Chapter LIII: {victoria 1842—1843} (1)

Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on the Corn-Laws:
Proposition of Ministers on the subject of the Corn-
Laws..... Financial Measures; Income-Tax Bill, &c.—New
Tariff..... Mr. Villiers’s Motion on the Corn Laws..... The
Great Chartist Petition..... Bill for Restraining the
Employment of Women and Children in Mines and
Collieries..... Bribery at Elections..... Law Reforms.....
Bill for the Protection of the Royal Person..... Copyright
Act..... Poor Law Amendment Bill..... Prorogation of
Parliament..... East India Affairs, &c.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1842}

Parliament reassembled on the 3rd of February. The session was opened under circumstances of unusual splendour, occasioned by the presence of the King of Prussia, who had arrived in England, in order to stand sponsor at the christening of the infant Prince of Wales. Her majesty again addressed lier parliament in a speech of considerable length, and which embraced a variety of interesting and important topics. The chief of these were, the birth of an heir to the throne, the treaty which had been concluded with the other great powers of Europe for the suppression of the slave-trade: the pending negociations with China; the restoration of friendly intercourse with Persia; and a treaty which had been concluded with the Emperors of Austria and Russia, and the Kings of France and Prussia, having for its object the security of the Turkish empire, and the maintenance of the general tranquillity. In conclusion, her majesty recommended attention to the state of the finances and expenditure of the country; urged the consideration of the corn-laws; stated that measures would be submitted for the amendment of the law of bankruptcy; and expressed regret at the continued distress in the manufacturing districts.

In the house of commons, on the 4th of February, Sir Robert Peel gave notice that he would, on the 9th, move that the liouse resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the laws which affect the importation of corn. The address was agreed to _nem. con_.

DEBATE ON THE CORN-LAWS—PROPOSITION OF MINISTERS ON THE SUBJECT.

