Commons Sitting of 7 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Highways (Public Health Act); Poor Law Commission Continuance (Ireland); Militia (Scotland); Highway Rates; Heritable Securities (Scotland); Metropolitan Sewers; Turnpike Trusts Arrange-
1366
ments; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.; Public Health Act Amendment.
2o Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Prisoners Removal.
3o Sheriff and Sheriff Clerk of Chancery (Scotland); Married Women; Valuation of Lands (Scotland).

MIDDLESEX INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL —ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT.)
Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [4th July], "That the Amendments made by the Lords to the Middlesex Industrial Schools Bill be now taken into Consideration."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he rose to move that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be taken into consideration on that day three mouths. When this Bill came before the House for a second reading, he moved that it be read a second time that day six months, inasmuch as he had serious objections to the measure. He, however, consented to withdraw his Amendment, inasmuch as it was generally agreed that they should go into Committee upon the Bill with a view of remedying the many defects he observed in the measure. This House having agreed to certain amendments in the Bill, it was passed in an improved state. The Lords, however, had struck out all those amendments. He, therefore, thought that he was only acting consistently in moving his present Amendment. He thought that this was a species of special and exceptional legislation, whereas it was his opinion that those matters should be regulated by a general Bill; and a general Bill had been introduced on the subject by the Government, which had been passed last night through Committee. If, therefore, they passed the present Bill, together with the Government Bill, they would have two principles recognised in regard to the same criminal offenders. In one case the criminal offenders would be subject to punishment first, and would be then placed in reformatory schools. That was the Government scheme. In the present measure the punishment would be dispensed with in respect to the same offenders, who would be placed in reformatory institutions. The principal objection which he had to the Lords' Amendments was that in relation to Clause 29, page 13, which would completely neutralise the intentions of that House. The Amendment of that House was to give power to the ministers of other religions, beside that of the State,

1367
to visit juvenile offenders of their own religious persuasion, to afford them every consolation in their power, and to celebrate divine worship in those schools. Those visits were, however, to be made under certain regulations. By the Lords' Amendment no minister could visit those places unless at the special request of the juvenile offenders or of their parents. That was a most important alteration, and one which he considered most objectionable. He thought that one of the most useful functions of a minister of religion was, not to wait for a special request, but to go to those haunts of crime and misery, and to tender to the unfortunate inmates the consolations of religion. He thought it was the height of illiberality to introduce enactments which would practically deprive all unfortunate persons professing other religions than that of the State of receiving the benefits of their own particular clergy. He also objected to another Amendment of the House of Lords, which was to give power to the bishop to appoint or withdraw the chaplains of those institutions at their pleasure. Their Lordships had also struck out the clause relating to the keeping of a register, for which he could conceive no reason, except that if it should appear that there was in any prison a large proportion of children not belonging to the Established Church, the public might complain of the injustice of preventing so large a number of prisoners from receiving the visits of a minister of their own denomination, and having divine service celebrated according to their own faith. He regarded the omission of this clause as a part of the system which had led to the other alteration to which he had referred. He believed that the Government took the same view of the question as he did.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he believed that the Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, was a most desirable measure, and had received the concurrence of the great majority of the magistrates and of the ratepayers. He hoped that the House would not be induced to take a course that would be fatal to the Bill, merely because the House of Lords refused to sanction the in-
1368
troduction of a new principle into our public institutions. According to the practice of our law any prisoner who dissented from the Church of England might claim access for the minister of his own persuasion. That point was freely granted as a concession to the religious opinions of prisoners or of juvenile offenders. Well, that same principle was preserved in this Bill. But the House of Lords had very properly rejected the new principle, that any person who shall declare himself to be a minister of a particular denomination—without being called upon to give any proof of his being really so—shall at once have free access to those schools. Such a power as that would lead to the greatest possible confusion. Before they adopted such a rule as that, they should have a registry of the ministers of the various religious denominations, so as to secure identity. He did not suppose that the House was desirous that Cardinal Wiseman should have a right by law to authorise any clergyman, by the mere virtue of his office, to enter those establishments. To such a principle he hoped the House would never consent in relation to a private Bill. By the Lords' Amendments free access would be allowed to such ministers at the special request of the juvenile offenders or of their parents. The same principle was recognised by our law in respect to all the prisons of the United Kingdom. It would be a most dangerous precedent to allow the introduction of the new principle that was sought for by certain hon. Members. Let the House recollect the marked instance of the Dublin Cemetery Act. He believed it was the conviction of the House that that Act contained the enunciation of no principle that had not been hitherto recognised by the law of the country. Nevertheless, it was subsequently found that there had been surreptitiously introduced into that Bill words which appeared to convey the legality of those titles which had been declared illegal by the Ecclesiastical Titles Act; and that Act was referred to and made use of as a justification for the Papal aggression, and as an argument against the passing of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. In the present case there was a similar attempt made to give an authorised claim to the clergy of the Church of Rome, by virtue of their office, to enter those public establishments, and to instruct all the children therein. All orphans who unfortunately became liable to the penalties of the law became, as it were, the children of the

1369
State; and unless they believed that those children belonged to another faith, they had a full right to instruct them according to the tenets of the Church of England. With respect to the other Amendment, relating to the rights of the bishops in the appointment of chaplains, it should be recollected that the principle there recognised was in accordance with the general practice of our county gaols. He hoped that the House would not depart from the general practice by inserting new principles and inconsistent provisions in a private Bill.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he objected to the Bill altogether, for he thought that its object would be most fitly carried out by the Government measure now before the House.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that though he did not concur in the second reading of the Bill, because he thought that the principle was one which should be dealt with by a general Bill, yet he assented to it because the Home Secretary did not then think that he would be able to introduce a general measure upon the subject. At his suggestion the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and when the Committee were appointed they carefully applied themselves to the consideration of the whole question, and they unanimously adopted a clause with regard to religious worship which authorised the ministers of different religious persuasions to attend the different inmates of the establishment, subject to regulations to be made by the visiting magistrates, in order to prevent any irregularity, or the access of improper persons to the children of the establishment. The clause also provided that liberty should be given to the children of different persuasions to attend divine service on the Sabbath according to their particular religious convictions. This was the clause which had been omitted by the House of Lords; and when it was brought before the House of Commons the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) objected to it, but the House affirmed it by a majority. It was said that this was an entirely new principle, but if hon. Gentlemen would refer to the Irish Prisons' Act, the 7 Geo. IV. —["Oh, oh!"]—he would remind hon. Members that Ireland was a part of the British empire, and was entitled to be treated as such—the Irish Prisons' Act gave to the Roman Catholic clergy as well as to Dissenting ministers, free access to the gaols and prisons in Ireland. He saw
1370
papers circulated amongst hon. Members that day, which denied to the Roman Catholic clergy the right to perform divine service except in their own chapels or in private houses. He would, however, refer the House to an Act in which Parliament had fully recognised the right of the Roman Catholic clergy to perform divine service in the gaols and prisons. [Mr. SPOONER: But that Act does not apply to England.] If it were intended now to declare by a vote of the house that it was illegal for the Roman Catholic clergy to perform divine service to our soldiers or to the prisoners in our gaols, he for one could not be a party to such vote. He was sorry that the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) had moved this Amendment, because, if carried, it would have the effect of rejecting the Bill altogether. He would be willing to vote with the noble Lord if he confined his Amendment to disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments. And in the event of that proposition being carried, he would not despair of settling matters amicably with the House of Lords in a conference. As, however, there was a general Bill upon the subject, applicable to all the country, he thought there was less necessity for this Bill. He should certainly prefer that the Bill were lost than that it should be passed under present circumstances.
MR. MILESsaid, he would be glad to hear how the right hon. Gentleman could contradict the fact that the original clause referred to was not one that would be introducing a new principle into the prison discipline of England.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had just been informed that the practice was at present carried out in Dartmoor and other prisons in England.
MR. MILESsaid, he was not aware of the fact, but, at all events, those prisons were not regulated by Act of Parliament; they were under the authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He hoped and trusted that the House would not take as a precedent the practice adopted in some of the prisons in Ireland. If the right hon. Baronet would show him that any Roman Catholic or Presbyterian in prison, if he expressed a wish for a clergyman of his own persuasion, was prevented by the law from receiving the visit of such person, he (Mr. Miles) would then admit the necessity of new legislation upon the subject. He, however, defied the right hon. Gentleman to show

1371
him anything of the kind. Why, then, should they attempt to alter the law as regards prison discipline in one particular case He was sorry that a general law upon the subject was not carried out. We wanted reformatory schools all over the country to be established by a general Government measure. But this was not a Government measure. He hoped that the House would adopt the Amendments of the House of Lords, which only recognised the principle that had been hitherto invariably acted upon, and that hon. Members would not jeopardise a measure which he believed was calculated to confer much advantage on the people.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that after the appeal made to him by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he would, if the House would permit him, withdraw the Motion he had made, and substitute for it an Amendment to the effect that this House disagrees with the Lords' Amendments.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he hoped the House would permit the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. LUCASsaid, he could not but be struck with the inconsistency of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, in objecting to the withdrawal of the noble Lord's Amendment, and yet professing to be anxious for the passing of the measure. He conceived that their object evidently was not to have an industrial Bill, but a proselytising Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] [The hon. Gentleman then quoted several extracts from the Ragged School Union Magazine of June and July to justify his assertion.] The concession of those hon. Members to the Roman Catholics went to this extent—that in respect to the children of the Established Church, they were to be compelled to attend the divine service of their Church, but in respect to Roman Catholic children, they were to be permitted to attend the service of a Church to which they did not belong. And yet they admitted that the large of juvenile criminals in the United Kingdom were of the Roman Catholic religion. This paper also insisted upon it that the very life-blood of these institutions was to diffuse among the Roman Catholic inmates Protestant teaching, and that every obstruction ought to be placed in the way of their receiving Roman Catholic teaching. That was the meaning of the article, and nothing else. And no man could deny, after reading it, that the
1372
object of the Middlesex magistrates, in introducing into the House of Lords these Amendments, and so endeavouring to reverse the decision of the House of Commons, was to found an establishment which should receive within its walls a majority of Roman Catholic children under the pretence of reforming them, and refuse to them the best means of reformation—the opportunity of worshipping Almighty God according to the religion in which they had been brought up—which should put in play against them all the means of proselytism with the view of perverting them from the religion they professed, and thus do them the greatest possible mischief which human beings could receive at the hands of the Parliament of this empire. It should be borne in mind that the inmates of this establishment would be vagrants, not felons and criminals. The poor boys would have lived in the constant practice of their religion—they would not have broken any law of morality, or any law of mall of any higher character than a police regulation; they would have been punctual in the discharge of their religious duties, and in their attendance on the sacraments of their Church; and the Bill, in its present shape, would have the effect of authorising the police and the bigoted section of the magistrates of Middlesex to take these poor children out of the streets, place them in the hands of Mr. Pownall, and empower him and his fellow magistrates to use all the direct coercion and influence that they could bring to bear in order to pervert them from the religion of their forefathers! It was a gross, a rank injustice. They had now arrived at a time when the Roman Catholics had to consider whether or not they were to be treated like the rest of the people of this country; whether this was a land in which they were to be allowed to live, and to be treated with common fairness and justice; or whether they were to have "aliens" stamped upon their foreheads by such legislation as the House had then before it. For his part he should do everything in his power to defeat this nefarious legislation, and if the Bill passed into a law he should use his utmost endeavours to procure the repeal of the enactment.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR,said that one of the greatest evils which Parliament had experienced during the present Session was the curse of religious differences intervening to prevent useful

