Commons Sitting of 3 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Savings Banks (Ireland).
2o Common Law Procedure; Master in Chancery Abolition; Improvement of the Jurisdiction of Equity; Protestant Dissenters.
3o General Board of Health; Law of Wills Amendment; Industrial and Provident Partnerships.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
On the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose and said: Perhaps the House will permit me to make a few observations with reference to the conduct of public business. When the House last met, before adjourning for the holidays, I agreed that the adjourned debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) for an inquiry into the system of education at Maynooth College, should be resumed to-morrow morning. Since that time representations have been made to me by hon. Members from Ireland, who complain that this is not a fair arrangement for them. I regret very much that they did not make those representations at the time that I made my suggestion. Had they done so, I should at once have acceded to it; for when the personal convenience of any considerable number of Members is involved in any arrangement over which the Government have control, I shall ever regard it as a duty and a pleasure to promote the wishes of those hon. Gentlemen so far as it may be in my power to do so. I could have wished that the request of the hon. Members to whom I in this instance refer, had

1371
been made at an earlier period; but it is in itself so reasonable, that even now I cannot think that I should be justified in declining it. We, therefore, propose that the debate on the Maynooth question shall be resumed at the morning sitting on Tuesday, instead of Friday. The Government are anxious to follow what they believe to be the feeling of the majority of the House upon this subject; but it is due to the House and to ourselves that I should state that after Tuesday it will not be possible for us to make any other arrangement to facilitate the conduct of that debate. I shall propose to proceed to-morrow morning with the Estimates in Committee of Supply, and I propose that to-morrow evening, with the consent of the House, we shall go into Committee on the New Zealand Bill. My first idea was, that we might have gone into Committee on that Bill to-morrow morning, but I find that several hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in that question are engaged upon Committees of great importance in the morning; and, although the public business is now extremely urgent, I have felt it my duty to defer to their representations, being desirous that we should have the advantage of their presence at the discussions in Committee on the Bill. Perhaps the House will permit me to take this opportunity of impressing upon them the necessity of considering the gravity of the public business that remains yet undespatched, under circumstances in which, as every hon. Gentleman present must be aware, despatch is of the utmost importance. The public business that remains to be despatched, is really, generally speaking, not that sort of business that a Ministry can throw over, in the hope that on a future opportunity they may, under happier auspices, again submit it to the consideration of the House. The Bills at present before the House are generally measures of a very urgent character, relating to matters of the utmost importance, and in some instances proposing to continue laws which are about to expire, the expediency of which nobody can question. I do not despair, that with the assistance of the House, and with becoming energy, we may complete the business that is before us, and at the same time not interfere with that ulterior result at which we are all anxious to arrive. I hope, however, the House will permit me to say, that while Her Majesty's Ministers feel it their duty to submit nothing to the consideration of the House, but matters which they
1372
believe to be of urgent and paramount necessity, they do hope that hon. Gentlemen generally will be actuated by the same feelings. I am myself always most anxious not to interfere with the privileges of independent Members. I highly estimate those privileges; I have myself, in opposition, availed myself of them, and I wish in no way to diminish the opportunities afforded to hon. Gentlemen for bringing important and interesting subjects before the House. But I may remind the House that on Friday last, when we attempted to go into Committee of Supply, the whole evening was occupied—I will not say with subjects of no importance, but certainly not with subjects of that urgent necessity which I thought ought alone to be brought forward by such extraordinary means in the present Session. There are now a variety of Amendments on the paper to be proposed on going into Committee of Supply. Under ordinary circumstances, and in the usual state of affairs, there is not one of those Amendments to which the Government would not feel it their duty to give the fullest attention and consideration which the subjects themselves deserve; but they do not relate to matters of that urgent character which this House generally has recognised as those which ought, under present circumstances, alone to be put forward. It would greatly facilitate public business, and would materially assist that consummation which we all desire, if hon. Gentlemen, with a becoming forbearance, and with an abnegation which I assure them the Government would duly appreciate, would resolve not to bring forward, in the way of amendment or representation, in Committee of Supply, topics which are not really of a very urgent character. I hope the House will excuse me for making these observations, and that they will assist Her Majesty's Ministers in facilitating the progress of public business. It is only by such a course that we shall be enabled to close the Session at the period we all desire, and at the same time carry those measures upon the paper which it is important for the interests of the country should become law.
COLONEL FREESTUNinquired whether the House would meet at Twelve o'clock to-morrow?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Sir, I am anxious to take this opportunity of addressing a few observations to the House

1373
as to the state of public business; and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has anticipated me in calling attention to the subject The right hon. Gentleman has said he hopes some forbearance will be exercised towards the Government with reference to making Motions before going into Committee of Supply. I, on the other hand, on behalf of hon. Members generally, do think that we are entitled to some forbearance on the part of the Government in respect to the measures which they press upon our immediate consideration. I suppose that there can be but one feeling in this House, as I am sure there is but one feeling in the country, that our labours in the present Session should be brought to a close within the shortest possible time, consistent with the great interests committed to our care. It therefore becomes, as it appears to me, a question of primary importance to consider what are those measures which it is indispensable for us to discuss in the course of the remainder of this Session, which cannot, I imagine, from all accounts, be of very long duration. Now, just let me call the attention of the House to this fact—that there are no less than twenty-seven "Orders of the Day" upon the paper for to-day. There are, I think, four notices of Motion to be made before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair on going into a Committee of Supply—a practice which certainly I very much regret, as needlessly and disadvantageously, in my opinion, occupying the time of the House, inasmuch as it gives rise to an infinite variety of debates, during the same evening, leading to no practical conclusion; but I am bound to say, on the part of independent Members, greatly as I deprecate the practice, that just in proportion as the Motion days are diminished in number, and the opportunity afforded to independent Members for bringing subjects under consideration are thus curtailed, it must necessarily ensue that the practice of making Motions upon going into Committee of Supply will be more generally adopted. Allow me for a moment to call the attention of the House to some of the leading measures which we are now asked to consider. I admit the urgency of some of those measures; but with respect to others, while I admit their importance, I deny that there is any urgent necessity for deciding upon them in the present Session. I may classify them, with the view of considering them more easily and satisfactorily.
1374
I will take first, the branch of law, and let us see what are the questions with reference to the administration of justice which, on the 3rd of June, press for our decision, or rather, I should say, which we arc pressed to decide upon. There is, first, the Common Law Procedure Bill, which comes down to us from the other House, after ample discussion, and after a reference to a Committee of the most learned persons. The other House has bestowed much time upon the consideration of this Bill which contains no less than 230 clauses; but we are called upon to decide both upon the principle and the details of the measure during the remainder of the present Session. This Bill is to affect our Courts of Common Law. Then let us look at the Equitable Jurisdiction of the country. I had the honour of serving upon a Commission which made the utmost possible exertions to report upon that entire subject before the commencement of this Session; and our Report, going at large both into the principle and details of the alterations which we unanimously recommended, was in the hands of the Executive Government at the commencement of the Session. The other House has had ample time to consider two most important Bills, the Master in Chancery Abolition Bill, and the Improvement of Equity Jurisdiction Bill; these Bills, in the main, embody the recommendations of that Commission. I say in the main, because in some important particulars there were deviations from our recommendations. Not one step has yet been taken in this House with regard to anyone of these three Bills beyond their introduction. Is this all the business before us with respect to the law? No; there is a Bill relating to Suitors in Chancery, and a Bill, which has made some progress, for the alteration of the law respecting Bills. Now, it is impossible to exaggerate the magnitude, the difficulty, and the importance of these questions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded to the New Zealand Bill. By the courtesy of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies I received private intimation that the arrangement which I thought had been made for resuming the discussion upon the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) relative to the College of Maynooth, to-morrow morning at 12 o'clock, had been altered, and that it was proposed to proceed with the Committee on the New Zealand Bill at that hour to-morrow. Hav-

1375
ing accidentally met with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington), I had the opportunity of stating to him how much I objected to that arrangement for discussing the New Zealand Bill at a morning sitting. The business before the House is of great magnitude; but there is pressed upon us in Committees upstairs business of, if possible, still greater and more urgent importance. There is a Committee on the whole question of the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, which meets to-morrow at one o'clock. There is also a Committee intimately connected with the good government of Ireland, with reference to Crime and Outrage in that country. We are in the midst of the consideration of our Report, and we are called upon to meet tomorrow at twelve o'clock. Now, if such Committees sit to-morrow, it will be impossible to proceed with the New Zealand Bill to-morrow, without notice, at a morning sitting. That, however, is only a single measure. There is another Bill before the House which has hitherto been unexplained, though I believe it has been read a second time, and which involves principles of the utmost importance. I allude to the Hereditary Casual Revenues Bill. That measure, in connexion with the discovery of important mines in South Australia, and the application of casual revenue—of which, I believe, gold and silver ore form a part—becomes one of primary importance. With reference to the Church in the Colonies, there are no less than three measures on the table, which claim the most attentive consideration of the House. There is the Colonial Bishops Bill. There is the Bishopric of Quebec Bill, relating to the subdivision of that diocese—a matter which I believe will be found to trench more or less on a question exciting great interest in Canada, and which the late Government introduced specially to our consideration, namely, that of the clergy reserves. There is also the New Zealand Bishopric Bill, to which I will not now more particularly allude. Here are Bills of vast importance to the Colonies, lying on our table for consideration. And now let us look at certain Bills of renewal, which are really urgent, and upon which it is impossible, even in the present Session, to escape coming to some decision. There is the renewal of the Poor Law Board, both in England and in Ireland—two separate Bills. There is another Act, which is connected with the subject of the inquiry I have already adverted to, with respect to crime and out-
1376
rage in Ireland—a matter to which the late Government attached the greatest importance; and the Act I allude to, for the Prevention of Crime and Outrage in Ireland, expires with the Session, I believe, and must be renewed, but no step has yet been taken to renew it. I see the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland has given notice of a measure which is not a mere Bill of renewal, and not of the urgent character of that class of Bills—a Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the Whiteboy Acts and the Acts against Unlawful Societies—a subject of the utmost difficulty and of great importance, but one which it will not be found possible to investigate or bring to a conclusion to the satisfaction of Ireland or of this country in morning sittings during the present Session. There is also the Encumbered Estates Act, which, I believe, expires with the present Session, and which, if it is expedient that it should be renewed, must be renewed in this Session, and we must have all the discussion which it will entail. Then there is a Bill introduced by the Admiralty, which I have not yet heard explained, but which is also of the greatest importance and of some difficulty, involving an entire alteration of the scheme of Navy Pay—the mode of payment of Her Majesty's fleet. Take some other department—take the Department of the Woods and Forests'—what are the measures now on our table to be discussed in this Session? There is a Bill, the Metropolis Building Bill, with 79 clauses, the object of the Bill being to amend an Act of about 250 clauses. There is the question of Extramural Metropolitan Interment, the whole scheme of which was fully discussed, and, as I thought, settled in a former Session; but a Bill has now been introduced by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works (Lord J. Manners), subverting that scheme in all its most important parts. There is also a Bill for the better regulation of the Supply of Water—a Bill which has been before a Select Committee, but which still, if discussed in detail in this House, will, I am satisfied, inevitably occupy a great length of time. The noble Lord has also introduced a Bill relating to the administration of the Woods and Forests and Land Revenues, and, though of minor importance, two other Bills in reference to local improvements, all of which Bills, however, are likely to lead to discussion. [An Hon. MEMBER: There will be a Sewers Bill.] I am reminded of a Sewers Bill. The Sewers Commission is expiring: I be-

