Commons Sitting of 14 March 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Absconding Debtors (Ireland).
3° Metropolitan Improvements (Repayment out of Consolidated Fund); Land Improvement (Ireland).

CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the consideration of this Bill as amended,
MR. SPOONERmoved that the Bill be re-committed. This Bill was one to enable the Crystal Palace Company to divert certain roads and make certain purchases of land, and also for other purposes connected with the company. He did not now intend to go at all into the question of the

149
opening of the palace on Sunday, which was far too important to be discussed incidentally on a Motion of this kind, but should confine himself to two points. The House was asked by that Bill to confirm an agreement between the Crystal Palace Company and the Brighton Railway Company, without having the agreement before them, or knowing one word about it. Now, he thought this in itself was highly objectionable. He had, however, obtained a copy of the agreement from the agent for the Bill, and he found that it bound the railway company to run trains to and from the Crystal Palace when it was opened, and to issue tickets entitling the holder to be carried there and back, and to admission into the palace and grounds. From the price received for such tickets the railway company were to deduct 9d. for the fare, and to pay over the remainder to the Crystal Palace Company. This constituted the Brighton Company agents to receive and pay over money to the Crystal Palace Company. Now, the charter obtained by the Crystal Palace Company from the late Government specified distinctly that they should not receive money for admission into the building on Sundays without the authority of an Act of Parliament; but if the power he had mentioned were given, there would be nothing to prevent the Crystal Palace Company from indirectly doing so through the hands of the Brighton Railway. He did not impute any such intention to the directors of the Crystal Palace Company, but he thought that the House ought not give any company the power to evade the obligations of their charter by a side wind.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be re-committed, for the purpose of inserting the object, nature, and terms of the agreement entered into on the 22nd day of June 1852, between the Crystal Palace and the London and Brighton Railway Companies, referred to in the said Bill; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision accordingly."
MR. GEACHsaid, he could assure the House that the Directors of the Crystal Palace Company had no desire by indirect means to avoid the obligation contained in their charter, which prevented them from opening the building on Sunday without the authority of Parliament. This, however, was a Bill for the purpose of diverting a road, and it was of very great importance that there should not be one
150
day's delay in procuring the power for making that diversion. With a view to meet the objection which had been raised, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) would allow the Report on the Bill to be considered, he would undertake that the clause with reference to the Brighton Railway Company should be struck out of the Bill on the third reading, so that there could be no pretence at all for supposing that the Bill would be made the means of opening the Crystal Palace on the Sunday in violation of the charter. He hoped, therefore the hon. Gentleman would allow the Bill to be now considered.
MR. DEEDESsaid, that he was ready to withdraw his opposition to the Bill, on the understanding that the clause in question were withdrawn on the third reading; but he wished to draw the attention of the House to the very objectionable principle of a company's getting by a side wind the recognition of an agreement which was not in substance before the public or the House, and by means of which the very contrary of that which was the wish of the Legislature might be done.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, that his hon. Friend was in error in stating that this agreement had not been before the Committee. When he (Mr. Patten) saw the Bill, he took the same objection as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and suggested to the Committee that such a clause should not be admitted. He then found, however, that they had carefully examined it, and had found it unobjectionable, before passing the clause. He himself also examined the agreement, and was in a position to state that there was nothing in it which could, either directly or indirectly, enable the Crystal Palace Company to open their grounds on Sunday. He thought, indeed, that no agreement should be confirmed by that House unless it was set forth in the Bill. However, as the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Geach) proposed to strike out the clause on the third reading, he should recommend his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire not to press his Motion.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he also thought the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Geach) would meet the objection.
MR. LAINGsaid, that as Chairman of the Crystal Palace Company, he could assure the House that they, as promoters of this Bill, had no idea that the agree-

151
ment which had been alluded to could in no way affect the question of Sunday opening; and he wished distinctly to disclaim, on the part of the Directors, any intention to introduce a clause into this Bill which should affect that question. He did not believe it would do so; but, if there was any doubt upon the matter, he was quite willing that it should be struck out.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he considered that the offer to withdraw the clause relating to the agreement, quite exonerated the Directors of the Crystal Palace Company from the imputation of desiring, by means of that agreement, to avoid the obligation which the charter imposed upon them.
MR. SPOONER,said, that upon the understanding that the clause in question would be struck out of the Bill at the third reading, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be read 3°.

LONDON AND WESTMINSTER THAMES RAILWAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR JOHN SHELLEY,after presenting a petition from certain wharfingers and others interested in the property on the north bank of the Thames against the Bill, moved that it be read a second time that day six months. It was evident that the proposed railway would cause great obstruction to the traffic on the river, and to the trade of the wharfingers on the banks, while it would afford little benefit to the public; for the provision made by the small steamboats for the conveyance of passengers along the river afforded ample accommodation.
MR. MASTERMANwas understood to press the second reading of the Bill on the ground that the railway would afford increased facilities for traffic, which were very much wanted.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. WILSONobjected, that the interests of the Crown would be affected by this Bill, and that the Board of Works
152
and the Commissioners of Land Revenues ought to have been consulted. As that had not been done, unless the promoters consented to postpone the second reading, he should be compelled to move that it be put off to that day six months.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTbelieved his hon. Friend was now too late. The Government ought to have been more wide awake. He believed the Bill would be of great public advantage. The objection to it came from the steamboat companies, who did not want the competition of a railway; he was, however, for giving to the public the benefit of as much competition as possible, and he hoped the Government would not oppose the second reading.
MR. HUMEconcurred with his noble Friend that the Government ought to have have been more wide awake, in regard to this Bill, which would no doubt interfere with land belonging to the Crown, namely, that which was below highwater mark. It would be better to postpone the second reading until the question of how far the Bill would affect the rights of the Crown had been reported upon by the proper officers.
MR. MASTERMANconsented, and the second reading was postponed to the 4th of April.
Bill to be read 2° on Monday, 4th April.

