said, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, to the effect that it was desirable that any monies raised under the Bill by way of loan on the security of the rates in the distressed manufacturing districts should be applicable to assisted emigration to such colonies as might be willing to co-operate in carrying it out. While approving of what the Government had done to relieve the distress in Lancashire, he thought that other measures should be taken. He thought, that even if the war in America should speedily come to an end, and supplies of cotton be obtained from the Southern States, four or five years must elapse before there would be a return to anything like the former state of prosperity in Lancashire. He was therefore of opinion that emigration should be encouraged. His proposal was, that instead of restricting the amount of the rates to be applied to purposes of emigration in the distressed unions to one-half of the average amount of the three previous years, as authorized by law, the guardians should be empowered to apply such portions of the money raised on the security of the rates as they should think fit to the same purpose. He wished to dispel some misunderstanding which existed as to the objects he had in view. He wished to state distinctly that he did not in any way propose to obstruct the progress of the Bill, because he approved generally of the course which the Government had taken on the subject. He did not advocate what was called indiscriminate emigration because he believed nothing could be more injurious than to attempt to relieve the distress by any rash scheme of emigration. Neither did he propose that any grant of public money should be given for that purpose. He approved of what the Government had done for the relief of the distress; and although he did not think the Bill which they had lately passed would produce all the effects lately anticipated, yet, as Lancashire wished, he thought the Government did right in introducing it. But he did not think the measures which had been taken sufficient, and he thought that other measures should be taken which would have the direct effect of relieving the distress, and indirectly would be beneficial to the Empire and the manufacturing districts. According to the best authorities, we might expect, during the coming winter, that from 400,000 to 500,000 persons in the manufacturing districts would be in a state of considerable distress. This fact should be borne in mind, that there had been a steady inflow of something like 35,000 persons every year into the manufacturing districts seeking employment there, and now that a check had come upon the trade in those districts, they had not only to provide for the persons already thrown out of employment, but also for the stoppage of that emigration from one district into another—that emigration being essentially necessary for the prosperity not only of the manufacturing but of the agricultural districts. Of course, that inflow had ceased, and where had those people gone? His impression was that a very large proportion of them had crowded last year into the large towns, and where the main cause of the extraordinary increase of crime, at which they were so justly alarmed, and which had led to the appointment of the Committee of which he had been a member to inquire into the cause. That being the state of things, he was of opinion that the measures taken by the Government would not meet the danger to the whole community caused by the stoppage of the emigration into the manufacturing districts to which he referred, unless the Government encouraged the emigration of a certain number of persons to places which were capable of receiving them. It had been stated that in 1847 the emigration was so large and wholesale that it produced in its results very disastrous consequences, and therefore that they ought not at present to encourage emigration for fear of a recurrence of those evils. It was a curious fact that the emigration from 1852 up to 1858 was very much larger than the emigration which took place during the whole year of the distress caused by the failure of the potato crop in Ireland. This country was capable of carrying on a much larger emigration than the indiscriminate emigration which had taken place in years past. In the years 1846, 1847, and 1848 respectively 129,000, 258,000, and 248,000 persons emigrated from this country owing to the distress that then prevailed in Ireland. In 1849, 299,000 persons emigrated; in 1850, 280,000; in 1851 the number increased to 335,000; in 1852 it reached 368,000; in 1853, 329,000; and in 1854, 323,000. Thus it appeared that during those years there was a steady and, he believed, very advantageous emigration carried on simultaneously with abundance of employment and great prosperity in the country. In 1860 the numbers fell to 158,000, in 1861 to 91,000; and in 1862 the numbers rose to 121,000. These figures showed, that considering the emigration of former years, a larger emigration might go on with safety and with advantage both to those who went and those who remained behind. It had been contended on a former occasion that there were already Acts of Parliament in operation which enabled Poor Law guardians to assist emigration. By the 4 & 5 Will. IV., c. 76, s. 62, the ratepayers of a parish might borrow and spend on or in aid of emigration "of poor persons having settlements" not above half the average rate for the three preceding years. By the 12 & 13 Vict., c. 103, s. 20, guardians of unions were enabled to borrow for the emigration of the above to the extent of £10 a head, without the consent of the ratepayers, if the guardians of the parish consented. By the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 110, s. 5, unions could procure or assist in procuring the emigration of irremovable poor; and orphan and deserted children might be assisted to emigrate by the parish or union. The Legislature had, therefore, already sanctioned the principle that the poor rates might be applied towards emigration. The provisions of the Acts which he had cited were, however, inapplicable to the present moment. His proposal, as he had said, was, that instead of restricting the amount of the rates to be applied to purposes of emigration in the distressed unions to one-half of the average amount of the three previous years, as authorized by law, the guardians should be empowered to apply such portions of the money raised on the security of the rates as they should think fit for the same purpose, subject to the consent of the individual parishes. That was a permissive power, and the guardians need not make use of it unless they chose. The emigration he wished to assist would only be to those Colonies which were willing to cooperate in carrying it out. He might be told that the class of persons whose emigration he wished to assist could not be taken away suddenly to the Colonies and to a totally different climate without faring worse than if they remained at home; but such arguments, which would have been well-founded twenty years ago, were inapplicable to the present state of things. The Colonies then were almost exclusively agricultural and pastoral. The most important of the southern Colonies was Victoria, the population of which in 1861 was 540,000 souls. The population engaged in manufactures, mining, and other pursuits, irrespective of agricultural and pastoral callings, was 79,000; so that if 20,000 or 30,000 were added to the population of the Colony, they would be absorbed by other industries, even if none were fitted for agricultural and pastoral life. Then it was said that people ought not to be sent from hot rooms to endure the rigours of a colonial climate. But the winters of their southern Colonies were much warmer than those of this country, and the climate was very mild and strengthening to weak constitutions. The passage-money of emigrants was £14, but from £16 to £18 per head might be put down as the total expense. He did not wish the House to give any encouragement to emigration, except to those Colonies which were also prepared to assist it, and no colony would assist emigrants unless it was for its advantage to receive them. One colony had sent home £5,000 to encourage emigration; another £10,000, and a third £5,000. The colony of Victoria had received from 70,000 to 80,000 emigrants in one year, with no palpable reduction in the rate of wages. New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia were also ready to receive large numbers, and the Governments of those Colonies knew the importance of providing depots for the comfortable reception of the emigrants on their arrival. But then he was told that the real difficulty was that the operatives in the distressed districts did not want to emigrate. An hon. Member had said that everybody wanted everybody else to emigrate. [Mr. COBDEN: Hear, hear!] He would tell those who held that language that those who did not wish anybody else to emigrate were the employers of labour. It was, however, a misconception to suppose that there was an unwillingness to emigrate in the manufacturing districts. He had obtained a statement from the Emigration Board of the number of emigrants from this country during the first six months of the present year. In 1862, as he had stated, the number was 121,000. The first six months of 1863 had, however, reached the amount for the whole of the previous year—namely, 121,000. [An hon. MEMBER: Where did they go to?] The English and Scotch emigrants in 1862 were 47,000, and in the first half of the present year 36,000, or at the rate of 72,000 a year. The emigration to America that year was greatly in excess of last year; but was it not to their interest that the stream of emigration should be diverted from a foreign country to their own Colonies, where wages were higher, and where the emigrants would become consumers of British manufactures—not to the extent of a few shillings a year, as in America, but of £10, £12, or £14? To show the desire of the factory classes to emigrate, he would give the result of the inquiries of Mr. Knight, who was sent into the manufacturing districts by a society with which he was connected as acting emigration agent to Victoria. Mr. Knight, in a letter dated Manchester, May 6, 1863, said—

"The siege of my office by persons clamorous to emigrate continues unabated. There are thousands of eligible people connected with and affected by the manufacture of cotton who are most anxious to emigrate; they are not merely spinners, weavers, dyers, and the like, but carters, labourers, carpenters, bricklayers, engineers, smiths, strikers, &c., and a large number of tidy-looking domestic servants. I have selected many of these people, who are either in receipt of relief or in very great distress. There is no need to fear that in the present or larger drafts from the manufacturing districts we shall be likely to swamp the Colony with useless hands. Prior to going into the mills a very considerable number of factory operatives were engaged in outdoor work, and it will be no great effort for these people to fall back upon their former pursuits, most of which are quite congenial with colonial life. The operatives in several districts are forming emigration societies, and are collecting small weekly subscriptions."

In a subsequent letter, dated July 1, 1863, Mr. Knight said—

"I was sufficiently long in Manchester and the adjacent districts to ascertain the feeling of the unemployed operatives on the subject of emigration, and from what I saw and heard I have no hesitation in declaring that the majority of the persons out of work by reason of the cotton famine would rather emigrate to any part of the globe than remain in their present abject, hopeless, and dependent condition. 'Pray do something to get us out of this,' was the kind of appeal made to me every hour of the day—an appeal which I could only respond to to the extent of about one-half per cent of the applicants. On the third day, finding the applications were exceedingly numerous, I had my name taken down and a notice put up 'that I could not provide passages for any further number of people;' but, notwithstanding this, the place was constantly crowded, the passages and staircase being continually full of people. On many occasions the portion of the street opposite to the office was crowded, and we had frequently to call in the aid of a police-constable to keep the place from being blocked up. This rush of applicants continued unabated for a month, and during the last fortnight I was obliged to keep a man in the lobby to assure the people that my lists were full, and to adopt other means of getting rid of the numerous applicants. In the course of a month not less than 12,000 persons applied to me for passages to Australia. Had I taken a prominent office and publicly announced my object, and had I been furnished with means and an adequate staff to do the work, I firmly believe that I could have booked 1,000 names per day, and continued at that rate for many months."