1377
lieve the subject of its continuance has not yet been brought before us. Then, how do we Stand with respect to Supply? There are, I think, about 200 Votes yet to he taken in Committee of Supply; and the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) has given notice of opposing forty-six of these Votes. We are on the 3rd of June: it is announced that there is the utmost desire on the part of the Government and of the House to bring our labours to a close. I should be glad to know how it is possible for all these various subjects to be satisfactorily disposed of within the period contemplated by the Government for the duration of the Session. But, numerous as are the items which I have cited, I bog to say that I have not as yet exhausted the various subjects which are still reserved for our consideration; nor shall I trespass so far on the attention of the House as to attempt to do so. Surely, the time has arrived when it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to consider and state on an early day—perhaps they would do it on Monday—what are the measures they will still press on our consideration, and in what order they will take them. I feel strongly upon the matter. I have the greatest apprehension that if we do not take care, we shall bring the institution of the representative government itself into disrepute. It will appear that we cannot transact business, and that even the business which is before us and under debate we cannot close so as to come to a decision. I allude especially now to that Motion which has been twice before us, and for which I am much concerned to find the Government has just proposed a day—the Motion relating to Maynooth College. The hon. Member who has just proposed that Motion avows that for any practical purposes that Motion will be utterly unavailing. [Mr. SPOONER: No, no!] Most assuredly I did understand the hon. Gentleman to have admitted that, let the fate of the Motion be what it might, inquiry in the present Session was utterly impossible. [Mr. SPOONER: Hear, hear!] Well, then, a proposition for an inquiry which must be fruitless, and the discussion of which, as I believe, being fruitless, is fraught with the greatest evil to the peace, tranquillity, and concord of the country, is kept open, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government, and in that state of affairs is still allowed to occupy our attention. I will not speak with disrespect of regulations which the House has adopted, but as for taking a question of that sort at
1378
a morning sitting, it appears to me that if you wished to come to no decision, this is the exact course you would take; and the evil is greatly aggravated by the regulation adopted the other day, that at four o'clock Mr. Speaker closes the morning sitting, and the business not then disposed of is to be put at the bottom of the list of Orders of the Day; in point of fact, an adjournment, in the present state of the Session, sine die. If we are to have a debate upon the Maynooth question, and to come to a decision upon it—and observe I do not deprecate such a decision, but what I would deprecate is endless and profitless discussion, without a decision—I conceive that it can never, in the present state of the Session, be determined at a morning sitting. It will occupy morning after morning—the excitement created by it, and the discord, will go on, and be aggravated; the public will suffer from it, and no possible good can arise from it. If Her Majesty's Government think it is for the public good that that question should he discussed and decided, I should say let them by all means, even in the present state of public business, give an evening sitting for the purpose. I am very sorry to have occupied the House at this length; but, with the utmost respect and regard for the reputation of this representative Assembly, I do feel that in the course which we are now pursuing, if we can come to no decision upon a question of the greatest public interest, this Assembly, which has been the great landmark of representative government, and the great example of representative assemblies throughout the world, will be brought into disrepute. I hope by Monday the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will he prepared to state what measures he intends still to press upon our attention, and in what order he will take them.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he was not going to be drawn into a debate upon the Maynooth question, but he wished to put the right hon. Baronet right upon one point. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think it was admitted that there could be no practical good in again bringing on the Maynooth question. [Sir J. GRAHAM: What I said was, that it was admitted there could be no practical result.] He (Mr. Spooner) had admitted that the inquiry could not be entered upon at this period of the Session, but there was something else besides that; he wanted to have the determination of the House, ay or no, whether the subject

1379
was worthy of inquiry. He wished to have a division upon that point. The country called for that division; and if Gentlemen who had so often declared that they did not shrink from it would consent to end the debate next Tuesday, when he understood it was to come on, he, for one, would throw no obstacle in the way, and would give up his right of reply. He wished the House to declare—was there a system of education carried on at Maynooth which demanded inquiry? Having "Ay" or "No" to that question was a practical result for which the country looked, and would be greatly disappointed if the House of Commons should be prevented coming to a decision.
MR. STANFORDsaid, he had given notice that on going into Committee of Supply he would draw the attention of the House to the necessity of some legislative enactment to meet the demoralising and ruinous effects of "betting-shops;" but after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham), he should not feel himself justified in detaining the House. He trusted, however, if he withdrew his notice in order to facilitate the despatch of public business, others who had notices on the paper would do the like; and he hoped he might have a more favourable opportunity of bringing forward a subject of interest, and stating facts which he had been at some pains to collect.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will, to-morrow or on Monday, consider the statement that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham); for indeed it is a matter which deserves the most serious attention of the Government. I cannot say that I am much surprised that the Votes should present a numerous array of Bills, many of them important, and many presenting strong claims on the consideration of the House, for I know that about this time of the Session there is usually such a jostling of measures of different kinds as renders it no easy matter to select those which may be fairly considered of the greatest importance. This is the case every year; but this Session it is specially incumbent upon the Government not to press on the consideration of the House any measures that they do not believe to be of paramount importance, and calculated to lead to some practical good. Having said this, I wish to advert for a moment to what has been
1380
said by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), on the subject of the Maynooth debate, and the hon. Gentleman's assertion that he is anxious to have the decision of the House upon the question whether or not there ought to be an inquiry into the system of education adopted at Maynooth; but I would take leave to remind the hon. Member that this is not the question before the House. If the hon. Gentleman will propose that question in distinct terms to the House, we may, perhaps, decide upon it; but what the hon. Gentleman is about to propose is nothing more or less than this, that on the 8th of June this House shall resolve to inquire, by a Select Committee, into the System of Education pursued at Maynooth. Every one must see, that that is a totally different question from that on which the hon. Member now declares himself as anxious to take the sense of the House. One hon. Member may think that, regard being had to the period of the Session and the time of the year, it would be useless to appoint a Select Committee; but that the Motion for inquiry by a Select Committee might, as a declaration of opinion, be properly agreed to. Another hon. Member may say, with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), and as I am disposed myself to say, it is right and proper to have an inquiry, but it will be better to have it by the means which the Crown has already at its disposal, rather than by a Select Committee of this House. Another hon. Member may say, let there not be a Committee on the 8th of June; and this he may say quite, irrespectively of the question, whether it is or is not expedient to inquire into the studies at the College of Maynooth. Therefore, it appears to me that the hon. Gentleman has not put the question fairly. For my part, I certainly shall not be disposed to decide on Tuesday next upon the issue which he now raises. On the contrary, I shall then take occasion to explain that the next question for our consideration is not that which he has stated, and that, if there ought to be an inquiry respecting Maynooth, the hon. Gentleman has taken the very worst method that could possibly be devised for obtaining it. With respect to Supply, I hope it will not be supposed that I am saying anything unfriendly to the Government, when I state, as the result of my experience, that the best way to proceed with Supply, is to set it down on the Votes for several consecutive days, for I have

1381
always observed that when this practice is adopted, and after one or two intervening Motions have been disposed of, there is always a disposition on the part of the House to proceed with Supply. The Miscellaneous Estimates are the only Votes which still remain to be taken, and these will naturally lead to more discussion than the Naval and Military Estimates, as the only question affecting them was, what the establishments of the year should be. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to proceed as it is most desirable the House should proceed, as speedily as possible with those Estimates, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider it desirable to appoint days, without any interruption, on which the Committees of Supply should be fixed, so that the House, after disposing of the immediate Motion before it, may go at once into Committee of Supply.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that perhaps the House would allow him to say one word. He had already stated his intention next Monday to explain the views of the Government upon the business before the House, and, after the observations of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), he would still defer until Monday the making that statement. He would merely say now, that upon calmly considering the business before the House, the Government might not be able to accomplish all that they had expected. In explanation he would add that the noble Lord misconceived what he had said about the Committee of Supply, It was not his intention for one moment to deprecate the fullest discussion of the items which would be brought forward—it would be most unreasonable and most improper on his part were he to do so. All that he did deprecate, under the present circumstances, was hon. Members taking advantage of the Motion for going into Committee of Supply to bring forward questions which, however important, wore not urgent, and generally had no particular reference to Supply itself. He had already followed the mode recommended by the noble Lord with regard to the Militia Bill, and he intended to pursue the same course with the Committee of Supply. He hoped to go into Committee of Supply every day without interruption until the Estimates were gone through, and on Monday next he would make a statement to the House, as he originally intended, with respect to the business before it.
MR. HORSMANsaid, perhaps it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would state what business he proposed to proceed with on that night after the Committee of Supply. Three of the Bills with respect to Colonial bishops were very much opposed, and two of them stood for a second reading that night. As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies intended next Session to legislate upon these matters, and as all these Bills were opposed, he hoped the Government would at once say they would not proceed with them either this evening, or during the course of the present Session.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had given notice for leave to bring in a Bill to continue the Act 11 & 12 Vict., c. 2, for a limited time, and another Bill to consolidate and amend the Whiteboy Acts, and the Acts against Unlawful Societies; he wished, therefore, to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with those Motions to-night.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in answer to the hon. Member for Cockermouth, said he did not anticipate the House would go into any business tonight except the Committee of Supply, and it was not his intention to bring forward any Orders of the Day. Generally speaking, it would be more convenient to leave until Monday any questions as to the business before the House, when he should be prepared to give the intentions of Government.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question of the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. V. Scully). He thought that some Gentleman connected with the Government, either with greater knowledge or greater courtesy, should be induced to do so. The question was a very intelligible one, and ought to have an answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would not bring forward the Orders of the Day. These were notices of Motion, and his pledge did not affect them. He wanted to know if they would be brought forward at a late hour, or at any hour that night?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think the hon. Member had understood his answer, or he would not have charged him with a want of courtesy. He would not proceed with

1383
any business after twelve o'clock, which would lead to any discussion.
Subject at an end.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
(1.) 113,476 l. Royal Palaces and Public Buildings.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Civil Service Estimates had progressively increased of late years. These Estimates were very different from the Army and Navy Estimates, which had been allowed to pass without discussion, the Government stating that they had taken them on the authority of their predecessors. The Estimates now submitted had been in the hands of the Government three months, and were signed by the heads of the respective departments. They presented a most extraordinary increase. In 1835, under Sir Robert Peel, they were 2,107,000 l. They had gone on progressively increasing, and had now attained the extraordinary amount of 4,182,000 l. Such a large increase required explanation. The cost of the Royal Palaces was perfectly astounding, and ought to be checked by Parliament. The Chief Commissioner of Works had now a Bill before the House to make improvements at Pimlico, in connexion with Buckingham Palace, which would be attended with an enormous outlay. The clearing away of buildings had cost 70,000 l., although a great part of the property was only leasehold, and the freehold belonged to the Crown. He had complained for years past that the Crown property had not been fairly treated. The income awarded to Her Majesty was a vast amount beyond the receipts from the property of the Crown; but he believed, if managed economically, the property of the Crown would be almost sufficient for the income of Her Majesty. The fact was, the Crown property was squandered in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of purposes, to a great extent wasteful and unnecessary. Last Session it had been ordered, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan, that all the receipts of the department of Woods and Forests should be paid into the Exchequer, and every item of expenditure voted by that House. He believed that upwards of 2,000,000 l. were yet unaccounted for. If the property was fairly dealt with, he believed it would be sufficient to defray the entire cost of the Civil List.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, one of the principal causes of the increase of the Estimates was, the transfer from the Woods and Forests of services which had been before deducted from the land revenues of the Crown. Those services were transferred under the Act passed last Session, in consequence of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, and they amounted in these Estimates to a total of 76,532 l. He was quite ready to explain the reasons of the increase; but he would suggest that it would be more convenient to do so as each class was brought before the Committee.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, it was quite true, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), that that House, by a majority of one, affirmed a Resolution which he moved—that in future, the whole amount of the Land Revenues of the Crown should be paid into the Exchequer; but, unfortunately, the House, to a certain extent, reversed that decision. When the Bill for the Separation of the Woods and Forests was brought forward, he tried the question again, and was unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) was quite correct in stating that 76,532 l. was now transferred from one account to the other, and gave an appearance of an increase of the Estimates, but that was the last thing he should find fault with; all he regretted was, that the Resolution was not carried, by which the whole sum would have appeared on the Estimates.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected to a charge of 511 l. for the rent, &c, of offices of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Whitehall Place; when they knew that the revenues of the Church were so enormous, and that immense sums were raised for the extension of the Church, they ought not to vote such a sum, in addition to salaries connected with the Commission. He objected, also, to a charge of 1,600 l. for the rent of offices of the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners. The public were charged for the maintenance of some ten palaces belonging to the Crown. Only three or four were ever occupied, or ever seen, by Her Majesty. He thought they ought to be relieved from charges for so many palaces which could not in any way contribute to the convenience of the Queen.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, as he was in office when the house was taken for the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners, he

1385
considered himself responsible for that item. He was told the Commissioners had a number of very valuable maps, and the public paid some small fee for the advantage of consulting them; the sum so paid by the public exceeded 1,700 l. a year, or more than the rent of these offices; upon the ground that it was most desirable the maps should be placed conveniently to be seen, he agreed to taking a larger house than he should otherwise have done, that the public might have every facility in referring to them.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered the charge of 9,454 l. for rent of houses taken for the accommodation of public departments excessive, and that a saving might be effected by making some allowance for the official residences, to which he should not object.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was impossible any arrangement like that suggested could be carried into effect.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 60,546 l., Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, it was very properly stated in the Estimate that this was about 24,000 l. in excess of the preceding year, and he hoped some explanation of that excess would be offered. As far as his own experience went, he did not think the roads in Hyde Park were in that state which the public had a right to expect after so large an outlay in keeping them in repair; indeed, several accidents had occurred in consequence of the bad state of those roads. With all submission he would throw out a suggestion to his noble Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, that some contract should be entered into with the metropolitan road commissioners for the repair of all the roads in the parks. He understood the different roads in the different parks were each under a separate management. He saw in St. James's and Hyde Parks, in the department of the ranger, an item of 1,506 l. a year. In Greenwich-park there was also a department of the ranger, and an item of 223 l.; in Richmond-park there was also a ranger, and the very large expenditure incurred under that head of 2,312 l. He was anxious to know what were the duties of the rangers, what services they performed, and of what use they were in these parks. He was led to put these questions by observing that the Re-gent's-park, Victoria-park, Bushey-park, Holyrood-park, and Phoenix-park were managed without a ranger; and as far as
1386
the Regent's-park was concerned, it seemed to him the management was quite as efficient as the management in Hyde-park. In the Committee over which he had the honour to preside, this subject was brought prominently forward, and it was found that great inconvenience and considerable confusion was caused by conflicting orders being given by different officers. He wished to hear what were the advantages to the public service that these separate departments should be kept up, and whether the expenses of the rangers' department were subjected to the control of the Office of Works.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, with regard to the increase of this Estimate, it included Richmond, Hampton-court, and Bushey-parks, which had no place in the Estimate of last year, because those parks were assigned to the Department of Works, while the Bill for dividing the Woods and Works was depending in Parliament, and after the Estimates for the current year had been voted. That would account for 7,827 l. There was also a sum of 4,950 l. for widening the road in Hyde-park near the Serpentine, and for draining the Regent's-park; and another sum of 4,976 l., for maintaining and keeping up various parks which used to be defrayed out of the land revenues of the Crown. A further sum of 5,000 l., usually in Estimate No. 1, had been transferred to No. 2, by the alteration last year. That, with some other small items, which he could state, made a total of 24,342 l., or more than the excess in the Estimate over the Estimate of 1851. As regarded the office of ranger, it might certainly be a question whether some arrangement in the nature of that suggested by the noble Lord might not be made, and he was sure his noble Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would give it that consideration which it required.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he considered that the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) was worthy of consideration, and should be attended to.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he thought of all the items in the Estimates, this was the one which the public would the least grudge. Almost twenty years ago he moved for a Committee on the subject of providing public walks and parks in the vicinity of the metropolis. Since then, three parks had been gained to the public; and he should be glad to know whether Finsbury Park was likely to be formed, and also what was the state of the im-

