considered in that House, with a view to such a reform as to give the inhabitants of the City a control over the expenditure of that large income. He did not mean to say that the corporation of the city of London was as corrupt as some of the old corporations were before the Municipal Act passed, but still they stifled inquiry; and the aldermen, as soon as they put on their gowns, notwithstanding the opinions they might previously have expressed, threw over reform. They ought to get rid of the system of electing aldermen in the City for the period of their lives, instead of for a limited period, as in other municipal boroughs. He believed the Bill to be hardly worth noticing, although perhaps it might be regarded as of some importance in Stafford. He recollected being asked, some years ago, to stand as a candidate for the representation of that borough, and one of the conditions proposed was, that he should pay up the fines for the admission of a number of freemen, which he, however, refused to do.

, in reply, said that the corporation, as a body, was anxious for reform, consistent with the privileges they enjoyed. The hon. and learned Attorney General stated that the present measure would interfere with the legitimate powers enjoyed by corporations; but if these gentlemen inflicted fines not consistent with justice, was not that House the tribunal to step in and rectify such? He did not seek by that Bill to invalidate the property of corporations in England and Wales; he only asked to be allowed to introduce the Bill that severe and unjust burdens might be removed. However, as certain returns had yet to be laid on the table, he would not hesitate to withdraw the Bill, promising that he should again seek to introduce it after these returns had been laid before the House.

objected to any such course, as he was opposed to the principle of the Bill. He should, therefore, persist in giving the negative to the Motion.

considered it to be a great evil that every ratepayer in the city of London had not a vote in the municipal affairs of that corporation. Among other reforms, he would suggest that the aldermen should be elected for only three years, instead of for life. He believed there was no corporation in the empire which was uncontrolled by the ratepayers, which performed its duties in a more satisfactory manner than the corporation of London; still he thought that reform principles should be applied to it.

said, in rising to bring forward the important Motion for the House to take into consideration the duties on foreign timber, with the view of remitting the duty on all wood used in ship- building, he could not help expressing his regret at the state of the Opposition benches. When they repealed the navigation laws last year, the eloquent leader of the party opposite told them that that measure would have the effect of handing over the foreign trade of the country to foreign vessels, but he would not stop to inquire how far this anticipation had been fulfilled. In stating the facts of the case to the House, he could assure it that the question regarded shipbuilders and shipwrights, and not wood merchants. He candidly stated that he was himself a wood merchant, but he was not personally interested in this question. In 1842, previously to the right hon. Member for Tamworth bringing forward his Motion for the alteration of the timber duties, he (Mr. Mitchell) had sold certain descriptions of timber at 105s. a load, and the same timber after the reduction of the duty be had sold at 65s. Another description sold with the old duty at 55s., and at the reduced duty at 15s. The consumer, therefore, obtained the benefit of every shilling in the reduction of the duty. There was not the slightest appearance of an increase in the price of the article, but rather a tendency to a decline in the price. From these two circumstances he conceived that he was justified in saying that any reduction of prices that could be effected by the adoption of his proposition, would go to the shipbuilder. It would be in the recollection of the House that duty on all foreign ships was taken off by the measure of last year. The consequence was, that the manufactured article was admitted free of duty, and the merchant who purchased a foreign-built vessel was entitled to give it all the privileges of a British ship without the payment of any charge or duty. The following were the duties charged on foreign timber—on hewn timber 15s. the load; on sawn timber, such as planks, deals, &c., 20s.; and on masts and spars as follows—on small spars 24s., and on large spars 48s. He would now proceed to the cost of shipbuilding in this country. All ships were classed by Lloyd's surveyors. All new ships were placed in the class A 1, which was divided into a number of other classes. The first class under this head remained on it twelve years, and the lowest class of ships four years. The difference between the classes arose entirely from the material of which the ship is built. In forming the estimate of the per centage which arose from the duty on foreign timber, used in the construction of vessels, he had used the greatest care. He had referred his calculation to one of the largest shipbuilders in London, who had told him that, taking a rough view of the facts of the case, he was correct in his estimate. He had estimated the cost per ton at 2l. above the number of years the ship was entitled to be on the register. He believed that he had given rather too high an estimate, for when they went to the lower class of vessels, he did not believe that they would cost so much. As it was, as much foreign timber was used in the building of British ships as was allowed by Lloyd's surveyors. As regarded the ships in class 12 A 1, the per centage of the duty on the foreign timber, deals, &c., on the gross cost of a ship was 9–16ths per cent. The cost of a first-class ship for twelve years, he estimated at 14l. the ton; for the next class for eleven years, at 13l. a ton, and so on to the lowest class 4 A 1, which he took at 6l. per ton. The estimate of the amount of duty on the foreign timber, used in the construction of ships, he took at—

