Uthatr5 nut rumhings in Vorliamtut.
PRINCIPAL BPSINESS OF THE WEEK.
Horn OF LORDS. Monday, May 9. Indian Government; Question and Answer —Land Improvement (Ireland) Loan Bill, committed—Royal Assent, by Commis- sion, to South Sea and other Annuities Commutation Bill, Law of Evidence (Scot- land) Bill, Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill, and other Bills. Tuesday, May 10. Transportation ; Lord Grey's Motion, negatived by .54 to 37. Thursday, May 12. Clithero Election; Address for Commission, to be read that day six months.
Friday, May 13. Common Lodging-houses Bill, read second time—Indian Go- vernment; Petition from Manchester.
HOUSE OF Commoxs. Monday, May 9. New Writ for Harwich; debate adjourned —The Irish Bargain; Mr. Hayter's Denial—The Budget; Mr. Robert Palmer's Amendment, negatived by 276 to 201—Tynemouth; Wnt postponed; Commission agreed to—Berwick Election; Select Committee appointed. Tuesday. May 10. Regulation of Nunneries; Mr. Thomas Chansbers's Motion for leave to bring in a bill, carried against Ministers by 138 to 115—Coffee and Chicory; Question and Answer—Durham Election Petitions ; Motion for Committee; debate adjourned to the 31st May—Barnstaple, Commission agreed to. Wednesday, May 11. Sheriff-Courts, Scotland ; Mr. Craufurd's Bill thrown out, by 184 to 58—County-rates Bill, in Committee; further postponed. Thursday, May 12. The Irish Bargain; further Explanations—The Budget; Mr. Vamsittart's Income-tax Amendment, rejected by 120 to G0—Legacy-duties; Mr. Gladstone's Statement.
Friday, May 13. The Budget ; Legacy-duty Resolution agreed to without a divi- sion—Income-tax Bill, read first time—Customs-duties Bill, read first time—New Writ for Rye ordered, by 118 to 99.
TIME - TABLE.
The Commons.
Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment. Monday .113 .(m) 2h Om Tuesday 4h .(m) Its Om Wednesday Noon .... 51150m Thursday 415 .(m) 12h 45m Friday Sh .(m) 1215 45m Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
The lords.
Hour of Hour of
Meeting. Adjournment.
5h .. Ilh 10m 5h ftsO 12h 50m No sitting. 5117h 30m 511 Sh 5m
Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 19h 3510 --- this Session. 70; — 15211 441n Sittings this Week, 5; Time. 42h 20tn
— this Sesalon. 00; — 5701163ns THE BUDGET.
In the Committee of Ways and Means, on Monday, the debate on the Income-tax resolution was resumed by Mr. ROBERT PALMER. He moved an amendment., that instead of every 20s. of the annual value of lands, tenements"s 44qp4Jnent, being charged to the Income-tax, the net
value,4fterjJ for repairs, insurance, and management, should b9ochtnred.
tact ' to open the discussion on the general ques-
tion of the Income-tax ; but be thought those who pay under schedule A are entitled to relief.
Considerable discussion arose on this amendment ; which, however, the Committee did not manifest much inclination to support. Mr. Dimas, Mr. RUCK, Mr. AGLIONBY, and Sir Wirxiiim JotiFFE, did support it ; Mr. ALcocit and Captain SOOBELL seemed by no means confident ; and Mr. PHILLIPS, Sir THOMAS ACLAND, and Mr. BRIGHT, Spoke against the amendment.
Mr. GLADSTONE gave Mr. Palmer entire credit for having brought for- ward his amendment without party motives. "It is not because his motion is devoid of plausibility, or even is devoid of equity if it stood as a naked abstract proposition—it is when we view it in conjunction with other provisions of the tax of which it forms a part— when we view it in conjunction with the present group of circumstances which bear on the renewal of the operation of the tax, in conjunction with the pledge given at former periods and on recent occasions—that her Ma- jesty's Government feel that they would be deserting the very first principles of their duty were they either to consent to the motion of the honourable gentleman, or to give it anything less than the most resolute and unqualified opposition. I will not dwell upon the many details which have been re- ferred to in the course of the debate. But with respect to the honourable Member for Devonshire, whose sympathy has been greatly excited on behalf of the small freeholders, I may be allowed to say, that we are proposing an income-tax that will leave every freeholder under 1001. scot free ; whilst he supported a budget that proposed to tax every forty-shilling freeholder,—a budget which, if I recollect right, taxed all real property, irrespective of the amount of income of its possessor, and going down to a very low limit—I believe it was 50/. But I will not dwell on these things. In order to un- derstand what are the just expectations of the country with respect to the question, we must travel a little backwards. We must consider what was the situation of affairs in December last. At that time the right honourable gentle- man the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the champion, the chosen cham- pion of a large portion at least of those whose interests are connected with the land—proposed his financial plan ; and I was asked tonight why it was that I had said nothing on behalf of the land with regard to local taxation, and why I had proposed no reduction of its burdens. Why, Sir, if I had proposed a re- duction of those burdens, I should not only have been met and confronted but overwhelmed with quotations from the speeches of the right honourable gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. He, as you know—he, in your hearing—he, as your leader, your organ, your champion, consigned your claims to perpetual oblivion. And yet you make it matter of accusation against me that I have not proposed your relief from local taxation ! But was that all that was done by the right honourable gentleman's budget ? No ' • you had then the proposal of an income-tax—you had then a resolution laid upon the table, under which that income-tax was to be levied ; and the resolution laid on the table with regard to schedule A corresponded exactly with that which I now ask you to support. I know not what course the right honourable gentleman is going to take—I know not whether he means to adhere to his own proposition of last December. I will not speculate on that matter at this moment, for an hour or two will solve the question. But this I know, that the right honourable gentleman made this proposal with your support, as your leader and your organ—he made this proposal with regard to schedule A which her Majesty's Government now make, and upon which you are asked to decide. '1% as that all that he did ? With an unmiti- gated schedule A, what kind of schedule D did the right honourable gentle- man give you ? Whilst land paid 9d.—I will not now go into any detail as to whether that is too little or too much, but I go to the point that at this moment land and houses, including other buildings suchas manufactories' pay a higher rate than other property—whilst that in- equality was left unmitigated, the right honourable gentleman laid an- other inequality upon the back of it, for he proposed to reduce schedule D to 51d., and that with your approbation and your support. But then, says the honourable Member for Berkshire, there was no legacy-duty in the case. Was there no legacy-duty in the case ? There was no legacy-duty in the present tense, but there was a v very legible in the future tense. I am sure the honourable Member for Berkshire must have heard these omi- nous words—' At the same time, we have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp-duties and the probate-duties.' I believe the word 'legacy' does not appear, but there is no doubt about the meaning of the words—' We have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp-duties and the probate-duties, and we think it not impossible to bring forward on the right occasion a duty on successions, that will reconcile con- tending interests, and terminate the system now so much complained of.' Now, I want to know whether these words have a meaning or not. To me they are clear enough. What is the system now so much complained of' ? The system which taxes unsettled personalty, and which exempts settled personalty—that is the system so much complained of '—that is the sys- tem' which the right honourable gentleman, your organ, your champion, your leader, proposed and promised in the name of his Government to terminate. Now, Sir, that was the combination of events—that was the combination of circumstances as they stood in December last. You say that, although we talk about the termination of the Income-tax, it will not end in 1860. Neither I nor you are the masters to determine that question. But every pro- phet and every seer who rises on that side of the House and says the Income-tax will not terminate in 1860, adds to the difficulties of bringing it to a termination. I will not talk about its termination in 1860. I have given my own opinion, that it ought to be con- sidered as a temporary tax, and ought not to fall upon our permanent and ordinary system of finance. But while we have not talked much about its termination, we have done this—we have endeavoured to place circumstances in such a train—we have endeavoured, by deeds and not by words—by bring- ing into play additional resources of taxation, and by introducing the prin- ciple of gradual descent into the Income-tax—we have endeavoured to show by figures that we have put the question into such a manageable form as will enable Parliament when the time arrives to part with the Income-tax. You now complain of the Income-tax, in conjunction with the Legacy-duties, as it stands in our proposal, and vet you supported the tax as it stood in the pro- posal of last December. I think the proposal then was to renew the Income- tax for a period of three years. What did that mean ? You all know what it meant. It meant the tax in perpetuity. I do not say that it implied a foregone conclusion to that effect on the part of those who proposed the re- newal of the tax for three years; but what was done was this—the tax was proposed for three years, and no provision was made for its extinction at the end of that period. You cannot afford to part with 6,000,000/. of revenue at a moment's notice. If you are in earnest to get quit of the tax, you must make provision and prepare the ground. We have done so. You say that you are afraid the Income-tax may exist after 1860. That is possible—the tax may exist after 1860: but we have prepared the ground for its extinc- tion, and have made such provision that Parliament will be in a condition in 1860 to abolish the tax if it pleases. Here, then, was the combination of events in December last : you had an unmitigated schedule A, you had the principle of differentialism established against you in schedule D, you had no prospect of the abolition of the tax, and you had the promise of a legacy- duty."
Now what was the situation of things last Monday night ? Did the Opposition who voted for Sir Edward Lytton's amendment mean, or not, the inequalities of the assessment" of those who pay under schedule A should be remedied ? " I want to know, therefore, and we must know, what was the meaning of the vote of last Monday night ? If it meant relief to schedule A, I conclude it was meant that we should alter the relative position of the schedules. And if it did, I want to know whether it was meant to alter schedule A at the expense of schedules C and E, or to alter schedules C and E at the expense of schedule A ? If your motion tonight be an analogous motion to that of Monday last, then you will most unfortunately—I will not say have deluded and deceived—but misled the country. But if you mean by your present amendment to alter the tax on trades, professions, and sala- ries, and to operate on schedules C and E, then I must tell you that last Monday you supported a motion in direct contradiction and opposition to the motion now proposed." The present proposal would involve a loss of about 450,000/. It would have the effect of breaking up the tax, for they could not stop at schedule A; it would introduce hopeless confusion into the attempt to manage the Income-tax ; and they could not impose such limits on their successors as would suit their particular inclinations. Recapitulating the course on which Government had proceeded, Mr. Gladstone said it had been sanctioned by the House. He had not proposed what was abstractedly best, but what was productive of far more good than evil. Ministers did not intend to tamper with the tax ; but to resist the first step that led to grounds so insecure as tampering with the tax. Government had received support, and they were not going to shrink from the line of conduct by which it had been merited. The proposition then before the House was totally opposite to that before them on Monday last. "Those who were guided by the principle of the motion of last Monday cannot be guided by the principle of the motion of this Monday" : that relieved trades and professions at the ex- pense of land ; this relieves land at the expense of trades and pro- fessions. " These things are perfectly distinct and intelligible to the country. They cannot be concealed or placed beyond the reach of public opinion. We have declared that, looking at the Income-tax as a whole, we believe that it is capable of producing great benefits to the community. To that doctrine we adhere. We are prepared for those who think that precarious incomes ought to be relieved at the expense of permanent Incomes. We ourselves propose a plan placing a greater burden upon property, which we shall soon have an opportuninity of bringing under the consideration of the House. It is a singular fate that within the space of seven days the plans of the Government are assailed by two hostile mo- tions, each supported by a strong party combination ; but each diametrically opposed to the other." (Much cheering throughout.) Mr. DISRAELI said he would not shrink from the test of any criticism on his own budget.
He charged Mr. Gladstone with forgetting that the stamp-duties and the probate-duties were two points which were not introduced into the December budget, except incidentally. "I alluded to both, and I stated generally that it was not out of our power to propose a measure which would terminate the controversy. I reserved to myself the power—and I think the late Govern- ment is not to be judged by an incidental remark—I reserved to myself the power of introducing such a measure as would give satisfaction to both par- ties. But in all the arguments drawn from any proposition made in respect to the Income-tax by the late Government—from any inclinations with re- spect to the subject of the probate and stamp duties—in any argument drawn from these that the policy which the right honourable gentleman recom- mends is not more hostile to the land than the policy of the late Govern- ment, the right honourable gentleman has the candour and ingenuousness to forget, that, whether our policy was right or wrong, it was brought for- ward for the purpose of affording you the power of revising the whole of the basis of taxation upon property, whether it were real or personal. But whether or not that policy was for the relief of the land, let me remind the right honourable gentleman that a proposition was introduced by us for the purpose of reducing the taxation upon land by the amount of two millions and a half." With strange inconsistency, Mr. Gladstone had shown that land pays 2d. in the pound more than any other property, and then he pro- posed to impose a new tax on land—the Legacy-duty. But this was pro- posed as a compensation in favour of incomes derived from intelligence and skill ; and therefore, as a compensation for the Income-tax, it ought also to terminate at the end of seven years.
Mr. Disraeli thought that Mr. Gladstone had been unnecessarily cruel to his supporters in alluding to the vote of Monday night and in desiring to fix its meaning. The object of that vote was to assert principles which Mr. Disraeli had endeavoured to establish when he sat on the other side of the House. "In that attempt we were defeated. The Chancellor of the Ex- chequer says that the motion was supported by tbose against whose interests it was directed. Well, that is a proof that there are some persons in this House who can sacrifice their interests to their principles. But, says the right honourable gentleman, how can you reconcile the vote of Monday night with the present motion ? Why, the very fact of your having nega- tived the vote of Monday night, and declared that we should not establish our principle, not only excuses us for but imposes on us the necessity of consi- dering your measures. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial, answered by cheers from the Opposition benches.) We have now to consider your mea- sure on its merits. ("Oh !") I can easily understand that this course is distasteful to honourable Members opposite, and especially to those who, having always advocated a difference in the schedules, formed part of a ma- jority in favour of a vote which, though it will not vindicate their conduct, may establish a Government."
