said, they were at the 30th clause, in which he understood the Government had some amendments to introduce.

said, he proposed to introduce certain amendments in this clause (the clause giving compensation to clergymen), which he conceived would meet the objections that had been raised against it. It had been decided, when the House was last in Committee, that the compensation should not be limited to existing incumbents; but the amount of that compensation, and the distribution of it, were still open to consideration. The House seemed generally to assent to the principle of giving a just and fair compensation to existing incumbents. With regard to future incumbents, it had been thought necessary that some payment should be continued to them, with a view to obviate the deficiency of income which would be caused in many parishes were these fees withdrawn. In several parishes these fees formed a considerable portion of the income of the incumbent, especially of that class of the clergy for whom great sympathy had always been expressed in that House, the working clergy. The average payment on each interment had been fixed at 6s. 2d., which would be below the general average at present received, and would therefore operate with some degree of injustice in some cases. He had received communications from several clergymen, stating that they were in the receipt of fees of a much larger amount; while those received in the more populous parishes were considerably less. The effect of the Amendment which he now proposed was this, he would leave the gross amount of compensation untouched; he still proposed that 6s. 2d. should be the fee payable on each interment, for bodies removed from any of the metropolitan parishes; but, instead of its being paid in the first instance to the clergyman of the parish whence the body was brought, the fees would be carried to a separate account, and that account would be charged, in the first instance, with the payment of salaries to the chaplains, then the incumbents would receive out of it a compensation calculated on their average receipts from burial fees for the five years next before the passing of this Act. Therefore, so far from any of the clergy receiv- ing more than they had hitherto received, the amount would be regulated by their past receipts; and the board would be enabled, with the consent of the Treasury, to award to incumbents who had been receiving a higher amount, a sum calculated on the average of their last five years' receipts. That would be strictly in accordance with the principle on which compensation was generally awarded; and he believed it would remove one great objection on the part of the clergy to a provision which certainly would have operated with injustice. With regard to future incumbents, he thought it would be necessary to continue the payments; at the same time full power would be given to reduce the amount on the death of an incumbent, should circumstances be found to justify a reduction. If this proposal were carried into effect, it was probable that, with the increasing population in the manufacturing districts, there would ultimately be a surplus to divide out of the fund arising from the payment of those fees. Various propositions had been made for the disposal of that surplus; but he would not then enter into it. He would move the insertion of words in accordance with the alteration he had stated at the end of line 5.

was glad of the alteration, which he thought would do away with much of the objection to the clause as it stood. Its effect would have been, had the compensation been given by fees on each body, to double the income of some of the clergy in about forty years; for in the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras the population had doubled in the last forty years. He had been anxious to prevent one clergyman receiving the whole of the fees, and would move a proviso to that effect, requiring a separate fund to be kept for every parish. Those parishes near the centre of the metropolis could not increase much in population; the great increase was in those on the outskirts; the proviso was therefore necessary to prevent the amount paid to the incumbents of the latter parishes from continually increasing, and ultimately doubling or quadrupling itself. This proviso would prevent the amount paid to any incumbent ever exceeding the average of his receipts for the five years preceding the passing of the Act.

would take time to consider the proposition of the hon. Baronet.

said, he wanted to propound distinctly a principle which had only been as it were accidentally men- tioned; and that was, that the number of clergy must or ought, if there was any reason in the thing at all, to keep pace with the increase of population. If, for in stance, the population in any extensive district was ever quadrupled, it was plain the number of clergymen must increase in something like the same proportion. If he was asked why he put himself forward on this occasion, he would say it was, because he thought that an unfair idea had gone forth, that the clergy of the Establishment were opposed to the contemplated reforms. His personal experience had been exaetly the contrary. He recently attended a public meeting in a metropolitan borough on this subject, the chairman of which meeting was a clergyman of the Established Church, and a number of others were present and assisting; and they said very fairly, that they were aware their incomes might be affected by the present measure, and hoped some care might be taken of them; but they would not submit to the imputation that they were opposed to the contemplated reforms.

concurred in the propriety of compensating the present incumbents, but doubted the accuracy of the calculation whereby 6s. 2d. had been arrived at as the average amount of fees now payable. The inquiries he had made showed the amount to be much smaller in many parishes. He wished to know if the amount was to include compensation for the hatbands and scarfs now received.

said, the 6s. 2d. was not the average of any one parish, but of the whole. In populous parishes, the average of fees was much lower; in others higher. The matter of hatbands and scarfs had never entered into his consideration.

would refer to the evidence of the Bishop of London, in 1843, in proof of the importance of scarfs and hatbands as a source of revenue to the clergy. Was the five years' average to be calculated on a sum inclusive or exclusive of those receipts? He also wished to know who was to have the disposal of the surplus, if any should be left after compensating the incumbents?

said, the average would be calculated on the number of funerals, and the number of fees received, exclusive of any presents to the clergymen. The disposal of the surplus, after paying the chaplains and compensating the clergy, would be applied for church purposes in connexion with the growing population.

said, the evidence taken, before the Select Committee in 1843 showed that the vicars received more "fittings," as they were called, than the curates. It was a mistake to say that the clergy had never been hostile to sanitary reforms; they were the parties who had most stood in their way; for, like lawyers, they would never teach their own profession with a reforming hand. The Bishop of London, in his evidence, stated that he had never enjoyed better health than when he resided in Bishopsgate-street, near the churchyard of St. Helen's. The same noble Prelate also stated that the "fittings" received by the vicars were purchased by the undertakers, on an average, for 10s.; while the curates only received about 2s. 6d. for theirs. He therefore wished to know whether there was to be a sort of sliding scale of compensation, according to the amount which had been received by the different parties in the shape either of fees or "fittings."

having had personal communication with the clergy on the subject of the Bill, was bound to say that as a body they had shown the greatest desire to assist in the advancement of this measure, even at the expense of their own fees. The clergy, in fact, were entitled to a fee of 8s. for each funeral; but in order that they should not stand in the way of the Bill, they had consented to take the 6s. 2d., as proposed by Government, and he was therefore bound to acknowledge with admiration and gratitude the assistance which they had rendered this great measure.

said, he wished to make one observation on a subject which had been referred to by his hon. Colleague. He meant the salubrity of graveyards. A few weeks ago three grave gentlemen who had invested capital in funeral paraphernalia waited upon him to point out the injustice which the measure would inflict upon them. They insisted that there was no necessity whatever for it, and scouted the very idea of a churchyard being at all unhealthy. In proof of this they wished him to go to a neighbouring church and see the sexton, whose children lived in the yard, and were remarkable for their roseate and healthy appearance. He, however, declined the invitation, much to the disappointment of the deputation, who seemed to think that the best place a worn-out Member could repair to at the close of a fatiguing Ses- sion was not to a salubrious park in the country, but to some lodging house in the immediate neighbourhood of a metropolitan churchyard.

said, it was the custom of the House to print amendments before they were agreed to. He knew that it was not absolutely necessary; but in a difficult clause like this, the custom ought to be enforced to enable hon. Members to understand it.

said, it would only waste time to print the clause, and he therefore hoped his noble Friend would not press his proposal.

said, he had great objection to the 30th clause with respect to the amount of compensation. He would ask the promoters of the Bill if they thought they were dealing fairly with the public? The rate of 6s. 2d. for each interment would very greatly increase the amount of burial fees to be paid. Taking Shoreditch, he found the average amount of fees on each burial was 2s. 4d. In Islington it was, certainly, 6s. 6d. In Bethnal-green it sank to 1s. 6d., and in Lambeth to 3s. 6d. Now was the right hon. Baronet prepared to increase the fees of burials in those districts where, though the people were poor, they still took an honest pride in burying their own dead, from 1s. 6d. to 6s. 2d.? It would have the effect of arising the expense of interment fees very materially indeed to all but the pauper classes. In Bethnal Green the increase would be 400 per cent. He would venture to enter into a statistical argument with the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Health, and to maintain that instead of 8s. being the average amount, 4s. was more correct, and that with respect to all classes. He would urge upon the Government to lower the sum of 6s. 2d. to 4s. 4d., which he was convinced was a much more just amount.

said, that he believed the statistics of the noble Lord the Member for Bath were the most correct, and he could not consent to lower the standard.

said, he must again put the question which had not yet been answered, and that was whether the Board of Health was to have the disposal of the surplus fund which it was expected might perhaps accrue, and if not, who was to have the disposal of it?

said, that it would be devoted to make some provision for the spiritual aid of the large and growing population of those districts. He thought the principle was one which was well worthy of being entertained by the Committee.

said, the right hon. Baronet had stated the objects of the fund, but had not mentioned who was to have the disposal of it.

