said, he had a question to put relative to the system of promotion in the dockyard at Chatham; and, having been a Member of the Committee which had inquired into matters of this nature, he hoped he should not be thought presumptuous in having thus put himself before the House. In a morning newspaper of Saturday last, a paragraph appeared, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. The paper was one that had very considerable circulation, and the paragraph was headed thus, "Dockyard appointments—Chatham and Admiralty Hypocrisy," and then it went on:—

"The following facts will speak for themselves —A vacancy has recently occurred in the mast-house in the Dockyard, by reason of the superannuation of one Robinson. Two names were, in due course, sent up to the Admiralty—those of Pattison and Baines. Pattison had been preparing himself for the situation for four years, and is a good draftsman and accountant, Baines had been in the mast-house a few weeks. Without any examination, Baines has been appointed, and Pattison rejected. Baines and his family vote for Sir James Stirling, and Pattison for Sir Frederic Smith. So much for the disinterested impartiality of a 'Whig-Conservative' Admiralty."

The two questions he wished to put to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, were these: first, whether the facts as here stated, of Baines having been selected, and Pattison having been rejected, were correct; and, secondly, if these facts were correct, upon what ground the rejection of the one and the selection of the other had been made?

said, his hon. Friend had given him notice of his question—he was, therefore, prepared to answer it. It was true, as stated in the paragraph, that on a recent vacancy caused by the retirement of a person named Robinson in Chatham Dockyard, the names of two persons had been sent up, and recommended for the same by the captain superintendent of the yard, and that the names of these persons were the one Baines, and the other Pattison. It was also true, that Baines had been preferred. He would, however, state the circumstances under which Baines had been selected by the Board of Admiralty. He held in his hand the original letter from the captain superintendent of Chatham yard, which, in conformity with the recent regulations, had been sent to the Surveyor of the Navy, and the recommendations in which were limited to these two persons. [The right hon. Baronet then read the letter in question, which was from Captain Richards, superintendent of Chatham dockyard, and was to the effect that the persons whose names it contained were recommended by him for their capability and their good conduct, in the room of Robinson, retired; and that he had placed their names in the order of their respective deserts.] The passage in the Morning Herald stated, that the persons so recommended were Pattison and Baines; the recommendation itself, however, was the reverse of that order of arrangement; for it was a recommendation of Charles Baines, shipwright, and Thomas Pattison, also shipwright. The report of the Surveyor General of the Navy, which he (Sir J. Graham) also held in his hand, and on which the Board of Admiralty acted, recommended these persons in the same order; and Baines, as being the first man, was therefore advanced to the situation. Now, what were the facts of the case? In consequence of reading that notice in the newspaper to which his hon. Friend had referred, he (Sir J. Graham) had communicated with the captain superintendent of Chatham dockyard on the subject, and he would, with the permission of the House, read his answer. [The right hon. Baronet read the answer in question, which was to the effect that the whole responsibility of the recommendation rested on the writer, and that he was willing to abide by it. That the names he had sent up were not in the order Pattison and Baines, but in the order Baines and Pattison. That he sent them up in that order, placing the name of Baines first, because that person had been twenty-nine years in the service, Pattison being only twelve. That he knew nothing of the political leaning of either, having abstained from making any inquiries on the subject since his appointment to the superintendence of the yard, That he had heard subsequently to the paragraph that the leanings of the parties were substantially as they had been described in the newspaper, but that, as no poll book of the Chatham election had been as yet published, he could not tell which way either had voted on the last election. He could, however, he added, safely say that in making the recommendation in question, no other consideration had weighed with him than the relative merits of the men.] It appeared, therefore, that Baines was forty-nine years of age, and had been twenty-nine years in the service; while Pattison was thirty-four years of age, and had been twelve years in the service. There was, however, he admitted, a colour of truth in one part of the statement of the Morning Herald on the subject. It was true that Pattison had been for some time employed in the mast-house, and that Baines had not been so long employed in that department of the yard. But why was this so? Baines, it should be remembered, was put forward as the friend of the Government, and for some short time antecedent to his appointment by the Board it was alleged he was placed in the mast-house. But the reason of Pattison being in the mast-house for so long a period arose from the fact of his having disease of the heart. He had, in short, been allowed to work in the mast-house for that reason, in consequence of the lighter labour to which he was subjected than he would be at the dockside. On the other hand, Baines was a hardworking shipwright, in good health. As the reward therefore, of his greater age, harder work, better health, longer service, and superior fitness, he had been preferred. These were the facts of the case.

said, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any moneys of the savings banks of the United Kingdom have been employed in the purchase of Exchequer Bills, since the 20th day of November, 1852, and, if so, to what amount and by what authority; and whether he has any objection to place the amount of such moneys, and date of the purchases, on the table of the House?

said, he had to state, in answer to the question of the hon. Baronet, that the term "moneys of the savings banks" was, strictly considered, a misnomer. There was no such thing as "moneys of the savings banks" in the custody of the Governments; but all the money received from the savings banks, when it had once been taken by the Government., became a debt from the Government to the trustees of the savings banks; and the Government were equally responsible for the repayment of the debt, whatever might become of the money with regard to which it was originally created. But if the hon Baronet's question referred, as he had no doubt it did, to the money received from the savings banks, the answer then was, that such moneys had been employed since the 20th of November, 1852, in the purchase of Exchequer bills, which had been remitted to the trustees of savings banks. The authority under which this was employed had been the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as was the usual course in that respect. There was no objection whatever to place the amount of such moneys, and the date of the purchases, from time to time upon the table of the House; but on the 5th of July, or some other recent date, the information had already been laid on the table in a return moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). In that return the hon. Baronet would find the particulars he required down to the date of the return; but if he wanted to have them later, he could have them upon moving the House to that effect.

said, that the expressed desire of the Government to sustain the independence of Turkey against either Russian or Austrian aggression—a desire which he believed to be generally felt by the people of this country—would, he hoped, justify the questions he was about to put to the noble Lord the Member for London, and of which he had given him notice. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he could communicate to the House any information with respect to the violation of the Turkish territory by the captain of an Austrian ship of war, who is reported to have seized an Hungarian refugee, resident at Smyrna, and to have carried him on board the Austrian vessel without the concurrence of the Turkish authorities? And also whether it is true, as reported, that the Austrian Government has demanded the expulsion of all Hungarian refugees from Turkey?

With regard to the first of the questions asked by the hon. Member, I have to say that it appears that, when the Austrian Government claimed the surrender, some two or three years ago, of certain Hungarian refugees who were then residing in Turkey, there was amongst those persons one named Kosta. The Turkish Government did not consent to surrender those refugees, but agreed to send them out of the territory of Turkey. Amongst the persons who accordingly quitted the territory of Turkey was this Kosta. He was understood to have gone to the United States of America, but he lately returned to Constantinople, and was afterwards at Smyrna. It appears, further, that the Austrian Consul, instead of applying to the Turkish authorities to take measures for the removal of this person, according to the agreement between the Austrian and Turkish Governments, took steps for seizing him and conveying him on board an Austrian ship of war. But, at the same time, it is, as I understand, stated that this was done with the consent of the Turkish Government at Smyrna. On this point, however, we have no positive information; but the concurrence which is said to have taken place is, that certain persons, engaged by the Austrian Consul, seized this man and placed him on board a ship of war. With regard to the second question, whether it is true that the Austrian Government had demanded the expulsion of all Hungarian refugees from Turkey, I can only say that Her Majesty's Government have received no intelligence whatever on the subject.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the petition of certain electors of the city of Peterborough, complaining of the interference of the Earl Fitzwilliam at the election in December last, and at previous elections for that city. In moving for this Committee he should take up but little of the time of the House, because he should confine himself as much as possible to the statement of a few simple facts. It was a painful matter to him, rather than otherwise, to appear, in some degree, in the position of accuser of Earl Fitzwilliam, for whose private character, and his public character also, in many respects, he had always entertained a very high regard. But he had had placed in his hands a petition, signed by 219 electors of Peterborough, complaining of undue interference. He believed there were not more than 500 electors in the borough. The petition, therefore, was signed by so large a number of electors that it was impossible for any Member who was asked to present it on their behalf to refuse to proceed upon it, for he considered that it would be quite impossible for the House to refuse to appoint a Committee to inquire into its allegations. The petitioners referred to the election of July last (the general election), and also to the election of December last, in consequence of the death of the gentleman (Mr. Watson) returned in July. They state that on both occasions Earl Fitzwilliam had, through the instrumentality of his agents and servants, directly and indirectly, interfered, by intimidation, persuasion, treating, and offers of sums of money, in favour of the gentleman returned in July, and of the gentleman who had failed to secure his return in December. There was another allegation which was important—that they believed the petition against the return of the present sitting Member was not the petition of the persons whose names were appended, but rather the petition of Earl Fitzwilliam, and that they had reason to believe that all the expenses of the proceedings con- nected therewith were defrayed by Earl Fitzwilliam; that Earl Fitzwilliam's interference destroyed the independence of the city; that notices to quit had been served on some electors who had voted against, and some who did not vote at all, either for or against the candidates approved by Earl Fitzwilliam; and that though nominally the representatives of that borough, the Members were really the representatives of Earl Fitzwilliam, and his interests were consulted in Parliament rather than the interests of the electors of the borough. They said—and they were very modest in that respect—that the almost unanimous feeling of the people of Peterborough was, that at least they should have one Member to represent the constituency, who would be in some degree independent of the mere will and pleasure of the said Earl. Their ambition had only arrived at that point yet that there should be one Member for the laity, while the other should represent Earl Fitzwilliam. He had also to state that a petition signed by a large number of ratepayers, who were non-electors of Peterborough, had been presented, praying the House to take into consideration the petition of the electors, and to give such relief as they should think suitable. They stated that the possession of the franchise was calculated to inflict positive injury, for if they voted against the candidate approved by Earl Fitzwilliam, they were subjected to vindictive persecution, up to absolute ruin; and if, on the contrary, they voted against their consciences for the persons nominated by the Earl, then they lost the respect and confidence of their neighbours and townspeople. They stated that they were aware of the fact that it was a high misdemeanour for any Peer of Parliament to interfere in the election of Members of that House, and they therefore prayed the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into these allegations of interference, and also into the charge that the expenses of the recent petition were defrayed by Earl Fitzwilliam, and not by the petitioners themselves. Without going into an historical account of the city of Peterborough, he might state a rather interesting fact, that so long ago as the reign of Charles II. a Mr. Fitzwilliam represented that city in Parliament, and up to the last election the approved candidates of the Fitzwilliam family had been the only representatives of that city. There were contests in 1835, 1837, 1841, and 1852, and upon all those occasions the nominees of Earl Fitzwilliam were returned. The effect of this state of things was to reduce the constituency, for in 1832 there were 773 electors, whereas in 1852 they amounted to 512. At a former period about two-thirds of the electors were what were called scot and lot voters; and as these died off, the constituency had diminished, there being now only ninety scot and lot voters in the borough; and this was the reason why the Fitzwilliam influence had diminished, for the influence of the family was naturally greater over this class of electors than over the 10l. householders. Earl Fitzwilliam's house was three miles from the borough, and he had accordingly very large influence there. In all probability the noble Lord's high character had much to do with this, for he believed his character hitherto had been such as to make his influence less galling to the borough than the same kind of influence exercised in other boroughs had been. He found that his Lordship had 317 tenants of houses, buildings, and lands, within the borough of Peterborough, and 220 of these were voters; so that, if he chose to exercise it, he had very large influence in a borough with a constituency of only about 500. He understood Earl Fitzwilliam had a large and powerful staff—a steward, under-steward, political agent, registration agent, private solicitors, and others, who were most influential at elections, in canvassing and giving support to such a candidate as his Lordship approved, and in using those means with which every hon. Member must be familiar, of intimating which was the candidate Earl Fitzwilliam wished to be elected. The scot and lot voters, about ninety in number, were generally men living upon wages varying from 14s. to 30s. a week; and it was proved before the Committee which sat upon the election petition, that a practice had continued from a period anterior to the Reform Bill, of giving the scot and lot voters an annual gratuity of what some called "crowns." Those who had given two votes received 10s., or two crowns; those who had given one vote only, received 5s., or one crown; and those who did not vote at all for Earl Fitzwilliam's friends, were always understood to receive nothing at all. These facts were brought out on the Committee that unseated Mr. Whalley. John Noble, one of the witnesses before that Committee, stated that the first time he voted for the "Blues"—that was, the independent party—the crowns left him, having always had them when be voted for his Lordship's candidates. George Moniton, another voter, having remained true to the Milton interest at previous elections, voted for Clifton and Whalley; and when he went in February to receive his crowns, he was told by the Earl's steward there were none for him. That man was remarkable for his simplicity, fur having opposed Earl Fitzwilliam's friends, he nevertheless went to the steward to get his regular donation of money. William Smith, Sarah Deacons, Grace Smale, and others, gave similar evidence as to the system adopted with regard to the payment of headmoney. With regard to the other class of voters—the householders, many cases had occurred in which houses had been refused to be let to persons not likely to have votes; and he had a copy of a letter addressed to a lady, which was a very interesting and pretty description of what was done by Earl Fitzwilliam's agent. It was dated February 26, 1853, and addressed to Mrs. Chettle, Thorneyfen:—

