The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-08 00:00:00

ROBBERY AT DUBLIN CASTLE.

Mr. HUME wished to know it the Government bad
received any information that an official in Dublin
Castle had decamped with a considerable sum of public
money?—(A laugh.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—I would rather answer
the Hon. Gentleman's question to-raorrow.—(Laughtcr.)
REPEAL OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DUTY.

Mr. M. GIBSON presented several petitions praying
for the repeal of the advertisement duty.
Mr. EWART ;presented petitions to the same effect
from the Worcester Chronicle, the Wilts Independent, the
Edinburgh Weekly Regular, the Newcastle Chro-
nicle, the Renfrewshire Advertiser, the Illustrated
London , News, the News of the World, Bell's
Weekly Messenger, the Atlas, lleynold's Miscel-
lany, the Farmer's Herald, the Derbyshire Advertiser,
the Sheffield Free Press, the Bath Journal, the Kent
Herald, the Nenagh Journal, the Nottingham Mercury,
and a number of other metropolitan and provincial journals.
The petitions presented showed the deep interest that
was taken in this motion by the class to whom it re-
lated, but he brought it forward upon public grounds.
He considered this tax was one of the most objectionable
taxes which could possibly be imposed on the commu-
nity; it stood in the same predicament, though it had
stronger grounds for its abolition, as the auction duty,
which the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth repealed. The Right Hon. Baronet repealed that
duty because he considered it was a duty on transactions.
He held with the Right Hon. Baronet that no duty
could be more objectionable is a political, moral, or com-
mercial point of view than a tax on transactions. He
held a duty on advertisements to be a tax on transactions
between man and man, and, therefore, strongly objec-
tionable. He objected to it on general grounds more
than he objected to the taxes on knowledge, which his
Right Honourable Friend the Member for Man-
chester brought forward the other day, though
ho participated with him in his hostility to
those taxes; but this tex on advertisements was more
than a tax on knowledge, it was a tax on commerce, on
agriculture, on literature, and the wants of the commu-
nity. Could any one of them take up any commercial
newspaper without seeing how fettered were the inter-
communication between merchant and merchant—the
buyer and seller, by this very tax on advertise-
ments? Do not let Honourable Gentleman, who
made the agricultural interest their great care,
think that he advocated the repeal of this tax on
commercial grounds alone, for to-night he had had the
honour of presenting petitions, signed by the proprietors
and publishers of newspapers, which were almost con-
fined to the promotion of agriculture, in favour of this
motion, and therefore these Hon. Gent!emea who so
zealously supported the agricultural interest would do
well to support this proposal. This duty, moreover,
was a tax upon literature; indeed, Mr. M'Culloch
proved that the advertisement duty was the
heaviest of ail taxes that pressed upon the lite-
rary man. It was a tax too,upon religious communication,
and he had also presnatel petitions from the printers
and publishers of religious newspapers, and even their
circulation was affected by this prohibitory duty. It
was a tax also upon art, and such publications as the
Illustrated News and the Art Journal severely suffered
from the operation of this duty. It was a tax too upoh
wit, since it affected such publications as Punch, but he
objected to it principally on general public grounds and
the unjust principle upon which it was levied. Why
should the poor author, who published a sixpenny
pamphlet, or a sempstress, pay the same advertisement
duty that ant imposed on a wealthy man selling klarge
estate. In a word, the tax was objectionable
upon all grounds, no matter whether it had
reference to commerce, agriculture, or religion.
The advertisement duty was almost as bad as if they
were to tax people going to a corn or a stock-exchange;
it was the same thing in-principle, though different in
degree. Not only was this tax so generally objection'-
able, but it was one of great inequality. It was levied
only on advertisements in newspapers, and not on ad,
vertisements in books, or in Bradshaw, for instance, and
other works of tkat kind. There was another
hardship attending it that a newspaper pro-
prietor sometimes paid— as much for one line
as he did for a column and a half. It gave rise to all
those advertising vans and that unfortunate class of in-
dividuals c died walking advertisements, whom they met
in the streets. Some years ago Mr. Poulett Thompson
stated in the House that whilst there were 10,000,000 of
advertisements in America there were only 1,000,000 ib
England. In 1837 there were in England, Ireland, Scot-
land, Wales, and the Channel Islands 565 newspapers
in the same year there were 1,700 in America.
Before the 3s. duty was reduced in 1833 to ls. 6d.
the number of advertisements amounted to
about one million in the three kingdoms, and
since then they had increased to two millions.
