SUPPLY.

HC Deb 25 July 1850 vol 113 cc257-76

The House then resolved itself into Committee of Supply.

(1.) 8,500l. House of Industry (Dublin).

MR. REYNOLDS

said, that in 1848 the vote was 14,795l., and in 1849 it was 12,093l., whilst at present it was only 8,500l. He believed the original proposition was to reduce the vote at the rate of 20 per cent, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in compassion, only reduced it by 10 per cent. He thought the reduction an open violation, if not of the letter, at least of the spirit of the Act of Union. The House of Industry existed at the time of the Union, and there was an implied understanding that all grants made and allowed by the Irish Parliament should not be disturbed by the English. Therefore he did not think this reduction just. He found on the other side of the paper that the House contemplated voting 800l. to French refugees, which vote was originally passed in 1792, and consequently not one of whom was at present living. The other night the Government forced a vote of 1,675l. on the Dissenting clergy, notwithstanding the opposition of the Dissenting Members, who repudiated it. If he were in order, he would move that the vote be increased to 14,500—l.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that at present he could not assent to any alteration of the vote. All that description of votes were being gradually reduced.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) 700l. Female Orphan House (Dublin).

MR. REYNOLDS

objected to the vote, as the institution was of a purely sectarian character. He was opposed to Catholic sectarianism, as well as Protestant; therefore he thought the 700l. should be handed over to the Dublin House of Industry; hut if not, he begged to move it be disallowed altogether.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the vote had been granted for many years, and therefore it would not be just at present to disallow it altogether.

MR. HUME

thought it better to reduce votes gradually than to abolish them altogether.

MR. REYNOLDS

did not oppose this grant from any unkind feeling towards his Protestant fellow-citizens, but he did protest that an institution should be sustained in Dublin of an exclusively Protestant character, which appropriated its funds to proselytising purposes. The exclusively Protestant character of the charity was proved by the fact that it professed "to instruct 168 girls in the principles of the Established religion."

MR. HUME

thought that charitable institutions, supported by the public, ought not to be purchasers of stock, and yet he found that this institution had purchased Three-and-a-Quarter per Cent stock for 400l.

Vote agreed to; as was

(3) 2,000l., Westmoreland Lock Hospital (Dublin).

(4.) 700l. Lying-in Hospital (Dublin).

MR. REYNOLDS

expressed his regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had felt it his duty to reduce this grant. The report of the institution stated that appeals in its behalf had been made to the nobility, and that only thirteen replies had been returned, and 15l. received. It was, therefore, feared that the hospital would have to be closed. He protested against what he considered a violation of the implied understanding of the Act of Union embraced in this reduction; and he hoped, that between the present time and twelve menths hence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take a more merciful consideration of this grant than he had done to-night.

MR. HUME

would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Act of Union only stipulated that these grants should continue for twenty years. Therefore, in 1820, these grants ought to have ceased. He had always protested against the grant of 3,000l. to the Refuge for the Destitute in this country, believing that the less public money was given to such institutions the less misery prevailed.

MR. REYNOLDS

complained that the hon. Member for Montrose was not quite so economical with regard to his votes when Scotland was concerned, for he had voted or promised to vote 25,000l. of the public money to erect a gallery of arts in Edinburgh. He had compassion, therefore, for inanimate pictures of humanity, while he withdrew all compassion from the 2,000 poor who had last year been confined within the walls of the Dublin Lying-in-Hospital. He was invariably on the side of economy when an Irish vote was proposed.

COLONEL RAWDON

thought the present an unfortunate time for reducing the grant, and said that, according to letters which were extant, Ireland was, if the Union Act passed, to have a right to all the resources of England, not as a matter of favour, but as one of duty.

Vote agreed to; as were also

(5.) 1,350l. Dr. Stevens's Hospital (Dublin).

(6.) 3,420l. for the Fever Hospital (Cork-street, Dublin).

(7.) 450l. Hospital for Incurables (Dublin).

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 37,698l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1851.