On the 9th of February, the day on which Sir Robert Peel had announced he would develop the ministerial plan for the alteration of the corn-laws, extraordinary interest was exhibited both in and out of the house of commons. Every avenue of the house was thronged at an early hour by persons eager to obtain admission; and when the doors were opened every seat in the strangers’ gallery was instantly occupied. A number of the anti-corn-law delegates attempted to station themselves in the lobby; but being prevented by the police they stationed themselves outside the house, where they saluted the members as they passed with the cries of “No sliding-scale!” “Total repeal!” “Fixed duty!” &c. Shortly after five o’clock Sir Robert Peel moved: “That this house resolve itself into a committee, to consider the trade in corn.” He then requested that the clerk of the house should read that portion of her majesty’s speech which related to that subject. This being done, he observed that it was difficult to discuss this subject without making statements or admissions which would be seized upon by his opponents: but that he trusted to the reason, moderation, and judgment of parliament. The right honourable baronet then proceeded to state that he would not excite a hope that his measure would tend immediately to mitigate the existing commercial distress, and to enumerate the causes which had given rise to that distress. He then adverted to the various opinions obtained in the country as to a change of the corn-laws. Some opposed, he said, all change; others demanded immediate and instant repeal; and others required some modification. His own opinion was, that a total repeal of the corn-laws would aggravate the manufacturing distress; the prosperity of the two classes being identical. There were advantages in a fixed duty which did not apply to a variable duty; but the objection to the principle of imposing any duty on corn was equally applicable to both. Nor could, he argued, a fixed duty be permanent: he did not think they could impose any amount of fixed duty sufficient for the protection of agriculture in years of average supply, which they could determinately and fixedly impose in times of distress and scarcity. Sir Robert Peel next entered into a variety of arguments to show that this country, in ordinary years, was able to supply its own population. From the arguments he used he came to the conclusion that it was not advisable for parliament to alter the principle of the existing law; and the alteration which he would therefore propose went on the principle of retaining a duty on corn, varying inversely with the price of corn in the home market. He continued by observing that the maintenance of that principle involved the maintenance of a system of averages; and after expressing doubts whether there had not been much exaggeration as to the frauds and combinations to influence the averages, he thus stated the proposals of government respecting them:—“We shall propose to take the averages in the present mode, from the factor, the miller, or the purchaser. We shall propose that the duty of collecting the returns shall devolve on the excise. The excise is perfectly competent to this duty; it has officers employed in each market-town fully competent for the discharge of this duty by having greater duties to perform, and who will be able at a comparatively small increase of expense to fulfil this employment; and by their intelligence, their business habits, and the responsibility which attaches to them as public officers, they will afford far greater security against fraud than can be obtained by intrusting this duty to private individuals.” After stating that the averages were to be taken in all the principal corn-markets, Sir Robert stated the amount of protection to be given to the produce of this country. Having shown how the duty varied under the existing laws, and that they induced fraud, and having made some remarks on the term “remunerating price,” he thus described his new scale:—“We propose that when corn is at 50s. and under 51s. in price, a duty of 20s. shall be taken; but that in no case shall that duty be exceeded. We propose that when the price is 51s. and under 52s., the duty shall be 19s.; and after this we propose that there shall be what I should term a rest in the scale. That at the next items of price the duty should be uniform. Thus it would be: When the price is 52s. and under 53s. and 54s., 18s.; and when 54s. and under 55s., still 18s. When the price is 55s. and under 56s., we propose that the duty be 17s.; when 56s. and under 57s., that it shall be 16s.; and when 57s. and under 58s., that it shall be 15s.; and when 58s. and under 59s.. that it shall be 14s.; and when 59s. and under 60s., that it shall be 13s.; when 60s. and under 61s., that it shall be 12s.; when 61s. and under 62s., that it shall be lis.; when 62s, and under 63s., that it shall be 10s.; when 63s. and under 64s., that it shall be 9s.; when 64s. and under 65s., that it shall be 8s.; and when 65s. and under 66s., that it shall be 7s. At the three next items of price I propose another rest in the scale similar to the former. I should propose on the next three a duty of 6s., that is to say, when the price is 66s. and under 67s., when it is 67s. and under 68s., and when it is 68s. and under 69s. In each of these cases the duty would be 6s. When the price is 69s. and under 70s., I propose a duty of 5s.; when 70s. and under 71s., a duty of 4s.; when 71s. and under 72s., a duty of 3s.; when 72s. and under 73s. a duty of 2s.; and when 73s. and under 74s., a duty of Is. the quarter. When that price is arrived at, I propose that the duty should altogether cease; the sum of the proposition, then, is this, that when corn in the British market is under the price of 51s. the quarter, a duty of 20s. shall be levied, which duty shall never be exceeded, for I am quite satisfied that it is useless to take any greater amount of duty.” With respect to other grain than wheat, Sir Robert Peel proposed to adopt the proportion of value and duty which he found in the present law. “Colonial wheat and flour,” he continued, “shall be imported at a duty of 5s. whenever the price of British wheat is below 67s.; that when the price of British wheat exceeds 67s. it shall then be admissible at a duty of 6d. I propose to give the same advantage to colonial wheat, respecting the reduction of prices at which it shall be admissible, as is given to other descriptions of wheat. But considering that the sudden drop in the prices from 5s. to 6d., on account of the difference of Is. in the price, is at variance with the principle of the law, which seeks to establish as equable and uniform a reduction of duty as possible, we propose to make this arrangement respecting colonial wheat—that when the price