1387
provements in Battersea, and when that park would be opened to the public. He concurred in the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) as to the consolidation of the management of the roads in the different parks.
SIR DE LACY EVANSconsidered the management of roads was not a fit matter to be intrusted to the Department of Works. The state of the roads in Hyde-park was certainly very unsatisfactory. An accident had recently occurred to an hon. Member of that House (Mr. J. L. Ricardo), owing, it was said, to some holes in the road in Hyde-park not having been properly filled up.
MR. J. L. RICARDOwas bound, in justice to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works, to state that he (Mr. Ricardo) owed his accident entirely to the bad shoulder of his horse, and to his own clumsiness. If, therefore, the noble Lord had allowed holes to remain in the park in order to catch unwary Radicals, certainly he (Mr. Ricardo) was not caught in that trap.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that with regard to the park at Battersea, he had done everything in his power to forward the improvements going on there.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwas of opinion that the expenditure of 60,546 l. on account of the Royal parks, pleasure-gardens, &c, was enormous. By the Estimates it appeared that no less than 15,836 l. was charged on account of the three parks, namely, St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks, for one year only. When such heavy sums were paid by the public to maintain these parks, they certainly ought in return to have the full enjoyment of them; and yet such were 'the restrictions imposed, that no man knew whether he could pass the parks or not. Some time ago, he had occasion to come down to the House from Oxford-street in a hurry, and he took a cab and passed under the marble arch into Hyde-park, without any objection having been made; hut when he arrived at the gate leading into St. James's-park, he was stopped in a most insolent manner, and was obliged to go back to Oxford-street. It was well known, that while some persons were permitted to go through the Horse Guards, others were turned back. These distinctions ought not to be made. It was not his wish to see the parks made a common road for omnibuses, waggons, and carts, or suchlike modes of conveyance; but, at the same time, considering the large sums
1388
paid by the public for the maintenance of the parks, the restrictions ought to be less stringent.
COLONEL SIBTHORPvery seldom agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth, hut he could not help concurring in what had fallen from him on this occasion, for he really believed the public were improperly debarred from the fair use of the parks. But he rose chiefly for the purpose of expressing a hope that the return for which he some time since moved, and which he understood was already prepared, would soon be laid on the table. He alluded to the charge for the removal and reconstruction of the marble arch. The noble Lord the late Commissioner of Works had said that the expense would not exceed the Estimate, which was 4,056 l.; but there was a report that it had exceeded 9,000 l., nay, he had heard as much as 12,000 l. If so, it would be a most shameful waste of the public money. He would beg to ask the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) what had been the expenditure of removing the marble arch, and whether the expense had been in accordance with the statement made to him by the noble Lord? Both with regard to the marble arch and to the demolition of the trees in Hyde Park, caused by the Crystal Palace, there had been a very gross expenditure of the public money, and a great infringement upon the rights of the people.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member anticipated that the cost of the removal of the marble arch would very much exceed the Estimate. He believed he (Lord Seymour) was correct in saying that the cost of taking down the arch and rebuilding it was within the Estimate. No doubt there were works and other expenses connected with Buckingham Palace which had cost some money, but that ought not to be set down to the account of the marble arch.
SIR DE LACY EVANSthought the country was very much indebted to the noble Lord for having removed the arch, and having placed it in a situation which, in his opinion, made it one of the finest ornaments of the metropolis. With regard to the impediments thrown in the way of the public in the use of the parks, he might state that, in his own case, when Parliament was sitting he was allowed to pass through the Horse Guards, but when Parliament was not sitting he was imperatively refused permission to pass through, and was referred to a list of some privileged names, among which his own did not

1389
appear. Now, considering that he was living among his constituents, and was actually engaged in the discharge of duties as their representative, he thought it illegal so to stop him, notwithstanding Parliament was not sitting. He was desirous of hearing from the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) some information as to the drainage of the parks, and the state of the water of the Serpentine. Was the water to be stagnant or kept flowing?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the hon. Member for Lambeth would look to the aggregate of the items in this estimate, he would find that there had on the whole been a saving effected; hut in respect to some charges great improvements had been made; for instance, the lighting of the parks had been increased, and there had been a large additional supply of water to the Serpentine. With respect to the drainage and cleaning out of the Serpentine, that was rather a delicate affair to meddle with; his attention had been drawn to it, and plans had been submitted to him. He had also given orders that fresh gravel should be laid down on the roads in the parks where required.
MR. KINNAIRDwished to know whether any papers were before the House showing the names of the rangers of the parks, what were the duties they performed, and what were the salaries they received?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, a return had been moved for, which, when produced, would show what were the duties of the rangers.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that the names of the rangers might be found in the Red Book; and, as to their salaries, that question was easily answered, for they received no salaries at all.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked, if the rangers received no salaries, whether the noble Lord would explain this charge for the rangers' department of 1,506 l.
LORD SEYMOURreplied, that the ranger received nothing, and the item of 1,506 l. referred to persons employed as gatekeepers and others, who, if not paid under the ranger, would be equally paid under the Board of Works.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, the rangers had lodges in some of the parks, which lodges were kept up at the public expense. He again repeated that it was inconvenient to have two sets of servants in the parks, one under the rangers, and the other under the Woods and Forests. He was
1390
much pleased to hear that this anomaly was to be remedied by the doing away with this divided jurisdiction.
LORD JOHN MANNERSwould remind the noble Lord that rangers of parks were Royal gifts. The Duke of Wellington was ranger of Hyde-park, but had no house. The rangership of Richmond-park was given to one of the Royal Family, and a house was provided. He presumed the noble Lord had no wish to interfere with these Royal gifts.
VISCOUNT DUNCANdid not wish to interfere in the remotest degree with the rights of the Crown. His noble Friend had mistaken what he said. His belief was there were several lodges in the parks which were not occupied by members of the Royal Family. They were occupied by deputy rangers, and kept up at the expense of the public.
MR. SLANEYthought the Crown ought to have the power of appointing to these rangerships, as he believed they were given as equivalents yielded by the Crown. It would not be quite the thing to say that the Royal residences should be let and thus made the most of.
MR. W. WILLIAMScould not understand why 1,500 l. should be required to keep up the lodges, when all the duty for parties living in them to do was to open and shut the gates.
Vote agreed to; as were the following:—
(3.) 121,249 l., New Houses of Parliament.
(4.) 8,320 l., General Repository for Public Records.
(5.) 10,000 l., Stationery Office.
(6.) 89,396?., Holyhead Harbour.
(7.) 170,000 l., Harbours of Refuge.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that there was a charge of 80,000 l. for works at the Channel Islands, and he wished to know how and on what island the money already expended had been laid out.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the particulars would be found in a return which had been presented to the House during the present Session.
MR. THORNELYsaid, that the whole amount from first to last which had been spent upon Harbours of Refuge was between 2,000,000 l. and 3,000,000 l., which he considered a great deal too much for such an object.
MR. W. WILLIAMSbelieved that the money spent in the Channel Islands was sunk, not upon Harbours of Refuge, but

1391
upon fortifications. The whole extent of the outlay was quite astounding.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, it was one thing to determine whether it was wise to commence these undertakings, and another to say that it would be prudent to stop works which were partly completed. He had visited the Channel Islands since his appointment to the office which he now held, and he could state that nine-tenths of the works were really required for Harbours of Refuge, which, without doubt, when completed, would be highly useful. But if these works were not completed, all the money which had been already spent upon them would be thrown away.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty had put it to them whether it would be wise for them to abandon works which had cost so large a sum, or to go on expending more in finishing them. Now, he believed that if justice was done to the people, they would abandon those works at once, and save the money which he was sure would never be of any advantage to the public.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that the hon. Member was very much mistaken in supposing that any considerable amount was spent upon fortifications in the Channel Islands. There was, it was true, a fortification at Alderney; but nine-tenths of the expenditure, as he had just stated, both at Alderney and at Jersey, were for Harbours of Refuge, and all the money hitherto spent upon these would be useless unless the works were completed. The fortifications at Jersey were not even begun. There was a sum of 50,000 l. appropriated for Alderney, and 30,000 l. for Jersey. The periods of completion would depend upon the money voted on account of the works by this House.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwould ask the hon. Gentleman to state what was the amount of the original Estimate, and how much money had been already voted.
MR. STAFFORDreplied, that the original Estimate of the works at Alderney was 620,000 l., and for those at Jersey 700,000 l. There had been spent at Alderney 195,000 l., and at Jersey 192,000 l.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he still was of opinion that it would be better to abandon the works, which could never be of public advantage to the hundredth part of what they would cost.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(8.) 1,351 l., Port Patrick Harbour.
(9.) 35,865 l. Public Buildings, &c, in Ireland.
MR. VERNON SMITHwished to call attention to the fact that of this sum 13,000 l. was appropriated to the erection of a new Custom House and Post Office at Belfast. He thought this Vote ought to be confined exclusively to the maintenance and repair of existing buildings; that new erections should form the subject of a separate Vote.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONadmitted the public convenience would be better consulted by that arrangement, but the sum was placed under this head that the whole amount for public buildings might be seen at once.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, with reference to the Estimate of 684 l. for the Queen's Colleges at Belfast, Cork, and Galway, he believed it was distictly understood, when Sir Robert Peel brought in his Estimates for these colleges, that both their erection and maintenance afterwards were provided for, and that no money would be required beyond the sum then agreed to. This charge, however, was brought forward year after year, and, though the amount was not large, he objected to it on principle. Then there was the Royal Irish Academy, the amount estimated for which was set down at 3,076 l.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that with reference to the last item alluded to by the hon. Member, the lease of the house in which the Royal Irish Academy were located expired last year, and an arrangement was therefore made by which a new house was provided. There could not be a more useful, interesting, and important institution that this was. With regard to the Queen's Colleges, the fact was that in the Act of Parliament by which they were established, no provision was made for their maintenance; and the sum of money originally voted out of the Consolidated Fund for the erection of these colleges having been expended, some means had to be taken for repairing and maintaining them. The sum proposed to be devoted to this object in the Estimates before the House, was a very small one, and he could not imagine that it would be refused.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he noticed in this Vote a charge of 3,900 l. for Phoenix Park. There was, in another Vote, a similar charge on the same subject, he wished to know how that arose.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that the one amount related to objects connected with

1393
the recreation of the public; and the other to Vice-Regal lodges and expenditure connected with the Lord Lieutenancy—charges which it would have been very improper to have mixed up together.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(10.) 11,028 l., Kingston Harbour.
(11.) 95,800 l., Two Houses of Parliament.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must again complain that the Votes connected with this department were constantly increasing. In 1844, the whole sum voted was 757,000 l., while this year the Estimate amounted to 1,032,000 l. He could not understand how the Vote should have increased to such an extent since 1844.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSwished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Commissioner of Works to the state of the Parliamentary buildings. At present Westminster Hall was running with water, and there was hardly a part of the House where leakages were not occurring. He also wished to know whether there was now a sufficient supply of water in case of fire? They all knew that expensive works had been erected in Orange-street to furnish a supply of water to the Houses of Parliament in case of fire; but when a case of fire did occur last year, it was found that no water was forthcoming.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it was impossible but that in the present state of the building, defects would arise from time to time; but when complaints were made, they were invariably attended to. With regard to the supply of water in case of fire, he believed that an ample supply was now provided.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, it was true that about a year and a half ago a deficient supply of water did exist, but since that time he had given directions that the water should be gauged twice a day, and that the report should be sent up to the Office of Works every week. This had been constantly done, and there was now no fear of there being an ample supply of water in case of emergency.
Vote agreed to; as were the following:—
(12.) 54,400 l., Treasury.
(13.) 26,550 l., Home Department.
(14.) 67,735 l., Foreign Department.
(15.) 38,815 l., Colonial Department.
(16.) 65,320 l., Privy Council Office, &c.
(17.) 2,680 l., Lord Privy Seal.
(18.) 23,150 l., Paymaster General.
(19.) 6,326 l., Exchequer.
(20.) 22,820 l., Office of Works and Public Buildings.
VISCOUNT DUNCANwished to make one or two remarks on this Vote, which was one that was proposed for the first time. The Committee would recollect that last year a Bill was introduced, by which the office of Public Works was separated, and properly separated, from that of the Woods and Forests. For the separation of these two offices, the public were indebted to the late Government. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was, the great expense which had been incurred in consequence of the separation of the two offices. He thought that the separation of the two offices ought to have been attended with some economy; but he found that, before the separation, the charge for the two had amounted to 33,600 l., while it had since risen to 43,465 l., showing an increase of not less than 10,000 l. He also found that at the time the change had been effected, a number of old clerks had been discharged on retiring pensions, while a number of new hands had been put in at a great expense to the public. Then, again, it appeared that the sum to be paid to the Solicitor to the Board of Works, and his clerks, amounted to not less than 3,900 l. a year, and that the sum to be paid to the Solicitor to the Woods and Forests and Land Revenue Department, and his clerks, amounted to not less than 7,000 l. a year. He certainly thought that those were enormous sums to pay for legal services; and he regretted that the separation of the two offices had been rendered so unpalatable by the addition of about 13,000 l. a year to the expenses for clerks and other officers.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he believed the noble Lord was mistaken with reference to the increased charge. There were before the separation of the offices seventy-three officers of different kinds, and the salaries amounted to 23,013 l. The numbers of officers in the Board of Works was twenty-eight, whose salaries amounted to 10,385 l.; and in the Woods and Forests Department the number of officers was thirty-six, with salaries amounting to 12,596 l., making a total of 29,981 l.; so that, in fact, there was a small diminution in the expenditure. The solicitor's expenses were formerly 10,018 l., but now the charge was 3,900 l. and 5,400 l., making together 9,300 l.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, it appeared that the salaries of the solicitors and their