1373
legislation. He appealed to the hon. Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) not to oppose the withdrawal of the noble Lord's (Lord Dudley Stuart's) Amendment, but allow the House at once to decide upon the question which was really before them, namely, whether it would or would not agree to the Lords' Amendments, Upon the acceptance or rejection of these Amendments depended the fate of the Bill. The measure had been received with considerable favour by the House, and he was certainly most desirous that it should become law as speedily as possible. He himself had assisted in Committee in framing the clause to which allusion had been made, and he was most anxious to give the Roman Catholics every advantage they could reasonably expect in preparing the Bill. The clause had gone up to the House of Lords. That House had taken exception to it, and sent the Bill down in its present state. What he had to consider then was, whether he should assent to the Lords' Amendments or not; in other words, whether the Bill should pass this Session or not. He believed that if the Amendments were rejected, it would be utterly futile in him to attempt to pass it during the present Session. Under these circumstances he had come to the conclusion, though with much reluctance, to give his support to the Amendments. At the same time he could assure the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) and his co-religionists that he was ready to aid them in any attempt they might make to obtain that measure of justice of which the Amendments introduced by the Lords deprived them. He could not, however, make up his mind, for the sake of that, to postpone for a year, and, perhaps, indefinitely, a Bill which was founded on far different principles to those of any others that had been presented to the House for the establishment of reformatory institutions, and which, considering the immense number of juvenile criminals who were constantly passing through the prisons of Middlesex, he could not too strongly express his desire to see at once passed into a law.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that if the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) withdrew his Amendment, then they would come at once to the question, whether the Lord's Amendments should be agreed to or not. Upon that vote would depend, not alone the clause to which reference had been made, but the fate of the Bill itself; for
1374
the clause which was introduced in Committee, which was passed by that House afterwards, and which had subsequently been rejected by the House of Lords, was notoriously so impracticable a clause that its adoption would be fatal to the working of the Bill. He had the highest authority, the authority of practical men, for saying so. He had no wish whatever to act unjustly towards Roman Catholics. On the contrary, he had been anxious to introduce clauses that would give them the most liberal treatment; but he could not imagine that, with that object in view, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) would desire to adopt an impracticable clause. The clause they were about to vote upon was to the effect, that the criminal children should not attend a religious worship which was contrary to their religious principles; secondly, that they should be taught in the creed of their parents, which, from his own experience in a majority of cases, was direct infidelity; not the infidelity of carelessness, but of reason; in short, a rational infidelity, and so far the clause insisted upon their being brought up in the creed of infidelity; and, thirdly, that all ministers of every persuasion should have a right to enter at any time, and on Sundays if they thought fit, in order to perform service within these institutions. sow, when the Rev. Sidney Turner, the Governor of Red Hill Reformatory School, the principal institution of the sort in this country, read the debate which led to the insertion of this clause, he said—
"I am astonished that any man in his senses, having a knowledge of the working of these institutions, should have consented to the adoption of such a clause. If it be made to form part of the Bill, it will have the effect of shutting up the institution at Red for it will render the government of the institution altogether impossible."
The Amendments which the Lords had inserted would put the institution on the same footing as a prison. There were, however, some words in the Amendments which were offensive—he alluded to the restrictions they imposed upon the introduction into these institutions of improper persons. These words might seem to connect the ministers of religion with improper persons, and they had better have been omitted.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he could assure the hon. Member for Meath that he was entirely mistaken in supposing that the Middlesex magistrates desired to make this school an instrument of proselytism. He would venture to say for them, and

1375
particularly for Mr. Pownall, to whom the hon. Member had referred, that the thought had never entered into the mind of any of their number. On the contrary, he believed they were actuated by the simple motive of desiring to prevent the commission of crime by bringing under healthy moral influence that portion of the population from whose ranks the class of criminals had been hitherto recruited and supplied. He (Mr. Williams) had voted for the clause rejected by the House of Lords; but rather than lose a measure of such value, he should not hesitate to support the Bill in its present shape.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Amendments agreed to, as far as page 13, line 36.
Page 13, line 36, the next Amendment, (Leave out from "That" to the end of the Clause, and insert "if any juvenile offender shall be of a religious persuasion differing from that of the Established Church, a minister of such persuasion, at the special request of such juvenile offender, or at the special request of his or her parents, shall be allowed to visit him or her at proper and reasonable times, under such restrictions imposed by the Committee of Visitors as shall guard against the introduction of improper persons and shall prevent improper communications,") read a second time.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that having taken part in the discussion of the clause winch the Lords had rejected, and having also voted in favour of that clause, he trusted the House would allow him to explain the course which he deemed it his duty to take on the present occasion. When that clause was discussed, he stated his opinion that, in giving religious instruction to the unfortunate children in these establishments, they must either be considered children of the State and be taught the religion of the State, or if their religious differences were to be respected, legislation should not stop short of the clause they were then considering. Upon that ground he gave his vote in favour of the clause. But, the House of Lords had now suggested another course, and the alternative before the House was either to agree to the Amendments of the Lords or abandon the Bill altogether. He was quite of the same opinion as his noble Friend (Lord R. Grosvenor), and he could not take upon himself to incur the responsibility of endangering the passing of the Bill. He attached the greatest possible
1376
importance to the measure; he was most earnestly desirous of seeing it passed into a law; and, under these circumstances, he must take the same course as his noble Friend, and give his vote for the Lords' Amendments.
LORD DUDLEY STUART: I beg leave to move that this House do disagree with this Amendment of their Lordships.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am not now going to argue this question, but I wish just to observe that there is another course open to this House beside that pointed out to us by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington), who said that we must either agree to the Lords' Amendments or the Bill would be lost altogether. There is another course which the House of Lords may take, and that is, not to insist upon the adoption of their Amendments. It appeared to me that the Bill as it went up from this House was a very reasonable Bill. I also thought this clause a very fair one; and as the expunging of it seems to imply that whatever number of persons there may be of a different persuasion from the Established Church in any one of these reformatory institutions, they cannot ever be allowed to have divine service performed, or instruction given according to their own religious convictions, I certainly must disagree with this Amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the House of Lords had exercised a very wise discretion in refusing to enact that religious worship should take place in these schools according to every religious creed. At the same time, the omission of such a positive and declaratory enactment did not necessarily carry the effect of an absolute prohibition of such a proceeding.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he should support the proposition to reject the Lords' Amendment. He would not do so in any sectarian spirit, but simply because he wished to see justice done to all classes of his fellow-countrymen.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 124: Majority 27.
The next Amendment agreed to.
The last Amendment, page 15, (Leave out Clause 31,) read a second time.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—The numbers re-

1377
ported by the Tellers were, Ayes, 202; Noes 67: Majority 135.
Notice taken, that Mr. Grenville Berkeley, the Member for Evesham, had given his voice with the Noes, and had voted with the Ayes.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker directed his vote to be recorded with the Noes:—Ayes 201; Noes 68: Majority 133.

THE CHARITY COMMISSION—EXPLA NATION.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, he was sorry to understand that something which had fallen from him on the preceding evening as to the Charity Commission, had been supposed to have reference to the able and excellent gentleman who was at the head of that Commission—Mr. Commissioner Erle. So far from anything disrespectful being intended by him towards Mr. Erle, the House would recollect that he had spoken of Mr. Erle in terms such as he believed him fully entitled to, from the able, energetic, and zealous manner in which he had performed, so far as the powers given to him by Parliament permitted, the duties of his office. His (Mr. Ellice's) complaint had been that sufficient power was not intrusted to Mr. Erle and his brother Commissioners; for certainly it was impossible to place the administration of the department over which he presided in abler, safer, or better hands. Some misapprehension had doubtless arisen from his having, inadvertently, referred to his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) as being still the chief unpaid Commissioner, whereas the duties of his right hon. Friend's new office, requiring the whole of his time, had rendered him unable to remain upon the Charity Commission. What he had wished to express upon this point was the hope that, when it should be found necessary to replace his right hon. Friend on the Commission, it would be in the person of some gentleman having a seat in that House, and to whom the House could appeal on any occasion when it should be found necessary to make observations upon the working of the Commission.

THE NEWSPAPER STAMP—QUESTION.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the threatened prosecution of Mr. Novello, the publisher of the Musical Times, for an alleged violation of the Newspaper Stamp
1378
Act; and at the same time to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether proceedings were to be instituted against him. After the Resolution to which the House had come on the 16th of May—
"That it is the opinion of this House that the Laws in reference to the Periodical Press and Newspaper Stamp are ill-defined and unequally enforced, and it appears to this House that the subject demands the early consideration of Parliament,"—
he thought it right to call attention to a case which would show that the law was ill-defined and unequally enforced. The gentleman whose case he was about to advocate was the publisher of a very harmless periodical, called the Musical Times, which contained some articles of news. On the 8th of May Mr. Novello received a letter from the Board of Inland Revenue, stating that he had broken the law, and threatening him with a prosecution. He accordingly wrote to Mr. Timm as follows—
"London, 69, Dean Street, Soho, "May 11, 1854.
"I have to acknowledge your letter of May 8. I have delivered to the Stamp Office stamped and unstamped copies of every number of the Musical Times for the last ten years (as compelled by law to do), and each of these copies has been thoroughly examined by your officers to ascertain how much of it was liable to duty for advertisements, so long as that impost was chargeable; and I suppose that, both before and since, it has been examined to see that it contained no blasphemous and seditious libel, as I am compelled still to deliver a copy for the latter purpose. During these ten years the news contained in the paper has always been of precisely the same kind, and your Office (as I have shown) was thoroughly acquainted with its nature; and, as no objection has been made, I must suppose that the Musical Times has, during ten years, been published with the sanction of your Office. I should be glad, therefore, to be favoured by your pointing out what particular passage of news you now consider as making the paper liable to be all printed upon stamps. The Musical Times has always consisted 'principally' of a piece of music, for which the same price is paid, whether printed alone, or whether accompanied by the matter of temporary interest, which is given away with it only when first published. The music being that for which the money is paid in all instances, you will perceive that, supposing sixteen or more pages of advertisements to be given with the music, the Musical Times would still consist 'principally' of the music, which is what people pay for."
In answer to that he received a letter from Mr. Timm, offering to submit his letter to the Board, to which he replied—
"I am obliged by your offer to submit my representations to the Board, and I feel all the inconvenience of their position, in having to administer a law which the Judges are unable to

