HOUSE OF Macdonald, Sir James Morpeth, Viscount TELLERS. Palmerston, Lord Sandon, Lord PAIRED OFF. Hume, Joseph Ingilby, Sir W. A. Gordon, R. Wilson, Sir R. LORDS. Thursday, March 11. from the Parish of St. Pancras, against the Vestry Act, took an opportunity to answer a question put to him by his noble friend (Viscount Goderich) on a former evening, with respect to a return of Country Banknotes, stamped within a certain period. On inquiry, he found that he was right in supposing, as he did, when he answered his noble friend's question at first, that the amount of Scotch notes was included in the account on both sides. had ascertained that it would be quite impossible to distinguish between the stamps issued for England and Scotland, except as regarded those for 17. notes, which were all Scotch. The account included the notes of the chartered banks. He DUTIES ON CONVEYANCES OF LIFEHOLD PROPERTY.-FIRE INSURANCES.] The Earl of Malmesbury wished to obtain. returns of the proceeds of two different descriptions of Stamp-duties, in one of which, he, as a land-owner, felt a particular interest; and the other of which included the interests of many classes of the community. As the day was approaching, on which it was intended to submit to the other House of Parliament the usual annual financial statement, he thought he could not do better than advert to the subject at that moment. He alluded to the Stamp-duties upon Conveyances of Lifehold property, and he wished to call their Lordships' attention, for a short time, to the subject. In some of the western counties in which he possessed landed property, it was usual for cottagers to hold their cottages on lives; and the custom was a good one, as it encouraged the breeding up (if he might use the expression) of a respectable class of cottagers. When these individuals had children, they naturally desired to put their children's lives in their leases as well as their own; and the usual fine for adding one life to two others in such case was (according to his own experience, and he believed, it was the same in the case of other parties) 57. But this was not all; the tenant who paid his landlord 51. on account of this trans MINUTES.] Returns were laid on the Table, of the quan- action, had to pay to Government a duty tities of Corn, Flour, and Merl imported into the United Kingdom, since July 15th, 1828; and of the weekly average price of Corn, since the same period. Several Petitions were presented, complaining of Agricultural Distress, praying that the East-India Company's Charter might not be renewed, and that Suttees might be put a stop to. COUNTRY BANK NOTES.] The Duke of Wellington, in presenting a Petition of 11. 15s. on the conveyance, and 17, 10s. on the counter-part, thus, making a sum of 31. 5s. stamp-duty, payable on a transaction of which the amount between landlord and tenant was only 51. The existence of this duty opposed a great obstacle to such transactions. The landlord might would be much greater security for property than at present. He might here observe, with reference to the first part of his statement, that the duty on convey. ances of cottages was about 75 per cent on the amount generally demanded by landlords for the introduction of a new life into a lease. The duty upon conveyances of property, in fee simple, below the value of 150l. a-year, was also very burthensome. The noble Earl concluded by moving for "A return of the amount of Stamp-duties paid upon Conveyances of Lifehold property, under the annual value of 51.* Also for a return of the amount of Stamp-duties paid on Conveyances of property in Fee, under the value of 1507." -Ordered. (The cottages in question seldom or never exceeded the value of 40s., but he fixed 57. in order to save trouble, and facilitate the making out of the account.) say to his tenant, "pay me the fine by instalments: I know you cannot afford to pay it at once, and I will take it as you can spare it;" but the stamp duty must be paid upon the nail. The consequence of a duty so disproportionate in amount to the value of the transaction, was to prevent conveyances being made in many cases in which they would otherwise be effected. He was desirous of knowing the actual amount of revenue produced to the Exchequer by this tax. He hoped that there would appear reason for reducing this duty? He would have it lowered (if not entirely remitted) to 1s. or 2s. 6d. on each conveyance. Again, if he had five acres, which he wished to dispose of in fee, say for a sum of 1497., the stamp duty was 17.10s. He wished to ascertain the produce also of that duty. There were few things from which land suffered more than from law transactions, as at present conducted. The law, or rather taxation, weighed most heavily upon it. He hoped to see these onerous and unjust imposts considerably lowered, or altogether done away with in the forthcoming financial arrangements. There was another point affecting landed property, which was also well deserving attention; he alluded to the duty on policies of fire insurance. He would take the case of common insurances. He, or any other man, might not be wealthy enough to risk the chance of a fire upon his farm,and was accordingly compelled to insure his dwelling, farm, buildings, stock, &c. In 1815, the expense of a policy of common insurance was 2s. per cent, and the duty was 2s. 6d. (125 per cent on the insurance); but it was raised