Mr. Knight appended a note from the Glossop Spinners and Minders' Society, in which he was assured that the whole of that body and their fellow-operatives were desirous of emigrating. It also appeared that emigration societies had been formed in Gloucester, Nottingham, and Manchester for the purpose of assisting emigration. The colonial Governments in some cases offered land, and in other cases made advances to the emigrants, but in one shape or another those colonial Governments would assist emigration in the next year to the extent of from £200,000 to £300,000, if it were met by a corresponding outlay by or on behalf of the emigrants. Many of these factory operatives were suited to the Colonies, and they only required aid from local contributions. He only proposed to give the local authorities power to apply the principle laid down in the Poor Law Act, and he believed that the Amendment he proposed would do much to supplement the excellent measures which the Government had brought in for the relief of distressed districts.

said, he rose to second the Amendment. In proof of the rapid increase of the Southern Colonies, he might state that the population of Queensland, which had been separated from New South Wales, was 16,000 four years ago, but was then 45,000, the emigrants having come chiefly from the United Kingdom. The great objection to the proposal was that the people were not generally fit for the work of emigrants. He could say from his own experience, particularly with reference to people from the north of England, that they did not want people with specialities, but people who had good common sense and who would work. Persons made very good shepherds who had not been brought up to that calling in the mother country. In the days of convict labour it was well known that there was no better shepherd than a London pickpocket. The sort of persons who were not wanted in a Colony were those having a certain amount of education without capital. That class were starving in the Colony. Wages were high at Brisbane, and any decent family going into the interor might expect to receive £100 a year if they could make themselves useful. An old shepherd of his used to say it was the best place in the world for women, because there were no shops there. As a rule, it was better to let emigration find its own level; but the present was an exceptional case, and as the proposed was a permissive clause he would vote for it.

said, he would also support the Amendment as an exceptional measure. A portion of the rates would be most usefully employed in assisting the emigration of women under due regulations. There was in England an enormous disproportion of the sexes, which was increasing every day, and which was the cause of much vice and demoralization.

said, he was certain that every one who assisted in the relief of distress in the manufacturing districts would feel deeply indebted to the hon. Member, and would receive any suggestions for the relief of the distress, with a wish to adopt any measures that might be useful and practicable. The House would, however, go beyond its functions if it undertook to recommend the guardians to apply the money raised for the maintenance of the distressed operatives in assisting emigration. The Central Relief Committee had considered the question of emigration. They had a very large population to maintain, and it was the duty of the authorities to deal equally by all in the distribution of the sums raised, by subscriptions, loans, or rates. It was a mistake to suppose that the Central Relief Committee were opposed to emigration. Individually he had, perhaps, according to his means, contributed as much as any one in that House towards emigration; but he believed that a great disappointment awaited the Lancashire operatives if they rushed headlong into emigration. The owners of property in the distressed districts were mortgaging that property, and raising money on the security of the rates, and he trusted that the House would not give an opinion as to the application of that money. He thought he might undertake to say that all parties in Lancashire were deeply impressed with the duty that might be imposed on them next winter, and every effort, he believed, would be made by every class of society to meet that distress. Under those circumstances, the House would act judiciously to trust a little to the good sense and judgment of the guardians to apply the money which the House might empower them to raise for the relief of the distressed districts.

said, it was evident from the appearance of the House that his hon. Friend had no chance of carrying his Resolution. It was his (Mr. Ferrand's) belief that the employers of labour in Lancashire and the cotton districts were making common cause with the Government in discountenancing any attempt to promote emigration. After the repeal of the Corn Laws 2,500,000 of the population had emigrated, because they found that free trade did not enable them to earn the same wages as they had before. If the manufacturers were to have protection accorded to them, it was their duty to consider what would be the condition of the factory operatives during the next winter. It appeared from statements made in that House, that all but £460,000 out of the £1,500,000 of aggregate subscriptions at the disposal of the Central Committee had been spent upon the distressed operatives of Lancashire, and adding to that sum the £200,000 which was to be granted under the Bill, that would give £660,000 to be expended among the distressed factory population of Lancashire; but if it were true, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Pontefract, that there would be that year between 400,000 and 500,000 factory operatives unemployed in Lancashire, the whole of the money placed at the disposal of the different relief Committees for the relief of the distressed operatives would only give 30s. a head. Would the President of the Poor Law Board permit him to make a suggestion? There were 30,000 able-bodied men now out of employment in Lancashire. In the agricultural districts, on the contrary, sufficient hands could not be got either for the hay or corn harvest. Could not the Central Relief Committee send a large body of these men into the rural districts? They would all be able to make hay, and many were accustomed to farm labour. He was told by an hon. Friend yesterday, that in his district the hay seeds were dropping on the grass because hands could not be got for the hay harvest. He came up from Yorkshire yesterday, and saw fields that ought to have been cut a week or ten days ago. If the hot weather continued, the grain would want cutting very soon, and many thousand hands would be wanted in the agricultural districts. The farmers would be willing to give these operatives 2s. or 3s. a day, and by this means they could accumulate a sum of money which would keep them and their families for a long time.

said, he was quite ready to admit that every exertion ought to be made with a view to alleviate the distress existing in Lancashire, and two Bills to effect that object had been introduced, one of which had passed. But, without wishing to introduce an Irish element into the debate, he could not refrain from contrasting the eagerness with which measures for the relief and emigration of the distressed districts in England were discussed with the apathy of the House and the Government in regard to the distressed districts in Ireland. A few days ago he had given the Secretary for Ireland a letter from The Times relative to the distress in Connaught. He had since heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman, and he supposed that no notice would be taken of the matter. It was too much to expect the Irish people to remain loyal when they witnessed the unfairness which was practised towards them.

said, he sympathized with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand); but he thought that no stimulus should be given to emigration, because some regard ought to be felt for the ratepayers left behind. Emigration ought to be left to be carried out in the ordinary way. It certainly did not, he thought, call for a Resolution of the House to be passed in order that it might be promoted. The existing law was quite sufficient, if the guardians really wished to encourage emigration.

said, that it might not be desirable to adopt the Amendment, and he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract would be more likely to attain his end by withdrawing than by persevering with his Resolution, It would then be open to him to move the insertion of a clause enabling the guardians to apply any portion of the money raised by loan towards emigration. The sums voted by the colonial Parliaments, and placed in the hands of the Emigration Commissioners, were not, he believed, exhausted; but difficulties were, he understood, raised to the acceptance of the money in Lancashire.

asked, why the sense of the House should not be taken now on the Amendment, instead of raising another discussion in Committee. He thought his hon. Friend was a little discouraged by those on whom he had relied to support his Motion. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had waited to hear the arguments in favour of the Resolution, and must confess himself disappointed. He thought his hon. Friend was going to tell them that the guardians had applied for the power he would confer upon them, or that memorials were presented from the operatives, to enable the guardians to apply the money raised in the manner proposed to enable them to emigrate, but his hon. Friend did not say that such was the fact. His hon. Friend merely said that emigration was going on in a manner that was quite unprecedented, and that during the first six months of the year it exceeded what had occurred during the whole of some previous years.

I said the emigration of the first six months of this year exceeded 1862; but I did not apply the observation to previous years.