12 A 1	…	9–16	per cent on the gross cost.
11 A 1	…	⅝	per cent on the gross cost.
10 A 1	…	1⅜	per cent on the gross cost.
9 A 1	…	4¾	per cent on the gross cost.
8 A 1	…	6¾	per cent on the gross cost.
7 A 1	…	12	per cent on the gross cost.
6 A 1	…	13½	per cent on the gross cost.
8 A 1	…	15⅛	per cent on the gross cost.
4 A 1	…	17	per cent on the gross cost.

Therefore in the class from 9 A to 4 A, the advantage to the foreign shipbuilder over the home shipbuilder varied from 4¾ to 17 per cent. They were often told that this country was best adapted for the building of the highest class of ships, and certainly advantages existed as regarded the materials at home and from the colonies, such as oak, teak, and hard woods, from Jamaica and other places. He would place English ships in three different classes. He would take from 12 A to 9 A in the first class. All the ships in these classes were fit for long voyages, and were fit to carry on the trade between this country and the East Indies and China. This class of ships were strong and serviceable vessels, and fit for the carrying of tea, sugar, and other articles paying a high freight. In addition, they were fitted to carry out passengers of the highest class, who paid large sums for their conveyance. He alluded more particularly to the vessels of Wigram, Green, and Smith, of New- castle, which were built regardless of all expense. He admitted that the amount of duty on the foreign timber used in their construction was a mere bagatelle until they came to the lowest of this division, when they had 4¾ per centage. The second class comprised 8 A, 7 A, and 6 A. For what purpose was this class wanted? The purpose was to bring home corn from the Mediterranean and the Baltic, and, above all, cotton from the United States. The House was probably aware that two-thirds of the cotton now brought to this country from the United States came in American ships. The freights paid for the conveyance of that article would not pay in the higher class of shipping. British ships, then, in these classes, came into direct competition with the Baltic and American vessels, and it was upon this class of ships you levied heavy duties varying from 6¾ to 13½ per cent. He asked whether they would expect the shipowners to go on satisfactorily with this class of vessels if they were burdened in the way which he had described. He now came to the classes 5 A and 4 A. The duty paid for the timber used in the construction of vessels in this division was most enormous. These vessels were suited for the timber trade, and they came into competition with ships built in Canada. On what principle was the home shipbuilder taxed in this manner to allow the Canadian shipbuilder to beat him? The effect of the present arrangement was to throw the whole of the building of these vessels into the hands of foreigners. Even with regard to the higher class of ships, he was not sure that it was for the interest of this country that they should continue to build them to the same extent which they did at present. For building a ship of that class, they had at least, on the average, to go twenty miles before they could get a supply of English oak. If, then, they did not take stops to encourage the use of foreign oak, where would they get a supply of English oak, when this country most wanted it, in case of a war? He believed the young oaks in this country were encroached upon and cut down too rapidly, and before they had attained sufficient growth. Upon what principle did they proceed in saying that there should be no duty on the manufactured article, while there was such a duty levied on the raw material? There was no other case of a manufactured article coming to this country free of all charge. He repeated, he was not aware of any other manufactured article being admitted free of duty. If any one proposed to build a vessel, he had to pay a high duty on the foreign timber used in the construction of it. Was not this a gross infliction on the industry of the country? Then the question arose whether the drawback could be easily ascertained. At present there was a drawback upon all foreign timber used in the building of churches. To ascertain the amount of this, they had to go all over the country, but ships were only built in certain localities; and the quantity of foreign timber used could be easily learned. He asked a gentleman of high experience in matters of this kind his opinion on the subject; and he assured him that there would be no practical difficulty, as all the ships built in English ports were brought under the special survey of Lloyd's surveyors, who took an account of all the timber used in their construction; and they could at once tell, in every instance, the quantity and nature of foreign timber used in building a ship. The surveyor at Lloyd's was bound to examine every ship, and ascertain the quantity of foreign timber in her, but a certificate of the quantity might be had from the builder. He found that the annual tonnage of ships built in the united kingdom amounted to 140,000; and he had asked an eminent shipbuilder what, in his opinion, according to the present regulations, was the proportion of foreign timber that might be used in that tonnage; and he had assured him, that if it were estimated at a fourth part, that would be an extreme calculation. Now, taking the total number of loads of timber used in the construction of these 140,000 tons, and estimating the various duties paid upon the portion of it that was foreign wood, he found that the annual amount raised by the duty on foreign timber used in shipbuilding was only about 35,000l. He appealed, therefore, to the House whether, for the sake of so small an amount, it was worth while to continue this tax, in order that they might build more ships in Canada, when the remission of it would give contentment to a large, industrious, and deserving class of the community, which had been just exposed to the most severe competition with foreign countries—a class, moreover, which would be exposed to still further difficulties by the Mercantile Marine Bill, and by fresh regulations about to be established. Upon this latter point, however, he did not, perhaps, altogether agree with the body, for he thought the Mercantile Marine Bill a very good one; but still there were doubts and apprehensions among them concerning that measure. The Legislature told the shipping interest that they must not man their vessels with foreign seamen, and yet placed the industrious classes of shipwrights and builders as nearly as possible upon an equality with foreigners. He hoped that, for the sake of 35,000l. a year, they would not continue to inflict an injury upon one of the most valuable and useful classes of the community; and he hoped the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade would not, in his answer, quote the instance of some foreigners having bought ships built in the north of England. It had happened lately that, in consequence of depression, the prices of all materials used in the building of vessels, as cordage, cables, iron and copper, had been materially reduced; timber had fallen from 30 to 40 per cent; flax from 30 to 40 per cent; cables 20 per cent; and iron and copper in similar proportion. There never had been a time when these materials were cheaper than they had recently been. But it was not to be expected that this would continue; and if prices rose, as probably they would, a great change would take place in the state of things, as affecting the shipbuilders. But, however that might be, justice ought not to be denied to this large and industrious class; and he conceived it was but a simple act of justice to bring this question before the House.