between 1815 and 1824 to 3s. (150 per cent on the insurance). Policies were now done at 1s. 6d., the duty still continuing 3s.; so that the amount of the duty was actually double the charge of the offices which undertook to guarantee people's property from loss by fire. What was the consequence? Men of large property, who could afford to run the risk, did not insure at all. They said, "Here are persons willing to insure us for a sum upon which a duty of 200 per cent is added by the Government. We shan't pay it: we will take our chance." He was satisfied that if this tax upon fire-insurances were reduced considerably, the Treasury would be fully repaid, and all deficit prevented by an increase in the number and amount of policies, at the same time that there STATE OF THE COUNTRY. RELATIONS WITH PORTUGAL. TURKEY.] Lord Holland said, since he came into the House, he had received a request from his noble friend (the Duke of Richmond), whose Motion for a Committee to inquire into the State of the Country, more particularly as regarded the employment of the labouring classes, originally stood for that day, but which had been put off in consequence of circumstances which must be to their Lordships a source of great regret, to give notice that his noble friend would submit his motion to their Lordships on that day week. Accordingly, he would do so, and would move that the House be summoned for that day.-Ordered. The noble Baron proceeded to say, that, seeing some noble Lords, members of his Majesty's Government, in their places, he wished to put two or three questions to them concerning the relations subsisting between this country and Portugal. He was the rather disposed to do so, as in the several communications made to Parliament, from time to time, respecting those relations, there seemed still to remain (notwithstanding all that had been said on the subject) a considerable degree of ambiguity. In order that noble Lords should fully understand the questions, it might, perhaps, be necessary for him to refer to the communications with which the House had been favoured on the subject. On the 28th of July, 1828, Parliament was informed, in the Speech from the Throne at the close of the Session, that "his Majesty relies upon the wisdom of the august Sovereign the head of the House of Braganza, to take the course which shall be best calculated to maintain the interests and honour of that illustrious family, and to secure the peace and happiness of the country over which he reigns." At the opening of the Session of 1829, Parliament was informed, in the Speech delivered by the Lords Commissioners, that "his Majesty laments that his diplomatic relations with Portugal are still necessarily suspended;" and that, "deeply interested in the prosperity of the Portuguese monarchy, his Majesty has entered into negotiations with the head of the House of Braganza, in the hope of terminating a state of affairs which is incompatible with the permanent tranquillity and welfare of Portugal." Further, at the conclusion of the Session of 1829, it was stated by the Lords Commissioners, that "it is with increased regret that his Majesty again adverts to the condition of the Portuguese monarchy, but his Majesty commands us to repeat his determination to use every effort to reconcile conflicting interests, and to remove the evils which press so heavily upon a country, the prosperity of which must ever be an object of his Majesty's solicitude." Notwithstanding these repeated assurances Parliament was told at the commencement of the present Session, that "his Majesty laments that he is unable to announce to you the prospect of a reconciliation between the Princes of the House of Braganza;" that "his Majesty has not yet deemed it expedient to reestablish upon their ancient footing, his Majesty's diplomatic relations with the kingdom of Portugal; but the numerous embarrassments arising from the continued interruption of these relations increase his Majesty's desire to effect the termination of so serious an evil." From these communications their Lordships might collect that a negotiation was established between this country and the Emperor Don Pedro, with the hope of reconciling the conflicting interests of the different branches of the House of Braganza; and the conclusion was, that our hopes and endeavours had been disappointed-in fact, that the negotiation had failed. But since the delivery of the royal Speech at the commencement of the Session, some other circumstances had occurred which rendered it desirable to VOL. XXIII. have a little more light thrown upon this subject. One of the circumstances to which he alluded involved a communication, which, although it might not be strictly regular to introduce and argue upon in their Lordships' House, must, nevertheless, be considered as having been made to Europe at large, he meant the late Speech of the King of France to the French Chambers. In that Speech he found that the King of France informed the Chambers as follows on the subject of Portugal:-"I pursue at this moment, in concert with my allies, negotiations, the object of which is, to bring about a reconciliation necessary for the repose of the Peninsula between the Princes of the House of Braganza." This was somewhat different from the language held in the Speech delivered in that House at the commencement of the Session,-but this by the way: he proceeded to the questions