The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-23 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION

time less than twenty-eight successive days, or in any
Other manner than as aforesaid ; and also for and in
respect of every horse let for hire for twenty-eight suc-
cessive days, or for any longer period of time, where such
horse shall be returned in a less period of time than
tewenty-eight days, and shall not be exchanged for another
horse, in continuation of the same hiring—one fourteenth
Part of the sum charged or received, or agreed to be re-
ceived, on every such letting for hire or using. Or, in
lieu of such last mentioned one-fourteenth part of such
sum (at the option of the person letting the horse), the
following duties for every day such horse shall be let for
hire or used, or shall, by virtue of any such letting, have
been under the direction of the person by whom the same
shall be hired, that is to say, for every day not exceeding
three days, ten- pence ; for every day exceeding three days,
and net exceeding thirteen days, seven-pence; and for
every day exceeding thirteen days, and less than
twenty eight days, five-pence." The Honourable Mem-
ber said that he had no very alluring prospect
in bringing forward these resolutions, but he felt it
4,13 imperative duty to urge on the consideration of the
:ruse the claims of those parties whom he represented for
`"e modification of a tax most unequal and unjust. The
Parties who now complained were connected with the old
mode of communication throughout the country, and they
by came forward when they found themselves opposed
rivals, one %title no taxation whatever, and the other
with one near illusory. The first of these rivals was the
communication by water, by means of steam power. This
7as a formidable rival, but it was one of a comparatively
urnited and partial character. But the most important
rival existed in the shape of railways, which were spread-
:lllg themselves over every part of the country. He did
...°t. complain of these facilities, but he complained that
while persons going by steam were carried duty free, the
Proprietors of stage coaches had to pay Bs. 4d
p each individual they might carry.—(Hear,
oear.) As to railways, it was well known, that
the duties on persons conveyed by railway was one-fourth
on the persons actually conveyed. No greater benefit
could be rendered to the community than by making com-
munication easy and cheap. If favour were to be shown
t 0
any parties, it should be manifested towards those who
the
already heavily tared. Then let the House consider
° ertormous amount invested in the turnpike trusts, the
edebts on which amounted to 9,000.0001. advanced on the
security
of the present receipts. When the whole country
was intersected by Railways, would the public receive from
the Proprietors such civility as they now did ? Would not
the uon passengers be increased? and ought riot
titiHouse to s pecure to the country the benefits of compe-
r°ll on fair and equal terms?—(Hear, hear.) The
on etasury allowed compositions with the railway proprietors
statterrus most disadvantageous to the revenue. For in-
-1,20e, with the London and Greenwich for 4001., on
rate °'(4)l3 passengers, which even at the reduced railway
. would produce 1,953/., and at the coach rate would
yield 6,250/ The Arbroath and Forfar Railway Com-
pany had compounded pounded for 31,500 passengers in five months,
the rate of 55,000/. per annum, at the small charge of
Post The present system was equally oppressive to the
horselatee keepers, who indeed were completely annihi-
fete4l on those lines of road in which the railways inter-
from 'Th,. A gentleman posting in a carriage with two horses
b Birmingham would have to pay 11. Bs. duty ; whereas ,
4831P8ulting his carriage on the railway he would only
.pay
ten„,,Q.—(Hear, hear.) The post horse keepers besides
ventecihe have to pay heavy assessed taxes on carriages, of
the hey had to keep a variety for different seasons of
en
,Year, and though they only used one had to pay a duty
lingof five.—( Hear, hear.) The innkeepers too were
raidly ruined by the existing system, while float-
a f hotels were permitted to sell wine and spirits without
aTelecense•—( Hear, hear.) Railways again did not merely
t t parallel lines of road, for parties found it convenient