1395
officers in these two departments, amounted to 9,300 l. a year, while the Solicitor to the Treasury received only 2,000 l. a year. He could not understand why the latter charge should be so much less than the former.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Vote for the Solicitor to the Treasury did not include the salaries of clerks and other expenses included in the Vote then under their consideration. If all those charges wore added to the Treasury Vote, he believed that Vote would amount to 23,000 l. a year.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, the item in the Votes was "Solicitor for the Land Revenue, England and Wales (salary of himself and clerks), 3,250 l."Then there came" estimated amount of disbursements, 1,500 l."The charge for the" Solicitor for the department of the Royal Forests "was 3,900 l., the estimated amount of disbursements being 6,500 l. The solicitors in Scotland were paid on the average of the three preceding years. The whole principle of paying the Government solicitors required revision.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was informed that the arrangement for the payment of the solicitors had been made by the noble Lord lately at the head of the Woods and Forests, and that it had been based on the principle that they ought to receive an amount equivalent to their average receipts during a certain number of years.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(21.) 20,645 l., Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
(22.) 2,761 l., State Paper Office.
(23.) Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 3.273 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray a portion of the Expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon this Vote. He thought that nothing could be more discreditable than that the public should be charged with the expense of an office created for the management of the funds of our enormously wealthy Church Establishment.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he wished to know why it was that a portion only of the expenses of the Commission were included in the Vote?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that that subject had been carefully considered in the year 1847; and it had then been thought that as the duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not wholly
1396
connected with the Church, but embraced such questions as the Tithe-composition, which affected the land, it was but fair that a portion of the expense of the Commission should be defrayed out of the public funds.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he had always objected to this Vote, believing that the Commissioners, out of their enormous revenues, ought to support their own establishment. He remembered that last year the minority who had voted against it had been a large one. He did not think that the public ought to be called upon to bear any portion of the expenses of a Commission which had to manage millions of Church property every year. On that very Commission there was serving one bishop, who, as it appeared from a return lately laid before the House, had an income equal to the united incomes of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Secretary for the Home Department, the Secretary for the Colonies, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the Commissioner of Customs; while there was serving on it another bishop who had an income equal to the united incomes of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and the Serjeant-at-Arms attending that House.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he believed the Commissioners had no duties to discharge except duties connected with the management of the revenues of the Church.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 28: Majority 17.
Vote agreed to.
(24.)221,361 l. Administration of the Poor Laws.
SIR HARRY VERNEYtrusted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board would turn his attention to the improvement of the agricultural population and of the agriculture of the country generally. He should be very glad to see the establishment of an agricultural department, under which many most valuable statistics might be collected. One matter to which he particularly wished to direct the attention of the Committee was the large quantity of uncultivated land in this country. Whilst our poorhouses were crowded with able bodied labourers, or means were taken to send them out of the country, there were at least 6,000,000 of acres of uncultivated land in England; and within an hour's ride of the place where they now sat there were not less than 30,000 acres of land lying waste. The administration

1397
of the Poor Law required to be watched with great vigilance; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would display as much energy and perseverance as had been manifested by his able predecessor. The administration of the Poor Law had, he willing confessed, been much improved of late years, but it was yet capable of great changes for the better; and he trusted the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) would be turned to the subject of a change in the Law of Settlement.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, with regard to the Vote now under consideration, there was no increase beyond the gradual increase which might be expected from the increase of business. With respect to the employment of the poor, and their general condition, particularly as it was affected by the Law of Settlement, he could state to the Committee that the subject had engaged a large portion of his attention, and also of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Baines). In the ensuing Session he should be prepared to take the whole subject into consideration, and hoped to be able to effect a legislative settlement which would be satisfactory to the country and beneficial to the labouring classes. With respect to the cultivation of waste land, that was, in his opinion, a subject on which no Governmental department could enter. It must be left entirely to individual enterprise. He would merely add that he hoped he might be able, at the end of his stewardship, to give as good an account of it as his predecessor had done.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the increase in the cost of Poor Law establishments was really astonishing. In the year 1844, the whole charge, for England and Ireland, was 49,700 l.; but, in 1847, it amounted to 182,200 l.; last year, it was 211,500 l.; and this, 221,360 l. The greatest increase was in the items with regard to the Irish Poor Law establishments. Last year the items amounted to 46,400 l., but in the present to 55,400 l.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, the increase in the items with regard to Ireland was attributable to the Medical Charities Act passed last year. With respect to England, no new offices or salaries had been created; the increase was owing to the progressive increase of clerks' salaries.
MR. BAINESsaid, he thought it an act of common justice to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Trollope) to exculpate him from any blame, if blame it was, belonging to so much of the present
1398
estimate as regarded the English Poor Law Board. He (Mr. Baines) was solely responsible for it, and he was perfectly willing to avow that responsibility. The increase over the estimate of the preceding year was 850 l. It arose chiefly from an increase in the salaries of three of the inspectors, which had become an act of common justice in consequence of the additional duties devolving upon them under a recent arrangement. When Lord Courtenay was appointed, at the end of 1850, to the office of Secretary of the Poor Law Board, which he had so ably filled, the inspectorship which he held became vacant. He (Mr. Baines) arrived at the conclusion, after a mature consideration of the subject, that the number of inspectors might be reduced from thirteen to twelve, and he had consequently not filled up the office which had become vacant by Lord Courtenay's promotion. He had certainly hoped that this arrangement would effect a saving of the whole expense of one inspector. It was found, however, in the new distribution of duties which became necessary, that a great amount of additional labour and responsibility devolved upon three of the remaining inspectors, and it had consequently been found necessary to make an addition of 200 l. to each of their salaries. Even then, the saving to the country effected by the reduction in the number of inspectors amounted to 580 l a year, as the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) would find on a comparison of the present estimate with that for 1850. In the course of this discussion, the House had had the satisfaction of hearing from the right hon. Baronet the President of the Poor Law Board (Sir John Trollope) a distinct pledge, that he would apply himself to the Law of Settlement, with a view of submitting to Parliament a measure upon the subject. A great mass of information had been collected both by Parliament and by the Board over which the right hon. Baronet presided; and that information was now so full that he (Mr. Baines) trusted the subject would be dealt with promptly and manfully. He (Mr. Baines) believed that it would be difficult to point out any one cause which produced an influence so baneful upon the sanitary, the social, and the moral condition of the humbler classes, as the present law of parochial settlement. He (Mr. Baines) would most cheerfully and unreservedly give to the right hon. Baronet his best aid in carrying through Parliament any improvement of the law upon this most important subject.
LORD NAASsaid, he could confirm the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) as to the increase on the Irish Estimate being occasioned by the Medical Relief given under the sanction of the Act passed last Session on the subject.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that the Estimate was in a certain degree retrospective, and included the salaries of officers under the Irish Poor Law Board for a year and a quarter.
MR. HINDLEYthought that this Vote should be passed as quickly as possible, for he observed in the public prints that a cheque of the Poor Law Secretary had been refused payment at the Bank of England, because the supplies had not been granted.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought that the Poor Law officers in Ireland ought not to be paid so highly as those in England, who had more onerous duties to perform.
Vote agreed to; as were the following:—
(25.) 36,439 l. Mint.
(26.) 11,668 l. Public Records.
(27.) 15,190 l. Inspectors of Factories, Mines, &c.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he wished to point out to the Committee that in some districts the provisions of the Factory Act were being violated with impunity. He hoped that the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department would pay attention to this matter, for this violation of the law had given much dissatisfaction.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating that there were certain districts in which the Factory Act had not been properly observed; but these districts were few in number. A deputation had lately waited upon him on the subject; and, in consequence of the information which he had received, he had despatched inspectors to those districts where the law had been more notoriously violated than in others; and, if necessary, proceedings would be immediately commenced against the proprietors of such mills. If the law required amendment, Parliament would be asked to make the law sufficiently stringent.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to instruct the Factory Inspectors to work the law in a more rigid and annoying mode than at present. It was easy to say that the law in all cases was not carried into effect; but where was the law that was? He could bear testimony to the activity of some of the Sub-Inspectors. He had heard of one
1400
leaving his gig in a road or lane, and scrambling over hedges and ditches, for the purpose of sneaking into the neighbourhood of a mill before-he could be discovered. Another Sub-Inspector, the son of a bishop, he believed, was observed running a race with two factory girls; but he was beaten by the girls, who got to the factory first and gave intelligence of his coming; for it was not only the employers, but the working people themselves, that were irritated by the mode in which the inspection was carried on. The inspectors were not generally persons who knew so much about their business as they ought; and he warned the right hon. Gentleman against issuing instructions to them to make the law more galling than it now was in many cases, because that would interfere with the present somewhat harmonious action between the employers and the employed, in reference to a law against which he had not a word to say.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, it was not the intention of the present Government more rigidly to enforce the law, but it was the intention of the Government to see that the law was duly observed. The hon. Member (Mr. Bright) was probably not aware that the information with respect to the few instances in which the law was violated, reached the Government in the first instance, not from inspectors, but from master manufacturers in Manchester, afterwards from the working people themselves, and, subsequently, from a deputation, which had waited on him. The law was violated in distant places by working overtime, so as to make the labour hours of children longer than they ought to be; and the moment an inspector went down by train or carriage to inspect the mills, it was found that information was given at the factories, and whatever was contrary to law was stopped before the inspector could obtain admission. If the present law was to be the law of the land, it was only proper that it should be observed, and that the manufacturers who obeyed the law should not be subject to an undue competition with other manufacturers, in distant places, infringing the law by working children beyond time.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, in reference to accidents by machinery at mills, that the official report showed they had occurred to the number of 2,800. He imagined that if this horrible amount of maiming had taken place in agricultural districts, the hon. Member for Manchester would not have been so silent on the subject.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, perhaps the hon. Baronet was not aware that Mr. Horner himself, one of the Factory Inspectors, had intimated to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that it would be advisable to alter those clauses of the Factory Act which related to accidents. At present accidents of the most trifling nature must be reported by the surgeon to the inspectors, and by the latter to the Home Office. A smaller number of accidents of a serious character happened to those engaged in the cotton factories, than to an equal amount of working people in any other occupation whatever. When in the lapse of time thrashing machines worked by steam should be used in Essex, the hon. Baronet would then find that they could be worked without giving rise to all those accidents which he conceived to be the necessary consequence of machinery.
SIR JOHN TYRELLtrusted that the agriculturists in Essex would at any rate never be found watching the railway trains, when inspectors were sent down, for the purpose of defeating justice.
Vote agreed to.
(28.) 1,700 l. Officers in Scotland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he could not understand why a charge should be made under this head for Her Majesty's Limner and Clockmaker. There were also items for the Queen's Plate, to be run for at Edinburgh, the Caledonian Hunt, and the Royal Company of Scottish Archers. He could not admit that the people of this country should be taxed for these purposes, especially for the purpose of horse-racing, and, though he would not divide on the present occasion, he should certainly take the sense of the Committee against the item of 1,574 l. in the next Vote for fifteen Queen's Plates, to be run for in Ireland.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he must express his dissent from the remarks of the hon. Member, who, it was evident, was no sporting character. He (Colonel Sibthorp) thought it not undesirable to afford some amusement to the people, especially the lower classes, who took great delight in horseracing; which, besides, tended to promote the breed of horses, and increase the consumption of the produce of land.
Vote agreed to.
(29.) On 6,464 l, Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was a long list of the officers of the Household.
1402
There was one item which ran as follows: —257 l. 17 s. for two gentlemen "at large." Now he should like to know what their duties were. Then there was 250 l. Charged for the Lord Lieutenant's Master of the Horse. Why, what a farce was this list of regal attendants attached to such a trumpery office as that of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which it was most desirable should be abolished. There was a charge of 1,574 l 6s.2d. for fifteen Queen's Plates for horse races in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sibthorp) had said that horseraces tended to improve the breed of horses; but he believed that the people of Ireland thought that the good was much counterbalanced by the immorality produced by horseracing. The public feeling was outraged by being called upon to patronise horseracing by grants from the National Exchequer. If Ireland wanted horseraces, let her contribute the expense by private subscription, as was done in this country.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the hon. Member for Lambeth was very much mistaken if he supposed that the people of Ireland had a strong moral objection to horseraces. No people on the face of the earth enjoyed that sort of amusement more than they did. With regard to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he must also say that the hon. Gentleman laboured under a mistake. There was no subject with respect to which the people of Ireland had expressed so decided an opinion. They were unanimous in the opinion that that office should be retained. That was proved when the subject was mooted two years ago. So strongly was their opinion on that subject expressed, that the Government then in office deemed it advisable to abandon the Bill which they had introduced for the abolition of that office. The centralised system was in bad odour at the other side of the Channel.
MR. STANFORDthought that horseracing was an innocent amusement. It was an innocent amusement which tended to improve the breed of our horses, and that was a matter of no small moment, for we exported horses to every part of the world. As the subject of horseracing had been introduced, he would ask for the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments whilst he adverted to the demoralisation consequent upon the numerous "betting shops" in the metropolis. Since he had brought this subject under the attention of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home

