Commons Sitting of 4 May 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. Roche, and G. Evans, and Captain Bryant, from a number of places, against the Irish Registration Bill.—By Messrs. Macinnon, T. Parker, Hodgson, Planta, Lord C. Manners, Lord F. Somerset, Colonels Lygon, and Wood, and Sir R. H. Inglis, from a number of places, for, and by Messrs. Martin, Dundas, B. Smith, V. Smith, E. Buller, Hawes, Villiers, Ainsworth, Labouchere, Pattison, Captain Pechell, Sir G. Staunton, Sir H. Fleetwood, Sir W. Molesworth, Sir B. Hall, and Sir R. Vivian, from an immense number of places, against, Church Extension.—By Colonel Conolly, and Mr. Sheil, from several places, against, and Sir R. Ferguson, from Londonderry, for, the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from St. Ann's, Westminster, against Sunday Trading.—By Mr. Martin, from several places, against the County Constabulary Bill.—By Mr. Philpots, from Gloucester, and Mr. T. Duncombe, from Dundee, for the Dismissal of Ministers.—By Mr. Blacket, from the Medical Men of Northumberland, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. A. White, from York, against the Opium Trade.—By Mr. Drummond, from Perth, for Settling the Scotch Church Question.—By Sir W. Molesworth, from Glasgow, for Universal Suffrage.—By the same, Messrs. Villiers, Hume, Pattison, and Ewart, from a great number of places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir W. Molesworth, from Leeds, for the Separation of Church and State, the Abolition of Church Rates, and of Ecclesiastical Courts, and the Release of John Thorogood.—By Mr. Ewart, from Wigan, for the Abolition of Church Rates.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Dundee, for a Pardon to Frost, Williams, and Jones, and the Discharge of all Persons imprisoned for Political Offences.—By Mr. Wakley, from a Metropolitan Parish, to the same effect.—By Mr. Wakley, from Persons in Stirlingshire, for Vote by Ballot, Annual Parliaments, and against a Property Qualification.—By Mr. Blackburn, from Yorkshire, against the Post-horse Duty.

TURKEY AND EGYPT.
Mr. Humerose to put the following questions, of which he had previously given notice to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs:—Whether, as stated in the public papers, the British Government has again interfered, through Lord Ponsonby, to prevent the Sultan from entering into direct negotiations with Mehemet Ali for a settlement of their differences; and whether, on that occasion, it has acted in concert with the other European powers or their Ministers at Constantinople? Whether any orders have been issued by her Majesty's Government for reprisals against Mehemet Ali; whether, as stated in public journals, two ships sent by Mehemet Ali to bring recruits from Albania to Candia had been detained by a British frigate and conducted to Corfu; and, whether returned or not? Whether orders have been

1181
issued by her Majesty's Ministers, or by Lord Ponsonby, to Colonel Hodges, the British Consul-general in Egypt, to interfere in the affairs of Egypt by giving subjects of the Sultan passports to leave Egypt? The questions were such as involved peace or war, and he trusted the noble Lord would give an explicit answer to them.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the same state of affairs now existed as when on a former occasion his hon. Friend moved for the production of correspondence, with regard to negotiations, and therefore he did not know how far it would be prudent to accede to any motion his hon. Friend might make on this subject; but he was quite ready to give an answer to his questions. In the first place, the House was aware that in July last the representatives of the five powers, fearing that the Sultan might from the pressure of circumstances make unnecessary and injurious concessions to Mehemet Ali, presented a note in the name of their respective courts, requesting him not to enter into negotiations with Mehemet Ali respecting anything that had been done with the concurrence of the Five Powers, and Lord Ponsonby received instructions to use any influence he might possess to induce the Porte to comply with this request. With regard to the affair of the ships, the fact was, that information having been received by the High Commissioner of the Ionian Islands that two ships had arrived to recruit, inquiries were made with regard to the officer, who was an agent of Mehemet Ali, and it was found, that they were there for the purpose of decoying certain subjects of the Porte at Albania to proceed to Egypt to form troops to act against the Sultan, and Sir Howard Douglas took steps accordingly, and two Greek ships that were hired for the purpose were stopped. He believed the ships were not claimed, but the measure was prevented, and the agent of Mehemet Ali sent back to Malta, and the recruits remained there. The ships were detained a short time, and were afterwards released. With regard to the third question, no orders had been given to Colonel Hodges, because, as was well known, it was not the practice, except in peculiar cases, to give passports to any but British subjects; but as this question concerned the officers of the Turkish empire, he had no hesitation in saying that Colonel Hodges would only perform his
1182
duty if he afforded any protection he was able o give to any subjects of the Sultan who,t having been engaged in rebellion against him, were desirous of returning to their allegiance.

NAPLES.
Sir Robert Peel: I wish to ask the noble Lord a question respecting the differences at present subsisting between the Neapolitan government and this country. In answer to a question put on Friday last, I understood the noble Lord stated, that her Majesty's Government had issued orders for reprisals, and that certain Neapolitan vessels had been actually captured. The question I wish to ask is, if the mediation of the French government for the settlement of the existing differences between this country and Naples has been offered, and been accepted by either or both parties?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the good offices of the French government for the arrangement of the differences between her Majesty's Government and that of Naples had been offered some time ago, and had been immediately accepted by her Majesty's Government. At the same time a similar offer had been made by the French government to the government of Naples; and it appeared from the latest despatches received both from Naples and Paris, that that offer had been accepted by the government at Naples.
Sir R, Peelasked if the order for reprisals had been consequently rescinded?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that it had been agreed, that as soon as our representative at the court of Naples should be officially informed of the arrival of any French diplomatist, charged to exercise the good offices of the French government, he should immediately transmit to the officers commanding her Majesty's ships instructions to suspend reprisals for a certain time; but, from despatches received that day, he had learned that at the moment that the French mediation had been accepted by the king of Naples, and when, according to the agreement, the reprisals would have been stopped, the Neapolitan government had laid an embargo on all British vessels in Neapolitan ports; and, consequently, the order for reprisals had not been suspended.