1? go circuitous routes by railway rather than the direct
would not e
turnpike road; the railway to Brighton, for example,
would not only affect the road to Brighton but the road to
ziorsharn and other places, to which parties might other-
-4! got Were it not for the extraordinary facilities of tra-
velling to the former place.—(Hear, hear.) It ought
these
to be forgetten that in Ireland there were none of
s° unequal impositions. A stronger argument, how-
!Ter, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer would per.
baps be, that these duties were diminishing. The defal-
cation bed been from 514,000/. in 1837 to 494,0001. in
the last year; and on the stage coaches alone the defi-
ciency had been 49,0001. He( Mr. Gillen) thought the
lair mode of assessing the taxation would be by a per
tentage on the gross earnings of all parties. By the
reduction he proposed, a loss to the revenue might
accrue of 44,0001.; but calculating on the probable in-
crease of travelling, he thought it would not be more than
240,0001. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to apply to the present case the same rule which he had
first applied to the postage duty ; that a tax, the
repeal of which might occasion a loss to the
revenue, was yet so galling and unjust that it
should be abolished even with a pledge to supply
the probable dificiency. He would remind the House
that when he last brought forward the subject, at the
commencement of the Session, the Right Hon. Gentleman
told him that he would speedily introduce a Bill, to remedy
what he admitted to be an unjust system of taxation ; yet
he had since intimated that nothing was to be done.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer would confer a great and a just boon on those parties
by agreeing to the proposition. Indeed, he thought the
Ight Hon Gentleman must soon revise the whole system
or
taxation, with a view to relieve the industrious classes,
srsiemnake the wealthy classes bear a proportionate part.—
sep. r, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman then moved the
k%ommittee of the whole House to 'consider an equilization
or reduction of the post-horse duties.
Mr. FINCH seconded the motion.
, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged
leave shortly to state why he must oppose the proposition of
his Hon. Friend. It was true that we could not take a step in
advance without injuring some existing interest. It had been
always so from the invention of printing to that of power
looms. As for the equalization of taxation, he admitted it
to be a subject well entitled to the most attentive conside-
ration of Parliament. His objection, however, to the
present proposition was not on account of its principle,
but on account of the peculiar circumstances under which
it was made. The proposition could not be confined to one
branch—it must, according to the argument of his Hon.
Friend—and he had argued with great strength—
•o to the equalization of taxes—and the. taxing of rail-
roads and steam communication genetally, and to the in-
troduction of the Assessed Taxes into Ireland; and still the
question would be incomplete, for the House would still
nave to reconsider the whole system of taxation, with
a view of relieving the industrious and working classes
from taxes on articles of consumption and substituting
a property tax. But he could assure his Hon.
Friend that he laboured under a great fallacy in
this idea. If he could establish a property tax to-morrow,
it would press heavily on the working classes, instead of
relieving them. Why, in the present state of competition
between us and foreign countries, a difference of 3,4, or
4 per cent, would settle the whole question, whether our
capitalists should employ their means at home or abroad.
'(Hear, hear, and No, no.) The imposition of a pro-
perty tax would have the effect of driving our capitalists to
foreign countries. When we had a property tax before,
Hon, Gentlemen opposite went to live abroad, that they
might enjoy more comforts ; and if we had a property tax
again, why should not the capitalists do so to increase their
profits? The proposition of his Hon. Friend would entail
°Pon the revenue a sacrifice of 440,0001.: and still, if the
Hon. Gentleman could establish a tax on the railroads
from London to Birmingham, and from Birmingham to