THE IRISH LEVEES.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury if directions had been sent to Ireland by any Government authority of this country, to discontinue the expense of inserting in the Dublin newspapers the usual notices of levees about to be held by the Lord Lieutenant. He asked this question, because all parties in Ireland had taken it as an intimation of the Government that they were about to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he would state to the House the circumstances under which the order referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been issued by the late Government. In the course of the last year a bill came in for advertisements, and upon that bill being examined, it was found to consist of three specific items of charge—one having reference to matters in connexion with various Acts of Parliament; another to matters of a public interest; while the third related to expenditure on account of balls and levees. He had to state to the House that the sum total of

153
the account amounted to 330 l. 13 s. 8d., and of that sum 7l. 3s. 4d. was charged for advertisements of the first class, 4l. 10 s. 10 d. for those of the second class—while no less a sum than 318 l. 19 s. 6d. was to be paid on account of the advertisement of balls and levees. Upon inquiry, it was found that, in the course of last year, the advertisements on account of one levee alone, being seventeen in number, amounted to 35 l. 18 s., and the expenditure on account of sixty-one advertisements of the ball which followed, was no less than 41 l. The late Government, therefore, came to the conclusion that the practice in Dublin and London in reference to these matters should be assimilated, and that the notices should be confined in future to the Gazette; and that was an arrangement which entirely coincided with the views of the present Government also.

AUSTRIA AND TURKEY.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir I wish to make an inquiry of the Government respecting the present relations between Austria and the Porte. I observe in a public journal of great authority that an ultimatum has been presented by Austria to the Porte, containing nine requirements. I have them here, but I shall not trouble the House with them, except to say that they are all requirements painful in their nature and perilous, I think, to the independence of the Porte. Two of them, however, I must notice. One of them requires the immediate evacuation of Montenegro by the army of the Porte; the second requisition is that Kleck and Sultorina, the only two ports of the Adriatic to which British commerce, at the low rate of the Turkish tariff, can pour its cargoes and goods into that part of the world, shall be now closed to our enterprize. This journal also states that unfortunately the ultimatum has not only been presented but accepted. I wish to know, therefore, from the noble Lord if the Government have received any official intelligence of those circumstances; also I would inquire of the noble Lord whether—if the discussions between Austria and the Sublime Porte are concluded—Her Majesty's Government have received official information to the effect stated in the journal to which I have referred; and if the noble Lord is prepared to lay upon the table all such papers as may illustrate our relations both with regard to Austria and the Porte in reference to those proceedings?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, Her Ma-
154
jesty's Government have received official information from Constantinople as to the final arrangement of the differences between Austria and the Sublime Porte, and that the demands made by Count Leiningen on the part of Austria had been agreed to by the Porte. I will, however, only refer to the two that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. It was demanded on the part of Austria that the former status should be re-established in Montenegro, and that it should be evacuated by the Turkish troops, Count Leiningen undertaking that the Turkish troops should not be molested in their march. Another demand was, that the status of the two ports of Kleck and Sutorina as it had existed for some years should not be disturbed; and that likewise was acceded to on the part of the Porte. On the subject of this last condition a communication had been made by Colonel Rose, Her Majesty's Chargéd'Affaires at Constantinople, the effect of which was, that nothing should be done with reference to those important territories, Kleck and Sutorina, without the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government. With respect to other conditions of the treaty concerning the refugees now holding service in the Turkish army, it is supposed that Austria desired that those persons should be confined to the interior; but the demand was modified, and Austria now seems to be satisfied by the removal of the Turkish army from Montenegro. There was an important question with regard to the protection of the Christians of Bosnia, with respect to which the first demand was modified. As to the demand for injuries inflicted on Austrian subjects, it has been satisfied by the condition of paying a certain sum of money. As to laying the papers on the table, I beg to say, in the first place, that I believe it is not usual, when there has been a negotiation between two foreign Powers, in which this country is not directly and immediately concerned, and when these negotiations have ended satisfactorily, and have not resulted in hostilities, to lay the papers on the table. In the next place, I cannot think that the public interest can be served by laying such papers on the table, for, in the course of a negotiation of this kind, demands are put forward which afterwards are modified on representations being made, and the laying of papers on the table might occasion difficulties in the attempt to come to the satisfactory settlement of such a question.
MR. DISRAELI: Do I understand the