"Madam—I much regret that since I last wrote to you upon the subject of the house in the Long Causeway, I find that the proposition which you have made of Mr. Chettle or Mrs. Elstone becoming tenants would be unavailable, as the vote of a non-resident could not possibly be secured; and this portion of his Lordship's property having at all times commanded a vote, it is of the utmost importance that the existing privileges should not be diminished. It will, at the same time, give me much satisfaction if I can serve your interest in any other form.—I am, Madam, your obedient Servant, "CHARLES SIMPSON."

The fact was, this lady, not being able to give a vote, was refused the house; this, he thought, clearly showed the means taken for bolstering up the influence of Earl Fitzwilliam, with a view of carrying the candidates whom he might approve. There were cases more objectionable still—of notices to quit having been served upon those who had voted in the July or December election against Earl Fitzwilliam's approved candidates. He had the names of eight electors who had received notices to quit, or that their rents would be raised; and it was believed by the voters, and it was notorious in the; town, that it was a punishment on them for having voted against his wishes, or at least abstained from voting when he wished them to vote. No. 1, was a notice to quit, or to have the rent raised; Nos. 2, 3, and 4, were the same. Another was a notice to quit, or his rent to be doubled. Another was the case of a farmer, who was told that he must quit, or his rent must be considerably raised; and one of Earl Fitzwilliam's staff was reported to have said at a public meeting that if this man had his rent raised he had no right to find fault—that he had been renting 50l. under the value, on the understanding that he should vote for Earl Fitzwilliam's candidates, and if he would not grant favours to those who granted favours to him, he could not complain of the consequences which might befall him. Another case was that of a grocer and stationer in Peterborough, who had notice to quit, or if he remained a tenant that his rent would be raised. He asked the person who served the notice, if he submitted to pay the increased rent, might he vote as he pleased? The person said he did not know, but he would inquire. The same inquiry was made by the tenant of Mr. Wilkinson, his Lordship's political agent, and Mr. Wilkinson said he did not know, but he would inquire. Afterwards Mr. Wilkinson called, and said he had received a letter, which he read, to the effect that Mr. Wilkinson was quite right in saying the tenant was at liberty to remain in the house by paying the increased rent; but if he exercised his vote offensively, or printed or published anything, or used the press to print or publish anything, offensive to his Lordship, he must take the consequences. Now that was a species of interference which that House ought not to tolerate, and therefore, he trusted they would consent to a Committee of Inquiry into these allegations. Among the many allegations, it was stated that the petitioners in the recent election petition were only nominal petitioners, and the expenses were supposed to be defrayed by Earl Fitzwilliam himself. The recognizances were entered into by his Lordship's late house steward, and a builder constantly employed by the noble Lord; and several of the petitioners had, to their fellow townsmen repudiated all connexion with the petition, or concern for it, or that they were liable in any degree for the payment of the expenses incurred. He did not bring forward these statements on his own authority, but on that of a committee of the electors of the city of Peterborough, and he believed they all could be substantiated before a Committee of that House. They had brought forward a great many other statements of a similar character, with which he did not think it necessary to trouble the House, believing the petition was one of that character upon which the House would not feel at liberty to refuse to grant a Committee of Inquiry. The noble Lord at the head of the Government in that House would bear him out in saying that this system, it was intended by the Reform Bill, should be put an end to, and in a great many instances it was put an end to; in Peterborough it appeared to exist with great force, and it was to relieve the borough from such a state of things that a brave and courageous attempt was now made on the part of a large body of the electors—an attempt which he held to be worthy of the support and sympathy of that House. They appealed to the House, and the House would be wanting in their duty if they did not give them the opportunity which they sought of proving the allegations of their petition. The petition was signed by nearly half the constituency, and he believed by the vicar, churchwardens, and others of respectability; the evidence was obtained by a committee well known in the town, and was of such a character as to be quite conclusive of the statements made. He might have quoted, if he had pleased, from a work by Sir Robert Heron, who at one time represented the borough, in which he said the borough was completely in the hands of Earl Fitzwilliam, and he was elected by Earl Fitzwilliam, and represented Earl Fitzwilliam in that House. The case was a very simple one, but unfortunately he could not say an uncommon one. Still he contended such interference with elections was a violation of the constitution, and an insult to the House of Commons. One of their standing orders declared that it was an infringement of the privileges of Parliament for a Peer of the realm to interfere in elections; and he believed Peers in Parliament were not allowed to vote in elections of Members of that House. Nothing could be more scandalous than the proceedings apparently carried on in this case, and he was afraid in many other cases of a similar character. He intended to propose that the Committee be constituted very much the same as the Committee appointed in 1848, to inquire into the petition of certain electors of Stamford. That petition was very much of the same character, though the evidence was very inferior in conclusiveness to that which he had laid before the House, and he had given only the fringe, the outside, of that which he believed would be substantiated before the Committee. The Committee of 1848 was chosen by the General Committee of Elections, and consisted of nine Members, one being Mr. Page Wood, who brought forward the charge, and another some friend of the Marquess of Exeter's, against whom it was preferred. He would propose that this Committee should not exceed the number of seven, and if he should be on the Committee he would represent the petitioners, and some other gentleman could be appointed to represent Earl Fitzwilliam, and there would be five indifferent Members to hear evidence and decide upon it and make a Report to the House. He thought the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Fitzwilliam), would acquit him of having in the slightest degree exaggerated the allegations with the view of creating any excitement, or increasing the unpleasantness which must naturally exist. He had laid the simple facts before the House, and feeling confident the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would not oppose it, and that every Member of the House would consider it a case for inquiry, he should move that a Select Committee be appointed for that purpose.

, in rising to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester, said, he begged to thank him for the courteous manner in which he had made his proposition to the House. The hon. Gentleman might have gone more explicitly into the circumstances laid down in the petition, but he had refrained from inciting the House to any discussion that might have produced ill-feeling, or protracted the debate to an unnecessary length, and had contented himself with a mere statement of the facts put into his hand. Perhaps the House, however, would allow him to say, in seconding the Motion, that the petition contained allegations of a very grave nature, and such as to convey serious reflections on the character of Earl Fitzwilliam as a public man, and he felt that he would very ill discharge his duty to the constituents whom he represented, as well as towards the character and position of Earl Fitzwilliam, were he, on the ground of the relationship subsisting between them, to resist the proposition which the hon. Member had made; and it was as much in vindication of Earl Fitzwilliam's character, as from a sense of the duty he owed to his constituents, that he asked the house to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member. He must say he did not think the circumstances, were completely similar, though they might have some analogy to those of the Stamford petition, to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. He thought they were calculated to fix a severer stigma on Earl Fitzwilliam's character than any that was conveyed in the petition of the electors of Stamford. The petitions stated that an elector was exposed to punishment in some form or other if he voted against a candidate introduced by Earl Fitzwilliam, and that those who did so were exposed to "vindictive persecution, up to absolute ruin." Then electors, residing in Peterborough, were stated to have received notices to quit in consequence of having voted for his hon. Colleague at the election in December last. Now, he might state, from knowledge which he had acquired within the last clay or two, that these notices had been served on tenants, not because they voted for his hon. Colleague, and against Mr. Cornewall Lewis, but because in some eases their houses had been improved, and in others they had not paid rent for some years. In one particular case—that of a man holding land from Earl Fitzwilliam, and which case he understood was to be brought forward as showing the persecution which he committed—it appeared that that person was paying 50l. less a year than he was paying to another gentleman for a similar quantity of land; and it would be obvious to the House that unless Earl Fitzwilliam chose to resign that interest in his farm which he wished to retain, he must give the tenant notice to quit, that he might raise the rent up to the rate that was paid to the other gentleman. There were other statements of a similar kind which he might make to the House. On the death of Mr. Watson, it was necessary, of course, that a candidate should be brought forward for Peterborough; and one day about the time that the news of Mr. Watson's death arrived from Germany, Earl Fitzwilliam was paying a visit to a gentleman in the neighbourhood, and lamenting over the circumstance which had occurred, when a question was put as to how his place was to be supplied. The gentleman mentioned some names, and among others that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey). Earl Fitzwilliam took down in writing on a piece of paper the names of several gentlemen who would be eligible candidates, among whom were Sir George Grey, Mr. Horsman, Mr. John Parker, and some one else whom he had forgotten. On the return of Lord Fitzwilliam to his own house, he found there the gentleman who invited Mr. Whalley to stand as a candidate, who was the chairman of his committee, and who nominated him as the election, and who had come to consult with Lord Fitzwilliam as to the most eligible person to represent Peterborough. He believed that Lord Fitzwilliam drew out of his pocket the names he had just alluded to; and during the conversation, and previous to that occurrence, this gentleman brought out of his pocket a paper, on which it turned out that the very same names were written. It was presumed, therefore, that there was no objection to any of the candidates who were considered eligible by Lord Fitzwilliam, inasmuch as every one of the names corresponded; but nevertheless Mr. Whalley was invited to stand for Peterborough. There was another allegation contained in the petition, which could be clearly refuted by reference to a book not unfrequently quoted in that House—he meant Dodd's Electoral Facts. The allegations in the petition were, that Earl Fitzwilliam's influence in the borough was predominant, and that his spirit was so vindictive that no person, having any feeling for such electors as desired to exercise their elective francise conscientiously, would be ready to present himself as a candidate with the view of vindicating the independence of the place. Nevertheless, the presence in that House of the hon. Member who succeeded in beating Mr. Cornewall Lewis, who was called Lord Fitzwilliam's candidate, was a sufficient refutation of that statement; and a reference to Dodd's Electoral Facts would serve to show that since 1832 there had been several contests in the borough. These were facts which he did not wish the House to take on his testimony alone. The petitioners desired a strict investigation into the facts, and in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester he was performing a duty, not only in reference to Earl Fitzwilliam's character and position in society, but also to the constituency he represented.