MR. SCULLY

wished to call the attention of the House to the case of the Rev. Mr. Dill, Presbyterian minister at Clonmel. The case was one in which a great injustice had been done to a poor clergyman, arising from the withdrawal of the Regium Donum through the acts of a clerk in the castle at Dublin. The practice had been that on a certificate being produced to the Government, the grant was issued. The vote was taken annually, and the grant was paid quarterly. In the first quarter of the year 1847 the usual allowance under the grant was paid to Mr. Dill. In October, 1847, the grant was stopped without any reason being given. Mr. Dill thereupon applied to the Government in Dublin, who stated that an order had been made by the House of Commons which required certain returns from the different Presbyterian congregations in Ireland, and among the rest from Mr. Dill; that this return was not made; and that this was the cause why the payment was withheld. Sir T. N. Redington, upon further representation and inquiry, withdrew this statement as to an order having been made by the House of Commons for returns, and he (Mr. Scully) discovered that no such order had ever been made. It appeared that Mr. Matthews, a clerk, who had absconded from Dublin Castle, and who had two or three names, his real name being, he believed, Duncan Chisholm, had made the statement that Mr. Dill had neglected to make a return to an order of the House. In 1848, the hon. Member for Athlone brought forward the case very ably in that House, when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland stated that the question was then before the Presbyterian General Assembly of Ireland, and when their decision was come to the Government would announce the course they intended to pursue. They came to, certain resolutions declaring their sympathy with Mr. Dill and the congregation of Clonmel, and expressing their earnest hope that as Mr. Dill had refused to give no information which it was incumbent upon him to give, the Regium Donum due to him should be paid. The Government replied, through Sir T. N. Redington, that as soon as an amended certificate was forwarded, the bounty would be issued. But, with respect to making the alteration required in the annual certificate, a member of the Presbyterian congregation in Clonmel had written to the Castle to represent that, were the congregation to comply with this demand, they would be compromising not only their own rights, but those of the whole Presbyterian Church of Ireland. The Presbyterians had discussed this question at general meetings held last year, and a general meeting had been held only a month ago, at which resolutions were passed calling upon the Government to settle the matter, to pay the arrears due to Mr. Dill, and to repudiate the illegal and unwarrantable acts of their clerk. Mr. Dill had complied with all the conditions legally required of Presbyterian ministers before receiving the Regium Donum; but, supposing he had not, the only thing Government was entitled to do was, to withhold his salary for the following year, not to stop payment of the grant, as had been done, in the middle of the year in which his allged refusal to comply with the conditions occurred. The real cause of the withdrawal of the grant was to be traced to personal animosity on the part of Duncan Chisholm, the clerk, called forth in consequence of some inquiries which Mr. Dill had thought it his duty to make into the character of that individual. He hoped the Government would no longer continue to sanction the proceedings of an absconded clerk, and that, on a consideration of all the circumstances, they would consent to pay Mr. Dill all the arrears of which he had been deprived.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

said, that whatever had been clone in this case had been done with the sanction and approval of the Government, and that the Commission appointed to inquire into the conduct of Matthews, or Chisholm, the late chief clerk in the Secretary's office, had nothing to do with the question. The acts of that gentleman, as regarded the correspondence with Mr. Dill, had been sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant, and it was matter of regret that the time of the House should have been taken up with this discussion. In the year 1848 the hon. Member for Athlone brought the subject tinder the consideration of the House; and he (Sir W. Somerville) stated then that when Mr. Dill chose to do what every other Presbyterian clergyman in Ireland had done, all the arrears would he paid him, and that until he complied with the requisition of the Government—and the Government had a right to require such information as they considered necessary, and there was nothing irksome, onerous, or unfair in the requisition of the Government—the money would be withheld from him. He regretted that anything should occur to interrupt the harmony which existed in Ireland between the Presbyterians and the Government. Although the General Assembly might have passed the resolution mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, yet he did not think, as regarded Mr. Dill, that it could be taken as the unanimous opinion of that body, while the provincial synod, of which Mr. Dill was a member, had recommended him to comply with the directions of the Government. There were in Ireland 483 Presbyterian ministers, and 482 of them had complied with the requisitions of the Government. Mr. Dill alone hail not done so, and till he did the Lord Lieutenant had decided that the arrears of his portion of the Regium Donum should not be paid. The money was waiting for him when he complied with the requisition, not of Mr. Matthews, but of the Government.