which he had to propose to the noble Lord. His first question was this-Had the negotiation originally established between this country and the Emperor Don Pedro, in the year 1829, or the close of 1828, come to a conclusion; and if so, had it failed, or not? In the next place, he wished to know, with respect to the negotiation mentioned by the King of France in his late Speech to the Chambers, a negotiation undertaken "in concert with his allies," and pursued with similar views to our own in our negotiation, and, it might be, for some ulterior purposes,were we parties to this second negotiation? and did we become parties to it with France in a secondary and subservient point of view, having failed in the negotiation which we undertook as principals. His third question regarded what was, perhaps, an equally irregular source of information, and an equally irregular ground of remark. However, he should proceed with his inquiry founded upon such grounds. It was generally understood by the public, that some of his Majesty's Ministers had elsewhere alluded, as a reason for refusing certain papers connected with the subject of our relations with Portugal, to the circumstance of negotiations upon that subject being actually pending, and to the possibility of such negotiations being prejudiced by the production of the papers required. He wished to know whether the negotiations stated to be pending, and urged as constituting a bar to the information demanded, G of the word, could be said to have existed on that occasion at Rio de Janeiro, as Lord Strangford, our ambassador, was referred to London as the seat of negotiation. It was naturally enough considered inconvenient to carry on negotiations on both sides of the Atlantic at the same time, and upon the same subject. In point of fact, the negotiation which failed was carried on in London, and not at the Brazils. As to the negotiation of France, that was quite a different transaction,-it was one in which we certainly acted in concert with France, but by no means in a secondary or subservient character. Indeed, strictly speaking, it could hardly be called a negotiation. A communication had been made by us, in concert with France, with a view to accomplish the end adverted to in the French King's Speech-the repose of the Peninsula. As to " ulterior purposes," his Majesty's Ministers neither knew of them nor were parties to them. Lord Holland wished to know concerning the "pending negotiations?" were negotiations which we were pursuing in concert with, and under, France, with Portugal and Spain, or direct negotiations, undertaken upon our part with the government de facto of Portugal, with a view of arranging its recognition, and re-establishing our diplomatic relations with that government, as hinted at in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session? So much upon the subject of Portugal: but, since he was upon his legs, he might as well mention, that there was an apparent discrepancy between the French King's Speech and that recently delivered by the Lords Commissioners in that House with respect to the mode of alluding to the termination of the war between Russia and Turkey. It was stated in the Speech of the King of France. "War has been extinguished in the East: the moderation of the conqueror, and the amicable intervention of the Powers, by preserving the Ottoman empire from the evils which threatened it, have maintained the equilibrium, and confirmed the ancient relations of states." He understood from the Speech of the Lords Commissioners that our Government felt satisfaction at the peace between Russia and Turkey, but he did not understand that that peace had been brought about by the intervention of his Britannic Majesty. The words of our Speech were, "His Majesty has seen with satisfaction that the war between Russia and the Ottoman Porte has been brought to a conclusion." Certainly these words did not bear out the notion of this country having been one of the powers to whose amicable interven-made, nothing could be more true than tion the preservation of the Ottoman empire, and of the balance of Europe, was brought about. He wished to learn whether there had been an accidental omission in the royal Speech of a statement of the fact of intervention on our part, or whether we were to understand that Great Britain had looked on indifferently upon the progress of the quarrel between Russia and Turkey, and did France interfere to preserve the Ottoman empire, and maintain the balance of Europe without us? The Earl of Aberdeen.-It could hardly be considered as a negotiation-a communication had been made by us, in concert with France and our allies, to Don Pedro--the subject was yet pending it was impossible to say more on the point. With respect to the subject of the declaration supposed to have been made by some members of the Government to the effect that, in consequence of pending negotiations, certain papers could not be laid before Parliament, he must observe that, assuming this statement to have been that while negotiations were pending, it must be impossible to produce papers relating to such negotiations; and when the time came for producing them, probably the noble Lord would see very good reasons why they were at the present moment withheld. This he said in reference to the general principle of not disclosing prematurely the subject of negotiations which were in progress; but