155
noble Lord to say that the ports of Kleck and Sutorina are closed?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: That was the former condition of those ports, and I suppose for the present they do remain closed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he proposed to take the Consolidated Fund Bill somewhat out of its usual course by moving that it be read a Third Time To-morrow at half-past Four o'clock, before the notices of Motion.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was unwilling to interpose any difficulty in the progress of the Bill moved by the hon. Gentleman, but he felt that a great many Members on his side of the House had to complain of the manner in which the present Government were proceeding with the public business. Without any previous notice, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had that evening completely altered the course of business as it was laid down in the paper of the House. He proposed to postpone until Friday next the Committee on the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, and to go into Committee that evening on the Jews Bill, altogether contrary to the arrangement of business in the Votes. Now it was impossible for hon. Members to discharge their duties properly in that House if such a system was to be allowed. It was obvious that the noble Lord had made this change with a view of forcing on the third reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill before the Easter recess. He thought it was not consistent with the usual conduct of the noble Lord to attempt to shuffle off the expression of public opinion that was manifesting itself every day against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had that evening presented an important petition against the Bill, which was not got up until they had received the news of its having been read a second time on Friday night last. And now the noble Lord was endeavouring to hurry forward with the most unusual speed the further stages of the measure, at a time when he (Mr. Newdegate) himself knew there were many petitions in preparation to be yet presented against the Bill. He was almost disposed to say that this was a tyrannical course adopted by the Government; unfair towards the independent Members of that House, and
156
disrespectful to the feelings of a large portion of the most educated classes of the community. He trusted that the noble Lord would not compel him or the party with which he (Mr. Newdegate) acted to take up a position in respect to the Government on this question, which he would deprecate; but it was their duty to prevent the attempt that was now made to intercept them in the discharge of their duty, and to preclude the genuine expression of their constituents in reference to the Bill from reaching that House. Even if the Bill went through Committee that evening, he trusted that the noble Lord would not propose to take the third reading on Friday next.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had sat opposite the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) for many years whilst he was leader of that House, and he was bound to say that in general the noble Lord had shown a great desire to study the convenience of hon. Members in his conduct of public business. But he thought that his friends around him had great reason to complain of the arrangements made that evening, to which his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had just alluded. He knew that some of his friends had remained in London that day for the sole purpose of taking part in the discussion on the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, which they had expected would have come on that evening. He submitted that it was not altogether usual, when a Bill of that magnitude and importance was fixed for discussion on a particular evening, that a postponement of it should take place without a longer notice than a few minutes before the time fixed for the question being considered in its usual order. And in respect to a Bill of such importance as the Jewish Disabilities Bill, he submitted it was rather unusual to pass it through Committee and a third reading in one week.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the change which has been made in the order of business this evening, is in order to act with the utmost fairness to the House. I propose to introduce an alteration of considerable importance into the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill, and I thought that if I proposed that alteration, and asked the House to decide upon it without their having had time to consider it, hon. Members would have had just reason to complain of my conduct. Assuming that the alteration that I have suggested will be approved of by Her Majesty's Government, I de-

157
termined to postpone the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill. With respect to the Jewish Disabilities Bill, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) complains very much that that Bill should be pressed upon the consideration of the House to-night; and that it has not been postponed for a considerable time in order to allow petitions to be presented to the House against it. Why, Sir, the House must be aware, and the country must be aware, of the state of progress of this Bill. I believe it is more than a month since I gave a notice upon the subject, and I am quite certain that there was sufficient time, even before I introduced the Bill, to present petitions upon the subject. But it does not appear that any very large number of petitions has been presented against the Bill. But few petitions were presented until the Bill approached the second reading, and then the industry that has been displayed in order to procure petitions has certainly produced some petitions, but not to any very considerable amount. The subject is perfectly familiar to the House. It is, in fact, difficult to find any new argument on the subject. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued the subject exceedingly well—so well, indeed, that they have exhausted the arguments on the other side; and I cannot but say nearly the same thing for our side; so that if we postpone the Bill for a month, or even for three months, I doubt whether any one could find any fresh arguments on the subject. There is, therefore, no sufficient reason for postponing a Bill upon which hon. Members generally have made up their minds.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would suggest to the noble Lord the propriety of postponing the Committee upon the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill until after Easter.
Subject dropped.

THE "HOUSEHOLD NARRATIVE."
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that as the Consolidated Fund Bill would shortly come under the consideration of the House, and as that Bill had reference to the revenue, he would take the present opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had also relation to the same subject. He wished to call the attention of that right hon. Gentleman to the unsatisfactory state in which the law now was with reference to the taxes that are imposed upon news and intelligence. The hon. and learned
158
Gentleman the Attorney General of the late Government (Sir F. Thesiger) stated, on the 6th of December last, that immediate legislation on that subject was necessary; and upon the statement which that hon. and learned Gentleman then made, the House granted to him leave to bring in a Bill. Since that time no further proceedings had been taken in the matter. He trusted he might be permitted to say a few words, with the view of reminding the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer of what had occurred with reference to this subject. In November, 1851, a suit for penalties against the publishers of the Household Narrative, edited by Mr. C. Dickens, was brought in the Court of Exchequer. The Judges of that Court decided in favour of Messrs. Bradbury and Evans, and against the Board of Inland Revenue. The Board of Inland Revenue declined to acquiesce in that decision. The parties who had defended that action, at very considerable expense, were informed that further proceedings would be taken to set aside the decision of the Court of Exchequer, and were left in that state of suspense. The law officers were required to report upon the case, and they advised the Crown that the appeal should be proceeded with. Subsequently, there was a change of Government. The law officers of Lord Derby's Government considered the question, and they advised first of all, he believed, that the decision of the Court of Exchequer was contrary to law; but, in the next place, as they thought it would be a great grievance to Messrs. Bradbury and Evans to proceed against them a second time, they advised that future litigation should be set aside by the bringing in of a Bill on the subject. But that Bill was stopped by the fall of the Derby Administration. They were now arrived at the year 1853, and this simple matter, which he believed any gentleman could have settled in half an hour, was still hanging up in suspense. That delay was not only inconvenient but oppressive to Messrs. Bradbury and Evans. He was aware that the law officers of the Crown might have been prevented by pressure of business from reporting upon the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he would ask that right hon. Gentleman whether he would promise that he would use all speed conveniently possible in order to bring this matter to a termination? They-had had first the Board of Inland Revenue, then they had had the Court of Exchequer,