could not answer that question at present.

thought the House ought to confine compensation for burial fees to the number of burials of persons who had resided within the parish and had been buried within it. He begged to repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, that the metropolitan clergy had acted in the most objectionable manner with regard to encouraging the interment of persons who were strangers in the parish. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Speak louder.] It was utterly impossible for him to speak louder. He had addressed thousands of persons within the borough which he represented, and his voice had been pretty well heard by them. The fact that he could not make himself heard in that House, showed the necessity of appointing a Committee to see what could be done with the House to remedy this defect. Some of the clergy of London had made a traffic of their burial grounds, and when they found that the fees were too high they lowered them, in order to induce parties to bring a greater number of bodies for interment than the ground ought to have been made to hold. And yet the House, by this clause, was about to give compensation to persons who had practised this improper trafficking. The disgusting scenes which had taken place in St. Giles's Cemetery, Old St. Pancras-road, had been given in evidence. Sometimes, when they buried a poor person, they threw a little earth over him, but as soon as the burial was over, and the mourners gone, the coffin was removed to a neighbouring vault. In 1846 there were 896 deaths in the parish of St. Giles, but there were 2,323 burials in the ground to which he was referring. In 1847 the deaths were 1,298, and the burials 2,877; in 1848 the deaths were 1,111, and the burials 3,578; while for one-half of 1849 the deaths were 573, and the burials, 3,440. A case could be proved in which a body was entirely broken up, the head being separated from the other parts, and the whole in this disgusting con- dition put into a wheelbarrow and removed to another part of the ground, where they were thrown into a hole. This was for the purpose of making room for others; yet the rector, when under examination, described the cemetery as in an admirable state. It was indeed notorious that inducements were held out to people to bury in this ground in order to increase as much as possible the fees; and the success which attended these efforts was shown by the great number of burials compared with the deaths in the parish which he had just pointed out to the House. Indeed, there was a part of the ground kept in reserve for the bodies of the rich, as an inducement to the people of the better class. Now, these things were done under the sanction of the rector himself, the Rev. Mr. Tyler. The sexton of the rev. gentleman, the rector of St. Giles, began his life as a soldier, was afterwards a parson, then he became sexton to this rev. gentleman who made those exactions, and then he became, as the natural course, an undertaker and stonemason. It was impossible for him to think of compensating a clergyman in the way proposed by the Bill, who had resorted to such practices as he had pointed out for the purpose of increasing his fees; and, therefore, on the bringing up of the report, he would move a clause for the purpose of dealing with such cases.

said, that he had no knowledge of the facts to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but he had known the Rev. Dr. Tyler for a long time, and, from what be knew of that gentleman's character, he believed that he was incapable of giving his sanction to any such proceedings as had been detailed by the hon. Gentleman. If any parties had been guilty of the facts stated, they would be liable to be proceeded against for a misdemeanour. He did not know whether the hon. Gentlemen was misinformed as to his facts, but he felt assured that he was misinformed as to the Rev. Dr. Tyler's having any connexion with them.

said, that when an inquiry was ordered by the Board of Health, Dr. Tyler objected to the press being admitted, and to have any report of the evidence appear in the newspapers. It came out, however, on the evidence of one of the gravediggers, that the practice was to pretend to fill up the grave whilst the mourners were present, but as soon as they were gone, the bodies were removed to a family vault to make room for others. He should certainly object to give any compensation in such gross cases.

said, it was not very likely that persons would send dead bodies from neighbouring parishes to be interred in the burial ground of St. Giles, if the practices referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been going on.

said, that the public had not been aware of them till they came out in the inquiry which took place in November last.

said, that all that had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone was true; but he believed the Rev. Dr. Tyler was not aware of what was going on till the inquiry took place, for the funeral service was performed by the rev. sexton. He would ask the noble Lord the Member for Bath, whether he was not aware of the facts, as a Member of the Board of Health?

was understood to say that he had no knowledge whatever of the facts, beyond the circumstance that the bodies were removed to a family vault.

said, there appeared to be little doubt that this reverend soldier and stonemason had been carrying on a trade in this burying ground. He understood that this graveyard was purchased for the parish by the funds of the parish, levied on the ratepayers for the purpose. And such being the case, it did appear a monstrous thing that the ratepayers should be called on to pay the money to purchase the burial ground, and then that persons should be invited from the surrounding parishes to bury their dead in this graveyard—that the clergymen should put into their pockets the proceeds of this system, and then, when this Bill passed, that they should be empowered to receive in perpetuity—so long as these impostures and evils were permitted—a sum equivalent to what they had received on an average of the last five years. Why, they were trading on the capital and expenditure of the parish; and it appeared astonishing to him that such a system should be suffered to continue. Perhaps he as a Dissenter had not so much right to complain; but he could not understand how Churchmen could tolerate such a system in their Church. A system like that only made him wish that every Churchman should carry a parson on his back till the last day of his life.

gave notice that, on the bringing up of the report, he would move that no compensation be given to parish clerks and sextons. The abominations practised in some of the metropolitan graveyards were truly revolting. It was notorious that in St. Pancras graveyard coffins were deposited within nine inches of the surface. It also appeared by the evidence of a woman residing in the locality, who had been examined before the Committee, that on Friday the 19th of November, whilst looking through a back window she saw two men working in the graveyard—one engaged in dissevering a human body, and the other in making a hole in the ground in which to deposit the mutilated remains, which were finally huddled on a wheelbarrow and thrown into the hole. The witness also stated that she had no doubt the body was one interred some five weeks previously.

was anxious to keep au courant with the arguments of hon. Members around him, but found it difficult. Were these tales of horror brought forward to induce them to make all possible haste with the Bill? On one point, however, he felt a difficulty. There was a story told of a merry monarch, who put the question to the Royal Society, why a dead fish weighed more than a living one? The Society, it was stated, occupied a considerable time in endeavouring to solve the problem, and at last thought of asking whether the fact was so to begin with. Now he would like to know, as a simple mathematical question, how much less ground it took to bury the parts of a body than the whole? He could not help thinking the hon. Member had yielded to the pleasing horror attendant on a frightful story, and had allowed his imagination to run away with his powers of examination.

thought the fees of graveyards should be limited to those members of families interred within them, and that the fees accruing from the interments of strangers ought to be appropriated to those parishes that were in need of them.

stated his determination to oppose the clause, as being most objectionable, and involving the abolition of a constitutional principle—the principle of self-government. The clause gave power to the Commissioners to levy a rate of 1d. in the pound on the inhabitants of the metropolis; and be called on the Committee to resist that, as being unjust and oppressive, and also because they had the authority of the promoters of the Bill for saying it was unnecessary. The objections to the clause were so obvious that every man must be struck with them; and he, therefore, considered the Committee would not be doing its duty if it did not endeavour to reject the clause. So strongly did he feel on the matter, that he felt bound to take the sense of the Committee on it.

said, the tax thus levied would realise some 35,000l. a year. If the Government were anxious to carry out the object of their Bill—as he believed they were—why not allow the parochial districts to regulate their own affairs? It was, therefore, his intention to move, that "Vestries acting under local Acts may provide burial grounds at their own expense, with the sanction of the Board of Health."

wished to know how much money the promoters of the Bill expected to derive from this penny rate, the proceeds of which were to be placed at the disposal of an irresponsible board. He objected to the clause altogether, as one that was giving to an irresponsible board the power of taxation, a right that belonged only to the House of Commons, as the representatives of the people. He maintained that they were exceeding their power in thus transferring to another body the right to impose taxes. It was to be a penny in the pound this year, but it might be twopence next year; and it would be found that Dissenters as well as Churchmen had to pay, for there was no exemption. There was no precedent for so unconstitutional an act as this on the part of the House of Commons.

thought the rate should be a halfpenny in the pound instead of a penny, and moved an Amendment to that effect; but, after some conversation, finding no support in the House, the hon. Member withdrew it.

objected to both halfpence and pence. The system of entrusting taxation to an irresponsible board was most disagreeable to all classes, and he should therefore oppose the clause.

complained that the rate would operate unequally in many of the Loudon parishes if the valuation was to be that acted upon in assessing the county rate.

then moved the proviso giving power to vestries to provide burial grounds at their own expense.