1403
Department he had received numerous communications respecting it from chaplains of gaols and stipendiary magistrates in London. Mr. Serjeant Adams, chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, had written a letter to him in which he stated that the "betting shops" were producing the most mischievous results. A tradesman of Great Russell-street, in a letter which he had written to him on the subject, stated that there were no less than four betting-shops in that street, that he had observed a thousand persons pass out of one of them in an hour and a half, and that the conduct of their frequenters was such that it was almost impossible for a lady passing in front of the shops to escape insult. He wished most earnestly to call the attention of the Secretary of State to these nuisances. The "Derby sweeps" had been put down by the magistrates refusing those publicans who encouraged them, a licence. He thought some system might be devised whereby those receptacles of blacklegs and blackguards might be abolished. They certainly had a most demoralising tendency.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he had received several letters from his constituents on the subject. He did not expect that in the present position of affairs the Government could devote much of their time to "betting-houses;" but he thought something ought to be done as soon as possible to suppress this disgraceful nuisance.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, the attention of the Government had been drawn to the subject. He believed that this evil greatly militated against the welfare of the lower classes, and the mode of suppressing it engaged the anxious attention of the Government.
MR. W. WILLIAMSbelieved the best and most effectual mode of suppressing the evil was to put down horseraces altogether. However, not considering the present Government responsible for the items in the Estimates, and seeing that he had no chance of a majority, he would not divide the Committee. But he must state that he objected most strongly to the pay of the gentlemen ushers and gentlemen at large of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He wanted to know of what use were "gentleman at large?"
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: "Gentlemen at large" are so called, because they are free, or "at large," to act upon the orders of the Lord Lieutenant.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he did not think the explanation a satisfactory one.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(30.) 22,563 l., Chief Secretary's and Privy Council Offices (Ireland).
(31.) 6,051 l, Paymaster of Civil Services Office (Ireland).
(32.) 32,013 l., Board of Public Works (Ireland).
(33.) 32,000 l., Secret Service.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that ever since he had a seat in that House he had constantly opposed the voting of any money for secret purposes, and he must now renew his protest against it. He maintained that no money ought to be taken out of the pockets of the people without the people receiving an account of how that money was expended. If the Government wanted a sum for any necessary purpose, let them come forward openly and state its object. He would never lend his sanction to anything that was not all fair and above board.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, there was hardly a petty Court in all Europe which did not spend a larger sum than we did for what was called Secret Services, but which in reality were not secret. He knew from official experience that the money was every shilling of it well laid out in obtaining information most important for the State, and having reference to the navigation and commerce of the country, which information could not be had by any other means. He need not refer to the vast sums voted by Austria, Russia, or France for these purposes; but the United States of America and all the free Governments of Europe entrusted their Executive with much larger votes than we did for acquiring this necessary information.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLstill thought that the country was entitled to an explanation of the disposal of this Secret Service Money. He wished to know if there was any probability of this item being decreased in future years?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it was rather strange to say, "We will give you a vote of Secret Service Money if you will let us know how it is spent." Certainly it could be no longer a vote for Secret Services if the Committee was to be told exactly for what various sums were wanted. The proper course would he for the Committee to pass a resolution that there should be no further voting of money for Secret Services. He

1405
agreed with the sensible observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor), and no one would deny that there was no other first-rate Power which did not spend quadruple, and even quintuple, the amount of our Secret Service Vote, which was only 32,000 l In troublous times the Foreign Department alone had not only been obliged to spend the whole of that sum, but a much more considerable one; whereas the Vote now before the Committee was for the Secret Service of all the departments of the State. Nor was it all applied for present purposes; there were many pensions to the widows and relatives of persons who had formerly given important information to the country, which had now to be defrayed out of this sum of 32,000 l. As to there having been no diminution in the amount, he had in his hand a statement of the annual sums voted for a series of past years, and with the exception of the last year, when the vote was the same as the present, the amount had never been so small as it was now since the year 1822. Yet the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Pechell) could not fail to remember the extension of commerce and the increase in the population of the country which had occurred since 1822—circumstances which necessarily multiplied the demand for information which the State had the means of supplying, but the measures employed in procuring which it was inexpedient that the Administration should publicly promulgate. Instead, therefore, of looking upon this vote with supicion, the hon. Baronet ought rather to see in the fact that a country of the great power and importance of England expended much less for the Secret Service of its Government than any other first-rate Power of Europe or America, cause for congratulation and for confidence in the stability of our institutions. In addition to what he had stated, it must be remembered that not a single shilling could be expended except under the warrant of a Secretary of State. Every Secretary of State was personally responsible for the money expended in his department; and, looking at the smallness of the sum, the importance of the service, the manner in which it was expended, and the vouchers offered at the Audit Office, with the securities for good administration thereby ensured, he could not think the Vote ought to be looked upon with suspicion.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he was not convinced by the speech of the right hon.
1406
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was nuturally ready to justify any expenditure of the public money.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was a great mistake to suppose that a Chancellor of the Exchequer was always disposed, from his position, to defend any expenditure of the public money. On the contrary, he would naturally be always anxious to oppose it. Really nobody should understand the value of money, or the necessity for the strictest economy, so much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, from his daily experience of the innumerable applications that were made to him, he must always be painfully impressed with the poverty of his means.
MR. P. SCULLYthought the Committee need be under no difficulty in understanding how this Secret Service money was applied, as far, at least, as the sister country was concerned. The recent Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) now the Chief Secretary for Ireland, must have thrown very considerable light upon that point. They had all heard how certain newspapers had been hired to write in support of "law and order." He objected to the principle of voting public money for such a purpose, and he hoped the Committee would feel it to be its duty to guard against the recurrence of such transactions. He trusted the present Government would carefully abstain from engaging in them.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I certainly have no hesitation in telling the hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to make any investments of the kind he has referred to in the cause of law and order. I appreciate, and appreciate probably as much as any person in this House, the influence of the press; but I have always observed this, that there is no newspaper whoee support is worth having, that will give its support from corrupt considerations.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, he believed every shilling paid by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the editor of the World newspaper was paid out of Lord Clarendon's own pocket.
SIR DE LACY EVANSbelieved a portion of that money was at first taken from the Secret Service Fund, but that ultimately all came out of the Lord Lieutenant's pocket. He entirely agreed in the remarks of the right, hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the

1407
value of an uncorrupted press, and was glad to see that Birch had met condign punishment.
MR. P. SCULLYsaid, there could be no doubt but Birch was, in the first instance, paid out of the Secret Service Money.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was rather strange to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor) justifying the example of England by that of despotic Governments.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, he had, in an especial manner, referred to the Government of the United States.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(34.) 216,509 l., Stationery and Printing.
(35.) 21,000 l., Law Charges, including Mint Prosecutions.
(36.) 17,700 l., Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
(37.) 8,830 l., Insolvent Debtors' Court.
(39.) 121,163 l. Law Expenses (Scotland.
MR. COWANsaid, that the salaries of the seventeen procurators fiscal, which were fixed, appeared to amount to 11,130 l.Now he wished to know whether the diminution in the cost of criminal prosecutions, which was expected to arise from paying these officers by salary instead of fees, had in fact taken place; for he saw that there was an increase of 36,000 l. in the whole Law Expenses for Scotland as compared with last year.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that as the salaries of the present procurators fiscal were fixed upon an average of the fees for the five years preceding the change of system, no saving in the sum paid to them could take place during the continuance in office of the present procurators. The saving to be derived from the change was prospective.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that it seemed extraordinary that the Law Expenses for Scotland should be so much larger than for Ireland, which was only 57,909; and he asked for some explanation of the increase on the Scotch Law Expenses as compared with last year?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the present vote included a sum for arrears and deficiencies, carried over from previous years.
Vote ageed to; as were also the following:—
(39.) 57,710 l., Criminal Prosecutions, and other Law Charges (Ireland).
(40.) 36,500 l., Police of Dublin
(41.) 240,000 l., Charges formerly paid out of County Rates.
(42.) 16,196 l. Inspection and General Superintendence of Prisons.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he thought the smallness of the amount of profit derived from the labour of the criminals was not creditable to the management of our prisons. He found, for instance, that the nett produce of the labour of 1,300 persons confined at Millbank was only 4,000 l. for the year, while the cost of the various officers and teachers required to superintend their labour was 2,638 l., leaving a nett profit of only 1,300 l. upon the whole, or 12. per annum, or about ¾d. a day for each prisoner. He thought that was a very sorry result, particularly when it was compared with what was done in America. He was told when he visited the United States, by the Governor of the State of New York, that the labour of the criminals confined in the prison there not only defrayed the whole cost of the establishment, hut left a surplus, which would in ten years actually pay the expense of the erection of the prison.
MR. SLANEYsaid, that free labour being worth twice as much in the United States as here, it was evidently much more easy to make a profit upon forced labour in that country. The great difficulty we had in England was to prevent labour carried on in prisons and workhouses competing injuriously with free labour.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was of opinion that the great object of prisons—the punishment of criminals—was not sufficiently kept in view in some of these establishments, and that the discipline was not of adequate severity.
MR. P. SCULLYthought the reform of the criminals was the great object to be kept in view in prison discipline. He thought it was the duty of the Government to encourage the employment of the prisoners in useful and profitable labour; for the experience of some of the Continental prisons had shown that to instruct criminals, particularly juvenile criminals, in some useful trade was a most efficient means of inducing them to pursue a course of honest industry after quitting the prison.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he fully concurred in this view of the case. The expenses of gaols and other convict establishments at home and abroad were alarmingly on the increase, which he attributed to the recommendations of the