WAR WITH CHINA.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, in conformity with the motion which had been made in that House, papers had

1183
been laid on the Table, purporting to contain the correspondence between her Majesty's Government and the East India Company, as to the arrangements for paying the expenses of the armament now preparing for service in China, but that correspondence appeared to be extremely short, and, in fact, only stated that the expense was ultimately to be borne by the Government of this country. The question he now wished to ask was, whether it was the intention of the Government to lay before the House any estimate of the amount which would be required for that service? It should be remembered that the service was undertaken on orders from home. The Government, therefore, must be aware of the nature of the expedition, and could calculate pretty nearly the expenditure which it would require; and it certainly was not correct with regard to the House of Commons that an expense of this nature should be gone into with no other assurance than that, ultimately, at some definite period, the expense was to be borne by this country, without any previous communication as to the extent of the expense.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.It is not my wish to enter into any detailed statement; but it is the intention of the Government to bring the subject before Parliament previous to the close of the Session, and to ask a vote upon it.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES —ROYAL PALACES.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Mr. Gordonsaid, that the first vote he had to move was, that 88,629 l. should be granted to the Commissioners of the Board of Works for the purposes of public works and buildings.
Mr. Humewished, before the vote was carried, to have some explanation with respect to some parts of Hampton Court Palace that were shut against the public, as he understood Lady Sarah Bailey occupied no less than fifteen rooms, from all of which the public were excluded. He did not think this was altogether correct, as he did not see why any part of a public palace should be closed against the public. Although Hampton Palace was a Royal Palace, at the disposal of her Majesty, yet, when the House was called upon for so much public money, he sub-
1184
mitted they had a right to obtain as much benefit as possible for the community.
Mr. R. Gordonwas not aware of the circumstances, but he would institute inquiries upon the subject.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, there was an item of 8,900 l. for defraying the expenses of works necessary upon her Majesty's taking possession of Buckingham Palace. An estimate was laid upon the Table in 1838 for the sum of 3,300 l., and now it turned out that the sum required was 12,000 l. He wished to know why, in the course of last year, Parliament was not made aware of the additional expense that had been incurred. It was somewhat extraordinary that after the lapse of a year a demand should be made for four times the original amount.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerperfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there was neglect in not bringing forward the estimate last year. It was intended to bring the estimate forward but in consequence of certain circumstances with which he was not entirely acquainted, the estimate had been postponed, and it was decided to include it in the first vote of the present year. He must take his share of the blame in not having brought it forward, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the sum expended had been absolutely necessary to put the palace in repair for the actual accommodation of her Majesty.
Mr. Goulburndid not wish a detail of the expenses incurred, but where so large an additional expense had taken place, he thought that Parliament should have been made aware of it on the first occasion.
Mr. Humewished to have some explanation respecting the Botanical Gardens at Kew. Some time since an alarm was created in the public mind in consequence of a report that the gardens were to be sold; that report turned out to have no foundation; and what he wished to know was, whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table of the House the report of Dr. Lindley, pointing out how far those gardens might be made useful to the country. 10,000 l. a-year was granted out of the Civil List for the support of these gardens, and it was but right that they should be made as useful as possible to the public.
Mr. Williamssaw in the estimates a

1185
charge for stables belonging to Windsor Castle. He wished to know whether that charge was in addition to the sum of 70,000 l. voted last year for the new stables?
Mr. Gordonsaid, the charge was for ordinary repairs.
In answer to a question from Mr. Goulburn,
Lord J. Russellstated, the records in general were now placed under the care of Lord Langdale, the Master of the Rolls, and the Deputy Keeper, Sir Francis Palgrave. They were perfectly competent to do their duty, and his (Lord J. Russell's) recommendation to them had been that both time and money would be much better applied in taking proper care of the existing records, than in the publication of expensive works. That opinion was perfectly concurred in both by the Master of the Rolls and Sir Francis Palgrave.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if the records were in the actual keeping of Lord Langdale and Sir Francis Palgrave he had no doubt they were properly kept; but he wished to know whether they were actually, or only nominally in their charge?
Mr. Hawesthought that the records which had been sold had not been under the charge of the record commission; he should say, from having seen some of these records, that they could be perfectly restored. He had seen one of the time of Edward 3rd, which was so restored, the only difference being, that they were now in private hands instead of the public.
Mr. Humethought that some inquiry ought to be instituted. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had given any orders relative to the Jewel Office, concerning which they had some conversation in discussing the Ordnance estimates, when he was happy to see a disposition manifested to improve the nasty, shabby, disgraceful place in which the jewels were now kept. He also saw a small item of 200 l.for Holyrood, Linlithgow, and other places in Scotland. He was happy to say, that he held in his hand a letter from the Duke of Hamilton, stating, that orders had been given for the opening of Holyrood Palace free of charge to the public. He considered that every opening of a public place free of charge which took place was of great benefit to the people.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
The sum of 25,250 l. was next moved as the estimated expense of the works and fittings of the new buildings in progress at the British Museum.
Colonel Sibthorpwould like to know, before the House voted away so large a sum, the state of the budget, which he hoped would be fairly, candidly, and openly, explained that evening. There was no doubt but that, by the beautiful system of postage reduction, the resources of the Exchequer would be found deficient.
Sir R. Inglisreferred to the unanimous decision of the committee which sat upon the subject of the British Museum, of which the hon. Member for Kilkenny was a Member, and who reported that the most eligible, expeditious, and economical course would be for her Majesty's Government to propose to the House a grant of 250,000 l. for completing the additional buildings to this great national work. Such was the recommendation of the committee, which recommendation was disregarded by the government. It was surely a better course than an annual application for driblets of 25,000 l. each session.
Mr. Humefully concurred with the views of the hon. Baronet, and contended that, if the recommendation of the committee had been acted upon by the Government, the public would gain between ten and twenty per cent., and have the work more speedily executed.
Mr. Ewartwished to suggest to the Government the propriety of having public libraries in different parts of the metropolis.
Mr. S. O'Brienwished that the hon. Member for Wigan had extended his suggestion from the capital to the large towns of the empire.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that if a deficiency in the revenue was anticipated, that were a good reason not to go on with the undertaking; but when the undertaking was commenced, economy suggested the speediest execution. The opinion of the architect who was examined before the committee was, that if the work was performed in two instead of five years, a great saving would be effected. For his own part he was anxious that the work should be completed, and he was also aware that if works of curiosity were exposed to the public, many persons would contribute valuable works of art to the national insti-