The amount of the duty levied amounted to about
170,0001., and since the reduction the amount was
157,0001. So that it was pretty evident that the
amount would speedily mount up to the original
sum. He proposed the total repeal of this duty, and not
wishing to weary the patience of the House, he
should conclude by denouncing this duty as one of the
worst ever imposed, and one of the first whioh
the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have taken off,
as it was one which equally pressed upon all classes
of the community. The lion. Gentleman then sat down,
after moving, in the words of his motion, that it is ex-
pedient that the advertisement duty should lee repealed]
Mr. M. GIBSON seconded the motion.
Mr. TRELAWNY opposed the motion as being in.
consistent with a motion which he himself had upon the
-paper relative to the national debt. ,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER also op-
posed the motion. He could only repeat what he
had said on former occasions when this sub-'
ject was brought before the House—that the question
was not whether the tax was a burden on the class who
had to pay it, but whether our whole system of taxation
was unjustly imposed. Many objections might be urged
to particular taxes, which ho should be happy to remit
if possible, but he had not arrived at that happy state,
nor had any of his predecessors in office, which would
enable him to carry on the government of the
country without money. The Government had made
all those remissions in taxation which they were enabled
to do, and which they thought advisable, and he should,
therefore, call upon the House to resist any further
attempts for the reduction of taxation.
Mr. HUME said the Right Hon. Gentleman's ob-
servations amounted to an appeal to this effect—" I
have made up my mind, I won't listen to any change,
I consider what I have already done in the way of the
reduction of taxation the best, and therefore
I will not answer the particular objections
to this tax." Now, he (Mr. Hume) objected, in the first
instance, to the remissions which the Government had
made, as not being necessary, and he would remind the
Right Hon. Gentleman that it was the duty of
the Government to repeal those taxes which pressed
most heavily on the community.—(Hear, hear:)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having a surplus
ought to be told that he had reade a wrong selection, and
this tax was the one that had the strongest claims
upon the House for its repeal. But why could they
not reduce the expenditure so as to relieve the products
of the country from all those objectionable taxes? Ho
could see no reason why they should not pursue that
course, and he called on the House to adopt it.—(Hear,)
Mr. EWART replied, stating that he had brought
forward this motion because he objected to the tax on
principle, and all ho now called upon, the House to do
was to express an opinion that, on principle, the tax
was wrong.—(Hear, hear.);
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Tor the motion ..• •••
••• 39
Against it ... 203
••• •••
Majority against the motion...-169
The motion was consequently lost.
SLAVE LABOUR.
Mr. G. BERKELEY postponed his motion respecting
the exclusion from ourmstalnksetts of the produce of slave
labour, to Friday, the 31
JOURNEYMEN BAKERS.
Mr. COWAN presented
ill, petition Item Edinburgh;
Lord D. STUART and Mr. B.
in
Osfisonstn presented other
petitions from other place
Seefl chte Cj
oonmr:
mittee to inquire into the sanitary avnenunrdietfin a n
neymen bakers.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said his motion was not for
relief from taxation, or an appeal to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, but was an appeal to the heart
ings of the House, and therefore he trusted it waeaudldfereel--
ceive due consideration. He bad on a farmer occasion
stated the evils under which the journeymenn
laboured, and he could not bring himself to believe thats
any serious objection would be made to the motion
be-
fore the House. A previous motion for a Select Com-
mittee made by him had been met by the Right Hon.
Secretary of State for the Home Department with this
reply:—" What necessity can there be for inquiry, when
the whole case is so well known from papers that have
been moved for and laid upon the table of the House."
Afterwards he had moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to limit the hours of working in
bakehouses ; but in this he had also been
unsuccessful. He was told at the time that the
remedies he proposed would not meet the evils they
were intended to cure, and all sorts of disasters wore
Prophesied from the working. of such a Bill, should it
become law. He had a petition in his hard, most re-
spectfully worded, which prayed the House t) consent to
an inquiry, as the petitioners were satisfied that the ad-
mitted evils would then demand from that House a Bill
to reform thorn. He considerei these poor persons had
great reaion to complain cf the manner in which their
grievances had hitherto been met. Lie thought they had
a right to claim the attention of the House on sanitary
grounds. But in addition to this and other arguments,
he. thought the House ought to grant the required Com-
mittee, if it were only because the journeyman bakers

buN;

requested it, and they surely'were the best judges of their
own condition and grievances. He begged to move for
a Select Committee to inquire whether any measures can
be taken to improve the sanitary condition of the jour-
neymen bakers.
Sir G. GREY would gladly agree to the motion, if ho •
believed it would lead to the practical results the Noble
Lord expected. But the reasons he had urged two years
ago against a similar measure were still unchanged.