159
then they had had three Chancellors of the Exchequer, besides three different sets of law officers of the Crown, who had applied their minds to this question—whether a monthly publication containing news was liable to stamp duty or not. The time for decision had come. At that moment there were parties in the country who were deterred from issuing such publications, in consequence of the threat held out that an attempt would be made to obtain a reversal of the decision of the Court of Exchequer. Such a state of things was extremely oppressive to the parties concerned, and he, therefore, hoped that the Government would lose no time in bringing the matter to a conclusion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,said, that if any weight were due to the opinions of those legal parties with whom he-had the opportunity of conversing on this subject, he could inform the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the question was not at all so simple a one as he supposed; for there were other points involved of some importance. One was, the point as to the number of days which constituted the interval between each publication which brought it within the meaning of the Statute. He agreed in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman that the present state of the question was most unsatisfactory, and he promised that as far as he could urge on a settlement of it the suspense should not be permitted to continue for one day longer than was necessary. He had asked the opinion of the law officers on the subject. That opinion, he believed, would be soon in possession of the Government. He would give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that when that opinion was received, no time would be lost in coming to a final decision upon the question at issue.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would suggest a very simple process of dealing with this question, on which so many Chancellors of the Exchequer and law officers had been so long employed—let them at once repeal the tax. He made that suggestion in the firm belief that the revenue would suffer nothing by its adoption. At present there were sixty publications, such as the Household Narrative, thirty of which were charged with stamp, and thirty were allowed to escape from it. It appeared that neither the Board of Inland Revenue, nor the law officers of the Crown, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could say which publication ought, and which ought
160
not, to be liable to the stamp; and the simplest process would be to put an end to the stamp altogether. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer might lose in its abolition would be gained by the payment for the sending through the post of those publications which were now unstamped, and which, therefore, could not be sent post free. He would almost give a guarantee to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would within twelve months regain by postage all that the revenue might lose by the abolition of the stamp.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, the House would probably allow him to make a few remarks on this question, which was not so entirely free from difficulty as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. Gibson) seemed to suppose. The House was already aware of the state of the question at the time that the late Government came into power. At that time there had been a decision by a majority of the Judges in the Court of Exchequer in favour of exempting the Household Narrative from duty; but Her Majesty's late Government found that the law officers of the Government of the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) were of opinion that that decision was not quite satisfactory, and they were rather disposed to think that the opinion of Baron Parke, who differed from the majority of the Court, was the better opinion. But, at all events, they thought that it was essential that the opinion of a court of appeal should be taken before they agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court of Exchequer. Now, he must confess, that had the matter come before him originally, he should have entertained the same opinion as the law officers of the Government of the noble Lord on this subject. At all events, he felt himself bound by their opinion. It was consequently determined that the decision of the Court of Exchequer should be appealed against. There were, however, different opinions as to the mode in which the case should be presented to the Court for rehearing; and ultimately his right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) was of opinion that, without any detriment to the public interest, a Bill might be introduced, by which publications like the Household Narrative might be exempt from duty. But, at the same time, the great difficulty in framing a Bill of that kind was this, that unless you were extremely careful how you worded your Bill, you might exempt from taxation