of British wheat is under 55s., the duty upon every quarter of British colonial wheat shall be 5s.; that when at 55s. and under 56s., it shall be 4s.; and when at 56s. and under 57s., it shall be 3s.; and when at 58s. and upwards it shall be Is., thus taking away that sudden fall in the amount of duty, levied upon colonial wheat, which takes place under the existing law; but giving the colonial wheat that advantage in the reduction of the price which is given to other descriptions of wheat.” Sir Robert Peel finally thus recapitulated the reduction which his new scale would effect:—“When corn is 59s. and under 60s., the duty I propose is 13s. When the price of corn is at 50s., the existing duty is 36s. 8d., increasing as the price falls; instead of which I propose, when corn is at 50s., that the duty shall be only 20s., and that the duty shall in no case be exceeded. At 56s., the existing duty is 30s. 8d.; the duty I propose at that price is 16s. At 60a., the existing duty is 26s. 8d., the duty I propose at that price is 12s. At 63s., the existing duty is 23s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 9s. At 64s., the existing duty is 22s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 8s. At 70s., the existing duty is 10s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 5s. Therefore it is impossible to deny, in comparing the duty which I propose with that which exists at present, that it will cause a very considerable decrease of the protection which the present duty affords to the home grower, a decrease, however, which, in my opinion, can be made consistently with justice to all the interests concerned.” In conclusion, Sir Robert Peel disclaimed the idea of legislating in favour of particular interests, and expressed his conviction that the present was a favourable time for the settlement of the question. After a few words from Lord John Russell, and a brief reply from Sir Robert Peel, the house adjourned. On the following day Lord John Russell gave notice that he should, on the ensuing Monday, move a resolution condemnatory of a sliding-scale. The resolution was couched in these terms:—“That this house, considering the evils which have been caused by the present corn-laws, and especially by the fluctuations of the graduated or sliding-scale, is not prepared to adopt the measure of her majesty’s government, which is founded on the same principle, and is likely to be attended by the same results.” Mr. Villiers next announced that, on going into committee, he should take the sense of the house on the policy of imposing any duty whatever on foreign corn or food imported into this country. A third notice was given by Mr. Christopher that he should move in committee a scale of wheat duties, instead of Sir Robert Peel’s, imposing a maximum duty of 25s. when the price is 50s., and a minimum duty of Is. when the price is 73s., the duty falling by Is., as the price rises by Is.; except that at the rise of price from 59s. to 60s., the duty falls by 2s. The debate commenced on the 14th, when Sir Robert Peel moved that the speaker do leave the chair, in order to a committee of the whole house on the corn-laws. Lord John Russell then brought forward his amendment, and stated his objections to the sliding-seale. He remarked:—“The first objection I have to a sliding-scale, is, that a high, I would say a prohibitory duty, always forms part of it. I could understand a scale not exceeding 10s. or 12s., and going down to 4s., to 3s., or to Is.; but I find that whenever gentlemen speak of a sliding-scale, it is of such a nature as to contain a prohibitory duty. The first duty, when the price is at 50s., and under 51s., is 20s.; and I shall now proceed to show that that is a prohibitory duty. I have looked over the papers containing the latest information. From the information obtained by Mr. Meek, who was sent to the north of Europe expressly to collect information on the subject, it appears that the original price of Dantzie wheat, when brought from the interior of the country, is 35s.; that the charges, which seem to satisfy that gentleman’s mind amount in all to 10s. 6d.; thus making the price at which it could be sold in England in ordinary years 45s. 6d. If you add to that the proposed duty of 20s., you make the entire price of Dantzie wheat, 65s. 6d., when the price at home, is 50s.; showing of course that 20s. amounts to a prohibitory duty. In the same way at Odessa, as stated in the consul’s returns, the price would be 26s.; adding to which 10s. for freight, and some further charges, which cannot be taken or less than 5s., as on the former occasions, and adding then the proposed duty of 20s., you would have the price up to 61s., without counting the profit of the merchant who had to deal with this corn; and therefore, though you may say that you have reduced the duty to 20s., to 19s., and to 18s., yet in all three instances it can be shown that the duty is prohibitory; and that when the price is at 55s. or 56s., the price at which the right honourable gentleman said it would please him to see it, nobody can tell why, there would then be a prohibitory duty upon foreign corn.” Lord John Russell concluded by moving his amendment. The amendment was opposed by Mr. E. Gladstone, who thought that some of Lord John Russell’s opinions ought to have led him to support the government. The debate which followed lasted three nights, and the principal speakers were, on the ministerial side, Lord Sandon, Sir J. Graham and E. Knatchbull, and Messrs. Childers, Ormsby Gore, and B. Ferrand; and in favour of the amendment, Lord Worsley, and Messrs. C Wood, Labouchere, Ward, E. Buller, and Roebuck. The greater part of the speeches delivered consisted of recapitulations and reproductions of the reasonings and statements used by the leaders of either party. On a division the amendment was rejected by a majority of three hundred and forty-nine against two hundred and twenty-six. The house having thus pronounced in favour of the principle of a sliding-scale of corn-duties, it might have seemed illogical and superfluous afterwards to discuss a proposition of which the affirmative had been involved in the preceding decision; namely, whether corn should be subjected to any duties at all. Nothing daunted, however, Mr. Villiers brought forward his intended motion to that effect; a motion which, after five nights’ debate, was rejected by a majority of three hundred and ninety-three against three hundred and three. Subsequently Mr. Christopher brought forward his scale of duties as a substitute for those of Sir Robert Peel; but the original proposition was carried by an equally overwhelming majority. In committee various amendments were proposed, but they were all rejected or withdrawn, and the bill was, on the 5th of April, read a third time, and passed.