1409
Prison Committee over which Mr. C. Pearson had presided, not having been Carried out. The fact was, that the visiting justices took it upon themselves, acting generally upon the reports of the chaplains, to dispense with portions of the sentence. This took place wherever the prisoners showed any signs of repentance—whenever their "hearts appeared to be touched," and the reformation which took place under the circumstances was something quite wonderful. He suggested that some limit should he put to the power of the justices in this matter, for wherever it had been exercised to the prejudice of strict prison discipline, crime had increased.
MR. PACKEsaid, that in the prison in the county with which he was connected, discipline of a most wholesome and reformatory character had for the last few years been enforced, and the consequence was, that whereas criminals used to return to them over and over again, they now very rarely returned a second time.
MR. SLANBYsaid, that he did not object to discipline of a reformatory character being adopted in our prisons, but he thought it was quite vain to expect that prison or workhouse labour could compete with free labour without that assistance from the county or poor-rates which he did not think it was fair to give.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that in consequence of the difficulty of disposing of our convicts which had been felt for the last few years, the Government had been driven to increase the convict establishments both at home and abroad, which had necessarily led to an increase of expense. The adoption of a system of discipline of a reformatory character had also tended to increase the charge. The convict was now kept in solitary confinement for a year; he was then sent to one of these establishments, where he was kept to hard labour for a year and a half, and then if his conduct had been sufficiently good, he was sent out to a Colony with a ticket of leave, or under such regulations as the. Secretary of State might appoint. All this entailed additional expense, but he trusted that the system was operating beneficially upon the persons submitted to its influence. A portion of the Vote for the Convict Establishments for the present year was for the cost of the new prisons; for instance, that at Dartmoor (which was only occupied in the spring of 1851), and that of Portsmouth.
1410
During the period that the prisoners were undergoing solitary confinement, they were in some instances allowed to labour, but in others not. While undergoing this part of their sentence, they were subjected to a moral discipline to prepare them for the subsequent portions of it.
SIR CHARLES BURRELLthought it most desirable to employ prisoners in some profitable work—first, because, if they did nothing, the pressure upon the rates would be heavier; and, secondly, because the best way to make prisons distasteful would be to keep people hard at work while they were there.
CAPTATN SCOBELLhoped, if this subject were to be inquired' into, that the dietary question would not escape attention. In some places it was on a scale which positively made prisons attractive, and in the county where he acted the magistrates frequently sentenced prisoners to only two or three weeks' imprisonment, when they might give them much more, because the diet increased so rapidly after that period that these persons thought it a good thing to be in prison. It was well known that the prison dietary was far superior to that of the workhouse, and he believed also beyond that of the peasantry of this country generally.
MR. JACOB BELLsaid, he fully concurred in the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath with reference to the superiority of the prison over the workhouse dietary, and he would instance, as a proof of it, the fact that paupers frequently broke the workhouse windows in order to he sent to gaol.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, it too frequently happened as he had previously mentioned, that, instead of carrying out the sentences on prisoners, those men were given up to the care of the chaplain, or some other inspector of morals, who, after a while, says the hearts of those prisoners are beginning to be touched, and they are then sent to a better dietary; and, of course, under those circumstances, an immense number of conversions are constantly taking place. He thought it would be much better if the prisoners were employed in some useful labour, which would occupy the whole of their time, and which would contribute in some degree to defray the enormous expense to which they put the country. In Reading gaol, for instance, the inmates were infinitely more comfortable than paupers in a workhouse.
MR. STANFORDsaid, that he thought that the philanthropic portion of the community who recommended that prisoners should be better treated, and better fed, and be relieved from all hard labour, committed a great mistake, and were guilty of injustice to the honest and industrious poor. In Reading gaol, which was regarded as a model prison, there was no hard labour, but a reformatory system was adopted. He looked upon that as a kind of inverted process, which first allowed a man to commit flagrant delinquencies or gross crimes, and then fed and clothed him, learnt him habits of cleanliness, and provided him with mental entertainment. It was, in fact, offering a premium for the commission of crime, placing a criminal in a position which was infinitely preferable to that of the inmates of workhouses. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney), whose exertions in favour of the working classes he was always ready to admit, had enunciated a principle against employing prisoners in gaols and paupers in workhouses, which was so dangerous in its character, that it ought not to be passed sub silentio. He said, if they allowed a shoemaker or tailor to exercise his trade, while supported by the county rate, they would bring his labour in competition with that of the honest and unassisted workman. Now he (Mr. Stanford) would refute that assertion by putting a case, which, he contended, was irrefutable. Supposing forty persons had to contribute to the maintenance of five others, who were tailors, shoemakers, or belonged to other trades, would it not be to the advantage of the former to allow the five to exercise these trades, and then to sell the produce of their labour, and apply the funds to the diminution of the expense incurred for their maintenance? It was a gross fallacy to permit the inmates of workhouses and prisons to lead an entirely indolent life, on the ground that if they were employed, their labour would be brought in competition with that of other portions of the community.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he was of opinion that the inmates of the workhouses ought to be constantly employed; but not on labour of that nature which, by the aid of parish bounty, might be brought in competition with the free labour of others. Every one who considered the subject, found that to be a very embarrasing question.
MR. JACOB BELLsaid, that the inju-
1412
rious competition which had been adverted to depended on the goods being sold for half the price for which they could he obtained by free labour.
Vote agreed to.
(43.) 261,522 l. Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, if the system of transportation, which this money kept alive, were beneficial to the mother country and the Colonies, he would be the last man to object to the Vote; but he believed, that instead of acting as a warning to persons at home, the punishment of transportation was looked upon as leading to a life of comfort, if not of affluence, in another land. He considered that the system of transportation had signally failed; and that at present a strong incentive was held out to criminals to risk detection for the purpose of being sent to the neighbourhood of the gold fields. So strong was this impression in the Australian colonies, that the colonists, who had formerly been the strongest agitators against the continuance of transportation, had lately ceased to make any active opposition to the system, because they believed it impossible that the Government could hesitate a moment as to the expediency of immediately abolishing transportation. The temptation to free emigration, in consequence of the discovery of the gold-fields, was pretty strong, but he believed the temptation to crime was equally strong. The Government had reduced the military force in New South Wales, and the consequence was, that the Governors now dreaded an armed invasion of convicts from the penal settlements of Van Diemen's Land, while they had not force enough at their disposal to keep order. By continuing the present system, they were ruining Van Diemen's Land, and endangering the existence of neighbouring Colonies, while at the same time crime increased instead of diminished.
MR. SLANEYsaid, that while they were boasting of the prosperity of the country and of the comfort of the people, an immense increase of criminal offences had of late years taken place in this country, and a material addition to the cost of convict establishments had consequently ensued. In 1805 the number of persons committed or held to bail in England and Wales was 4,600; in 1815 it was 7,800; in 1821, 16,500; in 1831, 19,600; in 1841, 27,740; and in 1848, 30,300. He believed the cause to be, that while the comfort and prosperity of the rich and mid-

1413
dle classes had increased, the comfort of the humbler classes had not increased in the same proportion. He thought they were mistaken in supposing that mere imprisonment would prevent the increase of crime; that object could only be attained by improving the condition of the youth of the country, and by giving them a religious education.
Vote agreed to.
(44.) 159,953 l. Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols, &c.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was astonishing to see the increase in every one of these items. In this item alone there was an increase of 40,000 l.; in the next, of 17,000 l.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that one cause of the increase was the increase of prisoners; another cause was an additional amount for their maintenance. These were the principal causes of the increase.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he considered that a large proportion of the expenditure for the maintenance of prisoners might be avoided, if greater efforts were made, particularly in the agricultural and rural districts, for the prevention of crime. He thought more attention should be given to the selection of the county police. In rural districts he found that great laxity had obtained in this respect.
MR. F. SCULLYwished to know how it was that while there was an increase of 38,000 l. in these Estimates for England, the increase was only 2,000?. for Ireland. Was it owing to the smaller increase of crime in the latter country? This was a gratifying view for his country.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIPFEsaid, the fact was, the sum in both cases was as nearly as possible alike. The prisoners in borough gaols, as well as those in county gaols, were now supported out of the Consolidated Fund, it having been felt that an injustice was done to the boroughs, and this accounted for the greater part of the increase. A further sum was also incurred in sending out 100 boys to the Colonies.
Vote agreed to.
(45.) 101,041 l. Expenses of Transportation.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, there was an excess of 3,000 l. in this Vote over that of last year. Some of the difference might be accounted for by arithmetical errors in the Estimates of last year—a proof of the slovenly manner in which these things were got up. There was an
1414
item for religious instructors for the convicts. This duty used to be discharged by the surgeon-superintendents; he presumed the parties now employed were not clergymen, but Scripture readers; and their presence might be apt to cause insubordination on shipboard. He doubted very much if any advantages would arise from the employment of this class of instructors. A sum of 2,000 l. was charged for those persons, including retiring allowances.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was glad that there had been no response to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member in condemnation of the religious instructors.
Vote agreed to.
(46.) 253,587 l. for Convict Establishments in the Colonies.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, there was here another increase of 70,000 l. over last year: surely some explanation would be given for this enlarged expenditure. The items showed that there was great want of economy; 6,087 l. was a large sum to charge this country for providing religious instructors for the convicts of Van Diemen's Land, which had three places of worship of the Established Church. There was not a district in the island which had not a beneficed clergyman; so that the convicts had ample spiritual assistance. Let them compare the state of things in this Colony with Bermuda and Gibraltar, in which there were many convicts. He believed that 300 l. would be sufficient to meet any useful purposes intended by the Vote.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEexplained that the increase in the Vote was owing to its being found necessary to have a new convict establishment in Western Australia, where there were now 1,450 convicts. With regard to the salaries and allowances for religious instruction to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey) objected, hs begged to say that there were only three Colonies in which the expense was incurred, namely, Bermuda, Gibraltar, and Van Diemen's Land. In New South Wales and Western Australia no public provision had yet been made for the religious instruction of the convicts. He was sure that the House and the country would not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that although there were 21,000 convicts in Van Diemen's Land, it was only necessary to provide religious instruction for 4,000.
MR. TUFNELLsaid, that by the Estimates, it appeared that there were 1,450 convicts in that Colony, and yet the salaries of the convict officers amounted to 15,200 l.; perhaps the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary could account for that?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that this was the first year of the new establishment in Western Australia, when larger expenses would necessarily be liable to be paid, that were not to be properly included in the usual current expenses of the establishment. Moreover, the establishment had been built for a much larger number of convicts than was now in occupation of it; and, taking all things into account, the sum sought in the Vote did not form a fair criterion of what were to be the average annual expenses under this head. However, his attention had been called to the large amount of the expenditure which was incurred in these Colonies, and he would see whether by any means it could be reduced.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that this year's Vote for Western Australia included, also, certain arrears of expenditure incurred last year.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he did not consider that either the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) or the hon. Under Secretary (Sir W. Jolliffe) had given a satisfactory explanation of the salaries and allowances for religious instruction. If New South Wales and Western Australia made provision for that on the voluntary principle, why should not Van Diemen's Land do the same? He found that there was an unaccountable increase in other items also. For instance, for stores, repairs of hulks and boats, buildings and repairs of buildings, the Estimate last year was 7,420 l., while this year it was 20,703 l. He retained his objection to the Vote, but he should not give the Committee the trouble of dividing. Vote agreed to; as was also—(47.) 160,000 l. Public Education (Great Britain).
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISthen proposed that 52,343 l. should be voted for the salaries, house expenses, &c, of the British Museum. (This estimate stood No. 12 on the list.)
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected to taking this Estimate out of its regular order. In fact, he had not expected it would come on that night, and had not had time to examine it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that the Government had no interest in pressing this Vote; but it had always been customary to allow precedence to the Estimate for the British Museum. The late Sir Robert Peel, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell)—greater authorities than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was—had always accorded this privilege to the Estimate for the British Museum.
MR. LABOUCHEREhoped the Committee would do what they had always done, and allow this Vote to have precedence; but at the same time he must observe that on the present occasion it had not had that precedence it usually had.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained that it was his fault entirely, having at the moment forgotten the usual custom.
MR. STANFORDsaid, he had been requested to bring before the Committee the case of certain persons connected with the British Museum, who complained of a grievance to which they had been subjected. The attendants were divided into three classes, one being engaged in the department of antiquities, and others in the departments of natural history, and of manuscripts and literature. By a recent regulation, the three classes were amalgamated, and an attendant, commencing now under the new arrangement at a minimum salary of 50 l., would not attain the maximum salary of 105 l. for a considerably longer period of years than under the old system.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that there was no ground for dissatisfaction to the attendants under the new arrangement, which had been adopted by the Trustees in conformity with the recommendations of the Report of the Committee of that House. That arrangement was, that the attendants should be paid by salary instead of by fees, and that, in accordance with the principle adopted in most of the public offices, persons appointed to offices, as attendants, should enter in the lowest class, from which they could rise, by intelligence and ability, to the highest class. But the trustees, in making that arrangement, stated that it would not apply to those who had been ^appointed under the old system.
MR. STANFORDsaid, he could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he understood those attendants would be affected. They said that the recent change made their position

1417
worse, and not better; that the rate of promotion was slower; and that a great many years must elapse before the maximum salary could be attained.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he must complain that the Vote was taken out of its proper place. He did not think it fair to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), who had a Motion on the paper on the subject.
The CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the custom to take the vote for the Museum before certain other Votes; and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart), who was an experienced Member of the House, and who, indeed, was seldom absent from his seat, must have been aware of that circumstance. All that the Government wanted was, that the business should be proceeded with.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that he had only followed the precedent of last year. He left it to the Committee to decide whether he should go on with this Vote.
VISCOUNT DUNCANhoped that if No. 12 was to be taken first on this Vote, it would in future be placed as No. 1.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould take care that this should not occur again, but he had only followed the precedent of former years.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had reason to complain that this item was taken out of its order, but, as he had no objection to the Vote itself, he would not oppose its being proceeded with.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that if the Vote was persisted in, he would move that the Chairman report progress.
Vote postponed.
(48.) 164,577 l. Public Education (Ireland).
MR. W. J. FOXbegged to inquire on the subject of Education, whether the Grants for Education would continue to be distributed on the same principle as last year? It was desirable that some statement should be made on the subject, considering the change of Administration which had taken place, more especially as it was believed that the views of the present Government were not altogether coincident on the subject of Education with those of former Governments. He did not know an opportunity so fitting as the present for a statement of their intentions.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the question which the hon. Member for Oldham had asked was, whether any change was in-
1418
tended to be made relative to the system of National Education in Ireland? One or two questions had already been asked of the present Government since it came into office on that subject, and the answer which had been given was, that with respect to the combined system of education in Ireland, so far as it could be carried out, it was the wish of the Government to further and promote that object. But in endeavouring to carry out that system, he might say that hitherto an injustice had been done. Certain members of the Established Church in Ireland, who from conscientious motives objected to the mode in which a portion of the grant was applied, complained that they did not receive any aid from the grant in support of the schools immediately conducted under their notice. In addition to that, another objection was raised with reference to the peculiar encouragement given by the Government to those who adhered to the national system; for while all those who supported the national system were patronised by the Government, every minister of the Established Church who conscientiously differed from that system was not only precluded from taking any portion of the grant, but was also precluded from any chance of preferment in the Church. The effect of this was to exclude 1,700 out of 2,200 of the clergy of the Church of England in Ireland from all chance of ecclesiastical preferment, although many of them were in other respects strong supporters of the late Government. These objections prevailed in the Established Church of Ireland to a great extent—first, as to the mode in which the money was applied—an objection which was strongly and often urged—the answer of the present Government as to any change in that respect was this, that certainly with a view of encouraging members of the Established Church as well as members of every other religious body in promoting education in Ireland, the Government thought that a variation ought to take place from the practice that had previously prevailed in the distribution of the grant. And, with regard to patronage, they thought that upon every principle of justice and fairness it ought to be dispensed in favour of those who conscientiously took objection to the combined system, as well as of those who supported that system. The Government were anxious that those who desired to support the national system should have the combined system

