Commons Sitting of 8 February 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—London Coal Trade.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GILLON, from Kilmarnock, for the Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from the county of York, against the Post Horse Duties.—By Mr. HOME, from Dundee, and by Mr. BAINES, from a place in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for the Ballot, Extension of the Suffrage, and more frequent Parliaments.

CHURCH-RATES.
Mr. Thomas Duncombe: Seeing the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his place, I wish to put a question to him on a subject which engaged much attention last Session, and on which the public are now getting anxious for some information. I allude to the subject of Church-rates. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to proceed at once by the introduction of a Bill for the abolition of Church-rates, or whether it is their intention to revive that most desirable inquiry as to the manner in which Church leases are granted and renewed, which was commenced last Session, and abruptly terminated by the demise of the Crown?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: At an earlier period in the present Session a similar question was addressed to my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I have great pleasure in repeating the answer he then gave. It is the intention of her Majesty's Government to move the re-appointment of the Committee to which the hon. Member alludes, and to found whatever enactments may be necessary upon the recommendations of that Committee, after it shall have entered into a full and extended inquiry into this very important subject.

TRADE WITH FRANCE.
Lord Eliotwished to ask a question of the President of the Board of Trade. As, however, he did not see that right hon. Gentleman in his place, perhaps some other Member of the Government would be able to give him an answer. He had seen it stated, that it was the intention of the French Government to impose a considerable additional
890
duty on linen and cotton yarn imported into France from this country, and he wished to know whether there was any truth in that statement; and, if true, whether her Majesty's Government had taken any steps for the defence of the interests of this country?
Mr. Laboucherereplied, it was undoubtedly true, that there was a probability of an increased duty being imposed by the French Government on linen and cotton yarn exported from this country into France. The Government of this country had made representations on this subject to the Government of France; but he was bound to say, that there was no reason to believe, that there was any chance of the Government of France acceding to those representations.
Mr. Humewished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was his intention to propose any reduction in the duty on the importation of French brandy into this country. It was hardly consistent for this country to complain of the French Government putting a duty of 100 per cent. on British produce, while we levied a duty of 700 per cent. on an important article of French exportation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it did not follow, that because France proposed to increase the duty on an article of British produce, we should reduce the duty on an article of French production. He did not consider such a mode of argument logical. In reply to the question which had been put to him, he would only answer, that he had no intention of proposing any reduction of the duty on French brandy imported into this country.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND.)
Mr. Barronrose to move, that an Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ireland, and into the present charitable funds and property in this portion of the United Kingdom. The Board of Charitable Bequests, as at present constituted, did not fulfil those functions which it was expected to discharge at the period of its formation. The Board was composed of the judges of the land, and of the archbishops and bishops. What would be thought, if all the judges of England were appointed to manage the charitable bequests of England? Was it not as absurd

891
to expect the judges of Ireland to discharge a similar duty in that country? The fact was, that the judges of Ireland had not attended and could not attend to this duty. And as to the ecclesiastical dignitaries who were upon the Board, they were equally incapacitated by their other duties from giving the proper attention to the business of those charities. The Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Kildare were frequently obliged to come to this country to discharge their Parliamentary duties, and were necessarily absent from Ireland the greater part of the year; one of those Prelates was unhappily now in a very bad state of health. He had, on that part of the question, he thought, made out a case. He had shown, that it was impossible for the parties, from the nature of the circumstances in which they were placed, to exercise any adequate power or control over those charities. The consequence was, that the charities of Ireland were much neglected. Another objection to the Board was of a religious character. The whole of the Board, as at present constituted by the Act of Parliament, consisted of Protestants. The consequence of this was, that every single Catholic charity in Ireland, that is to say, nineteen out of twenty of the whole, were actually concealed from the knowledge of the Board, and were, therefore, under no control. The Board being of an exclusive character, the Catholics of Ireland, whether right or wrong, he would not stop to inquire, entertained no confidence in it, and they, of course, wherever they could, concealed their charities from the knowledge, and consequently from the control of the Board. To so great an extent was this feeling carried, that they were in the habit of handing over during their lifetime large sums of money to be distributed by individuals, instead of giving them to charities, or placing them in the hands of trustees. An instance of this had occurred in his own family. In the year 1809, a relative of his, for the reasons before alluded to, handed over the sum of 10,000 l. to four or five individuals, with verbal instructions merely as to its distribution. It was impossible to know, at this distance of time, whether the sums of money so handed over had been properly applied. He attributed no impropriety to the parties intrusted with its distribution, but he thought that the poor had a right to complain, that they did not know whether
892
it had been applied according to the intentions of the donors. Now, this in itself was a very great grievance. It was a grievance inherent in the construction of the Board itself, and not to the individual characters or feelings of the men who formed it. Another objection which he had to the Board was, that it was not responsible to the public, and was under no sort of control whatever. His next objection to it was, that under the Act of Parliament by which it was constituted, the Board had no adequate power of inquiring into the charities of Ireland, which from its name, and the intentions of the Legislature who framed that Act, it certainly ought to have. The Board considered, that under the Act of Parliament passed in 1800, immediately previous to the Union, they had no power to inquire, and that the only power they had, was to apply to a Court of Equity through their solicitors. The consequence was, that not having this power, and being obliged in all cases to apply to a Court of Equity, enormous expenses were frequently incurred in the endeavours to get at charities that were found to be bequeathed by different individuals in Ireland. Bills were filed in Chancery, and enormous expenses incurred. Great delays were consequent upon them, and it followed as a matter of course, that, in the case of smaller charities, the whole of the funds were actually swallowed up in endeavouring to get at the charity, and that which was intended for the benefit of the poor passed into the pockets of the rich. This was an enormous evil, and one which he hoped the House would assist in putting an end to, particularly when the subject of Poor-laws for the relief of the destitute in Ireland had enjoyed so much of the attention of her Majesty's Government. He did not wish his statement to rest merely on his own authority, and therefore would refer to the third Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry, page 31, which strongly supported the proposition which he had laid down. [The hon. Member proceeded to read the extract referred to.] It commenced by stating that their attention had been directed to the constitution of the Board of Charitable Bequests, consisting of the Archbishop of Dublin, and several other persons. They conceived that a Board so numerous could not be efficient for business, nor was a Board of so exclusive a character calculated to give

893
perfect satisfaction in the administration of the funds created by the charity of persons of all religious persuasions. They therefore recommended that the powers of the Board should be transferred to the Poor-law Commissioners, with such power as had been given to the Commissioners for inquiry into charities in England. He hoped to be able to show to the satisfaction of the House, that it was impossible to investigate the matter properly, or to remedy the evils which existed under the present system. He only stated it now for the purpose of showing the opinions of these persons, and here he might stale that the first name signed to this report was that of the Archbishop of Dublin, himself a member of the Board of Charitable Bequests. It was a strong confirmation of his (Mr. Barron's) statement, that the Archbishop of Dublin, a gentleman residing on the spot, and who, from having given the subject the greatest consideration best knew its working, should have been the very first to place his name at the bottom of this report. If any doubt existed on the minds of any hon. Member in that House, that an alteration was necessary in the constitution of that Board, the evidence of the Archbishop of Dublin would be sufficient to remove it, as well as the evidence of the other gentlemen whose names were appended to the report. He should now refer to another, and one which was a high authority in that House, to show that the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ireland was not competent to the duties which were under its administration and control. When Lord Stanley formed one of the Irish Government, he had made a communication to that Board, requesting them to consider some measure for the alteration of the Board so as to render it more effective, and that communication was followed up by a similar one from Mr. Littleton, now Lord Hatherton. The answer of the Board was, that so far from showing any disposition to oppose the views of Lord Stanley and Mr. Littleton, they coincided and agreed in it, and were willing to submit to any alteration which the Government might think advisable, for the better management of the charities in Ireland. He might rest satisfied with the facts he had stated, but that he knew from various private sources that it was not an effective working body. He had moved for a return on the subject last Session, and if
894
ever there was a proof of the inefficiency of the Board, it was to be found in the slovenly and irregular manner in which that return had been made, some portions of which had not yet been presented to the House. There was in Ireland an immense fund of charitable bequests, which had been handed down from their ancestors, and the records of the Courts of Ireland, would show the vast sums appropriated for that purpose, which were now perverted to improper uses. In the city which he had the honour to represent, a sum of 20,000 l. had been left by a Mr. Fanning twenty-five years ago, to the poor of the city of Waterford, and what would the House say when they heard that for twenty-five years the poor of Waterford had not touched one shilling of that money? There could not be stronger evidence of gross negligence and mismanagement. In the county of Westmeath there was a charity called the Wilson's Hospital Charity, which possessed a property of 5,000 l. per annum, which was carefully concealed from the people of that county for whom it was intended. If the Commission were granted, great abuses would be discovered in the management of the charitable property in Ireland. The fact was, there was no proper control at this moment over this property. The Board which had the nominal management of it, was not, as at present constituted, competent to discharge its duties. Was it intended to place these bequests under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners, which were to be appointed under the Poor-law Bill to be brought in for Ireland? Was it proper to place religious and educational bequests under the management of such an authority? It might be supposed these charities were of no very great amount, and that it would not be worth while for the House to make any inquiry into matters of such little importance; but he could tell the House there was primâ facie evidence of an enormous sum of money in Ireland, applicable to charitable purposes, which, if properly applied, would nearly educate the people of that country, and would go a very great way indeed towards diminishing the Poor-law expenses likely to arise from the new Act. There was at the present moment, under the control of the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ireland, in the public funds, 130,000 l.; in Chancery, and other courts of litigation, about