said, the fact was, that the total numbers that emigrated in 1862 were 121,214; and during the first six months of this year 121,765 persons emigrated, which confirmed exactly what his hon. Friend had said. But that was an extraordinary argument to use for giving extraordinary means to assist emigration. He was astonished that his hon. Friend did not tell the House what he had told many Members individually, of the very large funds now available in the Colonies for emigration. His hon. Friend had, indeed, stated at a public meeting at the Mansion House, that no less than a quarter of a million was now available in one of the Colonies for the purposes of emigration; but not one word had they heard that day from his hon. Friend of that large sum. He had expected, moreover, that at least on this occasion the hon. Member would have been supported by those who usually acted with him in colonial matters; but the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) had given him as little encouragement as he had ever heard. The hon. Member, who, from long residence there, was well acquainted with the Australian colonies, stated—what every rational colonist would state—that they should be extremely careful as to the persons sent out; that such persons should be restricted in various respects, and that above alt they should be careful not to send out men without some capital, or with habits unsuited to the life in new countries; and, indeed, he referred to men with the unsettled habits of those who in former times had been transported, as being more successful than those with the habits of operatives. But, by the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Childers), the guardians would have to send out men who were unfortunately destitute, and who had no means of maintenance from week to week. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had underrated the means which the guardians already possessed, when they chose to exercise it, for sending out emigrants. For the purpose of removing those who were called the irremovable poor, they could charge the common fund of a union to any extent they pleased. The duty of the guardians was to relieve the destitute as well as they could, looking to the interests of both the poor, and the ratepayers. Why, for that purpose, should they be asked to send them to Victoria, if there were other places which would suit them better? There were other parts of the world to which the emigrants preferred to go. If reference was made to the Returns, it would be found that an overwhelming majority of the emigrants from this country went to the United States. Were they, then, to be told, that when a man could go for £5 to a country where he was certain of being immediately employed, and where the manners and customs of the country were analogous to those of England—were the guardians to be told, as the hon. Member for Pomfret proposed that they should be told, not to assist emigrants to that country, but only to send them to Victoria? In the five months ending with May last, the total number of emigrants was 97,558, and of that number 66,946 went to the United States. [Mr. FERRAND: Yes, Federal recruits.] How did the hon. Member know that? It was all very well to say so, and to circulate rumours to that effect. Could he state it as a fact? It was like a good many other statements similarly made which were not facts at all. Were they, then, to tell the guardians, who could send people where they wanted to go for £5, to send them when it would cost £20, because the hon. Member said he could give £10 of that sum? That was not showing much regard for the poor man, whatever it might be for the Colony. That emigrants really wished to go to the United States, was shown again by the returns for June. In that month 24,405 emigrants left this country, and of that number 16,275 went to the United States, If this were the case, why should the guardians he compelled to send the emigrants to where they did not wish to go, and that too at a greater cost? And let it he observed, that this was a proposition to legislate afresh on this subject, and that it was a question of assisting people to leave this country on account of a dearth of employment at home. His hon. Friend proposed that the guardians should only send the operatives to countries that assisted emigration. But suppose parties in the United States should promise these persons labour at good wages, and say that they would pay £1 a head towards the expense of sending them out, that would come within the terms of the Resolution of his hon. Friend. [Mr. CHILDERS: No; my Resolution only refers to emigration to British Colonies.] Well, many of these persons, if they were sent to the North American Colonies, which the hon. Member's Resolution would not preclude, might, as they al- ways had done, find their way down to the eastern cities of the United States. It was certain, that if the guardians had only to consider the interest of the unions, as well as that of the poor people who had suddenly become destitute, they would assist them to go to the United States; and it was for the House to consider whether they would legislate especially to promote that object. It might be that some persons, whose interests were in the Colonies, might think that England's misery was Melbourne's opportunity; but, for his own part, he could not see any occasion to direct the guardians as to the mode in which they should apply their funds for the relief of distress. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand), on whose support he believed the hon. Member for Pomfret relied, told them that there was plenty of work in the country—that there was a great harvest to gather in, and that the operatives might go and gather in that harvest, and go back to their homes with money to keep them through the winter. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) believed there was a good deal of sense and truth in that; but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) would excuse him if he expressed the astonishment he felt at hearing those views from him. He said there was plenty of work in the country. [Mr. FERRAND: For the next two months.] Just so, and therefore the people might earn money to help them to get over the winter. Now, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) thought, if there was employment in the country, they would do wrong to stimulate emigration. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) was a plan to assist and favour emigration, for which, according to the hon. Member for Devonport, there was no occasion at present. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) thought it right to call the attention of the House to one circumstance. The hon. Member for Pomfret referred to Lancashire, and said there were there a great number of cotton operatives who wanted the means of living, and who might now receive assistance to go to the Colonies. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) did not wish to dispute the authority of the hon. Member as to the want of emigrants in the Colonies; but he went that morning himself to the Board of Emigration to ascertain under what restrictions people were sent out to the Colonies. The funds of that Board were supplied by the Colony, under certain restrictions imposed by it, as to the people who should be sent out; and he found that under those restrictions the cotton operatives were absolutely excluded from the assistance of the Board. The colonists, therefore, did not, it was clear, want the people that the guardians would desire to send out. They must not be above forty, they must not have more than two children; and they must have been occupied either as agriculturists or mechanics. That was most especially the rule as regarded the colony of Victoria. He did not mean to say that others had gone out who had not succeeded, but the question now was whether the Government should interfere to direct the guardians to send their poor out there, and he contended that the Government should be very careful in what it did in this matter. It was bound, not only to be careful as to whom it sent, but a responsibility would attach to it as to what became of those people after they arrived there. He should be sorry to send out poor people, for instance, to Queensland. He had seen letters from people who had gone out there, even with some means, and they believed that they had been grossly deceived. There was hardly sufficient capital to employ them, and they had no means of realizing fortune for themselves. And it must be remembered, that when working men went to very young Colonies, or new countries unless they found, employment, they went to the very bottom of society, almost, in fact, returned again to savage life. He said, then, there would be great want of humanity in sending people out to new countries unless they were sure to get employment. At present the guardians had a discretion as to sending out emigrants to a much larger extent than the House imagined; and yet, since the distress had commenced, he never heard of more than one instance of their exercising that discretion. The hon. Member (Mr. Childers) spoke of a continual flow of labour from the agricultural into the manufacturing districts, which when trade was good found employment for them; and beseemed to think that that drain on the agricultural districts was immediately followed by a flow of population into those districts from some unexplained source. There was no question that there had been most extraordinary prosperity in the manufacturing districts of late years, and a great draft had been made on the agricultural districts for labour. He believed that draft had caused great inconvenience in the agricultural districts into which there was not that flow as the hon. Member imagined; and that, owing to the scarcity of labour, difficulty was felt even in getting in the harvest. Surely that was not the argument for sending the people away. The people might, at this moment, be redundant in the manufacturing districts, but the Colonies that the hon. Member represented, wanted the agriculturists and mechanics in preference to the operatives. His deliberate opinion was that they had not got one man too many in the country, and he did not think it would be wise to legislate in order to hasten emigration. Let the people have easy access to all the information which the Government possesses respecting all our Colonies, but leave it to themselves to decide whether they would go or stay, or where they would go.

said, that every one must have been struck by the difference in the tone and manner of the President of the Poor Law Board from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten). His hon. and gallant Friend said, that he, as a Lancashire man, was thankful for every suggestion for relieving the distress that threatened the manufacturing districts next winter. The right hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, had talked of "England's distress being Melbourne's opportunity;" but he (Mr. Henley) would ask the House, seeing how liberally that Colony had come forward for the relief of the distressed operatives, whether that was a decent observation. He believed that it was proposed to obtain, under the Bill, an advance of £200,000 from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners at a low rate of interest to mitigate the coming pressure. He did not understand, however, whether any part of the sum of £200,000 might be applied towards the purpose of emigration if the guardians thought fit. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the duty of the Government to see what became of the people who emigrated to the Colonies; but he did not appear to extend his paternal care to those who were supposed to go out as Federal soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said it was better to send the distressed operatives to the United States than to the British Colonies, although they might be shot within six months after they got there. He could not help fearing that the pressure in the manufacturing districts would be far heavier next winter than last year. The operatives could not look for so much assistance out of their own borders, and he could wish that the local authorities should be able to apply the money borrowed under this Bill, some in one way and some in another, as different Boards might see fit. He very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had met the Amendment in the sort of spirit he had shown. That was not the way to get through the difficulty, nor was it very gracious to cast motives on those who were helping us. One thing was certain, that every man who was assisted to emigrate would relieve the funds during the coming winter.

said, that the guardians could apply the money raised under the Bill to any purpose to which they could apply the rates.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has attributed a little impatience to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Department, in the manner in which he met this Motion. Now, I must say, so far as those Members are concerned who are connected with Lancashire, that we have only to offer to the right hon. Gentleman our most unfeigned thanks for the patience and solicitude which he has shown in this great trial. And if he has shown a little impatience now, he is very wrong in doing so as a Cabinet Minister; because a Cabinet Minister ought never to allow himself to show any impatience; but if he has shown a little impatience, I am not surprised. I confess myself to be a little intolerant on this subject—not as to emigration, because emigration, when properly organized—say on such a plan as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley), who sent out the capital to the Colony along with emigrants—is a very good thing—but I am rather intolerant when I hear hon. Gentlemen in this House, and some gentlemen out of it, interpose the question of emigration as a panacea for everything, and thus obstruct us in our endeavours to carry out what is the only practical way of meeting this great emergency. Now, the Motion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) is as impracticable, as utterly uncalled for, as anything that has ever been brought before us. He says, that those means now about to be raised should be "applicable to assisted emigration to such Colonies as may be willing to co-operate in carrying it out." Well, but to obtain that co-operation from the Colonies to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it would require that we should send out to Australia. There is not a shilling in hand. I have been to the emigration office. I have inquired at that department, from which alone the hon. Gentleman can get his information, and I find that they have not a farthing in hand to assist this emigration. If we are to obtain the cooperation of Australia or of New Zealand—for the hon. Gentleman's Motion does not apply to Canada, or the nearer Colonies—if we are to have the co-operation of the Legislatures of the Colonies to which he refers, we must wait six months before we can get their decision. I ask, if that is a practical plan to bring before us, when we have only a week or two to carry out this measure? [An hon. MEMBER: Which is limited to six months.] And which, as my hon. Friend says, is limited to six months. From some of the Colonies, emigration grants had been made; but if the money were here in the hands of the emigration agents, it would be useless to factory operatives, because the Emigration Office is bound down in the administration of these funds to certain rules, which preclude the acceptance of factory hands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) has referred to the conditions on which assisted passages to the Colonies are granted. I have been to the office also, and I have got the document corrected to the latest period, setting forth the conditions on which grants are made. The paper is from the Queensland Government Emigration Office. It sets forth the terms upon which they propose to assist emigrants to that Colony—and the same rules apply to all the Colonies more or less. Now, what class of people do the Colonial Government wish to have? Here is the description—

"The class of persons alone eligible are domestic servants, farm labourers, vine dressers, labourers, and mechanics. By 'labourers' is to be understood those whose labour has been connected in some way with the land, such as gardeners, road makers, miners, quarrymen, &c. By 'mechanics,' not ' skilled,' such as machinists, engineers, painters, printers, compositors, &c., but blacksmiths, bricklayers, masons, sawyers, carpenters, wheelwrights, shipbuilders, &c."