MR. B. OSBORNE

said, whatever difference of opinion there might be in other respects, it must be gratifying to every one to see the Roman Catholic Member for Tipperary advocating the cause of the ill-used and persecuted Presbyterian minister of Clonmel. He (Mr. Osborne) was acquainted with Mr. Dill, who was an honest and excellent man, and one who did much to promote the bond of union between the Catholics and Protestants of his neighbourhood. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was likely to mislead, because he said that Mr. Matthews was not to blame in this matter. Now, it was notorious to every one who knew anything of Dublin Castle, that till the time of his absconding, he was the government of Ireland as far as related to the Regium Donum. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated the mention of Mr. Matthews; but he (Mr. Osborne) deprecated there being no reward offered for the apprehension of this clerk, who was formerly Duncan Chisholm, of Inverness, who absconded from under the imputation of having committed forgery, was afterwards in the 53rd Regiment, and was next found having the charge of 37,000l. a year, the Regium Donum. This Matthews, or Chisholm, brought an action against Mr. Dill, in which he was cast, and he set to persecute him, and being all powerful with the Government, he got the arrears of Mr. Dill's salary stopped. The answer why Mr. Dill refused to sign the document in question had been given in a court of justice the other day. He (Mr. Osborne) could bear his testimony to the good conduct of Mr. Dill, and to the disreputable character of Matthews. Another and more important question was, how long were they to go on granting this sum, and thus creating another Established Church in Ireland? As long as these grants were made, there would never be any reform in the Church of Ireland. He would ask bow the Roman Catholics liked to see the Protestant Episcopal and Presbyterian churches paid by the State, while they were thrown on their own resources, and had to pay for their own Church establishment? This was a far graver question than that of Mr. Dill and the grant to him.

MR. REYNOLDS

had entered the House determined to oppose the vote of the sum named, and was more impressed with the necessity of such a course from the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary. He would state his reasons for opposing this vote. He was an advocate of the voluntary system, and he believed that all sects into which our common Christianity was divided should support their own pastors. He thought it contrary to the common principles of justice that any man should be called upon to support the minister with whom he was not in religious communication; and if there were one nation in the world more aggrieved than another in this respect, it was the Irish people. His Roman Catholic brethren in Ireland amounted to 7,000,000 of the population; and although they contributed to the support of their own ministers, they had also to pay for the Protestant Church, which had a revenue of a million sterling a year, while only 750,000 of the population belonged to her communion. He, therefore, objected to saddling the Roman Catholics with a second establishment for the Presbyterians of Ireland; and he called on the Dissenters in England to be true to their own principles by voting with him against this grant. He understood there were 500 of those Presbyterian clergymen in Ireland receiving this sum of 37.000l., and it therefore gave them 74l. a year each. There were 700,000 Presbyterians in Ireland—an educated, industrious, and high-spirited class—who were able and willing to pay their clergy, and if they were allowed to pay them, the expense would not be more than 5d. per head on the entire Presbyterian population of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had called Mr. George Matthews or Mr. Duncan Chisholm, together with many aliases in which he rejoiced—"a gentleman." Why, the Prince of Darkness was a gentleman, and so was Mr. Duncan Chisholm. It was very safe to scold this "gentleman" there, for he was divided from the House and the Treasury bench by the broad Atlantic. He was surprised the right hon. Gentleman had not set apart some of the money he offered as rewards for the capture of this hypocritical man. That person had applied to him for assistance to deprive a certain sect of Presbyterians of their advantages, and had said to him, "I enjoy the confidence of the Lord Lieutenant, and am in the odour of sanctity with the Chief Secretary." He had said to Mr. Matthews, "Why, you are a Presbyterian Pope;" but he had his misgivings on the subject, and was ill-disposed to assist him. He had since found out he was no better than he should be. He believed that, were it not for the corrupt influence of the grant of 37,000l. a year, there would not be a more independent body in Ireland than the Presbyterians; but, as it was, they were little better than a clerical police—little better than a set of political-ecclesiastical scribes, betraying those in communion with them, and betraying the Government which paid them. If they withdrew the grant, the Presbyterians would be no longer spies on the one hand, or dictators on the other.

MR. ANSTEY

said, that no petition had been presented in the name of the Presbyterians of Ireland in opposition to this annual grant; he therefore inferred that it was the desire of that body that the grant should not be withdrawn for the present. With this impression, he considered it the duty of the Committee to support the vote.