1187
tution. He hoped that the Government would consider the suggestion thrown out by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, and achieve the saving of 20 or even 10 percent. to the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerundoubtedly was aware, that when great operations were to be performed it was the best way to carry them on speedily; but owing to the anticipated deficiency, it was a question whether the work was to be commenced during the current year, or be deferred to the ensuing year. It was for that reason that he did not propose a greater sum than that proposed.
Mr. Humethought, that if the work was to be accomplished in five years it would be the most prudent course to propose an annual grant of 50,000 l. The sum proposed was totally inefficient for any ultimate or successful purpose.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
30,000 l. was next asked for the new Houses of Parliament for the year ending the 31st March, 1841, beyond what had been already provided by the votes of Parliament for the continuation of the river front, north and south flanks, and additional foundations.
Mr. Ewarthoped that the two millions which was the calculated sum total expense of the new Parliament Houses, would not be expended upon the exterior architecture only, but would be partially expended in works of sculpture and painting for the interior of the building also.
Mr. Humereminded the House of the remarks made by him three years ago. Against the present site he protested as being dark and dismal, and he would recommend as more economical and convenient that the 150,000 l. already expended should be entirely abandoned, and that a new site in St. James's or in the Green-park should be chosen for the new Houses. One of the commissioners, Sir E. Cust, had given his opinion that a structure less expensive than that projected would be sufficient for a House of Commons. Mr. Barry's plan was found to be very expensive.
Mr. Briscoehoped that some of her Majesty's Ministers would remove the impression conveyed to the House by the hon. Member for Wigan, that two millions were the estimated cost of the new Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Bernalsaid, that the estimates had been carefully examined by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and he did not anticipate any excess beyond the estimates for the superstructure. The cost of the foundation and the embankment was likely to exceed the estimated sum, but there was not such likelihood as to the upper part of the structure.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—MODEL PRISON.
On the question that the sum of 20,000 l. be granted towards defraying the expense of a Model Prison,
Mr. Galley Knightcomplained of the expense, while he was afraid, from what had occurred in other countries, that the solitary system would not answer.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the hon. Member mistook the object of the estimate which was for a model prison, not on the solitary but on the separate system. It would be unfair to ask the counties to expend a large sum on a system of prison building until the result of an experiment never tried in England had been ascertained.
Lord G. Somerset, without pledging himself to the principle, would not object to the amount; but he would prefer the expenditure of a larger sum, in order that the experiment might be speedily brought to an issue.
Mr. F. Maulecould assure the noble Lord that no time would be lost in completing the model prison. The foundation stone had been laid two weeks ago, and the works were proceeding as rapidly as possible.
Lord G. Somersetwished to know whether parties in the different counties who might wish to inspect the plans of this model prison would be afforded access to them? He wished to know whether facilities would be afforded to architects residing in the counties to inspect those plans.
Mr. F. Maulewas convinced, from the well-known courtesy of the gentleman who had the charge of these plans, that he would in such cases afford every proper access to them.
Mr. Goulburndoubted the prudence of counties adopting these plans until after sufficient experience. The model prison was adopted as an experiment, and it would be prudent to wait until there was time to ascertain the result. He thought

1189
that the Government ought to take means to have the prison completed at the earliest possible moment.
Sir E. Knatchbulldiffered from his right hon. Friend, and did not see any necessity for haste. He very much doubted the policy of this measure altogether. If the counties were to adopt this model it would lead to great expense. The estimate for this prison was 78,000 l., and he (Sir E. Knatchbull) was convinced that before it was completed 140,000 l. would be expended. He thought that Government ought to re-consider this proposition, and see whether the system of separate confinement could not be tried elsewhere without the expense of erecting a new prison for the purpose.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the system had been tried elsewhere. He had called the proposed plan an experiment from deference to those who doubted its efficacy. He had himself no doubt that it was the best system of prison discipline that could be adopted.
Mr. G. Knightsaid, that the year before last, in going through the penitentiary, he saw several cells undergoing alterations, and he was told that they were to be used for the purpose of adopting the silent system. He thought that the building of new prisons would throw great additional expense on the counties. The expense of maintaining prisons in the county of Middlesex was already enormous.—Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM.
The next vote proposed was 2,824 l. 2s. 6d. for the expenses of the Museum of Economic Geology in Craig's court.
Mr. Humedoubted the propriety of having a separate establishment of this kind on so small a scale as that which was proposed. He did not see why this collection might not be placed in some part of the British Museum. He was sure that two or three old houses in Craig's Court would not be found to answer this purpose. He wished to know whether this collection was to be confined to mineralogy alone? and he thought that, as they had commenced, they ought to make an establishment that would be a credit to the country. He would rather propose, that the Government should suspend this vote until an opportunity was given to have the subject considered by a committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas sure that his hon. Friend would not object to grant a sum of money for a purpose of this nature. The expense was very small, and the object was to collect together specimens of materials employed for working purposes. This collection originated in the suggestion of Mr. De La Beche, who was engaged in the Ordnance geological survey, and he stated that we were unacquainted with the mineral treasures of the country. He suggested that it would be easy to obtain specimens of marbles, of working stones, and different articles which it would be useful to have collected for the information of the Commissioners of Woods and Works. It was afterwards decided that the collection should be thrown open for the information of other parties. The hon. Member had said that this collection might be placed in the British Museum. This had been considered. It was to be recollected that this museum was to be used as a repository for the mining records, and on communication with the parties they objected to have those records placed in the British Museum, and preferred they should be deposited in a separate establishment. He admitted that the establishment was on a small scale, but the expense was also small.
Mr. Humedid not object to the expense, but he wished to see an establishment that would be creditable to the country. It was a reproach to England, owing so much to manufacturing industry, that there was nowhere to be found a collection of machinery and mechanical models, such as were to be found in other countries. He objected to any temporary establishment; and he thought the best way would be to allow the matter to be considered by a committee.
Lord J. Russellsaid there was already such a number of articles in the British Museum that a geological collection could not be placed there with advantage. He was a member of the committee when George 4th made a present of his library to the country; and though he was in a minority, he had pressed on the committee the propriety of establishing another library in a different part of the metropolis, as there were many duplicate copies in the British Museum. He thought that it would have been useful to have enabled persons in different parts of the town to

