Commons Sitting of 14 February 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Lichfield, Lord Alfred Henry Paget; Cavan, Sir John Young, bt.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Union of Benefices.

SIR CHARLES WOOD'S SPEECH AT HALIFAX.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, with reference to the question of which I gave notice on Friday, relating to a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, who, I am sorry to hear, is unable to attend to-day, I would, if it were more convenient to the Government, and would be considered more fair to them, mention generally the subject of our relations between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government before going into Committee of Supply on a future day, and thus give them an opportunity for more explanations than the present occasion would probably allow. But it is according to what may be the wish of the Government that I shall shape my course.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control is unable to attend from indisposition; but as the right hon. Gentleman has given notice of his intention of putting the question to-day, I think he had better proceed with it at present.
MR. DISRAELI: Of course I cannot have the slightest objection to do so. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to call the attention of the House to the paragraph alleged to have been contained in a speech recently delivered at Halifax by the right hon. Gentleman the President
84
of the Board of Control to his constituents. I read it the other night. If it is considered requisite by the House, I will read it again. The right hon. Gentleman bad occasion to speak with reference to the conduct and motives of the present Emperor of France, and in so doing he used these expressions:—
"Take our nearest neighbours. Such a despotism never prevailed in France, even in the time of Napoleon the First. The press gagged—liberty suppressed—no man allowed to speak his opinion—the neighbouring country of Belgium forced to gag her press—no press in Europe free but ours, which, thank God! he cannot gag. And hence his hatred of our press, that it alone dares to speak the truth."
I wish to inquire, and I hope to receive an answer from the noble Lord, whether that is an accurate and fair report of the sentiments that were expressed on that occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in alluding to this subject the other night, stated that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control had taken occasion, in a speech delivered by him at Halifax, to advert to our foreign relations, and to say that, on speaking of France, my right hon. Friend said so and so—reading the words which he has repeated this evening. Now, in the first place, I think it necessary to state that what my right hon. Friend said was not in a speech upon the subject of our foreign relations, to which he was not adverting at the time, but he took occasion in the course of his speech to the electors at Halifax to argue the question of universal suffrage and parliamentary reform generally, and used such illustration as he thought appropriate to that subject. There is a very great difference between using an argument upon the subject, and going over our foreign relations and speaking of France in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. But I thought it necessary, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said to this House, to call upon my right hon. Friend, and I have since received a letter from him on the subject, which with the leave of the House I will read, as it contains a far better explanation than I can pretend to give of my right hon. Friend's own impression on the subject. He says—
"I am sorry to hear that any expressions reported to have been used by me in addressing a meeting of my constituents at Halifax should have been understood as offensive to the Emperor

85
of the French. I cannot pretend to say whether I did or did not use the precise words contained in the reports of my speech, but it is very possible that, speaking as I was, without any premeditation, in a meeting of that kind, an incautious expression may have escaped me. I was pointing out the advantages of temperate and well-considered reform, as contrasted with more violent and precipitous measures, and, in proof of this, I referred to the events of the last few years in neighbouring ceuntries, where the temporary success of the extreme revolutionary party had led to the establishment of arbitrary power, and in France that this had been carried to an extent unprecedented in the time of the first Emperor, and with the consent of the French people, who had on two occasions, voting by ballot and on the principle of universal sutfrage, sanctioned the course pursued by the President and Emperor. I expressed no opinion on the conduct of the Emperor, or indeed of any one, though I cannot conceive that an English Minister is to be precluded from adverting to what he understands to be the state of things on the Continent; but I can say, with the utmost sincerity, that in doing so, nothing could be further from my intention than to use any words which could be considered as offensive to the Emperor, and I regret that any expression should have fallen from me on that occasion on which such an interpretation can have been placed."

