1569 Ways and Means— {DEC. 16, 1852} Financial Statement, &c. 1570 tire approbation of the arrangement which | Report and Evidence were ordered to be had been made. Motion agreed to. House adjourned till To-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, December 16, 1852. MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN.-For Merthyr Act Amendment. 3° Stamp Duties on Patents for Inventions. DERBY ELECTION-REPORT OF THE MR. GOULBURN laid on the table the Report of the Committee of the Derby Election. The report was then read by the Clerk at the table, and is as follows: "Your Committee appointed to take into consideration the matter of the petition of certain inhabitant householders of the borough of Derby, and to report thereupon to the House, have examined witnesses, and heard counsel as well in support of the petition as in behalf of the right hon. William Beresford, Secretary-at-War, a Member of the House, and have agreed to the following Report:-Your Committee have to report, with respect to the special allegations contained in the Petition before them, that the evidence which they have taken has satisfied them that a plan for an organised system of bribery had existed in the borough of Derby at the last election, and that the right hon. William Beres ford wrote a letter to one John Frail, of Shrewsburs, in the following terms: A good and safe man, with judgment and quickness, is wanted immediately at Derby. I suppose that you cannot leave your own place. If not, send some one whom you can trust in your place. Let him go to Derby on receiving this, and find the County Tavern, in the centre of the town. Let him send his card to Cox Brothers and Co.'s lead works, as coming from Chester. That will be enough. Yours, W. B.-Monday.' That in consequence of such letter one Thomas Morgan, of Shrewsbury, was sent to Derby by the said John Frail, and, acting on instructions there received, was subsequently detected and apprehended whilst carrying out the aforesaid plan of an organised system of bribery, proved before your Committee to have existed. Your Committee, however, do not find sufficient evidence to satisfy their minds, that the arrangements, scheme, and objects, as referred to in the petition, were known to and concurred in by the right hon. William Beresford, Secretary-at-War, and Member of the House; but your Committee are of opinion, that the equi vocal expressions of this letter ought at least to have suggested to him the idea that an improper use might be, and in fact was, made of the letter; and they find a reckless indifference to consequences which they cannot too highly censure." On the Motion of MR. GOULBURN, the printed. THE CASE OF THE MADIAIS. MR. KINNAIRD said, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, relating to the case of the two Madiais, now under sentence of imprisonment by the Tuscan Government; and whether any reasonable hopes might be entertained as to their speedy release? He wished to know what communications had taken place between Sir Henry Bulwer and the Tuscan Government? He had been informed that an amnesty to prisoners would be extended, in the event of the favourable accouchement of the Duchess. That favourable event had occurred, and the amnesty had in due course been extended to persons in prison for crime and riot, but not to the unfortunate Madiais. The question he wished to put to the Government was, whether the communications received from Sir Henry Bulwer were such as to induce a reasonable hope that the Madiais would be speedily released? LORD STANLEY replied that the hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the facts. The Government had received several communications from Sir Henry Bulwer on the subject of the Madiais, and he thought from the general tone of these communications there was a reasonable hope of their speedy release, but he was not in a position to give any certain or positive information on the matter. WAYS AND MEANS-FINANCIAL STATEMENT-ADJOURNED DEBATE (FOURTH NIGHT). Order for Committee read. House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Wilson Patten in the chair. Question again proposed "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, from and after the 5th day of April 1853, the Duties granted and made payable by the Act 14 & 15 Vict. cap. 36, upon Inhabited Dwelling Ilouses in Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, shall cease and determine, and in lieu thereof there shall be granted and made payable upon all such Dwelling Houses the following Duties (that is to say)—” LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he wished He to ask the opinion of the Chairman with respect to a point of order which appeared to him to be of great importance. noticed the other night that there was considerable difficulty in assertaining what was the precise meaning of the question 3 E proposition "Ay or "No." The noble Lord was perfectly right in stating that the practice was for the Chairman to read a Resolution from beginning to end, until he was stopped. Now, that was the course which he (the Chairman) had taken in this case until he was stopped. He then put the question, and the discussion would proceed until he received the directions of the Committee to the contrary, or until some hon. Member proposed an Amendment. MR. HUME said, he wished to state what part he had taken in the matter. When the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) moved his Amendment, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) told him that if he persevered he could not take the opinion of the Committee upon the whole Resolution. He (Mr. Hume), therefore, begged the hon. Member for Lambeth to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the question might be put upon the whole Resolution; and he suggested to him that he might propose the Amendment when a Bill was brought in. When the Amendment was withdrawn, he (Mr. Hume) apprehended that the discussion went on upon the whole Resolution, as if no Amendment had been proposed. read by the Chairman, and, on referring to that question, he found that it was part of a Resolution, and not a distinct and separate portion of that Resolution. It was, in fact, part of a Resolution disjoined from the other part. If he (Lord John Russell) was not mistaken, the reason why the Chairman read that part of the Resolution only was, that early in the proceedings an Amendment was moved when the Chairman arrived at the words "that is to say;' but he (Lord John Russell) conceived that, according to the regular order of proceeding, the Chairman should read the whole of the Resolution, and if no Amendment was proposed upon any part of the Resolution, the whole Resolution would then be put to the Committee, and not a single portion of it. It was true that an Amendment had been proposed upon the Resolution; but he wished to submit to the Chairman whether, as there was now no Amendment before the Committee, it would not be more regular that the Chairman should proceed to read the whole of the Resolution, and to put the question, so that they might have before them-as he thought was the wish of the House-the exact proposition of the Government in the terms which they had themselves selected. The CHAIRMAN said, he had no difficulty in answering the question of the noble Lord, who had stated very correctly the custom of the House. He (the Chair-in his opinion, that they should keep to the man) thought it was advisable that he question before them, "Ay" or "No." should state the exact circumstances The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEunder which the Resolution came before QUER said, he thought there them. The Resolution was put as a whole; something more important than even techbut there stood upon the notice-paper an nical propriety, and that was that they Amendment of the hon. Member for Lam- should conduct their proceedings with the beth (Mr. W. Williams) who proposed that, utmost candour and fairness. He had instead of considering the House Duties, been informed on the highest authority the Committee should proceed to consider that it was necessary they should take the the Duties upon Legacies. It was neces-Resolution paragraph by paragraph. He sary that that Amendment should be taken at the point at which it was proposed, because, if that had not been done, they would have precluded other Members from proposing any amendments. After that Amendment had been discussed for some time, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), he believed, suggested to the hon. Member for Lambeth that he should withdraw it, that the Committee might say "Ay" or "No" upon the main question. That suggestion received the general assent of the Committee, and he (the Chairman) then put the question "Ay" or "No," and from that period to the present moment the matter had been discussed upon the The CHAIRMAN said, he would observe that there were other Amendments on the paper besides that of the hon. Member for for Lambeth. It was therefore necessary, was himself was perfectly willing, and was, indeed, most anxious, that the Committee should come to a single vote, and that as soon as possible, which would be decisive as to the general policy recommended by the Government. Representations had been made to him by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House-and more by hon. Gentlemen opposite than by those on his own side; and when he appealed to them to facilitate the decision of the Committee, assuming that the first paragraph of the Resolution sanctioned the increase of the house tax, and that the second paragraph sanctioned its extension, he certainly undertook that he would not call upon the Committee to decide upon the question which appeared to have been impressed on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the decision of the Chairman to be that, as no Amendments were proposed, when the time came for taking the vote, he would read the whole Resolution as it stood on the paper, and that the vote would be taken on the whole Resolution, and not upon any single or separate paragraph of that Resolution. The impression of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be different; and he ventured to appeal again to the Chairman whether, in the event of no Amendment being moved, he should not consider it his duty, in conformity with the general practice of that House, to put the Resolution as an entire Resolution to the Committee? of the amount of the tax. But, in making that agreement, according to what he conceived to be the feeling of hon. Members, the Committee would understand, that when they came to consider the amount of the tax, he should feel it his duty, not having touched on the subject, to place fully before them the views which had induced the Government to recommend this policy, and to show the effects of the taxation upon the different classes of the community. As it was his object to induce the Committee to come to a decisive vote before the holidays, he felt bound in honour not to press the amount of the tax. He conceived that, with the opportunity which the Committee had of determining whether the tax should be increased or extended, they were fully able to decide upon the policy recommended by the Government. He trusted that the Committee would give its decision as soon as possible upon what was called the Preamble of the Resolution, which involved a most important and vital question, He thought the Committee must be satisfied that there was no desire on the part of the Government to avoid discussion, and his object had been to facilitate a decision, and to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The CHAIRMAN said, the noble Member for the City of London had stated most correctly what was the usual practicethat the Chairman of the Committee should read through the Resolution until he was stopped by an Amendment. He (the Chairman) was stopped by an Amendment, which was subsequently withdrawn, and he then understood that it was the general wish of the Committee to take the decision upon the words before them. [Cries of "No, no!"] That certainly was his impression of the wish expressed by the Committee at the time; but if the Committee chose, they might direct him to pursue a different course. He could not do so, however, without an expression of the opinion of the Committee on the subject. MR. EVELYN DENISON said, he was surprised to hear the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that communications made to him privately from that side of the House, and from the The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEother, should be taken without any public discussion as to the general wish of the QUER said, that the hon. Gentleman the Committee. He thought those communi- Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison) encations and explanations showed that tirely misconceived his wishes, if he supthere had been a departure from what posed that he (the Chancellor of the Exchemust be the intention and general under- quer) was at all desirous either of evading standing of all parties in that House. the discussion of his proposal, or the exThe right hon. Gentleman said some pression of an opinion upon it. Appeals. communications were made to him, giving had been made to him, not merely privately him the impression that it would suit the but publicly, and he had the other night convenience of certain individuals, if the stated to the noble Lord (Lord John Rusvote were taken in a particular manner, sell) that he was anxious to have the deand that he assented, through his friends, cision of the Committee upon the first proto that proposition. Surely that conveyed posal of the Government for increasing the to the Committee, that a departure was tax, and upon their second proposal for exproposed and assented to from the under- tending it; but, with regard to the amount of standing which up to that time generally the rate, in consequence of what had ocNow, the under-curred, he reserved to his friends the right prevailed in the House. of taking such a course as they thought proper. The noble Lord then said that he considered the explanation which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) gave was perfectly satisfactory. If the noble Lord standing of the Committee was surely this that they were going to vote on that which appeared on the paper; and his impression of what had been stated by the Chairman was entirely different to that 3 E 2 not expressed that opinion, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have been in a different position. MR. GLADSTONE said, that when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was understood to express his satisfaction at the answer given to his inquiries by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he (Mr. Gladstone) expressed his dissatisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he was met by the imputation that certain persons were disposed to be captious on the subject. Having been dissatisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, and being desirous that the Committee should come to a clear and unembarrassed decision, he (Mr. Gladstone) was anxious to see how this could be accomplished. He apprehended the usage was that the Chairman, unless he was interrupted, should read through either the whole Resolution submitted to the Committee, or a complete paragraph of the Resolution. Now, in his opinion, what the right hon. Gentleman called a paragraph was no paragraph at all. The Resolution was printed in a particular manner for the convenience of hon. Members, so as to catch the eye; but his belief was, and the Chairman would correct him if wrong, that if no Amendment was proposed, or if no negative was moved, it was not competent for the Chairman to stop, nor was it competent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make arrangements with any hon. Members until the Chairman came to the end of what might be called the first paragraph of the Resolution, which set forth the complete proposition that there should be charged for every 20s. of annual value of certain dwellinghouses the sum of 1s. There were, as he understood, two ways in which the Chairman might be stopped. The first was by any hon. Member who wished to move an Amendment; the second was by a Member who wished to negative the words read; but it was not, he believed, competent for the Chairman to stop, or for any hon. Member to call upon him to stop at particular words, that they might be affirmed. The Chairman could only be stopped by the proposal of an Amendment, or by a proposition to negative certain words. He (Mr. Gladstone) conceived that the position in which they stood was this: At the time when the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) withdrew his Amendment, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was understood to call for a distinct and simple negative, not upon the en tire Resolution, but upon the words which had been read. In consequence, the question was put upon those words; and he was anxious to know from the hon. Member for Manchester whether it was his wish to take the negative upon those words, or whether he was content to take a negative and had intended to take a negativeupon the whole proposition? If so, he apprehended there was no question virtually before the Committee, and the Chairman must read on in the Resolution until he came to an Amendment, or some one desiring a negative. He did not know whether he had contributed to darken or enlighten the Committee. That was his view, and he ventured to put that question to the hon. Member for Manchester. MR. BRIGHT said, he was afraid he would not be able to throw much light upon this knotty point. He did not hear the Resolution read, and he did not know, to this moment, whether the Chairman read the Preamble, the first paragraph, or the whole Resolution. He had taken the liberty of asking the hon. Member for Lambeth to withdraw his Amendment, that they might discuss the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The proposition he understood to be the policy of Government with regard to the question of the house tax. He (Mr. Bright) had, however, no knowledge whatever as to the precise words, and all he could say was that he had no idea of taking any part beyond suggesting the withdrawal of the Amendment. He did not feel himself competent to offer any opinion as to the mode of proceeding, but he thought they ought to pursue such a course as was in conformity with the forms of that House. SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS said, it ought to be clearly known on what the Committee were about to decide. It was impossible to know what was before the Committee, except it was in the shape of a Resolution. He thought private arrangements ought not to take place in such cases. The question would be simplified if the terms of the Resolution were read to the Committee. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he apprehended the object of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in having raised this question was to facilitate the convenience of the Committee with regard to the particular subject upon which they were going to vote. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had said, that only a portion of one paragraph MR. HINDLEY said, he would move, then, "that the Chairman report progress." He apprehended he should now of the Resolution had been read, instead of the entire Resolution; but he (Sir J. Pakington) wished to point out to the Committee, that though it might be, in point of form, one Resolution, it embraced four distinet propositions. The Preamble stated, in fact, the principle of the Government proposition-namely, that the house tax should hereafter be extended in area and increased in amount. There they had the principle of the Government proposition. Then there were in the Resolution three other distinct propositions. The first was, that the house tax should be extended to houses of a rental of 107. a year; the second, that houses of a certain class should pay 1s. in the pound; and the third, that houses of another class should pay 1s. 6d. in the pound. Now, he submitted that these were propositions upon which a great difference of opinion might fairly be entertained, and he thought, therefore, that the fair course was not to enter into the discussion of these three different proposals at once, but to divide upon the Preamble, which involved the principle of the Government proposition. be in order. MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE said, he wished to say a few words with regard to what had fallen from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Preamble contained the principle of an extension of the area, and an increase of the amount of the house duty. He could find no such words in the Preamble. There were, in fact, no such words in the Preamble. Really, the Government themselves did not know what they were about. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer must put up some one else besides the Secretary of State for the Colonies to explain more satisfactorily the meaning of the Government. Last Monday week the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) asked why the Government took the house duty and the tea duties first, instead of the income and property tax, seeing and believing as he did, and as the public did, that the income tax was the corner-stone of the whole Budget. The answer of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was not very clear, but subsequently it had been explained by the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Works that they took the house and tea duties together, because in the first year the sum derived from doubling the house duty would make up for the deficiency of the tea duties. That showed that the principle of the Government proposition was to double the house duty; but now they were told this evening by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that the amount of the house duty was no part of the question; he should leave the House to deal with that afterwards. That certainly was not leaving the Committee to pronounce an opinion on the measure as a whole. The fact was the whole issue had been changed-at MR. HINDLEY said, for his own part, whose suit he did not know. He did not he was quite willing to pass the Preamble; know who these mysterious individuals were for he held, as a free-trader, that direct he supposed his hon. Friend the Memtaxation was one of the necessary and in- ber for Ashton (Mr. Hindley) was one of evitable consequences of free trade. He them. It suited his convenience to vote was certain that the good of the country for the Preamble, but it did not suit his would be promoted by it. But if the convenience to vote for the double house whole of the Resolution was to be put, he duty. was not going to double the house tax. MR. GOULBURN said, he entirely agreed with the Chairman and other hon. Members who had spoken as to the practice of the House. He thought it was evident that they could not vote upon a principle in Committee of Ways and Means, but only upon the details of the particular measure submitted to them. This Preamble, in fact, would form no vote whatever. The House was in Committee of Ways and Means to grant a supply to Her Majesty, and this Preamble merely stated that there be granted the following duties upon inhabited houses, that is to say." It was clear that "towards raising the supply granted to Her Majesty" that proposition was nugatory. It might involve a general principle; but if it did, a Committee of Ways and Means was not the proper place to raise it. The CHAIRMAN said, the hon. Member was out of order, for there was no such question before the Committee. If the vote had been taken, as he (Mr. Duncombe) originally proposed, on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair, the Committee would not have been in this confusion, in which, after three |