Liverpool, be would not succeed in having as many horse
carriages on the old roads as before, for it was not money
alone that entered into the competition between the old sys-
tem of travelling and the new—but it was time. But
having already risked a large portion of the revenue on
the postage question, he could not think of proposing to risk
still more in reducing the post horse duties. He could not
afford to aceree to two sacrifices, they must take one only.
He admitte'd that in the beginning of the Session he had
promised to introduce a Bill on this subject, but then he
had not seen the report of the Postage Committee. He had
told his Honourable Friend on a former occasion that he
could not accede to the motion in the present state of
the revenue, and it was rather too hard for him after that
to bring it forward again. If he agreed to this motion he
would be obliged to give the benefit to canal masters,
where there was no competition of railroads. If Hon.
Members wished to defeat the measure, they had read a
second time that night, they could not do it more effectu-
ally than by supporting this motion. It was his intention
to bring forward a measure on the subject, but he could
not go to the extent asked by the Hon. Member. For
these reasons, therefore, he must resist the present motion.
Sir T. ACL AND was not prepared to support the mo-
tion in its present state, but he felt confident the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer ought to do something on the subject.
He believed the parties who suffered from the effects of
this unequal taxation would not be able to go through the
ensuings winter unless some relief was afforded them. The
small. reduction of one halfpenny per mile, with the per-
benefit to
carry
al, additional passenger, would be a great to
more than
proprietors, and would not decrease the
revenue
ev 90,.000/. The revenue would decrease
in that amount.ontbeint if the present duty was continued,
and therefore
Istweirld be lost by the adoption of
the plan he had sug After the great sacrifice they
had been called upon to make in respect of the Post-office,
be did not think it Was right they should make another
hafa
sacrifice to the extent of tillion of money.
M the
Mr. HANDLEY said observations of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, withregard
which elithe petitioners,
had been made in a spirit of unfairness hehad,
vilihttelne
expected. At the commencement of the Session
this subject had beeri brought forward by Its Hon. Friend
nc
the Member for Falkirk, and himself, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer stated it was his intention in the cou
the present year to introduce a Bill with a view toorermeedy
of
a great many of the inconveniences felt from this ine-
quality of taxation. On the faith of that promise his Hon.
Friend and himself did not press their motion to a division,
and the matter had been allowed to sleep all this time.'
Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the penny
postage prevented his doing what be originally intended ;
but he (Mr. Handley) contended that the subject of the
penny postage had nothing whatever to do with the
matter. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said he still intended to propose a remedy.—( Hoar,
hear.) That remedy he (Mr. Handley) believed
was to allow parties to carry an additional passenger.
But what privilege or benefit would that confer when they
were now driving empty coaches along the roads ?
(Hear,
ra hear.), The time had arrived when the monopoly
_ would exist
ought to be inquired into. He trusted they
wldexis.t and extend, but he trusted there would be a
nearer.,an assimilation of duties upon travelling of all kinds
to at present existed.
Chan-
cellor HODGSON HINDE contended that the of the Exchequer ought to show strong rea-
sons for departing from the course he intended to pursue
at the beginning of the Session. It was the duty of the
Government to afford some relief to postmasters, in order
that they might
petition with which be able to contend against the vast co-
petition hand to contend.
Captain PE tel-IEL L would support the motion of the
Hon. Member for Falkirk. The postmasters were entitled
to some relief under the circumstances in which they were
Placed. He was willing to toeaccept the smallest relief that
the Chancellor of theLLquer was
prlseeed tc, give, as