161
a number of publications which clearly, as the law existed, were liable to duty. With some difficulty a Bill was prepared, and that Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had stated, he (Sir F. Thesiger) obtained leave to introduce. But it was the right hon. Gentleman himself, by starting a preliminary objection, who prevented that Bill from being brought in. [Mr. M. GIBSON: Oh! no.] The right hon. Gentleman took this objection: it was necessary in framing that Bill to take care that those publications which clearly were liable to duty under the existing law, but with respect to which some doubt might arise in consequence of the decision of the Court of Exchequer whether they were liable to duty or not—it was necessary to take care that a schedule should be framed which would embrace those publications which were clearly liable to duty. The right hon. Gentleman, however, objected that, inasmuch as the decision of the Court of Exchequer made it doubtful whether publications like the Household Narrative might not be exempted from duty, a Bill which would make it perfectly certain that they were liable to duty was one which could only be introduced in a Committee of the whole House. He (Sir F. Thesiger) felt the force of the objection, and he intended so to introduce the Bill. But in the meantime the resignation of the late Government prevented him from proceeding with the Bill. The more he looked at this subject, the more difficult he found it to be. Of course the easiest way of getting rid of the difficulty would he to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose. But that was a matter entirely for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who he did not suppose was likely to accede to the proposition. He (Sir F. Thesiger) could well understand that the present law officers found this to be a matter of great difficulty.
MR. COBDENsaid, he begged to second the suggestion of his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Montrose. It appeared to him that they were placed in a most humiliating position. The House and the country had to wait until the ingenuity of lawyers could frame a Bill to prevent the free diffusion of knowledge—for that was what the Government were aiming at. And under what circumstances were they doing so? All parties were agreed that the political franchise should be extended; the Government admitted that the rights
162
of the people should be enlarged; and yet, at the very same time, they were exerting all the ingenuity in their power to prevent, as far as they could, the people from obtaining political knowledge. This was the great difficulty which the Government had to deal with in this matter—they could not define what news was. Nobody could define what news was. He had an opportunity of cross-examining the law adviser of the Crown, and the chairman and secretary of the Inland Revenue Board, on this subject. He endeavoured to learn from them what was their idea of news. He asked them if they considered the Queen's Speech to be news? They answered, "Yes; anybody publishing the Queen's Speech without a stamp would be liable to prosecution." Then they were asked, "Is the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on opening his Budget news?" "No; we think that might be published without a stamp." Now every one knew that far more importance was attached to a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on opening his Budget, than a Queen's Speech. And therefore, to say that the one was news, and the other was not, showed how impossible it was to define what news was. The only plan was to abolish the law which required a stamp to be put upon publications containing news. In fact, that law was already completely evaded; for there were fifty or sixty publications in the metropolis, like the Athenœum and the Builder, which published news, and yet the owners considered it to be optional to them whether or not those publications should be stamped. Let every newspaper have the same privilege as the Athenœum and Builder, and the fifty or sixty similar publications. Let them be stamped or unstamped just as the proprietors pleased. Let Mr. Rowland Hill have absolute control over them as far as their transmission by post was concerned. Mr. Rowland Hill told the Committee that he could manage these publications; and if they were left to him, be (Mr. Cobden) had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose nothing. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer get rid of this newspaper stamp, which was a reproach to us. Let him signalise his rule by putting an end to this tax on knowledge.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to ask a question in connexion with this matter, namely, whether it was the intention of the Treasury to reimburse Messrs. Bradbury and Evans the costs in which the prosecu-

163
tion to which they had been subjected had involved them, and in which the Government had been defeated? There did not appear to be an intention to attempt to enforce the law against them by any further appeal, and it was only right that private individuals who had suffered from an unsuccessful prosecution on the part of the Government should be reimbursed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member had opened a subject entirely new to him, and he must, therefore, decline to give any pledge. Any application of the nature indicated by the hon. Member would be considered on its merits.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he understood that the late hon. and learned Attorney General had stated in his place that when the Government was unfortunate in its appeals to the law, the expenses to the parties would be returned; and if that were to be the rule in future, it surely ought also to be applicable in the case of Messrs. Bradbury and Evans.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,with regard to the general subject, wished to say that it was under consideration.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, that as Attorney General in the late Government, he had given no pledge on the subject, except that he would bring in a Bill which would place the Crown, when defeated in such prosecutions, in the same position as any other prosecutor in respect to costs.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he believed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had intimated that the late Government had under consideration the general question, and not the particular case now referred to. He now desired to inform the House, that the law officers of three successive Administrations having failed in solving the difficulties connected with the question, and having failed also in obtaining a judgment of a Court of Law in their favour, it was now proposed to obtain the judgment of a police magistrate upon the subject. One of his constituents had published a paper called the Potteries Free Press, and the Government, overlooking Punch and other publications, had determined to pick out this unfortunate man and to summon him before a police magistrate for the payment of a penalty of 20 l. On Thursday next the magistrate at Bow Street police-office was to decide a point of law which had puzzled the law officers of three suc-
164
cessive Administrations. He asked whether such a proceeding was carried on with the knowledge and concurrence of the present law officers of the Crown? and whether this anticipated decision of the magistrate was to be taken as a solution of the difficulty?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Gentleman was totally mistaken in supposing the two cases to be similar. The difficulty in the case of Messrs. Bradbury and Evans arose from the circumstance of their paper being published at an interval of not less than twenty-six days, whereas the Potteries Free Press was published every week, contained a regular statement of public news, and therefore fell not within the decision in the case of the publication by Messrs. Bradbury and Evans. It was a clear open infraction of the law; and without entering into the question whether or not it would be politic to repeal the stamp laws, it was the bounden duty of the law officers to enforce the law as it existed. Therefore it was with the sanction of the Government that the case alluded to was proceeded with.
MR. EWARTsaid, he trusted the consideration of the Government would be given to the expediency of establishing a postage duty instead of the stamp duty on publications.
Subject dropped.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (REPAYMENT OUT OF CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to obtain an assurance from the First Commissioner of Works, that the Crown rents arising out of the public improvements in question would be sold without delay.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, so soon as the Government could get the full value for those Crown rents, they would be ready to sell them.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must complain of irregularity and deviation from sound principle in these attacks upon the Consolidated Fund.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member imputed irregularity with regard to the original transaction out of which the necessity for this Bill arose, or as to the Bill itself. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be the last man to propose to the House to make any charge upon the Consolidated Fund, to the de-