1191
gain, by patient research and freedom of access, that knowledge which was so desirable and so useful.
Viscount Sandonhoped that there would be no difficulty in acceding to the vote, as the arrangement proposed was only a temporary one. By agreeing to this vote they would not be precluded at a future time from considering whether they ought to conduct the establishment on a more extensive plan. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what were the mining records to which he had referred?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that they were maps of the mines, showing the grounds which had been worked in the different mining districts. The object was to have these records deposited in some central place, where they might be easily referred to.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
5,000 l. was then proposed to be granted towards defraying the expense of erecting a hall at Edinburgh for the use of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Mr. C. Lushingtonobjected to this vote. He did not think that the people of England, Ireland, and Wales, Dissenters as well as Roman Catholics, should be made to contribute to a grant for the benefit of the Church of Scotland. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Church of Scotland was in a state of contumacy towards the law, and of stubborn resistance to the highest court in the country.
Mr. Ewartopposed the vote. He did not think that the general assembly, being at present in a state of rebellion against the law of the land, was justified in coming to that House for a grant of money.
Mr. Humethought that it would be absurd to vole away 5,000 l. of the public money for the purpose of building a hall which would only be used five days in the year.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the general assembly had some years since a place of meeting which fully answered all their purposes; but that, in consequence of an arrangement with the Government, they gave it up, on a promise that a new one should be provided. The hon. Member for Kilkenny was mistaken in supposing that the building would only come into use five days in the year, for when not used by the assembly, it would serve as a
1192
church. Nothing could be more unfounded than the assertion that the general assembly was in a state of rebellion. It might as well be said, that, in a late transaction, that House was in a state of rebellion against the judges of the land. He believed that the time would come when the assembly would be able to show that their present conduct was perfectly constitutional.
Mr. Hawesthought the vote ought not to be agreed to, if it could not be better defended than it had been by the learned Lord. For a period of eleven years the assembly had met in a church without inconvenience. He had seen the place, and he thought they had sat there without inconvenience to themselves, although with much inconvenience to the Government and the public. That inconvenience had been so great, that he cared not that they had no place to sit. It was said, that there was an understanding with the Government to provide other accommodation; but was the present Government bound by any such understanding? He thought that they had turned over a new leaf, but it appeared he was in error. He did not know whether the church was in rebellion or not, but, at all events, the clergy were in absolute opposition to the law, as declared by the highest judicature in the country. Nor was there the slightest analogy between their case and that of the House. The House was maintaining the privileges of the main body of the people—the Scotch church was fighting for their own selfish views.
Mr. F. Maulecontended, that the vote was one of actual justice. It would be merely returning that accommodation to the Assembly of which they had been deprived, under a promise of restoration; and the building was to be used as a church, while not in use by the Assembly. That was not the occasion to defend the church. When the proper time came he would be prepared to prove, that she was fighting for that which was ardently desired by the great body of the people, and what, in his opinion, was her right.
Mr. C. Lushingtoncould not abandon his entire conviction of the contumacy of the Scotch church, notwithstanding all he had heard; and he did not see why the people of England, Ireland, and Wales, should be taxed for such a purpose.
Vote postponed.

SUPPLY—POSTAGE.
The sum of 127,234 l. being proposed, to defray the expenses of the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he was surprised to see the sum of 64,000 l. charged in the estimate for this department for postage, when the sum charged for postage for the Treasury was only 6,400 l., and that for the Colonial department, only 9,300 l. The actual amount of correspondence in either of these departments, was certainly as great as in the Foreign Office, and it could not, be said that there had been such a reduction in the colonial postage as to account in any manner for the great difference in the present estimates. Perhaps, the object was to increase the amount of postage to meet the falling-off in the others. He wished to ask whether this amount was estimated in the probable produce of the revenue by his right hon. Friend opposite, when he lately stated his views on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerregretted that the right hon. Member was not in the House when he made his statement. The estimates on which he had relied were really bonâ fide estimates. He had said that he should throw aside those postage accounts of the different Government offices, but, at the same time, he had stated, that it would not be unimportant that they should be laid before the House, for the purpose of doing away with old abuses, by compelling each department to give in estimates for which they would be responsible. The public, he had thought, would be benefitted by such a course, and he was not now certain whether this debate had not confirmed his anticipations. The present estimate, however, was not furnished by the department, but by the Post-office, and he had every reason to believe, that the actual postage would be something less than this estimate. The House, moreover, should be aware that the postage of the Foreign-office was quite different from that of other offices.
Mr. Goulburnwas satisfied that the correspondence of the Treasury was as great as that of the Foreign-office. He did not dispute that great abuses prevailed formerly in the messengers carrying many things in their bags besides letters; but he pledged himself that there could not be such a difference between
1194
the postage for the two departments as this estimate implied; and he should say, with confidence, that in agreeing to this vote for 127,234 l. he was giving this sum, estimated for the postage, to the Secretary, to lay it out on any one of the heads to which the vote applied. He would repeat, that the noble Secretary might legally apply this sum to any one head of the department. They were told that this estimate had come, not from the Foreign-office, but from the Post-office. This was the first time he had heard that each department was not to be responsible for its own estimates. He would repeat, that when the postage for the Treasury was 6,400 l., for the Colonial-office, 9,300 l., and for the Foreign-office, 64,000 l., there was no saving, at least, in the latter department.
Viscount Palmerstoncould not compare the amount of correspondence between the different offices, as he knew that of his own office only. It mattered very little what things beside the actual correspondence were carried by the messengers, as the bags were not charged by weight. But the system being different at present, he could assure the House, that the expense amounted to a large sum, and he was now making regulations for the purpose of preventing the practices prevailing in former times. He could not call them abuses, as there was really no abuse in allowing the messengers to carry many things in their bags beside the correspondence, when their doing so interfered in no manner with their conveyance of the latter.
Mr. Humefound in these estimates 40,000 l. for messengers, and 64,000 l. for postage—in all, 104,000 l. for correspondence. He could not understand how there could be such a sum necessary for carrying on the correspondence of that one department; or how, when the messengers cost 40,000 l., the postage should cost 64.000 l. He thought that the best way would be to call at the end of the year for the accounts of the different departments. The real estimate for this department was 136,000 l., as there was a sum of 9,000 l. more to be required for salaries.
Mr. Warburtonthought that this discussion showed how very useful was the suggestion made by the Post-office committee, that all correspondence between the offices should form part of a separate