MR. SADLEIR

complained that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland should have treated the case of George Matthews, or, as he was called, Duncan Chisholm, as being of too trifling a nature to engage the attention of the Committee. Mr. Matthews had always conducted the correspondence on the part of the Government with the Presbyterians of Ireland until the case of Mr. Dill occurred. Since then the Secretary and Under Secretary for Ireland had interested themselves in the matter. For several years previous to 1847, Mr. Dill furnished the return which, in that year, was objected to by Duncan Chisholm, and on those returns Mr. Dill had been regularly paid his portion of the Regium Donum up to that year. The first quarter's money for 1847 was also paid, but since that time he had not received anything. Since that year Mr. Dill had continued to furnish information to the Government, in strict compliance with the Parliamentary form. The conduct of that gentleman had been approved by the great Presbyterian Assembly at Belfast; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had said, that he could meet the public expression of that great assembly by a resolution which had been passed by some provincial synod, in which the conduct of Mr. Dill was condemned. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce any such resolution. If it existed he had no doubt it would be found to be the petty movement of some hole-and-corner meeting held by the creatures of Duncan Chisholm.

MR. HUME

hoped the House would not give entire weight to what had been stated till they heard his statement. In 1847 an increase was proposed to the Regium Donum, and he wished to know why, and moved for papers. Mr. Matthews was brought up as a witness to make explanations in relation to certain charities; and no one could have done his duty better, or given clearer answers. Of course he (Mr. Hume) knew nothing of Mr. Chizzle-em—or any other name. Constant efforts had been made to increase the grant, and he agreed that as an endowment it was a bribe to a particular party, made them tools of the Government, and it would be a blessing to Ireland if it was removed. From 1690, when the grant was first made, it was paid to all congregations alike till 1803, when it was divided into three classes, to one of which 100l. was paid, to another 75l., and to a third 50l. There were at present 451 Presbyterian congregations, and they were asked to give in the proportion of 80l. a year, to each, while the congregations only paid themselves 40l. a year. After 1803 the clergy wanted more, and to have the sums equalised, so that they should get 100l. a year each, and the Government came to a determination to fix some rule. At present there must he a certificate that 55l. must he paid to the minister, 20l. of it by his own congregation, before the minister should receive the Regium Donum. There were three or four congregations that came under that rule not subscribing the required sum. For wishing to carry out the views of the Government in this respect, Mr. Matthews was attacked. However, it ended in this, that after that period all incomes of 100l. as they fell in should cease, and all incomes of 50l. as they fell in should cease, and that henceforth 75l. should he paid. Now, he put it to the House, whether the Government were not warranted in checking the gradual increase which was going on. Under the old system they might establish a congregation in every village in Ireland. He had divided the House several times against any allowances to Dissenters in this country, as well as to the Episcopalians in Scotland, who received 1,000l. a year. If Government would take his advice, they would abolish these grants altogether. He had a letter before him from Mr. James Morgan, the moderator of the Assembly, to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, calling upon Government, in consequence of the failure of the potato crop, and many of the parishioners not being able to contribute towards their stipends, to increase their allowance; and he was very much pleased with the right hon. Gentleman's answer, delining to accede to this. Mr. Matthews, in his report, stated that the average annual contribution of each Presbyterian in Ireland, toward the support of their ministers, was 41 farthings, and no more. He did not think that the Dissenters in Ireland had any claim upon Government; and he should, therefore, oppose the vote.

MR. BRIGHT

said, he wished to suggest a course which appeared to him more practicable than that of the right hon. Member for Dublin. He agreed in all that had been said as to the improper nature of this grant. It seemed to him that it made the Presbyterian ministers dependent upon Government, and was likely to cause dissensions between them and I their congregations. It was perhaps as objectionable a grant, and made in as objectionable a mode, as could he contrived. What he wanted to see was, that they should be satisfied that the vote should go no further. At present the vote was in a state of unlimited expansion. Wherever twelve persons or more should subscribe 30l., 25l. of which only need come from the congregation, Government were called upon to pay 75l. more. He would not go into the question generally as to the injury done to Ireland, by buying over a largo number of ministers, who ought, if they were true to their principles, to unite with Roman Catholics in ecclesiastical matters. He left that out of the question, but he wanted to propose something more practical than that which was proposed by his; right hon. Friend; for, after a system like this had prevailed for some time, it would be a very harsh and improper thing to stop without notice the payment of 36,000l. But they might put it in process of extinction. If they were to reduce the vote this year by 5,000l., the result would he that the congregations in Ireland, instead of paying 35l. per annum, would have to pay 45l., and the Government grant would be diminished from 75l. to 65l., and it might go on gradually diminishing 5l. or 10l. a year, and he thus extinguished without, he believed, inflicting anything like near the burden on the Presbyterian congregations that was inflicted on every Dissenting congregation besides in the united kingdom, and upon the whole body of Roman Catholics in Ireland. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion, and he (Mr. Bright) would move that the vote be 32,000l., instead of 37,000l.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question Put— That a sum, not exceeding 32,698l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 3lst day of March, 1851.