895
100,000 l.; and there were a great number of houses in different cities, and different parts of Ireland, left for similar purposes, valued by competent authorities, amounting to about 50,000 l., making a total of 280,000 l. Mr. Dalton, a man of great antiquarian research, a gentleman in whom he could place the utmost confidence, because he could have no object in deceiving him, had estimated the various gifts in Ireland at 110,150 l. per annum. This gentleman (Mr. Dalton) was a man of most laborious character, who had dedicated a long life to the investigation of matters connected with charities in Ireland, with education, and the antiquities of the country. No doubt this statement was correct as far as an individual could obtain it without an inquisitorial power, such as might be granted him by this House or by the Crown. Mr. Dalton did not exaggerate when he calculated the amount of the charities not under the control of the Board at 2,200,000 l., and the fact of there being only charities to the amount of 280,000 l., showed the great inefficiency and uselessness of the Board. The total amount of the charities, both under the control and independent of this Board was 2,480,000 l.; which, with Parliamentary grants amounting to 44,000 l. annually; grand jury grants, 60,000 l.; private subscriptions, 32,000 l.; charity sermons, 12,000 l., would, calculating the interest of the whole at four per cent., give the sum of 267,600 l. annually, which at this moment ought to be under the control of the Board. He wished to know whether this state of things was to remain in Ireland? He wished to know whether the charities of that country were to be left entirely under the control of a Board which nominally controlled them, but in reality did not? There was a precedent for the motion which he was now about to submit to the House, in the English Commission instituted several years back, which was now nearly closing its labours. He did not mean to follow that Commission in all its details. He did not mean to say that in its original constitution it was or was not effective or useful, or a creditable appointment for the country; or the Government of the day. But he proposed that if a Commission should issue, that it should be limited, not only as to the time of reporting to the House, but as to its expenses—thereby giving to
896
the House and the country some hope that it would not be protracted to an indefinite period, with Commissioners at large salaries. If this should be done, and honestly done, they would have speedy justice, and a proper management of the charities in Ireland. If the expenses and the time were not limited, he would not lend himself to the matter in any shape. He hoped her Majesty's Government would take the subject into consideration—that they would consider its importance, and enter upon an investigation of the charities of Ireland. The hon. Member concluded by moving that a humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to enquire into the constitution of the Board of Charitable Bequests in Ireland, and into the present charitable funds and property in that portion of the United Kingdom.
Mr. O'Brien Mr. O'Brien, in seconding the motion, expressed his belief that the hon. Member who had brought the subject under the consideration of the House had not overstated the case in any respect whatever. He was fully convinced that the present Board of Charitable Bequests was ineffective and inadequate to the purposes for which it had been constituted. He believed also, that the character of the Board was considered by the Roman Catholics of Ireland of so exclusive a nature, that it did not possess their confidence in any respect. The hon. Member for Waterford had not overstated the amount of expenses incurred by the Board as at present constituted, in the recovery of charitable bequests. He could also bear testimony to the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's estimate of the amount misappropriated and misapplied, which could not fall much short of 250,000 l. per annum. With respect to the placing of these Charitable Bequests under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners, that was a question which need not now be entertained; but so far as regarded the third branch of charities, those intended for the relief of the poor, in his opinion these might well be given up to the Poor-law Commissioners. It was necessary that adequate information should be obtained before the House could properly deal with the subject.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that after so many Commissions had been issued, he felt quite horrified at the proposition of

897
the hon. Member for Waterford. He should oppose the appointment of any fresh Commission of any sort, until a full inquiry had been instituted into this subject, in order that the House and the country might be satisfied as to the policy and prudence of issuing Commissions. He could not help regarding Commissions in general as complete jobs. He believed that many of them originated in the outcries raised by those hungry Gentlemen (he meant no offence to any one) who were in the habit of lounging about Downing-street, and could only be got rid of by placing them in some of those situations. He believed that they were situations of great responsibility, but. when he looked at the Record Commission and some others, he must say that he thought them perfectly useless, and that they had led to a great waste of public money. He protested against the present proposition also as being unnecessary. He believed that in nineteen cases out of twenty, nay in ninety-nine out of one hundred, there had been a just, fair, and impartial application of those charitable funds. Should the Government accede to the motion of the hon. Gentleman, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. Wysedefended the appointment of Commissioners, because he thought they were more competent to inquire into these matters than Committees, He considered it to be necessary to make a proper inquiry into these funds. The Board of Charitable Bequests was merely a Board for receiving applications made to them; but he contended there ought to be a Board maintaining a constant and vigilant observation from year to year over the administration of these charities. Members of his own family in Waterford had left a considerable portion of property, for the purpose of establishing alms-houses for poor men and women; but those bequests had never been carried into effect. The misapplication of funds of this description had the very worst moral influence in the country; it dulled the energy of benevolence, and prevented the application of funds to useful purposes, because a conviction lurked in the minds of men that if they made charitable bequests, there was no guarantee that those bequests would be properly applied. The misapplication of these funds had made religion a matter of monopoly.
Viscount Morpethsaid, if he were called
898
upon to give his opinion on the present occasion, he thought his hon. Friend, the Member for the city of Waterford, had made out a very strong case. His hon. Friend had shown that here was a very large amount of charity property in Ireland, with which the Board of Charitable Bequests was, from the nature of its formation, unable adequately to deal, because the board was composed of individuals who had other heavy official duties to perform, and who therefore were unable to devote that time to the board which was required. His hon. Friend had also shown that the members of the board were exclusively of one religion,— a circumstance which, without any imputation on their impartiality, might happen to excite the jealousy of the great portion of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, that such an exclusive board should have the control over their own charities. Again, his hon. Friend had proved that a large amount of the charity funds had been flittered away in law expenses, and he was confident that the House generally would agree with him, that if any property was to be squandered or frittered away, it ought not to be the patrimony of the poor. He certainly had expected that his hon. Friend, would make out a strong case, for the Government were already aware of the necessity of inquiry, and would have willingly taken the subject into their own hands, had they not felt that there were so many other important and pressing questions first to be disposed of, that neither they, nor indeed the Parliament, had time to devote to this subject. Again, the Government was very sensible of the imputation cast upon them by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, as to their partiality for commissions. It, however, must be admitted that whatever might be the nature of the tribunal or board to which it might be most conducive to the interests of all ultimately to intrust the management of the charities, it must, he repeated, be admitted that inquiry was in the first instance expedient. The only demur he should make to the immediate motion now before the House was as to whether it was now put in the best and most proper shape. His hon. Friend had said, that he was anxious to insure some limitation both of time and expense for this commission. Now, that limitation could not be secured by the motion now before the House, and there-