1379
define, and which no Government has yet had either the grace to repeal, or the courage equally to enforce. I am not without hope that the present Government will adopt the graceful course and repeal these bad laws; but if in the meantime they are determined to make the existing laws respected, they would be more likely to succeed by prosecuting any of the other fifty or sixty papers placed in precisely the same position as the Musical Times, because ill-natured people will be apt to think the selection more due to its being the property of the treasurer of the active Association for the Repeal of all the Taxes on Knowledge, rather than to any peculiarity in the contents of the Musical Times requiring the enforcement of the law to begin with that paper."
No answer was returned to that, and on the 20th of May Mr. Novello addressed the following letter to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue—
"On the 8th May, I had a letter from Mr. Timm, solicitor to the Inland Revenue, threatening me, for penalties he says I have incurred by something I have published in the Musical Times. I answered it immediately, requesting to have pointed out what particular passage has subjected me to these threats, after ten years of impunity; but although more than a week is past, I have had no answer, and am left in all the uncertainty of not knowing what I may do in my next number. I have addressed myself to you, as the Chairman of the Board, to point out how much anxiety is caused by these constant threats from a department armed with an Act by which penalties can be inflicted, which would quite ruin a man. Many of my friends are in consternation at the danger they think I run. The Board have probably hardly considered the effect of these proceedings on those threatened, but it would be less cruel were they to make up their minds and only threaten those whom they had determined to prosecute, rather than thus to threaten when in many instances no further steps are intended to be taken. The timid are frightened from their property, and it leaves me not the less anxious and uncertain, that I have made up my mind to defend my paper. I trust I may be favoured as early as possible with the decision of the Board, in order to be relieved from an anxiety I have not deserved, if no prosecution is intended; or, in the other alternative, that I may be prepared for my defence."
In answer to this he received a letter dated May 24, and signed Thomas Keogh, as follows—
"The Board have had before them your letter of the 11th instant, addressed to their solicitor, as also a letter of the 20th, to the Chairman. I am directed to inform you that the Board will act in the matter to which these letters refer according to the advice of the law officers of the Crown."
Upon this Mr. Novello wrote to the Attorney General in the following terms—
"I inclose copies of correspondence which has passed between the Inland Revenue and myself, by which you will see that I ant threatened with prosecution for publishing news in the Musical Times, after having done so with impunity for ten years; and that Mr. Keogh finally refers me
1380
to the law officers of the Crown, to know whether the prosecution is to be proceeded with. I write (after waiting with much patience) to ask if the Musical Times is to be prosecuted or not, and I hope to be favoured with a direct answer, as it is most painful to conduct business under such uncertainty. There is no doubt that if the Statute be strictly enforced against the numerous papers containing similar matter to the Musical Times, every publisher must be ruined by the penalties; but even such severity would be less unjust than the present fast and loose method of threatening a prosecution (involving such heavy pecuniary loss, whether successful or the contrary), but which in many instances has no other meaning than to frighten the timid out of their property; while this uncertain conduct has the bad moral effect of showing the impunity with which reckless persons may set a Statute at defiance, if the law be so unfair and ill-defined as is the Newspaper Stamp Act. I trust you will see the justice of informing me if the prosecution is to be stayed, and whether the Musical Times is to continue its former useful course undisturbed by these threats. It will still have to struggle with the heavy obstruction which the paper duty imposes upon all printed efforts to diffuse information."
To this he received no answer, and on the 26th June he wrote another letter to the Attorney General to this effect—
"I should feel very grateful for a reply to my letter of 9th June, inquiring if the prosecution is to take place against the Musical Times, and whether anything were intended by the threats of the 8th May. I have been trying to relieve my anxiety since your silence by reference to the course pursued towards former alleged offenders. I find the case of the Racing Times, which was said to admit of no delay, and 'which no person could doubt was a newspaper liable to stamp duty' in September, 1851, but since which no prosecution has ensued. I find, on the other hand, the more doubtful case of the Commercial Journal, in Dublin, so late as this year, prosecuted, the proprietor brought to the brink of the Insolvent Court, his paper nearly ruined, and, although the verdict decided he had not violated the law, he had 100 l, to pay for the expense of defending his property from an unjust attack. I find numbers of papers crushed out of existence by the threats of the Inland Revenue, and, on the other hand, the discreditable exhibition of that Office set at defiance by persons whom they have accused of breaking the law. I find the Police Gazette suppressed, and Holt's Army and Navy Despatch selling by thousands, 'stamped and unstamped'—that is with the direct sanction of the Stamp Office, and this last paper has not even been threatened. You perceive that no safe opinion can be gathered from observing this unequal enforcement of the law, and I am, therefore, compelled once more to ask a reply from you by which I may guide my proceedings."
To this he had received no reply. He (Sir J. Shelley) really thought that, after the Resolution to which that House had come, and the proof which had been given that this publication was not one which had broken the law, that it was a matter

1381
worthy of the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; and he wished to know whether it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend to institute any prosecution against Mr. Novello; or whether he proposed to bring in any Bill to set at rest this disputed question with regard to publishers and periodicals?
The ATTORNEY GENERALbegged to say, that the only reason why Mr. Novell had not received an answer to his communications to him was, because a reply to that gentleman involved this consideration—that the same measure dealt out to Mr. Novello must be dealt out to everybody else. The whole matter connected with this stamp duty had been under his anxious consideration since the Resolution of the House upon the subject. With reference to the particular instance brought under the notice of the House by his hon. Friend, the facts were these:—in April last, or early in May, the case of Nr. Novello was submitted to the law officers of the Crown. It appeared that the Musical Times not only contained items of intelligence connected with music, but that Mr. Novello published advertisements very largely. so that very frequently one-half of his paper appeared in the shape of advertisements, which, whatever might be the opinion of the publisher, brought his paper directly within the stamp duty. The fact that Mr. Novello was evading the law in this particular was brought under his attention, and the view he had taken was, that, so long as the Government allowed certain privileges to class publications, Mr. Novello was entitled to indulgence; but that, if he sought to evade the law by publishing advertisements, then he ought not to be treated with the same leniency as others, and it was right that the law should be enforced against him. The law officers of the Crown recommended that, as this evasion of the law might have been an act of oversight, a letter should be written to Mr. Novello on the subject, pointing out that, instead of keeping within the limits of a class publication in the Musical Times, he was publishing advertisements, and so evading the law. Such a letter was written, and there the matter ended. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred it to him to take into consideration what course the Government should pursue upon the subject generally. The question was one of some difficulty. He had, however, quite made
1382
up his mind as to the course which ought to be pursued by the Government, and, but for the unfortunate illness of the right hon. Gentleman, who had been prevented from attending the House during the week, he should have put him in possession of his views. As he had already stated, he had a very clear view indeed of what ought to be done, but, until he had communicated on the subject with the Minister at the head of the financial department, he thought he should not be justified in stating to the House at the present moment what he should be quite prepared to state on another occasion. For the same reason, he had not communicated to Mr. Novello what was to be done in his particular case. At the same time, he might say that be felt quite sure there was no disposition whatever to visit that gentleman with respect to the past. As to what would be done for the future, that, of course, must depend upon the decision come to upon the general question.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would take the liberty of submitting to the Government whether, in the uncertain state of the law, it would not be wise to suspend all pending actions on this question, and that no new ones should be instituted until the Government had decided on the course they intended to take. That would be reasonable course, and one for which there was precedent. He would press on the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to use his influence with his Colleagues to agree that no actions under the Stamp Laws should be instituted till the measure of the Government was decided on. He did not see why the Government should delay to settle this question. It was a simple, and by no means a complicated question, and he believed that the hon. and learned Attorney General and himself, or any other Member of the House, would in three days settle the whole question, so that it should never be heard of again. He knew what the views of the Attorney General were from the votes he had given when he was not connected with any Government; and his private views were always in their favour when he was an independent Member of the House, and on conviction he was with them. The Board of Inland Revenue was now placed in a very awkward position before the public; threatening prosecutions which they did not proceed with, and he thought for the sake of that House, if not for the public, the Government were bound to take an early opportunity of settling.

1383
this question. He should like to know where the obstruction was, and why the matter should be kept in hot water when it could be settled by ceasing to tax news and substituting a postal charge for the transmission of papers—a plan which was pursued in all countries except this. The Post Office could very easily settle the matter, and he could confidently intrust it to Mr. Rowland Hill. He would therefore appeal to the Government to do something in the matter this Session, and if not, in the very beginning of the next.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could only say that his right hon. Friend had paid most anxious attention to this subject, and was very desirous the question should be settled in a manner which should be for the benefit of the community at large. His right hon. Friend, however, was, he believed, very far from thinking, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), that the subject was one of extreme simplicity, and one which might be settled in a few hours. On the contrary, he saw many difficulties in the way which ought to be provided against in any plan proposed. This House had resolved that the law was at present ill-defined and unequally enforced, and what his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson) proposed—that everybody who chose to evade the law should be left without prosecution, while those who complied with it should suffer the penalties attending obedience to the law—would certainly not be the best means of equally enforcing the law. If they adopted this course, the Government might well be accused of favouring those who sought to evade the law, and of inflicting hardship and injustice on those who complied with it.
MR. COBDENsaid, that the Government might think that this question was often introduced unnecessarily; and he protested against its continuing as it was, on account of the trouble it gave to the Government. The question was constantly raised with reference to persons who were obstructed in the dissemination of news; but there was another side of the question, and the hon. and learned Attorney General would find difficulties raised by papers which were already established, which were stamped, and which complained against the toleration of unstamped publications. He had received a letter from
1384
the editor of the Warrington Guardian, which stated, "That he wished he would read to the House the inclosed advertisement, and ask why he should be made to pay a penny on all his papers, while Holt paid only when he liked." The advertisement inclosed was of a journal called Holt's Army and Navy Despatch, which professed to give all the events of the war. [The hon. Gentleman read the contents of the paper, which consisted of some most stirring incidents, real and supposed, connected with the war. The table of contents concluded with the words, "and all the news of the war, price 1½d."] His correspondent complained that when people would read about nothing but the war, an unstamped paper should be allowed to give all the news of the war. If the Attorney General carried out his intention with regard to indulgence to unstamped papers he would find difficulties in the way from established papers. If he meant that papers which confined themselves to a particular subject should be exempt from that stamp, numbers of publications would spring up, professing to give only class news, while by means of leaders, and in other ways, would slip in general news, and it would be difficult to define what was class news. He would, therefore, put it to the Government, as every one professed a desire to encourage the instruction and information of the people, whether they should any longer hesitate as to the course they would take on the question. There was no doubt as to what ought to be done. Let all newspapers be unstamped, and when they were sent through the Post Office, let a penny stamp be put upon them. It was no new principle or plan, for it was done already in the case of the Athenœum, Punch, &c., which had stamped and unstamped editions. It was a very simple plan, for you had only to put the whole of the newspapers on the same footing, and let Mr. Rowland Hill and the Chancellor of the Exchequer arrange the rest of the matter, which could be done in less than three days. He hoped that the Government would come to a decision on the subject in a short time.