1195
estimate. It appeared that there were not less than seven millions of penny letters, which had hitherto, he presumed, been made matter of franking.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that no fair comparison could be made between these bulky despatches and penny letters.
Mr. Warburtonasked what was the basis upon which this calculation was founded? Was it upon the old rate of letters, or upon the loose estimate of 1d. per ounce? If it were founded upon that, the former estimates ought to have been six-fold what they were.
Mr. Kemblethought it would be well if this vote were postponed, that the House might have a more satisfactory account.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he should be very happy to postpone the vote; but he could give the House no further information upon this subject.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY.—POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
On the sum of 67,000 l. being proposed for defraying the charge of salaries and expences of the commissioners for carrying into execution the amended law relating to the poor of England and Wales, and the destitute poor of Ireland.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that the amount of this vote was enormously large. In 1836, when the new Poor-law had only just been introduced, the estimate was only a trifle more. He could not conceive what duty there was sufficient to occupy three commissioners and seventeen assistant commissioners in England and Wales. He believed that the boards of guardians throughout the country were the best judges of what duties required the aid of commissioners, and they had in several instances declared that they were no longer necessary after the formation of the unions. He believed also that the seventeen assistant commissioners had not interfered for the benefit of the unions. It appeared to him that a great reduction might be made in this commission. Besides the commissioners and secretaries, there were thirty-three clerks. He was quite sure they could not all be necessary for the present working of the system. He thought that 43,000 l. of this money was thrown away on this commission, and he should certainly divide the House against the vote.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, by returns which
1196
had been produced in compliance with motions which he had made, it appeared that at one time there were sixty-two persons numbered in this commission, the whole expense of which had been 254,680 l. It was afterwards reduced to seventeen assistant commissioners, at 700 l. a year each, besides travelling expenses. He maintained that this rate of pay was too great. Next to the Record Commission, the Poor-law Commission was the most expensive and unsatisfactory. He thought 500 l. a-year would be a sufficient remuneration for an assistant Poor law commissioner. It was appointed to carry out what he believed to be a most degrading and barbarous system of poor laws; it was altogether a most objectionable commission, and he should, therefore, support the hon. Member for Coventry in his opposition to the vote.
Mr. F. Frenchsaid, he observed that under the head of Ireland he saw an item of an architect and two clerks at 700 l.; and a little farther down, there was another entry, "An architect and two clerks at 700 l.," was that a repetition; or were there two architects and four clerks employed under the Irish Poor-law commissioners? As far as he had seen the proceedings of the commissioners, one architect was more than enough. There appeared to be a great abundance of assistant commissioners in England; and he wished to know whether any of them were to be transferred to Ireland, or whether that country was to be left to the sole dictation of Mr. Nichols?
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, there was but one architect employed by the Irish Poor-law commission.
Lord G. Somersetagreed with the hon. Member for Coventry that this was an extraordinary vote to call upon the House to agree to at the present moment, because Parliament had not yet sanctioned the continuancee of the English Poor-law Commission, and they might be voting salaries for officers who would not be in existence after a short time had elapsed. It was true that it had been agreed that the Act should continue in force until the 1st of August, and, if circumstances rendered it necessary, to the end of the next Session of Parliament; but then it was too much to make that contingent arrangement an excuse for voting away the money in salaries to officers, upon whose continuance Parliament had not yet been