899
fore he thought it would be much more satisfactory if the question were brought forward in the same manner as the English Charities Commission—namely, by way of a bill. By that course a limitation of time and expense would be secured, and the objections of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln removed. His hon. Friend, too, must remember that a commission issued by the Crown without the sanction of an act of the Legislature was very much curtailed and crippled in some of its most important functions; such commission could not examine witnesses. Now, it was very material in any inquiry which would extend over the greater part of Ireland, that power should be given not only to call witnesses, but to compel the examination of unwilling witnesses upon oath. He would, on these grounds, therefore, ask his hon. Friend not to press his motion that evening, but to bring in a bill to limit the time and expense of the commission, and giving it power of complete and uncontrolled action. If his hon. Friend would do so, the Government would give his hon. Friend its best assistance.
Mr. Shawsaid, he could not but think it would be much better if the noble Lord would at once consent to take the matter into his own hands. Surely, no charge had been made—no case for inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Charitable Bequests had been made out; but even if there had, a commission was unnecessary, for that board was created by an Act of Parliament, a reference to which would give all the information that could either be afforded or required. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member would not press his motion, but accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that no inquiry was necessary into the constitution of the Board of Charitable Bequests; but it did not follow that there ought not to be an inquiry into the working of the board, and a general inquiry into the management of the charity property. He admitted that, as stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Wyse), the effort he had made some years ago to secure from local authorities, either grand juries or bodies of magistrates, an useful superintendence over the charities had
900
wholly failed, and it was now highly important to have a more efficient system of management. He fully concurred with the views expressed by his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, and trusted that his hon. Friend who had brought forward the subject would follow the precedent of the English Charities Commission Bill.
Mr. Barronwould, by the leave of the House, withdraw his motion, and give notice of his intention to bring in a bill embodying the principles suggested by his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland.
Motion withdrawn.

POST-OFFICE.— MR. HILL'S PLAN.
Mr. Wallacecalled the attention of the House to the petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh (presented 5th of February), praying that no experiment on Mr. Rowland Hill's plan might be entertained, unless based on its main principles. Much alarm had been occasioned throughout the country by the notice given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his being about to make an experiment of his own in contradistinction to that recommended by the Post-office Commissioners. In the course of last Session it was distinctly stated, that there commendations of the Commissioners with regard to the twopenny and threepenny postage being reduced to one penny, and the collection being made in advance by the use of stamp covers should have a fair trial. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked in December last what he meant to do upon the subject, he replied, that he intended, instead of following the recommendation of the Commissioners, to bring in a bill to authorise the use of twopenny stamp covers, within the twopenny district. If the right hon. Gentleman had offered a premium for a plan by which to overthrow the recommendation of the Commissioners, a better mode could not have been devised. The Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh, considering the great advantage that would accrue to the country from the adoption of a uniform system of charging postage, and of making a large reduction of the rates, had taken alarm at this proposal, and by their petition strongly urged upon the House that some means should be taken to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from following up his intention. On this occasion he would confine himself to this plain and simple question,

901
whether anything could be more perfectly absurd and untenable than that of pretending to carry out a suggestion for permitting the use of a stamp cover, at a penny rate, by means of a twopenny stamp cover? He could not for a moment suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would persevere in adopting so strange a proposition. The idea of the public being willing to take the additional trouble of purchasing a stamp, when they could send their letters at the same rate without a stamp, seemed to him so exceedingly preposterous that he would not argue the matter further. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the laws relating to the Post-office.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerpresumed that the only object of the present motion was to raise a discussion. To that he had no objection. He should ill discharge his duty, and not be showing that respect which he entertained for a Committee of this House, if he were to prejudge a question which was now under the consideration of a Committee up stairs. He had been called upon to consider the propriety of adopting Mr. Hill's plan. For that gentleman he entertained very great respect, but he could not, in deference to Mr. Hill's judgment, hazard the loss of an enormous amount of revenue. If he had made the experiment of Mr. Hill's plan, and had reduced the postage of all letters from their present amount to a penny, the increase in the number of letters that would be required to be delivered by the Post-office in order to prevent a loss would be from their present amount of 43,000,000 to somewhere about 400,000,000. No person on earth could imagine that any permanent arrangement could be made that would augment the correspondence in this country within any limited period to such an extent. All existing arrangements would have to be reorganised, and that upon a mere hypothesis. He would not presume to say that Mr. Hill's plan was wrong. Indeed he had consented to the appointment of a Committee, to whom that plan was submitted, and he thought it would be only prudent to await the report of that Committee, in order to see whether they considered it feasible The twopenny postage was an increasing source of revenue, which clearly proved that the present rate
902
of charge did not operate to diminish that description of correspondence. He had reduced the four penny postage to two pence, and had directed a registry to be kept of the amount of correspondence before the reduction and after, this would show the effect of that reduction upon the amount of correspondence. This information was essential, because all the reasoning in favour of an alteration would fall to the ground, unless it could be shown that the present postage duty threw difficulties in the way of the correspondence of the country. The hon. Gentleman was favourable to the experiment of a stamp-cover, but did he wish to try it fairly? It would not be trying it fairly if they said that a letter should go under a stamp cover for a penny, whereas a letter not going under a stamp cover should be twopence. It was supposed by some Gentlemen that notes of invitation and messages would be frequently sent by the twopenny post instead of by servants, if a stamp cover were allowed: he therefore had consented to the experiment. When the whole plan of Mr. Hill should have been considered by the Committee, and reported upon to the House, he should be prepared to give his determination upon it. At present he thought it prudent not to make any alteration in the existing system. He had great respect for the Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh, but he should have attached much more weight to their recommendation if it had been made with reference to their own city, instead of relating to the mode of carrying on correspondence in London.
Mr. Humesaid, that the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace) was precisely that which the right hon. Gentleman professed to be his; namely, that no alteration should be made until the whole plan had been fully determined upon. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said he was willing to make a partial attempt to carry Mr. Hill's plan into effect. It was not a partial trial of that plan, because Mr. Hill suggested the reduction of the duty to a penny. Two years had elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman declared that the present system should be altered; yet nothing had been done. The Post-office Commissioners had made ten reports, and he remembered no instance in which so many recommendations of a commission had been left unnoticed. He admitted that several useful alterations

903
had been introduced into the Post-office department; but he would press upon the consideration of the Government the distrust prevailing throughout the country as to any really beneficial change being effected while the present system continued.
Mr. Laboucherebegged to state, that so far from the recommendations of the Commissioners a pointed to inquire into the Post-office establishment not being attended to and supported by the Government, he (as one of those Commissioners) knew there had been on the part of the Government a most anxious desire to carry those recommendations into effect. When the Commission was appointed it was stated that the Commissioners would be a mere screen to the Government to stave off all reform, and that there was no real intention of looking into the abuses of the Post-office. He on that occasion gave a pledge in his own name, and in the name of his Colleagues, that they were determined to look fully and fairly into the subject, with a desire to lay before the public the sincere impressions which the inquiry might make upon them, and he now trusted that by the course they had taken, the expectations of the country had not been disappointed. The Commissioners made their reports without any communication or previous consultation with the Post-office or the Treasury, as they might have done, in order to ascertain whether the opinions of those authorities coincided with their own before being promulgated to the world. It must necessarily have sometimes happened that there should be a difference of opinion between the Commissioners and those two departments. He believed that the Commissioners would not have done their duty if they had by previous communications endeavoured to avoid that difference of opinion. At the same time they had no right to blame the Post-office authorities or the Government for exercising their own judgment with respect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. Nevertheless, he was not aware until this report with regard to the twopenny post-office came under consideration, that any important recommendation of the Commissioners had not been carried into effect as far as lay in the power of the Government. He denied that it was the fault of the Government that the Post-office had not been placed under the management of
904
Commissioners, instead of a postmaster general. It was the fault of Parliament. With regard to applying Mr. Hill's plan to the twopenny post by reducing the charge to a penny, it certainly involved a considerable amount of revenue; still he was sorry his right hon. Friend did not think himself justified to try the experiment. He should be glad to see it tried. He did not agree that the stamp covers was the chief part of Mr. Hill's plan. The most important principle of Mr. Hill's plan was the payment of the postage. This was a part of the plan about which he had always entertained the greatest doubt. He very much doubted the readiness of the public to acquiesce in a system which would deprive them of all option, when sending letters, whether to pay the postage or not. Upon the whole he thought it would be better to let the entire matter rest with the Committee up stairs; and he should be rather glad if his right hon. Friend would not make any partial experiment with regard to the stamped covers. He did not think it would be likely to lead to much satisfaction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the experiment of the stamped covers was not of his seeking. He had not the slightest difficulty, if the same Gentlemen who first wished to see the experiment tried were now desirous that it should be suspended, to accede to their request. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Kilkenny as to the recommendations of the Commissioners not having been acted upon, he wished to remark, that it was much easier for Commissioners and Members of Parliament to lay down a principle than for those who were charged with the execution of it to apply that principle. No principle was laid clown more authoritatively than that of applying the system of contracts to our packet communications. Every body seemed to consider that there was no port in which that experiment could be better tried than in the port of Liverpool. Parties informed him that if the unjust competition of the Government packets against the owners of the commercial packets were withdrawn, those owners were of that character that they would undertake to discharge the duty of carrying the mail for nothing. He and the Admiralty had been engaged from that time to the present in trying whether they could ob-