MORNING SITTINGS—THE COUNT OUT.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he wished to bring under the attention of the Government a circumstance which seemed to affect the constitutional privilege of independent Members of that House. The only day on which independent Members had the op-

1385
portunity of bringing their proposals before the House was Tuesday, and on that day there were always morning sittings, so that the evening sittings were shortened, or indeed in many cases there was no House at all, because Members were tired and fatigued by the morning sitting, and he thought that it would be desirable not to make any arrangement which had a tendency to prevent Motions being brought forward by independent Members. He wished to advert to a circumstance which occurred in that House on Tuesday last. On that day the House was counted out, and he attributed that to the fact of Members being tired by the morning sitting. At the time he was disposed to find fault with the Government for so managing that the House should be counted out, but he had since been informed that the Government had nothing to do with it, but that an hon. Member took the irregular course of locking the door to prevent Members coming in to make a House. He hoped that such an occurrence would not take place again, and he appealed to the Government to make some arrangement by which there would be a possibility for independent Members to exercise their constitutional privilege.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was most unfairly treated on Tuesday evening, and that it was most indecorous in the House to have been counted out during the discussion of a Motion of so much importance. The result of that was, that the elaborate speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth), which laid down principles of policy which were entirely new, went forth to the world without reply. He did think that when consequence was given to a debate by a Cabinet Minister making a speech of such importance, the Government ought to take care that it was not abruptly terminated by a "count out."
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he fully exonerated the Government from having had anything to do with the "count out," but he thought that the opinions contained in the speech to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Milnes) had referred were of such importance that it would, in his opinion, be desirable that some other Member of the Government should state to the House if those principles were shared by the right hon. Gentleman's Colleagues.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he
1386
thought that the complaints which had been made with regard to morning sittings were not altogether without foundation, and he agreed that morning sittings interfered with the opportunity afforded to independent Members of bringing forward Motions, for the evening sitting was in consequence shortened by two hours. He begged to call the attention of the Government to the fact that these morning sittings might be an illustration of the proverb, "the more haste the less speed," for, if Members were deprived of the opportunity of bringing on their Motions on Tuesdays, they would take the opportunity of doing so upon going into Committee of Supply. He did not speak quite disinterestedly on this subject, as he had a Motion with regard to the Russo-Dutch loan on the paper for next Tuesday, and if he should be deprived of the opportunity of bringing on the question then, he should most certainly do so on the first night of Supply. A statement had been made to the House by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer), that on Tuesday last, when the House was counted out, means had been adopted to interfere with the free access of Members, and the House ought to know who was in fault. Was it one of the doorkeepers? If it were, he apprehended that there was cause for severe censure. He had, however, been informed that an hon. Member of that House had gone to the door, got the key and locked it, and then, having resumed his place, had called attention to the fact of there not being forty Members present. It was a very ingenious trick for a parcel of schoolboys, but he did not think that it was consistent with the dignity or character of that House.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that inquiry had been made, and it was discovered that the door had not been locked by any of the doorkeepers. The custom had been for the key to be left in the door, but he had given instructions, in order to prevent the repetition of such a circumstance, that for the future the key should remain in charge of the Serjeant at Arms.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he hoped that the door would not be locked so as to prevent Members from leaving the House.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that looking at the hour to which the House had sat on every Tuesday excepting last Tuesday, since morning sittings on that day had commenced, he could not think that the opportunity to private Members for bring-

1387
ing forward Motions had been much interfered with.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he had made an effort against the too frequent appointment of morning sittings at this period of the Session, and he believed that every hon. Member who had lamented the loss of an opportunity of beginning or concluding a speech last Tuesday had voted against his Motion.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
(1.) 7,550 l., Statute Law Commission.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to call attention to the great public convenience which would arise from including Ireland in the labours of the Commission, and thus assimilating the Statutes of the two countries. He had been assured by one of the Commissioners that this might be effected without the least difficulty.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he begged to inquire whether the Government would have any objection to inform the Committee of their intentions with respect to consolidating the Statute laws. He wished to know what the intentions of the Government were with regard to the Commission—if it was appointed with a view of establishing a complete code, a scheme which he had always considered wild; or if for the purpose of framing a Consolidation Bill?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was quite ready to state what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. The Commission which was appointed last year for the purpose of consolidating, as far as possible, the Statutes, was only an experiment. The Government wished to ascertain whether that great work could be accomplished within a reasonable time, and what would be the best way of commencing it. Several gentlemen, therefore, were employed for that purpose under the directions of the Lord Chancellor. They were to deliberate upon the best method of carrying into effect the intentions of the Government with regard to the consolidation of the Statutes. Their labours, he was happy to say, had been very successful. He bad had a communication that day upon the subject with the Lord Chancellor, who stated that he was eminently pleased with the labours of the Commissioners. The Lord Chancellor stated to him that he intended to lay upon the table of the
1388
House of Lords, very shortly, as a specimen of their labours, one of the Consolidation Bills which had been framed by the Commissioners. He (the Attorney General) believed that it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to propose the appointment of a Commission consisting of the Lord Chancellor, certain law Lords, the law officers in that House, and one or two lay Gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons, who should be unpaid Commissioners, and who would be aided by one paid Commissioner, whose business it should be to attend constantly to matters of detail. It would be competent to that Commission to guide certain draughtsmen in the framing of measures for the consolidation of the Statutes. Under their superintendence measures for reducing to the smallest possible compass the most important Statutes would be proposed in the first instance. That would be a great service to the country. They would propose to expunge from the Statute-book a number of Statutes which now incumbered it. They would then proceed to the framing of one measure which would comprehend, in the smallest possible compass, all the existing Statutes relating to one particular division of the laws. He believed that the proposed consolidation of the Statutes would confer immense advantages upon the country.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he regretted that the hon. and learned Attorney General had held out no hope of this country obtaining a code of laws similar to that which Napoleon gave to France. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General spoke of the English laws as if they were different from, and more difficult and complicated than, those of any other country. But the truth was, that the laws of France were quite as complicated as our own before Napoleon commenced his magnificent work of codification, which would preserve his name when his military conquests were forgotten. Did the Attorney General propose, like Napoleon, to assemble the great jurists of the country for the purpose of producing a code of our laws? On the contrary, he proposed to employ in the consolidation of our laws men who were remarkable for their narrow and shortsighted views on the subject of general jurisprudence—namely, those who were engaged in the administration of justice in this country. The proposed plan could only produce most insignificant results. He wished that the Attorney General,

1389
than whom no one was more fitted for the task, would apply his mind to the codification of our laws. His great abilities would enable him to raise a magnificent monument of legislation, which would be for the benefit of the country, and would carry his name down to the remotest posterity. Mr. Hallam, in his work on the Middle Ages, regretted that England had not produced her Tribonian, under whose hand the unintelligible jargon of our conflicting Statutes might have been compelled to give place to a simple and intelligible code. He (Mr. G. Phillimore) did not wish to offer the slightest opposition to the Vote proposed, for he thought it was better that something should be done than nothing.
MR. EWARTsaid, he hoped that the proposed Commission would propose a measure which, for the conciseness and clearness of its language, would be a model to future Legislatures. He thought that nothing was more disgraceful than the language of the Acts which had been passed in this country in recent times. They were fuller of complication, parentheses, and tautology, than any other documents in the country; whilst it was obvious that those were the very faults that ought to be most specially avoided in our Statutes. The Statutes of Edward I., Edward II., and Edward III., were patterns of brevity and clearness. There was an avoidance in them of those parentheses which confused the modern Statutes. He hoped that the Tribonians who were about to be appointed to revise our laws would produce measures which would have some approximation to those great monuments of jurisprudence which regulated the lives of the ancient Romans.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the present Commission was appointed twelve months ago, and it was high time that a Report of their proceedings should be laid on the table of the House.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the present unwieldy state of the Statute-book was owing in a great measure to separate Bills being proposed for England, Ireland, and Scotland, instead of proposing one Bill for the three countries. He hoped the Government would direct their attention to that very objectionable mode of legislation.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would attempt to draw a Bill which would apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, he would find it was not so easy a matter as he seemed to suppose.
1390
He (Mr. Craufurd) could not concur in the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) as to the works of the Consolidation Commissioners. Before the work of codification could be commenced, it was necessary to sweep away all the absurd, obsolete, and repealed parts of the Statutes. And for that work he believed the Commissioners were eminently qualified. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had complained that no Report from the Commissioners had yet been laid on the table of the House, but the fact was, that they had presented two Reports as long ago as March, and both of them were now upon the table. They had not yet been printed, and of that he (Mr. Craufurd) thought hon. Gentlemen had a right to complain. He hoped that the department upon whom devolved the duty of directing the printing of the Reports would take care that they were printed and delivered to hon. Members without delay.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he considered that there would be no difficulty in assimilating the Statute law of Ireland with that of England. Up to the Union the Irish laws were mostly copies of the English laws, and he regretted to find that it was not the intention of the Government to include Ireland in the proposed measures of consolidation.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman must not infer that that would be the case. He was most anxious to assimilate the laws of the two countries, but there were many instances in which such a course would be impossible. When the measure was proposed, it would be seen how far it could be made applicable to Ireland.
Vote agreed to, as were also—
(2.) 900 l., Brehon Laws Commission (Ireland).
(3.) 23,700 l., Patent Law Amendment Act, Salaries, &c.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to know whether any portion of the 3,050 l., which was down in the Estimate under the head of "compensations," was enjoyed by persons who also received advantage under the new Act?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the Vote proposed for expenses of the Patent Office was certainly larger than he had anticipated would be necessary. Under the old system, the fee which the law officers received on each patent which they passed was 8l., which in the year amount-