1419
carried on; but they did not think that they ought to exclude from sharing in the grant, or from partaking of the patronage of the Government, those who from conscientious motives were opposed to that system.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, it had been his misfortune to differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) on former occasions with reference to this Vote; but when he so differed from him, he had to defend a measure of a former Colleague of his, the present head of the Government; and the injustice, if there were injustice in the matter, as alleged by the parties adverse to the grant, was an injustice which was well weighed from time to time. When the Earl of Derby was his (Sir J. Graham's) Colleague, he was not only the author, but the steady defender and supporter of this measure; and he never admitted there was any injustice in the mixed grant.
MR. WALPOLEbegged to state that he had never said there was any injustice in the mixed system. On the contrary, he said that the injustice was, that those who objected from conscientious motives to the mode in which the grant was applied, were precluded from any chance of preferment, merely because of their conscientious objection to the mixed system.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had understood the right hon. Secretary of State to say that there were two objections urged on this subject, and that the second objection was not with reference to the application of the grant, but with reference to the distribution of the patronage of the Government. But it appeared to him (Sir J. Graham) that the right hon. Gentleman implied that there was also injustice in the mixed system of education itself, from which 1,700 clergymen of Ireland were conscientious dissentients. Now, what he (Sir J. Graham) confidently contended, and what the Earl of Derby contended on a former occasion, was, that if you departed from the system of mixed education—if you attempted to rectify what was deemed to be an injustice in that system, you must come to a system of separate grants, to be made in proportion to the population of Ireland; and he was much mistaken if the Established Church in Ireland would gain materially by such a mode of distribution. If the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) had not pressed for some information on this subject, they
1420
would not have heard one syllable in reference to it that evening. He (Sir J. Graham) said he was responsible as a Minister for the share he took in that measure. The policy of it was to be traced directly to the fixed opinions of the Earl of Derby, who was its author; and until it should be declared to he the policy of the Government in regard to the distribution of this grant, which had been moved for by the hon. Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Hamilton), notwithstanding his former hostility to it, without mentioning anything respecting the intention of the Government respecting it, to make an alteration in its mode of distribution; until a change should be proposed on the responsibility of Ministers with reference to the policy of education in Ireland, which policy had been hitherto regarded as that of the present Prime Minister, who was the author of the measure—until he heard such a proposition from the Ministerial side of the House, he would not press the quastion upon their attention. With respect to the distribution of patronage, the complaint on that head must apply to the last Government, and not to the Government of Sir Robert Peel; because, as he (Sir J. Graham) had stated on a former occasion, there were three bishops in Ireland who, if he mistook not, unfortunately, most unfortunately, were opposed to the system of mixed education; and although they were all three elevated to the bench by his late lamented Friend Sir Robert Peel, yet they used all their episcopal influence against the mixed system of education in Ireland.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) spoke of the exclusion of the clergy of the Established Church from all hope of preferment, he seemed to forget the enormous amount of patronage in the hands of the bishops of the Established Church in Ireland, and a great part of which had, in past times, been sedulously employed by them for the encouragement of resistance to that combined system of education which successive Governments, down to the present time, had thought it their duty to defend.
MR. LABOUCHEREwould entreat the Government to consider whether what at first sight might appear to be a desirable alteration in the present system of education in Ireland could safely be made. They might depend upon it that that system was only carried on by mutual forbearance and compromise, and by the cooperation of good men, who were content

1421
to sink minor differences for the sake of promoting an object of such paramount importance. He could not avoid taking that opportunity of expressing Lis sense of the deep obligation this country was under to a lamented prelate now no more, who in his life was an example of every Christian virtue—Archbishop Murray. It was to the firmness as well as piety and active charity of that eminent man, that the success of this mixed education system was attributable. Let the Government beware how they touched the outworks of that edifice, without being sure that the whole fabric would not fall. They were treading upon ground of a most perilous and unsafe description.
MR. WALPOLEbegged to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), and from the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere). He (Mr. Walpole) was in the recollection of the Committee when he declared that not one word escaped from him by which it could be inferred that the combined system of education was intended to be superseded. On the contrary, he had already stated, in answer to a question put by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord John Russell), that there was no intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the open system of national education; but he said then what he had said to-night, that he thought when public grants of money were made for the purpose of education, it was but reasonable that every portion of the community should receive a share of that grant; and that it was worthy of consideration whether those who on account of their conscientious scruples were at present excluded from participating in that grant, should not be included in it in future. He had gone on to say that he did think it an injustice to the members of the Church of Ireland who conscientiously objected to that grant, to be excluded from it merely from the grounds upon which they were now prevented from participating in it. That was all he had said—["No, no!"]—at all events, that was all he had meant to convey; and he did not believe a word had ever fallen from him which would justify the inference that the Government had ever intended to supersede the present system of education in Ireland.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what was intended by the Government? The right hon. Gentleman had
1422
told the Committee what was not intended; but in a matter of this great importance, affecting as it did in the highest degree the feeling's of the people of Ireland, it was desirable to know exactly what was intended. The right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that at present there was an injustice in the system, and he (Sir J. Graham) wanted to know wherein was the injustice in the present distribution of the money. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that in his opinion, as now distributed under the mixed system, there was an injustice, and that that injustice ought to be remedied. It was not unreasonable, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he were of opinion that there was a practical injustice, to what extent he intended to adhere to the system, and how he intended to include the members of the Established Church in the participation of this grant, the mixed system of education being retained.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could not do better than repeat the observation he had made to the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. He said then it was worthy of consideration whether some portion of that grant might not be applied to those members of the Established Church and others—for there were others in Ireland who objected equally with them—whether some portion of that grant might not be applied to those who, from conscientious motives, objected to the present mode of distribution. He had never intimated that there was any plan on the part of the Government as to the way in which it should be done; but he had said simply that it was a matter deserving of consideration. The term "injustice" he intended to apply to the refusal of preferment and patronage to persons merely on the ground that they would not give their adhesion to the mixed system of education in Ireland. That was an injustice of which he thought they had a right to complain; and in answer to the question of the right hon. Baronet, he might say that the remedy for that injustice was to distribute the patronage fairly amongst those who dissented from, at well as those who were in favour of, the combined system of national education in Ireland; and he believed that the patronage had been so distributed since Her Majesty's present Government had come into power.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was quite prepared to propose the Vote, under

1423
the impression that there was a full under-Standing in the Committee, in consequence of what fell from his right hon. Friend some time ago, that it was the intention of Government to take that Vote into their consideration, and to adopt some means of ascertaining whether the system which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had taken upon himself to assert was a united system, was a united system or not, for that was a point upon which great difference of opinion prevailed in Ireland. He was unwilling to enter into a discussion upon the subject, because he thought that, all things considered, it was not desirable that a discussion should be proceeded with on a question of this nature at that partiticular moment. He repeated, however, that he was quite willing to propose the Vote, upon the understanding, which he believed the Committee had come to, that the Government had signified an intention of taking means to ascertain whether this system was a combined system or not; and, further, of considering whether some mode might not be devised by which to remove the conscientious objections entertained by a considerable portion of the members of the Established Church in Ireland. With regard to the course which he himself had taken upon the question, he remembered stating in that House, on one occasion, that the national system of education in Ireland was one of the institutions of the country, and that, considering the number of schools in connexion with it, it would not be consistent with what was right and just to divide the House against it, but that he thought such modification might be introduced into it as, without subverting the system, would remedy the injustice of which a large proportion of the Protestant population of Ireland complained.
MR. KEOGHsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and his right hon. and learned Colleague in the representation of the University of Dublin, had hitherto been the most consistent and determined opponents of the national system of education; and now the hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of a modification of that system. Now, that was exactly the same expression which was applied to every other subject, religious, social, commercial, or political, on which hon. Gentlemen opposite had to touch. He asserted that two-thirds of the Derbyite candidates in Ireland had distinctly pledged them-selves—not to support national education as
1424
it existed—not to support Mayhooth Col-lege—but actually to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of last Session. This, he would admit, was perhaps only a modification. But what was the modification that was wanted? He knew that Government dealt in negatives, and that they could enumerate a long catalogue of things they did not mean to do; but he wanted to know what they meant to do. He had heard that it was essential to have consistency in public men. It had been generally admitted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had formed and marked out the present system of national education in Ireland. But when the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and who was now the Secretary to the Treasury, had asked the House every Session to inquire into the national system, with a view to its total alteration; and on the last occasion that he did so the noble Lord then Member for King's Lynn, the late Lord George Bentinck, representing not only his own sentments but the opinions of his noble sire, was the eloquent and determined opponent of the Motion then made by the present Secretary to the Treasury, who was now moving the Vote of which he always had been the consistent opponent. That also was a modification. Well, then, if there was to be a modification in Maynooth, and in this most important matter to the people of Ireland—if they were to have every day and night perpetual modifications, and a Secretary of the Treasury saying one thing at Liverpool, while the First Lord of the Treasury was saying another thing in London, he would say there was no confidence to be placed in political men, and that the sooner a declaration was extracted from them of what they intended to do, the better it would be for the character of Parliament for their consistency and for the country.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he considered that the worst argument that could be employed was the argumentum ad hominem; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had criticised the consistency of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he had himself adhered to the line of politics which he had originally adopted; for if he did not greatly mistake, the hon. and learned Gentleman entered public life as a member of a Conservative body, and as a Conservative? A change, however, had "come o'er the spirit of his dream;" and the hon. and learned Gentleman, who

1425
had joined a totally opposite party, now advocated totally opposite principles with as much talent and as much honesty as he had formerly advocated Conservative principles. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), and the hon. and learned Gentleman, in their remarks, had used the term the people of Ireland. If the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to assert that he represented the entire population of Ireland, he must beg to dissent; and though he was desirous of paying due respect to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, yet he must, at the same time, declare that the Protestant and Presbyterian part of Ireland were equally entitled to the attention of that House, for they represented a large proportion of the wealth, intelligence, and commerce of that part of the Empire. The late Sir Robert Peel appointed three members of the English Church to the prelacy in Ireland, and these three bishops were all of opinion that the national system of education ought to be reconsidered with a view of discovering some mode by which 1,700 members of the Established Church in Ireland might be able in their parish schools to read the Scriptures. Had the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) read the debate on the question, he would have seen that one of the most learned of those prelates (the Bishop of Ossory) had not asked for a reversal of the system, but had recommended a reconsideration of it, so as to allow clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland to do as clergymen of the Established Church did in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Home Department had not disentitled himself to the respect of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland for what he desired to do. The right hon. Gentleman did not desire to withdraw a sixpence of the grant from the Roman Catholics; hut he wished to devise some change which in his (Mr. Whiteside's) belief, if carried out, would improve the system both in Ireland and Scotland. He would beg to remind hon. Gentlemen, that out of the number of pupils in the national schools, there were between 36,000 and 40,000 pupils members of the Church of Rome.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he must beg leave to answer the statement made so openly by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he (Mr. Keogh) had entered that House as a supporter of the Conservative party. Now he had very frequently heard that same statement made, but not at such a time
1426
and in such a manner as to permit him to give an explanation and contradiction. It ought to be known to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as it was certainly known to many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom he was addressing, that such a statement was wholly and entirely unfounded. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) knew that the statement was untrue; he had the most entire and perfect reliance on that hon. Gentleman's honour, believing that no consideration would induce him to travel out of that line which conscience dictated, and truth enjoined. He (Mr. Keogh) entered that House at a peculiar time—he entered it when to he a supporter of the right hon. Baronet the late Sir Robert Peel was to place himself in a position of great unpopularity in Ireland. He believed he was the only man in the country who ventured to put himself in that position. He would, however, claim no merit on that ground. Conscience dictated to him the course he should pursue, and he followed that course. He placed prominently in his addresses, which appeared in every newspaper in Dublin, the fact that he avowed himself to be a distinct, direct, unequivocating supporter of the commercial and political policy recommended by that right hon. Baronet; and that right hon. Baronet having been driven from power by those hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite, by a combination which it was unnecessary then to describe, he was perfectly prepared to support the policy that right hon. Baronet advocated. He might say, the records of that House and the recollections of hon. Members would prove that to that commercial policy ever since he had entered that House he had firmly and continuously adhered; and further, that he had never given a vote in contravention of that policy. He should be sorry to recriminate with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside); but, as far as his policy and consistency were concerned, he would say for himself that he never was the person to go into private quarters and private circles, and hold himself out as the supporter of a policy he afterwards opposed. He did not profess in early life to be an advocate of a reform in the representation of the people. He never held out to the people that he preferred republican to monarchical principles. He did not go down amongst a portion of the people of Ireland, with whom republican principles were a matter of history, and hold himself out as a person pre-