MR. REYNOLDS

said, any recommendation of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester would have weight with him; but in this instance it was contrary to his conviction, and he therefore could not adopt it. If, however, his hon. Friend would support him in voting against the grant, and his Motion was lost, he would then vote with his hon. Friend on his Amendment.

MR. S. CRAWFORD

said, he had always opposed these grants out of the State funds to religious bodies, and in consequence of that opposition he had had communications with the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland, in which they stated that the ground on which they claimed this grant was that they themselves were required to pay for the support of the Established Church. But, notwithstanding his opposition to this grant, he did not believe that it prevented the Presbyterians from identifying themselves with the interests of the people generally, and never were they more identified with them than at that moment. There were many old clergymen who had no other support than this grant, and it would be a great injustice to withdraw it at once from its present recipients. He would suggest, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin that he should accede to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Manchester, and, instead of voting for the abolition of the grant at once, should proceed to attain that end by a gradual reduction.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 108: Majority 63.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hudson, G.
Bass, M. T.	Hutchins, E. J.
Brotherton, J.	Kershaw, J.
Brown, W.	Locke, J.
Clay, J.	Lushington, C.
Clifford, H. M.	Magan, W. H.
Cobden, R.	Mowatt, F.
Corbally, M. E.	O'Connell, M.
Crawford, W. S.	Osborne, R.
Dick, Q.	Pechell, Sir G. B.
Duke, Sir J.	Pilkington, J.
Duncan, G.	Reynolds, J.
Ellis, J.	Sadleir, J.
Fagan, W.	Tenison, E. K.
Fox, W. J.	Thompson, Col.
Freestun, Col.	Thornely, T.
Grace, O. D. J.	Wakley, T.
Greene, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Grenfell, C. P.	Willcox, B. M.
Harris, R.	Williams, J.
Hastie, A.	Wyld, J.
Headlam, T.	TELLERS.
Henry, A.	Hume, J.
Heyworth, L.	Bright, J.

MR. REYNOLDS

then declared his intention to divide the Committee on the vote.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 27: Majority 96.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Kershaw, J.
Bass, M. T.	Locke, J.
Bright, J.	Lushington, C.
Clay, J.	Magan, W. H.
Clifford, H. M.	O'Connell, M.
Duke, Sir J.	Pilkington, J.
Ellis, J.	Thompson, Col.
Fox, W. J.	Wakley, T.
Greene, J.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Hall, Sir B.	Willcox, B. M.
Harris, R.	Williams, J.
Hastie, A.	Wyld, J.
Heyworth, L,	TELLERS.
Hudson, G.	Reynolds, J.
Hume, J.	Fagan, W.

(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 6,790l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1851, Charitable Allowances charged on the Concordatum Fund in Ireland, and other allowances and Bounties formerly defrayed from the Grants for the Lord Lieutenant's Household, Civil Contingencies, &c.

MR. REYNOLDS

objected to the item of 217l. for the minister of St. Matthew's Chapel, Ringsend, and moved that the vote be reduced by that sum.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 6,573l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1851, Charitable Allowances charged on the Concordatum Fund in Ireland, and other Allowances and Bounties formerly defrayed from the Grants for the Lord Lieutenant's Household, Civil Contingencies, &c.

The Committee divided:——Ayes 24; Noes 123: Majority 99.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

The following Votes were agreed to:—

(10.) 20,700l., General Board of Health.

(11.) 2,346l., Central Board of Health, Dublin.

On the next Vote,

(12.) 13,552l., Inumbered Estates Commission, Ireland,

MR. HUME

asked if there was any return of the number of estates that had been sold by the Commission, and of the amounts they had realised.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

believed that such a return had been recently laid before the other House.

MR. HUME

said, as this court was doing the duty of the Court of Chancery, as they were now paying 13,000l. for duties which ought to be done by one of the constituted courts of the country, he wished to know whether there was to be a proportionate reduction in the expense of the Court of Chancery?

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

said, he believed the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act, instead of diminishing had materially increased the business of the Court of Chancery.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

wished to be informed how long this Incumbered Estates Court was likely to last.

SIR W. SOMERVILLE

Three years, according to the provisions of the Act.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

Then, Sir, I beg leave to move that this Vote be disallowed.

Vote agreed to; as was

(13.) 15,000l., Works of Navigation connected with Drainage (Ireland).