The factory operative or cotton-spinner and weaver is expressly excluded by the terms of this order. Therefore, for us to wait for the possible co-operation of Australia for some six months, when we have their own conditions already made public, would be a waste of time, and the proposition to do so, can hardly be regarded as worthy the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Pontefract alluded to some voluntary extra subscriptions, sent over in addition to the regular sums raised by the Legislature of the Colonies, to bring out emigrants. It is true, there have been subscriptions to assist the cotton operatives to emigrate, but it has been a very small amount. The hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Knight, an agent for the body under whose direction these funds were administered, went down with the power to assist 300 operatives to emigrate. Only think of 300! Why it is a mere drop in the ocean, Mr. Knight, the hon. Gentleman says, went to Manchester, and he tells me that I am quite wrong in saying that the people are not willing to emigrate, for that that gentleman had 8,000 or 10,000 applications from persons desirous of being sent out by him. Well, in the first place, Manchester is not the cotton manufacturing district. Manchester is a city, a great mercantile centre, a metropolis. It is not even one of the distressed unions in the ordinary sense. There has never been a deputation from Manchester to my right hon. Friend asking for his interference. It is a great centre of capitalists—a centre of great mercantile operations. Its ratepayers are owners of houses, offices, shops, and warehouses, and people who have not been so severely injured by the position of the cotton industry as have the ratepayers in other parts. But now let my hon. Friend go to Hyde, or Stalybridge, or Ashton-under-Lyne, or any of the other places where the distress is really and fully felt. He will there find grouped around the mills a number of comfortable brick cottages. He may go down the streets and find that the people of the towns are nearly all operatives. Their houses bear very much the appearance of the houses of the lower middle class resident in other parts of the kingdom. Each family has been in the habit of bringing home on the Saturday night on an average 30s.; some of them £2, or £3, or even £4. Let him go into their houses and ask them do they wish to emigrate? They will tell him no. They are the people who are not willing to emigrate; but they are quite willing to see others emigrate if they find an opportunity for it. The chairman of the Warrington Board of Guardians wrote to me a letter on this subject, in which he says that in that union, being anxious to use the funds at their disposal to assist all such poor as were desirous to emigrate, they obtained very glowing circulars from the Emigration Office, and spread them through the union. They further advertised that they were willing to as- sist parties to emigrate, and they had not a single application. There are, no doubt, agricultural labourers who would be willing to emigrate; but the persons who are connected with the cotton manufacture are not willing to go. I confess to a little intolerance as to the manner in which this subject is brought forward, because there is in it a mixture of ignorance and prejudice which does not much conciliate my kind regards. I have seen the question of emigration dragged into discussion by parties who have a monomaniacal hatred of the manufacturing capitalist class. Of these it cannot be denied that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) may be taken as a representative. I have seen similar doctrines to his in The Times from Dorsetshire, and uttered at Carlisle by a Church dignitary. I have known the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) for twenty years always pursuing the same course; the consistent supporter of the Corn Laws, and ever professing to be the friend and representative of the working class. He comes now as the representative of the operatives. Now, I do not attribute motives; but when I see people actuated by hatred of a class—in this case the capitalist class—I am compelled to take it into account in forming a judgment of his conduct. I do not think I do the hon. Gentleman injustice when I say he would like to transport the whole of the masters. Not being able to do that, I think he is willing to deport the operatives in order that he might spite and anger the masters. I hope I am not too uncharitable. As the hon. Gentleman has dealt pretty largely with aspersions and motives, it is natural that he should get an infinitesimal dose of his own medicine in return. Another gentleman out of doors, the Dean of Carlisle (Dean Close), has written a letter, attributing the vilest motives to the manufacturers, saying that they are keeping their factories open as a sham and a delusion, merely to prevent the people from emigrating. Unless the character of the millowners and manufacturers of Carlisle has changed since I used to know them, about twenty years since, I think there is not a more benevolent body of men anywhere, and men who less deserve the character which the rev. gentleman gives to them. But if these gentlemen merely confined themselves to aspersions and attributing motives, without attempting to set up plans of their own which I think would be injurious to the working people, I should not take notice of them. Look at Dean Close. He has been an ardent promoter of emigration in Carlisle. I will not attribute bad motives to him as he has to me. I believe him to be sincere in his desire to benefit the people. But does he go to work in the right way? Does he act with proper forethought? Does he take due precautions? I would introduce him as an illustration of a class of persons who are willing to send people away to the antipodes without taking those precautions which they ought to take, in order to provide for those poor people when they get there. Now, take a description of the rev. gentleman's conduct, in his own words. There has been an entertainment to emigrants in Carlisle. Dean Close attended. He was speaking in favour of emigration, and narrated what he had himself done. It seems that he has been sending some emigrants to Queensland. I am not going to say a word against Queensland or any other Colony. I have the honour of knowing Sir George Bowen, Governor of Queensland. I think him the right man in the right place. He is an able and enlightened administrator, and I think the colony will benefit materially by his wisdom and capacity. But it is the youngest Colony we have, with the smallest population; and I can easily conceive, however great its growth in the future may he, that it is not a Colony which would be most favourable for emigration without capital. Now, I will read what Dean Close said in his speech to emigrants, another batch of whom were going out. He said that—

"It had been a subject of some little compunction to him in sending out the party to Queensland, because he knew no one there to whose care he could commit them. But mark how Providence had watched over their interests. He had just this moment received a note from a lady friend of his who happened to see his letter in The Times, and she stated she was very much interested in Queensland, because she had a son at Brisbane, the capital, where the emigrants were going to; and who should this son be but Captain Pitt, an officer in the army, and aide-de-camp to the Governor? Letters had been sent out to the captain on the subject, and he (the Dean) had not the slightest doubt that they would find some one there to meet them when they reached the shore, and that every attention would be paid to them. From a newspaper be had received, he learnt that there was an abundance of labour there to reward their industry, and he confidently expected to hear of them doing well."

Now I would ask, ought any one to take upon himself the responsibility of sending out emigrants without making any preparation for receiving them? Yet that is what this rev. gentleman did. He made no provision for receiving the emigrants, and there was no preparation except what turned up accidentally. In his case there seems to have turned up Captain Pitt, on the staff of the Governor. Well, any one doing that may think himself charitable; but I maintain that such proceedings are reprehensible, and, I had almost said, criminal. Now, my advice to the working classes is this:—that they should take even more precautions to know what is to become of them a year after they have landed in a foreign country or in a Colony, than they should to know what is to become of them for a year if they should stay at home, and not by any means to trust themselves in an emigrant ship or with any company unless with due precaution, and until they have ascertained, after careful calculation, what is to become of them, and how they are to be provided for when they have got to their destination. With such a provision, I should have no objection to any one emigrating. The more that emigrate, with the certainty of doing better in the Colonies or elsewhere than here, the better it will ultimately be for themselves and those they have left behind them; but I must protest against the question of emigration, and against a wholesale system of deportation being mixed up with this question. I am sorry it should have been intruded upon us, and that I should have occasion to say a word in regard to it.

remarked that emigration under proper management would be good for all parties. He, for one, would certainly like to see a large emigration of Lancashire lasses many of whom would soon find themselves in improved circumstances as the wives of Australian settlers. The hon. and gallant Member for Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) had stated that he had assisted a great number of persons to emigrate, and that fact showed that there were people in Lancashire who were willing to emigrate. He thought the millowners had acted tolerably fair—he did not say in every case—towards the operatives, and there was no very great fault to be found with them; but it had been quite clear throughout that the millowners were anxious to keep all their hands around the mills, and they had declared that when trade revived there would not be a man too many. He had thought it was the duty of official persons to promote emigration to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries, and he was therefore sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board throw cold water on emigration to British Colonies, and hold out the United States as the best place for emigrants. It would be much better, if the operatives were sent out at all, that they should go to Victoria, instead of the United States.