It was impossible not to feel the force of the
argument used on two former occasions, that it was in-
expedient to grant a Committee of Inquiry founded on
petitions such as that presented by the Noble Lord, if
no clear idea was given at the same time of the legisla-
tive measures intended to be founded on the report. On
the former occasion the remedy for existing grievances
proposed by the Noble Lord was rejected by a large
majority, because it violated the principles of political
economy, and would not effect its purpose. Again, if
this Committee were granted, the Noble Lord could not
ensure the House from being called upon by other trades
to have similar Committees to inquire into their condi-
tion and to suggest alterations. He believed that ar-
rangements might be made between the bakers and their
employers to remedy the evils of which they complained;
but by looking to Parliament for relief they were divert-
ing their attention from the remedy which lay open to
them.—(Hear, hear.) Believing that no good would re-
sult from the appointment of the Committee, and that it
would only end in disappointment, he felt bound to op-
pose the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD said when the petitioners found
that so skilful a debater as the Right Hon. Baronet
could bring forward no better arguments than those
which he had adduced, they .would conceive that their
case had not been fairly met, and that he had trusted to
the advocates of political economy and to Ministerial
influence rather than to argument. It had been said
that if this motion should be agreed to,• other trades
would bring forward their claims. , But if the claims of
the working classes were to be met by a refusal to in-
quire into their grievances he could prophesy that they
would not be frequently. preferred. But he could not
congratulate the House on the alternative that would be
adopted by the working classes. Neither did he think
the experience of what had taken place in other coun-
tries ought to make them indifferent to turn a deaf ear
to those who exhibited such a perfect unanimity in their
object and the mode in which they proposed to obtain
it.,---(llear.) The Right Hone, Gentleman intimated
that any sanitary regulations- ought to be proposed in
the shape of a Bill. But, supposing that to be the
proper course, would it not be better, in the first in-
stance, to hear from the bakers themselves a statement
of their grievances ?
Sir G. GREY intimated that the evidence was already
oa the table.
Mr. STAFFORD—When the Noble Lord came for-
ward with a Bill, the Right Hon. Gentleman objected to
it; and when the Noble ',Ord proposed a Committee,
the Right Hon. Getleman said, " Why do you not bring
in a Bill ?"—(Hear.) The bakers could draw but one
conclusion, namely, that Parliament was unable to miti-
gate-their grievances, and refused to inquire into then].
Such a mode cf proceeding was not likely to attach the
working classes to the institutions of the country, and
when they saw a refosal to legislate for them, they
might think it necessary to do a good deal more for
themselves, and the result would be as increase of the
dissatisfaction and ill-feeling which now prevailed—an
exhibition of which would not conduce to the prosperity
of the country.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House take
care how they rejected the claims brought forward by a
body of men whose good conduct entitled them to the
attention, sympathy, and solicitude of the House. They
would consider that the Noble Lord hai done his duty
towards them, but their feeling would bevery different
towards the Right HOD. Baronet. Considering this a
fair subject for inquiry, as. affecting the lives of his fel-
tow-subjects, he should support the motion of the Noble
Lord.—(Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said-the ,Noble Lord had expressed
some dissatisfaction at a remark made by the Hon. Mem-
ber for the Weat-Biding—that the objects occasionally
brought forward by him had a tendency towards the
doctrines of Socialism, -especially with reference to the
course taken by him in the case of the• bakers. IF the
Noble Lord was not oneef:that_celebrated order of men,
he was at least, their advocate. •He proposed an inquiry
into their condition, which extended to the places of their
work arid their hours of labour, and he spoke of their
horrid dens and their dirtiness. Now, ha (Mr. B.) could
notainderstand how Tarliament could proceed to alter the
arratigensent of the Windings 'and bakehouses; nor did
he understand how they could interfere with the labour i
of adult men, who were perfectly able to advocate their .
own cause,-as might be seen in a publication entitled the
Bakers' Gaze and General Trades' Advocate—a pub-
lication which' did not bear the impress of the stamp
authorities. He did not believe there was anything in
the projects of Robert Owen, or in the plans of the So-
cialists of France, which savoured more of Communism
than some of the articles in that paper. The clients of
the Noble Lord were men, and not ordinary men, but
Scotehmen.—(A laugh.) If there was one class of men
on the face of the earth better able to take care of them-
selves than any other, there could he no doubt that the
class consisted of Seotohmen.—(Laughtor.) If their
situation in this country as bakers was so horrible, he
took it for granted they- must have fled from something
still more horrible in their own country.—(A. laugh.)
He (Mr. Bright) should feel ashamed of standing up as
the advocate of hundreds and thousands of stalwart
Seotehmen, who, having found their way from their own
country, and being employed in the useful occupation
of baking, should publish a gazette, and write articles
of considerable literary merit, and then appeal to the
House to remedy their grievances, instead of acting for
themselves. If they could not protect themselves, there
was no power in the House which could do so.—(Hear.)