1427
pared to carry those principles to their uttermost limit. He took his principles from a more moderate level. He saw the right hon. Baronet, Sir Robert Peel, was prepared to do justice to the people of Ireland, and he gave him his support. He now declared his honest conviction to be that the right hon. Baronet was worthy of support. He had sat in that House for five years, and the records of the House would bear out the assertion he now made. He had declared on entering that House, that he was a free-trader. He still adhered to that opinion; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had reflected, he would not have dwelt on such topics, the more especially if he looked to the hon. Gentleman who sat on his left.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member asserted that he (Mr. Whiteside) had ever expressed anti-monarchical opinions at any time of his life, he could only tell him it was simply a fiction. He had always maintained monarchical principles. For the twenty years that he had practised at the bar, he bad maintained what he considered true and sound Conservative opinions. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, as many of his countrymen had done before him, drawn, in what he had said, on his imagination for his facts.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, he regretted that the debate bad taken this personal turn, but he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) was entitled to lecture Her Majesty's Government, or Members on that, the Ministerial, side of the House, on modification of opinion, unless he could show some consistency in his own personal conduct. Now he had a strong recollection that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he first entered the House, took his opinions from the moderate level of the Carlton Club. If that were so, why was he not now sitting on this side of the House? Besides, if he (Sir J. Tyrell) was not mistaken, the hon. and learned Gentleman looked up to a superior, and took his opinions from the Synod of Thurles, and his Holiness the Pope, who had' denounced the system of mixed education which was so much patronised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), and the Members of Her Majesty's late Government. If the Government felt that there was an injustice is a portion of Her Majesty's subjects being debarred by their conscientious opinions
1428
from sharing in the education grant, there was no inconsistency in their attempting to remedy the evil; and, certainly, a lecture came with an ill grace from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was supposed to represent—he would not say a great boroughmonger, but at all events a gentleman who was anxious to send a number of Members to that House, among others the hon. and learned Member for Athlone. He could not congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on raising this debate at four o'clock in the morning—[An Hon. MEMBER: It is only half-past twelve.] Well, as it was an Irish debate, it would probably last till that time, and that, too, when at an earlier period of the evening the leader of the Opposition had pressed upon the Government the necessity of expediting the public business.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Baronet on being in advance of the time. It indicated a favourable change on the part of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House; but he certainly must say that the hon. Baronet was the last person in whom he could have expected so happy a phenomenon. But the hon. Baronet appeared to him intentionally to mislead the Committee as to the real question before them. The question they had to decide was not the consistency of hon. Members on either side of the House—the question was, What did Ministers mean? In the case of Protection, modification meant Free Trade, and it also meant the restoration of protection: for the noble Lord—[A cry of "Question!"] This was the question. The question was the meaning of "modification." He would refer them to the great lexicographer of the Protectionists—the Duke of Richmond. By modification, that noble individual understood the restoration of Protection, pure and simple. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was a Free-trader, understood by "modification," the maintenance of Free Trade. Now, he wanted to know what was the meaning of the modification of the national education system as it was in Ireland? Did it mean a total repeal of that system, or its maintenance? The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had told them that it was unjust to withhold support from the 1,700 parsons in Ireland, each of whom had a school in which he taught the sacred Scriptures, according to the doctrines of the Established Church. Now there were 4,000 schools

1429
which were benefited by the grant; and if it was proposed to apply any portion of the grant to these 1,700 schools, he wished to know whether the Government intended to make any allowance to those Roman Catholics who, like the parsons to whom he had referred, were opponents to a mixed system of education, and had schools under their care which received no aid from the public treasury? If it was the intention of the Government to take any steps that would do damage to the present system of national education, he could assure them that the carrying out of such intention would be most displeasing to the great bulk of the people.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to remind the Committee of the question before them. That question was the Vote for the combined system of education in Ireland, and as that Vote had been proposed by the Government, and, as far as he could collect, hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to maintain that system, the best thing they could do in the present state of Parliament would be to support the Vote. A great deal had been said as to the intentions of the Government on this subject. He might be permitted to inform those hon. Members who had addressed the Committee, that when the Government had to propose any change in a subject of so much importance as that under consideration, they would not do so in a Committee of Supply. They were all anxious that the combined system of education should be properly supported; and whether they thought it should be permanent, or whether they were in favour of modifying it, they were all prepared at present to support it as it existed. It could not be supported without the passing of this Vote, and he therefore hoped the Committee would agree to it.
Vote agreed to; House resumed.
Chairman reported progress.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The ATTORNEY GENERALmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, which he said it was most important should be advanced a stage. He believed there was no objection to the principle, and the details of it, he suggested, should be discussed in Committee.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, he must express his regret that one of the most important features in the measure,
1430
as recommended in the Report of the Commissioners, had been struck out of it, not in the House of Lords, but by certain authorities out of that House, to whom the Bill had been submitted. The feature to which he alluded was the provision for getting rid of what was technically known as forms of actions, which were, he believed, too often a stumbling-block in the way of justice. Notwithstanding this omission—which, however, a noble and learned Lord in the other House, whom he rejoiced to see again taking part in public discussions, had promised to introduce a Bill to supply—the measure was the most important improvement in the administration of public justice which had been mooted during the last half century. It must not be supposed that the duties of the Law Commissioners, of whom he was one, had terminated with the production of the Reports which formed the groundwork of the present Bill, and the Bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery. They had yet a good deal to do before they could remove all the technical difficulties which formed such serious obstacles to the due administration of justice. He believed that they should go further than they had yet ever attempted to go, and that they ought to appoint a further Commission—a mixed Commission of the Common Law and Equity members of the profession—for the purpose of inquiring into the propriety of amalgamating the two systems, and effecting a general codification of our laws. He had no hesitation in saying that those laws were at present in a state which was disgraceful to a civilised country. They were a scaled book to the subjects of the Realm, and it would require the whole life of a man to make himself acquainted with them. It was not enough that they should improve their procedure; they ought to codify their laws, which were scattered through the Statute-books, and which it required a lifetime to enable a man to become acquainted with.
Bill read 2o.

MASTER IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. WALPOLEmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, that several hon. and learned Members connected with the Court of Chancery, who were not then present, objected to the Bill in its present shape. The Bill

1431
had been mutilated and utterly spoilt by the Lord Chancellor. It was now a very different measure from that introduced in conformity with the recommendations of the Chancery Commissioners.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that this measure, taken in connexion with the one which followed in the Orders of the Day, would effect a greater amount of practical good in the administration of Equity in this country than had been accomplished since the time of Lord Hardwicke. The Bill came before Parliament recommended by the Report of most able Commissioners, whose suggestions were confirmed by the Lord Chancellor, and sanctioned by all the law Lords in the Upper House. The Bill would, he believed, make that cheap which had hitherto been dear, and substitute rapidity for delay. Under these circumstances he felt justified in calling on the House to read the Bill a second time, and to defer the consideration of its details until it went into Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Southampton was not justified in saying that the Bill had been mutilated. He would undertake to say that no Chancery lawyer would get up and tell the House that the recommendations of the Commissioners in their Report were not fully, fairly, and substantially carried out. There were one or two deviations which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) at the commencement of the evening. Since that allusion was made, he had spoken to those interested in the subject, and reference had been made to the Lord Chancellor, who, he might state, did not consider those variations as material to the principle of the Bill, regarding them as points which might fairly be considered in Committee; and he might state, that neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Government were going to take their stand upon such variations, in case the House should think fit to change the Bill in those respects. These two Bills were of much importance in three respects—as preventing expense and delay in bringing the cause to a hearing, in the conducting of the cause, and in the consequential inquiry on the hearing of the cause. In these three respects the recommendations of the Report of the Commissioners had been carried into effect; and he hoped this stage of the Bill would not be objected to, reserving to the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite the ful-
1432
lest opportunity of considering the details of the measure in Committee.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, he had no wish to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill; but, having understood that it came far short of the recommendations of the Commissioners, all he wanted to suggest was, that it was an inconvenient hour to proceed with the debate. After what had fallen from his right hon. Friend, however, he would not further object to the second reading of the Bill.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMbegged to express his earnest desire that this Bill should be read a second time. He had the honour of serving on the Commission from whose recommendations the Improvement of the Jurisdiction of Equity Bill and the present proceeded, and it was with much satisfaction he could state that the Report of that Commission was unanimously adopted, and that all their proceedings were conducted with the utmost cordiality. He was glad also to say, that these two Bills very fully and fairly, in his judgment, carried out the recommendations of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had truly said that in both Bills there were certain things that appeared to be deviations from those recommendations—in both Bills something having been added, and something omitted; but, at the same time, seeing that communications had been made with the highest authorities in the law, and after the announcement made by the right hon. Home Secretary that recommendations would be favourably received by the Government, he was very sanguine in the expectation that before they went into Committee an adjustment might take place, which would enable the Commissioners to state that they were satisfied, not only in the main, but even with the particular shape assumed by these Bills. Surely, under those circumstances, it would be most desirable to give them a second reading, and thus assist in effecting a reform in the law which would confer honour on the Parliament that passed it, honour on the Government which proposed it, and in which he, for one, rejoiced that he had had the honour of sharing.
MR. JOHN STUARTsaid, that to satisfy everybody on so difficult a subject was hardly to be hoped for; but that this Bill did in the main carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners, he thought that they might all now, on the

1433
assurance of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) feel entirely satisfied. For his own part, he wished to express the gratitude that he felt to the Members of the Commission. He thought, indeed, that they might have gone further and done better; but he bowed to their authority, and accepted the measure which was founded on their recommendations.
Bill read 2o; as was also The Improvement of the Jurisdiction of Equity Bill.

BISHOPRIC OF CHRISTCHURCH (NEW ZEALAND) BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [28th May], "That the Bill be now read a Second Time; and which Amendment was to leave out the word" now," and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day three months."
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that he was ready to make an omission in the Bill that would remove all the objections urged against it by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey). The object of the Bill was simply to render valid the resignation of the Bishop of New Zealand of a portion of his diocese, out of which a new See was to be formed. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected that the terms of the Bill went beyond that intention, and would enable the Crown by Act of Parliament to make a new colonial bishop. He (Mr. Adderley) believed that some of the words might be made to bear that construction, and therefore he would be ready in Committee to omit them, so as to obviate the hon. and learned Member's objections.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that the alterations he desired were very material, and before he could consent to the second reading he must see the precise Amendment which the hon. Gentleman was willing to make. The Crown had now no ecclesiastical supremacy over the Colony; but the wording of this Bill would have the effect of indirectly establishing the supremacy.
MR. ADDERLEYcould assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was perfectly willing that the Bill should only render valid the resignation. He would not go beyond that resignation, and would not touch the constitution of the new diocese. He would leave it to the Crown to
1434
constitute the See by Letters Patent at its pleasure.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he must remind the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had promised that no business would be proceeded with at that late hour (quarter past one).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this was not a Government measure, and he had no control over it.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided —Ayes 8; Noes 54: Majority 46.
Question again proposed:—Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that he was willing wholly to carry out the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey), and to remove the objections that he had stated to the Bill. But the proper time for doing so would be when the Bill got into Committee.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he would make this proposal. Let the Bill be postponed till to-morrow, and in the meantime the hon. Gentleman could consider the Amendments which he (Mr. C. Anstey) had put into his hands. He denied that, legally, there was any power in the Crown to make any See of New Zealand at all. The words "any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding" should be struck out.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the House might either pass the second reading at once, and leave this question to he dealt with in Committee, or might let the matter stand over, and then see whether the Amendments were necessary or not.
MR. ADDERLEYwas ready to arrange the alterations in the Bill with the hon. and learned Member in private, so that it might now be read a second time.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not consent to that arrangement after the principle stated by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey), after the denial he had most distinctly made of the right of the Crown to appoint any bishops at all. [Mr. C. ANSTEY denied that he did so.] He could not accede to what he understood now to be the proposition of the hon. and learned Member, which would virtually amount to that denial, whatever the hon. and learned Mem-

1435
ber's opinion might be on the subject, and although he was fully aware of the importance of having this Bill passed, and of the absolute necessity of creating this new bishopric, he should feel it inconsistent with his duty, whatever might be the feeling of his hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) behind him, if he were to consent to the alterations proposed, which would virtually be maintaining opinions to which he could not agree, and which he would not submit to or acknowledge. He should be willing to consent to certain alterations in the Bill that would obviate any fair objections to it, but he would not allow any alteration in regard to the principle of the Bill.
MR. S. CARTERsaid, he hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would find equal firmness on that (the Opposition side of the House. He, for one, was totally opposed to multiplying the number of bishops. As one opposed to an Established Church paid out of the revenues of the country, he should most
1436
strongly resist the extension to the Colonies of a system which he trusted to live to see abolished in this country.
MR. KEOGHsaid, after the hon. and learned Attorney General's speech and the constant use of the expression, "I will not allow," it was quite clear that this was a Government Bill. He was anxious not to inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he would, therefore, not press his Motion for the adjournment of the House.
The ATTORNEY GENERALbegged to explain. This was not the Bill of Her Majesty's Government at all, but of a private Member. When he stated that there were principles either to be abandoned or maintained, to which he could not give his assent, he said that, not as a member of the Government, but as an individual Member of the House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn;Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.