In view of the House giving its judgment upon the Motion of my hon. Friend, I venture to offer a very few remarks on the subject. First of all, I will refer to what has just fallen from my hon. Friend opposite, who has given his opinion that it is very much better to emigrate to the Colonies than to the United States. My right hon. Friend has given his opinion that the United States, speaking generally and without reference to the circumstances of the particular moment, offer very great advantages to emigrants from this country. Those are opinions which may very fairly be given on the one side and the other without reproach; but it is one thing to give those opinions in debate, and another thing for the House of Commons to come in, and by legislation take the responsibility of directing the choice of those who are about to separate themselves from their country and to select another country. In my opinion, no heavier responsibility than that could be undertaken by the Legislature. When my right hon. Friend gave that very strong opinion of the eligibility of the United States as a destination for emigrants, he was at any rate borne out by a very long experience, because during the last thirty years several millions of people have emigrated from this country, in the exercise of their own private judgment and free choice as to the country they were to select in lieu of that they were leaving, and the vast majority of those emigrants had selected the United States. I do not give that opinion in the sense of desiring that we should endeavour, by means devised here, to direct the stream of emigration to the United States. My right hon. Friend used it, and I think justly so, as an argument against the proposal that we should interfere to direct the stream of emigration by artificial means to another quarter, and that is the real question before us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) has put a question, to which I shall endeavour very briefly to afford an answer. He has already heard from my right hon. Friend that the monies that will be made available from a public source under the Bill now before the House will be available for all purposes that are legal under the provisions of the present law, and therefore the whole question is, what are the provisions of the present law, and what powers are enjoyed by the local authorities in regard to monies raised for Poor Law purposes being applied to the purposes of emigration? By the original Poor Law Act it appears that the owners or ratepayers of any parish or vestry may direct that any sum not exceeding half the average of the yearly rate for preceding years may be borrowed for defraying the expenses of emigration of the second poor; and by the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 110, the guardians may, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, assist in the emigration of the irremovable poor of the parish, and they may charge the cost upon the common fund. Now, I apprehend that between the second poor and irremovable poor I am correct in stating that a very large proportion of the poor may, if it is thought fit locally, thus be made the objects of aid from that source for the purpose of emigrating. These are provisions which were adopted at periods eminently favourable to arriving at just decisions, and when the whole principles applicable to the treatment of our poor were under consideration, and consequently when a very calm and impartial review of the various considerations bearing upon that treatment could be entertained; and I must say I have much greater confidence in provisions adopted in that manner than in any provisions that might be suggested under the pressure of a particular emergency, and which might not have undergone equally careful consideration. Therefore, it would be a great mistake to suppose that the Legislature of this country has treated emigration with indifference. The circumstances of the country twenty or thirty years ago, when, unhappily, the labour market was more overstocked than is happily now the case, did press very much upon the minds of benevolent persons and upon Parliament the consideration of the question whether there ought to be a wholesale public assistance given to emigration; and I may say, especially when it is considered how severe and pressing was the case of Ireland, and how plausible were the arguments for emigration after the potato famine, that these provisions do convey the deliberate decision of the Legislature, that it was not desirable to give this wholesale assistance, and they defined the point up to which they thought that assistance might be given. Well, now, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract invites us at this crisis to lay down a new principle. I ask, is this a time to lay down a new principle? Is the labour market of this country, generally speaking, overstocked? Is there a very great pressure of population on the means of subsistence? Is the standard of wages going upwards or downwards? Why, Sir, we live in a period when, on the contrary, with heartfelt satisfaction we see that as a general rule in most parts of the country the command of the labouring man over the necessaries and comforts of life is progressively increasing, because the labour market is not overstocked, and the demand is continually gaining on the supply. There conies a momentary difficulty, but is that a reason for departing from the principles which had been already laid down? I think there has been no case made out for departing from those principles and taking a stride in advance as to legislative interference in respect of emigration. There is immense force in what has been stated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden), that the class of operatives who are to emigrate under this provision is not the class likely to find employment in the Colonies. It appears that in April last the Duke of Newcastle addressed a circular to the Colonies upon the question how far it was likely those countries would afford employment to emigrants of this class. The only answer that has been received has come from the Colonies of British North America, and that was to the effect that they could hold out no hope except for agricultural labourers or females suited for domestic service. My right hon. Friend is also entitled to say that this is a Bill the operation of which is confined to six months, and that period would elapse before those arrangements which would be necessary in order to give effect to the principle of my hon. Friend could be made with the Legislatures of distant Colonies. But I say, that if we are to have any further intervention of Parliamentary authority in this matter, it is most important to consider what test, what rule we are to establish, with a view to direct the choice of a place of destination for the emigrants. A Colonial Government may be able and disposed to offer assistance for emigration, but that may not be a Colony to which a person should emigrate. It may cost £20 to go to Australia, and the Australian Government may be ready to give £5 or £10; but after that contribution has been received, it may cost the guardians more to send the person to Australia than to send him to British North America and pay the whole expense. I hold, therefore, that the criterion adopted by my hon. Friend is not a legitimate criterion, and tends to mix up together, in an inconvenient manner, the interests of particular Colonies, and the interest of the persons whom he wants to send from our shores. Nothing could be more remote from the intention of my right hon. Friend or of the Government than to cast an imputation upon the Colonies with which my hon. Friend is connected, and which has shown a spirit of sympathy for the prevailing distress, not in the slightest degree deadened by absence or distance, and manifested by contributions as munificent as any that proceeded from other parts of Europe. But he would not say that we should pay them back by inserting in this law a bad provision. If we were prepared to go beyond the basis defined by the present law, and that circumstances warranted it and required it, it would be our duty to make it clear in our legislation that the interests of the persons emigrating were combined with the interests of the ratepayers, and were to be the determining condition in the selection of the Colony. At this period there is no case for reconsidering those principles, and therefore I must express a hope that the House will put a negative on the Motion of my hon. Friend.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had contended that the passing of the Resolution would, in fact, be an interference with the natural course of emigration; but if that assertion were well founded, it might easily be corrected in Committee.

said, he should yield to the evident desire of the House and withdraw the Motion. He should, however, in Committee embody it as a separate clause.

complained that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) lost no opportunity of coming down to that House and insulting the employers of manufacturing labour. There was no foundation whatever for those charges, which were most offensive to the feelings of the manufacturers.

declared, that he only made such statements as he was justified in making on the authority of the factory operatives themselves. He had in his possession letters that would support everything he had said, and he was ready to stand by what he said either in the House or out of it.

said, he must oppose the Motion.

said, he would move a proviso, to substitute "six shillings" for "five shillings," in section 4 of the Act of last Session.

said, that there was no security that the rates would be economically expended unless the standard were raised to 6s. 6d. instead of 6s. His object was to narrow the application of the Act, so as to make it the last resource and the last resource only.

said, he must admit that the rate in aid was a temptation to people to keep up the rates. He would therefore yield the point, and accept the amendment.

said, he wished to ask at what rate of interest the £200,000 would be borrowed.

said, it would be probably at the rate of interest charged for money advanced for public works. As the law stood, the rate was in the discretion of the Public Works Commissioners. The Commissioners could not make an advance to any union without communicating with the Poor Law Board.

said, he would then propose to add a clause embodying the provisions with respect to emigration in accordance with the intimation he had previously given.

said, he would suggest that the hon. Member should postpone his Motion to the Report.

said, he would accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether orders will be issued to Naval Officers on Foreign Stations forbidding them to attack the Ports or Ships of Friendly Powers without a declaration of war or distinct instructions from the Home Government? He put this question with special reference to the case of bombardment which had been brought under the notice of the House the other night.

, in reply said, general orders were issued to Naval Officers on Foreign Stations to the effect that they were not justified in having recourse to any measures of violence without the sanction of the Senior Naval Officer commanding the station. He had, however, to state, with regard to the particular case referred to, the affair of Tringanu, that the Commander-in-Chief of the East India station, which included the Straits, had received instructions on no account to enter into hostilities, without the sanction of the Viceroy of India or the Governor of Bombay, except in the case where British life was involved. The most stringent instructions might be said to have been given to all Naval Officers on the Eastern station not to commit any act of hostility without the proper declaration of war, or such sanction as he had just stated.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to act upon the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the sanitary condition of the Army in India, and at once to introduce remedial measures for the prevention of disease in hot or unhealthy climates, so as promptly to check the mortality by which, "besides deaths from natural causes, sixty head per thousand of our troops annually perish in India"?

said, that the attention of the Government of India had for some time past been directed to the subject, and several improvements had been effected in the sanitary condition of the Army. The Report of the Commission, however, had brought to light a rate of mortality which, before its publication, no one believed to exist. The attention of the Indian Government should be directed to the Report, and he had no doubt that measures would be taken to carry the recommendations of the Commission as far as possible into effect.

, in calling the attention of the House to the question of the fire insurance duty, said, he regretted that circumstances over which he had no control had prevented him from bringing it on, as he had intended, at an earlier period of the Session. Several Petitions had been presented to the House from chambers of commerce in reference to the subject, and he had received a great many letters, asking him how it was the question had been so long delayed. He would answer that question in this way:—Private Members had only one night in the week out of the six—namely, Tuesday in each week—for the discussion of those questions which in their opinion required consideration; and the fact was, that after deducting a week or two at the beginning, and a week or two at the end of the Session, there were not above ten or twelve Tuesdays available for Motions. Early in the Session he fixed on one of these Tuesdays, understanding that it was an open day, but he never was more miserably deceived. That was the day appointed for the marriage of the Prince of Wales, and the House did not sit on that day. He put his notice down for another day, when he was induced to postpone it because, it being St. Patrick's night, many Irish Members who would have supported him were engaged elsewhere. Upon the next occasion be was again unfortunate, the House adjourning immediately in consequence of the lamented death of a distinguished Member of the Cabinet. He fixed upon another day, when his notice stood second, but the preceding Motion—that of the hon. Member for Berkshire upon education—occupied the whole evening, and again upon the last day for which he gave notice, and when he again stood second, the entire evening was occupied with a discussion upon the first Motion—one relating to the condition of Ireland. He did not propose to ask leave to introduce a Bill, believing that at that period of the Session no private Member could hope to interfere with the arrangements of the Government respecting the surplus of revenue which they possessed. He therefore only proposed to submit a Resolution conceived in such moderate terms that he could not understand upon what grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer could object to it. As, however, he feared he could not expect the cordial acquiescence of the right hon. Gentleman, he would give a few arguments in support of his proposition. He would, in the first place, remind the House that last Session he obtained leave to introduce a Bill to reduce the duty on fire insurance. That Bill was read a first time, but he did not press it, because he took the vote of the House to imply rather a recognition of the policy of the principle of reduction than the empowering a private Member to interfere with the financial arrangements of the Government. But that Vote was an encouragement to him to propose a Resolution—

"That in the opinion of this House the duty now chargeable upon fire insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."