hoped it would not be necessary for the board to have recourse to the rating clause; but it was clear that, if the fees did not meet the expenses, it would be necessary to have some other mode of providing the necessary funds to fall back upon, otherwise the whole machinery might come to a dead lock. The propriety of having a central board, rather than leaving the whole matter to parochial management, had been amply discussed, and very substantial reasons given why a central board ought to be preferred. As to the remarks which had been made with reference to the unconstitutional character of the rate, he must remind the House that the object was to substitute burial grounds for the existing churchyards in the various parishes, and that, though the machinery by which the rate was to be raised might be new, yet there was nothing new in the imposition of the rate itself. He was certainly surprised that the hon. Member for Marylebone should propose to give power to the parochial authorities to provide burial places after the statements they had heard from him relative to one of the parochial churchyards. He would certainly oppose the proviso he had moved, and he hoped the House would give its sanction to the clause.

then moved the rejection of the clause.

begged to remind hon. Members that this was a model Bill, and that their own constituencies would eventually, as well as the inhabitants of London, be subjected to this tax.

said, the noble Lord the Member for Bath had stated, that he did not believe it would be necessary for the Board of Health to resort to this tax. Now, the noble Lord must have made that statement on calculations made by the board; and what, therefore, he would suggest was, that this clause should be postponed for the present, or, as he thought, until the next Session, in order that they might have more information on the subject. If it should be proved that the regulations of the board could not be carried into effect without this additional outlay, he believed there would be no hos- tility in or out of the House to such a proposition.

opposed the clause on great constitutional principles. This Bill was to be confined to the metropolitan districts, but he objected to a precedent of this nature.

wished to put the questions of which he had given notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, namely, whether he can furnish any information as to the number of pensioners who may be proceeding to Hudson's Bay this season, and also of those who are at present stationed in the Hudson's Bay territory? And whether the Hudson's Bay Company have been empowered to employ these pensioners for the enforcement or protection of their monopoly of trade against the native or other inhabitants of the country; and if not, what duties it is intended they shall perform on their arrival in that territory?

said, that in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he might state that previous to the year 1846 the Hudson's Bay Company were without protection from any British force of any description; but in 1846 disturbances arose between the Hudson's Bay Company and certain parties which he did not know how to designate—whether they belonged to the united States, or were marauders acknowledging no government at all—and it was found necessary to detach from Canada a considerable body of the 6th Regiment of Foot. Those troops were kept there for nearly two years, and it was found to be so isolated a position for troops in Her Majesty's service, without communication with other regiments or from home, that it was thought necessary to provide for the protection of those territories in another way, and it was resolved to send out, under the command of an officer, a body of pensioners who would be there in the enjoyment of their pensions, and receive from' the Hudson's Bay Company certain advantages in lodgings, land, and money. It was arranged that they should be required to go out twelve days in the year for drill, and be prepared to turn out for the protection of the public peace when called upon by the authorities of the place. The number of pensioners originally sent there was fifty-six, and they were now about to add twenty to that number in the present year, and they would sail in the course of a few days to Hudson's Bay. He was not aware that those parties had received orders to interfere with the local concerns of the Hudson's Bay Company. They were under the command of their officer, to be called out at his discretion, and not at the discretion of the Hudson's Bay officers, to preserve the public peace. That was the object of those troops being sent there.

said, that if the military officer at the head of the pensioners was not under the control of the company, he wished to know under what particular orders he was to act, and whether he was to obey the orders the Hudson's Bay Company should give him in case of an affray? He thought it ought to be known under what specific orders and authorities this officer was to act.

said, that the officer's orders were to preserve the public peace, and to prevent any persons from interfering with the trade of that company.

begged to ask if the pensioners were paid by this country? If they were there solely for the benefit of the Hudson's Bay Company, they were the persons to pay them.

The pensioners draw their pensions which are given them for past services, and they get lodgings, land, and money from the company.

Sir, I rise to move for a Select Committee to investigate the revenue and expenditure and present condition of the Harbours of Ramsgate and Margate. The trustees of the harbour receive annually a sum of about 21,100l. as dues from vessels, besides 5,400l. from other sources, making a total of 26,500l.; and the object of my Motion is, to ascertain how these revenues are expended. No advantage arises from levying this enormous toll, but it gives enormous patronage to the trustees of the harbour, who are enabled to expend 25,000l. a year on I know not what. Far be it from me to say that the money is misappropriated—the money no doubt is expended honestly; but it is wasted and expended in an improper manner. In 1822, there was a Select Committee appointed, who reported that the enormous dues collected by the Ramsgate Harbour Commissioners ought to be discontinued, and that the expense of keeping up the harbour—paying officers, and keeping it in repair, ought only to be 7,000l. a year; but since that time the trustees, in addition to 145,000l., since the harbour was first formed, have expended 1,500,000l. in repairs and alterations. Vessels of 350 tons and under can only enter the harbour, and yet they are levying tolls to the extent of several thousands per annum upon vessels which cannot enter the harbour. The trustees have now in their hands a sum of 66,420l., and what I propose is, that they shall lessen their expenses to 7,000l. or 8,000l. a year, and keep in their hands a surplus fund of 50,000l., in cases of need, to meet any unexpected accident that might occur in the harbour. I am not inclined to press my Motion, but I am anxious to obtain some information from the hon. Member for the city of London, who is one of the trustees. It is for that purpose that I shall submit my Motion, the object of which I shall state in a few words; but previous to my doing so, I beg to ask the hon. Member for London if he will consent to reduce the tolls 50 per cent? [Mr. MASTERMAN: No.] Then I will as concisely as the subject will admit, state the object of my Motion. It is a subject of very great importance to the trade of the empire, and to the security of navigation. I am aware that a Committee on Shipwrecks is now sitting; but that Committee will confine its inquiries to the question how far it is expedient to educate mates and masters of ships for the merchant service, or to find some place of refuge in bad weather; the Committee that I require is to supply funds for a harbour of refuge, or to give back to the Treasury large sums now raised by tolls to no purpose, or, if these sums, it appears, are not required, to ease the shipping interest of a heavy and useless payment of dues, which dues at present are wasted in a manner unprofitable to the country or to navigation. The House is aware, that in 1840 a 'Commission was named by the Queen, to ascertain the best site for a harbour of refuge on the coast. The report of that Commission stated, that amongst other places, that between Margate and the North Foreland, the other in Dover Bay, and a third in Beachey Head, were eligible for the purpose; and that the cost of a harbour of refuge might be about two millions. Mr. Cubitt the engineer, however, thought a harbour might be formed at a much less cost, to answer the purpose equally well. The House must understand, that by a perfect harbour of refuge, is meant a harbour accessible at all times of the tide by vessels of any tonnage, the mouth of which is so placed as to be entered easily with the most prevalent wind. Every person of the slightest knowledge in maritime affairs must be aware of the vast importance in our trade of such a harbour both in times of war and of peace; particularly as every year steam navigation, and the intercourse between nations, considerably increase. I am one of those who do not anticipate the probability of war, but think there is no doubt that the communication between England and other nations will considerably increase. Now such a harbour of refuge in one of the spots just enumerated, is most desirable; I am fully aware that the Treasury of the country ought not, if possible, to be called on to supply the means, and I think I can point out to the House some method of obtaining funds for that purpose, without increasing the burthens of the country. If the funds received from tolls on passing ships are now wasted or misapplied, why should these funds not be made applicable to the formation of a harbour of refuge? If the House do not sanction such an application, then ease the shipping interest of the burden, and levy no more on the commerce of the country than the amount absolutely required to keep the present harbours in repair. That such tolls so levied are misapplied, I will now prove to the satisfaction of the House. I will begin with Ramsgate Harbour, and ex uno disce omnes. The House must learn, that by an old Act of Parliament, the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour levy 4d. a ton on all foreign ships, and 2d. a ton on all British ships that pass the Foreland, which are above 300 tons burthen; those under that tonnage pay rather less. This tax is levied to keep up Ramsgate Harbour, and to be continued as long as this harbour wants repair. By this paper in my hand, printed by order of the House on my Motion last month, it appears this rate in 1841 gave to Ramsgate Harbour 19,065l.; and with some other dues the trustees obtain an average income of 20,651l., besides a balance in hand of 5,694l.; in 1849 the tolls were upwards of 20,000l., and other income 5,000l. Now I will show by evidence that 7,000l. a year is more than sufficient for the repairs of Ramsgate Harbour, which harbour, it is notorious, cannot receive vessels above 450 tons burthen—so you tax British and foreign vessels 4d. a ton, for a harbour which can by no possibility be of any use to them. Was there ever any thing so monstrous, so absurd, or so unjust? You commit an act of injustice by such a toll; and you injure all the other harbours on the coast, because it is notorious that foreign vessels will not, for fear of paying this unjust toll, stop at any English harbour if they can possibly help so doing; but they run over to the French, or Belgian, or Dutch coast, where such exactions are not made; the result is an injury to our seaports, by preventing the expenditure of foreign ships in them. Now to show the House the waste of money that takes place at Ramsgate, I will refer to the evidence of Sir William Curtis, the head of the trustees of that place in 1822:—

"Foreign Trade Committee,

April 26, 1822.