905
tain such a contract, and what was the result? The only tender which the Government had received, contrary to all the predictions made, was, that whereas the Government packets yielded from passengers 21,000 l. a-year to the Government; there were gentlemen in Liverpool generous and liberal enough to offer to enter into a contract, not to carry the mails for nothing, but for the sum of 34,000 l. a-year.
Mr. Wallacewould not occupy the time of the House in replying to the statements which had been made, but he must make one or two observations on the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the contracts for the packet service. In 1836 the St. George steam-packet company offered to carry the mails to Ireland for nothing; but what did the Government do? They refused this offer, but allowed in the same year an Act to be passed by Parliament limiting the liability of the company. This was done under the plea of assisting the inland navigation of Ireland; but 200,000 l. having been raised in consequence of that act, the company, instead of applying themselves to the inland navigation, set to work to build boats purposely to beat the Post-office, or rather, at that time, the Admiralty packets. The Admiralty continued their old boats, and the consequence was, that the St. George's company, having completely outsailed them, and carried away all the custom, now turned round and did what every other trading company would do under similar circumstances — they demanded 34,000 l. to contract for doing what, before their new boats were built, they would have gladly undertaken for nothing. The great been held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the reduction of the four penny postage to twopence, was not recommended by the Post-office Commissioners, but was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman on his own responsibility. It was true that a Committee had been appointed, and was still sitting; but before any report had been made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given notice of his bill. If the whole subject of the Post-office were to be left to the inquiry of the Committee he had no objection to make; but he hoped that in the meantime no attempt would be made by the right hon. Gentleman to give effect to his twopenny proceeding.
906
Having elicited that discussion he would beg the leave of the House to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

DAY MAIL TO SCOTLAND.
Mr. Wallaceagain rose to comment on another petition which he had presented from the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman then in the chair. He thought that the great constituencies of Edinburgh and Glasgow had been hardly dealt with in not having a day mail, when Dublin, Manchester, Birmingham, and other places, had been allowed the benefit arising from this recommendation of the Post-office Commissioners. But these Commissioners had also recommended that Edinburgh and Glasgow should be included in the arrangement. He had been assured that the day mail to Dublin had been established at the request of the Irish government. To this he had no objection; but if the Irish government had the power of controlling the Post-office authorities, and of preventing the extension of a similar advantage to other parts of the kingdom, he did most seriously complain. He must insist that many of the recommendations of the Post-office Commissioners had not been complied with, and one — the most necessary of any to remedy the defects of the present system—the recommendation of placing the whole of the Post-office matters in the hands of Commissioners, had been, if not entirely overlooked, at least disregarded. The change had been recommended in the report of July, 1835; but the report had not been circulated till 1836: how it had been kept back, or by whom, he did not know; still it was not delivered. In February, 1836, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been asked whether he intended to carry into effect this recommendation? His answer was, that he intended to introduce a measure founded upon the report. It was not, however, till nearly the end of the Session, the 8th of July, that a bill was introduced; it then passed through its several stages in that House, and reached the other House on the 4th of August, and was on the 12th of August thrown out of the House of Lords, because there was not sufficient time at that late period of the Session to give due consideration to so important a subject. Thus, although the bill was promised in February, it was

907
not begun till the 8th of July—one month only before the end of the Session—and did" not reach the Lords till within the last six days, and this was all the time which was afforded for deliberation on this great alteration. He feared that it was the amount of patronage at the disposal of the Government which they were most unwilling to part with, and which rendered them careless of the inconvenience experienced by the public. In 1837 the House was promised that the bill should be re-introduced. They all knew that the death of the Sovereign caused an abrupt termination of the Session; but more than two months of the present Session had already elapsed, and the bill had not yet been re-produced. He did not see why a preference should be given to the northern parts of England and to Dublin over Scotland; and he thought that, in justice to the manufacturers of that country, they ought to have equal facilities in the receipt of their foreign correspondence. There were other general measures recommended by the Commissioners which had not been adopted. He should conclude with moving for some returns which would show the real state of the case, and bring the whole question fairly before the House and the country. But he could not help adverting specifically to one great advantage which the Sunday day mail possessed; it took down the mail into the country the whole of the correspondence which came up on the Saturday night, and, if the mail were granted to Edinburgh, the Saturday's letters would reach that city thirty-six hours before the present time. If a day mail were established, the constituencies of Scotland would be able to read the debate of that night—if it were worth reading—twelve hours sooner than they could by the present arrangement. He recommended also that, instead of starting an additional mail coach to carry the morning mail, the effect of which was to cheat the turnpike trusts of the tolls, they should employ the regular coaches, of which many were constantly running to Birmingham; and he contended that there was no fear of the loss of the mail bags by these public conveyances, although they did carry so many passengers, for he had himself seen a mail-coach carry seven outside passengers without danger to the bags; and it was established last year before a Committee of that House, that in Ireland, where the
908
bags were forwarded by public passenger conveyances, very few, if any, robberies took place. The hon. Member concluded by moving for "A return, in abstract, of the recommendations contained in the ten reports of the Post-office Commissioners; specifying, 1st, what recommendations had been carried into full effect; 2dly, what recommendations had been partially adopted; and, 3dly, what recommendations had not been acted upon; together with the date of the report, the date when the recommendations were adopted, and the names of the Commissioners appended to the report."
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume, in seconding the motion, wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was satisfied that there was only one mode of removing the anomalies which at present existed, and the cause of complaint of the hon. Member for Greenock, and that mode was by the adoption of the plan suggested by the Commissioners, by changing the post-master-general's office, and allowing it to be executed by Commissioners. He hoped that no delay would take place upon this subject, and that the same excuse would not be furnished to the Lords as had been given in 1836 for rejecting a Bill of so much importance, because it reached them only within a week of the close of the Session. It should be recollected also that our Post-office establishment annually taxed the public to the amount of two millions and a half, and cost more than any other similar establishment. There was, therefore, no excuse for delay; and he would conclude by asking the right hon. Gentleman when he intended to bring in his Bill for carrying into effect the Commissioners' recommendations?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not rise to object to the motion of the hon. Member, but he must complain of the hon. Member's unfairness in giving notice of one motion and then bringing forward another. The hon. Member had given notice that he should call upon the House to "consider the petition from Edinburgh, presented 5th February, for establishing a morning mail to Scotland." Instead of confining himself to this, he had made a distinct charge against the Government, and concluded with a motion for returns of what had been effected towards carrying out the Commissioners' reports. Such a course of proceeding was