1197
called on to decide. He should propose to have a vote taken for six months instead of a year, and, therefore, that the grant be diminished one-half for England, and that it be 12,741 l, instead of 25,483 l., the latter being the item for England.
Mr. Hodgessaid, he should support the motion of the noble Lord, not only because it would be agreeable to the feelings of those whom he had the honour to represent, but because it was one congenial to his own view of the subject.
Mr. G. Knightadmitted, that the commission had been an expensive one, but called upon the committee to remember how much it had saved the country. He expressed himself satisfied with the new system.
Mr. Darbysaid, he had presented several petitions on this subject, and he knew the general feeling in the country was, that after the several unions were formed, the number of assistant commissioners might be reduced. The people of the different unions did not see the commissioners scarcely more than once a-year; their communication with the assistant commissioners was nothing, it being entirely carried on with the chief commissioners in London.
Lord J. Russelldid not mean to contend, that there should always be the same number of commissioners, he had already advised a diminution from twenty-one to seventeen, but he should be unwilling to diminish the number of assistant commissioners in parts where the commissioners thought them necessary, and they had certainly expressed a strong opinion both to the Home Secretary, and to the Treasury, that any considerable diminution in the number of assistant commissioners would be prejudicial to the working of the act. This unquestionably was a great and difficult reform of an intricate system of law, and after the first zeal for reform had passed away, there would be a natural tendency to restore abuses, and revert to the old defective system, and therefore, after so short an experience, he should be unwilling, contrary to the opinion of the commissioners, considerably to diminish the number of assistant commissioners, but he must at the same time admit, that hereafter, from time to time, such diminutions might probably be made. A sufficient answer to the amendment of the noble Lord was, that the House bad already agreed to con-
1198
tinue these commissioners till the end of the next Session, and it Was most improbable, that there should be so short a Session, that it would not be necessary to pay them till March 1841. Considering, therefore, the general conviction in Parliament and in the country, that this was a most beneficial change, and that there was no disposition to part with its advantages on account of any inconvenience which might attend upon the passing of an act for the continuance of the commission, he thought the amendment unadvisable. As to the Irish act, he thought that they had been rather unreasonable in placing upon one of the commissioners the great labour of introducing the measure into Ireland. He was aware, that the exertions of Mr. Nicholls had been prejudicial to his health, but he was so much better aware of the details with respect to that country, that he had been selected. However, it was probable, that in the course of next year, one of the other commissioners would go and relieve him from that arduous duty. The hon. Member for Lincoln had said, that this commission cost the country 250,000 l., but he formed a low estimate when he said, that the saving to the country effected by this act had been eight millions.
Lord G. Somersetthought, that the estimate of the noble Lord exceeded that of the most zealous supporters of the measure. The speech of the noble Lord was calculated to confirm the impression which had gone abroad, that the noble Lord, in bringing in these bills, had no intention of carrying them through Parliament, and if so, this vote would enable the noble Lord very conveniently to get over the difficulty, but supposing, as he believed, the noble Lord intended to go on with these bills, he could not doubt that they would receive the sanction of the Legislature. He was not prepared to say, that at present the commission could be done away with, but it did not follow, that Parliament should grant to the Government and to the commissioners the power which they now had of creating an unlimited number of assistant commissioners, and all he proposed was, that they should not vote the salaries of assistant commissioners who might have no office to fill. He was sorry to trouble the House, but he felt so strongly the propriety of reserving to the House the power of deciding whether there should be this num-

1199
ber of assistant commissioners, that he roust take the sense of the House on his amendment.
Mr. Benjamin Woodconcurred in thinking, that the present establishment of assistant commissioners was quite unnecessary. That opinion prevailed amongst a large body of his constituents, who were favourable to the measure, and who stated to him, that in the parish of St. George there had been no assistant commissioner for ten months. He should, however, vote against the amendment of the noble Lord, because he believed, that their appointment extended over the whole period for which this estimate was framed. He hoped that the vote would be passed now, and that the subject would be discussed when the bill was brought forward.
The Committee divided on the amendment:—Ayes 21; Noes 57: Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Blair, J.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Brotherton, J.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Bruges, W. H. L.

Mackenzie, T.

Burr, H.

Morris, D.

Dick, Q.

Palmer, G.

Egerton, Sir P.

Pechell, Captain

Ellis, J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hector, C. J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

James, Sir W. C.

TELLERS.

Jones, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Kemble, H.

Hodges, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Knight, H. G.

Adam, Admiral

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, C.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Macauley, rt. hn. T. B.

Basset, J.

Martin, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Maule, hon. F.

Bramston, T. W.

Melgund, Viscount

Briscoe, J. I.

Muskett, G. A.

Campbell, Sir J.

Nicholl, J.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

O'Brien, W. S.

Clay, W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Darby, G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Dundas, D.

Philips, G. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rickford, W.

Ewart, W.

Round, C. G.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Russell, Lord J.

Gordon, R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Greene, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, R. V.

Hawes, B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Stock, Dr.

Hollond, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Howard, P. H.

Thornely, T.

Hume, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hutt, W,

Vigors, N. A.

1200

Vivian, J. H.

Yates, J. A.

Warburton, H.

Ward, H. G.

TELLERS.

Wood, B.

Parker, J.

Worsley, Lord

Tufnell, H.

Vote agreed to.
House resumed.—Committee to sit again.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (ENGLAND.
Lord J. Russellrose to ask leave to bring in a bill for the Registration of electors, and it would be necessary that he should explain to the House the genera principles upon which that bill would proceed, leaving many points to be afterwards explained, if the House should consent to its being brought in. The Government had tried, on various occasions, to frame a bill on the subject of registration, containing at one time provisions as to the rights of voting, in which they had felt that abuses had taken place, and for which amendments were required, and also other bills which had been confined to the subject of registration alone; but in none of these bills had they been successful—it had either been objected to them that they contained and introduced matter irrelevant to registration, or that registration ought not to be mixed up with questions as to disputed rights of voting. He conceived, that the best course for him now to pursue was to state generally, after the experience of the House and the country had had of the present system, what improvement or plan he thought desirable, and which would be embodied in the bill he sought to introduce, and then to leave it to parliament to decide upon its provisions. It appeared to him, on looking back to the provisions made for registration at the time of the Reform Bill, that, perhaps, they had been then too much impressed with the objections raised by the opponents of the Reform Bill in general—namely, that it was a bill which would inundate the country with an immense number of small and poor voters—in other words, that the Members of this House would be elected by persons not worthy by their intelligence or property to have so great a share of the power of the country placed in their hands. That was an objection which it would be remembered had not only a great effect upon those who took a decided part in opposition to the Reform Bill, but upon many who gave that mea-