he thought it was better than none. It showed bad taste,
by the bye, on the part of the public, not to go down to that
delightful watering-place Brighton—( A laugh)—because
the railway was not finished.
Sir C. KNIGHTLEY would vote for the motion be-
cause the duty it affected was most unequal and unjust.
The Government had not scrupled to take off the postage
duty, which pressed on wealthy interests, that had the
power of injuring them.
Mr. VILLIERS said the question being between the
duty on postage and the duty on post-horses—the one af-
fecting the whole community, the other only one branch of
the community—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
wisely determined to select the former.—( Hear, hear.) It
was not often that Chancellors of the Exchequer consulted
the general interests of the nation in matters of taxation.
—( Hear, hear.) Not but that he considered the present
post-horse duty unfair, but there were two modes of re-
lieving the parties—by taking off the ,taxes on letting
horses for hire, and repealing the taxes on the food of
those horses.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Some of
them had, on deliberate calculation, found that they
would be much more relieved by the repeal of the Corn-
laws than by removing the tax on their business.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had, in proposing the penny postage, made a
bold and noble experiment for the general good,
and it was impossible to calculate the advantages which
would result to society at large from that measure.—
( Hear, hear.) One thing, be trusted, would never be
done, viz., taxing the means of internal communication,
than which he thought no measure could be more perni-
cious.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. DARBY considered a strong case had been made
out by the Hon. Member for Falkirk, and that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had dealt very unfairly with the
parties in first making a pledge that he would bring in a
Bill this Session for their relief, and then abandoning it
udder the pretext of the subsequent penny postage plan.
If his Hon. Friend could alter his motion so as to equalize
the duties, he would support him, but in the prospect of a
deficiency of the revenue, he could not do so.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
plained.
Mr. H AWE S believed the duty might be altered
without affecting the revenue, and the parties would be
materially benefited. Whenever any reduction was pro
posed on taxation, it was always said that a substitute
ought to be found. IF this should cause any reduction in
the revenue, why should they not impose a tax on real
property ?—(Hear.) If this were done, the stage-coach
duty might be taken off to-nsorrow, and it would give the
Chancellor of the Exchequer half a million of money
besides.—( Hear, hear.) If Members on the other side
were disposed to act a generous part, let them show their
disposition by a tax on their own property.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir C. KNIGHTLEY thought the proposition now
made rather ungrate ul on the part of the Hon. Member
for Lambeth, for he ( Sir C. Knightley), only two years
ago, proposed to reduce the tax on soap. (Great
laughter.)
Mr. H AWE S—And I gave my assistance.—( Continued
laughter.)
Mr. WAKLEY said the Honourable Member for
Sussex had made a speech in favour of the reduction,
but intended to give his vote against the proposi-
tion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not care
how many speeches were made in favour of the mo-
tion so long as he got.the votes.—( Laughter.) So long as
the Ministers had the money of the people at their
control, they did not care a straw what Hon. Gentlemen
might say. The proper way was to keep the money
out of their hands.—( Laughter.) He believed that the
Government had adopted the postage plan with
a desire to benefit the public, and he was grate-
ful for what they had done, but considering the length
and breadth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
organs of caution—( Great laughter)—he was surprised
that he had gone so far. A proposition had been made
for a property tax. He (Mr. W.) liked the proposition.
But the Chancellor of the Exchequer feared that the
landlords would run away with their wealth to the conti-
nent. He should like to see a man pocket three or four
hundred thousand acres of land—( Loud laughter)—he
would find this rather a difficult thing to get to the con-
tinent with.—( Continued laughter.) A man might leave
a million in landed property to a profligate son without
one farthing of duty, yet if he had had a faithful servant
who had been with him for 30 years and left him 1001. that
man could only receive 901. of it, the other 101. being
taken for duty. Until the people were faithfully repre-
sented in that House, they would never get justice. He
would vote for the reduction of the tax, as he hoped he
would do for the reduction of all taxes. He did not like
to hear any Hon. Members mention the subject of a sub-
stitute—that was the business of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—that was what he was paid for.—( A laugh.)
He trusted that no tax would ever be put upon railroads. No
tax would be more injurious to the interests of the country
than a tax on communication between man and man.
Lord ELIOTT said, the Hon. Member for Lambeth
complained that landed property descended without any
tax, but did not the property of the rich capitalist do the
same ? He would willingly support the motion for the
repeal of the tax upon stage coaches, but that was not the
question before the House—it was whether it was expedi-
ent to equalize the duties upon all travelling. He thought
not, and must vote against the motion.
Mr. R. PALMER was strongly in favour of a reduc-
rion of the post horse duties ; hut he could nut support the
resolutions of the Hon. Member as they stood.
Mr. G. PALMER said it was admitted on all hands
that great injustice was done to the post-masters, and if
that was the case the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought
to propose some measure for relieving them. If post
horses were taken off the roads, people would be obliged
to travel on railways, and thus have to submit to every
species of impost railway companies chose to inflict. He
should vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. E A STH OPE observed that Hon. Members bad
talked a great deal about imposing a tax on railways; but
they were already subjected to very heavy taxes- He
was astonished that Honourable Members in proposing
a tax on railways, did not perceive they were proposing a
tax on themselves and the country—in fact, proposing a
tax on communication.—( Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen
talked about railways being monopolies ; if they were
was it not obvious that every increased tax on them
would be an increased tax on the public. It was idle
to endeavour to set up coaches against railroads; and no
mail coach proprietor who understood his interests wriuld
wish that there should be an unnecessary tax inflicted
on railways.—( Cries of" Divide, divide.")
Col. SIBTHORP had always voted against railways
and against every thing that could by any possibility tend
to benefit railway companies, and he should therefore
support the motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided. The numbers were—
For the motion 4B
Against it lO9
Majority --61