He submitted that Resolution because he believed that a reduction of this duty would benefit the revenue by bringing into the area of insurance a vast amount of property that was not then insured, and also because the present high rate of duty interfered with the prudent insurance of national property. The revenue derived from fire insurances was £1,600,000, representing £10,007,000,000 of insurable property. He proposed to reduce the duty, then 3s. per cent, by 1s. for five years, at the expiration of that period to reduce it by another shilling, leaving the ultimate duty 1s. per cent. Although he believed any duty upon fire insurance was impolitic, he did not propose to go further. Neither did he limit the proposal to any particular amount of premium. He had said that he believed the reduction he proposed would really augment the revenue derived from that source. The natural increase of the revenue for duty upon fire insurances was £50,000 a year, which was supposed to represent the annual increase of the national wealth, but to which in reality it bore a very small proportion. But, adding to that yearly increase the increase of £100,000 a year that might reasonably be expected to flow from a reduction of the amount of duty, there would be £150,000 a year to compensate for any immediate loss the revenue might sustain from a reduction of the duty. Taking the increase of £150,000 annually for five years, it was clear that at the expiration of that period the first loss of £530,000, consequent upon a reduction, would be far more than made up. Besides, even if that were not so, an experiment or two less in art and science, or at Woolwich, would enable the Government to concede a boon which the country had been anxious to obtain for years. He had consulted some of the most eminent actuaries and statists in the kingdom, and they considered that £100,000 a year was the minimum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might expect from a reduction of the duty by one-third. But if the reduction should be greater, the boon which would be given to the country would be of such a character as would more than compensate the right hon. Gentleman for the small ad valorem loss which the revenue might sustain. A new feature had been added to the question since it was last discussed. In 1856 the Government actually employed counsel to defend the insurance duty, and the gentleman they selected for that purpose was Mr. Coode. He should be content to leave Mr. Coode's blue-book, however, to the statistical and scientific societies, who dealt very severely with it when it appeared. He need only refer to the very talented and conclusive arguments of Mr. Samuel Brown, which were supposed to have cut to pieces the reasoning of Mr. Coode, and the House had also expressed its opinion of it by the support which it had given to his Motion. But, nevertheless, a revised edition of it was published during the Easter holidays, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cited it as an authority on the subject. Mr. Coode asserted that property to the amount of 400 millions was not insured, because, as he said, the insurance offices were disinclined to receive small sums of money on account of the stamp duty imposed by Government. Now, in point of fact, the companies did not charge the stamp duty in certain cases; but if, as Mr. Coode alleged, a tax of 6d. prevented insurances, was it not reasonable to suppose that a Government tax of 200 per cent upon the premium itself would have the same effect? Another statement made by Mr. Coode was that the insurable property of the country was exhausted, and, that consequently, no hope need be entertained of an increase to the revenue from that source. He estimated the insurable property at £1,141,000,000, but he omitted from his calculations the whole of Scotland and the whole of Ireland, all our ships and our cargoes, all our railways, all the tools of industry, and all the machinery with which we carried on our mercantile and commercial transactions. In France all the railways were insured, and he believed that the railway property in this country might be valued at £600,000,000. He estimated all the various descriptions of property which Mr. Coode excluded as amounting to £1,500,000,000. Mr. Coode argued, that as it was proved that the average amount of the property lost in cases of fire did not exceed one-third of the amount insured, a prudent man would not insure for more than one-third of his property. It was, however, absurd to suppose that in individual cases men would insure only one-third of the insurable property they possessed merely because by the law of averages that was found to be the proportionate amount actually destroyed taking the whole of the losses by fire throughout the country. But upon Mr. Coode's figures alone he maintained that there would be a sufficient return to the revenue to make up for any reduction of duty which the adoption of his Resolution might involve. Mr. Coode had said a great deal about agricultural insurances; and, indeed, the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year turned principally upon that point. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the farmers had not adequately responded to the liberal manner in which they had been treated. But Mr. Coode's own figures should answer the right hon. Gentleman. From 1835 to 1846, while other insurances had increased 25·2 per cent. agricultural insurances had increased 28 and 1–6th per cent. In May 1850 the offices raised their charges, and the agricultural insurances immediately fell. In December 1853 they reduced them again, and the insurances rose. Mr. Coode argued that the duty was a tax not upon prudence, but upon property, because it could not be said that insurance added to the general wealth of the country. Surely, however, to insure was an act of prudence with reference to the individual, and in that sense at least the tax fell upon prudence. Mr. Coode had discovered that the tax was not only wise, but deserved support; and that its effect was not to discourage insurance. Mr. Coode said that the profits of the companies were 50 per cent of the premiums; but if that was so, it followed that the Government tax was really one of 400 per cent upon the cost price of insurance. If assurance companies were nothing but so many nests of swindlers, what must be said of the Government, who insisted on being partners in every transaction? For every £100 taken by an insurance company, the Government took £800 as its share of the swindle. That was the sum and substance of Mr. Coode's conclusions. He therefore thought it would be a waste of time to follow his argument further. Mr. Coode was not an actuary, a statist, or a financier; he had nothing to do with chambers of commerce or the great commercial body. He had been retained to defend the duty, and he had done so to the best of his power. Mr. Coode relied on theory, and the Government relied on Mr. Coode. It had been said that a scruple of fact outweighed a pound of theory; and he relied on the evidence of practical men. There were 100 Petitions presented to that House from corporations, all urging the reduction of the duty on the ground that it would in- crease the revenue. There were 17 from chambers of commerce and the associated chambers of commerce, 100 Petitions from inhabitants of towns and cities, 130 from village societies, and 100 from miscellaneous places, all numerously signed. In fact, there was no other fiscal subject on which so many Petitions had been presented during the Session, as for the reduction of the duty on fire insurances. Then, if he took the opinions of the great thinkers on statistical subjects, he might quote Mr. Leoni Levi, Mr. Porter, The Times, and Mr. Newmarch, who stated that the duty on fire insurance was a duty against fire insurance, and to that he attributed the fact that about 80 per cent of the insurable property was uninsured. In addition, he (Mr. Sheridan) had scores of private letters showing how the tax operated in preventing insurances. One letter, from a gentleman who acted in the country as agent for a first-class insurance company, stated that he found the farmers almost universally insured their farming stock, but almost as universally refrained from insuring their household property, on account of the duty. He might, in addition to these letters, quote Mr. Sharman's very able pamphlet to show how seriously the amount of the duty operated in restricting fire insurance and the benefits which might be expected to result from a reduction of the duty. In the year 1862 the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the reduction of duty would produce an increase of insurance. Despite all that the right hon. Gentleman had said to the contrary, he maintained that the duty operated as a punishment or fine of 200 per cent upon all those who insured. The Government did nothing for the tax. Not only did it offer the insurance offices no guarantee whatsoever in return for it, but it even took no part and rendered them no assistance in the extinction of fires. The Resolution which he asked the House to adopt was only a re-affirmation of that to which it came last year, when it gave him leave to introduce a Bill upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman might say that its adoption would amount to a declaration that the tax was the first that ought to be repealed, and might dwell upon the inconvenience of such a declaration. For his part, he could see no inconvenience in the adoption of such a course, because there was no tax of which the incidence was more unfair or the abolition or reduction of which was more nesessary. He did not desire to re-impose the tax on farming stock, although Mr. Coode appeared to favour such a course; and he warned hon. Members that if Motions like his were defeated, the Government might be inclined to take that step. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his own mind sensible of the objection to this duty, and he hoped that he would not oppose the Resolution. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Duty now chargeable upon Fire Insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents Insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."

seconded the Motion.