909
neither fair nor just, and nothing but the disposition felt by the Government to give every information relative to the Post-office precluded him from giving a direct negative to the hon. Member's proposition. He hoped the time would come when that House would not discuss a subject already referred to a Committee. If the House not only exercised, which it ought, and was bound to do, a general superintendence over the Administration as carried on in the different departments of the Government, but descended to the inquiry whether a twopenny post box should be opened in one place or another, he thought that they would not only be wasting the public time, but be also consuming the patience of the House; and not all the mails which should convey the records of that discussion would raise hon. Members in the opinion of their constituents, or the general character of that House. There was one subject mentioned by the hon. Member to which he must specifically refer. The hon. Member, in showing that the Government had overlooked the report of the Commissioners recommending an alteration in the present constitution of the Post-office, went logically to work to prove his statement by recapitulating from the votes of that House the steps which had been taken in introducing a Bill, which had been fought through that House for giving effect to the Commissioners' recommendations, and which had been lost in another place. To prove, therefore, that they have overlooked the report would require more ingenuity than was possessed by the hon. Gentleman. It certainly was his intention to introduce a Bill on this subject, containing enactments in the spirit of the alterations recommended by the Members of the commission. With respect, however, to the establishment of a day mail, which made a most important change in the arrangements of the Post-office, and which could only be effected by a great increase of expense, could anything be more reasonable or more just than that they should try an experiment in the first instance in a place where it was likely to be successful, and that they should wait to see the result of that experiment before they extended the plan? It must be observed also that it was only to a portion of the correspondence that a day mail was likely to be of any use. Whether letters were received at twelve
910
o'clock at night or at six o'clock in the morning was of no earthly importance— it was only near the extremity of the line, therefore, and in the neighbourhood of London, that the day mail would be of value. If the hon. Member considered, likewise, the entire alteration which was taking place in the country with regard to the whole system of coach communication, and the lines of railroad which were being established throughout the country, he would not, as a man of common sense, wish that they should enter into changes which would entail enormous charges on the public till they saw what species of communication was likely to be permanently established. The Western Railway, for instance, was likely to be completed, and would the hon. Member wish the Government to establish a double line of communication? Many others were in progress; and with respect to the Birmingham mail, he did not think that they could find contractors who would do anything for nothing, for the number of coaches was already so much reduced, as to render travelling very inconvenient at the present moment; and the Post-office had a difficulty, even after paying double the ordinary contract price, to find contractors. The full establishment of the day mail would require the re-modelling of the whole mail establishment, and he thought that Government was acting more prudently by not saddling the country at once with an enormous mass of charges, till it saw the results of what had been already done. The hon. Member for Greenock seemed to suspect that the Government never consulted the convenience of the public; but he must observe, that the interest of the Government was directly the reverse of this, for the more letters passed through the Post-office, the more correspondence took place, and the more the public convenience was consulted, the more income would it produce, and the greater would be the public revenue.
Mr. Gillonthought, that they ought to facilitate, by every means in their power, the transmission of letters and newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman had objected to the expense of establishing day mails, but he thought, that, having sent them to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Ireland, it would not be any great stretch of generosity to extend them to Scotland. The same mail would carry the Scotch as carried the Birmingham letters. At War-

911
rington now two mails met and ran together to Carlisle, where they separated, one going to Edinburgh, the other to Glasgow; by letting one coach carry both bags to Carlisle, and by making the second coach meet the day mail, both might be carried without the addition of a single coach. From Carlisle there were already two day mails, so that, with the same establishment, the greatest increase of assistance might be afforded to the mercantile interests of Scotland. He thought that his hon. Friend had been hardly dealt with when he had been accused of wasting the time of the House, for he considered this a most important subject. Whether he should succeed or not in the motion which he intended to bring forward for the equalization of the taxation on the various methods of internal communication, he must remark on the great absurdity of charging any duty on carriages carrying the mails, for the mileage duty was repaid by the public in the shape of an increased rate of contract, and the public were clear losers by the poundage. Valuable evidence was given before the Committee of last year by Sir Edward Lees, that great advantage had been experienced in Ireland from the establishment of mails carrying passengers and paying no duty, and no robberies had been effected on these mails, whilst many had been committed on the single-horse or foot posts. By this means, also, posts and conveyances for passengers had been established on the cross-roads of Ireland, whilst they were very deficient in all the cross-roads in England and in Scotland.
Sir George Sinclairwas of opinion, that the establishment of a day mail would be a great convenience to the people of Scotland, and that it might be obtained at a comparatively trifling expense. He would call the attention of the House to the present position of the twopenny-postmen employed in London. They had recently had some additional onerous duties imposed upon them, without their receiving any additional pay.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, that he had no doubt, that the establishment of the day mail would be of great use to Edinburgh, but it was a matter in which he thought the House would not interfere. With regard to the wages paid to the twopenny-post letter-carriers, he was of opinion that the pay which they received was a sufficient remuneration for their services, al-
912
though it was true that their duties had of late been increased by an arrangement recently made in the Post-office. At the same time, however, additional hands had been employed, and means had been adopted by which they would be entitled eventually to some remuneration: this was by their becoming entitled, on long service, to some extra pay. The plan had been adopted by the Treasury, in obedience to a suggestion which he had thrown out, and a mode of classification had been taken by which good servants of the longest standing would be the best paid. With regard to the general question of increasing the pay of the letter-carriers, he was of opinion, that any alteration in the present system was unnecessary.
The Attorney-Generalfelt, that he ought not to allow this subject to be discussed without expressing a hope, that the officers of her Majesty's Government within whose province the matter lay, would give the subject their most serious and speedy consideration. He had no doubt, that the establishment of a day mail to Ireland was most useful; and he had no doubt, that it was proper that it should be seen whether the plan with regard to that portion of the kingdom succeeded before it should be carried into effect with reference to another portion of the kingdom. It had succeeded, and why was it not adopted now with regard to Scotland? The line was already formed to Liverpool, and the mail might be conveyed on without much additional expense. Not only Edinburgh, but the whole of Scotland was interested in the matter.
Motion agreed to.

REAL PROPERTY.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that in rising to move for leave to bring in several Bills to amend the law as it at present stood with regard to real property, he should feel it necessary to occupy the attention of the House only for a few moments. The Bills which he proposed to introduce were substantially the same as those which had been introduced in a former session, and they were founded on the report of the Real Property Commissioners. The first was a Bill to facilitate the enfranchisement of lands of copyhold and customary tenures. He had wished to abolish the tenures altogether, as he knew they were attended with very great inconvenience, in producing disputes between the lords of ma-

913
nors and others, but he was not bold enough to bring in a measure so sweeping in its provisions. His Bill was, therefore, only to facilitate the enfranchisement of lands. The second Bill was introduced with a view of remedying some of the inconveniencies with regard to copyhold tenures, such as holding courts, making surrenders, and with regard to leasing copyhold lands; and it was entitled a Bill for the amendment of the law relating to lands held by copy or court-roll. The third Bill was to authorise the identifying or ascertaining the boundaries of manors and lands, where such boundaries were confused or unknown. The limits of manors he knew were ill-defined, and with a view to their being properly settled he proposed that referees should be appointed to ascertain them. The fourth Bill was for abolishing customs relating to lands in certain cases. He desired that the general law should be that of primogeniture, but there were some cases in which it was proper that the old law should be continued. In the case of the custom of gavelkind, which existed in the county of Kent, he did not propose any alteration. It was, in his opinion, mischievous, for the effect of it was, that in the event of the death of a man with seven sons and seven daughters, his property would not go to the eldest son, nor would it be equally divided among his children, but it would be parted among the seven sons, and his daughters would not receive anything. The people of Kent, however, were satisfied with the custom, and it would be better to allow it to remain. He had wished to abolish heriots altogether, as well as copyholds, in accordance with the Bill he had formerly brought before the House; but he felt that he could not now extend his proposed measure so far. The only other subject to which his Bills referred was the law of escheat. He desired to bring in a Bill which would very much modify the existing law; but he did not think that it was necessary now to go into the particulars of it, but hoped that the second reading would not be opposed when the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee of Members; and he hoped that those Gentlemen who were connected with the legal profession would give him their assistance.
Mr. Goulburndid not oppose the motion of the learned Attorney-General; but he was glad to find that he had omitted
914
in his Bill the clause which had before been introduced with regard to compensation for heriots; for he thought that that could never be persevered in with any prospect of success. The learned Attorney-General had thrown out that it was his intention to call upon those hon. Members connected with the legal profession who were in the House to afford their services on the Select Committee. Now, with all respect to those hon. and learned Members, he should suggest that the Committee should not be entirely formed of such persons, but that some of those Members of the House who were acquainted with the subject of manors generally, should be also selected; for he was of opinion that the legal Gentlemen would suggest merely those amendments which affected the technical portions of the law, and which would facilitate the transfer of large properties, but which would not touch upon the real justice of the case.
Mr. Aglionbyhoped that the learned Attorney-General would not confine his Bill to defining the limits of manors only, but that he would direct his attention also to lande within manors.
Leave given.