The House then went into Committee of Supply.
10,000/. were voted for some harbour works, and 16,000!
for Government steam-vessels (to Dublin we believe).
Mr. HUME drew the attention of the House
to the vote of 82,0001. for Hampton Court
Palace, and complained that the public were shut
out from many of the finest rooms which had been
granted to persons who did not inhabit them, and yet re-
quired them to be closed. Nineteen thousand persons had
been to the Palace in one month—three thousand in one
day. The National Gallery was also daily crowded. Did
not this show a taste on the part of the public for the Fine
Arts, and ought not such a taste to be encouraged as far
as possible? The Crown should be restricted to a certain
number of palaces—every fresh one was an additional
charge on the public.
Capt. PECHE LL gave the Government the highest
credit for having thrown open the palace to the public.
Mr. E WART said that many hundred pictures might
be exhibited, if the rooms were not occupied by private
individuals, and if this were done it would be productive
of great advantage to the public.
Sir R. INGLIS said the Hon. Member opposite spoke
of the palace as if it were a barrack.
Mr. HUME—It is a barrack.—(Laughter.)
Mr. F. FRENCH rose to order. This was a debate
on a palace, when the vote was a grant for the Holyhead
and Liverpool roads.—(A laugh.)
The vote was then agreed to.
The following votes were also passed ;-
11,2501. for the new buildings at the British Museum.
6,9381. for temporary accommodation of the Houses of
Parliament.
50,3601. for the building of the new Houses of Parlia-
ment.
1,210/. for the alterations of the Penitentiary, Millhank.
4,180/. for the alterations of the Juvenile Prison in the
Isle of Wight.
8,0001. for rebuilding the Glasgow Post Office.
3,0001. for the expences attending the Ecclesiastical
Commission.
Mr. HUME thought the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
had struck work or had joined the Chartists.—(Laughter.)
Was it likely that the Commissioners would meet ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Commissioners sat
under an Act of Parliament, and could not proceed to
business unless five were present.
Mr. T. D UNCOM BE said there was a charge of 5001.
for carrying the Chapel Bill then before the House of
Commons ; that Bill, every one knew, would not pass,
therefore they had better strike that sum out.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection.—( Laughter.)
The vote was then taken for 2,5001.
66,8501. was then proposed for defraying the expenses
of the Poor-law Commission.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the grant until there
had been an inquiry into the conduct and duties of the
Commissioners.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN would take that opportunity of urging
on the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland and the Go-
vernment generally the necessity of bringing the Poor-law
Act into simultaneous operation throughout the country.
There were some counties in Ireland in which no prelimi-
nary measures ever were taken to establish Unions.
Lord MO RPETH said the utmost had been done since
the passing of the Act to forward the intentions of the
Legislature, and already fifty lives had been preserved.
The vote was then agreed to.
8,8501. was agreed to for defraying the expenses of
Inspectors and Superintendents of Factories.
f_ 51
others
g
f 51,1751, for
er ex mp
eunnseersa remunerating
the
ethe
Mint. medal
rayingB,sool. for Corsican emigrants, Dutch officers, and
special claims on the consideration of her
Majesty.
On the vote of 1,2001. for the National Vaccine Insti-
tution,
Mr. WAKLEY said the physicians of this Institution
only pocketed the public mOn-ey, and did nothing for it.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the salaries had been reduced,
and the matter should he inquired further into.
Mr. WARBURTON said the
penny. .
e would do
away with the necessity for the establishment, as the lymph
rilkeedarihhaetartire small-pox had
could
ir bep sentLu Ni byp theiß pEo s
remarked
lately much increased.
Lord J. RUSSELL said last year had been a more
fatal season than usual.
Mr. WAKLEY said there was an unfortunate preju-
dice in the lower orders against vaccination, which, how-