The second reading of the corn-law bill was moved in the house of lords, on the 18th of April, by the Earl of Ripon. Lord Brougham rose and moved the total and absolute repeal of the duty on foreign corn; but his amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority. On the following day, on the motion to go into committee, Viscount Melbourne moved, “That it is the opinion of this house that a fixed duty upon the importation of foreign corn and flour would be more advantageous to trade and more conducive to the general welfare of all classes of the people than a graduated duty, varying with the average of prices in the markets of this country.” This proposition gave rise to a lengthy discussion; but it was rejected by a majority of one hundred and seventeen against forty-nine. Subsequently Lord Brougham moved these resolutions:—“That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of protecting the agriculturist, by taxing the introduction of food. That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of regulating trade, by taxing the introduction of food. That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of raising the revenue, by taxing the introduction of food.” These resolutions were rejected, as were others moved by Earl Stanhope, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Mountcashel, and the bill passed in its original state.

FINANCIAL MEASURES—INCOME-TAX BILL, ETC.

On the accession of Sir Robert Peel to office he was embarrassed with great financial difficulties. For the ensuing year he had to deal with a deficiency of £2,570,000; with contingencies in China and India of uncertain amount. The present juncture, indeed, demanded a remedial measure of a bold and comprehensive character, and Sir Robert did not fail to bring forward such a measure. On the 11th of March, in a committee of ways and means, the right honourable baronet said, that for the year ending April, 1843, the estimated revenue would be £43,350,000, and the estimated expenditure £50,819,000, leaving a deficiency of £2,469,000. With the contingencies in India and China, indeed, he calculated that the deficit, in the two years ending May next, would not be less than £4,700,000. How, he asked, were these deficiencies to be met? Should the system of loans and exchequer-bills be continued? Was there the prospect of any considerable reduction in expenditure? Was the present deficiency a casual one? Should he impose a tax on articles of consumption and the necessaries of life? Should he revive old taxes? Should he go back to the post-office? or revive the taxes upon salt, leather, or wool? Finally, should he resort to locomotion for the purposes of taxation? All these expedients Sir Robert repudiated; and he fixed upon one which, while it justly gave offence to a large body of the people, has proved to fully answer the end for which it was designed. This was an imposition of an income-tax of sevenpence in the pound upon all incomes from £150 and upwards, and in which was included not only landed but funded property, whether in the hands of British subjects or of foreigners. He estimated the assessable yearly value of the land at £39,400,000; of houses, at £25,000,000; and of tithes, shares in railways and mines, and other similar property, at £8,400,000: total, £72,800,000. From this he would deduct one-fourth for the exemption which he proposed to give to all incomes under £150, and then the tax thus far would give him £160,000. The occupiers of land, assessed at half their rent, would yield £120,000. Next came funded property. The dividend paid in 1841 was £29,400,000, from which he would deduct £1,000,000 in respect of savings’ banks; but he added upon bank, foreign, and other stocks £1,500,000, making a total of almost £30,000,000, from which, deducting one-fourth for incomes under £150 a year, he would derive £646,000. Sir Robert Peel next proceeded to incomes of trades and professions, from which he expected to obtain £1,253,000; and he then stated that from the incomes of public officers he calculated upon £150,000. The total would be £3,771,000. With respect to the duration of this impost, he said, that government might probably require it for five years; but he would in the first instance propose its continuance for three years. In case of war he should deem it reasonable that Ireland should bear her proportion of this tax; but during peace, and for a limited period, he should prefer to raise the quota of that country by other means. He proposed, therefore, a duty of one shilling per gallon upon spirits; the equalization of the stamp-duty with that of England; and a tax of four shillings upon coal exported in British vessels from this country. The aggregate revenue from these sources and the income-tax in England would be about £4,380,000; constituting a considerable surplus, after covering the deficiency on the votes of annual expenditure. This surplus Sir Robert Peel proposed to apply in relaxing the commercial tariff. The duties on raw materials were in no case to exceed five per cent.; the duties upon articles partially manufactured were to be diminished, the highest being twelve per cent.; and upon complete manufactures no duty was to be imposed higher than twenty per cent. He laid upon the table this amended scale of duties, which had been distributed under twenty different heads; in which, he said, would be found an abatement in about seven hundred and fifty articles, and that on about four hundred and fifty the duty had been left untouched. The total diminution of revenues occasioned by the reductions was estimated by the right honourable baronet at about £270,000. He regretted to say that upon sugar, ministers could not offer any reduction; but with respect to coffee he proposed a reduction of fourpence upon British, and eightpence upon foreign, which he calculated would cause a loss of £171,000 to the revenue. On the subject of timber, he said that his measure would be the reverse of that which was brought forward by his predecessors in office; he would advise a great reduction of duty, which would benefit all classes, from the agriculturist to the shipbuilder. His propositions were to lower the duty on foreign timber to twenty-five shillings a load, and to let in the timber of Canada at a duty of one shilling a load; causing a probable loss to the revenue of £600,000. There were yet two other reductions he had to propose: one upon the export of certain British manufactures, and another upon stage-coach duties. These two heads of reduction would produce a loss of £70,000. On the whole these reductions, in addition to the excess of expenditure, would increase the deficit to about £3,700,000; but the estimated produce of the income-tax would not only cover this, but leave more than £500,000 applicable to the contingencies of war in India and China. Sir Robert Peel concluded with an earnest appeal to the house to support the name which the English had inherited from their forefathers, untarnished: and he then moved his first resolution, which was to grant a duty on Irish spirits. No discussion followed Sir Robert Peel’s speech: the motion was agreed to, and the house resumed.