EDUCATION IN CANADA.
Mr. Humesaid, that he had a variety of returns to move for respecting Canada, but in the absence of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies he should abstain from making any observations. The hon. Member moved for various returns. The hon. Member said, he was sorry that the right hon. Member for Coventry was not in his place, for if he were he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would have availed himself of the opportunity of giving an explanation of a statement he made the other night, that not more than two in a hundred of the constituency of Lower Canada could read or write. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman in his statement alluded altogether to the elder part of the population, and not to the rising generation. He was authorised to state, that since 1833 there had been founded in that colony 1,216 schools, which had not less than 65,000 scholars. This was a very large proportion, for the whole population of the colony did not exceed 800,000. It was also stated, in that which he believed to be the best history of Lower Canada, namely, that written by Mr. Macgregor, "that the schools

915
were under the protection of the Government, and that they had been established principally during the last six years. Indeed in every parish, and in almost every settlement, a school had been established, which was open to all classes, without any distinction as to religion, and both sexes were instructed in English and French. The number of these schools was upwards of 1,200, and the scholars of both sexes were not less than 65,000." The authority of this Gentleman would probably be relied on, for he was at present employed by the Government on some important statistical investigations. He believed that the House of Assembly of Lower Canada wished to devote 50,000 l. a year to the purposes of general education in that colony, but the Legislative Council rejected the Bill for the purpose. The plan was therefore now in abeyance. According to the return he had referred to, the proportionate state of education at present in the colony was greater than it was in this country. So much for the statement as to the want of education in Lower Canada; and he had no doubt, if opportunity was afforded for inquiry, that other charges which had been brought against the colony would turn out to be as false and calumnious as that which had been put forth as to the want of education. The hon. Member concluded with moving for a copy of the Acts of the Parliament of Lower Canada, passed since 1828, for the promotion of education and the establishment of schools in that province; together with a copy of the last report made to the House of Assembly of the state of education, and of the number of schools and scholars in each county, and the numbers in the whole province.
Lord John Russellregretted that his right hon. Friend was not present, as the hon. Gentleman had alluded to what had fallen from him a few nights ago. The hon. Gentleman said, that his right hon. Friend had fallen into an error respecting the state of education in the colony, but he did not think that what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman shook in the slightest degree the statement of the right hon. Gentleman or any other person on this subject. His right hon. Friend said, that the constituent body that elected the House of Assembly of Lower Canada was remarkably ignorant, and that the very great majority, as he said, and a large proportion, as others asserted, could nei-
916
ther read nor write. The hon. Gentleman now said, that there was a great deal of education at present in Lower Canada; but his right hon. Friend did not allude to what had taken place during the last nine years, or since 1828, since which period, a great many schools had, no doubt, been established. Nobody denied that education had recently increased in Canada; and he had himself stated that very large grants of money had been voted since 1828, by the House of Assembly for the purposes of education; but it must be recollected, that none of those who could have profited by the education so provided could be at present older than mere boys. Nobody had said that the House of Assembly was opposed to education; but, at the same time, the statement originally made was far from being calumnious, for it was well known that a very large proportion of the adult population were uneducated.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the statement of the noble Lord merely rested on his own authority; he should produce something like proofs if he wished to remove all doubt on the subject. The charge of ignorance, however, did not justify the depriving of the people of Canada of their constitution. If this were the case, the ignorance of the people in many parts of England would afford a justification for taking away their civil rights.
Sir R. Peeldid not, when the right hon. Member for Coventry stated that the people of Canada were educated in the proportion of two in a hundred, understand him to pledge himself as to the precise number of the educated and uneducated people there. He believed the right hon. Gentleman meant to imply that the state of education was so limited in Canada that a great part of the population who enjoyed the elective franchise, were not able to form a very accurate judgment on the matters involved in dispute.
Returns were ordered.

VOTES IN COMMITTEE.
Mr. Humeproposed a motion to the effect that every motion in a Committee of the whole House in which a division takes place, be recorded and reported in the votes of the day, and the number and names of the Members voting be recorded, in the same manner as in the divisions in the House. The motion had already been agreed to by the House, but had not been acted

917
upon in the way he expected. The names were already printed in the appendix to the votes, as well as the words of the motion or amendment, but he thought that it would be more convenient to have the words of the motion or amendment, when a division took place, printed in the body of the votes. He was aware that what he proposed would, in some degree, increase the trouble, but he thought that the advantages that would result from it would afford an ample compensation.
Mr. Goulburndid not intend to object to the motion, but did not clearly understand the object of the hon. Member. It appeared, that at present the list of names in a division in Committee was given. By giving all the amendments introduced into a bill in Committee, the votes would be swelled to a most voluminous extent. The amendments could not be given short so as to make them intelligible, for a division in Committee frequently took place on the motion to leave out a single word, which often involved the most important considerations.
Mr. Warburtonremarked, that his hon. Friend proposed that the amendments in Committee should only be inserted in the votes when a division took place.
Lord John Russellsaid, that for the sake of uniformity it might be desirable to agree to the motion, but he thought that it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Speaker.
The Speakerstated, that he was most anxious to afford every facility regarding the printing of the votes which would meet the feeling of the House. The House, he was sure, was aware that the votes should be drawn up in such a manner as not to be too voluminous, so that they could be printed and delivered as soon as possible in the morning. Most hon. Members were anxious that the votes should be delivered at their several residences before they left their houses in the morning, and he hoped that the House would not hastily come to a decision which would swell the size of the votes in such a degree that it would often happen that they could not be printed until a late hour. If the hon. Member chose to leave the matter in his hands, he would endeavour to adopt some arrangements to meet his views. He would avail himself of the present opportunity of making a suggestion in another matter connected with the printing the votes. It often happened that when the
918
House was engaged until a late hour in a debate of importance several orders were left to be postponed or disposed of at two or three o'clock in the morning. It would be a great advantage as regarded affording facilities for printing the votes, if those orders were disposed of at the early period of the evening.
Mr. Humewould willingly leave the matter in the hands of the Speaker, and withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

COPARTNERSHIP—CLERGYMEN TRADING.
House in Committee on the Banking Copartnership Bill. Several clauses agreed to.
Mr. Courtenay Mr. Courtenay moved the addition of a clause, to include within the operation of the Bill the clerical partners in fire and life assurance companies.
The Solicitor-Generalobserved, that the case of such partners did not come within the operation of the 57th of George 3rd, and, therefore, it would be unnecessary to include them in the present Bill.
Sir R. Peelwould take that opportunity to express his regret that the Government had not moved for the appointment of a Committee, composed of the most able lawyers and the most eminent mercantile men in the House, to consider the whole case. Had such a step been taken, this benefit would have resulted—that there would have been placed on the records of the House a statement of the reasons which had induced Parliament to interfere for the purpose of reversing the decision of a court of law. The appointment of a Committee would also have been followed by this advantage—that all the cases requiring a remedy would probably have been anticipated, whereas it was now not unlikely from the necessarily hurried manner in which the Bill must be passed through its different stages, that some of these cases would not be provided for. At the same time he admitted that a necessity had arisen which justified the adoption of an extraordinary measure like that now before the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that but for the pressing nature of the case the Government would not have objected to the appointment of a Committee. Had the Government delayed to take immediate steps to provide a remedy in the emergency which had arisen, they