1391
ed, on an average, to about 3,000 l. for each of the law officers, and, as they had no salaries, this was considered as a sort of compensation for their services. Under the new system, by which the expenses of obtaining a patent were reduced from 300 l., to 25 l., the fee payable to the particular law officer who passed the patent was reduced by Lord St. Leopards, who was then Lord Chancellor, from 8l. to 6l., but the increase in the number of patents consequent on the diminution of the expense was so large that the average amount of the law officers' fees was greater than before. When the present Government came into office, the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls took the matter into their consideration, and exercising the power given to them by the Act, they reduced the law officers' fees to one-half—2l. for the provisional specification, and another 1l. for granting the warrant for the patent. Under the old system, all the law officers had to do was, to sign his name to the warrant; but now, he had to consider the provisional specification, and to see whether it stated properly the nature of the invention and the mode in which it was to be carried out; so that not only had the amount of the fee been reduced, but the duty to be performed had been increased. With regard to the average amount of the fees received, he would at once frankly state, that last year they amounted to 4,000 l. for each of the law officers, instead of 3,000 l., as before. He could not help thinking, however, that that increase was the result of the great influx of patents consequent upon the facilities given to inventions by the new system, and which had been dammed up, as it were, under the old law. That great influx could scarcely be expected to continue every year in future, so that ere long the fees would probably be reduced in the aggregate to about the same amount as before the new law came into operation.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered the sum of 10,500 l. for fees payable to the law officers of the Crown a very extraordinary amount, and it appeared from the explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General that the total sum was a mere guess. He hoped the Vote would be delayed until the Secretary of the Treasury could furnish satisfactory information as to the sum which would be required. There was also an item of 4,700 l. for incidental expenses, upon which he should like to receive some explanation.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he considered that the Committee, so far from seeing any good reason to object to the Vote, or to the general arrangements connected with the law of patents, ought to regard them with much satisfaction. The cost of patents had been reduced from 300 l. to 25 l., but to such an extent had the public availed themselves of the various improvements which were daily taking place in the several departments of industry and science, that a sum of no less than 64,000 l. had been paid into the Exchequer in the shape of stamps last year, in connection with patents; a source from which not one single farthing had ever been placed to the public credit before. With respect to the 10,500 l., it was impossible to say how many patents would come in next year, and consequently what the charges of the Patent Office, for fees, would be. The amount was the nearest which could be arrived at by an estimate. With respect to the sum of 4,700 l., it was almost impossible to furnish the particulars. It was the sum required to defray the whole expenses of the office. He should, however, add, that no matter what the amount of the Vote might be, that amount of money only which would be required would be expended.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwas of opinion, that if the fees of the law officers of the Crown were paid in the shape of a regular fixed salary, then there would be no necessity for guessing with respect to what would be the probable expenditure.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he believed the number of patents would be very much increased within the next two years, as he understood the proprietors of the Crystal Palace intended to give every facility for exhibiting patents in that building. He did not think there was any limit to mechanical invention in the present day. Within the last day or two he had heard of a gentleman in Lancashire who had invented a machine for excavating coal by steam power.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know if this was the only and the usual mode of paying the legal officers of the Crown, or whether it was mixed up with other payments. The mode of paying by fees he considered to be quite contrary to the system of legislation which was at present in vogue, and he could not understand why there should be these exceptions. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Lord the President of the Coun-

1393
cil, whether the question of paying the legal officers of the Crown by direct salaries had been under the consideration of the Government.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was no doubt that this sum did not constitute the whole amount which was paid by fees to the legal advisers of the Crown for professional work. It was well known that no legal practitioners were so ill paid for the amount and importance of the work done by them as the law officers of the Crown. The fees paid to them were so small that no other practitioners would be willing to take such arduous and important questions for so small a remuneration. When compared with the fees paid to other professional men in private practice, the fees received by the legal officers of the Crown were ludicrously small. The work of drawing out patents was occasionally arduous and important, requiring a great deal of research. He was, however, bound to state that the fees embraced by the present Vote were not the sole payments made to the law officers of the Crown.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Committee on Salaries had recommended that the law officers of the Crown should be paid by salary, and this matter had been under the decision of the Cabinet; but after careful deliberation, they had come to the opinion that it was not advisable to change the present system. He was of opinion that neither of the courses which could be pursued was so good as the one which was adopted at present. If salaries were given, they would be inferior to the amount which many eminent men in the profession might make by private practice; the consequence of which would be, that the offices of Attorney and Solicitor General would be refused by men of the highest authority, and that Government and the public interest would also be sufferers, inasmuch as Government would be obliged to have recourse to any man of high reputation in the law, who was enjoying a large practice, and they would have to pay him the fees which he usually received for his other business. The result of this would be that Government would have more to pay than they had under the present system, which he, for his own part, believed had worked beneficially for the public interest.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered the explanation of the noble Lord not satisfactory. Why not pay the law offi-
1394
cers of the Crown a salary as well as the Lord Chancellor, and all the other officers of the State? No one would complain of paying them a liberal salary. He quite agreed with the noble Lord, that the Government should have the services of the most eminent men in their profession. The offices of Attorney and Solicitor General were always considered as stepping stones to the bench.
Vote agreed to; as was also the next Vote—
(4.) 78,815 l., Merchant Seamen's Fund.
(5.) 25,500 l., Battersea Park.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he did not intend to oppose the present Vote, but he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a question of deep interest to the constituents of every metropolitan Member—namely, that of metropolitan improvement. Up to the present time it had been the custom of the First Commissioner of Works to undertake what were called "metropolitan improvements," and the source from which the expenses of those improvements were paid was sometimes by borrowing money from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, sometimes by advancing it from the Consolidated Fund, and at other times it was provided from resources which it was not necessary to particularise. Latterly it had been his lot to bring several metropolitan improvements under the notice of Government, and in 1850 he called upon the Chief Commissioner of Works, under the Government of his noble Friend the President of the Council, for the purpose of inducing him to undertake the formation of a park at Finsbury. The proposal was favourably entertained, but had not been carried into effect. In the present year the Government decided that, although the improvement might be necessary, it would be inexpedient for them to bring the subject of the Finsbury Park before the House. His right hon. Friend (Sir W. Molesworth) stated to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was of opinion that it was not fair to carry out metropolitan improvements by means of the money levied from the general taxes of the United Kingdom. Now, in that opinion he fully concurred; but the Government declined either to undertake these improvements at all, or to give the metropolis the necessary powers to undertake them. The right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) said that the matter was in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that he was

1395
ready to undertake the matter if it were sanctioned by the Government, but that he declined to take the initiative. Now, what he (Lord R. Grosvenor) complained of was, that, while the Government thus refused to undertake metropolitan improvements, the hands of the metropolis were entirely tied. Hitherto the Government had considered itself the trustee of the execution of all metropolitan improvements; but now that the Government had abrogated its function, all metropolitan improvement was at a complete stand. Owing to the conduct of the Corporation of the City of London, the public had lost the pleasant and healthful promenade which they ought to have had on the banks of the Thames, and now, for a space of five miles in a direct line northwards from the Thames, the whole of the sites were encased in brick and mortar. There used to be gardens in the New Road, the houses having been built at a distance of thirty or forty feet from the road; but, one after another, these gardens were being built over, and were becoming shops and residences, or both. Then, there were the White Conduit Gardens, and other tea-gardens in Pentonville and the district adjacent, but they were one by one being sold, and the open spaces were rapidly becoming covered with buildings. For five miles northwards from the banks of the, Thames there were now no open spaces of any description. This state of things was extremely deleterious and dangerous to the health of the inhabitants, especially to those who lived in the more densely populated portion of this district, and who were for the most part tied to the district, and unable to go in search of country air. There was a Vote of 27,500 l. for land at Kensington Gore, and another item of 140,000 l/ for the purchase of Burlington House. He concurred in the propriety of that purchase by the Government, but both these Votes were to come out of the general taxation. He wished his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) would tell the Committee how the metropolis was to go on if the Government would neither interfere in a matter affecting the health of the metropolis, nor allow any one else to interfere? If the Government threw off the responsibility, they were bound to state who was to assume it, and how these improvements were to be carried on. The Commissioners to inquire into the municipal government of the City of London had, in their Report, given a sketch of
1396
some boards of works to which all these great undertakings were to be referred; but not only were parks and pleasure grounds wanted, but many other things besides. There was the great question of the sewers, and another great question of the supply of water. The present Board of Sewers were in the act of dissolution, and no authority had yet been appointed to succeed them. He wished to impress upon the Government that, whatever project they might determine upon for obviating these most enormous evils, not a day should be lost in putting it in such a state of forwardness that it might be submitted to the metropolis and to Parliament.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he thought that the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defray the expense of a park for the people of Finsbury out of the general taxation would meet with the approval of the country at large, although it might not be satisfactory to the noble Lord. Why should the great anti wealthy City of London put its hands into the pockets of the public for the purpose of forming parks and pleasure grounds, when other large towns had subscribed considerable sums for similar objects? In Glasgow the sum of 90,000 l. had been subscribed last year for public parks. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Commissioner of Works had much better devote the money towards the improvement of the Government offices in the country, such as the Glasgow Post Office, which was in a most disgraceful state. He should, therefore, move that this Vote be rejected.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he hoped that the Committee would not agree to the Motion. He would state the circumstances of this Vote. The formation of a park at Battersea had been recommended in 1845 by the Metropolitan Improvement Commissioners, and in 1846 all Act of Parliament was passed for the formation of the park. The estimated expenditure upon the purchase of property and the works necessary to the formation of a park at Battersea was 308,000 l., while the amount applicable to this expenditure up to March, 1854, was 236,000 l., leaving a balance of 72,262 l. to be provided for the completion of the park. Of this sum it was proposed to vote 25,000 l. this year, leaving 47,262 l. to be provided for in the years 1855, 1856, and 1857. Although he did not expect to get back all this money, principal as well as interest, yet it was anticipated that by means of ground-rents a very considerable

1397
portion of the whole money advanced for the formation of the park would be returned. It had been estimated that within a few years after the park was completed 326,000 l. would be realised from ground rents. If the park should now be stopped a positive loss in a pecuniary point of view would be sustained by the country. The park was now nearly completed, and the Government had engaged to pay for some land lately purchased 23,000 l., of which 17,000 l. would be defrayed out of the present Vote. The Government would, therefore, be compelled to break engagements made under the sanction of Parliament if Glasgow the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow was carried. The whole area of the park was now purchased except a very small part, and by Michaelmas Day the area of the park would be open to the public. He had shown that the effect of the Amendment would be to prevent the public not only from enjoying the benefit of the park, but also from realising a. considerable sum of money which would go far to pay for the park. It was not true, as some hon. Members seemed to suppose, that the whole of the metropolitan improvements were paid for out of the general taxation of the country. On the contrary, a great portion was defrayed out of the coal duty, which was raised by the whole of the metropolis. He had last year stated that if the people of Finsbury would raise a considerable portion of the expense of a new park, the Government might be inclined to ask the House for a Vote in furtherance of the design. His noble Friend (Lord R. Grosvenor) had referred to the Finsbury Park. Now he had inquired the amount necessary, and was told that the Finsbury Park could be completed for about 250,000 l. He then stated, with the sanction of the Government, that if the people of Finsbury raised 200,000 l the Government would be prepared to apply to Parliament to Vote the balance. That proposal was not accepted by those who wished for the new park, and he had, accordingly, refused to give the notices for its formation. The Government had made this offer, because they considered, that as a park was to be made at Battersea, the people of Finsbury ought to receive some benefit from a public undertaking of the same kind.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he was under the impression that the statement made last year was, that the sum to be received in
1398
ground-rents, &c., from Battersea Park, would cover the outlay.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHhad stated that the receipts would pay off the capital, but he doubted whether they would cover the interest of the sums advanced by the Government as well.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the question of the formation of Finsbury Park assumed a different aspect at the present moment, because a great portion of the ground had, since the park was first. proposed, been purchased by speculators for building purposes. The present Government said that, if the district would raise a portion of the money, they would be ready to assist, but that they must have some proof of the desire of the district to have a park before they engaged the public funds for this purpose. There was a difficulty, he admitted, relative to the execution of metropolitan improvements, for which it would be desirable to have some remedy.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he would remind the noble Lord that what he had complained of was, that there were no means of raising money by the inhabitants of the metropolis for the purpose of metropolitan improvements; and he had asked whether, in the present state of the metropolis. the Government intended to leave this subject to be dealt with haphazard, or whether they would not introduce some large measure by which the inhabitants of the metropolis might make such improvements as they might deem desirable? As the Government appeared to have given up the execution of metropolitan improvements, he asked that some other means might be devised for promoting the health and comfort of this city.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that when the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London came to be considered next Session there might be some plan suggested of meeting the difficulty. At all events it would be necessary to deal with the subject of metropolitan improvements in the Bill which would be introduced founded upon that Report.
MR. SPOONERsaid, if large sums of money were to be constantly expended in forming public parks in the metropolis and Making other improvements, he should certainly put in a claim for his eon neighbourhood, and he would at once caution the noble Lord against making any promises, because if he once laid down the