165
triment of that fund; but in this case the expense was already saddled upon the public, and the whole question was, whether it should remain in the form of debt, at a heavy charge for interest, whilst we had balances at the bankers, or whether we should employ those balances in paying off the debt, and thereby transfer the interest to the benefit of the Consolidated Fund.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know—supposing it appeared to the lenders of the money that the Approaches to London Bridge Fund was insufficient to guarantee them the repayment of the money they had lent—whether his right hon. Friend was perfectly certain that by putting this charge on the Consolidated Fund, and releasing altogether the land revenues of the Crown, which ought never to have been charged, the whole principal and interest were likely to be paid.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he felt the greatest possible certainty on the subject. The population of London might be decimated—for they did not know what calamities might not occur—but adverting to the rate at which the coal fund now yielded, nothing to his mind was more plain than that the "Approaches Fund," and the other assets which were liable, would be amply sufficient to guarantee the whole of the debt and interest.
Bill read 3°:—On Question, "That the Bill do pass,"
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEmoved the addition of a clause, providing that an annual account should be rendered by the Treasury of the sums paid into the Consolidated Fund, and of the disbursements therefrom under the authority of the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to the clause. He wished, however, to add the following explanation to his preceding statement. The simple reason why the Bank of England and the other principal capitalists had refused to lend money upon the security of the London Bridge Approaches Fund was, that that fund was pledged for other purposes, and that therefore there were no means left to repay such loans.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any guarantee as to the time when the coal duties would cease?
The CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that that was a matter regulated by Act of Parliament, and that he
166
did not think it likely that the present or any future Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose to extend the term; but if they did, no doubt the hon. Gentleman would be in his place to resist them, and that probably with success.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that nothing could be more easy than to refer to the coal accounts.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he must beg to dispute that; and he should like to be informed when certain returns, for which he had moved at the commencement of the Session, would be laid upon the table? Those returns were dependent, it was fair to state, not upon the Government, but upon the authorities of the City.
Clause agreed to.
Bill passed.

JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that the admission of Jews into Parliament was a subject which must interest all, the history and records of that wonderful people being impressed on our earliest memory. But it was a question of more than mere feeling. Did he consider the Jew simply as a man and a citizen of this free country, he should rejoice to see him enjoy all the rights of the one and all the privileges of the other, and take his seat among those who framed, amended, or abolished the laws which governed or maintained it. But while he viewed him as a legislator, and reflected that these laws not only regulated the foreign and domestic policy of the State, but also the government of the Church, and that one of his most important and gravest duties was to extend to the remotest bound of this vast Empire the knowledge and benefits of Christianity—desirous as he was to speak in a becoming spirit of the religious belief of others—he must protest against the admission into Parliament of one who, however wise, honourable, or benevolent ho might be, unhappily for himself, disbelieved the divine legation of the Eternal Son of God. Justice and truth alike forbade him to aid in promulgating doctrines which he conscientiously believed to be erroneous. There was no fear, it was alleged, of any great influence being exercised by the Members that could be chosen out of a body numbering little more than 40,000 in this country. But, was it

167
a matter of numbers, or a question of principle? What body would they represent? What was their interest in this country? What social standing and position? In what degree of estimation were they held? Whom did the House propose to admit? Men without a country, legally naturalised here, but at heart aliens yearning for their ancient land. How could they legislate for a country which all but they fully regarded, and honoured, and loved as home? They considered themselves as a separate nation in a state of dispersion, and therefore forbidden to identify themselves politically with any State in which they were born or resided. Upon these grounds he was opposed to this measure.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he must condemn the mode in which the noble Lord pressed forward this Bill as most unfair. The Canada Clergy Reserves Bill was first on the paper for that evening; and, not being aware of its sudden postponement, hon. Members, who were absent, could not possibly have anticipated that the Jews' Bill would come on so soon, which would account for the thinness of the House at that moment. It also appeared to him that the noble Lord was taking advantage of the fact, that on Friday next, when he understood the third reading would be taken, many Members would have left town for the holidays; and thus a division taken on the third reading would give an impression to the country of a majority in favour of the measure, which was not real. He appealed to the noble Lord to postpone the third reading until after Easter.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had only postponed the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill for the purpose of making alterations in it. The course he had taken would, in his opinion, facilitate public business; for if the third reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill were postponed till after Easter, it might happen that there would not be enough to occupy the attention of the House for the whole of Friday evening. The subject had been so thoroughly discussed that he could not anticipate any new arguments upon it.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had himself no objection to the Bill passing through Committee to-night, nor to the third reading taking place on Friday; but it would undoubtedly be more satisfactory to his friends around him if it were postponed till after Easter.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could
168
not consent to postpone the Bill, but he would undertake not to bring it on at a late hour on Friday. He would not bring it on after ten o'clock.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not understand what economy of time there could be in thrusting the Bill through its later stages in the way proposed by the noble Lord; in fact, passing it through three stages within the period of one week. The course now pursued, he contended, was not the ordinary method of dealing with a question of such importance as this; and if the noble Lord would not postpone the third reading until after Easter, his (Mr. Newdegate's) impression would be that the noble Lord regarded the division on the second reading as showing a strength in favour of the measure which did not really exist in that House. As to economy of time, there was plenty of other business before the House, and the noble Lord might rest assured that no time would be lost if he took other business on Friday. He trusted, therefore, the noble Lord would not be guilty of what appeared to him (Mr. Newdegate) a manifest disrespect for the feeling of the country, which, whatever the noble Lord might think, was very deep and intense against this measure—indeed, the more the subject had been discussed, the deeper had that feeling grown. He could declare, from his own personal observation, that that was the fact; and he conceived that nothing was calculated to create greater jealousy with regard to the conduct of the Government than the existence of a wide-spread impression that they were attempting to force the Bill through that House with improper haste.
MR. MILESsaid, that Easter fell exceedingly early this year, and notice of Motion had been given on the part of the Government that after the recess Orders of the Day should have precedence of Motions on Thursdays; thus the noble Lord would have an additional day for the consideration of the Government business. He appealed to the noble Lord, then, to reconsider the question, and to name as early a day as he pleased after Easter for the discussion on the third reading, in order that hon. Members might have a fair chance of being present to record their votes.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was surprised at this attempt on the part of Gentlemen opposite to postpone the measure, and thought the noble Lord had exercised a wise discretion in determining to press for-