said, he had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have thought fit to say a few words in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley, the more so since a Report on Fire Insurance Duties by Mr. George Coode, prepared by order of the Government, had been circulated to the Members of both Houses; and he was anxious to learn whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer did or did not adopt its facts, arguments, and general reasoning. If he did not, he should like to know why the Report had been circulated. If he did, its contents must be considered, not as the work of a private individual, but as a State paper. He should apply himself to those arguments in the Report bearing directly upon the question in the order in which they arose. One of the complaints against the present fire insurance duty was the large proportion that it bore to the property insured. How did Mr. Coode meet that complaint? Why, thus—"No house is wholly destructible by fire," said Mr. Coode; few properties are insured to their full value; and assuming two-thirds only to be insured, the duty of 3s. per £100 amounts to the insignificant tax of 1s. per £1,000; and then, concluded Mr. Coode, "it is a tax that can be condemned only in common with alt other taxes on permanent property." Now, it ought to be obvious to every one that the complaint referred to the pressure of the tax upon the property insured, and not to the proportion it bore to property uninsured. The duty on property worth £100 fully insured is 3s.; but the 3s is an annual tax, and the proportion between the tax and the property is shown by the investment of which the annual interest would provide the annual tax. The sum of £4 13s. invested in Consols at the present price would yield an interest of 3s.; so that £4 13s. per £100, or nearly 1–20th part, is the proportion of any insured property absorbed by the tax. And then this tax—this property tax, as Mr. Coode calls it—on what property does it fall? An equitable property tax should fall on all property; but this can fall only on insurable property, and does not fall equally on that; it falls on property which the owner could only lose to his inconvenience or ruin; it does not fall on the property of the rich. The lord of half a county, the proprietor of a whole town parish, becomes his own insurer, he need not insure; he altogether escapes this novel property tax, which takes the twentieth part of the possession of his poor neighbour. Again, the magnitude of the tax in comparison with the premium paid for the risk insured against is a complaint. What is Mr. Coode's defence? "You complain," says Mr. Coode, "that the 3s. duty is double the 1s. 6d., which you assume to be the natural cost price of the insurance." But you are quite mistaken; the natural cost price is infinitely less than you imagine—half of the premium is required to meet fraudulent and dishonest claims—a quarter more is taken for the profit of the insurance office; and, in fact, "the premium is at least four times the natural cost of the insurance." He (Mr. Hubbard) had never heard that the business of fire insurance was a monopoly, and the insurers are satisfied to consider the risk balanced by the charge of the insurance office; but how does this argument affect the complaint Mr. Coode is answering? Why, in this remarkable manner—that, upon Mr. Coode's own evidence, the cost "price of the ordinary risks" should be not 1s. 6d. but 4½d., and that the duty of 3s. enacted by the State, in proportion to the risk, is not as 2 to 1, but as 8 to 1. Mr. Coode is not satisfied to treat this question in a dry fiscal view—he raises an important moral consideration; he charges the present practice of fire insurance as being one "which for every shilling paid to an honest insurer gives another to reward fraud or arson—another shilling to tempt or reward those who practise the most alarming and destructive of all crimes." If this were so, the Government should not let the scrutiny stop there—they should take steps for the repression of a system so full of danger to property and life; and he would add, they should abstain meanwhile from any participation in gains from such an immoral source. Another objection to a heavy duty on fire insurance is that it becomes a tax on prudence.

"The objection," replies Mr. Coode, "is in truth merely rhetorical. It is of the very nature of taxation that it must be mainly derived from the exertion of all the moral and physical excellences productive of wealth; for industry, enterprise, fortitude, temperance, and prudence are the main producers of revenue, public and private. We have no alternative but, in the same rhetorical sense, to continue to tax 'prudence' and all the other productive, frugal, and profitable habits of men."

Without stopping to inquire whether a tax on spirits and tobacco would be classed by Mr. Coode with taxes on prudence, he (Mr. Hubbard) might at once point out that Mr. Coode wholly misunderstands or wholly misrepresents the argument. He ignores the influence of the tax upon the taxpayer, and looks only at the taxpayer's property. Doubtless prudence and industry are the producers of the taxpayer's property, which may be taken either by the income tax or the insurance tax; but while one tax shared the products of his prudence, the other prohibits acts of prudence. The complaint against the insurance duty is, not that it taxes the products, but that it taxes the exercise of prudence. The last of Mr. Coode's arguments which he would notice is one which its author considers conclusive evidence against any reduction of the duty—

"Commencing with 1834," writes Mr. Coode, "the value of farming stock insured was thirty-seven and a quarter millions sterling; in 1862 it had risen to sixty-fire and a half millions; but in 1834 property subject to duty was insured to the amount of four hundred and eighty-three millions, and in 1862 the amount had increased to one thousand and seven millions."

Thus showing an increase in farming stock of 76 per cent, and on other property of 108 per cent. So that while agricultural "property, exempt from tax, has increased only at the yearly rate of 2·7, all other insurances without bounty or exemption have advanced nearly three times as fast, at the yearly rate of 7·3 per cent." There is great arithmetical inaccuracy in this statement. The amount of taxed insurances in 1862 was not 1,007 millions, but 941 millions, and the real results are these—that between 1834 and 1862 the insurance of farming stock increased 76 per cent, or 2·7 annually, and the insurance of other property increased 96 per cent, or 3½ per cent annually. But taking these rectified results, did they truthfully exhibit the relative progress in insurances of taxed or untaxed property? Nothing of the sort. It had been said that few things were more fallacious than figures, and he would show to the House that this statement of Mr. Coode's was an arithmetical fraud. If they were told that Bath was vastly inferior to Brighton in sanitary intelligence, for that in Bath vaccination had increased only 10 per cent in fifteen years, while in Brighton it had increased 100 per cent, they might accept the facts, and believe the assertion. But they would find they had been egregiously misled when they discovered that during the period in question the population of Bath had been stationary, while that of Brighton had doubled. And so with regard to the argument of Mr. Coode—he told them what was the positive increase of insured property of either kind, but he omitted to state what were the respective areas from which the increase arose. He (Mr. Hubbard) would supply the omission. In 1834 the population was 17,000,000; in 1862 it was 23,500,000. In 1834 the population consume 17,000,000 quarters of corn, of which 1,000,000 were imported and 16,000,000 home grown. In 1862 the consumption of corn was 23,500,000, of which 7,500,000 were imported, leaving, as before, 16,000,000 as provided from our home growth. Judging from these figures—and he had taken an average of the five years' importations in order to be more accurate—it would seem that the increase in value of farming stock must have been very small. But he would apply another and a more definite test. In 1453 the value of lands assessed to the Property Tax was £40,167,000, and in 1860 it was £42,940,000, showing an increase of £2,773,000, equal to 7 per cent, or at the rate of ·375 (less than one-half per cent) per annum. In 1843 "Houses" (representing taxable insurable property) were assessed at £35,556,000, and in 1860 at £48,779,000, showing an increase of £13,223,000, equal to 37 per cent, or at the rate of 2·061 per annum. The proportional increase in property taxable if insured had therefore been more than five times as rapid as that of property exempt from taxation if insured; and combining in the computation the increased insurable value and the increased value insured of either class, it will be found that since 1834 the proportional increase in exempt agricultural insurance has been four-fold as rapid as in other insurances subject to the tax. So much for the irresistible facts and logic of Mr. Coode; and here he might leave this "Revised Report on Fire Insurance Duties"—a tissue of mystification and deception, "presented to both Houses of Parliament" by Her Majesty's Government; but he could not resist the challenge thrown out in the last page of this official document for the proposal of "any other tax as productive, as little burdensome, to industry or property, and as little annoying in collection;" and he therefore would suggest a means by which some £300,000 might be gained to the country, at a moderate cost of collection, and without any sensible obstruction to our commerce. He meant an export duty upon iron. Our export of iron is about 1,400,000 tons, of the value of £12,000,000; and on this quantity a duty of 5s. per ton would yield £350,000. Such a duty would be paid wholly by the foreign consumer; for no foreign iron could approach British iron in the way of competition; and as the price of bar iron had varied over a period of ten years from £5 to £10 a ton without materially affecting the amount exported, it might safely he assumed that an export charge of 5s. a ton would not diminish the foreign demand. We were unfortunately precluded by the French Treaty from levying an export duty on coal for six years to come, but we were still at liberty to turn to the advantage of the national revenue our special and unrivalled capacity for the production of iron. This, however, by the way: for, to return to the question before the House, no inducement but its own demerits, need be pleaded in favour of a reduction of the fire insurance duty. He trusted the House would not hesitate to express its opinion upon that question, for at this period of the Session such an opinion could not embarrass or obstruct the measures of the Government. His hon. Friend (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) had wisely submitted the question to the House in the shape of a Resolution, and the House by affirming that Resolution would, in the most convenient form, furnish the Government with an instruction to be followed by the Finance Minister who might prepare the Budget of 1864.

There are two subjects, one of which is I think before the House, while the other has formed the staple of the remarks which have been made in this debate. The speeches of my hon. Friends have entirely turned upon the merits of the fire insurance duty—but that is not the real question before the House. The question before the House is whether the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member is a Resolution proper to be adopted. On the merits of the fire insurance duty itself, if I say anything, it is that I may not be supposed to concur in all the exaggerated statements which have been made by the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House. The hon. Mover of the Resolution states that an admission has been made by me which places me upon his side—namely, that the reduction of a duty of this nature would, in all probability, as in most other cases of a reduction of an indirect tax, be followed by increased consumption. I do not deny that at all, or that there is much to be said, under different circumstances and at a proper season, in favour of the repeal or diminution of this duty, in competition with other duties. But I am sorry my hon. Friend proposes an abstract Resolution in condemnation of this particular duty. The hon. Gentleman's estimates are some of them so positively astounding, that I could hardly credit my cars when I heard them. It was with considerable misgiving, and after much investigation, lest there might be any error in the figures, that I ventured to give an estimate of the increased wealth of the country. But my computations are not only modest and humble, but absolutely contemptible by the side of those of the hon. Gentleman. A thousand millions sterling a year is the hon. Member's computation of the augmentation of the wealth of this country; but then, with an enormous liberality of deduction, he admitted that it ought to be reduced to £200,000,000.

said, that making allowance for various reductions, he had stated the augmentation at about £200,000,000, but he dismissed that point from his argument.