"Sir William Curtis examined.

"Q. What ought to be the annual charge of keeping the harbour of Ramsgate in repair?—

A. It will require some little calculations from the books to answer that.

"Q. Do you think that from 5,000l. to 7,000l. a year would be sufficient?—A. Yes, it might do.

"W. Domett, Esq., examined (p. 276).

"Q, Do you consider the benefit to the shipping to be in proportion to the money laid out at Ramsgate?—A. Far from it; many thousand pounds have been laid out, of no use whatever. Men are constantly hammering stones.

"Q. Do you consider the benefit to the harbour adequate to the expenditure of 20,000l. a year?—A. No, certainly not; far from that (p. 271).

"George Good, Esq., examined.

"Q. What has, in the last six years, been laid out on Ramsgate harbour?—A. 147,538l., with little or no advantage.

"Q. Do you think the advantage derived from Ramsgate a sufficient compensation for the expense drawn on the shipping?—A. No, certainly not.

"Q. Do you know the manner in which the duties are levied on foreign shipping?—A. I do not; but I know it is that of which they very much complain."

Not to fatigue the House by reading all the evidence, I will only add, it appears that, in 1822, the Committee said that 8,000l. a year was quite sufficient for Ramsgate Harbour, since which period the trustees have received upwards of 400,000l. Some years ago, a banquetting-house for the trustees to dine in only once in each year, was erected, and it has cost 3,500l; it is of no use whatever; and that, from its first formation to the present time, that harbour has cost the commerce of the country an enormous expenditure—not less than l,500,000l. To sum up the evidence of Sir W. Curtis (an unwilling witness). Captain Domett, and Mr. Good, it appears this harbour is of no use but to small vessels about 350 tons, and under; can only be entered at particular times of the tide, and that in a gale of wind, when shelter is required, the danger of entering the harbour is very great; and that the sum of 7,000l. a year is quite sufficient for every possible purpose required. Now, what is the case? The sum of 20,000l. a year is collected by dues on large vessels, British and foreign, to which the harbour can be of no possible use, and this money is wasted in the most wanton manner. Let one of these two measures be adopted—either relieve the shipping interest from these most vexatious, useless, and unjust tolls, or, if they are continued, apply them to some useful purpose. Why not, in the latter case, commence a harbour of refuge in some eligible spot on the coast? The surplus fund from Ramsgate Harbour alone would be, say 12,000l. a year; from Dover harbour, probably 8,000l., besides many others. Here you have at once a fund of, say 20,000l. a year, which will establish a sinking fund, or pay the interest of 400,000l. for a harbour of refuge, and not put the country to one shilling more of expense. At the same time, I am fully aware of the talent and ingenuity, and of the powerful interest both in this House and out of it, of the trustees of harbours, and of other parties connected with these tolls; but let us have fair play—let the House give me a Committee. I defy them to disprove one single assertion that I have made. Let us have a Committee. But why shrink from the severe test of an examination, and of a Committee, if all is right? I repeat, these abuses ought to be corrected—gross jobs cannot be tolerated in the nineteenth century—either prove, as you ought to do, before a Committee, that the harbours of Ramsgate and Margate require all the money they raise on tolls, or let that money be applied for the security of navigation and the safety of seamen; or give up these at present vexatious and unjust tolls, and relieve the shipping interest from these burthens. Either investigate and prove the case, or let the trustees voluntarily relinquish those immense sums now extracted from vessels passing the Foreland. Let the House consider, also, that these revenues will increase as commerce increases, and that the time is come when an investigation ought to be made of the manner in which these large sums are expended. I am aware of what I have to expect from the parties opposed to any inquiry—I well know their talent and ingenuity; but I trust the paramount duty of the Members of the House will supersede all other considerations, and that no further opposition will be made to a Committee. Sir, I beg leave to move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed, to investigate the revenue, condition, and expenditure of Ramsgae and Margate Harbours."

seconded the Motion.

, as one of the trustees of the harbour, denied that the money had been expended in an improvident manner. No funds could be more justly administered, and no persons could more honestly discharge the trust reposed in them. Under those circumstances the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour had no wish to shrink from any inquiry the House imposed upon them; they acted according to their duty; and the more their conduct was inquired into, the clearer it would appear. With regard to the statement that they had in their hands an excess beyond 50,000l., he begged to remark that since that excess had arisen, it had been under consideration to make some reductions which he thought would be satisfactory to the shipping interest, and at the same time keep the harbour in a good condition. He could not as an individual trustee make any specific promise with respect to what might be done, but the subject was under consideration, and alterations would be made that would be acceptable to the shipping interest, and with a due regard to the state of the harbour.

was anxious to hear what line of defence would be made to the charge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lymington, for he believed there never was a grosser case for inquiry than that of this harbour, where toll was received for larger vessels than ever entered into it. He must call the attention of the House to an omission in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the harbour of Dovor. Every word which the hon. Gentleman used with respect to Ramsgate was equally applicable to the port of Dovor. There was, however, this difference—the port of Dovor was no port at all. It was a port, as regarded the custom-house, for levying dues; but as a harbour or place to put into, it was utterly absurd to call it so. To show how the taxation in that harbour bore upon vessels, he called attention to a return laid upon the table for the years 1839 and 1840, from which it appeared that 842 vessels entered the port of Shore-ham, passing by the ports of Dovor and Ramsgate, and paid 391l. 8s. for the privilege of passing the port of Dovor. And he gave an individual case: there was a single vessel which paid 14l. 15s. as tonnage duty for passing that harbour. The hon. Member for Lymington had referred to the extravagance of the port of Rams-gate; but did he look to the information that had been obtained respecting the port of Dovor? The expenditure was 17,419l. and the sum the parties had to deal with was 23,000l. There was a sum of 800l. for law expenses to Mr. G. W. Ledger, registrar, and a sum of 1,036l. to Mr. Walker, engineer, for one year, though in all previous years the payment was 300l. or 400l. That would certainly show there was something that required inquiry. In 1839 and 1840 there was 10,000l. a year, and now there is 12,000l. a year, exacted from vessels passing the harbour; and he asked, would the House any longer tolerate such exactions? He proposed, therefore, to include Dovor in the Motion of the hon. Member.

complained that great wrong had been inflicted on a steamboat company in the city which he had the honour to represent, by the tolls which were exacted on their steam vessels between Liverpool and Rotterdam. He had represented their case to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whom he regretted not to see in his place, and that right hon. Gentleman admitted the injustice, and said that he would lay the case before the Government.

thought it not quite fair to add the name of "Dovor" to the Motion. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton should bring forward the matter by a substantive Motion, instead of by an Amendment of which no notice to the parties interested had been given. As he was convinced that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would act in the fairest manner, he would confine his reply to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lymington. He would not enter into the question as to the advantages derivable from the harbour, as he could not suppose that the House contemplated its removal. The question as to the relief of the shipping was, however, important, and to this he would address himself. As he understood the matter, the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour, according to the terms of their Act, were unable to reduce the dues until they had in hand a reserve fund of 50,000l.; and as they now had that sum, they were prepared to reduce the dues. He thought, under these circumstances, it would be more expedient to wait to see what the trustees intended to do; and after they knew what they would do, then the hon. Gentleman, should be think further inquiry necessary, could attain that object by again bringing forward his Motion. He thought that the trustees, having had the trouble of collecting this reserve fund, should be allowed an opportunity of reducing the dues spontaneously; and, therefore, he would recommend that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion.

thought the case made out by the right hon. Gentleman warranted the appointment of a Committee, for it appeared that the moment the trustees had acquired the sum of 50,000l. they were bound to reduce the dues, and they had not done so. He considered that the dues charged by harbours was a great tax on the commerce of the country; and their remission had been recommended by every Committee on which he had served during the last twenty years. He thought that, looking to the changes they had made in their navigation laws, it was the duty of the Government; it would be far more creditable to them, instead of waiting to be thus urged on every item, to see what could be done to remove all these taxes which pressed so heavily on the shipping interest. They might as well be without a Government if they would not seek to remit taxation. He would give his support to the Motion.

trusted that the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton would persevere with his Amendment when the proper time arrived. It was the general impression that these rates were unfairly exceeded; but he thought, after the intimation given, by which he understood that a reduction of 50 per cent was to be made by the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour, the hon. Gentleman might for the present Session withdraw his Motion.

offered to withdraw his Motion, provided the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of London would pledge himself to endeavour to reduce the dues at least one-half.