(14.) 14,765l., Ambassador's House at Constantinople.

MR. HUME

said, he was surprised to see this vote, as there was a Committee then sitting which had under their consideration the salaries of the diplomatic corps. He would suggest a postponement of this vote till the Committee had made their report.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that in any case there must be a residence for the Minister at Constantinople.

MR. HUME

But the house for a man with 6,000l. a year should not be so expensive as that for a man having 12.000l.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, that it was impossible to hire a house at Constantinople fit for a European to live in; and as it was necessary to build a house, it was a matter of economy that it should be made of materials that would not burn.

MR. HENLEY

asked what the total expenditure would be?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

regretted to say, that it would be much more than was at first expected; for whilst the building of it was going on one portion of it caught fire.

MR. HENLEY

said, that the present vote made the total expenditure 30,000l., and he wished to know if any more money was to be asked for?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

believed the present vote would complete the building.

Vote agreed to; as were also

(15.) 1,000l., Militia and Volunteers, Canada.

(16.) 3,000l., Harbour of Lybster, on the east coast of Scotland.

On the Vote of

(17.) 18,100 for Erecting and Maintaining Lighthouses on Sable Island,

MR. HUME

said, he did not rise to object to the employment of money for useful purposes. But he regretted that the Government did not take this department, under their own control, instead of leaving it to be managed by a self-elected company, who expended what they pleased, and levied what they pleased. He regretted that the present First Lord of the Admiralty did not follow in the steps of the Earl of Auckland, who appointed a department in connexion with his office to take charge of this important subject. Now, the matter was left with the Treasury, the Colonial Office, and the Trinity Board, and there was no unity in the system. When he and others voted for the alteration of the navigation laws, they were promised that the shipping interest would be relieved from these dues; but no relief had been afforded up to that time. He believed that the colonies would contribute to the expense of erecting lighthouses if the Government gave them any assistance.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) 30,000l., Repository, Public Records.

MR. HUME

said, he was not going to object to the vote. All he wanted was, that they should not leave the building in the hands of Mr. Barry; for nothing could be more disgraceful to a civilised country than the folly which was going on with respect to the New Houses of Parliament. He did not wish to see any more public buildings, unless there was to be a responsible person to guard against any increase of expenditure. He had not seen the plan of the proposed Record Depository, but he had read the report, and it appeared to him to be a very proper report. All that he wanted was, that they should be secured against any abuse in the construction of the building.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the head of the Woods and Forests Department would be responsible for the expenditure of the money.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

Could not be in worse hands.

MR. HENLEY

A Record Office was certainly desirable. He hoped they would provide against the possibility of the building being found too small in a short time for the purposes for which it was to be erected. The report did not appear to be satisfactory as to the amount of accommodation to be afforded.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the plan contemplated a structure to be raised in four different periods. No. 1 would provide for all existing records, and the expense of it would be covered by a sum of 45,000l. No. 2 would provide for all records for 100 years. Then Nos. 3 and 4 were to follow, so that they made provision for the future as well as the present.

Vote agreed to.

(19.) 8,000l. to complete the Vote for Law Charges, Treasury.

MR. HUME

said, that the salary of the Solicitor of the Treasury was 1,850l.; but he wished to know whether there were any bills in addition. It was an economical practice to pay the solicitors by a fixed sum; but he wanted to guard the public against the system which had prevailed in the office of Woods and Forests, where certain parties had received immense sums as law charges for duties which ought to be performed by the solicitors.

MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS

said, that the Solicitor of the Treasury devoted his entire time to his office, and he received nothing but his salary.

Vote agreed to, as were the following:—

(20.) 3,555l. to complete the Vote for Coin Prosecutions.

(21.) 7,700l. to complete the Vote for Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.

(22.) 5,330l. to complete the Vote for Insolvent Debtors' Court.

(23.) 44,324l. to complete the Vote for Law Expenses, Scotland.

On the next Vote,

(24.) 33,761l. to complete the Vote for Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland,

COLONEL DUNNE

said, that in this country nearly 70,000l. which had been placed on the Consolidated Fund had formerly been borne by the county rates in Ireland. He should be told that a moiety of the police rate in Ireland had lately been thrown on the Consolidated Fund, and that the county rates were relieved from it. The late Sir R. Peel had described this as a kind of gift for the repeal of the corn laws. He did not think they were fairly treated in this matter. He must also advert to the crowded state of the Irish gaols. It appeared from the charge of a Judge to the jury, at the late assizes at Mayo, that prisoners who should be supported by the Crown were left in the gaols. The sheriffs had pressed on the Government the re- moval of these prisoners, but they could not obtain any redress. The Judge stated that it was perfectly illegal that these men should be left in the county gaol. On looking over the estimates it would be found that a sum of 700,000l. had been taken off the county rates of England, and placed on the Consolidated Fund. It was impossible that Ireland could bear the weight of taxation now placed upon her.

MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS

believed that it would be found, if the average of the last three years for this charge was taken, that a greater amount had been given to Ireland. Before 1846 the moiety of the charge for criminal prosecutions in this country was paid by an annual vote of Parliament. In that year the entire charge was transferred from the county rate to the Exchequer, and this was done with the view of equalising the allowance to the two countries. Also the moiety of the charge for the maintenance of convicts in gaol, and certain allowances for certain county officers. Compensating allowances were made in Ireland, and a very considerable sum was transferred from the county rates to the Consolidated Fund, such as the expense of the constabulary and certain other charges connected with the poor-law.

COLONEL DUNNE

felt assured, if he had the papers on this subject, he should be able to induce the Committee to come to a very different conclusion from that of his hon. Friend.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

stated, that in the county which he represented (Kerry), there were 1,500 prisoners in the gaol, which was constructed for 130. He had himself visited the gaol, and had seen lunatics and convicts placed together without the smallest regard to classification. There could not be a matter of more importance to the country, than that Government should take some measure for removing all the convicts in the county gaols. In his county the grand jury had been seriously alarmed by its being given out that clothing would be sent to the convicts, which seemed to imply that it was the intention of Government to leave them there for a long time.

MR. SADLEIR

hoped that the appeal which had been made to Government would be attended to. There was most dreadful and frightful mortality and disease amongst the prisoners in the prisons of Ireland, and it was not for Government to say that they had not the means and power of removing prisoners who were convicted from these gaols. He called upon the Government to relieve the prisoners in gaols from the scenes they were subjected to, by keeping the prisoners sentenced to transportation in the gaols.

SIR G. GREY

could assure the hon. Member for Kerry that the greatest exertions had been made on the part of the Government to remedy the evil; but it should be remembered that there had been a large and sudden increase in the number of convicts in Ireland sentenced to the punishment of transportation. Government had exerted itself in every possible way, and he was happy in being able to state that an arrangement had been made for the maintenance, at the expense of the Government, of 3,500 convicts, now in the county gaols, at Spike Island. A large number of convicts had also been transported to the colonies, and there were also two ships under orders to convey a further number of convicts abroad from Ireland. It was impossible for the Government to provide at a moment's notice for such a considerable increase in the number of convicts.

Vote agreed to; as was the following:—

(25.) 15,500l. to complete the Vote for Metropolitan Police, Dublin.

(26.) 90,000l. to complete the Vote for County Rates.

MR. V. SMITH

asked whether any steps had been taken to produce something like a uniformity in the scale of fees for prosecutions at the various assizes?

SIR G. GREY

had stated the other day that it was very desirable that in all the counties and boroughs there should be something like a uniform scale for prosecutions. At present there was the greatest variety, and although attempts would be made to produce something like uniformity, there still would be some variety in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of different counties.

MR. HENLEY

expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in his attempt to provide a uniform scale, would not incur an increased charge.

MR. HUME

objected to the vote, as the country had to pay it, and there was no person to control the expenditure. If they paid the expenses of these prosecutions, there should be some Government officer I who should be responsible for the mode in which the money was laid out.

SIR J. TROLLOPE

said, at present the magistrates exercised the same careful control over the expenditure as they for- merly did. He admitted, however, that there was no sufficient check over the expenditure at the assizes. While on that vote he could not help alluding to the strange schemes which had been put forth by the inspectors of prisons. Mr. Hill, one of the inspectors, proposed to erect one enormous prison for the whole county of Lincoln, and a very large tract of land was to be included within its boundary, which was to be cultivated by the convicts, who were for the most part agricultural labourers. He need hardly say the adoption of such a powerful scheme was out of the question, as all efficient control over the prisoners would be at an end. He would ask whether those gentlemen who were engaged as inspectors of prisons were worth the salaries which were paid to them?

MR. AGLIONBY

wished to refer the Committee to an Amendment in the Criminal Justice Bill, which he had suggested, with regard to taking the pleas of prisoners in cases of larceny and midemeanour, for the first offence, before the magistrates at petty sessions. The effect of his Amendment would be to save the country 40,000l. or 50,000l. per annum.