919
would have been charged with timidity, and with unnecessary procrastination; and he doubted very much whether the appointment of fifteen Members of that House, to sit on a decision of the Court of Exchequer, would have given general satisfaction. A a proof of the necessity of adopting some measure with as little delay as possible, to meet the emergency which had been created by the decision of the Court of Exchequer, he could state, that a letter had been written to a certain banking company, intimating that if they did not agree to a compensation of a debt due to them by a person, against whom a fiat of bankruptcy had been issued, their whole claim would be resisted as illegal, several clergymen being members of that joint-stock company. That was certainly a most dishonourable proceeding; but if Government had delayed to take immediate steps on the present occasion they would have given a power to all fraudulent persons to resist the claims of joint-stock companies; and the evils which would have resulted as the consequence would, in a very short time, have been incalculable. These, he thought, were reasons sufficiently strong to justify the course which had been adopted; but he had one argument more. In the only other similar case which had come before Parliament the same course had been pursued as on the present occasion, so that Ministers were not only justified by the necessity of the case, and by a due regard for justice, but also by the only precedent upon record, in the course they had adopted upon the present occasion.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, the only question to be considered was one in regard to time, for it was impossible to pass this Bill without a full investigation of its merits, and of the causes which' had rendered it necessary. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the danger of being charged with timidity justified the course which the Government had pursued on this occasion; but was it possible for her Majesty's Ministers to ask any person to pass this Bill before it had been subjected to the investigation of a committee? He believed the House would not be asked to pass the Bill before a Committee had sat upon it, and it was upon that belief he had acted; and he therefore trusted that a full investigation would take place. The question, therefore, as regarded the appointment of a
920
Committee was simply one of time. He might also mention that the Bill, as at present framed, would not meet all the difficulties which might arise from the late decision, and he hoped the measure would yet be rendered more general in its provisions.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, it seemed to him that a general misunderstanding pervaded the House in regard to the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. The fact was, that no positive decision had yet been given; an opinion only had been expressed, and the House was not legislating in consequence of the decision of a judge.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, that facts had been stated of persons having already taken advantage, of the present state of the law; and as many more might, before the end of the week, avail themselves of the decision which had been given in the Court of Exchequer, to resist payment of their lawful debts, he thought the Government perfectly justified in the course they had adopted.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the opinion he had before expressed had been confirmed by what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtenay). The House was in fact called upon to act in regard to a decision which had not yet been given.
Mr. Courtenaycould assure the House that no decision had yet been given. The judge had expressed an opinion, but had refused to give a final judgment till the special demurrer which had been taken should have been argued.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that that was what he had stated, and he thought, before the Legislature had been called upon to interfere, there ought to have been a decision. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated that the Government would have been charged with timidity if they had acted in a different manner from what they had done; and he took credit to himself for the course they had pursued; but he could not conceive a more unnecessary display of courage than had been made by the Government on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said, "See what magnanimity we possess in bringing forward the present measure on our own responsibility;" but he (Sir R. Peel) could give the right hon. Gentleman no credit for the course he had pursued, or the magnanimity he had displayed. The

921
grounds of proceeding ought to have been placed on record, and the present measure ought not to have been brought forward simply on an opinion pronounced by a judge of the Court of Exchequer. There were some subjects of far less importance in regard to which the Government did not hesitate about the appointment of a Select Committee, and there could be little doubt that the present was a case which called for the fullest investigation. The remedy ought to be commensurate to the evil, and without inquiry it could hardly be expected that an adequate remedy could be provided.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas quite satisfied that the course which the Government had pursued was perfectly justified by the circumstances. He, however, begged to say, that he had made no claim to courage in bringing forward the present measure, and he had only stated that the objection of timidity might have been raised against the Government.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that to all intents and purposes there had been a judgment. The court had decided that two clergymen being Members of a joint-stock company, the company could not enforce payment of a just debt. That decision, he thought fully justified the present measure, although he acknowledged that no formal judgment had been entered on the record.
Mr. Courtenaythought, that the circumstance stated by the Solicitor-General made an important difference in this case, so far as the Legislature was concerned. It was certainly important to know whether a judgment or merely an opinion had been given.
Mr. Maulethought the Government perfectly justified in the course they had adopted, but he did not think the bill would apply to every case. It simply had reference to mere shareholders, and would not apply to those clergymen who were Members of the direction of joint-stock companies.
Sir W. Follettthought, that if the bill was to be made retrospective in its operation it ought to take in all parties. With respect to the interference of the bill with pending suits, it would be recollected by the House, that last Session a bill was introduced which affected causes that had arisen under the operation of the Municipal Corporation Act. He did not say that the bill ought to be made to apply to a case
922
wherein a person might have caused a suit to be instituted to avoid the payment of a bonâ fide debt. There should be a protection against fraud. He must confess that he was not prepared to impose those restrictions upon clergymen which he found some hon. Gentlemen were, because he thought there were some occupations in which a clergyman might fairly and properly embark without neglecting his sacred duties, and with advantage to his family.
The Solicitor-Generalintimated that he should make such alterations in the bill as would make it applicable to clergymen, whether they were directors, managers, or shareholders.
Bill passed through the Committee.— House resumed.

QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS.
House in Committee on the Qualification of Members Bill.
Sir E. Sugdenbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to take any part in this bill? It was of so important a nature that it ought to attract the attention of the Government. It appeared to him that the real object of the bill was to give that which was not really a qualification the character of a qualification, while it provided no means of testing the qualification of any persons who might be elected to represent a borough or county in that House. It was true that at present it was possible to evade the law. But he understood the real object of the hon. Member for Bridport to have been, to get rid of all qualifications. Not succeeding in that, however, he had now proposed a bill to establish something in shape or form of a qualification, but which in fact was a mere nullity, and intended to effect the other object. He was of opinion, that the greater the extent of the franchise, the more reason there was for a sure and proper qualification on the part of the representative. A man, either by inheritance, or by his own talent and industry working his way up in the world, might become possessed of property which would give an assurance to his constituency that he would perform his duties in a satisfactory manner. He did not mean to say that a man would neglect his duty because he was not possessed of property, but the possession of property was a security to the country in the case of a Member of Parlia-

923
ment for the proper discharge of the responsibilities of his situation. As to making personal estate a qualification, that might be a very easy plan, but not a satisfactory one. A man might reckon is furniture from his kitchen to his attic as sufficient to give him a qualification. But how would they ascertain its value? Would they employ surveyors or appraisers? Why, it was a well known fact that those persons scarcely ever agreed in the valuations which they made. There ought to be a ready test of the qualification, and not a long trial, and a tedious inquiry, as to whether a man's house was full of furniture or not, and so on. Looking with all the candour he could afford, on the present occasion, to that clause of the bill respecting annuities, he must say that he never saw a clause drawn more truly in the spirit of philosophy, to give to the eye that which was denied to the understanding. As to the oath, a man might very conscientiously swear that he was duly qualified, having respect to what was called personal property, and that was all required of him, and there was no mode of showing that his qualification was not good. He apprehended that on these and other grounds this bill ought not to be allowed to pass. Indeed he thought the hon. Member for Bridport could scarcely entertain a serious hope that it would pass.
Mr. Warburtonwould merely observe, that during the discussions which preceded the passing of the Reform Bill, when the qualification of Members elected to serve in Parliament came under the consideration of the House, a minister of the Crown stated, in his place, that it was never intended that the statutes regulating the qualification, should bear a stringent construction or be rigidly adhered to; that the only object was to secure the return of Members who would be respectable in station and character; that the object was not that they should actually possess the qualification required, but that they should be of a sufficient degree of respectability. Such, too, was the simple object of his bill. The number of petitions presented during the present Session against persons returned for not possessing the requisite qualification, was eighteen. That would serve to show the extent in which it was doubtful whether Members returned duly elected, possessed the requisite qualification or not. During the last Session, one
924
of the Members for the county of Cornwall made a motion to do away with the property qualification altogether. During the discussions which that motion gave rise to, it was stated by several hon. Members, that they were willing to entertain the question, whether or not the nature of the qualification should not extend to personal as well as real property. He then thought there was a reasonable hope of inducing the House to entertain the present bill. For its provisions, or the mode by which these provisions were to be carried into effect, he had no particular affection, and would be glad to avail himself of the assistance and suggestions of the House towards devising a different or a better plan. In answer to the objections made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would instance the case of the heir-apparent to a man possessing himself a qualification of 300 l. or 600 l. a-year. Now, the interest of the heir-apparent, which the present statutes considered a sufficient qualification, was, at most, but a reversionary interest. It might turn out, in point of fact, to be nothing. Unless the House were disposed to confer inquisitorial powers on the examiners of qualification, they could not get a full disclosure either with regard to landed or funded property. Let them take, for instance, the case of a secret transfer of the funds, and they would see the difficulty, nay, the impossibility, of effectually guarding against underhand dealings. He hoped that the House would not take up the matter as a party question, but as one of great public importance.
Mr. Praedwould either go farther than the hon. Member for Bridport, or he would not go so far. That the bill was, in some respects, an improvement he did not mean to deny. He thought, however, the hon. Member's bill went too far in allowing professional income to amount to a qualification. The qualification arising from the possession of funded property, was a great improvement as far as it went. It may, perhaps, admit of a question, whether it was desirable to have any qualification at all. The great objection to the present system was, not that it exclusively permitted landed property to be the qualification, but that it gave occasion for gross frauds. That inconvenience would continue just as much under the present bill. With reference to the quotations made by the hon. Member for Bridport,