he did not know that any such declaration as the noble Lord appeared to imagine had, The Earl of Aberdeen replied, that the in fact, ever been made in reference to the negotiation to which the noble Lord al- present proceedings. What he understood luded, as having being entered into by us was, that the papers in question had been with Don Pedro, in the summer of 1828, refused on the ground that their production was considered to be brought to such a might be injurious to a numerous class of close as deprived us of all prospect of a persons about whom every one felt natursuccessful result with respect to it. Inally interested. He thought it was more fact, no negotiation, in the proper sense with the view of avoiding the possibility of The Earl of Aberdeen said, the noble Lord did not appear fully to understand him, and had rather misinterpreted what he had said. The present negotiation, or communication, could hardly be considered as an entirely separate and new one, be the original negotiation. What he wished the noble Lord to understand was, that our original negotiation with the Emperor Don Pedro had arrived at such a state that there was little prospect of its successful issue. The present negotiation, which we had undertaken in concert with France, was in continuation of the previous one which we had conducted by ourselves, and could hardly be considered a separate negotiation, although undertaken in direct concert with France and our other allies. It was true that before, although acting with a perfect feeling of unanimity and concert with other powers, we acted by ourselves, and that now we were acting in direct con running this risk, than in reference to present negotiations (which were only thrown in as an additional argument), that the documents had been refused. They were not produced lest they should prove injurious to the prospects of those in whom the noble Lord was himself deeply inter-cause it had the same object in view as ested. With respect to that paragraph in the speech of the King of France which referred to "the amicable intervention of the powers" for the preservation of the Ottoman empire and the balance of Europe, he could assure the noble Lord that our intervention was most unceasing in the course of the contest, and went to urge, in the strongest mannner, upon both parties, the necessity of adopting conciliating views, while we endeavoured all in our power to forward negotiations of peace between them. What effect our remonstrances might have had he could not pretend to say he hoped it would appear, if their Lordships looked at the termination of the contest, that neither party had neg-cert with our allies, still it was for the lected them. He must, however, admit that the Turks had long continued obstinately determined to proceed in their own way, and that they appeared to yield at length to the urgency of their situation rather than to the urgency of our remonstrances or to any thing else. Lord Holland said, he was not prepared at that moment with any notice of motion on the subject of our proceedings in reference to Portugal. However, he wished to make one or two observations upon what had fallen from the noble Lord. In answer to the first question proposed to him, the noble Earl stated, that the negotiation entered into between this country and the head of the House of Braganza, took place, not at Rio de Janeiro, but at London. He did not care which way it might be, but as to the fact that "His Majesty has entered into negotiations with the head of the House of Braganza, in the hope of terminating a state of affairs which is incom patible with the permanent tranquillity and welfare of Portugal," as stated in the Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the Session of 1829, his wish had been, to ask the noble Earl whether he considered those negotiations as completed and concluded; and he understood the noble Earl to say, that they were concluded, and that another negotiation, undertaken by us in conjunction with, but not under, France, was to be considered a separate and new negotiation. attainment of the same object as we originally had in view. He Lord Holland said, he was to understand, then, that France was no party to the negotiation originally, and that she was a party to the present negotiation. would ask, was Spain a party to this negotiation? The noble Earl talked of our having undertaken the negotiation in concert with our other allies. He therefore wished to ask whether Spain was a party? The Earl of Aberdeen replied, that the Court of Spain was no party to the negotiation. He might also as well observe, that the Court of Austria was a party, and that throughout the whole of the negotiations France had full cognizance of all that had been done by us from the very first, although she had not, until recently, acted prominently in the matter, and in direct concert with this country. MARRIAGES' VALIDATING ACT.] The House went into a Committee on this Bill, on the Motion of the Bishop of London. Lord Holland wished to return his thanks to the reverend Prelate who had introduced the Bill, the principles and enactments of which, generally speaking, met with his warm approbation. It was very disadvantageous, very galling, particularly where property was concerned, to leave the authority uncertain by which marriages could be rendered valid. He believed that much inconvenience had arisen for want |