thought it very unreasonable that he, as an individual trustee, should be called on to say he would reduce one item or another. He had stated that the subject had been long under the consideration of the trustees, that there was an earnest desire on their part to do justice to all parties, and he had no hesitation in saying a reduction was in contemplation, but what it was to be it would be very indiscreet for him to say.

thought that a case had been made out for inquiry, and that the hon. Member for Lymington was entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought the subject under their notice.

said, it was not necessary, in order to prove his case, to weary the House with any abstruse calculations or elaborate statistics. He rested the Motion he had the honour to propose, on the ground of equal justice to the home and colonial distillers; and he trusted that, on these grounds alone, the House would accede to his Motion. The case, as between the home and the colonial distillers was this, that in levying the excise duty on spirits of home manufacture, the quantity was measured for duty at the time when it was first made, or as it is called by the trade at the worm's end: if it was then bonded, the distiller, on releasing it from bond, was compelled to pay duty on the quantity originally bonded, no matter what diminution by leakage or evaporation it might have undergone since that period. Whereas, in the case of the colonial manufacturer, he had only to pay duty to the customs on what was measured out from the bonding warehouse, whenever it was released from bond, irrespective of the quantity originally placed in bond. So the home manufacturer had to pay duty on whatever loss or diminution the article sustained whilst in bond, whilst the colonial manufacturer only paid on the actual quantity measured out for consumption. That, in his opinion, was of itself sufficient to show the injustice and hardship to which the home manufacturer was subjected. Now to illustrate his position the more clearly, he would suppose that three casks of spirits, one of brandy, one of rum, and one of home spirits, were bonded, and that they remained in bond three years. At the end of that time, on being released, if the rum and brandy should be found to have lessened by two gallons each, these two gallons of absorption would not be paid duty on, whilst the home spirits, no matter to what extent it had diminished, would be compelled to pay duty, not in the quantity taken out at the end of the three years, as in the case of the rum and brandy, but on the quantity originally entered. To render it still plainer, he would read to the House the following statement of Messrs. Callwell and Horner:—

"Four quarter-casks of brandy were landed and stored (after a passage from France) in Dublin Custom-house stores, on the 13th of February, 1849. These casks were taken out at intervals, from July, 1849, to January, 1850. The original content of these four vessels was found, on gauge and trial of strength, to be 108 gallons; when taken out, the contents and strength had decreased to 103 gallons; waste, six gallons.

"Being French brandy, and taken out of bond, the duty, amounting to 4l. 10s., was remitted.

"What would be the result, if four casks of Irish whisky were similarly circumstanced?

"The owners would have to pay 2s. 8d. per gallon on the deficiency—say, 16s. on 102 gallons.

"Now, had these four casks of spirits been shipped from an Irish distiller to a London dealer, the natural course of trade, if unfettered from excise restrictions, was adopted, the owner would have to pay, when taking them out of bond in London for home consumption, the 'deficiency duty,' as it is termed, at the rate of 7s 10d. per gallon—that is, the owner of Irish or British-made spirits would be made to pay a species of penalty for having good spirits at the rate of 12d. 12–100 per gallon, whilst the owner of French brandy would be charged nil, and the favoured proprietor of sugar-made rum would be charged with nil—that is, in this petty transaction the home manufacturer under free-trade laws would be in a worse position by 21. 7s. than any foreigner."

He was aware that he might be met by the argument, that as the home distiller enjoyed a differential duty of 4d. per gallon on colonial rum, that was a sufficient equivalent for the disadvantage in which he was placed with respect to the mode of levying the duty. But he must beg the House to remember that the 4d. differential duty-was founded on Mr. Wood's evidence before the Sugar and Coffee Committee, of which Lord George Bentinck was chair, man. Mr. Wood distinctly then stated that he thought the distillers had made out a case for 4d.; but what were the items of his 4d.? They were these—

Malt duty	1½d.
Increased Plant	1d.
Excise restrictions	1d.
Duty on decreases	½d.
Total	4d.

Now, the House must see that only ½d. of this differential duty is affected by the present Motion, and therefore it is ridiculous to say that if the duty on decreases be remitted, that on that account the differential duty should be altered beyond the amount of ½d per gallon. The home distillers, however, did not consider the differential duty a sufficient compensation. It had also been objected to the adoption of any plan of measuring the spirits upon coming out of bond, that it would lead to considerable frauds on the revenue. What was, however, proposed, would in no degree affect the measurement at the worm's end, for it was quite possible to measure the spirits at the time of their coming from the still, and on their lodgment in the stores. Again, distillers were perfectly willing to pay the duty upon any deficiency that might arise between those periods, or in transitu; but what they complained of was, that they should have to pay the duty upon the loss occasioned by leakage or evaporation while the spirits remained under the Queen's seal. So far from this arrangement of paying upon the quantity leaving bond tending to increased frauds on the revenue, it would, in some cases, he the means of obviating a certain species of measurement, which was at present considerably against the Excise. For instance, the Excise could not measure to less than one-tenth of an inch, and where the spirit was measured in large receivers, and where there was necessarily a very extensive surface, the large distillers were frequently able to gain a considerable quantity, varying according to the circumstances of the case; while, on the other hand, if the spirits were measured in the warehouse, and upon their coming into consumption, the Excise would be able to measure accurately every drop of liquor. But, as to the falling oft" in the amount of revenue by reason of alteration in the present mode, those best acquainted with the trade in all its details were of opinion that production would be so enormously increased that the revenue would be a gainer. There was another mode in which these restrictions interfered with the distillers. It was a great object to the traders to be allowed to take advantage of the market, and to avail themselves of the prices that might offer there if favourable. Maturity also materially increased the value of the article. But the restrictions prevented the distiller and trader from keeping on hand large stocks, as he knew very well that by reason of the occurrence of deficiency or absorption he would be a loser in the way of duty chargeable for such absorption. The Irish distiller distilled from a mixture of malt and corn, whilst the Scotch distiller distilled from malt alone, consequently the Scotch distillation sooner arrived at maturity than the Irish, so that a greater time of bond, and consequently a greater amount of excise duty, fell on the Irish article of distillation. These restrictions were most obnoxious, and their tendency was to reduce the number of distilleries, throwing the whole trade into the hands of the large distillers. That reduction in the number of distilleries was injurious in more ways than one, because it threw a number of persons out of employment, as well in the distilleries as in the turf tracts, much of which article was used in the manufacture of spirits, and the cutting of which afforded employment to thousands. The spirit traders also complained that these restrictions interfered with the export trade. It might be said, they were allowed to export duty free; but the House should remember that to avail themselves of that privilege they were obliged to bond their spirits and declare it for exportation immediately on its being manufactured. But no trader could afford to do that. The statement of the trade on the subject is as follows:—

"The Government were compelled from the great injustice of this part of the subject, to order that whisky may be exported under the same regulations as affect colonial and foreign spirits, pro- vided it be declared by the manufacturer when bonding the spirits, that they are for exportation. This so-called relief is not of the smallest value. No manufacturer will so place his property that he will not be enabled at any time to dispose of it in the best market and to the most advantage. What the trade requires is plain and simple: That Irish made spirits may be placed in respect to the method of levying duty on precisely the same footing with colonial and foreign spirits."

No man would so place his property as not to be able to take it out and make the best sale that the market would allow. Therefore, not only were the distillers of Scotland and Ireland, but all the spirit traders of these countries, immensely interested in this important question; and he could not but think the House would consent to remove these restrictions that weighed so heavily on a large and influential body of manufacturers. The claim was one of simple justice: all they demand is, that the trader and manufacturer should not pay tax for an article which at the time of payment is not in existence. The revenue can hardly suffer to any extent. There is no breach of faith with the West Indies: they ask but equal measurement for all. In these days of free trade, when the removal of duties on every article of necessity was the cry, he could not think the House would refuse to remove these heavy and pressing restrictions on an important branch of home industry.

seconded the Motion. He felt a particular interest in the question from the circumstance of his connexion with Campbeltown, where extensive distillery operations were carried on, and an annual amount of duty paid ranging from 250,000l. to 300,000l. He had also presented a petition from the island of Isla, where a large amount of duty was also paid. He was prepared to admit that the distillers of Scotland were not so disadvantageously situated as those of Ireland. He would also admit that, two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made very considerable concessions, and in consequence of these concessions, the trade of Campbeltown was in a very flourishing state. It was always with pain that he felt himself compelled to give a vote in opposition to Her Majesty's present Government; but he felt assured that, in the present instance, the course he was pursuing was that of justice.