In tones of horror Mr. Gladstone had asked whether the tampering with the tax could stop with schedule A. "I will never quote," continued Mr. Disraeli—" I say so with the utmost sincerity—any, speech made in this House by way of taunt ; I will never refer to Hansard with the view of an- noying any gentleman. (Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) No; that period has passed." (Cheers and laughter.) He then proceeded to quote from Hansard the words Sir James Graham addressed to him when he made his motion on local burdens, to the effect that an irresistible case—an argument which no Ministry could resist—might be made out from the un- just way in which the proprietors of land are taxed under schedule A. Sir James Graham, he said, now belongs to a Government that resists the irre- Fstible proposition. (Laughter.) But everything is to be carried, accord- ing to Mr. Gladstone, "because there is a united Government. Well, the Government may be united in their hostility to the land. The Government may be united in their determination not to do that justice to the proprietor of the soil which the First Lord of the Admiralty says cannot be resisted. The Government may be united in their determination not to do justice to the farmer by the mode which the First Lord of the Admiralty says is highly politic and irresistible. But I should think it is the only subject on which they are united and probably before long we shall have to consider subjects of general interest—I am not sure whether tomorrow may not bring one— which may enable us to judge whether this union upon the question of the land, which on the whole is so complete and admirable, applies to other sub- jects, and whether it is only when the interests of those connected with the soil are concerned that the Government show an impenetrable front, and are /unmated by an Unanimous feeling." (Cheers.) Lord Joirsr RUSSELL replied' showing that Mr. Disraeli had, in De- cember, taken his stand on the difference between permanent and preca- rious income, and now he comes forward as the advocate of something totally different—" that permanent incomes shall have their burdens lightened, and that precarious incomes shall not have their burdens light- ened in any way." Last Monday Mr. Disraeli said the stick was bent in one direction. The House refused to assent to the course which he and his friends then pro- posed ; and now they say the stick is bent in an opposite direction, and they propose a totally opposite course. What is this conduct, but treating the great question of the Income-tax as a plaything, to be used for party pur- poses, without any regard to the permanence of our finance or the settle- ment of the question. Mr. Disraeli wondered how the supporters of the Government can agree to this income-tax of id. in each of the schedules, when so many of them have complained of its hardship. "Now," said Lord John, "I think those gentlemen have given perfectly intelligible reasons for the votes they have recorded. They have said that they see so much advan- tage in the budget upon the whole—that so much indirect taxation is taken off — that there is so much justice in the proposed tax upon successions—(" Oh !" from the Opposition, and cheers from the Ali ini.sterial side)—and they see such progress made towards confirming and extending the policy of free trade —that they are willing to forego one of the advantages which they looked for in a financial system, and, like men of sense and straightforward conduct — they will support a budget which they approve upon the whole, although it does not contain every proposition they could wish. Well, this appears to me to be a course of conduct which is not unusually pursued in this House by men who really desire the public interest." (A laugh on the Opposition sick, met by cheers.) On the other hand, Mr. Disraeli comes forward to aggravate the inequality existing with regard to trades and professions; he adopts a policy of levity and caprice to suit the interests of his party ; he changes: from week to week the principle on which his policy is founded; so that it would be impossible for the House or the country to rely on the founder. " Well, I would ask—using a somewhat vulgar expression, which has, however, been ennobled by the high authority by which it was once adopted= Under which thimble is the pea ? ' " (Gnat laugher,- and cheers.) Lord JOHN MANNERS attempted to speak, but cries of " Divide!" cut his discourse short.
The Committee then divided—Against the amendment, 276; for it, 201; Government majority, 75.
On the Chairman's reading the resolution, Mr. Disnseu expressed a hope that Lord John Russell would allow the Chairman to report pro- gress. Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to proceed to the amendment of which Mr. Vansittart had given notice. Mr. DISRAELI said that he also had an amendment to move, and it would not be fair to go on : he moved that the Chairman do report progress. Mr. VA.Nsirra.nr said, he would not consent to go on with his amendment for the convenience of the noble Lord opposite. Mr. GrAnsvose replied, that it was not a question of convenience to any noble Lord ; it was a question of the condition in which the trade of the country stood. Honourable Members could have no conception of the inconvenience to which the mercantile community are exposed by these protracted discussions. It was suggested that the debate on the amendment should take place in the Committee on the bill. But Mr. DISRAELI would not give way. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the responsibility of reporting progress must rest with the Committee. Mr. BRIGHT backing Mr. Disraeli, the motion was agreed to ; and the House resumed.
Before the debate was renewed on Thursday, Mr. GLADSTONE asked the House to allow the Assessed Tax resolutions to pass pro forma, because the exemptions which might be introduced could only be introduced in the bill. Mr. DISRA.ELI did not object ; on the assurance that ample time for considering the provisions of the bill should be allowed.
In replying to a question from Mr. Iticanno, Mr. GLADSTONE stated his wish to postpone the introduction of the Advertisement-duty Bill, until he shall have had the fullest opportunity of gathering information and of having the bill fully considered.
When the resolution was read, Mr. VaiesrerAter moved that the words "one-third," instead of the word "moiety," of the annual value of lands, tenements, and hereditaments under occupation, should be inserted, as the basis of assessment for occupants. Sir Robert Peel reduced the assess- ment of the farmers from three-quarters to one-half; and the causes of that reduction now exist in a greater degree. Practically, a farmer can- not go into schedule D, as he seldom keeps accounts ; and his profits are now less than formerly. Mr. Gladstone spoke in behalf of the " yeoman " in December, and justice was expected from him. Mr. GLADSTONE complimented Mr. Vansittart personally ; but did not like his case. Farmers stand on a more favourable footing than the rest of the community. The "yeoman" is not asked to pay House-tax, and the Income-tax does not extend to incomes below 100/. a year. If he cannot go into schedule D, a fair means of assessment is allowed him, and he can appeal to the local Commissioners. If profits have fallen more than rents, that is only a useful suggestion to the landlords to let rents fall a little more quickly. But profits are not so small as they are represented. Upon an assessment of 33,0001., the amount of relief claimed was 5000/. or 6000/., of which only MK was allowed.
A very dull debate ensued; sustained on behalf of the amendment by Sir FITZROY KELLY, Mr. BASHES, and others ; while against it were Mr. BRIGHT and Sir JOHN SHELLEY. In the course of the debate, it was as- serted, and not denied, that farming is now more profitable than any trade in the country.
The Committee divided—For the amendment, 60; against it, 120 ; Government majority, 60. The original resolution was then put and agreed to.
When the resolution on the Legacy-duties was about to be read from the chair, Mr. GLADSTONE explained the plan ; previously reading the. resolution, as follows-
" That, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, the stamp-duties pay- able by law upon or for, or in respect of legacies, shall be granted and made payable upon and for even- succession to the beneficial enjoyment of any real or personal estate, or to the riceipt of any portion or additional portion of the income or profits thereof that may take place upon, or in consequence of, the death of any person, under whatever title, whether existing or future, such succession may be derived."
In explaining this resolution, Mr. Gladstone particularly urged the House to give a close and undivided attention to the principle of the measure, keeping the detailed arrangements out of sight for the present. It is an error to suppose that the sole reason for the extension of the tax is its coun- tervailing the unequal pressure of the Income-tax on intelligence and skill ; for as the full operation of the new tax on succession will not take effect un- til 1858, and the Income-tax will terminate in 1860, the new tax would be one of very short duration. The countervailing effect is one reason, but there are others,—the providing a means by which the Income-tax can be dispensed with ; the providing a fund to carry out extended measures for remitting indirect taxation; and the permanent settlement of an anomaly in taxation which is unjust and galling to the public feeling. Since the time when Mr. Pitt made his proposal, seventy years ago, the impossibility of maintaining a total exemption for real property or settled property from a tax applicable to personal property has become more manifest. [Mr. Gladstone used no strong or epigrammatic words easy to quote in brief ; but the cumulative effect of his allusions was to suggest serious apprehensions should a privileged class seek to maintain so unjust an exemption.] The ex- emptions are a means by which astute lawyers contrive to escape the opera- tion of the tax on succession and personally : another reason for abolishing the exemption. It may be said that the stamps on settlements are a coun- tervailing consideration : but the charge of 5s. per cent is no counterpoise to the probate-duty alone, which amounts to 2, 3, 31, or 4 per cent.
One case is more flagrant than all the rest. Certain property, such as leasehold property in houses, bears all the charges of personalty, including probate and legacy duties, all the charges on land, including land-tax, and local burdens. A law so entirely without foundation or warrant in truth and reason cannot be maintained.
Some would abandon it altogether, as accounting a tax on succession ab- stractedly ; though a tax on that incident of civilization which -secures the transfer of property even beyond the grave is rationally liable to charges on behalf of the state. Besides, the tax is no innovation ; and it is at present a constituent part of the annual income, which cannot spare a sum between 2,000,00W. and 2,500,000/. of the permanent revenue.