1399
principle he might depend upon it that he would be required to carry it out in other places.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the proposed park at Battersea would confer great benefit upon a large number of human beings, there being about 500,000 persons in the metropolis on the Southwark side of the river who had no means whatever of resorting to a place where they could inhale the fresh air. Battersea Park was remarkably well situated on the banks of the Thames, and a large portion of the land had been already purchased for it. He did not support this Vote because he had the honour to represent persons in the neighbourhood, but upon public grounds. A large quantity of land was purchased for Battersea Park, and he had no doubt the land which the Government would have the power to dispose of would turn out most remunerative. No loss whatever would accrue to the public from this undertaking, and he (Mr. Williams) would raise no objection whatever to a vote for Finsbury or any other park, if it could be shown that such investments would be equally remunerative and useful. A great amount of money was spent to buy Holyrood Park for the citizens of Edinburgh, and money for the same purpose had since then been expended. As much as forty-five years' purchase was given for ground there. He hoped the hon. Member for Glasgow would not persevere with his Amendment. Why did not the hon. Member object to 15,000 l. for Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park, which might be said to be entirely for the gratification of the aristocracy. He hoped the Government would turn their attention to the whole question during the recess, but, in the meantime, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. DUNCANthought his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Hastie) had some grounds for his objection, considering that the large sum of 90,000 l. for a park had been subscribed in that city, and nothing whatever was granted by Government; at the same time he would not advise his hon. Friend to divide the Committee on the Vote, although he was perfectly right in calling the attention of the Committee to the question.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) did not put the matter quite fairly. In his opinion the real question should be, who
1400
were the proper parties that ought to provide the money for a public park for the recreation of people in the neighbourhood of Battersea? When the people of Manchester proposed to raise the large sum of 390,000 l. for a similar purpose, only 3,000 l. was granted by Sir Robert Peel towards the object. He thought it was high time for hon. Gentlemen who represented large constituencies to set themselves against such Votes as the present, which had reference only to the metropolis or its neighbourhood.
MR. JAMES M'GREGORsaid, that the hon. Member for Lambeth had recommended to the Government for its consideration the general wants of the metropolis in this respect; but he did not call attention to a special improvement which was much required. He believed the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works could tell them that already a large sum of money was set aside for the construction of a new road between London and Westminster Bridges on the Southwark side of the river, and no steps had yet been taken to carry out that undertaking, which was most urgently needed. He was afraid that, if something was not done soon, the opportunity would be lost altogether, as he belived that there were some conditions as to its completion within a certain time annexed to the grant. He should be glad to hear if the Government had any explanation to give upon that subject.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, it was perfectly true that a sum of 80,000 l. had been set aside for the purpose of making improvements in Southwark, although those improvements were not of the precise character mentioned by the hon. Member. It was true that the propriety of making a new road between London and Westminster Bridges was brought under his notice, but that would cost more than five times 80,000 l., and it was impossible, with the amount in hand, to attempt anything like such a work.
MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that, since the Crystal Palace had been opened, there had been a considerable increase of traffic in the borough of Southwark; the inhabitants felt great inconvenience, and he knew to a certainty that trade had been much injured from the circumstance of the proposed road not having been carried out. They were now about to advance a large sum of money

1401
for the improvement of Chelsea, Battersea, and the neighbourhood. He wished to know who lived there? It had been urged by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) that the improvement which would be introduced into Battersea would be a justification for this grant, but it was a singular fact, and one which was deserving the attention of the Committee, that, while all other portions of land in the metropolitan suburbs were daily improving and being built upon, that neighbourhood had not advanced for the last twenty-five years. From the railway station at Vauxhall Bridge up to Battersea and Chelsea scarcely any improvement had taken place during that period. The hon. Member for Lambeth said 500,000 people in Southwark had no place of recreation, but he (Mr. Brady) would call attention to the fact that they had Clapham Park, and the new park that was being made at Kennington, besides which, by crossing Westminster Bridge, they could go into St. James's and Hyde Parks. He thought it right to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that speculative people in London had wholly neglected this particular neighbourhood, and he was convinced that if it had been a situation likely to be improved, some of the capital spent in different portions of London would have found its way there long since. The fact was, it was a perfect swamp. He thought great caution ought to be observed in advancing the public moneys in such a manner as might improve private property without conferring a corresponding benefit on the public.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that, while the hon. Member for Lambeth was quite willing to spend the public money on the improvement of the metropolis in his neighbourhood, he was prepared to cheesepare and cut down the sums voted for such improvements in Ireland. If he (Mr. V. Scully) did not oppose the present Vote, he should expect equal generosity for the Irish Votes. He thought there was great inconsistency in metropolitan Members constantly attacking recipients of public money in Ireland in the most opprobrious language, and stigmatising them as a parcel of beggars. There appeared to be so much inclination to centralise Irish establishments in the metropolis that he should not be surprised at a serious proposition to amalgamate and centralise Phœmix Park in Hyde Park.
(6.) 35,000 l.., Chelsea Embankment and Public Roadway.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he considered this a mere job for the benefit of Mr. Cubitt and the Marquess of Westminster, and he should like to know what contribution these personages were going to make towards the expense? He entirely objected to the Vote.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that though it might be expedient to complete these works, as they were begun, yet he hoped the Government would not enter upon any more such undertakings, which might be better left to that private spirit and enterprise which were found quite sufficient for such improvements in other towns.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Michell) would divide the Committee against the Vote. The laxity with which the national money was expended by the Government for metropolitan jobs was monstrous.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he felt it his duty to vindicate the Vote, the purposes of which had been in the most decided manner, and repeatedly, sanctioned by Parliament, as purposes of public utility. As to Mr. Cubitt, he had made a portion of the embankment at his own expense in the most admirable manner, and the Marquess of Westminster had undertaken to contribute as much towards the expenditure as should be deemed by the Government a fair contribution on his part.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that, when he was in office in 1850, he had been disposed to think that the expenditure upon Battersea Park would be so extravagant that Parliament had better consent to pay the forfeits upon the contracts made and give up the plan; but he had found upon further inquiry, that the Government was so involved in all sorts of engagements, under Acts of Parliament, that it would he cheaper to go on than to stop. Certainly, as the matter now stood, the more economical course would be to complete the park and the works connected with it as soon as possible, so as the earlier to realise the returns to which his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Molesworth) had adverted.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) 3,393 l., British Ambassador's House, Paris.
MR. AYSIIFORD WISEsaid, he had called attention to a similar Vote of last year, amounting to 9,234 l., which had led to the very singular Report of Mr, Albano,

1403
the architect of the Public Works Commissioners, a document that contained some astonishing and disgusting details with respect to the state of the house and furniture. It was the duty of the Board of Works to see that the house was in a state of proper repair, as a large sum was annually voted for keeping it up; but Mr. Albano said that the furniture was infested with vermin, the floors tumbling in, and the whole place full of rats. This palace cost 30,000 l. in 1815, and the nation had since expended 40,000 l. upon it, and considering that some 700 l. or 800 l. were voted every year for repairs, he must say he thought there was great negligence at the office of Works. He (Mr. Wise) wished to know how much of the furniture belonged to the nation, and also what was the object of fitting up the drawing-room as a chapel, at an expense of nearly 400 l., and the spending more than 300 l. in converting the dining-room into a place of worship for the ambassador and the fashionables who frequented Paris. He certainly thought that such expenditure ought to be checked. He wished also to know what had been done with respect to a scheme which had been concocted by a few individuals calling themselves "the English in Paris," but who in reality were three individuals who composed a public meeting, a committee, and a deputation to the Government. A proposal was submitted to build an English church in Paris, founded on the assumption that there was not sufficient accommodation for the English who visited that capital. Now, it was notorious that there were three large churches in Paris for English Episcopalians, which, except for a short season, were never more than half full, and he would ask, therefore, if Her Majesty's Government had given any encouragement to such a scheme? He saw a great increase in the annual Vote for these chapels abroad, and thought these charges worthy the attention of the Committee. Besides 3,000 l. for a church at Constantinople, he found in other parts of the Estimates a Vote for 7,500 l. for the support of chapels in foreign countries, and a further sum of 1,300 l. for chaplains attached to embassies. In 1844 the Vote was 4,000 l.; in 1849, 5,000 l.; in 1850, 5,500 l.; in 1832, 6,000 l.; and in 1853, 6,500 l. He thought it his duty to call the attention of the Committee to this gradual increase, and to protest against the system of making Parliament a more registry court of foregone conclusion, and of voting
1404
money to pay for the past instead of asking money for the future. He saw an item for building a cemetery wall at Madrid of 1,400 l.; but he happened to know that the work was doing—that Mr. Albano, the architect, was at Madrid superintending the work, and that thus the House was called on to pay for what it had never sanctioned. He must say that he thought it was very inexpedient that the Government should first incur large expenses, make purchases, and direct the expenditure of large sums of money all over the world, and afterwards come to Parliament to sanction the outlay. Such a system of voting away the nation's money was unsatisfactory, and certainly was not agreeable to the notion that hon. Members were the guardians of the public purse.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, an estimate had been submitted to the House last Session for repairing and furnishing the Ambassador's house at Paris, which amounted to 9,213 l. and which had been prepared by direction of the former Government. Of this sum 5,820 l. was voted in 1853, and a balance of 3,393 l. remained to be voted this year. Every ten years or so it was necessary to do up a building, but he hoped the house would not again fall into that bad state in which it certainly was last year.
MR. J. WILSON,in answer to the inquire made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Wise) about the building of a chapel in Paris, said, that a proposal to this effect had been made to the Government; the answer given was, that if the residents in Paris were prepared to raise among themselves—according to the usual practice in the case of such grants—half the amount asked for, the Government would take into consideration the propriety of making an advance. The Government, however, were told that was not likely to be the case, and there the matter dropped, no sum of money being granted.
Vote agreed to, as were the following—
(8.) 10,900 l., Lighthouses Abroad.
(9.) 2,500 l., Royal Dublin Society Building.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
(10.) "That a sum not exceeding 27,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, for the year ending the 31st day of March 1850, towards the purchase by the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851, of certain additional Lands at Kensington Gore, necessary for the purpose of the New National Gallery and other Institutions connected with Science and the Arts,"
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to