ever, experience had proved quite a preservative against
this serious and destructive disorder, when the virus was
cautiously and generally applied.—( Hear, hear.) And
sorry he was to find that some doctors imprudently inocu-
lated.—( Hear, hear.) He really thought it would be
proper to bring in a Bill on the subject.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. PL UM PTRE hoped the question would be consi-
dered : it was one of great importance.—( Hear, hear.)
The vote was agreed to ; as also
3,0001. for the Refuge for the Destitute.
3,000/. for Criminal Lunatics.
4,0001. for Dissenting Ministers, French Refugee Clergy,
&c. &c. (with a protest from Mr. Hume. )
The House then resumed, when

Mr. WAKLEY rose and said, Mr. Speaker, we have
voted you, Sir, 1,3001. for a temporary residence. I should
like to know if you have a comfortable house ?--(Order,
order.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
there was no question before the House, but on other
grounds the interrogation would be in bad taste.
Mr. WAKLEY said he would put the question on the
report.—( Oh, oh.)
The New South Wales Bill passed through Committee.
The report on the Slave Trade (Portugal) Bill was
brought up and further considered.
The Inland Warehousing Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Judges' Lodging Bill and the Turnpike Tolls Bill
went through Committee.
The unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill, was read a third
time and passed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Half-past One o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 22.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'Clock.
A message from the Commons' brought up the Tim-
ber Ships Bill, the Newark Small Debts Bill, the Ec-
clesiastical Preferments Bill, the Rotheram Small
Debts Bill, the Haverford Small Debts Bill, the War-
wick Small Debts Bill, the Oldham Small Debts Bill,
and a number of other Bills.

RIOTS AT BIRMINGHAM.
The Duke of WELLINGTON seeing the Noble
Viscount in his place, wished to ask him whether, on
Thursday last, when he stated the subject of the Riots
at Birmingham :.Mould be inquired into, he had any in-
formation respecting a letter written to the Under Sc-

cretary of State by_ Mr. Hibbert ?
Lord MELBOURNE said that he was not aware of
it at the time.
The Duke of WELLINGTON felt it to be abso-
lutelynecessary for him to call the attention of their

Lordships again to this subject from what had been

said of him in another place and out of doors, in
consequence of what he had stated in that House. He
had been accused of exaggeration. He believed

exaggeration was a Parliamentary term, and much used
among certain gentlemen ; but he must set himself
right as to the conclusions to be drawn both from
that term, and from what he had stated. He
hoped their Lordships, therefore, would excuse him
in what he was about to say, because he thought
he had been personally attacked in a manner that was
unfair. What he went upon was neither more nor less
than what the Noble Lords opposite stated they went
upon : he said, and they said, they knew nothing but
from what they _ saw in the newspapers ; and he

had stated nothing in respect to - the fact itself

but upon what they saw in the newspapers. He cer-
tainly had compared this transaction to certain
other transactions, which, perhaps, he had more
knowledge of than most other Noble Lords in
that House. He said what he firmly believed,
that the town of Birmingham had been worse
treated on this occasion than any town, he had ever
known or seen taken by storm ; and that was a fact accord-
ing to his opinion of the circumstances. He had stated
how : first, because the houses were plundered ; secondly,
because four houses were set on fire ; and thirdly, because
houses were, what he called, gutted—a term perhaps not
very well understood, but he had explained what he
meant by it—the furniture was carried out of the houses
by the mob, placed in the middle of the street, there
destroyed by fire, and the embers carried into
the houses again, in order to complete the work
of destruction. Those were the facts upon which
he had grounded his comparison, and in his opinion
the comparison was well founded, because really he had
never seen a town taken by storm—and he had seen a
good many—so ill-treated as Birmingham had been.
That was what was called exaggeration. But as he had
gone so far, he would venture to go a little further. It
appeared most extraordinary that in the year 1839, after
nine years of a Liberal Government—after nine years
of the blessings of a Liberal Administration, they should
be then discussing the amount of the destruction of

property in a peaceable town.—(Hear, hear, hear.)

That was the result of all the victories of

glorious, peaceable, and happy England, which had
carried on war for twenty-two years against all the
world, and made such stupendous exertions to avoid the
occurrence of such evils at home. He thought such
evils would never have occurred in happy and peace-
able England after nine years of a liberal rule.
And yet he (the Duke of Wellington) was
accused of exaggeration, because he had said
that he never knew of any town being so ill-used.
He was not at all surprised that the Noble Viscount
should apply the term "exaggeration" to that statement ;