Touching upon the claim of existing settlements to be spared, Mr. Glad- stone argued that the law of settlement was not originally intended to es- cape the tax on succession. Touching upon the sliding scale of duty accord- ing to the degree of consanguinity, he said that he did not disapprove of the distinction in favour of direct succession, although the range from 1 to 10 per cent might be too broad ; but he proposed to maintain the scale for the present. A change which he proposed to make was, to substitute for the present distinction between settled property or real property and unsettled personalty a new distinction, which he would colloquially call one between rateable property and non-rateable property ; charging upon the former a trifle under half the legacy-duty that would be paid by the other class. On direct succession he proposed to make no higher charge than that for a life- interest payable by instalments, and to make the charge upon the net rental; for he did not desire to see the owners even of encumbered estates displaced in England, as they have been in Ireland. Should the owner of an encum- bered estate alienate his property, realize its value, and discharge its encum- brances, then the residue of the total amount would present the duty upon which the tax upon his succession would be payable: if he realized 500,000/. and paid 300,000/. of encumbrances, then he would pay tax on 200,000/. The amount which Mr. Gladstone expected to derive from the tax had been grossly exaggerated, through the misapprehension of his original state- ment. The amount of landed income in this country is overrated, no doubt in consequence of the social power, station, and influence of those who pos- sess the land. But, basing his calculations upon the Income-tax returns, he explained that he only expected to derive from the charge upon settle- ments, personal or real, something over 200,000?.; and from landed proper- ty, as distinguished from houses and messuages, in the three kingdoms, not more than 400,000?.; from the additional legacy-duty in Ireland between 60,000/. and 80,000?.; but from the personalty, in which case the data are more conjectural, he thought it probable that within five years—not four as he had previously stated—the gross additional amount of revenue might yield 2,000,000/. per annum. In a conversation that ensued, 'the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER promised Mr. BRIGHT to consider whether railway property, which is xated, should be classed with rateable or non-rateable property. After some controversy with Sir Joust PARINOTON and other Opposition Mem- bers, Mr. GLADSTONE reluctantly consented to report progress; the Com- mittee to sit again on Friday.
DISCONTLNUANCE OP TRANSPORTATION.
Earl GREY moved an address to the Crown, praying that the arrange- ments respecting the transportation of criminals in force in 1852 may not be altered until the arrangements for altering them be laid before Parlia- ment, and time given for their consideration. Lord Grey disclaimed hos- tility to Ministers in submitting this motion : he desired to give them a -general and independent support, but on this subject he thought them in CITOL.
He found ample reason for his motion in what has recently taken place. The late Secretary for the Colonies had announced that transportation to Van Diemen's Land would be discontinued, without fixing any date; but the present Government have determined to discontinue it at once. Con- victs are accumulating in this country ; they now amount to 2000, and only a few can be removed. Not denying that Ministers have power to do what they propose without an infraction of the technical law, he held that it is not consistent with the spirit of the law. Some years ago the House of Commons carried a motion in favour of the continuance of transportation, against Lord Melbourne's Government ; and in 1846 a Committee of the House of Lords reported that it should be retained. When he made a change in 1846, establishing the ticket-of-leave system, he laid the papers before Parliament. That system remained until 1852, and it ought not to be lightly abandoned. The opinion that by the gold-dis- coveries in Australia transportation ceased to have its former terrors is un- tenable: convicts do not act with a deliberate view to their own interests; nor would they pick pockets on the chance of getting to the gold-diggings after severe punishment of several years' duration. Some may have a mor- bid desire for punishment, but taking men as we find them, ninety-nine in the hundred are more alarmed at the prospect of transportation, preceded by separate confinement in prison, than at any other punishment. But the chief value of transportation is ass means of reforming criminals and relieving this country of them. Few return; and those who do are the cause of infi- nite mischief, imitzucting the young in every description of crime. lie de- fended the system of assignment, and maintained that the percentage of con- victs guilty of offences under these regulations is very small. He pointed out the great improvement of the present on the old system, where the whip was the only instrument of reformation ; and drew a striking picture of the interior of a convict-prison—silence everywhere, amidst concealed numbers, so that the stranger felt the flesh creep on his bones. He argued that the good conduct of the convicts depends on the hope of their being removed to the Colonies. If they were imprisoned for long terms here, that hope would be removed. He insisted that the cessation of transportation to Van Die- men's Land should have been gradual ; that the cry against convicts in these colonies is quite a new one, and that not longer ago than 1846 it was all the other way, when Mr. Wentworth and Mr. Lowe concurred in a report in favour of receiving convicts. The colonies which have benefited by convict- labour now turn round and abuse it ; but it does not follow that the Govern- ment should yield to every clamour. He believed transportation would be a mutual benefit., and hoped yet to see the day when the Colonies would de- mand a supply of convict-labour.
The Earl of ABERDEEN characterized the motion as unusual, and an interference with the prerogative of the Crown. He denied that Govern- ment has done anything requiring the sanction of an act of Parliament. He agreed that hitherto the subject has been treated as not belonging to any party considerations, and he had no reason to imagine that Lord Grey would make it a party question. Lord Aberdeen traced the difficul- ties of the situation mainly to Lord Grey. Mr. Gladstone, when Secretary for the Colonies for a short time in 1846, found himself under the necessity of suspending transportation to Van Die- men's Land for two years, in consequence of the state of horror and abomina- tion at which it had arrived. Lord Grey soon after came into office, and he wrote to Sir William Denison, in 1847, stating that "it is not the intention of her Majesty's Government that transportation to Van Diemen's Land should be resumed at the expiration of the two years for which it has already been decided that it should be discontinued."
Earl GREY —" Read the previous sentence."
The Earl of ABERDEEN—" I am quite ready to admit—C" Hears hear!" from lord Grey)—that the noble Earl intended something different- (" Hear, hear ! " from Lord Grey)—from that which he has said. ("Hear, hear !" from _Lord Grey.) If the noble Earl will hear, I will add this— that, whatever interpretation he may put upon this now, and whatever he may have intended by it, (for I don't wish to quarrel with the interpretation he gives of this passag-e,) Sir William Denison, to whom he addressed it, understood it in its plain meaning." The consequence was, that Sir William Denison announced to the Legislative Council that Government had deter- mined not to send any more convicts to Van Diemen's Land ; and the colony believed and relied on that statement. Is it only Canada that is to be supported in the wishes she expresses ; and are colonies which protest against convict settlements alone not to be listened to ? Government has not abo- lished, it wishes to preserve transportation as a punishment. Lord Aberdeen showed that the Falkland:Islands, to which Lord Camp- bell proposed to send convicts, might be a very good prison, but it would not answer the purpose for which transportation is now intended ; requiring, as it does, an absorption of convicts in the settlements. He showed that the time is come for making large provision in this country for the treatment of criminals ; that the reformatory system already established has been suc- cessful; and that some change should be made in the indiscriminate mode of sentencing to transportation. He observed that Lord Grey confined his eulogy to the treatment of prisoners at home ; which Lord Aberdeen also praised. He showed that the liberated forgets of France are terrible only because they have not been disciplined. He commented on the inequality of the punishment of transportation, and the expediency of carrying it out in every case of a sentence. Lord Aberdeen concluded by stating that a plan had been devised in the way of punishment at home, although the details were not yet decided.
The Earl of CHICHESTER, agreeing with much of what had fallen from both the previous speakers, moved the following amendment- " That while, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to retain the punishment of transportation for some of the graver offences against the law, it has become necessary to restrict such transportation to a few only of the colonies, and to places which, from their limited extent or population, are at present incapable, without prejudice to their own social condition, of affording. employment to any considerable number of discharged convicts ; that it has therefore become the duty of Parliament to adopt immediate measures for providing increased means of secondary punishment in this country ; that such secondary punishment ought to be both in kind and duration sufficiently penal to exercise as deterring an influence as the punish- ment of transportation, and at the same time of so reformatory a character as to afford a reasonable hope that the convicts who undergo it will, on their discharge, become useful members of society, and qualified to obtain employ- ment either in this country or in the Colonies."
The Earl of DERBY supported the original motion in a long speech ; also with a disclaimer of political hostility, and premising that there could be no permanent combination between himself and Lord Grey. He expressed himself favourable to the discontinuance of transportation to Van Diemen's Land ; but bethought it should have been gradual. Although he did not place the theory that the mother-country should overbear the colony so high as Lord Grey, yet when a strong feeling prevails it would be unwise to incur the risk of repeating in Van Diemen's Land the scenes we have witnessed with regret in other colonies. He believed that convicts have a much greater chance of permanent amendment in life in the Colonies than at home. He complained that the Government had taken a step which ren- dered some alteration inevitable, without giving Parliament or themselves the opportunity of having the details of their plan fully before them. He deprecated ill-considered changes and hasty legislation. Going back for a con- siderable period, he endeavoured to show, that sudden changes—the cessation of assignments, the discontinuance of transportation to New South Wales, the stop to the founding of a new penal colony in the North of Australia, and now another sudden step by the present Government—have caused disastrous results and great inconveniences. Though he supported the mo- tion, he had little fault to find with the views of Lord Aberdeen, and no desire to east a slur or censure on the Government.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE denied that Government has violated either the spirit or the letter of the law. Nothing more has been done than to call into action the power which the Crown has invariably exercised of determining whether convicts should or should not be sent to a particular colony. Under the existing system, some criminals are released and sent home after serving a few years in the hulks, while others are imprisoned a year or two, and then sent to the Colonies ; which amounts to transportation for life, since no provision is made for their return. The Duke proved con- clusively that the people of Van Diemen's Land are opposed to receiving convicts ; that in 1851 not fewer than 1413 convicts (of whom 738 had been brought back) absconded and went to the diggings. In reply to the charge that no extra accommodation has been provided to meet the new ar- rangements, he stated that it is proposed to remove 200 of the female con- victs from Millbank to the Brixton prison, which will accommodate 700. Then 500 could be accommodated at Portland, and provision could be made for 1000 more. Lord Grey seemed to think that because we have spent thousands of pounds in sending and maintaining convicts in Australia, we have the right to continue to send them : it is a low view to make this a mere ledger account. He disputed the arguments drawn from the terrors of transportation, and relied more on the statements of gaol-chaplains than judges. Might not the dreadful impression produced on the criminal by a sentence of transportation be produced by the thought of Dartmoor or Pen- tonville, rather than Australia ? Transportation has terrors only for a cer- tain class of criminals, such as the receivers of stolen goods. He combated the notion that if transportation ceased large numbers of criminals would be let loose in this country. The total number of prisoners tried in the year 1851 was 27,960, and of those the total number sentenced to transportation was 2895. The total number not disposed of by transportation was 25,058; but to those must be added at least one-third of those sentenced to trans- portation, who were never vent out of the country: so that not more than
2000 were sent abroad in the year 1851; the whole of the remainder receiving punishment in this country, and being released here at the expiration of their sentence. The total number of offences of murder and contemplated murder was 2318 ; and of these the total number sentenced to transportation was only 1-74, and the whole number actually transported was only 120. This shows how greatly exaggerated are the apprehensions he had alluded to; and that if we be not prepared to send to our Colonies this number of of- fenders, there can be little to apprehend from this small number being re- leased in this country. Convicts should be set to useful employments, upon the system of Colonel Jebb—making harbours of refuge, fortifications, aud dockyard works. La- bourers now readily find employment; and the argument that convict i
labour would displace free labour s thus obviated. The Duke concluded by describing the spirit of concession in which a statesman should deal with the Colonies; where events show that concession is necessary : concede with a good grace and before it is too late, and then it will be accepted as a boon. Such concessions ought not to be unwillingly wrung from the Mother- country. Lord CANTRELL contended for the present system : he contemplated with alarm the letting loose of 1000 taught convicts on society ; and argued that the agony felt by the criminal and his friends when a sen- tence of transportation is passed is as great as ever.
The LORD CHANCELLOR agreed that passing sentence does cause terror ; but the system of transportation cannot be continued as heretofore, be- cause there is no place to send convicts to; theugh he did not despair of finding a place.
The Duke of ARGYLL thought the motion evasive : for if carried it pledged the House to address the Crown to restore transportation to Van Diemen's Land ; and if Lord Grey meant that, it would have been better had he expressed it openly. Lord GREY briefly replied ; and the House divided—For the motion, 37; for the amendment, 54; Government majority, 17.
REGULATION OF NU.NNERIES.
In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS moved for leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the recovery of personal liberty in certain cases.
Monastic establishments, he said, are rapidly increasing in England and Wales ; there are now seventy-five nunneries within those limits ; and there is an impression that the law does not sufficiently protect those who may be in- duced to enter them' but may afterwards grow discontented and desire to quit them. He desired to give the Home Secretary power to appoint an inspec- tor to visit any nunnery where there may be reasonable grounds for believing any woman is confined against her will, and in that case power to sue out a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Chambers pointed out, that lunatics, sailor boys, and parish apprentices, arc so protected; and that in carrying out the Ex- ciee-laws, officers are empowered to enter any house where they smell a box of cigars or spy a pound of pigtail through the keyhole. As things now stand, a nun Is practically out of the pale of the constitution, and without means of redress. Power of Government control exists in Prussia, Russia, Austria, Bavaria, and France. Mr. Chambers said his object is not to in- vade religious liberty but to protect civil liberty. Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY seconded the motion ; and alluded to his own experience in the famous case of Miss Talbot.
The motion was further supported by Mr. FREWEN, Mr. NEWDEGATE, Sir JOHN TYRELL, and Sir ROBERT INGLIS. Mr. DR.UMMOND and Mr. WHITESIDE spoke in favour of some measure of the kind, but thought this bill would not effect the object aimed at. In opposition to the motion, were Mr. Sergeant MuRrilv, Lord Joust RUSSELL, Mr. LUCAS, Lord EDWAHD HOWARD, and Mr. FAGAN. It was contended that nuns are not prevented from seeing their friends ; that conventual establishments are very useful; and that if the measure passed the female Roman Catholics of Ireland would throw themselves on the protection of France. Lord JOHN RUSSELL regretted that the question had been brought before the House. Two years ago, the House objected to a bill on the same sub- ject; and there ought to be very strong grounds indeed for again introdu- cing it. Is there any class of persons to whom the ordinary laws afford in- sufficient protection ? if so, then not only for them but for all classes should greater securities be provided. Let us see the special case made out. There are certain ladies living in communities, many of whom entered them in a spirit of sincere and deep devotion' there are others who preside over large insti- tutions for the purpose of educating young girls; and others who visit the sick. Now he was not asked whether he approved of these in- stitutions; but he was asked to put special restrictions on them, and specially examine their houses, and find out who are discontented. But the only law that could prevent that state of things would be a law forbidding the existence of convents altogether ; because if you went to re- lease a discontented nun, you would probably find that it was not locks and manacles that detained her, but her sense of the obligation of her sacred promise. Lord John threw discredit upon the anonymous stories told re- !Electing forcible detention ; and was disposed to think that had the evil ex- isted, the Roman Catholic gentlemen would come forward and demand a remedy. Lord. EDWARD HOWARD, alluding to one who was at least nearest and dearest to himself—[Miss Talbot, whom he marriedj—with an indignant ex- clamation against such private affairs being dragged before the public— pointed to the result of Miss Talbot's case as showing the liberty enjoyed by ladies residing in convents.
On a division, there were—For the motion, 138; against it, 115; ma- jority, 23. Thus leave was given to bring in the bill.
The same subject had been alluded to in the House of Lords on the previous evening, when the Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Beckenham' praying for that which is the object of the bill. The Archbishop of Dunure explained that he should be absent when the bill might come before the Peers, and he spoke strenuously in support of it ; with anecdotes of persons detained and ill treated, which forcibly showed the necessity of such a measure. The Bishop of NORWICK contributed evidence of the same kind.
SHERIFF COURTS IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. Claus-um) moved the second reading of the Sheriff Courts of Scot- land (No. 2) Bill ; the principal object of which was to abolish the double ahrievalty now existing in Scotland, to substitute oral for written evi- dence, and to make other improvements in the law.
The motion Was supported by Mr. EWART, Mr. HASTIE, Mr. FORBES, Mr. MACKIE, Mr. COLLIER, Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR, Mr. DUNCAN, and Mr. DUNLOP. It was urged that there is a strong public feeling in fa- vour of the change ; and that if the Faculty of Advocates oppose the bill, the procuratora of Glasgow, and the society of writers in Dundee and Paisley, support it. By making a jury optional, and limiting appeals to
points of law, justice would be more cheaply and effectually obtained in these courts.
Opposed to the motion were Mr. Cowex,. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE, Mr. E. ELLICE, Mr. CHARTERIS, Mr. ELLIOTT, and the LORD-ADVOCATE. The last-named speaker said, the practical result of Mr. Craufurd'a bill would be to make litigation more expensive and more dilatory ; add to the places open to the bar of Scotland ; and increase the business of the Court of Session. (Laughter.) He admitted that public opinion was divided on the subject. Of the counties, fifteen do not ask for change, five wish for altera- tion, eleven are in favour of the bill. The towns are divided also, and so is the legal profession. He believed the bill would increase litigation. Taking the whole of Scotland, there have been 2033 appeals in the year to the She- riffs-Depute : of these, 120 only went to the Court of Session, and only 50 were reversed.
A third section of opinion was brought out by the debate : Colonel BLAIR suggested the reference of this bill and that of the Lord-Advocate to a Select Committee. Mr. HU3IE supported and Mr. STUART WORTLEY strongly enforced this suggestion ; without effect.
The House divided—For the second reading, 58 ; against it, 184. So Mr. Craufurd's bill is thrown out.
THE IRISH BARGAIN.
Mr. EDWARD BALL raised again, on Monday, the question opened on Fri- day as to the alleged promise made in December last to the Irish Members by some accredited agent or agents of the Whig and Peclite party—that if they would vote against the budget then under discussion, the succeeding Government would not impose the Income-tax on Ireland. He now put the question to Captain Megan. But Captain MAGAN said that Mr. Ball was mistaken in the facts. Lord JOHN RUSSELL distinctly stated that no person was authorized by the Whig party to make such a contract, and he believed no such contract was made.
After some more talking by Irish Members, Mr. GEORGE Mown; di- rectly asked Mr. Hayter, what he had to say on the subject ? Thus ap- pealed to, Mr. HATTER said- " I never was authorized by any person or any body of persons to make any such communication to any person or any party. I never did attend any meeting of any kind in my life of the Irish gentlemen. I never stated to any person, at any time, that I was authorized in any manner to state, that in the event of the Government of Lord Derby being overthrown, the Go- vernment to be substituted in its place would undertake not to impose an income-tax on Ireland."
The talking did not rest here. Mr. lixox put the matter on a different footing. He had understood that three Irish Members waited on Mr. Hay- ter by way of deputation, and that he authorized them to make the state- ment referred to. Mr. HATTER denied that any circumstance of the kind had ever occurred. So at last there was silence.
Further explanations were made on Thursday, when the House was going into Committee of Ways and Means. Captain MAGAN, Mr. Dieu- RICE O'CONNELL, Mr. FITZSTETHEN FRENCH, Mr. LUCAS, and Mr. VIN- CENT SCULLY, explained on the Irish side ; Mr. HATTER and Sir CHARLES WOOD on the English. The result of a long palaver seems to be this. The whole transaction in December was above board. The Irish Mem- bers held meetings to determine their course on the Budget while the de- bate was in progress. Coming from one of these, Mr. French met Mr. Hayter in the House, and asked him whether it was likely the Whigs would introduce the Income-tax into Ireland if they came into office. Mr. Hayter replied, that it was not the intention of the leading Whigs to depart from the policy they had formerly pursued. On the steps of the Reform Club, Mr. Maurice O'Connell casually met Mr. Hayter ; who asked him how he was likely to vote on the budget. "My answer was," said Mr. O'Connell, "that I had never given a Tory vote since I had a seat in this House, and that I never intended to do so." He then asked what were the feelings of the Irish Members. Mr. O'Connell replied, that if they had the assurance that the Income-tax would not be extended to Ireland, "that would awaken them." Mr. Hayter referred him to the speeches of Sir Charles Wood in 1851. 'When the next meet- ing of Irish Members was held, Mr. O'Connell related this ; and, it was said, "would Sir Charles Wood restate his opinions in the House ?" And Sir Charles Wood did restate them. Mr. HerrEn could not remember these hurried communications, but he had no doubt they were perfectly true in substance ; but he denied that he had said he was "authorized" to make them. Sir CHARLES Woon said his share was recorded in Han- sard. Under the then circumstances, he thought Mr. Disraeli's proposal could not be maintained; but the present budget relieves Ireland of heavy charges, and he thought it not inconsistent to vote for the extension of the tax to Ireland.
There was a great disputing among the Irish Members as to whether Mr. O'Connell had told the meeting he was "authorized" to state that the Income-tax would not be extended to Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL said he had not. Mr. Bowv-ER did not remember that any statement at all was made ; but Mr. LUCAS and Colonel GREVILLE remembered hearing the word.
In the course of the altercation, Mr. Ifer..ms called Captain Megan to account for having described Mr. Hayter as an " accredited agent " ; and for putting forward erroneous statements. Captain Meeen cried out—" I have a right to consider any Member in whatever light I think proper." He further characterized the speech of Mr. Melina as "ma- licious and untrue." The SPEAKER told him he must not use those words ; on which Captain MeoeN withdrew them, amid a peal of laugh- ter. The dispute seemed likely to continue all the evening, but Sir RO- BERT Ixoirs gravely suggested the propriety of returning to the public business.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
The Earl of AIRLIE, after a reasoned statement, inquired whether the measure which it was proposed to introduce for the Government of India was to be based on the evidence and the report of the Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament? or whether they were to be called on to legislate this session on matters which had not yet been investigated ? The Earl of ABERDEEN said that it would be premature to answer the questions at present. Notice had been given that a measure would be introduced into the House of Commons before the end of the month, and it would then be seen how far the questions would be answered by that measure. As to precluding Parliament from future legislation on India, certainly nothing of the kind could be intended.
CHICORY AND COFFEE.
Mr. WILSON, in reply to a question, stated that since the Treasury order has been in force there have been 1684 inspections, followed by 94
convictions and hues, and 135 punishments of a minor kind. The sale of coffee has increased since the order was issued.
ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS AND DEBATED WRITS.
Lord BEAUMONT having pointed out to the Peers that no answer had been returned to the message from the House of Commons for a joint address to the Crown praying that a commission of inquiry might be issued respecting the Clithero election, it was unanimously agreed, after sonic discussion, and on the motion of the Earl of ABERDEEN, that the message should be taken into consideration that day six months; and that a message to this effect should be sent to the House of Commons. It was incidentally stated, as a reason for not concurring in the address, that the terms of the report of the Committee did not correspond with the terms of the act of Parliament.