1405
know whether a National Gallery was to be erected in this place.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was absolutely necessary that the Committee should know something about what the ultimate expense would be. Unless they had some distinct and clear statement as to the object for which this money was wanted, the Committee ought to make a stand against this Vote.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that 150,000 l. had already been voted on account of this land at Kensington, and as far as he could ascertain, they had no statement of what was the quantity of land for which they were paying this large amount, or even of its exact locality. He considered Kensington a very inconvenient place for an institution of art, both as regarded the public and the artists who wished to avail themselves of the institution for the purposes of study.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in 1852 the Government obtained a Vote of 150,000 l., which together with another 150,000 l., the surplus funds from the Great Exhibition, were applied to the purchase of a magnificent and very eligible plot of land, about ninety acres in extent, at Kensington Gore. The bargain was an exceedingly profitable one, and many private individuals would like to take it off their hands at the terms they gave for it. But there was a small wedge-shaped piece of ground running from the Hammersmith Road to the centre of the property, and upon which a very bad description of tenements were situated, which greatly diminished the value of the whole of the land. An Act had therefore been obtained by the Commissioners to buy this small piece of land, and these miserable tenements, and appropriate a sum as compensation to the owners. A Committee of that House last year decided that the National Gallery should be removed to this spot, and he hoped that decision would be inflexibly adhered to; but, at all events, it was manifest that this small additional outlay of 27,500 l. would be more than counter-balanced by the enhanced value it would give to the whole of the rest of the property.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he hoped the Committee would require from Government a statement of its intentions before they voted this money, and also whether Government intended to carry out the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commissioners of 1851. With re-
1406
gard to the block of land which was originally to serve for the erection of a building for scientific societies, that project was opposed by the societies themselves, who said the site was inconvenient, and if their societies were removed there it would prove their destruction. He believed the plan was then entertained of erecting a new National Gallery on the land, but he thought the distance was so great, persons would not go so far to see the pictures. He would only say that he hoped Government would not attempt the expensive and impracticable plan of fostering scientific objects by large grants of public money. With regard to the Committee relative to the new National Gallery, he must say he thought the appointment of the members was conducted on an unfair principle. He thought on a subject of such magnitude, there ought to be a special Committee appointed to take the whole question into consideration. He also objected to the employment of police in the interior of public institutions. If the police were so numerous as to require to be employed in such labours, he thought they ought to be reduced forthwith. He had asked Government to lay on the table the plan of Sir Charles Barry, as that plan did not propose to remove all the societies to Kensington Gore, but only to have some of them in that locality, and to concentrate the scientific departments at the British Museum. All he wanted was, that Government would give an assurance that they would enter upon no career of change and expenditure, without due deliberation and the consent of Parliament. He thought that such an institution as that contemplated at Kensington Gore would injure and interfere with the interests of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. If no one else made the Motion, he should move that the Vote be rejected.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was not at all consistent with his argument. The hon. Member said, he had no objection to complete the purchase, and what he did object to was, that the Committee should be pledged to apply this ground to the erection of a National Gallery; but the Committee would not be at all pledged by this Vote to do any such thing. According to the views of the Government the ground should be bought and the National Gallery should be erected on the ground; but all the Government now asked was, that the purchase made by the late Government

1407
should be improved, by the additional purchase of a piece of land which would make what had been already bought far more valuable. By next year the Government would consider the subject very maturely, and if they should continue of the opinion that the National Gallery should be built on the ground, the matter would be submitted to the House. But the Government certainly agreed with the Commission appointed three years ago, and with the Committee that sat last year, that there are reasons against maintaining the National Gallery in its present position. In the first place, it was very difficult to obtain space for additional pictures that might be expected to arrive from time to time; and in the next place, the pictures were exposed there to great injury; but if they were removed to Kensington Gore, and to a more spacious building erected there, they would not be thus liable to injury. The hon. Gentleman also said it would be impossible to expect people to go so far as Kensington Gore to see the pictures, but it was well known that persons went a great deal further than that for a similar object. As many as 11,000 persons attended on one day at Sydenham, which was a greater distance from London than Kensington Gore. There were other proposals made by the Royal Commissioners with respect to the disposal of this ground, one for the benefit of learned societies who might or might not be inclined to adopt any proposal of the kind, and another for education and arts connected with manufactures, which he thought would be of very essential use to this country. There was also at present a large collection at Marlborough House, and that was another reason why the ground should be devoted to the purpose proposed. At all events, the purchase was not an unwise purchase, for the ground in itself was very valuable, and provided the House of Commons was of opinion that the land was unfit for any of the purposes to which the Government proposed to devote it, the ground might sold at probably a much advanced price. They could then repay the 150,000 l. contributed by the Royal Commissioners, and they would be able to apply that 150,000 l. to any other purpose they might think conducive to the ends of the Exhibition of 1851. The hon. Gentleman would see that by refusing this grant he would not at all attain his object. All he would attain was, that the inconvenient piece of ground
1408
running into the land already purchased would be kept out of the purchase, and that thereby the land that was bought would be made less valuable than otherwise it would be. Whatever might be the ultimate decision, it was desirable to make the purchase of this ground; and he begged to state at the same time that it was the opinion of the Government that a plan should be proposed to the House for the erection of a National Gallery on that site. But no plan was yet settled, the House of Commons was not called upon to vote a single shilling for it, and the wish of the hon. Gentleman, that that question should be deferred to next year, was therefore completely fulfilled.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he must complain that they were asked to vote a sum of money for a purpose that could not be realised, the societies connected with science having unanimously declared that they would not go to Kensington Gore.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, that if the public, as stated by the noble Lord, went to a greater distance than Kensington Gore, they went for a very different purpose besides that of seeing pictures; and the present site of the National Gallery, he considered, was more convenient. Manufacturers were better able to get artists than Government were able to get them for them; and if they were to take Marlborough House as an example, he might remark that though a pattern had been declared there to be an incorrect specimen of art, there had been sold of that very pattern 40,000 l. to 50,000 l. worth. He did not believe, therefore, that the gentlemen sitting in judgment upon those things were such very good judges of what the public required.
MR. PETOsaid, the land which had been purchased by Government, if it were sold to-morrow, would bring a profit of at least 100,000 l. He hoped the Vote would be agreed to, as the bargain was a good speculation.
MR. SPOONERsaid, though we were not bound by the preamble of the Vote, yet when the question of the new National Gallery came before the House they would be told, "How can you object to a Vote for the new gallery, when you have agreed to this Vote?" If the hon. Member (Mr. D. Seymour) persevered in his Amendment, he should support it. He thought that there must be some peculiar pressure outside the House to induce the Government, at a time like the present, to carry

1409
out a plan which, in a time of affluence and with a prospect of peace, they would not be justified in doing. It was the duty of that House to stand between the Minister and that pressure. He believed if they had been independent of that pressure that they would not have proposed this Vote.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) that there was some pressure out of doors that did not act upon the Government, and he hoped they would be bound by that action, and that was—the generally diffused idea that they should elevate the taste of the people of this country; and this was one of the first steps to attain that important object. This was really an addition to the Vote which he had the honour to recommend to the House when the sum of 150,000 l., contributed by the shillings of the people of the country, was proposed by the Royal Commissioners to be devoted to the advancement of the arts and sciences; they having applied at the same time to the Government to know whether they would recommend to Parliament to contribute an equal sum in order to accomplish that object. It was generally believed that that object would be best accomplished by buying a considerable piece of ground, which would be the future theatre of their operations; and when he had the honour of proposing that the House should vote an equal sum to that which was contributed by the Royal Commissioners as the residue of the accumulation of the receipts received from the Exhibition of 1851, it was at that time well known, both to himself and to all those acquainted with the circumstances, that there would be a future necessity for asking for a Supplementary Vote of this description. It was not concealed; and if they did not dwell upon it, it was only because they were of opinion that if it was stated that there was this small segment of laud which they were desirous of obtaining, those in possession would be ready to take advantage of their anxiety to get it. If they dwelt upon the necessity of obtaining that small segment or wedge of land, of course the price would be increased, and that was the only reason why they had not placed the point ostentatiously before the public. He begged to call the attention of the Committee to the evidence of the secretary of the Royal Commission, Mr. Edgar Bowring, who was examined on the subject, and who stated that it was scarcely advisable to ender into particulars with reference to this piece of
1410
ground. If they had entered into great detail as to the extreme necessity and advantage of obtaining this wedge of ground, or entered into any narrative of that kind, there was no doubt if it could be obtained at all, it would be only obtained at a greater cost, and that was the only reason why the Supplementary Vote had been postponed. The Government were asking the Committee to sanction an arrangement to which a year and a half ago they had given their assent without a division, and so far as this Vote was concerned the Committee should feel they were acting on a pledge previously made, and in a prudent manner by giving their assent to it. By doing so they would not pledge themselves to erect the National Gallery at Kensington Gore. The plan for doing so must be offered in detail to the House of Commons, and the House would have an opportunity of discussing the propriety of the proposition when brought forward for their consideration. They might have great difficulties to encounter before all the objects which they contemplated were achieved, but he should be quite satisfied if the Committee would then agree to a Vote to which they must see there was no fair objection.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he had been of opinion that they could not agree to the Vote without pledging themselves to the erection of the National Gallery at Kensington Gore, but from what had been said by the noble Lord he did not then think that question would be decided by their voting that 27,000 l.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to withdraw his Amendment, but if so, he (Mr. Spooner) would not consent to its withdrawal, because he was resolved to have his vote recorded against the cornmencement of a plan that would involve the country in a most expensive undertaking.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he thought, after the experience they had of the building of the Houses of Parliament, they should not heedlessly embark in another great work, because they might have to regret that they had ever entered into it. He felt quite sure that the institution for whose benefit they were about to erect this great building would not take advantage of it when it was erected. The House of Commons should insist that a specific plan, with die expense, should be laid before theta before they embarked in a project of which