A few nights subsequently, Sir Robert Peel entered into an explanation of the details of the measures he had announced; especially with respect to the machinery by which the income-tax was to be collected. On the motion to go into a committee of ways and means, Mr. T. Baring found fault with Sir Robert Peel’s calculations; and he was followed by Lord Howick, who strongly censured the income-tax, and Lord John Russell, who condemned the construction of tire tariff for not working out its own principle, but sparing certain articles, as sugar, merely from fear of the influential interests connected with them. After three several motions by Messrs. Cobden, H. Berkeley, and Bernai, “That the chairman do report progress,” which were all negatived by large majorities, Sir Robert Peel was compelled to defer the measure till the 4th of April. The income-tax was resumed immediately after the Easter recess. The first resolution, to impose a tax of sevenpence on every pound upon all incomes, except the incomes of occupiers of land, was put and carried without discussion. On the second resolution, however, imposing a tax on the occupation of laud, calculated at the rate of threepence-halfpenny in the pound on the yearly value being read, Lord John Russell pointed out the operation’ the tax might have in inducing landlords to split their farms, so as to make the rental of each below the amount liable to taxation; and gave notice that, on the report of the resolutions, he should move this amendment:—“That it has been stated to this house, on official authority, that the deficiency of income to meet the expenditure of the country, may be estimated for the years ending the 5th day of April, 1842, at £2,350,000, and on the 5th day of April, 1843, at £2,569,000. That this house is fully sensible of the evil of a continued inadequacy of the public income to meet the expenditure, and will take measures for averting the same in future years. That, by a judicious alteration of the duties on corn, by a reduction of the prohibitory duty on foreign sugar, and an adjustment of the duties on timber and coffee, the advantage of a moderate price to the community may be combined with an increased revenue to the state. That, in addition to those main articles of general consumption, the interests of trade will be promoted by the repeal or reduction of various prohibitory and differential duties, and that extended commerce will improve the revenue, whilst it gives employment to industry. That the amount of taxes taken off, or reduced, from the termination of the last war to the end of the year 1836, exclusive of the tax on income, may be stated in round numbers at £23,873,000. That the income-tax, having been first imposed in a period of extreme emergency and during a most perilous war, was repealed on the re-establishment of peace; and having been again imposed on the renewal of war, was again repealed in 1816, on the termination of hostilities. That considering the various means of supplying the deficiency without enhancing the price of the necessaries of life, or embarrassing trade, it is the opinion of this house that the renewal of a tax, inquisitorial in its character, unequal in its pressure, and which has hitherto been considered as the financial reserve of the nation in time of war, is not called for by public necessity, and is therefore not advisable.” The second resolution was then put and agreed to; as was also the third, equalizing certain stamp-duties in Ireland with those of England; and the report was ordered to be brought up. Lord John Russell’s amendment came on for discussion on the 8th of April, when his lordship, in a speech of great length, charged the government with taking too gloomy a view of affairs, comparing the present aspect of the finances with that when an income-tax was formerly proposed. If new taxes must be resorted to, his lordship recommended a tax on the succession to real property, or the revival of some of the repealed assessed taxes. Mr. Goulburn defended the ministerial policy; and Sir Robert Peel vindicated himself from the charge of over-rating difficulties, and contrasted the state of finances which the Melbourne government found on entering office in 1835, with that which they left on their departure, in the British and Indian empire. The debate on Lord John Russell’s amendment lasted four nights, most of the principal speakers on both sides taking part in it. On the fourth night the house divided; when it was lost by a majority of three hundred and eight against two hundred and two. The report was then brought up and read, and leave given to bring in a bill founded on Sir Robert Peel’s resolutions. On the motion for the first reading of the bill, on the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that it be read a first time that day six months. A debate of considerable length ensued, in which arguments urged for or against the measure were repeated; after which the amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred and eighty-five to one hundred and eighty-eight. The bill was then read a second time, and a few days afterwards the house went into committee. In committee the first question discussed was the period when the tax should commence; and the time finally decided was the 5th of April, 1842. The original proposition respecting schedule A was then affirmed, as was also schedule B. On schedule C Mr. Ricardo moved an amendment to exempt terminable annuities, and to subject them to special scales according to their market value; but, on a division, the motion was rejected by a large majority. In considering schedule D, which rendered incomes derived from professions, trades, and employments liable to the tax of sevenpence in the pound, Mr. Roebuck moved that it be fixed at half that sum. This motion was warmly supported by several speakers; but it was rejected, as was also another amendment to defeat this clause, moved by Mr. Sharman Crawford. Sir Charles Napier made a proposition on schedule E, to exempt officers in the army and navy from taxation; but this was also rejected: and after this the progress of the bill went on rapidly, more than eighty clauses being disposed of in one night’s debate. A second sufficed to get through the bill; amendments moved by Messrs. Baring, Hume, and Benjamin Wood, being all rejected by large majorities. On the third reading, Mr. Sharman Crawford moved an amendment, to the effect that the present house of commons could not be considered a fair representation of the people; and that therefore it was unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by parliament until all just causes of complaint, with regard to the mode of electing members, should be redressed. Lord John Russell himself opposed this motion, and it was at once rejected; and after some further discussion on the bill, it was read a third time by a majority of one hundred and ninety-nine against sixty-nine. The bill then passed.

NEW TARIFF.