169
ward and get rid of it as early as possible so far as that House was concerned.
MR. W. M. SMITHsaid, as representing a large and important constituency, he willingly bore his testimony to what had been stated by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) as to the intensity of feeling which prevailed out of doors in respect of this Bill; and he entreated the noble Lord not to incur the charge of having proceeded with undue haste by taking the course he had indicated, but rather to postpone the measure until after Easter, that the constituencies might have an opportunity of expressing, by petition, their opinions with regard to it.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he also represented a large constituency, who formed part of the metropolis. The place he represented numbered 400,000 inhabitants, who were assessed at more than 2,000,000 sterling; and, speaking to some extent their opinions, he must appeal to the noble Lord not to think for one moment of postponing this measure. This was no new topic. It was the most unprofitable discussion that House could have; and surely when it had been so long debated on both sides, it was much better to arrive at a conclusion at once, for he was sure that, whatever eloquence might be displayed, not one single vote would be turned by it.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he considered that the request for postponement was a reasonable one. True, the question had been repeatedly discussed; but to assert that the principle of the Bill was not a novel one in its application to the law of England, was what no scholar or statesman would maintain; and he must say he had never heard a more extraordinary statement than that which was made the other night—that the Jews were excluded from this House by accident. He held that it was not unreasonable to request the postponement of the third reading until an early day after Easter; and that was the whole extent of the request which had been made.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, the pretence for procrastination was to give the country time to consider the question; but for his part he thought time enough had been given for that purpose already. It had been debated in that House in every succeeding Session for many years past; and he remembered that when, five years
170
ago, time was given for consideration, the result was, that instead of the petitioners against the measure being as two to one, the petitioners in its favour were as six to one.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that on the occasion to which the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) referred, he (Mr. Newdegate) had risen in that House, and asserted that the petitions in favour of the measure were got up by hired parties; that the signatures were in the first instance obtained at the rate of 3s. the hundred; that tables were stationed at different places in the streets for the purpose, and that one person would frequently write a dozen names at a time. That at length 3s. a hundred was not deemed a sufficient sum for the parties employed, and that at last a fixed duty of 5s. per day was afterwards paid to the men who procured the signatures. In this House he had openly declared that the signatures were purchased and paid for, and he offered to the noble Lord himself to prove it before a Select Committee; but the noble Lord dared not to move for that Committee. Twice he (Mr. Newdegate) challenged the noble Lord to do so, but he never dared to accept the challenge; and now, again, if petitions were got up and presented to that House in favour of the Jew Bill, he ventured to predict that the signatures would be bought as they were in 1847. On the other hand, with regard to the petitions against the Bill, he could answer for it, that the large number he had presented were genuine expressions of the opinions of various localities unpurchased and unsolicited. He (Mr. Newdegate) could assure the noble Lord that so little did the agents, employed to obtain the signatures in favour of the Jew Bill in 1847, like the work, that it was from them he had received the information with respect to the transactions to which he had referred.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would also appeal to the noble Lord whether, upon the whole, and seeing the light in which the question was regarded by the religious feeling of the country, and that many Members had already left town, it would not be more satisfactory to let the third reading stand over until after the Easter recess.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had no desire to proceed with unnecessary haste with the Bill; but he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) that the Bill had been