1411
they could neither know the expense nor limit. By that Vote to-night they would be laying the foundation of other Votes, which would lead to the same result as had been experienced with respect to the building of the Houses of Parliament, and he would, therefore, most willingly vote for the rejection of the Vote, unless they received an explanation with respect to the ultimate object and expense of this undertaking.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the Vote were carried, the course the Government would adopt would be to consider the different plans which might be offered for the erection of the proposed building, and to choose that which seemed best adapted for the objects in view. The Estimates for the purpose would then be proposed next year, and at that time all explanations required would be given. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, he must remind him that before the Houses of Parliament were commenced estimates and plans were made, and that it was not so much the doing of the Government of the day that Sir Charles Barry's plans were adopted as of the Members of the two Houses generally. For his own part, he should have been better satisfied with a plainer and cheaper building, but noble Lords and hon. Members would not have it so.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that it was stated in the Vote that it was necessary for the purpose of the National Gallery, but it was now universally admitted that it was not necessary for that purpose; and he suggested, therefore, that those words should be omitted, or that the Vote should be withdrawn for the present, and again proposed in an unobjectionable form.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he wished to know whether, if the Committee assented to this grant, the noble Lord the Lord President would give an assurance that before any further Vote was taken in order to carry out the scheme for the removal of the various institutions, which had been referred to, to Kensington Gore, a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the necessity of such removal?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must decline to give such a pledge.
Question put; the Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 48: Majority 121.
Vote agreed to; as was also the next Vote—
(11.) 5,000 l., Australia Expedition.
(12.) 2,800 l., Cholera in Jamaica.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he would take that occasion to ask whether Her Majesty's Ministers were aware that cholera had broken out in the island of Jamaica, and whether any steps had been taken to furnish additional medical assistance to the inhabitants of that island?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was very sorry to say that the cholera had broken out both at Jamaica and Barbadoes, but the Government had received no information that there was any want of medical assistance in either of these islands. He regretted, however, to have to inform the Committee that the House of Assembly at Jamaica had declined to provide the funds for sending the requisite medical and other assistance.
SIR JOHN PARINGTONsaid, he did not consider the answer of the right hon. Gentleman at all satisfactory. This was not solely a West Indian question; but it was one in which our own sailors and soldiers stationed in those islands were concerned. Frightful ravages had been made by this disease in those Colonies; further medical assistance ought to be rendered; and the only reason it was not was, that the Government were afraid to apply to the Committee for a Vote to enable them to take the necessary precautions against visitations of this disease.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that when the cholera broke out before, three medical inspectors were sent out from this country. One of them died, but another had made a most useful Report with reference to the best course to be taken, either as to precautions against future visitations, or for the actual treatment of the disease. That information had been placed at the disposal of the Colonial Governments. But if the Government were not only to provide a medical staff for the treatment of the disease when it actually existed in the West Indies, but also to take measures in anticipation of its visitations, there was no saying what expense might be thrown upon this country.
MR. MILESsaid, he must express his deep regret at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and his strong sense of disapprobation of the course which the Government were pursuing.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies had not correctly stated the purport of his remarks. All that he wished was, that

1413
the Government should again send out medical inspectors, in the same manner as was done by Earl Grey when this epidemic last visited the West Indies.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) Register, High Court of Admiralty.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he wished to make a short explanation with respect to the nature of the Vote and the reasons why it had been placed upon the Estimates. The Committee were aware that the High Court of Admiralty was an independent Court, and that its Registrar was, neither with respect to his acts nor the management of his accounts, placed under the control of that House. Now, the late Registrar had, of his own free motion, admitted the existence of a large defalcation in his accounts, that defalcation never having been suspected by either the Judge or any of the other officers of the Court. A Committee had been appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and the fraud having been fully established, it became the duty of the Government to lay bands upon all the property of the Registrar; and the Committee were of opinion that that property would be found sufficient to cover the whole of the amount of the defalcation. Now, it had been found that certain sums of money which were due to the suitors of the Court of Chancery, and which had been placed by order of the Judge in the hands of the late Registrar of the Court of Admiralty, had been included in the defalcation, and upon consultation with the Board of Admiralty Her Majesty's Ministers had deemed it would be unfair—although they possessed no control over the Registrar, yet, as he was a public officer, and the suitors in question laboured under the conviction that their interests would be protected by the general supervision of the Government—to allow those suitors to suffer any pecuniary loss. Under these circumstances it was that the Vote now under their notice had been placed upon the Estimates.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, the hon. Gentleman was correct in stating that this was an extraordinary case, but he was not so correct in stating that no blame attached to any one. It was quite true that the Registrar was appointed by Act of Parliament, and not by the Government, but it did not follow that the Government should not have exacted from him what was exacted in the case of any other officer, namely, some surety for the money which
1414
passed through his hands. There must have been some negligence on the part of the superintending officers that some security was not taken for the good behaviour of the Registrar, for he found that, by an Act of Parliament passed in 1813, it was expressly enacted that the Registrar of the Court of Admiralty should not have more than 10,000 l. in hand at any one time, and that the surplus should be paid into the Bank. If that Act had been enforced, how could the Registrar have been a defaulter for 25,000 l.? In November, 1853, a Treasury Minute appointed three gentlemen to inquire how these defalcations had occurred. Their Report had only been delivered that morning, and until the House had had an opportunity of considering it the Vote ought to be postponed.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, by the Act of Parliament in question, there was no Member of the Government, nor any department of the Government that had the slightest control over that Court or any of its officers. As, however, the Report of the Committee was only asked for last night, and was not yet distributed, he was ready to consent to the postponement of the Vote until Members had had an opportunity of perusing it.
MR. OTWAYasked whether security had been taken from the new Registrar of the Court of Admiralty?
MR. J. WILSONreplied, that security had been taken from the new Registrar, and, moreover, that the office would be brought under the annual control of Parliament by a Vote.
Vote postponed.
House resumed.

MILITIA (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read,
MR. MILESsaid, he was willing to admit that this Bill was a great Amendment upon the Bill of last year, but he objected to its being proceeded with at so late an hour (a quarter past twelve o'clock). The Bill of last Session had passed without any discussion upon the immense imposition then placed upon the county rate. In former days the counties had to afford storehouses for the militia arms, but that never used to cost more than 50 l. for one regiment, or 100 l. for two. But, by the Bill of last Session, the counties had to find not only storehouses, but what he might call a barrack, which was to contain rooms for the sergeant-major and the permanent staff. Ground, also, had to be

1415
provided to enable the whole militia regiment to be assembled, and to deliver their arms at any time. This was an immense expense to counties. The militia were now a national force, and if storehouses were required, the nation ought to pay for them. Some day ought to be appointed for the discussion of this Bill, when it could be carefully considered.
MR. IRTONsaid, he also must protest against the Bill. The tendency of the legislation of recent years had been to give the ratepayers some control over the rates; but this measure proceeded in a directly opposite course, for it not only took all power out of the hands of the magistrates, but transferred it to the deputy lieutenants alone. Now that was a principle totally at variance with the principle by which that House professed to be guided, and contrary also to the principle of the measure which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had promised to introduce with regard to county rates, but which measure, like so many others that were promised, had never yet seen the light.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would not press the second reading of the Bill at that late hour of the night, if hon. Gentlemen wished to have the opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to it. He must be allowed to say, however, after what had passed, that the obligation to find storehouses was not a new obligation on the counties. It was imposed by the old militia laws, especially by the Act 42 Geo. III.; and the objection taken by the hon. Member who last spoke—namely, that it was the deputy lieutenants who had to determine—was not a new enactment. That also was the standing law provided in the same Act of 42 Geo. III. It was quite a misnomer to call these storehouses barracks, because all that was required was lodging for a small portion of the staff, amounting to a very few men; and if, on the one hand, any additional accommodation was required, on the other hand the expense was thrown over a long period of time. Therefore, the real annual charge to the county was much less than it otherwise would have been. It was also said that this was a national force, and that the burden ought to be borne by the country; but let it be recollected if the Government, or the Government of Gentlemen opposite, who had the merit of setting on foot the militia, had had recourse to the provisions of the 42 Geo. III., and enforced the ballot, that
1416
would have entailed on counties a great deal more expense, trouble, and inconvenience than had arisen from the system of voluntary enlistment, and the public had taken upon themselves the expense of that voluntary enlistment. If country gentlemen would consider the two sides of the account, they would find that the counties were the gainers by the arrangement which had been adopted. He would not then, however, go further into the subject, but postpone the order until Monday, with the view of taking some early day after that for reading the Bill a second time.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must express a hope that the House would be afforded sufficient time for considering the measure; and that the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) would endeavour to devise some convenient machinery for dividing the burdens between the towns and the counties.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS BILL.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had intended to bring in a Bill to reorganise the Sewers Commission, but it was suggested to him that as the Corporation Inquiry Commissioners were likely to make some suggestions with regard to the whole metropolis, he had better wait for their Report. It had now been presented, but too late to act on it this Session; he had, therefore, to propose a Bill to continue the existing Commission for twelve months, giving them power to raise money for such works as might be necessary during that period; but none of the great works were to be commenced till the reorganisation of the Commission.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he hoped that in the meantime something, would be done to improve the sewerage of the district of Belgravia, which was in a most disgraceful state.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the Commission would be able to undertake any work of absolute necessity. He hoped that when it was reorganised it would contain some elective members, the representatives of the boards of guardians and corporation of the metropolis.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he wished to know exactly what amount the present Commission would be authorised to raise.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the amount asked for was 300,000 l., but he would cause a detailed statement of

1417
the proposed works to be laid before the House.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Fitzroy.
Bill read 1o.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL.
VISCOUNT PALMER STUNthen moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the continuance of the Board of Health, the object of which was to amend the Public Health Act of 1848. The alteration which he proposed to effect by this Bill was that the Board should be continued for two years; its members would be appointed by, and removal at the pleasure of, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from whom it should receive orders and directions. It appeared to him that the care of the public health was properly a part of the duties of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and he hoped, by the power proposed to be vested in the Secretary of State, to remove the evils which had resulted from differences between local communities and the Board of Health. At present that Board was in the anomalous position of being subject to no official control and of not being represented in that House, so that there was really no one who was answerable for anything which might be urged against it. The alterations which he proposed to make by this Bill would place it under the control of an official and responsible department, and would present to Parliament a public officer answerable for any of the proceedings of the Board which might be called in question.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he should not object to any Bill to deal with the Board of Health, as he thought it impossible that even the ingenuity of the noble Lord could place it in a worse position than it was. At the same time, he did not think that the scheme of the noble Lord was likely to improve matters much.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he hoped that a sufficient time would be allowed to elapse between the first and second reading of the Bill for its provisions to be considered by the country. He did not approve of the scheme proposed, and thought it would be better to constitute this Board like the Poor Law Board.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount Palmerston and Mr. Fitzroy.
Bill read 1o.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.