begged to second the Motion. It was quite true, as his hon. Friend had stated, that the shipping interest was not in that depressed condition which had been predicted as the result of the repeal of the navigation laws, but it was also true that it was subjected to the most severe competition. Freights were now low, and there was every probability that they would continue so. He did not mention these facts in any spirit of complaint on the part of the shipowners whom he represented; but freights being so low, and there being that severe competition with the foreigner, he did think it was the duty of the House to consider whether it was not possible, by a measure of this kind, to do justice to the shipowner. In 1830 a petition was presented to that House by certain shipowners, praying for an alleviation of the burdens to which they were subjected in the shape of timber duties; and of that petition Mr. Huskisson, a gentleman who was always considered a great authority by hon. Gentlemen, had expressed a most favourable opinion. If the repeal of those duties, then, was considered advisable in 1830, how very much stronger was the case at present when they were exposed to the fullest possible competition with the foreigner. The duty on timber was opposed to the very first axiom of taxation; it was a duty imposed on the raw materials of a manufacture of the very greatest importance. That ships should be permitted to be imported duty free, while the raw materials were taxed, was opposed to the great principle of taxation which had been held to be just by that House. The timber duty was also a differential duty, and was in that respect opposed also to the principles of free trade. It gave a protection, so far as our colonies were concerned, and a premium to the Canadians on the construction of ships. He did think that the shipowners had a right at the present moment to press their very strong claims upon the House.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of complaining that hon. Gentlemen connected with the shipping interest should have thus early in the Session called the attention of the House to the important subject which his hon. Friend the Member for Bridport had brought forward; still less did he complain of the tone and manner in which that subject had been treated by his hon. Friend who had addressed the House, not only with his accustomed ability, but with that clearness which arose from his perfect knowledge of the subject. In the few words which he (Mr. Labouchere) was about to offer, he should not be disposed to enter into any controversy with the hon. Member upon the general principle involved in his Motion; and, in truth, he addressed the House under considerable disadvantage; for he should feel it to be a dereliction of duty if, by any observations he might make, he left any distinct impression upon the mind of any hon. Member, whether he did or did not concur in the principle laid down by his hon. Friend, that it was desirable, under all the circumstances of the case, that the Government should propose to the House this Session a remission of a certain duty which his hon. Friend described as amounting to 35,000l. It should be re- collected that they were now on the eve of the general financial statement which in a few days it would be the duty of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before the House; and he hoped the hon. Member for Bridport would not attribute his course to any insensibility to the importance of the subject if he gave him only that answer which every Minister of the Crown must of necessity make to any proposal of this kind made just prior to the financial statement. It appeared to him also that the circumstance of its being the intention of the Government to propose the budget at so early a period of the Session did give additional force to that general reason which, not only for the convenience of the Government, but for other motives of great moment, rendered it unadvisable that any Minister of the Crown should express an opinion in favour of the retention or remission of any particular duty until the time had come for the general financial statement. He hoped his hon. Friend would accept that as a reason for not agreeing with his Motion. His hon. Friend had said, and he believed truly, that in respect to the higher classes of vessels built in this country, the duties now existing were quite immaterial. Mr. Wigram, in giving his evidence before the Committee last year, said that upon first-class vessels built in the Thames he did not estimate the burden higher than 2s. 6d. per ton. He admitted, however, to his hon. Friend, that upon vessels of a smaller class the burden was more considerable. At the same time he was far from thinking that even with these duties our shipwrights could not contend successfully with those of foreign countries in building both high and low class vessels. He did not wish to go into details now; but there was no reason why, consistently with a due regard for other interests, be should not also be called upon to enter upon the subject of the remission of any other duties, and to show why they should not be removed. He, for one, should be glad to see them all removed. However, he could not accept the argument that our shipwrights could not compete with those of other countries, and he had maintained the same doctrine last year, when contending with hon. Gentlemen opposite for a repeal of the navigation laws. He held the same opinion still. There were countervailing advantages on their side which should not be left out of consideration. For example, on the article of iron alone the Prussian shipbuilder paid more duty than the English shipbuilder upon the foreign timber he used. He was not arguing that it might, or might not, he desirable to remove this duty, but simply submitting the fact to the consideration of his hon. Friend. With reference to the cheapness of constructing a particular class of vessels in Sweden, he held in his hand an extract from the annual report of Mr. Norman Pringle, our Consul at Stockholm, in the year 1842, and, as it pointed out the advantages which our vessels possessed over Swedish vessels, and that they countervailed the advantage of the latter in regard to cheap timber, he would read it to the House:—

"I shall take every opportunity to procure information respecting the effect which may be produced on ship-building in the ports of this district, by the alteration in the English Navigation Laws. It does not appear, as far as I can learn at present, that the interests of British ship-builders will suffer from competition here. In Stockholm, Calmar, Westerwick, and Wisby, whore oak is made use of in building particular parts of the vessel, the price per ton for the hull averages about 7l. sterling; in Gefle, Sundsvall, Elmea, Pitea, and the northern ports, where oak is unknown, and fir only employed in the construction of ships, the price is generally about 5l. sterling per ton for the hull; such vessels are models in figure, excellent sailers, but from eight to ten years is the limits of their service. I am also informed by one of the principal merchants here, and a possessor of several ships, that in building his vessels he invariably has all the cordage, sails, cables, tackling of every description from England, and that after paying 10 per cent import duty, he has superior and cheaper articles than could be procured in Stockholm."

He did not give this as an argument that, if after a general review of the whole fiscal policy of the country they found themselves able to do it, a removal of this duty would not he a great advantage. He was conscious of the great benefit to be derived from encouraging the trade of shipbuilding, for it was of national importance; but at the same time he felt he was meeting the Motion of his hon. Friend in a fair spirit, when he said that, while this advantage was appreciated, let it not be over-estimated. With respect to the higher class of ships, our builders had great advantages, for they had a choice of timber such as existed in no other country in the world. But there was no dispute between his hon. Friend and himself with respect to that class of ships, for his hon. Friend had confined his observations to the construction of the lower class of vessels. Under the circumstances he would not detain the House longer, but he hoped they would consider how soon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lay his financial statement before them, and would, therefore, see the propriety and prudence of not expressing any opinion upon this particular point. If they began by selecting particular duties upon which to come to a vote of this kind, without taking a view of the whole financial condition of the country—and that, too, on the eve of the financial statement—he thought they would not be discharging their public duty so fairly as by abstaining at present from entertaining this question, and he therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would not press the House for any expression of opinion on the subject.

said, it appeared to him that the principal object his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had in rising was to conceal, as far as possible—and very properly to conceal—what might be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer about ten days hence. His right hon. Friend had certainly achieved his purpose. He would not say that the observations of his right hon. Friend had enabled him (Mr. Cardwell) to perform the office of a prophet; but still he had ventured to draw an inference, a sort of surmise, from the tone assumed by his right hon. Friend, that he was not unfavourable to the proposition of the hon. Member for Bridport. To the strong arguments of that hon. Member, based, as they were, not only upon policy, but upon justice, there appeared no disposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to dissent. With respect to timber, there were some remarkable instances of the operation of the removal of duty. A few years ago the duty on mahogany was reduced, and the quantity used in shipbuilding was greatly increased. Had they not by recent legislation exposed the shipbuilders to competition with all the world? Had they not, from 1842 to the present time, laid down the principle in commercial legislation that wherever they could they would set free the raw material, in order to afford the widest scope for industry? Having laid down that general principle in all commercial legislation, they had exposed this branch of trade to particular competition by the measure of last year. He would ask the House if there was a single instance in the tariff in which the manufactured article was admitted free of duty, and the duty maintained on the raw material from which it was manufactured? If not, was there any ground of principle, justice, or expediency for the maintenance of this particular duty? The right hon. President of the Board of Trade, however, had argued on no one of those grounds. He was not surprised at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, for it was undoubtedly an inconvenient course to enter upon the discussion of subjects of this kind at a time when a general review of the taxation was about to be made. He should be glad, however, to believe that the surmise he had ventured to form was not altogether unfounded, and that, although the right hon. Gentleman had drawn the veil of futurity very closely round the events of next week, he (Mr. Cardwell) should be justified in drawing the inference that a tax so impolitic and unjust would not escape the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped that next week they would have the pleasure of congratulating that right hon. Gentleman on his restoration to health, and his resumption of his duties in the House; and he was sure they would have to congratulate him upon having a large surplus arising from the remission of those duties which fettered industry, and thereby impoverished the Exchequer, because they shut it out from sources of revenue which increased industry would stimulate.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had very properly observed that there was no instance on the tariff of a raw material being taxed while the manufactured article was free. The navigation laws had been repealed under great pressure and against much opposition; and he (Mr. Hume) had then pledged himself that he would, on every occasion, endeavour to remove all restriction and duties which prevented the free play of industry. He was sorry to say, that were he to draw an inference from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, it would be different from that formed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool; for he should conclude that there was no intention on the part of the Government to take up this question, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that our shipbuilders had advantages which countervailed all the advantages possessed by the foreigner. Much had been said about the coming financial statement; but what should be the object of the financial state- ment? To bring before the House the repeal of those taxes which pressed upon the best interests of the country, and, when injury had been done to any parties, to do them justice; and Her Majesty's Government would not be in any worse condition if the House should affirm that it was an act of justice to remove this tax. This country had long maintained a competition with her ships under many disadvantages, even under the monopoly she once had; but now the monopoly was done away, Parliament was bound to do justice to the shipping interest. By giving a decided opinion upon this Motion, he thought the House would be strengthening the hands of the Government, and turn the scale of any doubt that might exist in their minds.

would very much like to know when and where all this was to stop. It was all very well for the shipbuilders, or any other interest, to come in and ask for 100,000l. [Mr. MITCHELL: Only 35,000l.] Well, whatever a certain duty on the materials they used might be; but where was it to end, and how did all this bear upon the general taxation of the country? How did the pressure of the national debt bear upon that particular interest? But in this jumble they had exposed the shipbuilders to competition with the whole world, and now they came to gnaw off that particular duty which pressed upon that particular interest. Look at the malt tax. Upon that raw material they had placed a tax of nearly 100 per cent, and if that question had now been brought before the House, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would doubtless have said, as he had said just before, "Don't touch it—don't discuss it, until the general financial statement has been made." But he (Mr. Henley) wanted to know if they were to go through all these several items of duties, where they were to stop. Now, that all these particular interests had been exposed to general competition, he did not see what was to be done but to take off all the particular taxes which pressed upon them; and if they were taken off one after another, what was to become of the public credit? Hon. Gentlemen connected with this particular interest thought it would be for their advantage to get a decision upon the question in a very thin House; but the shipping interest had been exposed to competition in the most perfect uncertainty whe- ther they would get the tax taken off. They ought to have made a bargain in the first instance. If the shipping interest was going on flourishing to such an extent that foreigners were fain to come here to build their ships, why was it necessary to take off the timber duties to enable them to swim? How could these two statements he reconciled? The fact was, a particular interest had been brought into a state of great peril and difficulty, so that they were obliged to press the Government to take off the taxes which most affected that interest. But they might depend upon it that other interests which had been also affected by recent measures, would make the same appeal. They had certainly a just claim for consideration, and if the present proposition were affirmed, he did not see where the House would stop. At the same time he should not express any opinion upon the subject himself, either by his voice or by his vote. He would only observe that the debate had been very instructive, and he hoped much good would be elicited out of what had been stated.