Vote agreed to.

(27.) 7,550l. to complete the Vote for Inspectors of Prisons.

SIR J. TROLLOPE moved, as an Amendment, to reduce the Vote by 2,100l., the amount of the salaries of the three inspectors of prisons. The reports of these gentlemen contained much useless or objectionable matter, and he thought it time, therefore, that they should cease.

SIR G. GREY

hoped the Committee would not consent to this reduction, for he believed the greatest advantage had been derived from the appointment of these inspectors. At the same time he would admit that the reports of some of the inspectors had contained matter which had better been excluded from them. Some of the suggestions made by the inspectors of prisons were suggestions that ought to be addressed to the Secretary of State, and were in no degree binding upon the county magistrates unless they were recommended by the Secretary of State. The duty of these inspectors was defined by law; it was their duty to inquire into facts, rather than to report opinions or make recommendations. They might undoubtedly make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the consideration of the Government, but he thought it was out of their province to make direct recommendations to the county magistrates. The subject had been under the consideration of the Committee on Prison Discipline, and he thought it would be desirable to effect gradually some change in the system of inspection, by rendering it more uniform, and by having one chief inspector, and several sub-inspectors, who should report facts to the chief inspector, leaving him to report to the Government what opinions he thought fit. There was too much disposition on the part of inspectors generally to write essays and pamphlets, and it was difficult to check that description of authorship. The Committee must not suppose, however, that that was all the prison inspectors did, for their labours had led to very valuable results.

MR. T. EGERTON

said, that in a district with which he was connected as a county magistrate the late prison inspector had been perfectly satisfied with the management of the gaol, but a new inspector had been recently appointed who entertained different notions, and he told the magistrates their arrangements were altogether wrong. Now, it was a very unpleasant thing for the magistrates to be told by the inspector, "Your gaol is very ill managed, and I shall think it my duty to report it to the Secretary of State," although the previous inspector had fully approved of the prison management. He hoped the inspectors would pay some attention to the suggestions which had just been made by the right hon. Baronet.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

had visited several prisons, and had never seen a set of more jolly, happy, well-fed, well-clothed fellows than the convicts were. They were much better fed, much better clothed, and much more lively, he was sorry to say, than the agricultural labourers of England were at present. There was too great a disposition on the part of the public to sympathise with criminals. When men committed such crimes as the assassination of Mr. Drummond, why, they were under the influence of monomania. He remembered hearing that on one occasion a jury applied to Chief Justice Hale, as a Christian, to extend mercy to a criminal. The Chief Justice replied, "I hope, as a Christian, that I am disposed to exercise mercy, but there is a mercy due to the country. The prisoner is a notorious scoundrel, and I shall hang him." He (Colonel Sibthorp) thought that principle might with great advantage be carried into effect more extensively that it was at present. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would be prepared with some additional prisons and places of confinement, if there should be occasion for them, when the Exposition of Industry took place next year? He understood the right hon. Baronet intended to increase the police force, as he was told, by some 2,000 men; and he cautioned the right hon. Gentleman to be prepared for what might occur, and for what he feared would occur, and not to build a glass house in Hyde Park until he had laid the foundations of a prison somewhat larger than any now existing in the metropolis. Crime was on the increase, and if the accursed free-trade system was continued, they must expect it to go on increasing, and next year they would have London and the provinces inundated with a set of fellows who, if they were not lost before they got here, would prove a great curse to the country.

In reply to Mr. HUME,

SIR G. GREY

said, that a considerable reduction had been effected in the expenditure for the Pentonville Prison. The subject had been very fully investigated by a Committee, whose report would be laid on the table before the end of the Session.

SIR J. TROLLOPE

begged to withdraw his Amendment, as the object he had in view had been answered by the remarks of the right hon. Baronet with regard to the inspection of prisons. The report of Mr. Hill was almost impertinent, and had given general offence not only in his (Sir J. Trollope's) county, but in York, where he had recommended the abandonment of the gaol after a large sum had been laid out on it.

Amendment withdrawn.

Vote agreed to.

The following votes were also agreed to:

(28.) 137,224l., to complete the Vote for Convict Establishments at Home.

(29.) 65,848l., to complete the Vote for Convict Establishments Abroad.

(30.) 69,230l., to complete the Vote for Transportation of Convicts.

(31.) 100,147l., to complete the Vote for Convict Establishments, Colonies.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.