1201
sure their support, expressing much doubt and hesitation as to the extreme length to which its principles of reform and the extension of the franchise were carried. He was quite convinced, upon seeing what had since taken place, not only that these apprehensions were entirely unfounded, but that in the provisions of the Reform Act, with respect to registration, too much pains had been taken to fix restrictions, and that the mode in which the elective franchise was to be secured was too lax. Whatever might be the amount of property—whatever might be the period of residence—whatever might be the nature of the occupation which should entitle a party to vote for a Member of Parliament, still in his opinion, the registration would do nothing more than ascertain by the simplest means possible whether any person who claimed to be registered as having that property, possessing that right of occupation, or whatever other ground or qualifications Parliament had declared to be necessary, had those rights and qualifications. Everything, which went beyond this—anything that placed an unnecessary impediment in the way of a person, having a real claim was in itself an evil which the Legislature ought to remove. If, then, the House was agreed in that principle, he thought also it would likewise agree that as it would be for the benefit of the country that all those persons to whom it was intended to give a right to vote, the easiest possible means of having their rights ascertained, and their votes allowed, ought to be provided; that it was for the general good of the country that persons so claiming, claimed that which was advantageous to the country, and not claiming a right against which any bar or impediment ought to be placed. These were the general principles upon which he sought, if the House would give him leave, to introduce this bill. But if regard were had to the mode in which the registration of electors had been carried into effect in this part of the empire, it would be seen that there were many evils which it was the duty and business of Parliament to remedy and remove. In the first place, there was at present uncertainty as to the manner in which questions, as to the right of voting were decided. There were no less, he believed, than 114 revising barristers, not the same individuals each year—who were called
1202
upon to decide upon rights of voting which required a great deal of consideration, it might happen that a person who established his right to the satisfaction of one revising barrister, was decided against another year. That uncertainty, of itself, deterred many persons from claiming that vote which it was for the benefit of the country at large they should establish. Added to this, there was the penalty of being liable to be called before the court every year with respect to the same franchise. For instance, a person whose residence was at Hull, and had a freehold in a distant part of the county of York, had taken the journey to establish his claim, and yet had been summoned again year after year to travel that distance, not because any rational doubt existed as to the sufficiency of the property, or the sufficiency of the right to vote according to the plain words of the statute, but because there was a sufficient pretext to call upon that individual to re-register, and a sufficient object on the part of some person to summon the party every year all that distance to substantiate his vote. But, in reality in such cases there was nothing more than a pretext, that which appeared substantial at a distance, vanishing into a shadow when the elector arrived at the place of registration. Speaking the other day, with a gentleman who had for some time acted as a revising barrister, he had told him (Lord J. Russell) that he and his colleague having in the course of the discharge of their duties received from a small town very many objections, he had decided with his colleague that they would hold a court at the place; but, when they arrived there all the objections were withdrawn. That showed a defect in the statute. If the objection were made to the vote of a person who resided at a distance, he might, either from dislike of the expense of contesting the claim, or say in ill humour, think it better to lose the vote altogether, than be at the trouble of defending it, though there might be all the while no real objection. He (Lord J. Russell) might go through many more objections to the present state of the law, but he was desirous not to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. He would, therefore, proceed to explain the alterations which he thought necessary. He proposed, then, to substitute a fixed and permanent and limited number of revising barristers, instead of the present

1203
fluctuating and excessive number. He proposed to make the number fifteen. The principle of the bill was, that they should make a small number of revising barristers; that those barristers should hold their situations permanently: and that they should go through their districts every year, not taking the same districts every year, but so as not to go through the same districts more than three years together. By this plan he looked to get gentlemen for those situations who would become accustomed to this part of the law, and by this means he should secure uniformity of decision. But this was not the only security that he took, for he found another in the small number of barristers, who would be constantly attending their courts and recurring to the adjudication of the same questions; and this, he considered, would be a great improvement on the present plan of a fluctuating number of barristers. Then, as to the salaries of the barristers. A sufficient salary ought, undoubtedly, to be given, to secure a person fitted for the proper discharge of the duties of the situation. Perhaps, hitherto, they had had both too large a number of revising barristers, and too small salaries to secure an adequate discharge of the duties from men on whom were devolved duties which must be considered of much importance, since to them in the first instance it was intrusted to decide on the franchises of their fellow-countrymen. Another question was with respect to the mode of claiming the franchise, and with respect to the time for which the vote should be made to enure. Now the voter put in his claim, and if it were not objected to before the court, he was put on the register; but any person making an objection might still bring him on any future occasion before the court, and so he was no better off than if he were an original claimant. In Scotland, before the Reform Act, the voter was put on the roll, find remained there if it could not be shown that there was any objection to his claim. In Ireland, if the vote was allowed by the assistant-barrister, the vote remained good for eight years, at least that was the principle, though in certain contingencies other regulations took place. What he proposed in this bill was, that the county voter might claim, as now if he pleased, that was to say, he might state the nature of his claim, as whether it were in respect of freehold or leasehold
1204
property, or from a 50 l. tenancy, but without bringing evidence to support such claim. If, however, he should choose this course, and were left on the register, then that his claim should be liable to be questioned next year. But in other cases he proposed to place the claimant in a more advantageous situation than at present, for he gave the right, as in Ireland, to the voter of giving notice that he should prove his claim before the revising barrister, or that, being objected to, he shall establish his vote. If he did establish the vote to the satisfaction of the revising barrister, then the name should remain on the register, unless in case of a change of circumstances or of death. He had once intended to propose, that if the voter established his claim, his vote should remain good for three or four years, and he was not sure that that was not the better system; but he saw no good reason why, if the claim were made good before the revising barrister, he should not be allowed to remain finally on the register, unless in case of change of circumstances or of death. He thought that much would be gained by no longer exposing the voter every year to all the evils of contesting his claim; and he thought that they might safely allow the voter to remain on the register after the contention through which his claim must pass, and after having established it to the satisfaction of a person learned in the law; they might at least safely leave it on the register until some superior tribunal should decide upon its validity. As to the right of appeal, if the question in dispute were a question of law, he would allow an appeal, but not in the case of a question of facts. He followed the bill of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) with respect to the courts of appeal; he followed, too, in this respect, the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench on appeals from the Courts of Quarter Sessions. There the statements with regard to facts sent up by the Quarter Sessions were held to be decisive of those facts. The Queen's Bench then decided whether the law was as had been held by the Quarter Sessions or not. He proposed to constitute a court of appeal by taking three of the fifteen revising barristers whom the bill would create, and that they should sit for a certain part of every year to consider these appeals. That would secure uniform decisions, he thought,