said, the interests of the great shipowners bad not, he be believed, materially suffered from the effects of recent measures; but the smaller shipowners, especially those of Yarmouth, had been severely affected. The abolition of the duties upon timber would be a great benefit to this class. He was sorry to add that much distress prevailed at the present moment in the borough he had the honour to represent, among the shipbuilding trade. Last year five vessels were built in that port, but only one upon order. The rest were all built upon speculation.

said, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had entirely misapprehended the character of the Motion, in treating it as a particular tax upon a particular interest. The case was that of a tax upon a raw material imported into this country, which, in a manufactured state, was allowed to come in duty free. No similar case of injustice could be found. Last year he refused to vote for the repeal of the navigation laws, upon the ground that in this respect the shipowners would be exposed to an injustice. He ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, upon his financial statement, relieve the shipping interest of one of the grossest pieces of injustice that any class had over suffered from.

observed, that the hon. Member for Bridport had only proposed the remission of the duties with regard to the timber used in shipbuilding. But he (Mr. Wyld) would remind the House that the continuance of the tax was no less a gross injustice towards the mining interest. That interest was now exposed to competition with the whole world, yet it was compelled to pay duties upon the timber it consumed. He hoped, then, that the Motion would be framed so as to include all other interests who were suffering under similar injustice to the shipping interest.

, in reply, said, that the question introduced by the hon. Member for Bodmin had nothing to do with the shipping interest. When mines and collieries could be imported into this country, and imported duty free, then the case would apply, and not before. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he was reluctant to divide. At the same time there was a strong feeling in all the shipping towns that great injustice had been done to them. A large body of the representatives of those towns had incurred considerable obloquy by voting for the repeal of the navigation laws; and it was only due to them to go to a division in order that they might show their constituents they were doing their duty. He must therefore divide the House.

said, he had given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill for the more affectual Audit of Railway Accounts. It might be in the recollection of the House that he had inquired, early in the Session, whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill relative to the audit of railway accounts, and that the President of the Board of Trade then stated that the Government were not disposed to introduce any Bill on the subject, but that if no measure was proposed by any independent Member on behalf of the shareholders, the Government would be prepared to take up the question. It might be recollected that a Bill relating to the audit of railway accounts had been originated in the other House in 1848, but had been rejected by that House; and last year a nearly similar Bill, which had been introduced in the House of Lords, had also shared the same fate when it came down to the House of Commons. He did not believe that any system of audit which was tainted by Government interference would have the confidence either of the railway shareholders or of the country; and he thought that in this case the trite quotation was particularly applicable—

"Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes."

He understood that a Bill for establishing an audit of railway accounts had been introduced last night in the other House, and he believed, from what he had heard of its nature, that it was a measure to which he could give his support, as it very closely resembled that which he had intended to submit to the House. He was convinced, although there was an almost unanimous opinion against Government interference, yet the opinion was equally universal that it was high time some steps were taken to establish an affectual audit with regard to the vast amount of capital embarked in railway speculations. It was uuneccssary to recall to the recollection of the House the painful disclosures which had been made as to the waste, extravagance, misapplication, and frauds which had occured in railway concerns; and it had been a matter of surprise to every man acquainted with business, that some measures had not been taken earlier to protect the bonâ fide investers in such speculations. He considered that to render any system of audit efficient it must be continuous in its operation, the accounts must be published half-yearly upon a uniform model, and the audit must be untainted by what was called Government interference. He had had six or seven years' experience as a shareholder and bondholder in most of the large railway companies, and had become familiar with the ill consequences resulting from the want of an efficient control over the financial departments of those companies, and, having applied his attention to the subject, he had framed a Bill, which he was ready to lay on the table, with the view of establishing an efficient system of audit. He considered that any measure that might be adopted on this subject should be framed in a spirit of courtesy towards railway directors, because, although there had undoubtedly been much extravagance, and in some cases gross frauds, yet he believed that, with some few exceptional cases, the directors were honourable men, who exerted themselves to promote the interests of the shareholders. Under the circumstances, however, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had acted upon the pledge he gave when he said the Government would only introduce a Bill, provided no independent Member took up the subject— Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present.