925
and which he professed to find in a speech delivered by Lord Althorp, he (Mr. Praed) could only say, that he never heard Lord Althorp make use of any such expressions as that it was the present intention of the statutes regulating the qualification that the construction should not be stringent, or that there was such an object as the hon. Member had stated. In the case of landed property, the title deeds may, without inconvenience, be deposited for a short time; and in the case of funded property, there would be no difficulty in lodging with the officer a distring as upon 300 l. or 600 l. worth of stock.
Colonel Sibthorpwould be glad to see the amount of qualification trebled, instead of being diminished. If the present bill was allowed to pass, he could not see how a fellow possessed of a common country stallion, whose labours produced him an income of 300 l. a-year, might not be imported into that House as a Member of Parliament, and be a proper person to sit there. At the same time, he was not prepared to deny, that such persons might be much better qualified than many hon. Members who at present had seats in the House.
Sir R. Inglisrecollected a case which occurred about two or three Parliaments ago, which went to show that a conveyance, which was considered as a mere accommodation, did actually vest in the Member for whose accommodation it was done, the absolute right to the property, &c, conveyed. It was held in a court of law, that the creditors of the person to whom the land was conveyed for the purpose of enabling him to qualify were entitled to the property in payment of debts. The best qualification, as it appeared to him, consisted in lands, whether freehold, copyhold, or leasehold, and the next best was money in the funds.
Lord J. Russellowned it did not appear to him to be especially incumbent on the Government to give an opinion upon this Bill. It was a matter of general legislation, upon which individual Members, being as much interested, were as much bound to give an opinion as the Government. He confessed, however, that in his mind it was not a matter of legislation of very high importance. He was ready to assent to a qualification, because he thought public opinion was in favour of a qualification; but as to any great particular advantage to be gained from it, he
926
owned he had always been at a loss to discover it. He did not find that the English Members, who were compelled to qualify, were in any respect superior to the Members for Scotland, in whose case no qualification was required. Nor did he find that the Universities by reason of their not having a qualification elected persons less fit or less qualified than the Representatives of other parts of the kingdom. Therefore he did not himself attach any very great value to the qualification; and certainly he attached very little value to the qualification established by the Act of Anne. He thought that the qualification prescribed by that Act requiring Members for boroughs to have a certain amount of landed property was a qualification adverse to all the ancient principles of representation. Such a qualification could never have been intended originally, and he thought it was quite as little suited, if not less suited, to the present state of circumstances than to that which existed when the right of representation was first given. Every body admitted that a rich banker, or a person possessing large property in the funds, although he had not a single acre of land, was perfectly qualified to sit in that House. He had never heard any body contend that the principles of the Act of Anne were of any very essential use to the House. Entertaining these opinions with respect to the qualification, all that he could wish from the introduction of a Bill of this description would be to endeavour to make the law a little more agreeable to the fact. It was well known that there were persons sitting in that House whose qualifications, under the existing law, were doubtful, but who, under various clauses of the Bill now proposed, would be enabled to say that they were duly qualified with perfect truth. If some Bill of this kind were passed, the qualification of the Member would be that which he in fact possessed, instead of being, as was now too often the case, a purely fictitious qualification. He thought that such an alteration of the law was highly desirable. That, however, was the total amount of the advantage that could be gained from the adoption of a Bill of this kind. Therefore, he said generally that he was of opinion that a Bill extending beyond landed property to funded, leasehold and other tangible property, was a very good measure to propose. He should be further

927
disposed to say, but upon that point he imagined a great part of the House would differ from him, that professional income should be considered as a good qualification likewise. Having made these general remarks he would only further observe that he did not think the proposition of the hon. Member for Aylesbury could be carried into effect bona fide without creating much vexation to many Members of Parliament; and he confessed he did not think it worth while for the sake of any exact or stringent qualification to subject Gentlemen to such a vexation.
Mr. Hawkesthought, that funded property should be admitted as a qualification as well as land. He was disposed to support the view taken of the subject by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
Sir Edward Sugden: The House seemed to be agreed on all sides, that there ought to be some alteration of the qualification. There must be time allowed to see what that alteration ought to be. He would therefore propose, that the Chairman do now report progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order that time might be obtained to consider the subject, and to frame the necessary clauses.
Sir Robert Peelthought, that the difficulty to the Bill and the difficulty to the parties to whom it would apply would be in making the declaration, which was to be considered as equal to an oath. The Bill required, that Gentlemen elected as Members of Parliament should declare, that according to the best of their knowledge and belief they were entitled to sit and vote in the House of Commons. Now, suppose the case of a professional man, whose usual income did not exceed 100 l. a-year, but who from some accidental cause had received an income of 300 l. the year before he was elected as a Member of Parliament; was the fact of his having received the 300 l. for the one year, without the reasonable prospect of receiving it again for the next year, or, in fact, of ever receiving it again at all, to be taken as a good qualification? The House would perceive, that under the provisions of the Bill now proposed, a difficulty would at once arise upon a point of that kind. He thought, therefore, that whatever qualification were adopted, great care ought to be taken to make the intention of the Legislature clear and precise. He certainly must say, that he thought the present qualification unsatisfactory. Land
928
might be a very proper qualification, but it did not follow that it should be the only qualification. Under the existing system it was perfectly notorious that many Members sat under a fictitious qualification; and it was equally notorious that parties took an oath, that they were possessed of 300 l. a-year in land, when in fact they did not possess a single acre. That being the case, it was impossible to resist the conclusion that the present qualification was unsatisfactory. He thought, that the objection might be remedied by allowing the qualification to consist of personal as well as landed property. If a respectable man were enabled to state, "I am in possession of personal property sufficient to entitle me to sit in Parliament," he thought that that would be more satisfactory in every point of view than the compelling him to go to a friend to obtain a temporary qualification. He confessed he did not see any great advantage that could result from agitating the question at all; but if a new qualification were to be adopted, he thought the simplest would be the best. Say, for instance, where a party did not possess land, that he should be required to have such an amount of personal property as would secure a certain definite income. That would be plain and intelligible. He (Sir R. Peel) would exclude all professional income, all chattel property, which in most instances consisted only of furniture, and even the stallion to which the gallant Colonel had referred. He would simply require that a Member of Parliament should possess a certain fixed amount, either of real or personal property. But as he objected to the present mode of procuring a fictitious landed qualification, so also should he object to the transfer of any amount of funded property for the purpose of giving a temporary qualification.
Mr. Goulburnconcurred in the view taken of this subject by his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, and especially that care should be taken to prevent the "loose dealing" (of which the noble Lord had spoken) in funded property. Perhaps it might be thought that this was a question in which he ought not to interpose, inasmuch as he was one of those from whom no property qualification was required. But it should be remembered that the Members for the Universities were required to have some qualification in

929
other respects; the Universities were obliged to return Members of their own body supposed to be qualified otherwise than by property. He did not mean to assert that applied to himself individually. With respect to this Bill, he thought it would be better to withdraw it from further discussion at present, in order to render its enactments more conformable to practice. If the Bill merely continued the present existing qualification with the addition of the qualification from funded property, it would be more likely to work well than in its present shape.
Mr. Warburtoncould not consent to extend the qualification merely to funded property, when he knew many leaseholds as good as freeholds. He had no objection to withdraw the provisions in the Bill as to professional incomes, and leave the qualification to be upon real and personal property of a tangible character. He desired also to equalise the amount of the county qualification to that now necessary for a borough qualification, viz., 300 l. a-year. On that understanding he would consent to the Chairman now reporting progress, and he would frame clauses for the purposes he had stated.
Sir R. Peelcould not consent to the undertaking the hon. Member for Bridport desired. He repeated, that he was ready to add personal to the existing landed qualification, but he could not commit himself to the proposition for making the qualification for counties the same as that required for boroughs. He reserved himself also on the question as to the amount of the qualification.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as the Canada Government Bill had been returned from the other House with only one amendment, the House would probably permit him now to proceed with it. The amendment made by the Lords was merely a provision requiring Members of the Special Council to take the oaths of allegiance before sitting or voting at the board. He therefore moved the House to agree with the Lords' amendment.
Motion agreed to.