said, he understood—for he had not heard the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright)—that the petition complained of undue interference by a Peer of Parliament with the election of a Member of the House of Commons; and, inasmuch as the Motion had been seconded by a relative of Lord Fitzwilliam, he supposed there would be no objection to the appointment of the Committee asked for. What he rose to mention, as a Member of the General Committee on Elections, was, that there was a petition pending against the last election for Peterborough, and that the General Committee proposed on an early day to proceed to name the day for choosing the Members. The actual choice could not take place for fourteen or fifteen days afterwards. But, if they were to appoint such a Committee—such as that now moved for—the proceedings before it would prejudice the proceedings before the Election Committee. He suggested this with the view of obtaining the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for London upon it.

said, he owed an apology to the House and to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. G. Fitzwilliam), for having omitted to mention that the petition before the House did not refer to the last election, because it had been drawn up, signed, and sent to London previously to the last election. The petition now pending with regard to the hon. Gentleman referred altogether to his qualification; and he could not, therefore, see how this petition could in any way have any bearing on that; and what he feared was, that were this postponed till the others were disposed of, it could not come on till next Session.

said, that the petition was first put into his hands before the last election, but that as the petition against the seat was then pending, he consulted Mr. Speaker, and understood from him that it was desirable this petition should not then be presented. He accordingly refused to present it while the election petition was still pending.

said, he was of opinion, from his experience of Election Committees, that it was utterly impossible fairly to enter into the inquiry affecting the seat, if another Committee of this nature was sitting at the same time. He quite concurred in thinking full inquiry into this case was absolutely necessary; but he hoped that it would be postponed until the other Committee had reported.

said, that after hearing the hon. Member for Manchester, and the hon. Member for Peterborough, he was quite ready to concur in the Motion which was before the House. He thought, in the case of a petition of this nature, which the hon. Member had moved, and which had been seconded by a relative of Lord Fitzwilliam's, it was right that the House should consent to the Committee which was asked for. The question, therefore, remained, whether the Committee should be appointed forthwith. They had a recent precedent which war nearly, if not exactly, the same as this, that occurred in the case of the city of Durham. A petition of a somewhat similar nature to this was presented in the case of Durham. But the election petition being at the same time the subject of inquiry, no Committee was appointed in the case of the other petition. The Election Committee was appointed on the 2nd of June; they reported on the 9th; and or the 14th the House named the Committee which was to inquire into the petition that had been postponed. There was a difference of this case from that, in so far as the petition now pending referred to the disqualification of the sitting Member for Peterborough. He did not think it reasonable, although the Session was drawing, to a close, because there might not be time to proceed with this investigation, if there was a general rule of the House that two Committees touching the same borough in election matters should not sit at the same time, to say that that general rule should therefore be set aside. There was one petition pending against the last election for the city of Peterborough relative to qualification, and another alleging that undue influence had been used by a Peer of Parliament in the election of a Member the House of Commons. Now, if it wet a general rule that these two petitions should not be proceeded with together, he did not think it advisable that the House should contravene that rule. The Committee could be appointed on the election petition, and after they had reported on that, the second inquiry might be proceeded with.

said, he had not heard the concluding observations of the noble Lord, and was quite unable, therefore, to say whether the noble Lord meant to oppose the Committee, the noble Lord spoke so very low. His words were so very indistinct that, although he (Mr. Bright) wished to give notice of another Resolution for Thursday with regard to instruction to the Committee, he was at a loss to know what to do, for if the noble Lord, were opposed to the appointment of the Committee, he had a few words to say in reply. The noble Lord said the Durham case was a very different matter from this. The petition before the House had no reference whatever to the hon. Member for Peterborough. At the same time he wished to state, that what he was doing was done neither in hostility to Lord Fitzwilliam, nor out of affection for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). This petition complained of the influence of a Peer of Parliament in the borough; the other referred to nothing whatever but the disqualification of the hon. Member, and, consequently, his ineligibility to sit in that House. The question affecting the hon. Member was one for the lawyers and the Committee, which, after much speaking, he had no doubt they would be able to settle; but the constituency of Peterborough would have considerable reason to complain if the House should put off a case of this nature merely because there was another inquiry pending into the eligibility of the hon. Gentleman to sit in that House. He hoped the House would do no such thing as put off the appointment of the Committee for which he had moved.

said, that, the General Committee of Elections was now in a peculiar position, three of its Members having resigned, and three more being required before it could pursue its duties. He thought that what the House had to regret, if not to complain of, was, that the gentlemen who had signed this petition did not present it in time for it to come under the provisions enacted by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for this special purpose, by which provisions its allegations—though not immediately affecting the issue under consideration—might have been brought before the Election Committee appointed to try (Mr. Whalley's) right to his seat, and might, moreover, have been investigated on oath. The House should consider that there was important matter of precedent involved in this case; and, as a matter of precedent, they must consider whether it would be desirable that, when an election petition was pending, a petition relating to election matters in the same borough should be heard by another Committee—a Special Committee—not able to examine on oath, and yet inquiring before the Election Committee, which could examine on oath. It was important for them to adhere to some sound and strict rule upon this point. With respect to the numbers of the proposed committee, he suggested, if that committee were appointed, that, as at that period of the Session it was extremely difficult to obtain the services of many Gentlemen as Members of Committee, it would be better to make the Committee consist of five Members instead of seven.

said, he deeply regretted being obliged to say anything at that moment, but he would make but one remark. If it was desirable to lay down a new rule for any case similarly circumstanced as this, he hoped it would not be done in this case, for a reason which he would state. He said this petition was put into his hands when he was sitting in the House before for Peterborough; but objections having been taken by some to his presenting the petition, Mr. Speaker overruled these objections. However, he consulted his own feelings, and, considering that it might affect the petition which was then hanging over his head, he used all his influence to have the presentation of it put off as long as it was possible. He was eventually unseated, and the petition was then put into the hands of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and it was in his discretion to have presented it at what time he thought best. He hoped the House would not put off the appointment of this Committee, seeing that the other petition now in existence referred only to his legal qualification. He begged, for his unfortunate constituents, that they would not prolong their present condition, which was one of internecine war. [Laughter.] He used but the allegations of the petition itself. If the House left his constituents to the mercy of Lord Fitzwilliam for six months longer, it would be a great injury to men who made sacrifices for conscience, and what they believed to be right, such as had not been exceeded by any instance in this country.

said, the point which had been chiefly raised had not been brought to his attention until he entered the House, when the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Palmer) raised the question as to the propriety of appointing this Committee now, with the prospect of the Election Committee sitting soon. He said he should therefore like to take till Thursday to consider what course he should advise.

said, he considered the House had to consider its own dignity and its own order quite as much in this matter as anything which had been suggested. But not to dwell upon that, the position in winch the petition stood was this. Application had been made to several hon. Members to present it; but no hon. Gentleman would present it, for the obvious reason that an election petition was pending. The hon. Member for Manchester had said that the case was not altered by that fact; but that hon. Gentleman was incorrect in his statement. This petition referred to the election that took place previously to the last, and complained of Lord Fitzwilliam having used his influence privately, and of having been guilty of other reprehensible conduct at that election. One of the accusations was, that the petition was not signed by the persons from it professed to proceed. That was a matter which ought to be submitted to the investigation of an Election Committee, and not to a Committee of that House. And what was the charge in the petition against the return of the sitting Member for Peterborough? Treating at the previous election; so that the instruction to this Committee would be to make inquiry whether or not the sitting Member was guilty of treating at that election or not; and in that way the whole question as to the previous election would be opened before the present Election Committee; or, if not, it would be referred to another Committee, sitting at the same time with the present Election Committee, which would take evidence upon oath. Against that course he (Mr. V. Smith) ventured to warn the House, for it would most assuredly supersede altogether the Election Act. He had no such anxiety as that entertained by the hon. Member for Peterborough as to the result of the proposed inquiry; but that was not the question before the House.

said, as he had not had any previous opportunity of addressing the House on this question, he wished to state his objections to the Bill—objections which were of so substantial a nature that he could not ride off upon the mere Amendments to be proposed. The House, be said, would recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the very outset of his observations on the financial state of the country, had demanded and obtained a continuance of the income tax, in its present shape, for a longer period than had ever been granted to that impost; and now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to impose a new tax upon landed property, which he (Mr. Liddell) conceived to be liable to the greatest objection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this new tax which he had proposed need not be regarded as a very heavy impost, for it could only be imposed once upon the owner of landed property. But he (Mr. Liddell) could submit details to the House which would show that the inequalities and injustices that would be occasioned by the imposition of this tax, ought to induce the House to reject this Bill. He certainly had known instances in which the same property had been held by the same individuals for about sixty years; but he also knew an instance, on the other hand, in which the same property had, by frequent deaths, changed proprietorship three times in three years. That instance occurred in the case of a family named Lovaine, who lived in the county of Northumberland. He could cite other instances in which successions had occurred with a like rapidity. Where, then, was the fairness of subjecting to the same tax one class of property upon succession to inheritance, which might take place four or five times in the course of twenty years, and another class, which might be in the possession of the same individuals for a period of sixty years? That objection of inequality was, in his mind, sufficient to condemn this tax. He gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for the endeavours which he had made, by the tables which he had appended to this Bill, to counteract in some degree the inequality and injustice of Bill. But he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that nothing could be more fallacious than calculations contained in those tables with reference to the duration of human life. The House, in dealing with this measure, should bear in mind the difficulties connected with the transfer of landed property. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he proposed the imposition of such a burden as this, should have laid before the House some plan for the reform of the present costly mode of transferring landed property. As long as the present stamp duties were imposed upon conveyances, no such burden as that proposed by this Bill should be sanctioned by the House. Suits of the most expensive and dilatory character had frequently to be introduced to enforce the completion of a purchase of landed property. Until the manner of proving title to land was rendered more simple and cheap, no such Bill as the present ought to be laid before the House. He was acquainted with a case in which the costs of stamps imposed upon deeds conveying an estate amounted to about 300l. The duties of trustees, if this Bill should pass, would be most perplexing and embarrassing, because it would be extremely difficult to say who should pay the succession duty on the decease of the owner of landed property. Another objection to this tax was, its coming at a period when the successor might be encumbered with many other payments, and when, therefore, he would have very considerable difficulty in meeting this new charge, without, in many cases, bringing a portion of his property into the market, and thus, as long as the present complication of titles existed—as long as the present stamps upon conveyances existed—you would be exposing the individual in this condition to a double burden by the operation of this Bill. There was, further, very strong ground for objection in the inquisitorial character of the Bill. At the time when a man might be most embarrassed it would require the production of every title deed, of every mortgage, of every family settlement, even of the most delicate character; and, yet after all this, there were certain properties whose value could not possibly be accurately estimated under it. Such were mines and collieries; and how were railways to be estimated, for which a large rent might be got at one time, and, in consequance of the making of a new railway, or other similar cause, little or none at another? The right hon. Gentleman, by this Bill, would make every man a ward of the Crown. It would give the Crown the right to inquire about every man's landed property, the title by which it is held, and the rents received from it; and it would be necessary for him to send out a few Empsons and Dudleys to levy the tax. It was said that, because there was a succession duty on personal property, it ought to be extended to real property. Now, when was the succession tax levied on personalty? In Mr. Pitt's time, to enable the country to carry on an expensive and ruinous war; but even in the plenitude of his power Mr. Pitt was unable to impose it on real property. When every effort was being made to levy taxes in the least burdensome manner—and it was the study of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove all odious impediments from trade and commerce—it was most un- just to pass such a measure as the present but, judging from the majorities which the right hon. Gentleman had already obtained, he was afraid his success was but too certain. He (Mr. Liddell) believed, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in passing this Bill, that the country would not long submit to it. He should, there fore, say No to the third reading.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the great hardship which would arise under the second clause Suppose a stranger in London to leave an estate to A for life, and for A's son in tail, A would have to pay ten per cent in the first instance, and his son would afterward, have to pay ten per cent interest. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not intent such an estate to pay ten per cent twice? To remedy this injustice, he would propose to add to the second clause a proviso to relieve the difficulty.