171
opposed upon its introduction, and also upon its second reading. The House, therefore, had already expressed its opinion twice on the subject, and after that he could not expect that its opinion would be changed. Besides, he had already undertaken not to bring it on at a late hour on Friday. This subject was a constant source of delay, and delay only would be the result if he assented to the suggestion, for, as he was now told that Members had left town, so he would be told the first week after Easter that they had not arrived.
MR. W. M. SMITHsaid, the Bill in question was not of an ordinary character, but involved a principle of the utmost importance, and therefore it ought not to be pushed forward with unseemly eagerness, nor treated as an ordinary measure.
MR. J. A. SMITHbegged, in reply to the observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), to give the statement of that hon. Gentleman the "most positive and absolute denial that courtesy enabled him to give." If, however, the hon. Gentleman really entertained the opinion he had expressed in reference to the subject, he (Mr. J. A. Smith) would be prepared, with the greatest possible readiness, to meet him on any occasion, and to give him an explanation of any accusation he might think proper to make.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not rest under the imputation of having stated that which was not correct. Now it happened that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was sitting near the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) when he (Mr. Newdegate) offered to prove the statement he had made; and if the hon. Gentleman was so confident of the inaccuracy of the charge, why had he not then accepted the opportunity offered him of testing it? Five years had elapsed since that, and he must say it was rather hard, at this distance of time, to be asked to prove it. At the time he made the assertion he intimated his readiness to produce the proof before a Committee of the House; under these circumstances, the hon. Member must forgive him if he did not consent now to retract the assertion, he had made.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: Sir, I rise merely to say that, whatever may be the manœuvres of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), I trust that hon. Members on this
172
side of the House, recollecting what they owe to the country, will pursue that course which their constituencies will approve of, and do their duty to the country, and, above all, to their Protestant Queen.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDmoved an Amendment to the 36th clause, to the effect that an appeal in all cases of tenancy over 50 l. per annum should be from the Commissioners to the assistant barrister, or the Judge of Assize.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he must object to the Amendment, on the ground that it would be a departure from the Act of 1847, which was the foundation of the present measure. Nothing could work better than the Act of 1847, which had no power of appeal, and, as a proof that such a power was unnecessary, the Commissioners under the Act of 1847 had only been called upon in four cases to adjudicate between landlord and tenant. In all the other numberless cases the parties had mutually agreed between themselves on the amount of rent to be added for the improvement of the land; and he thought a useless power of appeal, which must lead to delay and litigation, would be prejudicial to the beneficial operation of the Act.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, he would move the omission of the 36th clause, as it contained a novel principle of jurisprudence, unless both clause and Amendment were submitted to the Select Committee.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, the clause was drawn up consistently with all Irish precedent, which in legislation was one-sided, as for the landlord and against the tenant; but it was totally adverse to the principles of jurisprudence as practised in this country.
MR. R. MOOREsaid, he should oppose the Amendment as interfering with the machinery of the Act of 1847, which had been found to work so well.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he must deny that the decisions of the Commissioners, as stated by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) had been satisfactory. He should support the Amendment.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he preferred

173
the clause without the Amendment, but he hoped the Amendment would not be opposed, as it was the result of a compromise which he trusted the House would support.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the best possible proof that the Amendment should not be adopted, was the fact stated by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) that only four cases out of all that had been decided by the Commissioners were objected to.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

SAFETY IN RAILWAY TRAVELLING.
MR. H. BROWNsaid, he had a notice on the paper relative to safety in Railway travelling, but since he had entered the House a communication had been made to him which induced him to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He wished to ask whether it was at all probable that the Select Committee now sitting upon railways would result in such a Resolution on Report as could be practically adopted by the House? If that were the case, he should withdraw his proposed Resolution. If not, he was perfectly prepared to go on with it.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the Motion of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice was one to the wording of which he had no objection to offer. The hon. Member proposed, in the first instance, to declare that it was—
"The duty of a good Government to propose to that House all such measures as might appear necessary for the public good."
To the doctrine thus expressed he was not disposed to take the slightest exception. The hon. Gentleman then proposed to declare, that—
"The great increase in the number of accidents which have of late occurred on railways demands the special attention of this House, and that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to propose more effectual measures than now exist for securing the safety of the public while travelling on railways."
From the sentiment thus expressed he was not inclined to dissent. The Committee which had been appointed by the last Government, on the subject of railways, was now sitting upstairs, and would feel it their duty to extend their inquiries to the question to which the hon. Member's Motion
174
related—a question in which, it was scarcely necessary to say, that Her Majesty's Government, the Members of the Committee, and every Member of that House, felt the deepest possible interest. Since he (Mr. Cardwell) had had the honour of presiding over the Railway Committee, they had examined the most eminent men connected with the railway interests of these countries. They were now going to examine witnesses not connected with railways, and in the course of their deliberations they would, undoubtedly, consider it their duty to devote especial attention to the particular subject which the hon. Member desired to bring under the notice of the House. It was, of course, impossible for him to anticipate the result of the Committee's inquiries. Up to this point they had confined themselves, in the most laborious and painstaking manner, to the collecting of evidence; and, considering the magnitude and importance of the subject, and how early it was in the Session, and how many witnesses yet remained to be examined, he was sure that the hon. Member did not mean to impute it to them as a matter of censure that they had not as yet come before the House with any expression of opinion. Under all the circumstances of the case he was inclined to think that the hon. Member would not be wanting in his duty to the public if he were to permit the Committee to enter into a consideration of the subject to which his notice referred, before proceeding to ascertain the sense of the House upon it. He owed it to the Committee to say, that he had never seen any similar body take in hand the matter upon which they were called to adjudicate, in a manner more earnest and energetic; and he should be greatly disappointed if their labours did not result in a measure beneficial to the public interest.
MR. H. BROWNsaid, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, he was quite content to postpone his Motion for the present, in order to see whether any practical proposition which the House could adopt would result from the labours of the Committee. He confessed he bad very little hope that such would be the case; still he was quite willing, in deference to the wishes of the Government, to postpone the consideration of the question to a very early period after Easter, when, if nothing satisfactory was elicited, he certainly should go on with it.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock.