learned Gentleman had not taken the trou- | before the period had expired, it was clear ble to read the judgment of the Court of they put the voter in a position of great Common Pleas. [The ATTORNEY GENE- disadvantage. All he asked was, either RAL: Hear, hear!] Nothing was more that the practice of the Treasury should clear than that the hon. and learned Gen- be altered, or that by some legislation they tleman was entirely unconscious of the should assimilate the law to it. question at issue. The fact was, that the extension of the time from three to six months had had the effect of misleading the public altogether. Payment of taxes was made half-yearly by order of the Treasury, as being more convenient, and the circumstance was overlooked in putting in the date of the 5th of January. It had since been found out that although by the legal direction of the Treasury no demand was made for taxes due on the 5th of January, yet if the voter did not go and search for the tax collector, and pay the amount before it was demanded, he lost his vote. The consequence was, that the Bill of 1848 secured no extension whatever, and the limit still remained at three months. This was delusive to the voter, and had been declared delusive by the Court of Common Pleas. Would the House then stultify itself, and refuse to correct an error which might lead to the disfranchisement of thousands of electors? The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had given himself unnecessary trouble the other night, in asking whether it was the intention of the present Government to extend the franchise, as he might be quite sure, from what now occurred, that the desire of Her Majesty's Ministers was not to extend but to restrict it. SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURN said, it did appear to him, that by the present plan of collecting taxes a delusion was practised on the voters, and that something ought to be done, either by the House or the Treasury, to put matters on a more satisfactory basis. No man paid taxes until he was asked. The law required, in order to give the franchise, that taxes due up to a given period should be paid by the parties claiming the vote, and they were not asked for those taxes till the time was gone by when, by the Act, they ought to have been paid. He did not say it was intentional that the order of the Treasury should have that effect. He did not say hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to disfranchise voters; but if the Parliamentary franchise was to turn upon the payment of taxes, they ought not to have the practice of collecting those taxes in disunion with the law requiring payment within a given period. If they did not ask for the taxes MR. WALPOLE thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely mistaken the question before the House. The ratepaying clauses were inserted in the Reform Bill for two purposes: to obtain distinct evidence of occupation in respect to the property for which the voter claimed the right to vote, and to have the test of his credit, respectability, and independence. Whether they should continue the Reform Act on those principles was a distinct subject for discussion, which ought to be brought before the House on a distinct Motion, and not confounded with the question whether six months was a sufficient time for the payment of those taxes in respect to the qualification for which the voter claimed to vote. [Sir De L. EVANS: We want a bona fide six months.] However he would first refer to the rates and then to the taxes. If any rate was imposed any time before the 5th of January, there was clearly from the 5th of January to the 20th July for payment. The Poor Rate was the principal rate, and they all knew there was hardly an exception to the rule of demanding the poor-rate within a month or two of the time of the rate being imposed; so that in point of fact the voter had the right secured to him of notice from at least the month of March to the 20th of July. The amount could only be a few shillings, and he had those months for the payment of a few shillings. The real question was whether giving six months, or four months at least, after notice, was not a sufficient latitude in point of time. With regard to the assessed taxes, upon which, he presumed, his hon. and learned Friend rested his argument that a delusion was practised, he thought he would find he was totally mistaken. The obligation was to pay all assessed taxes due and payable in respect to the premises for which the voter claimed to vote on the 5th of January preceding, or, in other words, to pay the Assessed Taxes for the house he occupied for the preceding year. The assessed taxes ran from the 5th of April to the 5th of April following in respect to the premises occupied in that preceding year. The first half-year of those assessed taxes became payable long before the month of January, and there was the period from January to July for payment. He should agree with | amended, put, and agreed to;-Second the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it Reading put off for six months. was reasonable to require an alteration if The House adjourned at a quarter behe could show that either rates or taxes fore Two o'clock. were not invariably payable at a period which allowed the voter some three or four months before he was called to pay those taxes. Under all the circumstances he certainly thought there was no justification for any alteration in the time allowed for the payment of taxes as