said, he did not think there was any hardship it the case suggested—that of a settlement in which a father is tenant for life with remainder to his son. Now the principle of the Bill was this. When an estate was derived from a person, the relation it which he stood to the giver of the bounty ought to govern the extent and character of the tax, and the tax would be measured according to the enjoyment of the estate and the relation of the giver. Supposing a will to be made under which the first taker should be eighty-five years of age, with remainder to his son, who might be only thirty-five years of age, the father's interest would be valued on the principle of its enduring probably not more than one or two years, and ten per cent would only be paid for that limited amount of enjoyment which would be measured by the value of the life interest of the first taker, If this exemption should be introduced, a great number of others must follow, and the Act would in fact become a mass of exemptions. The matter had received the most mature consideration, and he should vote against the proviso.

said, he was glad his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had again raised the point, because it was desirable the public should become acquainted with the oppression to which they would be subjected.

said, the case was one of considerable hardship, and he had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have made some relaxation. On each succession ten per cent would have to be paid, and in some cases the Chancellor of the Exchequer might soon rejoice in having possession of the whole property.

said, it was impossible to accede to the proviso, if it were only on the ground that the hon. Member had not laid down in his Amendment any distinct principle on which the exemption could be brought in without incurring other exemptions. The Amendment would leave the Bill in a state of great inconsistency, and would prove most unsatisfactory if it should be adopted in the case alluded to—that of illegitimate children.

said, until the Amendment was moved he was not, aware that the Bill contained such an injustice. This was not the case of illegitimate children, but the case of all bequests by strangers in blood. He did not see why a legitimate child should have to pay ten per cent after the death of the father to whom the property was originally bequeathed.

rose to move an Amendment upon the 4th clause. He said, that under the General Legacy Act of 1796, the cases of persons to whom legacies were given to be enjoyed for life, or during some limited time, with a power to appoint the capital of the legacy for the benefit of any person or persons especially named or described, and of persons having any limited interest, and a general and absolute power of appointment, were provided for with an obvious intention on the part of the Legislature, that the legacy duty should attach equitably and fairly to the property as it passed into different hands according to the beneficial interest taken by each; and by the Act of 1805, 45 Geo. III., chap 28, which extended the duty to any legacy given to a child, or the descendant of a child, whether charged upon real or personal estate, and exempted from duty the husband or wife of the deceased. A further proviso was inserted, Section 4, exempting any specific sum or sums of money or any share or proportion thereof charged by any marriage settlement or deed upon any real estate, in any case in which any such specific sum or sums, or share or proportion thereof, shall be appointed or apportioned by any will or testamentary instrument, under any power given for that purpose by any such marriage settlement or deed or deeds. This latter provision being a further affirmance of the same just principle, that the mere carrying into effect, even by a will of that power by which another was to benefit, should not be regarded as a part of the property of the persons entrusted with the exercise of a power of appointment; and that the benefit derived from the appointment should not be considered a legacy, as it really was not; but he (Mr. Freshfield) regretted to say, that the spirit of this Succession Act took a different direction; and Clause 4, which he sought to amend, enacted that—

"Where any person shall have a general power of appointment under any disposition of property taking effect upon the death of any person dying after the time appointed for the commencement of this Act over property, he shall, in the event of his making any appointment there under, be deemed to be entitled at the time of his exercising such power, to the property or interest, thereby appointed as a succession derived from the donor of the power."

The clause so proposed would render the party possessing the power, no matter how he exercised it, liable to the succession duty, notwithstanding that person should from a grateful sense of the confidence reposed in him, so appoint the property, as from altered circumstances, or further knowledge of the wishes of the donor of the power, practise the most generous self-denial, by making the appointment as to the whole or part of the capital or income to be derived from it, in favour of some third person, who would clearly acquire a succession and pay the succession tax; and this he would pay because he acquired a succession, and the possessor of the general power would pay under this clause not because he did in fact acquire any direct advantage to himself, but because he might have done so had he chosen to act a selfish part; and thus the same property would at one and the same moment pay the tax twice. This was the spirit in which the power of the majority was used in carrying out the succession principle, not as to real property—the great object of taxation with a section of hon. Members—but as to personal property also, which would be found to bear more than was generally supposed by the change of the character of the tax from a legacy to a succession duty. He therefore proposed an Amendment which would leave the last branch of the 4th clause, namely, the provision relating to a succession derived under a limited power of appointment, untouched; but as to persons having a general power of appointment it would cause the tax to be paid by the parties deriving benefit under such power, and strictly and without favour or exemption to the full extent of that benefit; and with that view he moved that the clause be amended by inserting in line 12, page 3, after the word "power," as follows:—

"In case the power shall be so exercised as to vest the said property wholly or in part for his own benefit, and in case the person having such general power of appointment shall exercise the same in whole or in part in favour of any other person, the property so appointed as last mentioned shall be deemed a succession derived by snch last mentioned person from the donor of the power."

said, the clause was in strict conformity with the principle and tendency of the Act, and was nothing more than an importation into the Bill of the rule which had been acted upon for nearly sixty years.

said, the principle of this clause as to the duty payable, was precisely the same as that of the Legacy Acts.

said, he wished to move the omission of all the words in the 21st clause, from the 35th line. The clause related to the interest of a successor in real property. The Amendment had for its object the prevention of the tax proposed to be levied in certain cases. He thought the provisions to which he objected most unjust and oppressive. But his objection applied most strongly, not to the bearing of the tax upon the wealthy, but upon the humbler classes of possessors of property. He appealed to the House against the infliction of this cruel hardship of the provisions in question, which, if allowed to stand, would, in many cases, amount to positive confiscation.

said, the right hon. Baronet had discreetly abstained from attempting to demonstrate the truth of his assertion—that this tax would amount to confiscation. There was no foundation whatever for such a statement. The right hon. Baronet, on that as well as on former occasions, seemed to forget the mitigated burden which was to be enforced upon real property as compared with personality. How did the matter stand? For the sake of giving to the tax the most lenient form of which it was susceptible, he had proposed, instead of coming down upon the successor with the whole tax at once, which was done in other cases, to give him the power of spreading it over four years and a half; and, therefore, because he had proposed to grant him that very great indulgence, he was now told it was cruelty to deny the other gift of the whole unpaid residue of the tax. If the successor had only a life interest in the property to which he succeeded, he would not be required to continue payment of the installments due at the death of his predecessor; but if he had a continuing interest in the property, and if he was able to leave it behind him, there could be no reason why a tax due to the State should be remitted in his favour rather than any other debt to which he was liable. Was a tax to the State a legitimate debt or was it not? If it was, then he could only say that nothing could be more just than the clause as it stood.

said, he was astonished at this opposition to the clause. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) had moved, on behalf of the land, a vote of thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the consideration shown in this arrangement, he (Mr. Crossley) would not have been surprised; but he was puzzled to know on what ground they could complain of a most extraordinary indulgence and act of grace.

said, that they (the Opposition) were not struggling for the great but for the small proprietors, and in this instance the small proprietary would suffer enormously. He predicted that the day would come when there would be an unanimous admission that this tax was in this respect a great blunder.

said, he had consulted his constituents as to the Budget, and they had given a direct and distinct approval of the Budget as a whole; and of no portion of it did they more approve than of this succession tax.

said, he represented, like the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hadfield), a large civic constituency; and their opinion was the direct reverse of that conveyed by the hon. Member for Sheffield. They regarded this succession tax as a tax from which the farmers and small proprietary of Ireland would suffer a heavy blow. The capital of Ireland was in land, not in manufactures, and this tax would cramp the rising energies of the country. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Crossley), who was a prosperous manufacturer, to look lightly on the consequences of this impost. The hon. Member very likely turned his capital two or three times over in a year, but the farmer only turned his capital over once a year.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that that was a tax which would be peculiarly burdensome to the smaller proprietors. The fact was, that small landed properties were usually divided equally among the different children of the owner, and when they were sold out for the purpose of meeting the charges so created, the successors became subject to the legacy duty. He believed that if the opinion of the smaller proprietors were taken with respect to the Bill, it would be found that they were not so hostile to it as hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to imagine.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him appeared to labour under a mistake. He had to inform the hon. Gentleman, that if a property were equally divided among the children of the owner, it would not be subject to the legacy duty.