The question of the income-tax being thus settled, government proceeded to carry into effect the other great branch in their financial scheme—the alterations in the tariff or customs duties. A complete copy of the tariff was placed in the hands of each member of parliament previously to the 5th of May, on which day it was announced that it would be moved to go into committee on this important subject. On that day the proceedings in the house of commons, were commenced by an elaborate preliminary statement on the part of the prime-minister, in which he showed that the general object of the present government was to simplify the existing law. Sir Robert Peel then went over in detail some of the chief alterations proposed in duties on what is called raw material. Among the articles under this denomination were clover-seed, woods, ores, oils, extracts, and timbers, on all of which he proposed to reduce the duties. On articles of foreign manufacture, Sir Robert continued to explain that he proposed to levy an amount of duty, generally speaking, not to exceed twenty per cent. He next proceeded to combat the argument of his opponents, that he had begun at the wrong end, that he should have reduced the duties on articles of provision, and have dealt more largely with the corn-laws. Taking the whole tariff, he contended that it would be seen that the cost of sustenance was greatly reduced. At that moment, he said, under the old law the duty on foreign wheat would have been 27s. a quarter; under the new law it was 13s. Then again, beef, fresh or slightly salted, was absolutely prohibited; but he proposed to admit it at 8s. a hundred-weight. He further proposed to lower the duties on lard, hams, salmon, herrings, hops, &c. Sir Robert then explained that in the amended tariff, on the representation of straw-plait makers, the duty had been increased from 5s. to 7s 6d. in the pound; at the same time he showed that it would be no protection to them, inasmuch as the article was of such a nature that it could be easily smuggled into this country without detection. He then endeavoured to convince those who feared the reduction of duties on live cattle, that their alarm was groundless, arguing that the English grower had substantial security in the quality of the article, and that England from this circumstance might become an exporting country. Mr. Labouchere said that he had heard the speech of the right honourable baronet with great pleasure. At the same time he asserted that the late government had announced a tariff reform; and that it was only the want of success which attended its plans with respect to corn, timber, and sugar, which had prevented it from submitting to the house measures of a similar character to those now brought forward. After a protracted discussion, the house divided on the question, that the speaker do now leave the chair, which was carried by a majority of two hundred and nineteen against one hundred and fifty-two. On the 13th of May, on the motion of going into committee on the customs’ duties bill, Lord Howick proposed this resolution:—“That in making a new arrangement of the customs’ duties, it is not expedient to impose different rates of duty upon the same articles when imported from foreign countries or from British possessions, in any case where no such difference now exists; and that in those cases in which such a difference already exists, it is not expedient that it should be increased.” He argued that such differences would injure the revenue without benefiting the consumer; while they would force colonial traders into precarious existence. This view of the case was ably combated by Mr. Gladstone; and on a division the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and eighty-one against one hundred and eight. The house considered the tariff in detail after the Whitsuntide recess; when the duties on cattle and provisions excited keen discussion, the agricultural members being alarmed at the prospect of foreign competition, which they anticipated from the reduced duties. On the house going into committee on the 23rd of May, the motion being made, “That in lieu of the present rates of duty now payable on the articles enumerated in the annexed schedules, there shall be raised, levied, and paid upon the importation of the said articles into the United Kingdom, the rates of duty proposed in the annexed schedules;” Mr. Miles moved, by way of amendment, the following words:—“All live stock imported from foreign countries being charged by weight.” In support of his amendment Mr. Miles went into a variety of calculations to show the injury that would result to the farmer from the proposed arrangement of duties, contending that the United States, Denmark, Holland. Prussia, and the various states of Germany, would fatten cattle for the English market, and thus render it impossible for the farmers at home to compete with the foreign breeder. He was supported by the Earl of March, and Messrs. H. Palmer and G. Heathcote, and opposed by Lords Alford and Norreys, Colonel Wyndham, and Messrs. Gaily Knight and Gladstone. The latter said that a material omission in Mr. Miles’s argument, was the want of proof that a large quantity of cattle could be imported so as to injure the English farmer. Lord John Russell, in continuation, said that he rejoiced to hear the principles laid down by Sir Robert Peel; but he argued that they should have been extended to the corn-laws. Other members spoke on both sides of the question; and after a reply from Mr. Miles, the amendment was rejected by a majority of three hundred and eighty against two hundred and sixty-seven. When the committee resumed on the following day, Mr. Miles moved an amendment, imposing a duty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. on live cattle, and 9s. 4d. per cwt. on the dead meat. This amendment, however, was withdrawn; and one moved by Mr. Villiers, that the duty of one shilling per head on oxen and bulls be substituted for the government proposition, was rejected. The items in the tariff were then taken _seriatim_. Discussions took place, and amendments were proposed on the duties affecting swine and hogs, foreign fish, apples, butter, potatoes, timber, cotton manufactures, foreign silk, &c.; but in each case the duties affixed by government were affirmed by large majorities. The third reading of the customs’ act was at length moved on the 28th of June, on which occasion Mr. John Jervis moved a clause to grant a drawback on coals proved to be exported for the consumption of British steam-vessels. This motion was rejected; and on the question that the bill do pass, Lord John Russell made some few remarks on its general provisions, and Sir Robert Peel acknowledged the support which he had generally received from both sides of the house. The question being then put from the chair, the bill was read a third time, and passed in the midst of loud cheers.

The customs’ act was read a first time in the house of lords two days after it had passed the commons, and the Earl of Ripon moved the second reading on the 5th of July. Two days afterwards the house went into committee on the bill, and every amendment proposed by opposition lords was negatived without division, and the bill passed through committee, and was reported.