a qualification for the exercise of the franchise. MR. CROWDER thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had fallen into a great mistake as to the payment of assessed taxes. It was to that point that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De L. Evans) referred when he spoke of a body of persons being disfranchised by the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. He begged permission to state the position in which he understood the matter practically to stand with reference to the collection of these taxes. They might or might not be due quarterly. Undoubtedly some lawyers maintained the one proposition on one side, and others the other, but practically that did not affect the question as to the way in which these taxes were collected. It was well known, and he thought it was well known by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), that the collection of assessed taxes was by the half-year, and that two quarters became due in April and October. The two quarters falling due in April included a quarter due in January, and the collection of those two quarters which terminated in April was made in the month of July, and in the month of July the collector might call for the payment of those quarters, which would include the quarter due in January, and not before, and therefore in truth it was a delusion on the part of the payer of these taxes, if, not being called on, without the slightest disposition to avoid payment, he was disfranchised. He thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton (Sir A. Cockburn) had put the matter in its true light, and he fully agreed with him that there ought either to be legislation such as that proposed, or a different mode of collecting these rates, so that practically the parties might have six months for their pay HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, December 9, 1852. MINUTES.] Took the Oaths.-Several Lords. PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Commons Inclosure. 3a Oaths in Chancery, &c.; Bank Notes. The House met; and having gone through the business on the paper, House adjourned till To-morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, December 9, 1852. THE WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION. MR. HUME presented a petition from Mr. Grantley Berkeley, setting forth the violations of the law which had taken place at the last election for West Gloucestershire. The petitioner prayed the House to institute a full inquiry in the matter complained of. He (Mr. Hume) presumed that the House would not refuse to entertain the petition, as it did not contain any allusion whatever to the sitting Members, and could not, therefore, be said to come within the limits of an election petition. MR. GRENVILLE BERKELEY moved that the petition be read by the Clerk at the table. The Clerk having read the petition, MR. SPEAKER said, that the present petition was open to the same objection as the one which had been previously offered and withdrawn-that was, that it was a petition complaining of an undue return, in consequence of bribery and corruption having been employed to influence the return of an hon. Member of that House. That being the case, and the petition not having been presented within the time prescribed for the presentation of election petitions, it could not be received. MR. HUME said, he wished to know if it was to be understood that the door was henceforth to be closed against all inquiry in such cases, when the complaining parties were not in a position to bear the expense of prosecuting an election petition. The object of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) it was generally supposed, was to meet cases of this kind. The petition was worded, as far as possible, so that it should not be regarded as an election petition, nor was there any thing in it, as far as he saw, that could affect the seat of the sitting Member. There could be a Commission issued to inquire into the facts, and place them before the country, exposing the violence and contravention of the law which had taken place. MR. HILDYARD begged to remind the House of a petition presented in the last Parliament of a similar nature, in which precisely the same question was raised. That petition, which had reference to the then recent election for the Falkirk burghs, alleged that treating had been carried on to an alarming extent, and prayed for inquiry; but the then Attorney General (Sir A. Cockburn) held that the allegations of the petitioner were such as, if proved, would amount to those of an election petition; and that as no election petition had been presented within the prescribed time, it was not competent for the House to deal with the question; and according to that view the House decided. Now, with this decision before them, it was impossible, he thought, for the House to entertain the present petition. MR. HUME would ask if he was to understand that complaints of infractions of the election law, were not in future to be inquired into by that House, except when brought before them by means of the costly process of an election Committee? If any mode was pointed out by which an inquiry could be obtained, he was ready to adopt it. MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that the question before them was, whether this petition referred to matters that could be inquired into in the ordinary way before an election Committee, or under the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act? It appeared to him that the complaint was against certain individuals who had spent their money at the election in favour of a particular candidate, and not generally against a constituency. If the petition charged the constituency in general with corruption, then no doubt, under the Act he had referred to, it would have been open for his hon. Friend to move an Address to the Crown to institute an inquiry; but, as far as he understood it, it did not. MR. HUME said, he was only anxious that some investigation should take place, VOL. CXXIII. [THIRD SERIES.] and was willing to be guided by the authority of the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Then my opinion is that the petition should be withdrawn. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT-THE BUDGET. MR. HUME said, he begged to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would detail the course which he intended to pursue with regard to the public business of tomorrow? By the paper which he held in his hand, he saw that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring forward—first, the question of the Inhabited House Duties; second, that of the Tea Duties; third, that of the reduction of the duty upon Malt; and, lastly, the Property and Income Tax. The House must vote separately upon all these propositions, and he wished to know whether one vote was to decide the fate of all. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he desired that the decision of the House should be taken upon the whole He understood of the financial scheme. that to be the wish of the House, and it was certainly the wish of the Government. It was for that reason he had placed all the Resolutions upon the table. It would of decision of the House upon the first Resocourse be necessary formally to take the cision as conclusive of the general policy lution, but he would look upon that dethey had recommended. SIR JOHN SHELLEY begged to give notice that he would move, as an Amend ment of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolutions, that the whole subject should be postponed until after the Christmas recess. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER begged to state that with respect to the Committee which he should move the House to resolve itself into, it had been a question whether it should be a Committee of Ways and Means, or one upon the Bill. He had consulted the highest authority upon that subject, who was of opinion that it might be either. It was his intention, therefore, to propose with respect to the first Resolution, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, and upon the Tea duties he should move that the House go into Committee upon the Bill. MR. FREWEN said, he would now give notice that he should move, as an Amendment upon the Malt Resolution, that the Duty on Hops be repealed altogether. 2 P SIR DE LACY EVANS said, as he observed a difference between the Financial Statement and the Resolutions which were laid upon the table of the House, he should wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned his original intentions? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that in Resolutions of this nature it was not customary to explain the reason of any alterations. But it was not his intention to alter in any important point the general statement which he had the honour of submitting to the House on a previous occasion. Subject dropped. THE AUCKLAND ISLANDS- MR. MILLER said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies whether Mr. Enderby had been recalled from the Auckland Islands; if so, the circumstances under which his recall had taken place; and whether the right hon. Baronet had any objection to place upon the table of the House the Correspondence relating thereto, together with a Copy of any graut, lease, or charter made in relation to the Auckland Islands, either to Mr. Enderby or any other person or persons; also whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint any other Governor in the place of Mr. Enderby, or to take any steps with a view to the colonisation of the said Islands? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, in the first place Mr. Enderby had not been recalled from the Governorship of the Auckland Islands, therefore, he could not state the circumstances under which that recall took place. He would beg to remind the hon. Member of the circumstances under which Mr. Enderby came to the appointment of Lieutenant Governor of these Islands. In 1848 a lease was granted by the Crown to a Company for the purposes of the whale fishery, and Mr. Enderby was sent out by that Company as their Commissioner, and it was in compliance with the Company's request that Mr. Enderby received from the Crown the Commission as Lieutenant Governor that he might preserve order in the Islands. At a subsequent period the Company became dissatisfied, and sent out other Commissioners, who prevailed on Mr. Enderby to send in his resignation. The whole of the circumstances had been brought to the notice of the Governor of New Zealand, and a report was expected from Sir George Grey, under whose jurisdiction the Auckland Islands were, and, pending the Report, Mr. Enderby's resignation had not been accepted. Under these circumstances his answer must be, that the Government had no intention of sending out any Governor in place of Mr. Enderby, or of taking steps to colonise these Islands. THE SUGAR DUTIES. But MR. J. WILSON said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the effects of the Sugar Acts of 1846 and 1848 upon the British Sugar Colonies, and upon the Sugar Trade of the United Kingdom. It might, perhaps, be objected that, after the speech made the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he ought not to persevere with this Motion; but he felt it his duty to draw the attention of the House to this subject, not for the purpose of placing the Government in an unpleasant position, but in order that the anxieties of the Colonists might be put an end to upon this most important subject. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated what he intended to do with regard to the Colonists, and if he had confined himself to that statement, he (Mr. Wilson) should have been satisfied to have let the question rest where it was. the right hon. Gentleman, not merely content with stating what he intended to do, thought proper to impugn the acts of that House, on this question during the last four or five years, as acts of injustice and harshness towards the West Indian Colonies. Now, he thought that if these acts thus stigmatised were capable of vindication, they should be vindicated, and if they were not, that justice should be afforded to the Colonists; and it was because he took the former view of the question, that he determined to persevere with this Motion. The exact position in which the question now stood was this. It might be recollected that about a year ago they had information that the great battle to be fought between the two great parties in that House would be upon the question of the Sugar Duties. And they were aware that a very extensively organised system— he did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was connected with that organisation had been established throughout the whole of the Sugar Colonies, by petitions to Parliament and otherwise, for the purpose of repealing or arresting the descend 1158 When classes of Her Majesty's subjects." [3 Hansard, cxix. 1036.] At the same time the noble Lord at the head of the Government said in the other House on the 10th of June ing scale of the Sugar Duties. Parliament met on the 3rd of February, the result of this agitation manifested itself. On the first night of the Session, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies came down to the House and "Whatever other alleviation might be afforded put a notice upon the books, asking the to the distress of the planters, they could only be House to go into a Committee upon the enabled effectually and permanently to meet the Sugar Duties. A change of Government competition of foreign countries by some measure took place, and the notice was changed which should have the effect, if not of establishing the old differential duties, at least of preventing from the 21st of February to the 27th of the further reduction of those which now subthe same month, and it was ultimately al-sisted between British and slave-grown sugar.” lowed to drop. Soon after the new Ministry was formed, he (Mr. Wilson) put a As a matter of course, all persons interestquestion to the right hon. Gentleman-ed in colonial matters were greatly anxious then become Secretary for the Colonieswhether he intended to persevere with the Motion of which he had given notice? The right hon. Gentleman's reply was this: "Sir, I felt it to be my duty, as a member of the Opposition, to press upon Her Majesty's Ministers what I believed to be the disastrous effects of their own acts. I refer to the Act of 1846, modified by the subsequent Act of 1848, regulating the duties on sugar. Sir, as a member of Her Majesty's present Government, which is in an acknowledged minority in this House, I conceive it to be no less my duty to take whatever course I may think best for the promotion of the object we have in view; and we do not think that it would tend to the relief of West Indian distress to know what the views of the Government if we were, during the present Session, to press therefore highly expedient, the Government having virtually given up this question, which they had so long sustained, that the Government should state to the House, and to the public, and to the colonists, why it was that, upon further reflection, they had changed their views, and given thus, so far, a vindication of the course which the Legislature had lately pursued on this subthe great question of slavery and the slave trade, ject. He would, in the first place, call the have undergone no change whatever. On the attention of the House to the circumstances contrary, I am now receiving, almost daily, the in which the sugar trade stood in 1845, most painful proofs of the distress which has ex- when the law was first altered. It might isted in the British Colonies; but, without being appear a very remarkable fact, but neverat all indifferent to that distress, we have deter-theless it was a fact, and a fact of great mined that those questions, like others of the same nature, ought to be kept for the consideration of a future Parliament, reserving distinctly to ourselves the right hereafter to deal with this question, if we shall be in a position so to do-to deal with this question in such a manner as we shall consider to be required by the justice of the case, and by a due regard to the interests of all significance, that for thirty-five years preceding that time the consumption of sugar in this country might be said to be entirely stationary. In 1810, according to a Parliamentary paper which he held in his hand, the consumption of sugar in the United |