but he was now about to refer to certain documents to
which he wished to call the Noble Viscount's at-
tention. He begged their Lordships to recol-
lect that the town of Birmingham in the course
of last year had a charter granted to it after
due inquiry. After the grant of the charter, the
Noble Viscount thought proper to go a little further,
and made a grant to the corporation of whEt was
called a quarter sessions and a Bench of Justices.
Now, that grant was made in January last, and he
begged their Lordships to recollect the date. It
was well known that, at that time, the body
called Chartists were moving through the coun-
try. Arms were purchased by them—pikes and all
sorts of curious weapons were in the course of being
manufactured, and there was a good deal of terror and
alarm with respect to these bodies of Chartists.—
(Hear, hear.) The Government on that ac-
count exhibited some intention of going farther,
as he had already stated, by granting quarter sessions.
At that period the inhabitants of Birmingham presented
a memorial or address to her Majesty, in which, among
other things, it was stated that the Government had
been pleased under the authority of an Act of Parlia-
ment passed in the 6th year of the reign of his
late Majesty King William the Fourth, to grant
a Charter of incorporation to that town—that
in pursuance of the provisions of the said Charter
an election of Town Councillors for the different
wards had recently taken place, in the course of
which much asperity and party feeling was manifested.
that the election terminated in the return of persons
exclusively of extreme political opinions ; and it having
been intended to form a quarter sessions in Birming-
ham, and do away with the jurisdiction of the County
Magistrates within the Borough, the memorialists
represented that the administration of justice had
hitherto been entrusted to Justices of the Peace for the

County, of whom there were eighteen gentle-
men of all political opinions, all residing within
the distance required by the Municipal Act, and
had been amply sufficient for the purposes of justice,
They represented further, that it was most important to
keep the administration of justice free from every impu-
tation of party bias, particularly in a town large and
populous like Birmingham, where manifestations of
public feeling had frequently been carried to a lamentable
extent. This memorial was presented soon after the
passing of the Municipal Act ; before the formation of
the quarter sessions, which were nevertheless subse-
quently appointed contrary to the law, (so we
understood the Noble Duke, who, however, spoke in
such an unequal tone, now at the pitch of his voice, now
in a low whisper, that we found it very difficult to hear
him.) He had refrained from animadverting on the con-
duct of the Magistrates,—he only referred to the conduct
of the Noble Viscount. These riots had occurred on
the 15th ; on the following day a memorial was sent to
the Home Office, stating that from half-past eight to a
quarter to ten, the inhabitants near the Bull-ring, had
been without protection for life and property, notwith-
standing that full notice had been given to the Nlayor and
Magistrates, of the impending riots—praying therefore for
inquiry. The answer, from the Home Office, desired the
memorialists to send to that office any information
they could furnish, tending to prove that notice had
been given to the Magistrates of the intention to riot.
The reply to this answer, said the Noble Duke,
showed what kind of confidence the people of Bir-
mingham had in the Government. The professional
Gentleman acting for the Memorialists transmitted a
letter, stating that they were gratified that the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Home Department consi-
dered an inquiry necessary but) adding, that his
Lordship could not but remember that when on a for-
mer occasion some of their fellow-townsmen thought fit
to represent the disgraceful conduct of the authorities,
civil and military, he had sent to the parties accused,
these complaints, and received private explanations,
which he said were satisfactory—not communicating to
the complainants the reply which he had received—the
only result being a challenge to fight a duel, to a most
respectable inhabitant. The Memorialists said, that
his Lordship would not be surprised, that they respect-
fully declined making any communication to the Home
Office, at the same time reiterating their readiness to
adduce the fullest proof of the truth and justice of their
charge,before any legally constituted tribunal, when they
could do it with safety to themselves, and confidence
that it would not be in vain. (Hear, hear.)
Upon this document he should make no observation,
except that this matter ought to be brought under the
consideration of a judicial tribunal. These papers
showed that on the 17th inst. no man could be assured
that any inquiry would result in consequence of this
application. 11. e did not approve of this mode of
carrying on business.—(Hear, hear.) These appli-
cants ought to have been afforded an opportunity
of substantiating their charges against Magistrates
who had exercised their duty under such uncourteous
circumstances, to make use of the mildest expression ;
but instead of this, the Government turned round upon
them—they would not bring these persons to trial—they
would not prosecute them in the Queen's Bench, or at