THE NAVAL FORCE OF FRANCE.
MR. COBDEN: Sir, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, to show its necessity, I will preface it by reading some extracts from a letter which appeared in the Times of Saturday last, signed by a Peer of the Realm, and which, arguing the question I am about to put, contains, amongst other similar statements, the following:—
"Peculiar circumstances have enabled me to obtain information, which cannot be doubted, upon important points bearing upon these questions; but before referring to it, I would state that I lived in France, have been on terms of intimacy with many Frenchmen, and have lost no opportunity of making myself acquainted with the state of public feeling. I never met the man who, if pressed, did not admit that no conviction as to what their interest might be could prevent the longing desire to have their revenge for the events of the last war. I would defy even any Frenchman to assert that the force which they were known to possess last year was not amply sufficient for any purpose which France could require, excepting for that of an invasion of our possessions."
He says—
"I therefore contend that every additional ship to that great force—they have now more sailors in their pay than we have, without our vast colonial empire—is an additional proof that they do contemplate a descent on our shores. I have received positive information, which cannot be doubted, that they are now striving to the very utmost to increase their naval force in every
86
manner, and that arrangements have been officially decided upon to continue year after year similar exertions. I cannot give my authority, but trust that I shall be believed when I say that this information may be most thoroughly relied upon."
And at the conclusion of the noble Lord's letter, he says—
"I repeat that the information I have received, of preparations which can only be made for aggression, may be relied on."
It cannot be doubted that a statement of this sort—a statement of facts made from his own peculiar knowledge and peculiar means of information by the noble Lord—must make a great impression on the country; and the question I have to put, and of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, is, whether the British Government has had any communication with the Government of France with respect to the increased naval preparations alleged to be going on in that country?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, with respect to the question with which my hon. Friend has concluded, I have to state, that although it is true that the French Government have thought right both to increase and to improve their naval means, yet that increase and that improvement have been going on gradually; and, considering that France is a great maritime country, I think it is not at all such as to justify or require the Government of this country either to remonstrate or make it any question with the Government of France. I will just say that the relations between the two countries are of the most friendly nature: and I may say, speaking generally of European affairs, that the best understanding prevails between the two Governments. With regard to the information in the letter of the noble Lord, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, I certainly must profess my ignorance. I believe this Government has tolerably good information, and I believe that there is no concealment on the part of the Government of France with regard to the improvement and increase which they are making in their ships. But with respect to such information as that communicated by the noble Lord, I certainly have none whatever. All I know is, that in that letter the noble Lord has made some awkward mistakes, for he speaks of the withdrawal of an ambassador in consequence of the Pritchard dispute, on which occasion no ambassador was withdrawn by this country; and I should say, on the evidence of that letter, and of a former

87
letter published in the Times, that whatever information Lord Mount-Edgcumbe may have received from the ports of Prance, he is very ill-informed with respect to what passes in my house. His statement with regard to what passes in a house in London, which happens to he my house, is totally inaccurate. I do not attach quite so much value as my hon. Friend appears to do to the statement of a Peer of the Realm, because there are Peers of the Realm whose authority is by no means infallible.

GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
SIR GEORGE PECHELL, having presented a petition from Brighton, praying that that town might not be included in the Bill, said he begged to express his pleasure at seeing the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir W. Molesworth) a member of the Government, because he was sure that he would speedily make himself master of the entire subject to which the measure before the House related. During the last ten months the Board of Health had been legislating by provisional orders, which it was quite impossible for those who had to supervise them to comprehend; and he (Sir G. Pechell) felt certain that there were not ten Members of the last Parliament, nor one of the new Parliament, who understood the merits of the question. A provisional order was at present to be obtained from the Board of Health by an application from any town signed by one-tenth of the ratepayers, and when the order was obtained it required months and years to comprehend it. He hoped that the House would prevent the Board of Health from issuing such orders for the future, especially as the powers conferred by them were so extensive. He had confidence in the right hon. Baronet, and hoped that he would take care that some change should soon be made in the present unsatisfactory manner of conducting business by the Board of Health. In fact, the system required to be totally altered. He should not at that stage oppose the introduction of the town of Brighton into the Bill, but he trusted that the inhabitants would be allowed sufficient time to express their opinions on the subject.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he would not enter upon a defence of the present constitution of the Board of Health, which would terminate at the end of the
88
next Session of Parliament. Before that period he thought that a measure ought to be introduced for the reform of that Board, and then the whole question would be properly considered. Two deputations had waited on him with regard to the application of the Bill to the town of Brighton; the one had stated to him that the unanimous feeling was in favour of the measure, while the other had opposed it. His answer had been that, unless the majority of the ratepayers were favourable, he should not include the town in the operation of the Bill.
Bill Reported; as amended to be considered on Friday.
House resumed.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS NAMES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected to the power given to the county Members to name the Commissioners of Laud Tax. He considered that he had as good a right as the Members for the county of Surrey to name these Commissioners. He had some names to propose, and though he had no doubt they would be put on if he mentioned them to the Members for the county, he objected on principle to take such a course. His constituency was more than twice that which returned the four Members for the county. Why, therefore, should he ask them as a favour to put these names on? Some years ago, when a similar Bill was brought in, he divided the House on the insertion of the names so often, that the Secretary of the Treasury gave way, and he obtained his point. He would take the same course again, if necessary. But he hoped the Government would not sanction an absurd custom, and put him to the trouble of dividing the House, which would occupy an inconvenient length of time.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would also submit it to the Government whether, as a change must take place in the mode of assessing the income tax, a change should not also be made in the mode of appointing the persons who were to carry the Act into effect. These Commissioners were appointed, not by the authority of the responsible advisers of the Crown, but by cliques throughout every part of the country. He had known this carried to an extent that would hardly be credited. In the case of Mr. Fielden, these Commissioners assessed that gentleman to a large

89
amount of profit, and distrained his goods, although it was clear that he was a loser by his business for the two preceding years, and the Government declared that they had no power to interfere. In the old times when Tory Members represented almost all the counties, they had Tory Commissioners from one end of the country to the other. The time was now come when the mode of electing the Land Tax Commissioners must be altered, and when all who had to do with the levying of the tax ought to be appointed under the authority of the Crown. He therefore begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the abuses which existed in many districts, where persons went before the Commissioners and stated that they were assessed at double and treble the real amount of their income, and afterwards, when they appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they wore told that he had no power to help them. That was a very disgraceful state of things, and ought to be redressed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he understood his hon, Friend the Member for Montrose to state the great hardship which arose to individuals from the circumstance that the Government had no power to interpose in cases where the assessment was too high, and to propose that the Government should take power in order to enable them to meet such cases. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would like to know if his hon. Friend proposed to accompany that proposition with power for the Government also to interpose in eases where the assessment was too low; because, although there might be grievances in certain spots and quarters from the assessment being too high, yet the real evil which they had to deal with was the great inequality of the assessment; and therefore he should like to know from his hon. Friend, who had great experience, whether he proposed that the Government should be invested with the power he had described?
MR. HUMEsaid, that at the present moment the assessed taxes were levied by the Land Tax Commissioners appointed under this Act. The power of appointing the officers to collect the income tax, therefore, did not rest with the Government; and what he required was, that the powers given by the Act called the Land Tax Act should be abrogated, and that nobody should be appointed to collect the income tax except under the authority of the Chan-
90
cellor of the Exchequer, and the Treasury. Under the present system the Government could neither increase nor decrease the assessment. Looking on the income tax as likely to become a part of the permanent taxation of the country, he thought the assessment ought to be placed on as just and equitable a footing as possible.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLhoped the grievance complained of by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) would be remedied in the present Bill. It was not a proper state of things that large cities and boroughs should be obliged to submit their lists of additional Land Tax Commissioners through the medium of the county Members.
MR. FREWENsaid, that the law had never been altered since the Reform Bill passed; so that whilst the old Parliamentary boroughs still retained their former power of appointing their own Land Tax Commissioners, it devolved upon the county Members to appoint Commissioners for the new boroughs.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that it was proposed to postpone the Bill till the 11th of April, by which time he hoped to be able to answer the remarks that the hon. Member for Lambeth had just made. If the hon. Member had communicated with him before the Bill came under discussion, he (Mr. Wilson) would have taken care to inform himself of the particulars of the grievance alluded to. He would, however, investigate the matter before the subject again came before the House, and would inquire if there was a practical mode of remedying the evil complained of.
Committee deferred till Monday, 11 th April.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (REPAYMENTS OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND).
The House having gone into Committee,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Resolution which he had to put into the Chairman's hands explained the nature of the Bill which he proposed to ask leave to introduce. The Resolution was to this effect:—
"That the several sums of money which have been borrowed in pursuance of various Acts of Parliament on the security of the Land Revenues of the Crown, and certain other moneys charged on the London Bridge Approaches Fund, for the purpose of Metropolitan Improvements, shall, with the interest thereon, be charged upon and made payable out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland."
And his first duty was to express his

91
gret, that owing to an inadvertence, the nature of the Resolution was not accurately explained by the entry which stood on the Votes, for that entry was certainly susceptible of the interpretation that it was intended to create a new charge on the London Bridge Approaches Fund in regard to the coal dues levied. Now, there was no intention whatever to make any change, slight or serious, in the position of the Government in relation to the coal dues. The whole change proposed by this Bill was purely a financial arrangement as between one fund which formed part of the revenue of the country, and another resource of the country, namely, the Consolidated Fund; and the simple object of the Bill was by discharging certain sums of money out of the Consolidated Fund, to escape from the payment of the interest to which the Land Revenues of the Crown had for some time been, and were now, liable, in respect of considerable sums of money borrowed from private parties to enable metropolitan improvements to be executed, and which money was secured by assignment, under the name of the coal dues, on the London Bridge Approaches Fund. He hoped that he had conveyed clearly to the House the general purpose of the Bill, which would effect material economy with regard to the public expenditure, by avoiding the burden to which the public was subject by the continued payment of interest; and when the clauses and details of the Bill were before them, he had not the least doubt that the House would be satisfied with its object.
MR. HUMEsaid, he trusted that the effect of the Bill would not be to bring any additional charge upon the Consolidated Fund.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, that having presented a petition that day from his constituents (Newcastle-on-Tyne) on the subject of this Bill, he might say that he was satisfied that the petitioners would be ready to acquiesce in this Bill, provided he received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it would not add a penny more of charge to the London Bridge Approaches Fund.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his anxiety was to let the House know that there would be no additional charge placed on the London Bridge Approaches Fund whatever; but now there was another alarm raised on the part of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) with regard to the Consolidated Fund. Now, no new charge would be created upon the
92
Consolidated Fund by this Bill. On the contrary, it would in point of fact afford a real relief, and the deduction would go hereafter to Ways and Means, and so would swell the Consolidated Fund.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would ask whether any portion of this charge would fall upon the Land Revenues of the Crown; and also what would be the precise amount required to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to effect the proposed object?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he proposed to exonerate the Land Revenue entirely from any portion of this charge for the future. The operation would take time, because a portion would be liquidated at once, and a portion would require a short notice. The hon. Baronet had asked what would be the precise amount. In answer to that, he said that the precise amount borrowed from the various parties was 895,000 l., and that the sum paid up to the present date, for interest, was about 140,000 l. Putting these amounts together, they obtained 1,035,000 l.; but then there were deductions from that, partly from the sale of Crown rents, and partly on account of considerable sums which would be forthcoming from the produce of the coal dues, about 90,000 l.; so that the sum to be advanced out of the Consolidated Fund at present, or within the next few months, would be about 940,000 l. or 950,000 l.
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed.

SHERIFFS' COURTS (SCOTLAND).
The LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate procedure in the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland. His predecessor in office had intended to introduce a measure for the same object, but was prevented from doing so by the resignation of the late Government. He had, however, placed at his (the Lord Advocate's) disposal all the materials which he had collected on the subject—an advantage of which he had to a considerable extent availed himself in the preparation of the present Bill. He wished as briefly as possible to state to the House the object and scope of the measure. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland were analogous in any material degree to the County Courts in England. Scotland was not, like England, now trying an experiment for the first time, for the administration of cheap and expeditious justice,

93
through the medium of local tribunals. They had had Sheriffs' Courts in each county of Scotland for many centuries; and after the rebellion of 1745 those courts were placed on the footing upon which they still stood. A sheriff-depute, or acting sheriff, was appointed from the bar of Scotland for each court, with the power of appointing a substitute to act in the county. The jurisdiction of the sheriff was unlimited as to pecuniary amount—he was also a criminal judge, and a Ministerial officer, and, in fact, the functions and office of the sheriff in Scotland were necessarily hound up with the whole action and working of the legal and political machine. The system of Sheriffs' Courts was not unpopular in Scotland—he believed the reverse of that was the fact. Still abuses had crept in, and delay and expense were occasioned from three causes, which it was the object of this Bill to remove—namely, first, because the pleadings were not conducted orally, but were committed to writing; secondly, because the proofs or depositions must also be committed to writing; and the House might easily judge what a fruitful source of expense and delay this would give rise to; for sometimes these proofs extended over weeks, months, and even years, whereas the process of taking witnesses' evidence viva voce was a very different and much more expeditious process indeed; and, thirdly, because facilities were given and used for appealing on mere matters of form from the sheriff substitute to the sheriff principal. To remedy these evils he proposed to deal first with the ordinary jurisdiction of the sheriff in cases above 50 l. This category included questions of injunctions, and of actions to be performed or prohibited, which might not be capable of pecuniary estimate, but they were often very important, and he was not prepared to assert that there should not be, in regard to this class of cases, a more deliberate mode of judgment. He would next deal with cases of between 12 l. and 50 l., and then with cases under 12 l.: but in regard to them all he proposed was, to do away entirely with written argumentative pleadings and depositions. This was, no doubt, a considerable innovation upon the practice of Scotland, but he believed it was perfectly safe and practicable, and he was sure it would be most beneficial. He proposed, instead of written proofs and pleadings, that in all cases the sheriff who heard the case should take a note of the
94
evidence, and that if the judgment should be reviewed the review should proceed upon his notes; and whenever a case was argued it should be argued orally, and the sheriff in like manner should take a note of the argument and state his judgment, and the review should proceed only upon his notes. He did not propose to interfere with the office of sheriff principal, hut he would provide that in cases over 50 l. (looking at the importance which might attach to them), some form of oral pleadings should take place before him. He also proposed to introduce into the ordinary Sheriffs Court the same form of process which had been adopted with success in the Sessions Court under the Act known as Rutherfurd's Act. Then with respect to cases below 50 l., the question which arose was this—whether they should be treated on the same footing as cases above that amount, or whether the small-debt jurisdiction (as it was called) should extend to them. He proposed to take a medium course, and therefore, in regard to cases between 12 l. and 50 l., he provided that a short form of summons and of defence should be adopted, and that there should be an appeal allowed to the sheriff principal, but without written pleadings, in the manner before-stated. An appeal to the sheriff under this Bill would not cost more than half-a-crown. The real point to be aimed at in a measure of this kind was, not to sacrifice any one of the great elements of justice, soundness of decision, economy, and expedition, to the attainment of the rest; but to combine all three together, otherwise the machine would fail of its due end. He had a strong impression that many cases might occur between the limits of 12 l. and 50 l., with respect to which it was not at all desirable that they should do away with the safeguards now existing. In regard to cases below 12 l., he should leave the jurisdiction as it was at present, only allowing procurators to act in cases above 5l. He did not propose either to make any change with respect to the office of sheriff substitute. In 1818 a Parliamentary Commission was appointed to consider, among other things, how far it would be expedient to abolish the system of the sheriffs principal resident in Edinburgh. The Commission reported that in their opinion it would not be desirable to compel the she-riff's principal to reside in their counties, and that there wore great advantages in having the services of lawyers who were in daily attendance upon the sittings of the

95
Supreme Court. The same question was discussed in 1835, when a preponderating weight of testimony was given in favour of the non-residence of the sheriffs principal. According to the present system, in every county you have a resident local administrator of the law, well competent, by his knowledge of its practice, to act in that capacity. He could not forget that one of the weapons most easily blunted was that of legal change. When Sir Robert Peel was in office as Home Secretary, a rule was laid down that no man should be appointed sheriff who had any local connexion with the county, and this rule had been adhered to since that time. He had introduced into this Bill a provision with respect to removals of tenants, which he thought would do away with a very great anomaly now existing. He proposed that a stamped lease should be held a sufficient warrant on a summons of ejection. He did not propose at present to make any change with respect to the salaries of the sheriffs principal, and in regard to sheriffs substitute he was not at present in a position to say anything, not having yet had an opportunity of communicating with the Government on the subject. He trusted that the measure of which he had thus given an outline would in a great measure remove the evils at present felt, and thus confer a material boon on the people of Scotland.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought part of the learned Lord's statement would be received with great satisfaction—he meant that part which promised the removal of abuses, than which nothing could be more absurd; but he doubted much whether the people of Scotland would be content with a half measure like this, when they saw how much room there was for more important changes. He doubted very much whether the learned Lord was right in making the distinction he proposed to establish between 12 l. and 50 l. cases. Simplification of process and lessening of costs should be the two great objects which the legislator should propose to himself. He was sorry that any defence of legal sinecures should be attempted at this time of day, and would counsel the Government to abolish the office of sheriff principal. The people of Scotland wished to have an efficient local judge, properly paid, instead of keeping thirty-three or thirty-four gentlemen in Edinburgh, who had very little to do, and were very highly paid. Scotland would not be content without the same measure
96
of law reform which had proved so satisfactory for England.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, the explanation of the Lord Advocate had given him great satisfaction. He was quite of opinion that the useful and honourable office of sheriff principal should be maintained. The sheriffs substitutes were a very useful set of judges, and had been of great service to the country, but the confidence felt in their decisions would be impaired if the power of appeal should be withdrawn; and therefore he was pleased to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to retain it.
MR. CRAWFURDsaid, he thought the amount of the sum in dispute offered no ground at all for establishing any distinction in respect of the mode of trial. He should wish to see the whole system of the Courts in question reduced to a simple method of oral examination, and also the appellate system abolished. It was his intention, had not the present Bill been introduced, to have proposed the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject, and he should still reserve to himself the right of bringing in a Bill if he were not satisfied with this.
MR. DUNCANsaid, he approved of the general outline of the measure, and was happy to find that the Lord Advocate was disposed to adopt any suggestions proceeding from Scotch Members which were calculated to improve the Bill.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Edward Ellice,

OFFICE OF EXAMINER (COURT OF CHANCERY).
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the further regulation of the office of Examiner in the Court of Chancery. The House would recollect that in the last Session of the last Parliament a large portion of that reform so much needed by the Court of Chancery was embodied in a statute. He said a large portion, because much yet remained to be done, and, for his part, he would never be content until that should be effected, without which all law reform would prove ineffectual—namely, the consolidation of jurisdiction, and the administration of equity and common law from the same bench. By the statute passed in the last Session, the examiners were required to take evidence orally instead of by deposition. It was found, how-

97
ever, when it became necessary to appoint new Examiners, that the oaths prescribed to be taken under the old Act, and adopted in the new one, were inapplicable to the new duties which those officers had to perform. One of the objects of the Bill which he sought to introduce was to make the required alteration in the oath. The statute of the last Parliament also omitted to state what qualifications the Examiners ought to possess, and this was a defect which he proposed to supply. The Bill would further establish some new regulations for the payment of the salaries and pensions of the Examiners.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Attorney General.

COAL DUES IN THE METROPOLIS.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he begged to move that a Select Commitee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Laws under which Dues or Taxes are levied on the introduction of Coals into the Metropolis and the neighbourhood, the mode of collection, and the expenditure of such Dues or Taxes. He believed there was no opposition to his proposal on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that a question of vast magnitude was involved in the proposition. He understood the Committee would have to go into the consideration of the whole of the Acts of Parliament under which the dues in question were levied. Inasmuch as this was a closed question, and the dues were mortgaged for the payment of moneys advanced on the credit of the various funds, he did not think it all expedient that the Committee should be appointed to consider the original prudence of engagements which were now to be dealt with, not according to their original prudence, but according to the public interests involved in them.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished that the words of the Motion should run "into the nature and operation" of the Acts, which would give greater scope to its inquiries.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), having given notice of a particular Motion, it evidently should not now be altered. He thought the word "operation" alone gave ample sufficient latitude, and that all points of real utility would be included under the Motion as it now stood. On the part of the Corporation of the City of London,
98
he had only to say that they were quite willing that inquiry should take place.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.