The subject of the duties on sugar was brought forward in a committee of ways and means, on the 3rd of June, by the chancellor of the exchequer, who explained the reasons why government could not consent to the admission of foreign sugar at a lower rate of duty, and moved a resolution that the present duties should be continued one year; which proposition, after a lengthened discussion, was confirmed.

MR. VILLIERS’S MOTION ON THE CORN-LAWS.

On the 11th of July, it having been moved to go into committee of supply, the opposition party brought forward the subject of the state of the nation. Mr. Villiers having moved as an amendment for the appointment of a select committee on the laws regulating the importation of corn, with a view to their total repeal, prefaced his motion with a speech, in which he said that he brought the subject forward in compliance with the request of the anti-corn-law delegates; and because, in the late discussion on the state of the nation, a taunt had been thrown out on the ministerial side, that, if the opposition thought that a repeal of the corn daws would remedy the evil, they ought to submit that proposition to the house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fielden, and supported by Mr. Aglionby, who declared the new sliding-scale was a delusion. Sir Charles Napier and Mr. Gaily Knight conceived that these debates ought not to be protracted: it was an unfair way of conducting any opposition to a government. Sir Robert Peel bitterly complained of the continual interruption to public business, and of the impediments opposed to a fair trial of the new corn-law. Lord J. Russell, Viscount Howick, Sir John Hanmer, and Mr. Cobden supported the motion; but, on a division, it was rejected by two hundred and thirty-one against one hundred and seventeen.

While these discussions were taking place in the house of commons, the same class of topics were brought forward in the house of lords by Lord Brougham, who moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the distress of the country. This motion was supported by Lord Kinnaird and the Marquis of Clanricarde; and opposed by the Earl of Ripon, Viscount Melbourne, and Earl Stanhope. On a division it was rejected by a majority of sixty-one against fourteen.

THE GREAT CHARTIST PETITION.

The most striking shape in which the grievances of the working classes presented themselves to the notice of the legislature during this session, was the presentation of a petition, which, for bulk and signatures, was unparalleled in the annals of parliament. The signatures attached to it exceeded 3,000,000; and in conveying it to the house of commons, it required sixteen men to support it. It was, in fact, too large to be admitted into the door of the house of commons; and, in order to effect its enhance, it was divided into sections. It was presented by Mr. T. Duncombe, who, in calling the attention of the house to its contents, thanked them for the kind and respectful manner in which it had been received. The petition, he remarked, had nearly 3,500,000 signatures; and, making allowance for the signatures of youths and females, he was prepared to prove that there were above 1,500,000 of families of the industrious classes subscribers to that petition. The prayer of the petition was for the enactment of the great constitutional changes which form the “six points” in the Chartist creed, to which was added a demand for the abolition of all kinds of monopolies. Mr. Duncombe concluded by moving, “that the petitioners of the national petition be heard at the bar of this house, by themselves, their counsel, or agents, in support of the allegations of then-petitions.” The motion was seconded by Mr. Leader. The spirit of this petition was bitter, and its language offensive. It was pervaded by a desire for class legislation, and propounded doctrines subversive of the rights of property, and of the national faith and credit. On a division, the motion was negatived by two hundred and eighty-seven against forty-nine.

BILL FOR RESTRAINING THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN MINES AND COLLIERIES.

In a previous session, after having been the means of carrying a humane law to prevent the cruelties inflicted on children employed in factories, Lord Ashley procured the appointment of commissioners for inquiry into the employment of children. These commissioners examined into the state of young persons in mines and collieries; and the course of their inquiries brought to light more than the sufferings of children alone; for they found the cases of the women in many places equally pitiable. This subject was brought forward by Lord Ashley in the house of commons on the 7th of June, when his lordship moved for leave to bring in a bill for restraining the employment of women and children in mines and collieries. The speech of Lord Ashley disclosed a state of things in the mining districts the most appalling. Cruel oppressions were perpetrated by the mine owners and overseers, especially upon women and children; and frequently parents showed an utter callousness to the sufferings of their offspring. The work assigned to girls and young women was destructive of health, and was conducted under circumstances so indecent that it was difficult for the noble speaker to state the details to the house. The commons received the intelligence with amazement and indignation; they had no conception that such outrages upon female decency, and upon humanity, existed in England. Lord Ashley proceeded to state the means, which he should call upon the legislature to adopt for an immediate removal of the most hideous and appalling features of the system he had described. The means explained by his lordship were fourfold: the total exclusion of female labour from all mines and collieries in the country; the exclusion of all boys under thirteen years of age; the prevention of the employment of males under twenty-one years of age as engineers; and the abolition of apprenticeship. Lord Ashley concluded his able and humane speech in this appropriate and emphatic language of scripture:—“Let us break off our sins by righteousness, and our iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.” A hearty concurrence was manifested on all sides of the house in the proposition; and the bill having been brought in, was passed rapidly through all its stages, and finally read a third time amidst loud cheers. Before the measure came into the upper house, it was announced by Lord Wharncliffe that ministers would be passive respecting it, each individual member taking what part they deemed prudent. The second reading was moved by the Earl of Devon, who, after vindicating the measure, contended that without any evidence the house would be justified in preventing the employment of women in the places described. Subsequently, the earl explained the alterations which it had been thought advisable to make in the bill; namely, the postponement of the time at which the employment of females should cease until the 1st of March next; the abandonment of a clause for regulating the hours during which children should be employed; the restricting the term of apprenticeship in any mine or colliery to eight years instead of entire prohibition; and the enacting that no boy be apprenticed under ten years of age. Several noble lords spoke for and against the measure; but the motion for going into committee was carried by forty-nine against three. In committee several amendments were successively proposed by Lords Beaumont, Littleton, Skelmersdale, Dunmore, and Mount Cashel; but they were all rejected, and the several clauses were agreed to, with some verbal amendments, and the bill reported. The third reading was opposed by Lord Londonderry, but without success; and the bill passed. The amendments were subsequently agreed to in the commons.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

On the 6th of May, Mr. Roebuck, having given notice previously of his intention, moved for a committee of inquiry into the election of the members for Reading, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn, and Harwich. In making this motion Mr. Roebuck entered into particulars concerning these elections, in all of which he contended bribery had been practised. He wished to inquire into these transactions in order to expose them to the people of this country. He had not, he said, confined his accusations to one side of the house or the other. He had made no party question of it: he stood up for the purity of the house; and, God willing, it should be made pure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzroy, member for Lewes, who warmly challenged inquiry into his conduct. Captain Plumridge, also, member for Penryn, declared that he had never given one penny towards the expenses of his election. On the other hand, Mr. Elphinstone, another of the accused members, declared frankly that, in his election, both parties had been guilty of bribery, and that if the inquiry had proceeded, none of the four candidates for his seat would now have been members of parliament. After a lengthened discussion a committee was appointed, and at the latter part of July the report of this committee was presented to the house, shortly after which Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his intention to move the following resolutions:—“That the compromises of election petitions, as brought to the knowledge of this house by the Report of the Select Committee on Election Proceedings, must, if for the future they be allowed to pass without punishment or censure, tend to bring this house into contempt with the people, and thereby seriously to diminish its power and authority. That all such practices are hereby declared to be a violation of the liberties of the people, and a breach of the privileges of this house; which it will in all future cases inquire into, and severely punish. That whereas in the late elections for Harwich, Nottingham. Lewes, Reading, Falmouth, and Penryn, and Bridport, the present laws have been found insufficient to protect the voters from the mischievous temptations of bribery, it be ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue no writ for any election of members for the said towns, till further legislative enactments have been adopted to protect the purity of elections.” In moving these resolutions Mr. Roebuck said that they mentioned no names, but simply provided for future mischiefs. He had proved all his assertions, and much more: and would the reflecting and honest people of England believe, that in buying up poor voters, in debauching, poor constituencies, and afterwards shielding themselves by a contemptible quibble, and buying off the consequences, the conduct of members was either honourable to themselves, or beneficial to their constituents? He believed the people would say the chief criminal was the briber; the rich man who went down with money in his pocket to a large constituency.—some of them oppressed by poverty—and offered them bribes to sell their consciences. A lengthened and stormy debate took place; but the resolutions were all negatived. But, notwithstanding the house of commons refused to affirm these resolutions, the investigation that had taken place had some practical result. One of the terms on which the petition against the return of one of the members for Reading was compromised, was the acceptance of the Chiltern hundreds within a limited time. When that time arrived, however, for carrying this stipulation into effect, an unexpected difficulty occurred. The chancellor of the exchequer now made aware, by the publication of the report, for what the application was preferred, declined to grant it; and the individual who had bound himself to resign his seat, found it beyond his power to do so. The course of proceeding adopted by the chancellor of the exchequer became the subject of discussion in the house of commons on the 6th of August, when Lord Palmerston moved for “copies of any correspondence which had taken place since the 1st day of July last, between the chancellor of the exchequer and any member of this house, upon the subject of the stewardship of the Chiltern hundreds;” the result of which motion was that the copies were ordered. Subsequently, the writs for filling up vacancies created by the unseating or collusive resignation of members at Ipswich, Southampton, Nottingham, and Newcastle-under-Lyne were all ordered to be issued. The disclosures before the committee concerning Sudbury, induced Mr. Redington, the chairman, to bring in a bill for the disfranchisement of that borough; but though this bill was supported by government, and passed through the commons, owing to the late period at which it was sent up to the lords, it only reached a second reading in that house. The writ, however, was suspended _sine die_. In connection with this subject, it may be mentioned that Lord John Russell brought in a bill for the prevention of bribery, and remedying some of the abuses to which election proceedings were liable; which bill, with some modifications in committee, passed both houses, and received the royal assent.

LAW REFORMS.