In the Commons, Mr. W. 0. STANLEY moved an address to the Crown praying that a Commission might be issued to inquire into the corrupt practices which took place at the last election for Barnstaple : the Com- missioners to be Mr. Michael Prendergast, Sir John Eardley Wilmot, and Mr. Leofric Temple.—Agreed to.
On the motion of Sir BENJAMIN HALL, an address to the Crown for a Conimission to inquire into the corrupt practices at Tynemouth was agreed to ; and the issue of the writ was suspended until the 2d June.
On the motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the House agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances attending the prosecution of the petition connected with the late election for Berwick- upon-Tweed.
Mr. BENTINCE moved the appointment of a Select Committee to in- quire into the circumstances under which the petition against the return of Mr. Atherton and Mr. Granger, for Durham, had been withdrawn. Mr. Granger was killed in a railway accident, and was succeeded by Lord Adolphus Vane. A petition had been presented against the return of Mr. Granger after his death, and subsequently withdrawn. Petitions also had been put in against the return of Mr. Atherton and Lord Adolphus Vane; and an inquiry into the latter was pending. Mr. Bentinck thought the withdrawn petition was not bona fide. After considerable debate, in which " agents " were pretty severely censured, the debate, on a division, was adjourned till the 31st May.
Sir JOHN TYRELL moved the issue of a new writ for Harwich. The motion was opposed, on the ground that the House was not in possession of the evidence. Sir DE LACY EVANS urged also, that seven days' notice of a motion for issuing a new writ ought to be given, in accordance with the order of the House. But there was some doubt whether the case came within the order, as Mr. Peacocke was not unseated for "bribery," but for making a corrupt contract with a person by which several votes had been transferred. Still it was held that bribery was alleged, and that this was a corrupt practice of the worst description. Finally, the House agreed, by 177 to 116, to adjourn the debate until Friday week.
ELECTION COMMITTEES.
Two new Committees, appointed to inquire into alleged corrupt prac- tices at Plymouth and Cork, commenced proceedings on Saturday. Pe- titions have been presented against the sitting Members for both bo- roughs.
Additional interest attaches to the Plymouth inquiry because of its con- nexion with the investigations of the Dockyard Committee. Mr. Mare, the shipbuilder, a stranger to Plymouth, was the Government candidate. He was accompanied down there by Mr. Churchward, sub-editor of the Morning Herald.
One of the witnesses deposed to a conversation which Mr. Mare had related as having occurred between himself and Lord Derby.
Mr. Mare said—" I have had an interview with the Earl of Derby, who said he could not trust Mr. Bounden Palmer; and he asked me how far I
could support him. My answer to Lord Derby was, that, having seen the benefit of free trade in my own establishment, where the people have larger wages than before, I could not support protection; but on other matters I felt disposed to support Lord Derby's Government. Lord Derby then said to me, '1ou shall have the Plymouth interest.' " Witnesses deposed that the promises of situations under Government were very profusely made by Mr. Mare and Mr. Churchward ; that it was the talk of the town ; that numbers voted on the assurance of places to be found for them ; but that in many instances they had been disap- pointed. George Knapman, a butcher, asked for a place in the Excise. Mr. Mare said, "Yes, you will see what I can do ; I have all the Go- vernment situations in my hands." Ile would have voted for Braine had not Mare promised him a place. Robert Sheers, sailcloth-maker, "heard a good deal about places being given away," and went to the Royal Hotel to see whether he could obtain a Lich:waiter's place for his son- in-law. This son-in-law had been at sea. Churchward promised to get him a similar situation under Admiral Dundas as he had held under Ad- miral Parker. The son-in-law declined ; Sheers, trusting to the promise of a tidewaitership, voted for Mare ; but, after waiting for it for six months, the son-in-law was obliged to go to sea again. William King offered his vote for the stewardship of one of the Cape or West India steamers. He was told it would be "all right," and voted accordingly ; but never had the situation. King said, "This was the first time I had ever given my vote from corrupt motives; it was from having heard that Mr. Mare was a bidder that I fell into the temptation."
Mr. Mare instructed his counsel, after the first day's examination, to withdraw the petition, and submitted himself for examination. He denied in detail the cases alleged against him ; but admitted sufficient to show that both himself and Churehward had promised places for votes. He denied ever having said to Bird that Lord Derby had promised him the Government influence. The Committee found that Mr. Charles John Mare was not duly elected ; that he was guilty of bribery by himself and his agents, specifying some instances ; and recommended a Committee of inquiry, but not the suspension of the writ.
The petition against Mr. Collier was not prosecuted; and the Com- mittee declared it frivolous and vexatious.
The Cork petition alleges intimidation ; and the plenteous evidence adduced shows unprecedented rioting even for an Irish election. Pro- testant voters went to the poll, and staid away from the poll, in terror of their lives ; more than one death actually occurred ; the priests took an active share in the election, inciting the people to vote for Fagan and Murphy, and standing by while voters were abused. The military were effective in diminishing the violence, when called in ; but for some time
they were nut culled. The investigation continues; the evidence on be- half of the petitioner not being concluded.
ADMIRALTY PATRONAGE.
The sittings of the Dockyard Committee were resumed on Monday.
The Duke of Northumberland was the principal witness. He stated that he had given up all the civil patronage to the Secretary. Asked whether that was the custom, he said, " I never inquired; I had no knowledge on the subject either way." He had given no directions to Mr. Stafford to cancel the circular of 1849. Mr. Stafford had told his Grace that the patronage had been used against the Government ; that he had not the power of doing his duty, and could not retain office under such circum- stances. " I always refused to interfere, for want of experience." [This phrase the Duke frequently repeated.] He said he was cognizant of the issue of the cancelling circular, but did not approve of it ; did not know when it was issued; and generally objected to it. Mr. Stafford had said he had power to cancel a circular issued by Mr. Parker ; he had not told the First Lord that Sir Francis Baring had initialed the circular of Sep- tember 1849 ; the cancelling circular went forward without the signature of any Lord. Before the cancelling of the circular of 1849, he had not ascertained the actual facts, nor whether political influence was at work. He had never inquired because he supposed the Secretary had grounds for all the representations he made. The Duke had been fifty years in the Navy, and had always.heard of jobbing. Had heard generally from the Secretary that such was still the case in the Surveyor's Office ; did not know how he could have inquired. There were no complaints from the Superintendents of yards. Ile had walked arm-in-arm with Commo- dore Seymour, and encouraged him to talk; but the Commodore had not made any complaint. "It was not for me to say, have you anything wrong to tell me ? " Admiral Parker particularly objected to the re- scinding of the circular of 1849: "when he said he should bring the subject before the Board, I encouraged him to do so." But he did not. On Tuesday the sitting continued. Captain Dundas, Superintendent of the Deptford Dockyard, deposed that Mr. Stafford accompanied Mr. Peter Bolt to the yard, before the election, and asked Captain Dundas to join them ; but the Captain declined. The storekeeper was present when Mr. Stafford and Mr. Bolt stood at the gate while the men were getting their tickets. Before the election, he received a letter marked "confiden- tial," stating that Government wished to use all its influence in favour of one candidate.
Sir Thomas Herbert was examined ; but nothing was elicited from him except that he considered neither the circular of 1849 nor the cancelling of it of any great importance.
Sir Baldwin Walker was recalled, and asked whether he was certain as to the details of the conversation involving the names of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli. He replied—
"I am positive that upon two different occasions Mr. Stafford used the ex- pressions, There is no use in blinking the question ; I am so pressed by Lord Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I cannot help myself' These expressions were again repeated in the presence of Admiral Parker, during an interview with him upon the subject of my resignation." Admiral Parker had admitted, in the presence of Admiral Berkeley, that Mr. Stafford did certainly use those words. Wednesday brought another distinguished witness before the Com- mittee—the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was called in conse- quence of the conversation reported by Sir Baldwin Walker as having taken place with Mr. Stafford, who said that he acted under pressure from Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli.
Mr. Disraeli stated, that he never had any conversation with Mr. Stafford as to the management of the promotions in the Dockyards. Mr. Stafford had never consulted him ; nor did any one holding office under the late Administration. It was not a subject falling under his department Lord Seymour here intimated that he did not think the Committee had any further questions to put ; and Mr. Disraeli was about to retire, when Mr. Beckett put a question—Did Mr. Disraeli remember whether Mr. Stafford had made any complaint to him that he was responsible for all the patronage, but had not its distribution ? In reply, Mr. Disraeli vo- lunteered a statement.
When the late Government was formed, the Duke of Northumberland was most anxious to have a Board of Admiralty free from political influence ; and accordingly the Board was formed of distinguished naval officers, whose sole object was the best administration of that branch of the public service. But the consequence was, that there existed a want of understanding between the Board and the House of Commons. The present Board is represented in the House by a First Lord, a Secretary, and a Naval Lord ; but the late Board was only represented by the Secretary and one Naval Lord, who at the Board found himself in the presence of his superiors in rank. Mr. Staf- ford therefore had to express the feelings of the House of Commons at the Board : this he did under great difficulties, because he had mainly to con- sider the House of Commons, and had no one to support him at the Board ; "the members of which looked to what it considered the good of the service, not only in matters of patronage, but in other questions." Mr. Disraeli felt bound to support Mr. Stafford in questions of expenditure ; and the Board looked with great jealousy to the views of the House of Commons which he expressed. "In fact," continued Mr. Disraeli, "there was not that harmony which should exist between the House of Commons and every branch of the service' and which can only exist when a consider- able number of the members of that branch are Members of the House of Commons. I mean to say, that the Board of Admiralty only looked to the benefit of the service, and only considered the efficiency of the service. They did not understand the spirit of our Parliamentary Government—that in conducting their affairs they must consider the temper of the House of Commons, which, in the present Board, is represented by several Members." Mr. Stafford was placed in great difficulties, and he reported them to Mr. Disraeli ; who advised conciliation of the permanent civil servants.
Sir Ferguson Davie asked—" Did Mr. Stafford state that his difficulties arose from professional matters only, or from pressure put upon him in the disposal of patronage ?" Mr. Disraeli.—" He would not speak to me upon such small matters, but generally upon the extreme difficulty he found in carrying on his office, and he naturally came to me for counsel and support. Our conversations took place in the House of Commons, behind the Speaker's chair, after questions had been answered, and not at any formal interviews." Sir Ferguson Davie again invited Mr. Disraeli's attention to the expres- sions imputed by Sir Baldwin Walker to Mr. Stafford. Mr. Disraeli replied —" I thought I had answered that question. I never pressed Mr. Stafford, nor any member of the late Administration, on the subject of patronage or to induce its exercise with a view to the coming elections. Such a matter would not occur to me, nor to any one in my position."
Lord Seymour asked whether Mr. Stafford had ever complained that his difficulties were increased by the fact that the preceding Government had given all appointments to their own friends ? Mr. Disraeli replied—"No ; Yr. Stafford never went into details of that kind." Mr. Stafford had men- tioned that he was placed in a difficulty with regard to the Surveyor of the Navy—" but he did not go into details." Mr. Disraeli counselled a con- ciliatory manner, so as to invite cordiality and confidence. "But some time after Mr. Stafford spoke to me in the House of Commons about the letter of Sir Baldwin Walker to the Duke of Northumberland. I do not know whether the letter he showed me was the original letter or a copy to prove to me that he had not succeeded in establishing that good understanding which I had recommended. When I read that letter I was very much an- noyed, and I made this observation, If this is the mode in which your. overtures are to be met, I think he had better resign.' Mr. Stafford replied, 'That is quite out of the question ; for the Duke of Northumberland con- siders this as a strictly confidential communication, and I will do what I can to make things pleasant.' I said—' If that is the case, and Sir Baldwin Walker complains of your interference, you had better see him and have some conversation with him, and make him understand your wish to go on cordially with him.'" Mr. Disraeli never heard more of the matter from March to the autumn ; and he thought that Mr. Stafford had a perfect un- derstanding with Sir Baldwin Walker.
Asked whether there was any other ground of dissatisfaction except upon the question of expenditure, Mr. Disraeli replied—" There was no other rause of misunderstanding between the Admiralty and the Parliament ; but I can understand that various Members of Parliament, looking to the parti- cular patronage which has been alluded to, may have pressed, and did press, upon Mr. Stafford for its disposal; and if he found himself unable to comply with their wishes, that might possibly be a cause of misunderstanding, as the persons who support the Government naturally look to a fair distribu- tion of its patronage. That may have led to a misunderstanding. I only wish it to be understood that, so far as I am concerned, it was not brought under my cognizance."
Lord Seymour—" We have heard from the Duke of Northumberland that he gave up all his patronage to Mr. Stafford, thus leaving to the Secretary all the patronage usually enjoyed by the First Lord : would not that rather assist the Secretary in dealing with the House of Commons ?" Mr. Disraeli—" Probably it might ; but this was a matter never brought under my notice. I have never considered the question of promotions in the Navy or Dockyards at all."
Mr. Stafford was again examined. He repeated his former statements in the main, after the new manner just introduced by Mr. Disraeli into the statement. He admitted that he had not informed the Duke of Northumberland that the circular of 1849 was approved of by Mr. Par- ker and minuted by Sir Francis Baring. He also confessed to having -visited the Dockyards—the Conservative candidates happened to be there ; and he had only stood at the gate to witness the "ingenious ar- rangement" by which so many men delivered their tickets in so short a time. He explained the dinners at Devonport as having been given mainly to officers in the service ; and he regretted having invited political partisans. He denied having written to Captain Dundas ; and thought the letter must have been a hoax. [Captain Dundee, however, persisted in his first statement, that the letter was in Mr. Stafford's handwriting.]
At the close of the examination, Mr. Stafford was asked if he could sustain the charge that the circular of 1849 had been evaded by Sir Fran- cis Baring's administration ? Mr. Stafford said, it was difficult to get evidence ; he referred to anonymous letters ; and finally time was allowed him to consider.
When the Committee met on Thursday, Lord Seymour interrogated Mr. Stafford upon the subject of the alleged exercise of political influence under Sir Francis Baring and Mr. Parker : but nothing definite was eli- cited, except that Mr. Stafford declined to give up the names on the faith of which he had made the charge. He admitted that he had nothing to charge against the Superintendents.
Mr. Bere, a solicitor and Conservative at Devonport, was examined rather lengthily ; and he deposed to the exercise of Government influence at elections, pretty generally. Sir Francis Baring was examined. He described the course of official procedure in respect of patronage. Had issued the circular of 1849, on the recommendation of Sir Baldwin Walker, to prevent irregularities in future ; and not from want of confidence in Mr. Parker. Had found a strong impression in the Dockyards about Government interference, and had sought to remove it by prohibiting the Superintendents from taking part in politics.
Mr. Stafford retracted the charge of violent political partisanship which he had made against Captain Richards. Admiral Berkeley put in a letter from Lord Enfield which showed that Captain Richards's po- litical views were really unknown to his most intimate acquaintances in the Dockyard.
Previous page