said, he wished to propose an omission in Clause 23—the "timber clause." A great deal of confusion and irresolution had been manifested in their mode of dealing with that clause. No man of taste wished that the timber of the country should be cut down. It was now clearly evident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned the original intention of his Bill, because as the Bill now stood, any nobleman or gentleman entering on the possession of his estate would pay nothing whatever for his timber. If timber was kept for the ornament of a demesne and the general beautification of the country, it was manifestly unjust and impolitic to tax it as though it were a source of profit. The duty on timber was either profitable or not. An estate might produce 20,000l. a year, and of that sum 1,000l. a year might be the produce of timber. If this were so, why should timber be made an exception to grass, corn, or any other crop? If the land produced 1,000l. a year in timber, it could not produce any other crop, and, therefore, if the successor were an honest man, he would make his return at 1,000l. a year, upon which sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get the duty. Timber was now actually excluded from the value of an estate; but then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "When once timber is cut, I will charge the duty upon it." By this magnificent scheme of taxation, whenever a son succeeded his father, and felled 10l. worth of timber, he would have to pay 2s., and if he felled 100l. worth, he would have to pay 10l., and so on. It was said that England could not bear a little war. She could not bear a little scheme of taxation, and this was one. Parliament had been removing small duties. They had taken off 1,500,000l. a year for the soap duty—a duty which, by the way, he did not think was any great boon. [Cheers.] He had no wish whatever to depreciate the importance of the manufacturing interests. They were not a greater, but he should concede they were as great and important a class as the landed interest. So in the case with bricks; the great thing appeared to be to get rid of the exciseman. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, wanted to get rid of the malt tax, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the proposition, alleging that it would do no good, as the expense of collection would still be kept up, and the exciseman could not be got rid of. But by the present proposition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would retain something in the capacity of an exciseman, whose duty it would be to prowl over every estate in the kingdom to see what timber had been cut and disposed of by the proprietor, in order to levy a tax, which, when collected, would be utterly insignificant. He assured the House that he did not propose the omission in anything like a factious spirit; but he must say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in persisting with the clause, showed that he was not free from the infirmity of noble minds. His infirmity appeared to be, far too great a pertinacity with respect to every clause which had been proved in argument to be wholly unsustainable. It was one of the misfortunes connected with the proceedings of that House, that it rarely happened that the decision of a question was left to the Members who had listened to, or taken part in, the debate. If this question could be left to the Members present, he would leave it with confidence in their hands; but, as soon as Mr. Speaker rose to put the question, a number of Members would rush in who knew nothing whatever of the question, and who merely voted with the party with whom they were in the habit of acting. He believed, that, even on the ground of prudence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain nothing by this tax, but would be a loser. If the successor were allowed to include timber in his return, in the usual way, the chances were, that in 999 cases out of 1,000, the return would be an honest one, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the benefit of the timber duty; but by the proposed plan, the cost of watching and collecting the 2s. and the 20s. would be more than they were worth, while the question of determining the duty would have to be left open during the whole life of the successor. He saw no reason why timber should have any ground of exemption, or why it should be made the subject of a special enactment. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would consent at this the last stage of the measure, to the omission he proposed.

trusted the House would not give way to the clamour of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to descend with him to the humble cottage of the labouring man—to look at the old arm chair, in which, perhaps, his father died, and to contemplate the ancient oak chest, inherited, perhaps, from his grandmother. The value of these, and of everything else in the place, must be assessed at succession, and, if the sum amounted to 20l., 2½ per cent of probate duty and 1½ of legacy duty must be paid; whereas but 1½ was to be imposed on the valuable hereditary property in question; and the injustice of the hon. and learned Member's observations was therefore at once apparent.

said, his object in rising was not to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), so much as to express his astonishment at the manner in which some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who represented agricultural constituencies, had dealt with the whole Budget of the Government, and especially the present Bill, and the clause more immediately under discussion. In endeavouring to account for the conduct of those Gentlemen in supporting this Bill, and more particularly this clause, he had been compelled to fall back on an explanation of similar conduct given many years ago by the celebrated Adam Smith, with reference to the political ancestors of Gentlemen opposite. He explained the matter in a very philosophical manner. When contrasting the success that attended the moneyed classes with that of the landed interest, he said—

"Their—the moneyed interest's—superiority over the country gentlemen is not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public."

He believed that in those words of Adam Smith was to be found the true solution of the success, so far, of the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would in a few sentences state his objections to the Bill. He objected, in the first place, to the clause now under consideration, because it treated timber, a product of the soil, in a manner in which no other product of the soil was treated, and subjected it to an unfair, odious, and inquisitorial system of taxation. Another objection to the clause was, that even if it taxed timber in accordance with, instead of antagonism to, the system of taxation hitherto prevalent in this country, there were peculiar circumstances connected with the timber of England which might induce the Government, on public and national grounds, to make exemptions in favour of rather than against it. With respect to a not considerable class of timber in this country—hedge-row timber and isolated field trees—it was unjust and unfair to subject them to any taxation. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mean to tax hedge-rows when removed for agricultural purposes, he ought to exempt the timber forming a component part of the hedge from duty. With regard to isolated field trees, they grew either in arable or grass lands. Now, he presumed that no one would deny that the removal of timber from arable land was pro tanto an improvement of the estate. Then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in estimating the net value of a tree removed from such land, ought also in fairness to estimate the detriment to the property caused by the tree having stood so long there, and it would be found that the latter would balance, or more than balance, the net value of the tree. He, therefore, conceived himself justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to exempt timber growing on arable land from the tax. In grass land, again, no one would contest that the maintenance of an isolated tree was a benefit to the field in which it stood, for it formed a protection to the cattle against storms and rains in winter, and against scorching heats in summer; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the net value of such a tree on removal, he ought also to estimate the diminution in value of the grass land by the removal of the tree. Without speaking of great forests, such as the New Forest, he asked the House to look at the case of ordinary woodlands scattered here and there throughout the country. Let the House consider the moderate value of those woodlands, and the competition to which that property was subject with foreign timber, and then say whether it was fair and just now, for the first time, to impose a new excise duty on home-grown timber—for, disguise it as they might, such was the effect of the law. The argument used in favour of the reduction of the duty on the importation of foreign timber was, that it was just and right to diminish as much as possible the cost of that timber, which was used by the artisans, the peasants, and the shipowners of this country in the construction of their implements, workshop, cottages, and vessels. Then, upon what poinciple could hon. Members now call on the House to impose an excise duty on timber the product of their own soil? From the time of Charles II., when Evelyn published his treatise, with the direct sanction of the administrators of the King's Navy, to the days when a great modern authority, Mr. M'Culloch, denounced all timber duties, whether on foreign or home- grown wood, he ventured to say no Chancellor of the Exchequer ever proposed to impose an excise duty on timber. Mr. M'Culloch said—

"If there be one article more than another with which it is of primary importance that a great commercial and manufacturing nation like England should be abundantly supplied on the lowest possible terms, that article is timber. Timber is not to be looked upon in the same light as most other commodities. It is against all principle to impose duties on materials intended to be subsequently manufactured; but timber is the raw material of the most important of all manufactures—that of the instruments of production. Suppose it were proposed to lay a heavy tax on ships, waggons, looms, or workshops, when completed; would not such a monstrous proposal be universally scouted? And yet this is what is being really done."

Upon such considerations it was, that though a duty was nominally on all foreign timber, the exemptions made by the Legislature were extremely numerous, as the following heavy list would show. At the present moment the following timber and wood goods were admitted duty free: Birch and fir wood imported for making barrels for the use of fisheries; poles, being imported for shovel hilts; teak and Cuba timber, admitted for shipbuilding; locusts, trenails, greenheart, and morawood; all furniture woods, except ash, beech, birch, elm, fir, oak, or wainscoat, and all dye woods. If it were right and just, then, that these articles should be imported duty free, upon high and national considerations, would the House of Commons set the example of taxing corresponding articles the produce of the English soil? In justice, the Chancellor of tire Exchequer must either discontinue these exemptions in favour of foreign timber, or he must permit similar English-grown articles to be exempt from the operation of the present Bill, and then the tax on the remaining timber would not be worth the collection. There was, to be sure, a third course, contrary to all justice and equity, and that was, to continue the exemptions which foreign timber enjoyed, and at the same time to impose this succession tax in all its rigour, annoyance, and injustice on timber the produce of the English soil. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did that, he would but confirm the suspicion which the landed interest had hitherto reason to form of the insincerity of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as freetraders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would then give ground for belief that Vœ victis! was the only rule of legislation as applied to the landed interest of the country, and would create the conviction that at the hands of the present Government that interest had no reason to expect either justice or fair consideration. For the reasons he had stated, he should most cordially support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins).

said, he was surprised that the noble Lord did not perceive the fallacies of his own argument. The duty which was about to be imposed had nothing of the nature of an excise duty, but was only a duty on successions to property, including timber. Not only the timber, therefore, which the noble Lord mentioned, but all those herring barrels and shovel hilts, and all the other articles, would be included for payment in like manner. The argument, therefore, of the noble Lord was wholly futile. It was not his desire to have made a single remark on that occasion if it had not been for the course of observation pursued by the noble Lord with regard to the landed interest. He deprecated these appeals to separate interests. Selfishness was bad, but it produced no public evil; but the separate interest of particular classes, if exclusively considered, went far to bring Government altogether to an end. With regard to this Bill he must say that he disliked it as much as any one else; but could they give him a reason why real property should be exempted from a duty to which personal property was liable? No doubt there would be great difficulty and expense in collecting it—expense and difficulty beyond anything that Parliament could see. They had reason to admire the great abilities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General in dealing with the Bill against the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They made many objections; and it was very easy for captious men to object. However, the lawyers were equally ignorant as the rest of them, for they rose and debated continually. Nevertheless, this was called a well-drawn Bill. He had no doubt it was so, for to him it was quite unintelligible. But, indeed, the Judges would not care a single rush for anything that was said in that House; and he believed that, until they had a judgment on every clause of the Bill, it would continue to be impossible to know what they were to do under the Bill. But the expense of these actions would create great irritation in the country. It was not with the great landed interest, but among the small landed proprietors, who would not be able to find money enough to pay the succession duty, that the difficulty occasioned by this Bill would arise. But with the prospect of so admirable a harvest in the Courts of Law, it was not likely that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) would have any great chance of bringing in his Bill during the present Session.

said, he would now beg to move the introduction of a proviso of which he had given notice. He contended that timber land did not, generally speaking, pay a higher rent than amble or pasture land.

said, he could not agree to the insertion of these words. There was a large department of timber which was not applicable to the proviso, such as hedgerow and park timber, and there would be great difficulty in the assessment of the duty. How would they act with regard to Scotland? The wood there was the boundary between the arable on the one side, and the moorland on the other. But the main ground of his objection was, that he did not think the hon. Gentleman had shown that any successor would endure hardship under the Act, as he had the option of having his timber assessed in whatever way was most favourable to himself.

said, he would now move, pursuant to notice, an Amendment in Clause 34, the object of which was to prevent the charge upon encumbrances created or incurred by the succession taking effect till "after the time appointed for the commencement of this Act." He could not allow this Bill to pass without again expressing the strong objection he entertained to the excessive injustice of its retrospective effect. He had already stated that in his opinion it was an unjust measure altogether—not, as the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) and others had argued, because it placed a tax on landed property; for he had the strongest possible opinion that all the property of the country ought to be equally rated to the public burdens, but because rateable property was already so heavily taxed, as compared with other kinds of property, that it would be exceedingly unjust now to increase it. He still entertained that opinion; but be especially objected to the enactment of this particular clause, because, whatever might be the opinion of the House with respect to the general injustice of the measure, he really thought there could not be a difference of opinion with respect to the injustice of ex post facto legislation. The effect of it in this case would inevitably be to deprive mortgagees of the securities on the faith of which they had made their advances, and would fall heavily and unjustly on reversioners who had burdened the property they were to possess on the faith of the law continuing as it was at the time they created the burdens. He feared that the opponents of the Bill were not numerous enough in that House to prevent its passing into a law; but he was glad that they had, at least, been able to open the eyes of the public to the oppressive and unjust nature of the burdens which the present Government were attempting to impose upon them. He was sure that the public would feel exceedingly grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), and the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings), for the part they had taken in exposing the details of a Bill which went to enact a tax which he sincerely believed would be one of the most detestable and detested imposts that was ever thrown on the kingdom. Unless in another place the proceedings of that House were reversed, it would remain for the country to say what view they took of the course which Parliament had pursued on this question. He believed now as firmly as ever he did that the burden would be found intolerable by the country—that it would be found so oppressive and inquisitorial in its operation that not many years would elapse before the country would protest against it, and declare in terms which neither Government nor Parliament could mistake, that, whatever funds were required to meet the public expenditure, they must be raised in some other mode than that proposed in the present Bill.

said, he wished again to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hardship and unfairness of the 34th clause, which would compel the son who had joined his father in encumbering the estate to pay the full tax upon succeeding to the property, although he would be only the nominal successor. He knew a case in which property to the value of 50,000l. per annum was encumbered to the extent of 45,000l. or more, and the successor in that case was only in receipt of 4,000l. or 5,000l. per annum, although he would have to pay upon the entire rental. He must complain that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered that objection.

said, that his reason for abstaining from taking part in the discussion on the timber clause was, that in the course of four debates on this subject he had already spoken on it to the best of his capacity; and having trespassed so often and so long upon the time of the House, he felt that he should be doing injustice to its patience if he entered any further upon the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite inquired if he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the clause on which the present Amendment was moved, a just clause? He had no hesitation in saying that he thought it was just; but they must judge of its operation, not by an exceptional case, but by its general effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the principle of the clause was to make a man pay upon that to which he did not actually succeed; but that was not a correct description of it. The principle of the clause was to make a man pay upon that which it was in his own choice or option to succeed. If a person, having expectations of a succession, should spend any portion of that succession before coming into its actual enjoyment, he ought not to complain, if, upon coming into possession, he was made to pay upon the whole. Extreme cases might, no doubt, be conceived, but it was impossible to frame a Bill which was to touch property at all without harshness in some instances. He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman, was it desirable, in the general interest of the country, or for the individuals themselves, that those who had pledged the greater portion of their properties should continue to be the nominal proprietors? This was the whole case which had been put. But it was a principle, not only of policy and prudence, but a principle absolutely required by justice, that successions which were made away with beforehand, by a course of anticipation, should not be placed in a position more favourable than those of parties who had waited for their successions till the time appointed by nature and Providence.

said, he could only repeat that he entertained a strong objection to the measure, because there were many persons who had advanced sums of money on mortgage without at all anticipating any such enactment, and it would press upon them with undue severity.

desired to show the House the erroneous manner in which the public mind was impressed with regard to this question by some of the public journals. In one of the leading journals an article on this question appeared on Saturday, which commenced with—"The project of substituting a tax on successions for one upon income has met with but little opposition, or even criticism, in Parliament, and is not unpopular out of doors." That was the comment of the Times on what was doing in that House. The Times had taken care not to convey to the public in its columns the able objections urged against the measure by his side of the House, and was now taking advantage of that circumstance; and the public were consequently led to believe that the Bill was passing through the last stage with but little opposition, or even criticism, from that House. He had heard a good many Bills discussed in that House, but never with more ability than the present measure. He felt that the thanks of the Members opposed to this Bill were eminently due to the right hon. Member for Droitwich, and he must add a tribute to the hon. Member for Cirencester, and the hon. Member for Wallingford. If this Bill was considered tolerable by the country, it would be made so by the resistance and amendments of those hon. and learned Gentlemen. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had commented on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never attempted to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had now, as on a previous occasion, observed a discreet silence: he was silent now, as before, after the right hon. Member for Droitwich had, in a most able statement, shown that of the whole taxation of the country, local and general, real property was taxed to the extent of 17,000,000l. in excess of personal property—that personal property was exempted from those taxes—and that if this excess of taxation on real property were set against exemption from the legacy duty, it would be found that real property contributed far more in proportion than personal property to the taxation of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never ventured an answer to the statement that there were 17,000,000l. of annual taxation to which real property was subject, and from which personal property was exempt. The reason was obvious. The right hon. Gentleman, when detailing his measure for the renewal of the income and property tax, candidly admitted there were about 14,000,000l. of taxation which exclusively pressed on real property; that under Schedule A real property paid 9d. and personal property but 7d. in the pound of annual income. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in not attempting to answer himself, for he must have done so, had he attempted to answer the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich. They had had another species of injustice, which, indeed, was the characteristic tenor of the Bill. This was, that successors were to be taxed for property which they never would have; and mortgagees, who had never contemplated the interposition of this tax, would not only find their capital taxed, but the security on which it rested invalidated in many cases. But the right hon. Gentleman was going to do more by this Bill. He was going to show his predilection for mediævalism, by going back to the feudal tenure. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to invalidate the absolute title to all real property, which now by law exists, in favour of the possessor, by creating a debt to the Crown, and levying fines on the transmission of real property. Feeling, as he did, the injustice, the inequality of taxation, which already pressed on real property, he could not help saying, if additional taxation were to be imposed, that this injustice was rendered more unbearable by the necessity for such inquisition into the title to property as would probably invalidate the title as between man and man, and by the establishment of the principle that the Crown had the first right to all real property—by this re-establishment of the basis of the feudal system, abandoned years ago—abolished by statute, and condemned by public opinion. If it was right to impose additional taxes, why not resort to the income and property tax, and the machinery by which that tax was levied, which had been re-enacted this very Session? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer use that machinery for his purpose? If he wanted additional revenue, he had only to add an additional 3d. in the pound under Schedule A until 1860, and 6d. after that, if the existing income and property tax were not renewed, when the term for which it was this Session re-enacted had expired. He might then easily adjust the irregularity complained of in the case of leasehold property, by including it under this additional taxation, but excluding it from legacy duty. But the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to what reason and justice pointed out; for the sake of reverting to a mediæval system condemned by statute, the last vestiges of which the Legislature were about to abolish by dealing with copy-hold tenures, he preferred to revive the feudal title of the Crown to all real property throughout the country.

said, be wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the case, as it appeared to him that the hardship it would occasion would be very severe. The right hon. Gentleman partly acknowledged that it was doubtful the amount which would be gained by this clause. It would be very desirable for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House some idea of the amount he expected. It would be, in his opinion, much smaller than the House imagined. With regard to the case which had been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford, he could not help fancying that he was acquainted with that case, and if he were, he did not consider that it was met by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the case were the one with which he was acquainted, an estate had been left to a person who had a life interest in it; it was not an entailed estate, nor could father and son by combination alienate any part of the property. In such a case the present would be about as severe an act of legislation as could be devised by man. All the cases under this clause would be exposed to great injustice; and if the right hon. Gentleman, on consideration, should not feel convinced that he was likely to obtain a certain sum from this clause, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would make it more in consonance with the soundest and purest principles of legislation by causing the Act to be prospective, and not retrospective.

said, he entirely dissented from the idea of legislating with regard to a particular case; and he must say, when a particular case had been repeatedly urged, hon. Gentlemen ought to recollect that that case might have been avoided. The father and the son, instead of alienating their estates, had chosen to preserve them. They had done this voluntarily; whereas, in their circumstances, prudence and discretion would have suggested a sale for the purpose of paying off the debts. To allow this as a reason for breaking down a general rule, would be most unjust. If it were allowed, a party succeeding to an inheritance worth 100,000l. might borrow 20,000l. or 30,000l., and either keep the money in his pocket, or lay it out upon some profitable investment. Suppose the life estate to cease, then the successor would be allowed to deduct from it, as to duty, the 20,000l. or 30,000l. he had in his pocket, or might apply in some more profitable manner. It was impossible to permit this to be done. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken with much sympathy about the severity with which the tax would fall upon the small proprietors; but they were now endeavouring to exempt large proprietors from a burden which he thought was consistent with the principles of justice and equity.

said, it had been asserted that the case had been argued with reference to a particular class. This he denied. The case had been argued with reference to this particular clause on the general rules of justice and the common interest. Hon. Members on his side of the House complained of the general injustice of the measure if the clause were to pass as it at present stood. And if it could be shown the Government were wrong, and they refused to give way, the consequence would be that first of all public opinion would be entirely against them; and next, when the measure was submitted to another House, where it would be looked at more judicially, the clause could not pass in its present form. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had said the arguments were applied to the case of large landed properties. He denied it. He agreed that a particular case of a large landed proprietor was used by way of illustration, and to show the operation of the clause; but the case might equally well have been taken from a number of small landed proprietors who had already mortgaged their property, the value of which was affected by ex post facto legislation, and the surplus value of which was also affected by the same law. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford said that the principle of the Bill was, that everybody should pay for what he succeeded to. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that was not the principle of the Bill. Then, if it were not, he said it ought to be. But the right hon. Gentleman said successors were to pay not on that which they succeeded to, but on that which they might have succeeded to, if they had not anticipated their interest. He would accept that definition, but he would not give up the definition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallingford, as the two definitions were not inconsistent. As a general Bill, the Bill ought to charge the duty on that which a person succeeded to, and nothing more. What was the right hon. Gentleman doing by this clause? He was taking from the creditor's security a large portion of that security, and taxing the successor on that which he never might receive, on the assumption that he was going to receive it. If he knew what justice and equity were, he should say it was the very opposite to this clause.

proposed an Amendment, to insert in Clause 49, after the word "documents," the words "except title deeds relating to land." He did not put forward any objection to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having all such power as he should think desirable and necessary to enable him to collect the new duty; but he did urge upon his attention that he should not arm himself with powers which were offensive to the owners of property, and repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen, more especially so to the lower classes of the people. He submitted that the power of compelling the production of the sedeeds was unnecessary, whilst it would be extremely inquisitorial. As this was the last time he should have an opportunity of addressing the House upon the Bill, he could not sit down without expressing his regret that some clauses, which would do the Chancellor of the Exchequer no good, but would offend the feelings of the country, had been insisted upon.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman gave him no option but to place assertion against assertion. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that both his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and himself had not attempted to show the necessity of investigating title deeds. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not only reiterate the assertion, that he had shown the necessity of having the power they sought, but in addition thereto, he would assert that the hon. and learned Gentleman had never attempted to answer the point put in regard to the variety of interests in, and the different rates charged on, property. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not only not endeavoured to address himself to the point, but he had always eschewed the subject, and had not shown any reasons to the House against the proposition. He would ask hon. Gentlemen how it was possible to get at the amount of the tax payable, without having some such power as that now proposed, in order that an investigation might take place? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished only to add one word in explanation of something he had said on a former evening, and which he found had been misunderstood by some persons. He had been understood to say that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would have no concern with the collection of the legacy duty. It was not his intention to convey such an impression; but what he intended to say was, that the ordinary duty of investigating the deeds, for the purpose of fixing the amount of duty, would rest with the Comptroller of the legacy duty.

then moved an Amendment, giving a power of appeal in cases where the difference between the assessment of the successor and of the Go- vernment officer might amount to 50l., instead of, as originally provided in the Bill, in cases where the duty to be paid amounted to that sum.

said, there was no objection to the Amendment, which was accordingly agreed to.

said, he wished to know what reason there was for this clause? If there was one part of the administration of the Company which deserved and had received more credit than another, it was the manner in which they appointed the members of the Council, and in which they had provided in expectancy for the filling up of vacancies which might occur from death or other causes. He certainly considered that to take away this power from the Company would be to deprive them of much of the prestige and influence which they had hitherto enjoyed among the Natives, and which was necessary for the good government of the country. He thought the clause ought to be rejected.

said, this restriction was considered necessary for the proper working of the Indian Government, and he could not consent to give it up.

said, he wished to move the omission from the clause of the words "two persons having been ten years in the civil service of the Company," and the substitution of the words "three persons, being European or Native Indian subjects of Her Majesty, not in the service of Her Majesty or the said Company." He contended that it would not be necessary to have all the year round so large a body of men employed in the duties assigned to them by the clause as it stood, and paid at so great a rate as was there proposed. But if they were to form a Legislative Council on so extensive a basis as was proposed by the clause, it would be far more desirable, instead of nominating every Member of that Council, except the lawyers, who were gentleman of the civil service, either to adopt the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had given notice, or, what he (Sir H. Maddock) should greatly prefer, to leave it optional with the Government to appoint to that Council European gentlemen residing in India, or native Indian subjects of Her Majesty, but who should not be in the service of the Crown or of the Company. Besides, he submitted, it was desirable to have other persons in the Council, representing interests other than those of the governing body. It would be much more becoming of Parliament to form such a court as would give satisfaction to the people of India, than to confide the making of law and regulations to those who were interested only in the governing body. There were many persons in Calcutta unconnected either with the Crown or with the Company whose respectability and abilities fully entitled them to be placed in such a position.

said, that before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rochester was put, he had an Amendment, of which he had given notice, that he wished to propose—namely, that of the councillors to be appointed, one of them be a Hindoo, and the other a Mahomedan. Some persons thought that the natives had not conducted themselves so well in other situations that they should be appointed to the Legislative Council. He differed very much from those persons, because when he was in India he was as well and faithfully served by natives as ever he was in England. He believed that if a Hindoo and Mahomedan were appointed, it would tend to give confidence to the natives of the country, and would prevent those mistakes with respect to their customs and usages which often led to so much mischief.

said, he should be glad if either the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, or his own, were adopted, as the President of the Board of Control should consider best. But with reference to what fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) with regard to the evidence before the Indian Committee, be wished to say to say that though there was a difference of opinion as to admitting natives into the councils generally, yet he was not aware that any of the evidence given went further than this—that they would be useless. He believed that two or three native gentlemen associated with seven or eight English gentlemen would have much weight in a council. The main reason for which he asked a consideration of this matter was, that if it was desired to inspire the people of India with a belief that we were interested in their welfare, and were anxious that they should have an opportunity of declaring their feelings and advocating their interests, it would be only an act of wisdom and justice to place two native gentlemen in the Legislative Council. He would not place them in the Executive Council, for he believed that the Executive and the officers of the army should be English, and that the civil service should also be English, and a close service, and that no natives should be admitted into it.

said, he presumed that the objections taken to the Clause had two objects in view—first, to satisfy the natives of India, and next to improve the Legislative Council. He doubted whether the proposed remedy would accomplish the one object or the other. In the first place, he doubted or the whether it would satisfy the natives; for where there were so many nations and sects, the probability was that from whichever you took, you would displease all the others. The question then was, whether they were to govern India on English or Indian principles. He was convinced, also, that there was as much, if not more, knowledge of Mahomedan laws and customs to be found among the civil servants of the Company as among the natives; and it was not likely, therefore, that the efficiency of the Legislative Council would be increased by the appointment of two natives. It was not to save money that he objected to the Amendments, but because he believed that neither the Council would be improved, nor the people of India satisfied by the change.

opposed the Amendment. He thought it was strange that the hon. Gentleman who complained of the excess of Members in the Legisla- tive Council should seek to remedy it by appointing two additional members. It was advisable to employ natives in administrative affairs; but the whole tenor of the evidence on this point was against putting them into the Legislative Council. It would, moreover, be impossible to do so without creating the greatest jealousy among the numerous sects which would necessarily remain unrepresented. He did not believe it would be possible to find two natives who should represent the whole native population. For the purpose of legislation it was exceedingly desirable to have a Council to assist the Governor General. Lord Ellenborough was of opinion that the Council should not exceed twelve in number, and that among them should be gentlemen from the other Presidencies. He (Sir Charles Wood), thought it of great importance that there should be gentlemen from other Presidencies; but he did not think it desirable to increase the Executive Council. With regard to the Legislative Council no such objection to their number being increased existed. With regard to residence, he was of opinion that there ought always to be a quorum of the Legislative Council capable of being called together at any time at Calcutta. With regard to the law commission, he thought that great advantage had been derived from their labours in improving legislation in India; but the fault of the Act of 1833 was in the machinery by which the law commision worked. The commission considered the various laws and customs of India, and collected materials for framing a code of laws, but they had no power to carry any of their labours into effect. The question had been raised, whether it would not be advisable to reconstruct the commission? His own opinion was, that it would be better to proceed as the Government had proposed to do. They would have, in the Legislative Council, a certain number of gentlemen from the other presidencies, and also the Chief Justice of the highest Court in Calcutta, and also one of the other Judges of the Supreme Court. This would insure not only a knowledge of India, but a knowledge of the law; and the result of the labours of these two elements combined would be not merely a recommendation, but a legislative act. On these grounds, he did not think it advisable either to reduce or to add to the numbers proposed by the Bill.

said, he thought the Amendment raised one of the most impor- tant questions connected with Indian Government—namely, the admission of natives to, or their exclusion from, the highest legislative offices. He would go as far as the hon. Member for Montrose or any Member of that House in desiring to see native talent and intellect admitted into the highest offices in India, and did not think they possessed the defects intellectually or morally that some persons seemed to consider. He was inclined to go on that head a little further than perhaps he was altogether warranted in going by the evidence received before the Committee, because, though he admitted the ability and fairness of those who gave that evidence, he felt it was impossible that men should not have some bias from their occupation; and the great majority of the witnesses that had been examined were themselves members of an exclusive civil service. Anxious, however, as he was, to admit natives of talent to the highest offices in India, and, if practicable, to admit them even into the Legislative Council, he saw great difficulty in taking that course in the manner which was proposed by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. Because, if natives were to be constituted members of the Legislative Council without having any effectual provisions made for their admission into the civil service, there would be an obstacle thus raised to the fair working of the measure. Those seats in the Legislative Council conferred upon the natives would not be earned by competition, or given according to merit, but would become rather matters of reward and favour and patronage in the hands of the Government. That was not the manner in which he should wish to proceed; he did not think that in this measure they had made effectual and sufficient provision for the admission of natives to the civil service. That was a point on which the Bill was susceptible of amendment; and he believed it would be in the power of the House to introduce clauses by which practically the natives of India would be placed on the same footing as natives of England with regard to eligibility for the civil service. At present he had no alternative, though he sympathised with the hon. Member for Montrose in the object he had in view, but to support the clause as it stood.

said, he entirely agreed in the principle of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose. He thought it most important to open to the natives of India the door to the very highest offices in the Government of that country; but at the same time it appeared to him that the mode by which his hon. Friend proposed to do this was liable to objection. His hon. Friend proposed to make it imperative on the Governor General to appoint two natives to the Legislative Council. He (Lord Jocelyn) could not concur with him in that opinion. It appeared to him that the better course would be to give to the Governor General the power of appointing natives of India to the Legislative Council, leaving it to him to exercise his discretion as to making those appointments or not. They had seen native gentlemen from India, to whom, he believed, in ability and character, few would be found equal in this country. He might refer for example to Ram Mohan Roy and Dwarkanauth Tajore, two gentlemen of the very greatest ability, and whose knowledge of the character of the people, of the laws and of the religion of their own country, would have made them a most valuable acquisition to the Legislative Assembly of India. He believed it was owing to the exertions of Ram Mohan Roy that Lord William Bentinck was enabled to carry into effect his great measure for the abolition of suttee, which had been so long a disgrace to our rule in India. He thought, therefore, it would have been an advantage if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) had expressly stated in the Bill that the Governor General should have the power to appoint natives to the Legislative Council, although he did not think it ought to be imperative on him to make such appointments. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in stating that no evidence had been given to justify the Government in proposing to Parliament that such a power should be given, and that it should be rendered imperative on the Governor General to make the appointments. In fact, the evidence went exactly in a contrary direction. When Sir George Clerk, whose knowledge of the natives of India was, perhaps, greater than that of any other man, and who was in favour of giving employment to the native population, was asked what was the grade in the service which he would propose should be assigned to the native population, he said that, perhaps, in the course of ten years they might look forward to being appointed to the office of collector. Yet no man was more earnest than Sir George Clerk for the improvement of the native population; and whenever he had the power he himself acted upon that system. With these views, therefore, he could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend, although he cordially concurred with him in principle, and he trusted the time was not far distant when the natives of that great empire would be associated with us in carrying on its government, and thereby enabling us permanently to maintain our rule in that country.

said, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Lynn Regis (Lord Stanley), that, in proposing to appoint natives to the Legislative Council before they had been admitted into the civil service of India, was beginning at the wrong end; still he should support the Amendment, for this reason, that after admitting natives of India to be appointed to the Legislative Council, in consistency, and as a natural consummation, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control must admit them to the civil service. It was impossible to find an Englishman who had more decidedly pronounced in favour of English supremacy in all things than Lord Ellenborough, and yet both Lord Ellenborough and Mr. Elphinstone had strongly recommended, not that the natives should have seats in the Legislative Council, but that they should be members of a consultative council, which might be in attendance on the Governor General, to whom he might refer to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the natives on several points. It was impossible to look at the evidence before the Committee without being convinced that much difficulty had arisen in carrying into effect laws devised with the best intention, simply owing to the absence of means of obtaining a proper knowledge on the part of the Governor General in Council as to what the feelings of the natives really were.

said, he did not think that it would be possible to maintain British power in India through native agency. Were hon. Gentlemen, he would ask, prepared to hand over the higher offices of the Indian army to natives? He thought the only answer could be in the negative, and he would apply the same principle to the offices in the Legislative Council and in the Executive Department, and reserve them for our own countrymen. Any one acquainted with the state of India—an empire comprising many nations, among whom the greatest hatred and jealousy existed—must be aware that the elevation of a Hindoo or a Mussulman to the Legislative Council would be likely to cause much excitement and ill feeling.

said, he objected to the Amendment, on the ground that there was no feeling of nationality in India. Indeed, they might as well give a seat in that House to a Spaniard or a German, and call him a representative of England, as place a native of Bengal in the Legislative Council of India, and suppose that he would represent the feelings or the interests of the inhabitants of the Lower Provinces. There was no approach to a community of interest or of feeling among the natives of India. With regard to the complaint that the natives were not represented in the Legislative Council, he would say, without hesitation, that there were hundreds of European servants of the Company who knew far more of India and of its inhabitants than any of the natives themselves. The noble Lord (Viscount Jocelyn) was mistaken in supposing that Ram Mohan Roy had anything to do with the abolition of suttee. He had no doubt that due weight was given by the Legislative Council to the opinion of the natives; but would it be supposed, if natives had been in the Council when Lord William Bentinck proposed the abolition of suttee, or when Lord Wellesley sanctioned the law which prevented Hindoos from flinging their children to the sharks, that they would not have opposed those measures? He was ready to go even further than the President of the Board of Control in advocating the employment of the natives; and he regretted that persons engaged in the judicial service, and especially in the Courts of Principal Suddur Ameen, and Sudder Ameen, did not receive more adequate remuneration. He desired to see prizes given to the natives in such departments; but he did not think they were fit, or that they would for many years to come be fit, to be intrusted with legislative functions. He considered that it would be an act of unkindness to thrust them forward to positions for which they were unfit, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not assent to the Amendment.

said, he begged to explain that Ram Mohan Roy gave an opinion which led to the abolition of the suttee law.

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, because he thought it ought to be made imperative on the Governor General to appoint natives to seats in the Legislative Council. In the last Charter one of the clauses gave leave to the Governor to employ natives, but that clause had remained a dead letter in consequence of the Company employing their own relations and friends. That charge had been publicly made in that House by a gentleman who had been a Legislative Councillor for many years, and also had been President of the Council of Education, and the charge had never been answered; and the same hon. Member said that their interest had been antagonistic to their duty, and that they had taken every means to prevent the people from becoming qualified for those high appointments. Now, when such imputations remained unanswered, he had been astonished to hear Members of the Government eulogise so highly the conduct of the Company. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had give n utterance to a sentiment which he trusted never to hear again in that House; for he avowed that India was kept as a means of plundering and subduing other kingdoms; and he declared that it would afford plenty of places for the middle classes. Such sentiments were very different from those contained in the celebrated Resolutions which had been twice affirmed, that it was contrary to the interest of Great Britain to conquer foreign kingdoms, or to bring home the spoils gained by robbery and war. With respect to the employment for the middle classes, the right hon. Baronet very much underrated them if he thought they would ever desert their country for any baits he might hold out to them. With regard to the hon. member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles), any one reading the evidence must clearly see how he was disposed to deal with the natives; for, whenever any sentiment was uttered favourable to them, a dozen questions followed for the purpose of impugning the testimony of the witness, or some sneering remark was made to efface the good impression made on the Committee. That was a specimen of the affection with which the people of India were treated; and he did not believe there was any country where a so-called paternal government treated the people with such a want of proper feeling as was shown by the Company. If our power in India was to be kept by such atrocious measures as these, to use the words of Sir Thomas Munro, "the sooner we are driven into the sea, the better would it be for the cause of humanity." Our danger consisted in following up such a policy as we had hitherto pursued, and not in departing from it, and whatever evils might happen in India, they would be attributable to the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, and the noble Lord the leader of that House. They were taking upon themselves an awful responsibility, and the House ought to pause before it sanctioned principles at variance with the highest Indian authorities, and coming from men who had proved themselves not to be infallible. It had been said that the evidence went to show that the natives were unfit to become members of the Legislative Council, and the evidence of Sir George Clerk had been referred to; but that evidence did not go to show that the promotions ought to stop at the office of collector, but to go higher. Mr. Halliday said, he knew native gentlemen as well qualified to fill high offices as any man of his own acquaintance, and that the people of India were generally against the government of the Company, and wished to see the power transferred to the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had also stated, that the evidence of Mr. Halliday was in favour of a double government; but he did not think that any one could possibly have been more astonished than Mr. Halliday himself, when he read that statement. He had never seen a sentence so twisted, and its meaning so perverted, as that quoted from Mr. Halliday's evidence as regarded the double government; and he must say that he thought, when Ministers descended to such a quibble, that they had a bad cause indeed to advocate. Mr. Mill said, in one of his works, that "a conquering nation, which does not amalgamate with the conquered, always ends in being vanquished." The former part of this passage described the state of things now existing in India, and as he could not think that that could last, he wished to see the change begun in time. Twenty-five years ago the natives had two distinguished friends in India—Sir Thomas Munro and Lord William Bentinck, the first of whom obtained for the natives employment in judicial offices, while the latter began the settlement of the North-west Provinces, in which the institutions of the natives first received some attention, and those provinces from being the worst had become the best governed in India. Both these experiments had thus been attended with the most signal success, and he contended that we should therefore proceed in the same course. Instead of doing so, however, the very opposite policy had been for the first time enunciated in that House by the Government in the course of this debate. He was glad to see that the number of the members of the Legislature was to be increased; but he thought that if the Government in India had been touched, it should have been more perfected than this Bill aimed at doing. At present the Governor General was never with his Council; the seat of government was the most unhealthy place in India; and the functions of the Legislative Council were delegated to five foreigners, not connected with the country by any ties, or going to live in it., but, on the contrary, anxious for the ship that should take them away from it for ever. It was impossible that any Council could be more unsatisfactorily constituted; nor could any scheme for the government of India be satisfactory which did not provide for the removal of the capital to a more healthy place, for the presence of the Governor General with the Council, and for the admission of natives to the seats in that Council.

, in reply, said, he must still maintain that the evidence of Mr. Halliday showed the fitness of the natives for places in the Legislative Council, and that the appointment of two of their number to that body would have a most valuable moral effect, as a proof of our sympathy with them, of our desire to study their wishes and interests, and to ameliorate and elevate their position.

said, he promised the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke), that on moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, he would make a statement with regard to it. In 1845, the Royal Commissioners for Metropolitan Improvements, in their second and fifth Reports, recommended that a new park should be formed in Battersea Fields, and that, in connexion with it, a bridge should be built across the Thames at Chelsea, and that a new street communicating with Lower Sloane-street should be made on the embankment from Vauxhall-bridge to Battersea-bridge, and along that embankment a road was to be made about two miles long. In consequence of this Report, in 1846 two Acts were passed—one to make a park in Battersea Fields, and the other to empower the Commissioners of Works to make a bridge at Chelsea, and to make an embankment from Vauxhall to Battersea. For the making of the bridge and the new street, the Commissioners were empowered to borrow 120,000l. from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, which was to be repaid partly by means of a general rate, and partly by contributions from persons whose property would thus be improved. Those contributions were not to be commenced till agreements, approved of by the Treasury, had been entered into by the parties whose property was to be improved. The time for making those agreements would expire on the 1st of August next, and one object of the Bill was to extend the time till July next year. The bridge at Chelsea was in process of construction, but the embankment had not been commenced, except a portion of it which had been commenced by Mr. Cubitt, in consequence of a quasi agreement with the Commissioners of Works. The estimate for the bridge was 70,000l., and for the embankment and new street, 146,000l., making 216,000l. altogether. It was expected that 62,000l. would be received partly from persons whose property would be improved, and partly from the resale of property along the embankment and the new street. The net expenditure, therefore, would be 154,000l., in return for which it was expected there would be a net income from tolls on the bridge, and from the piers, amounting to about 6,600l. a year, making a return of about four per cent on the outlay. The park of Battersea would be comparatively of little use to the inhabitants on the north bank of the Thames, unless there was a bridge at Chelsea; and the bridge would be of little use to it unless approaches were made to it from the east and west, from Vauxhall-bridge and Battersea. The embankment and roadway would be of the greatest benefit to the public; and he considered that they ought to be sanctioned by Parliament.

said, that the observations he made the other night were not intended to throw any obstacle in the way of the proposed improvements. What he objected to was, the bringing forward of measures of this kind, without at the same time producing an estimate of the expense. They were now told for the first time that the new works would cost 216,000l. It was not his intention to object to that expenditure, but he desired to know whether the funds were now forthcoming, or whether the operation of the Bill was to be delayed for another four years? He had received communications from various parties, complaining that their property had been hung up since 1846, and he really thought that something decisive should now be done in the matter.

said, he agreed with the sentiments expressed with regard to this Bill by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke). He ohjected to the plan for creating a new turnpike under this Bill.

said, he thought it was utterly impossible to know what changes were contemplated by this Bill, until a map or plan of the proposed works was submitted to the House.

said, he believed there was but one feeling amongst the inhabitants of the metropolis with regard to improvements, and if the representative system were introduced into the metropolitan districts, he was satisfied that the public would be ready cheerfully to agree to an improvement rate. He thought it was extremely impolitic in the present day to create a bridge toll by this Bill.

said, he hoped the Government would listen to the objections that had been urged against establishing a toll bridge in this instance, and would therefore, desist from pressing that part of the measure. It was contrary to the direction of public feeling in the present day to be creating new tolls upon bridges, when they were doing away with the tolls upon turnpike trusts.

said, he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, as the people of Surrey thought the Judge was already paid most handsomely, considering the honourable position which the office gave him.

said, he was never more surprised in his life than when he heard of the introduction of this Bill; for it would be in the recollection of the House that it was only a short time ago that he brought the conduct of this Judge under the notice of Parliament with reference to the case of Mary Hill, and then not all the adroitness, and all the talent, and all the pleasantry of the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department could get rid of the bad impression which the conduct of the learned gentleman created in the minds of hon. Members. And yet within three months after that occurrence the House was asked to increase the learned gentleman's salary, thus as it were passing a vote of confidence in the Judge, and stultifying its own previous decision. The eccentricities and peculiarities which characterised the administration of justice in the learned Judge's Court were too well known to need recapitulation; but, nevertheless, there were one or two instances of scenes in the Court which he must be permitted briefly to refer to. He held in his hand a report of the proceedings in the Middlesex Court, wherein it was stated that a person was brought before this gentleman to be re-examined, and he told the accused that he was convinced he was a thief, although there was no evidence adduced against him, nor had any trial taken place. Immediately another prisoner was brought before him, a woman who was not blessed with handsome features, and the learned Judge becoming jocular upon the villanous character of ask whether the woman was to be tried according to her physiognomy or according to the evidence. Scenes of this unseemly nature were constantly taking place in the Court over which this gentleman presided, and they did not always partake of the ludicrous—since in two cases where an acquittal had taken place, the Judge went the length of pronouncing the parties to be guilty in spite of the verdict of the jury of the contrary. Now, he would ask the House to add these cases to the medium instance of the poor woman who had three years' transportation clapped on to her sentence for simply using an offensive expression, and then to say whether they could with common decency pass this Bill? There was, however, another case to which he must call attention in the hope that the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department would be enabled to give some satisfactory account of it to the House. It might be entirely unfounded, for aught that he knew to the contrary, but at the same time it was to be found in the published reports of the trials of this gentleman's Court, and he should treat it as a fact unless it was contradicted by the noble Lord. It occurred on the 22nd of June, 1852, and was the case of a man named James, who was charged with having stolen a purse containing 1l. 1s. 6d. For this, on being found guilty, he was sentenced to ten years' transportation—

said, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member; but he found that an understanding had been come to with an hon. Baronet opposite, that this Bill should not be discussed until Thursday. It would perhaps be convenient, therefore, if the debate was adjourned till then.

said, he could not consent to this delay without concluding the only other statement of importance that he had to make with reference to this Bill. Well, then, this man was said to have been sentenced to ten years' transportation. Certainly a very severe punishment, considering the insignificant nature of the offence; and upon hearing the sentence, the man, who was of a rather violent temper, somewhat after the manner of Mary Hill, let fly a penny ink-bottle at the Judge, who thereupon, without any trial whatever, or without going through any legal proceedings, sentenced him to five years' additional transportation. He would say no more at present upon this to him painful topic; but before this Bill passed, he begged the noble Lord to inform the House whether what he had stated was a fact or not.