said, that the noble Lord, in introducing the Motion, wished the House to infer it was a question of free trade. But if the noble Lord had paid attention to the subject, as, indeed, lhs speech showed he had, he might have seen it was the intention of the House, in arranging the spirit duties in 1848, altogether to disregard the question of protection, and to place the home and colonial manufacturers as nearly as possible in a parallel position. Of the several questions that engaged the attention of the Sugar Committee of 1848, there was none that occupied so much of their time, or to which they gave more laborious consideration, than that of fixing the relative duties on home and colonial spirits. The noble Lord adverted to the fact that duty is paid on the quantity of home spirits originally bonded, whilst, as regarded colonial spirits, duty is only paid on the quantity taken from bond. But the noble Lord forgot that this was one of the chief considerations which determined the decision of the Committee in fixing a duty of 4d. a gallon higher on colonial than on home spirits, and a duty on foreign spirits of 15s., double what was charged on British spirits. He considered that after a Committee of that House and the House itself had resolved that the difference between the two classes of consumers should be settled at 4d. per gallon, it would be unfair of the House now to disturb that arrangement—both unfair to the West Indians, as well as to the producers of spirits in the other parts of the empire. The position was this: either the duty at present charged on home spirits must be increased, or the colonial duty diminished, in order to bring-both manufacturers to an exact relation. What was the cause of complaint as regarded the home producer? Several years ago an application was made to the Legislature to permit the home distiller to bond any portion of his stock, in order that he might have credit on the duty, and export what he pleased without paying the duty. He should say that such was a great boon, because it was equivalent to giving the home manufacturers credit on the duty; and, consequently, it was not fair that these gentlemen should now come forward—after having so long enjoyed such a privilege—and seek for a further boon and privilege. At the sittings of the Sugar Committee the chairman of the Inland Re- venue Office gave some very valuable evidence respecting this matter. He showed that in 1833, upon 2,672,000 gallons, the decreases amounted only to 3–10ths of a gallon per cent. In the year 1845–46, upon the transactions of the year, 5,138,000 gallons, the decrease was rather more than a halfpenny per gallon; whilst as regarded the rectifier, referred to by the noble Lord, the decrease was ¾d. per gallon. It was upon such evidence that an arrangement was submitted to the House, and assented to by it, as also by the West Indian manufacturers. It was considered a fair settlement of the question; and therefore if hon. Gentlemen representing the distilling interests should think fit to call for a new arrangement, they should not be surprised if the West Indians came forward and demanded a readjustment likewise. The noble Lord complained that the restriction deterred manufacturers from working on speculation, by reason of the duty to be paid on the quantity of spirits made and bonded, to meet the demand that might turn up in the market. But surely if barley were cheap, they could buy it and store it, free of duty, and in that way there would be an advantage. The West Indian Committee was either right or wrong in fixing 4d. per gallon as a differential duty between the home and colonial producers; and if so, it was clear that that arrangement would be disturbed by any alteration that at present might be made. Therefore he suggested that it could not be for the interest of the home distillers that that arrangement should be disturbed, made, as it had been, after mature care and deliberation; and after every opportunity had been given them to come before the Committee, it would not be fair now to seek that that arrangement should be disturbed.

, who was met on his rising by loud calls for a division, said, that he could quite understand the impatience of hon. Gentlemen who had come down in considerable numbers to vote in favour of the Motion, but he did not think that it was quite a reasonable mode of settling a question of considerable importance to divide upon it without hearing its merits discussed, and, therefore, he hoped that they would allow him to state to the House that which he believed fairly represented the real state of the case. Although this Motion did not profess to have that object, it really was as much an attempt to reduce the receipts of the Exchequer as any of those Motions which had been successfully resisted in the course of the present Session. The proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Kildare was, that distillers should pay duty on their spirits after the loss by wastage had been ascertained, instead of on the quantity manufactured. That would necessarily lead to the reduction of the revenue, and he would ask the House, if any reduction was to take place in the receipts of the Exchequer, whether it would be of most advantage to the country that the decrease should be occasioned by a diminution of the duty on spirits? He did not think that the duty on this article called for any reduction at all; and, as the diminution proposed was a reduction which would apply almost exclusively to Scotland and Ireland, he did not think it would be quite fair to the English distiller. The duty on English spirits was 7s. 10d. per gallon, on Scotch, 3s. 8d, and on Irish, 2s. 8d.; and yet the noble Lord called for a reduction of the duty on the spirits upon which the lowest charge was imposed. Sound policy would dictate the equalisation of the duties in the three countries, lowering the duty in England, and raising it in Scotland and Ireland, The noble Lord admitted that little or no benefit would be gained by England from the reduction which he proposed, and the distillers themselves allowed that there was no safety to the revenue after the spirits had left the premises of the distiller. Was it "equal justice," then, to England, to make concessions to the Irish distillers which would be of no use to the English producer? The whole question was under consideration when the Colonial Spirits Bill was discussed in 1848, and was much before the House at that time. The objection made to the Colonial Spirits Bill was not to the extent of benefit that it would confer on the colonial producer, but that there was still too high a duty on spirits, both of colonial and home produce. At that time he made a number of concessions to the distillers, who hardly thanked him for what he had done, and said that little benefit would be derived from what he had yielded to them. If the hon. Gentleman would refer to the returns on the table, he would see that his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) measure had created a large export trade in home spirits. The noble Lord said he could assure the House that the Irish and Scotch distillers were destroyed by the competition with the colonial producers; but what were the real facts of the case? Ireland, years ago, consumed not less than a million of gallons of rum a year; but previous to 1846 the quantity was only 14,000 gallons. The consumption of rum in Scotland and Ireland was not so great in 1849 as it was in 1847, therefore it could not be said that the reduction of the duty on rum in 1848 was injurious to the Irish and Scotch producers. They had been told that there had been a remarkable increase in the consumption of rum during the last two years. The consumption of rum in Scotland in 1847 was 382,000 gallons, and in 1849 it was 250,000. The consumption of rum in Ireland in 1847 was 176,000, and in 1849 it was 182,000 gallons. Surely such a state of things could hardly be said to have ruined the home producer. The home consumption of British spirits in 1847 was 8,749,000, and in 1849 it was 9,050,000 gallons. In Scotland, in 1847, the quantity of home-made spirits on which duty was paid for consumption was 6,193,000; and in 1849, 6,935,000 gallons. In Ireland, where they were told the trade had been ruined by the importation of rum, the consumption in 1847 was 6,037,000, and in 1849 it was 6,972,000 gallons. Thus it appeared that in 1849 there was an increase of 930,000 gallons in home-made spirits, which pretty clearly showed that no great injury had been done to the Irish distiller by the introduction of colonial spirits. He would beg hon. Gentlemen to recollect that since the Act of 1848, of which such complaints had been made, there had been an increase in the consumption of rum to the extent of 6,000 gallons in Ireland, while there had been an increase in the consumption of homemade spirits to no less an amount than 930,000 gallons. Some allusion had been made to the export of home-made spirit. The fact was, by the measure which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had introduced, the trade had been almost created since 1848. The return on the table gave, as the quantity of British spirits exported in 1847, not one gallon, and in 1849 it was 73,000 gallons. The quantity of Scotch spirits exported in 1847 was 64,680, and in 1849 it had increased to 206,000 gallons. The quantity of Irish spirits exported in 1847 was 6,439 gallons, and in 1849, 67,000 gallons, so that there had been an increase to tenfold an extent in two years in the exportation of Irish spirits. Irish and Scotch distillers had also derived an advantage in the English markets to the extent of 1,500,000 gallons. On these grounds, he thought that the noble Lord was mistaken in the statements on which he grounded his Motion, and, also, that he was not justified in charging him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with having been unmindful of the claims of the Irish and Scotch distillers. The adoption of the Motion of the noble Lord would be attended with great inconvenience; it would be a great injustice to the English and colonial distillers, and it would virtually cause the reduction of the duty on an article upon which he thought no reduction should be made.

then proposed, as the first resolution—

"That the duties payable on British spirits when taken out of warehouse for home consumption shall be charged on the quantity ascertained by the measure and strength of the sum actually delivered, save and except that when such spirits are not in a warehouse of special security no greater abatement, on account of deficiency of the quantity or strength, as ascertained at the time the said spirits were warehoused, shall be made than shall be after the several rates of allowance following, that is to say;—for every 100 gallons, hydrometer proof, for any time not exceeding three months, two gallons; for any time exceeding three months, and not exceeding six months, three gallons; for any time exceeding six and not exceeding twelve months, four gallons; and for every additional six months, one gallon,"

would not then make any objections to the details of this resolution, but he should take the opportunity of doing so at some future stage. He wished the House clearly to understand that by this course he did not pledge himself to abstain from opposing the proposal in the future stages of the Bill.

then proposed the second resolution:—

"That when British spirits are taken out of a warehouse for ship stores and for exportation to foreign parts, no duty shall be charged on any deficiency that may occur in warehouse, save and except that if the said spirits shall not be in a warehouse of special security, the duty shall be charged on any deficiency exceeding the rate" allowance in the foregoing resolution,"

said, he did not rise to refuse the assent of the Government to the proposal of the noble Lord, and much less to complain of the manner in which he had brought forward this subject, for in doing so the noble Lord had done credit to himself and also justice to the cause he had supported. But after the remarks of the noble Lord, he hoped the House would allow him (Mr. Wilson) to make a few observations, partly in explanation of the remarks of the noble Lord, and partly to correct some of the misapprehensions under which he appeared to labour. He was sure that those who knew what the Company had done for India in the last two years would be the last to condemn the Government for looking with indifference to that great subject to which the noble Lord had called their attention. He admitted that it would be difficult, looking at that vast empire, for any question to be brought forward more important in itself, or more pregnant with future results to the happiness and civilisation of India, as well as to the commercial interests of this country; and it was in that spirit, and with those views, that the East India Company and the Board of Control had taken steps which, under any other circumstances, they probably would not have taken. The noble Lord had referred to the present condition of India with regard to the cultivation of cotton and various other articles with which that country supplied us, and he thought the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in not discussing that subject at any length, seeing that next week there would be an opportunity for doing so. The noble Lord appeared to have overlooked the fact of the enormous increase in the supplies from India of the articles of indigo and sugar, not only to England, but to other countries. It was only in the last century that the cultivation of indigo had been introduced into the Indian empire, and during that period it had nearly superseded the cultivation of that article in every other part of the world. At this moment our Indian empire supplied that commodity not only to England, but to almost the whole of Europe. Then, with regard to sugar, it was only seventeen years since only 7,000 tons were the whole quantity annually obtained from India. Now, the quantity was increased to ten times that amount. But he came to the important subject which the noble Lord had brought before the notice of the House; and he believed that if the noble Lord had known a little more accurately what had really been done, and the anxiety the Company had exhibited, and the support the Government had given the Company, as to carrying out railways in India, he would not have thought so lightly of those exertions as some parts of his speech seemed to infer. It was quite true, that when this subject was first before them the Government were undetermined as to the best mode in which railways could be made in India. It was quite true, also, that several private companies were started in 1846, and from that period the subject had been under the consideration of the Government. The noble Lord had carefully alluded to the three different propositions which were before the Government about the period to which he referred—that there was a proposition for a railway in Bengal, another for a railway in Bombay, and a third for a railway in Madras; but he begged the noble Lord's attention while he made this distinct avowal on the part of the Government, for the speech of the noble Lord would lead to this inference, that the Government had been influenced by a preference of the two former presidencies in giving their sanction to the railways which he had mentioned; that the Government, in coming to their decision, were not influenced by any preference which those presidencies might be considered to have, and that it was from other considerations that the Madras Railway was not sanctioned, for he thought that each presidency had an equal claim upon the Government for every effort that could be made for its advancement. The Government had consented to give to the railways in Bengal and Bombay the guarantee to which the noble Lord alluded; but the noble Lord must have overlooked the circumstance that if they were to make a railway from Calcutta to Delhi, the great political importance of which the noble Lord had been the first to acknowledge, and he thought the noble Lord would also admit its commercial importance—for no one could deny that Calcutta and Delhi were the two points in our Indian empire which it was important should be united—they must begin at some point. [Viscount JOCELYN: The first line in England was the complete line between Liverpool and Manchester.] He only said that part must be made before the whole; and if the noble Lord thought that the Government had only determined to make part of the line, and intended to stop at that point, he was mistaken; or, if the noble Lord thought the East India Company were prepared to take the result of that first section of the line of railway as a conclusive evidence whether railways would answer in India or not, he was also mistaken. But, although it had not been actually determined—for the Indian authorities at home had very wisely left the consideration of these minor details to the Government of India on the spot—what course that line should take, except that it should run generally through the north-west provinces, with a view to carry out the ultimate object the Government had, yet there was a place sixty or seventy miles from Calcutta from which might be expected much traffic—he alluded to Nuddea, which was a town immediately connecting the three rivers which joined the Hooghly and the Ganges, and one of which was generally open, although the other two might be closed. Then the noble Lord referred to the experimental line which had been sanctioned by the Government in Bombay, and, although he said afterwards everything in his power to condemn it, yet he justly stated, that as a commercial line it appeared to be of greater importance to the manufacturing interests of this country than any other, and simply because it would run towards the great centre of the cotton districts; but that line was no more intended to stop at the first point indicated, namely Callian, than was the first section of the line from Calcutta. They had been so much disappointed in this country in all their calculations as to the quantity of traffic on lines, that he would not venture to say what it might be in India. When the question of the Manchester and Liverpool Bill was before the House, the question of passengers was scarcely even mentioned—the calcula- tions were made with reference to the carriage of goods; and yet now the calculations were not of goods, but of passengers. He assured the House that the East India Company and the Government were perfectly disposed to extend the same privileges to Madras which they had given to the other presidencies as soon as they were in possession of the information which they had already taken means of obtaining. It was a question of time; it was not a question of preference; and he thought the noble Lord must admit that they had some considerable reason for their present course, seeing that they had no report whatever before them as to the line in Madras. They had no report later than that of the year 1837 or 1838 to which the noble Lord referred, and the noble Lord must recollect that that report was made for a totally different purpose. When it was proposed to make a railway to Arcot it was not with a view to the general system of railways in India, but as an independent line to bring a cheap and large supply of salt to Madras; but as soon as railways became a matter of speculation in India, it was most obvious that whatever railway was made in Madras should be made with reference to the system of railways contemplated in other parts of the country. Now there was a considerable difference of opinion, whether the particular line from Madras to Arcot would answer the description which Mr. Sims thought desirable; whether it would not be better that the line should run rather to the north-west, with a view to join a general system of railways in the presidency of Bombay. Again, one report said it would cost only 4,000l. a mile; another, 5,000l.; another, 6,000l.; and Mr. Sims' report was, that it would cost 8,000l. a mile. Four reports, therefore, varied in these particulars, and the Government would not be justified in coming to a conclusion without a specific report as to the particular line that ought to be adopted, and some better estimate of the probable cost. But another reason which had actuated the Government in the course they had taken was this: the noble Lord was aware that the system which the Government had undertaken as to railways in India, was novel in its character, and it was, therefore, only prudent in the Government to see the operation of the principle before they extended it too far. The noble Lord was also perfectly aware of what encouragement the East India Company had consented to give to these railways; he was aware that the Company had given them the land free—that they had guaranteed interest on the capital—[Viscount JOCELYN: Not a dividend]—at 5 per cent for ninety-nine years, and that at any time during that period, if the railway companies chose, they might call on the East India Company to purchase the railways at prime cost. He thought, therefore, that the noble Lord could not charge the Government with not having extended its most liberal sanction to railways in India. By a late mail—the one before the last—some of the India papers contained statements to the effect that some great impediment had been discovered, on the arrival of the engineers in Bengal, against making railways in that presidency; and it was said broadly that the idea was abandoned and given up. He might state, for the satisfaction of the House, that he believed there was not one word or tittle of truth in that statement. On the contrary, the railway companies that had been guaranteed—the East India Railway Company and the Bombay Railway Company—were proceeding to the entire satisfaction of the East India Company; and he believed that their prospects were better than they had been at any former period. He could only conclude with assuring the noble Lord and the House that already the Government had anticipated the noble Lord, for they had despatched a letter to the Government of Madras, requiring them to furnish, at the earliest possible period, the information necessary to enable them to extend to Madras the same privileges which they had given to the other presidencies; and he believed that on receiving that information no time would be lost in extending to Madras every advantage and encouragement which had been already extended to the other two presidencies with respect to the lines to which the noble Lord referred.

said, that there could be no doubt that Government had dealt most liberally in extending railway communication to India, and the same would be extended to the Madras presidency. There should be a controlling power sitting continually at the board of these companies. Under such an officer, not only was public confidence inspired, but great satisfaction was created. The agreement which Government had made for the public had been complained of as too liberal; but in a great undertaking of this sort, subject to so much doubt, in an unknown country, it was plain that no capitalists could have ventured to vest their money unless they were guaranteed, and Government were fully authorised in giving the concession without which they could not so well have effected their object. The Government here should not decide the exact point. No one could do it so well as the Governor General of India, and he had no doubt that they would select such a line as was best adapted to the pecuniary wants of India.