But the hon. Member could not shut it out from his argument. Quintupling figures in this way is a most dangerous practice in debate, because the hon. Member thus involves his calculations with a kind of golden halo, so that it is hardly possible to resist his propositions, even when most questionable. Mr. Coode, a gentleman of great ability, had been chosen by a man of great ability, whose loss we all deplore, the late Sir George Lewis, to consider this question; and I think Mr. Coode's report has led to a thorough investigation of the subject, and has been pro- ductive of much good. I think the hon. Member ought to be very grateful to Mr. Coode, for I do not know how he could have been supplied with materials for his speech to-night without Mr. Coode. But I do not think he quoted Mr. Coode with accuracy. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN here rose to explain.] The hon. Gentleman has got his speech and his reply, and I think he may dispense with incessant speeches in the middle of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of persons whom he calls "practical men," and one of these "practical men" states, in the most confident manner, that any reduction, no matter of what kind, the Government may make in this duty, would be made up in the increase of insurance. But that, to my mind, has very much the appearance of an off-hand judgment, and one which the House of Commons, responsible as it is for the income and expenditure of the country, would not be very safe in acting upon. The hon. Gentleman has quoted, as an authority, the declaration of a "practical man" that the farmers generally would not insure their stocks. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN: I must say I said no such thing. I said their household furniture.] Well, then, I will not insist upon that point. With respect to the case of agricultural property, the argument of my hon. Friend was of such a nature, that I could neither give my assent to it nor withhold it. But let us take the figures as they stand. According to him, the annual increase upon farming stock is 2·7 per cent per annum, and the annual increase upon other commodities, subject to duty, 3½ per cent per annum. It may be true that farming stock has not increased in the same proportion as other insurable commodities; but, for all that, farming stock has increased, and is increasing, enormously, and that is a fact which materially qualifies the extreme assertions sometimes made. In the case of the paper duty, I used to resist the conclusion to which hon. Members leaped, that because the duty was an increasing one, therefore it could not be a bad duty. But the paper duty was an impost on an article essentially connected with other articles. But that is not the case with fire insurance, and to think that the maintenance of the duty leads to a diminution of other articles is like supposing that a high duty upon mustard would limit the consumption of beef. In the year 1816, when the 3s. duty was first imposed, it produced £543,000; in 1848, £1,130,000; and in 1862 it produced £1,609,000. The increase, therefore, has apparently been more rapid than the increase of the general wealth of the country, because I do not think that the increase of the wealth of the country, considerable as it has been since 1816, can be said to have increased threefold upon any such estimate as I should like to rely upon or to be responsible for. The hon. Gentleman's calculation, that the duty, if reduced, will be replaced to somewhere about £100,000 a year, is, I must say, of the most sanguine character. It is difficult to argue dogmatically on a question which affords us so few data of a positive character, but experience shows us that the reduction of duties which are not direct taxes, but which are taxes falling on property and on classes having property, is attended with a very much smaller effect in the way of recovery than the reduction of duties on articles of general consumption by the great body of the people. In 1840, when 5 per cent was laid on the Customs and Excise duties, and 10 per cent on the assessed taxes, while the 5 per cent was almost entirely absorbed by the increased pressure on the consuming power of the country, very nearly the whole anticipated 10 per cent was obtained from the assessed taxes, though it was a time of distress. Again, in 1858 the assessed taxes were modified and simplified and their amount very much reduced, and yet, though that is ten years ago, they have not recovered from that reduction. I will not trouble the House by answering the hon. Member's speech, as he has done me the honour of answering my speech of last year. I prefer to go to that which is the main point before us—the merits of the Motion. It is a Motion which invites us to give a certain abstract opinion on the merits of the fire insurance duty. It asks the House to declare—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the duty now chargeable upon fire insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."

I want to know whether that is a proper course for this House to take, which is charged with imposing burdens on the people and relieving them whenever it is possible? Is it right to pronounce an abstract opinion—written in the air, as it were—on the merits or demerits of a particular duty without taking any step to remove it? I protest against such a step, and I say it is in direct contradiction to every true conception of the duties of this House. The hon. Member told us that it was a kind of instruction to the Government, signifying that some day, and that an early day, the duty is to be removed. What is meant by some day, and above all by an early day? You will answer me, that must depend on circumstances. Well, then, let us wait for the circumstances, and then we shall be able to judge whether we can remove it or not. We are told, on high authority, "In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird." The hon. Gentleman has spread his net; and if the birds go into it, it is their own fault. He makes no concealment of his object; he tells us fairly that his object is to secure a preference to the fire insurance over all other duties, and that the fire insurance duty is to stand No. 1 for reduction. [Mr. HUBBARD: Hear, hear!] I perceive my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham cheers that, and I certainly thought from his speech that he was going to make some addition to the Motion. I could have suggested to him a very appropriate form of words which would have formed an admirable conclusion to his speech. He should have moved to add, after expressing an opinion that the tax should be removed at the earliest opportunity, "and this House is prepared to provide a substitute by means of a duty on the export of iron." I certainly did not expect to hear a Gentleman connected with the commerce of this country stand up in his place in Parliament and recommend as an unexceptional tax the imposition of a duty, and a rather heavy duty too, on the export of iron. My hon. Friend puts the price of pig iron at from £5 to £10 per ton. If he has any pig iron for sale, I should be sorry to deal with him; but, for his sake, I hope he may find a customer. [Mr. HUBBARD: It was bar iron I meant.] My hon. Friend means bar iron, but he certainly said pig iron. The hon. Member wants to put this tax No. 1 for reduction, and there I join issue with him. I am not prepared to write down any duty as first for reduction, and I say it would be a gross breach of duty in me to give countenance to any attempt to forestall financial arrangements which it is impossible to foresee, and when, for all we know, it may be our duty to impose new taxes instead of reducing old ones. We are not without warning as to abstract Resolutions on these subjects. What occurred on the paper duty ought to be a warning to us all. I will give a slight outline of the facts. In 1858 the Government of the day, as I think unfortunately, acceded to a general Resolution condemning the paper duty. In 1860 the then Government had to consider whether it would propose to reduce the tea duty or to abolish the paper duty. They determined to propose to abolish the paper duty, and a material element which guided them was the fact that the House had recorded its condemnation of that duty. But when they came down to the House with a proposal to repeal the paper duty, they found that one-half of the House was entirely indisposed to admit that any weight was to be attached to that Resolution. I am not going to say who was right or who was wrong, but there is a clear proof of the danger of those abstract Resolutions. Of such resolutions I have never at any period been enamoured; but unquestionably, after what occurred on the paper duty, I should think it most unfortunate if we fell into the same error again. The Resolution, so far from being calculated to produce a mitigation of burdens, must exercise a most misleading effect with respect to the financial state of the country. It was stated to-night by the hon. Member that Chancellors of the Exchequer are accustomed to say, when the repeal of a tax is proposed, either that it is too soon or too late. Well, I am right in saying it is too soon when it is soon, and that it is too late when it is too late. But there is a suitable time; and that is, when the financial plans of the Government are proposed. Then an hon. Member may put up a tax, which he thinks ought to be repealed, against another which the Minister thinks ought to be repealed. In that way the repeal of the paper duty was opposed, for it was said that the tea duty should be repealed instead, and there was a fair fight between the advocates of the one remission and the advocates of the other. That is the manner in which such matters should be brought to an issue; but do not let us adopt a system which evades a fair issue and sets up an issue altogether indirect. If we are to deal fairly with respect to the people in matters of taxation, we must consider the various claims for reduction together. The other evening the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk might have drawn forth enthusiastic cheers, when the House was filled with Gentlemen from the barley-growing counties, if he had proposed a Resolution to the effect that the malt duty restricted the consumption of a wholesome beverage, interfered with trade, and should be reduced; but the hon. and learned Gentleman took a more straightforward course, and proposed an inquiry, without attempting to prejudge the opinion of the House. Nothing is easier than to move an abstract Resolution in favour of the reduction of a tax; but the House should receive with great caution and circumspection these separate propositions, for the House is not in a condition to decide whether it can part with a particular tax, until its comparative claim for remission is considered in connection with the claims of other taxes, at the time when the finance of the year is to be determined. That is the principle on which I take my stand, and I do not, therefore, go about the bush to move the Previous Question, for that implies that the Motion is fit to be put at another time, whereas I do not admit that an abstract Resolution like this is fit to be put at any time. Against these abstract Resolutions, condemnatory of taxes, I, for one, after our previous experience on the subject, am determined to take every opportunity of registering my most decided protest. If we think that we have the power to reduce this tax, and that it is one of the best taxes to be reduced, then let it take its place for consideration, but it is essential to public justice that the tax should not be dealt with in the dark, and in a corner as it were, when other claims are not under view.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely repudiated the book of Mr. Coode, though he could not imagine that the order for its reprint in 1863 had been given by any other person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Greater rubbish was never put forward as an official document by any Government, and they ought in fairness to have published Mr. Brown's report, which contained an answer to every word in Mr. Coode's book. He was not prepared to say that the fire insurance tax should be the first to be repealed, but he thought it desirable to have the opinion of the House that it was a bad tax. It was only by what the right hon. Gentleman called an abstract Resolution that a private Member could bring a question like that under consideration before the House; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the repeal of the paper duties was practically owing to the abstract Resolution to which he had referred.

said, that he had been in one part of his speech misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. What he had stated, quoting from a letter, was, that farmers, in nineteen cases out of twenty, did not insure their household property.