1205
At first, of course, whoever might be the persons appointed, they would have on intricate points of law differing decisions, but when they made courts of appeal, they would before long obtain a very considerable uniformity of decision. He might be asked how far would these appeals be conclusive. He answered, that he would not by this bill seek to limit the present power of committees of the House of Commons; he would not break in upon the powers which the constitution had committed to them; nor would he give that power to the court of law, because he considered it plain from what the House had themselves seen, from what they could not but see if they only looked to the books, that the tendency of courts of law was to construe all practice strictly, and indeed generally so to construe it as to depart from the original intention of the framers of the laws. He should not, therefore, give the power to the courts of law; neither would he exclude the House of Commons from the right of final interpretation of the laws as to who were elected and who were the parties to vote, and therefore he would not restrain that power by any legislative words; but he would say, that if they had a body of fifteen persons who devoted themselves to this occupation, and had presiding over them persons who were, therefore, conversant with the practice of reserving, the decisions of such a body would probably have very great weight with committees of the House of Commons, and that that circumstance would tend materially to secure uniformity of decision on the part of the committees, and to diminish the number of questions of disputed elections. Next, as to the means by which he proposed that these barristers should be named. One of the modes which had been proposed was to confide the selection to the Lord Chancellor. He did not apprehend any great evils from such a course, because he did not think that any chancellor would use the power improperly, but he preferred the following mode: he proposed that each of the judges should in future name three persons, and that out of the forty-five so named, the Speaker should appoint fifteen. He considered that the mode of proceeding in such a case, by analogy, ought to have reference to the House itself; and it being very objectionable to give patronage to the majority of the House, he could not think
1206
that they could do better than give to the Speaker, who was the organ of the House, and spoke its voice on ordinary occasions, the nomination of these officers. With respect to costs, he proposed that persons who made objections which were not reasonable, should be chargeable with a moderate sum in the shape of costs. He might add, that his bill followed in general the bill which had been brought in by the Attorney-general two years ago. Now, with respect to the other bill, namely, that for making further provision respecting certain rights of voting in the election of Members of Parliament, as had been proposed in a former bill, he intended that the right of voting in boroughs should require that at least 5l. out of the 10 l. should arise from property in a house. With respect to joint occupancy, where two occupiers held property to the amount of 20 l., each should be invested with the 10 l. qualification; and where two persons possessed 100 l., each should be considered as a 50 l. tenant. There was another point which was of still more importance. He proposed to do away with some of the restrictions by which the right to vote was at present fettered. For instance, he proposed to do away altogether with the restriction which rendered necessary the payment of the assessed taxes. Such a restriction was unknown before the passing of the Reform Act; it was an unnecessary fetter upon the franchise, and he should therefore propose its abolition. With respect to the payment of the poor-rate, he would only require that it had been paid up to six months previously to the time of claiming to be registered. He made this proposition, because it frequently happened that persons who were perfectly competent to pay up their rates, and who were equally willing to do so, might, through some oversight, neglect to comply with this provision. The doing away with the present provision would afford greater facilities to persons who had bonâ fide claims. That they had paid the rate up to a certain time, together with the fact of an eighteen-months' occupancy, was sufficient security for their solvency. He also proposed to remove the disqualification which attached to persons no longer residing in the houses out of which they first claimed to vote. The third answer, as the law at present stood, required that the elector should state that he claimed to vote out of the same qualification,

1207
A man who happened to remove in the course of the year from one 10 l. house to another, perhaps in the next, or it might be in the same, street, was surely as well entitled to a vote as he was at the time when he first qualified. There was, perhaps, a worse evil in the existing system, arising from doubt as to the manner in which the law at present operated. Some persons thought they possessed the right of voting notwithstanding their removal, and others again looked upon it as a disqualification. This led to great irregularity, and, in many instances, to a violation of the law. It would be better, therefore, when the bonâ fide right was ascertained, and when the name was placed upon the registry, that the vote should stand good for that year. He had now stated the main provisions of the two bills which he proposed to bring in. It was not necessary just then to go into all the details, and he should therefore content himself with the outline which he had given to the House. It was his duty to state that he had consulted his hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and also his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, as to the points in the measure which were likely to affect those countries. Into those points he would not just then enter, further than to say, that those Gentlemen, as well as his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-general, agreed with him as to the main principles of the bills. Facility, and not restriction, was the rule which he kept in view, with variations suited to the circumstances of the different countries. He thus hoped to be able to effect an amendment in the registration of the three parts of the empire.
Mr. G. Palmerwas equally desirous with the noble Lord to remove any difficulties which might lie in the way of bonâ fide voters; but, as the registries were to take place every year, he did not see how the business could be done by fifteen barristers, or how they could make sufficient inquiry into the qualification. He did not mean to throw any imputation on the Speaker, but it was well known that that officer was elected by a majority of the House.
Sir G. Sinclairthought the statement of the noble Lord ought to have been made before proceeding with the estimates, and at a time when the House was full. It should not have been delayed to so late
1208
an hour of the night. He did not mean to follow the noble Lord through his statement, nor did he mean to take objection to it, as there were many propositions of which he approved. He willingly admitted that no unnecessary obstacle should be thrown in the way of the registry, and he also approved of the fifteen barristers and the court of appeal, and he was sure that no person who occupied the chair of that House could be suspected of a partial bias. He would throw no obstacle in the way of these bills, though their introduction appeared to be at variance with the assertion that the Reform Bill was a final measure. When the bills, however, came to be discussed, there might arise many objections with respect to details which it was impossible at present to foresee.
Leave given.