said, that the Indian public would be thankful for the attention which had been paid to their interests. He had followed the policy and history of recent attempts to introduce railways into India, and had laboured under a misapprehension that this limited line to be entered into in the province of Bengal was to be understood as an experiment upon which the success and value of railways in India was to rest; but he now understood that this line was to be considered as the commencement of a far more important project. There was another misapprehension of the public, namely, that this line was to terminate half way between Calcutta and Delhi. The line would traverse for two-thirds of the way a hilly country of very little population, which scarcely had one single great town in a distance of 500 miles in length, and would only have its value as the commencement of a more important line which would join the commercial classes generally with the capital of India. There certainly could be no line of more importance to India, either in a military or commercial point of view. He feared, however, that if the question dirt not advance more rapidly than it had hitherto done, some time must elapse before it had any effect on the development of Indian resources. He feared that the delay had been mainly caused by the error of entrusting the enterprise to a joint-stock company instead of having it achieved by the Indian Government. He thought, however, that the thanks of the House were due to the noble Lord for having elicited the views of the Government on this great question.

believed the only certain mode of developing the inexhaustible resources of India was by railways and irrigation; and it was not so much the weight of taxation as the want of the means of disposing of its produce that prevented the extension of commerce in that country. It was said, that the Government had been more the cause of the delay in extending railway communication to India, than the East India Company itself; and he certainly thought it most unsatisfactory that only 70 miles out of between 400 and 500, was all that was commenced. He had no doubt that the result of the experiment of the first 70 miles would be favourable; but they ought not to wait till that experiment was tried before commencing farther extensions of the system. He wished to see a railroad formed without delay from Delhi to Allahabad, with branches extending to the military stations; and if the East India Company had carried out such a line themselves, he was satisfied that the saving it would effect for them in the economy of military stores alone would defray a large portion of the expense of construction. He was convinced that the saving of life, labour, and all the etcæteras for the troops, together with the traffic that might fairly be expected from the district, would liquidate the entire outlay required for the line within five or six years. There had also been delay in other parts. He thought there ought to be a railway from Madras to Bombay, across the peninsula, by which the communication would be greatly accelerated, and the traffic largely and rapidly increased. Expense was not the only point to be considered; because politically, commercially, and in every respect, railways would be of immense benefit in India. He hoped, before long, to hear that the line from Mirzapore to Calcutta had been begun at the upper as well as at the lower part, and that the system was being speedily extended throughout India generally.

was not surprised that the hon. Member should declare himself not entirely satisfied with the progress which railroad communication was making in India; because, from long and intimate experience of his character, he knew that it was not easy to satisfy him upon any point. In all that had been said upon this occasion as to the importance of railroads for India, he entirely concurred, and he was exceedingly glad that the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn had been the first person to call the attention of the House to the subject in away which might have fairly been expected from his experience—from his devotion to the interests of India—from the office which he had held—and from the attention which he was known to give to subjects of the kind. After the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, which seemed to meet almost every point to which the noble Lord had adverted, it was unnecessary for him (Sir J. Hobhouse) to enter into any detail, and he would defer to another opportunity the notice of the only points on which he ventured to differ from the noble Lord—namely, the political condition of India, and the merits or demerits of those to whom the government of that country had been intrusted. With respect to those points, he entirely differed from the noble Lord; and when the subject should come properly under discussion, he hoped to be able to show that the East India Company had not slumbered at their post, and had not forgotten what was due to their own character or the happiness of the many millions of people intrusted to their care. This, however, was not the time to enter upon that discussion; and he would now merely touch on one or two points which his hon. Friend had, it was true, adverted to, but without developing as fully as other topics. The House was not yet aware of the reason why the Madras Company had not obtained the same degree of encouragement as had been given to the two other railroad companies. In the first instance, it was the intention of the East India Company and the Indian Government to have given the preference, if possible, to the Madras line, for the very reason the noble Lord had mentioned—namely, that it had the advantage of the others as regarded engineering facilities as well as of the population of the country through which it would pass. There were, besides, other considerations which induced the East India Company to look with favour upon that line, and the noble Lord had briefly alluded to what had occurred; but when the Indian authorities wished to keep the Madras Company alive it died. When they wished to prolong its existence, it had no longer an existence to prolong. It was impossible to support a nonentity. When, subsequently, gentlemen who had been connected with the Madras Company asked the Indian authorities why they had not given them the same guarantees which had been given to the Bengal and the Bombay Companies, the Indian authorities very naturally asked why the Madras Company had not come forward with the same offers as the other companies. That was the reason why the Madras experiment had not been tried simultaneously with the other two experiments. The delay which had occurred with respect to the Madras Company was attributable chiefly to misfortune, not to culpability. It was owing to the disgraceful transactions in regard to railroads which had stigmatised this country, and would for ever remain a blot on its history—transactions which showed that the spirit of speculation had not been confined to those who were supposed not to have as nice a sense of honour as persons moving in the higher classes of society; but had spread amongst the well-educated and the upper classes, and extended to that class to which the people of England had long been accustomed to look up, not only for the making of laws but the forming of morals. To the discredit brought upon all railroad speculations by those transactions must be attributed the failure of the project to which the noble Lord had so pointedly referred, in spite of the efforts which the East India Company constantly and almost recklessly, as regarded their own interests, made to avert the catastrophe. An examination of the state of the money market at the time would show the reason why the Madras railroad had not been carried on simultaneously with the Bengal and the Bombay lines. But, although the Madras Company had unfortunately suffered a check, the undertaking was not abandoned; and if those then present should live to meet each other at this time next year, they would probably have cause to congratulate each other on the progress, of the Madras line. It was not his intention to enter at any length into the question whether railroads in India should have been left to the enterprise of private companies, or undertaken on the responsibility of the Government. The whole question was fully considered when the noble Lord was at the Board of Control in 1845, and the Earl of Ripon decided that railroads in India should be undertaken on the responsibility of companies, as they had been in England. That determination was arrived at after long deliberation; but whether it was a wise conclusion or not was another question. For his part, he thought it would have been a wiser course for the Government to have undertaken the responsibility of constructing railroads in India. The advantages which would result from the rapid transmission of goods and military stores, and other considerations connected with the question, would, he thought, have justified the Indian Government in spending 1,000,000l. or 2,000,000l. at once on those great enterprises. That, however, was not the question before the House at the present moment. The only point now raised was as to the degree of encouragement which the Indian Government had given to the companies which had undertaken the formation of railroads in that country. His hon. Friend the Member for Westbury had stated clearly the encouragement which had been extended to those undertakings. The Government had given the land for the line; it had also guaranteed interest on the capital to be expended in forming them, and if, after a certain number of years, the companies found the speculations unprofitable, they had nothing to do but to hand them over to the Government, who undertook to purchase them. It was impossible for any Government in the world to give greater encouragement than this to such undertakings. Without wishing to detract from the merit due to the noble Lord, he begged to assure him that the Government did not want any stimulus with reference to this subject. They required the curb rather than the spur; and he would say to the noble Lord—Parce, puer, stimulis, et fortius utere loris. The Earl of Ellenborough, in another place, blamed the Government for proceeding too hastily rather than too slowly, and complained of pledging the Government of India on behalf of undertakings which ought to be left to the enterprise of private parties. Having said thus much, it was necessary only to add, that the Government had not the slightest objection to grant the papers now moved for by the noble Lord, or any others that he might apply for, and that the Government would make every effort to bring to a happy conclusion the object which the noble Lord had not more at heart than he himself had.

said, the East India Company had no funds in their coffers to carry on those great works. He would be the last man to disparage what had been done, but he thought more ought to be done. A railroad, seventy miles in extent, starting from Calcutta, could not be regarded as a fair experiment of the financial success of Indian railways. He thought the experiment ought not to be tried in the lower part of India, seeing that a noble river, from which the traffic would not be diverted, ran along the proposed line. It would have been better to start such a line from Benares; but it was now, perhaps, too late to remedy that error. He thought it desirable that the Government itself should engage in the construction of railway lines in the central and south-western parts of India; and if they had not the money, let them see if they could not borrow it, for to promote the great works of peace was at least as desirable as to carry on war.

replied: From the observations that had fallen from his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, it might be inferred that his (Viscount Jocelyn's) Motion was made in a hostile spirit to the East India Company. [Sir J. HOBHOUSE: Oh, no, I did not say so.] He had stated distinctly that he knew the East India Company were quite alive to the necessities of the population, and to the improvement of the country. The object of his Motion had been attained. He had heard from the Government that it was not their intention to deny to the Madras railroad that support and that guarantee that was given to the Bombay and Bengal lines. He felt gratified that he had brought forward the subject, for it had elicited the opinions of the Government; and the subject was one of the greatest importance, not merely to the native population of India, but to the people of this country.