Lord D. STUART did not see wby the publication of
a gazette by a party should interfere with the redress
of their grievances. Ho always considered publication
the best way of making grievances known.—(Hear.)
The House, in refusing inquiry, would not make itself
more respected by the public at large; and as he had
seen nothing to justify the refusal of the Committee, he
should support the motion.—(Hear.)
Mr. G. THOMPSON said, if the views:of political
economy entertained by the Hon. Member for Manches-
ter (Mr. Bright) could be supported by no better argu-
ments than those which he had adduced, he (Mr. Thomp-
son) would instantly separate himself from them.—
(Hear.) He believed that more evidence on the subject
was wanting, if not for purposes of legislation, at least
for the purpose of influencing public opinion out of
dcors; and he was of opinion that the appointment of a
Committee would have a salutary effect, and that it
would tend to the reformation of a trade which was
ruining the health of a large pOrtion of the industrious
population.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said the House ought not to
turn a deaf ear to the complaints brought before it, and
he considered it his duty to support tho Motion-. •
The House divided, when there appeared-- •
, • For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion --46
DUBLIN AND HOLYHEAD MAILS.
Sir R. BULKELEY, in bringing forward the motion
of which he had given notice on this subject, said he
should very briefly state the points which he thought
called for the appointment of a Committee. After re-
ferring to the offers made, in the first instance, for car-
rying the mails by the Chester and Holyhead Company,
bli°
finding competition.
thu t t there r eT
washe Chesser
onagn d
fel! Holy-
the Hon. Baronet said that the .Admiralty offered the
choenatdraccot
mfoprapnyu
ng
against them at the Admiralty, did not make a tender,
but, nevertheless, gave the Admiralty to understand
that they were ready to contract fur
carrying the
Dublin and Holyhead mail for 30,000/. Information
of this was given to the Dublin Steam-packet
Company, and the result was,- that the Ad-
miralty closed with them for 25,0001. The effect
of this would be, that seventeen or eighteen hours
would elapse before a person could reach Dublin from
London.
London. The contract having been given to the Dub-
lin Steam-packet Company, the Chester and Holyhead
Railway Company would be compelled by oy ea
pelted by circumstances
to cease running their express trains in connexion with
their express steamers, and the consequence would be
that as much time would be requiredthe b
for. journey e-
tween London and Dublin as was required ten years
ago. He deeply lamented that any department of the
Government should have so far impeded private enter-
prise, and hoped the House would
support the motion as
one of great importance to both En gland and Ireland.
He begged to move for a Select Committee to investi-
gate and report upon all matters connected with the
contract for the conveyance of the mails between Kings-
town and Holyhead. Also, how far the engagements en-
tered into by the Admiralty with the City of Dublin
Steam-packet Company tend to develope or otherwise
the full advantages of the direct and continuous line of
communication between London and Dublin, which the
Chester and Holyhead Railway Company are, under the
provisions of their Act of Parliament now labouring to
effect.
The question having been put,
Mr. FRENCH did not think the Chester and Holy-
head Railway Company had the slightest cause of com-
plaint, for it, never sent is an offer, but at the last rao-
mentafor the_ purpose of thwarting the Dublin Steam-
picket Company, gave the Government to understand
that it would carry the .mails at s' lower rate. The
Government had offered .the contract to public
competition, but nothing could be fairer than their
conduct.
Sir F. T. BARING said, that thinking at first that
this was a mere squabble between two dompanies, he was
disposed to oppose the motion; !mit as a charge had been
made against the Government for the course they had
taken, it was their duty rather 'to court than to shrink
from inquiry.—(Hear.) In acceding to the motion he
wished it to be understood, that he was far from ad-
mitting the correctness of the statement made by the
mover of it. He believed there had been negotiations
with the company who now complained, and
that they had offered to the Treasury to carry
the mails, but as the Admiralty thought they
asked too much, their offer was not accepted. After-
wards came the report of the Committee, and in accord-
ance with it the contract was offered for public com-
petition. The Chester and Holyhead Company did not
send in an offer. Only one tender was sent -in, and com-
munications were entered into with the parties making it,
.with the view of ascertaining whether they would not
accept lower terms. The Chester and Holyhead Com-
pany then offered to contract for a less sum, but 0 that
seemed an unfair way of doing business, the contract
was again offered to public- competition and the other
company obtained it. The Government bad no other
course to pursue. In granting the Committee he re-
garded the complaint as one against the Government.
They had entered into an agreement with a company—
the faith of the Government was pledged and must be
observed whatever might be the differences of parties.
Mr. S. HERBERT was rejoiced that the Right Hon.
Baronet had given the explanation they had just heard,
fur he had been ieformed that with respect to the first
tender the communications between the Government and