Commons Sitting of 18 July 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BIllS.—1° Duchy of Cornwall Office; Marriage Acts.
2° Indian Appointments, &c.; Spirits (Ireland); Medical Graduates (Ireland and Scotland).
Reported—Vaccination Act Amendment.
3° Jamaica loan; Royal Military Asylum; Criminal Justice.

VACCINATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. BRADYsaid, he would beg to suggest to the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), who had charge of this Bill, the propriety of deferring its further progress, because our present system of vaccination was conducted on a mistaken principle. He thought it was not right that the time of the House should be taken up in legislating upon a subject which was not yet understood, especially with the certainty that it would be necessary to legislate again upon it next year. It was quite impossible that this Bill could be

369
worked in its present form. So long as our vaccination system was administered under the Poor law Board, and as the persons who were brought in contact with it were thereby stamped with the mark of pauperism, it was utterly impossible that the object which the House had in view could be attained. It was impossible, by the means embodied in this Bill, to secure an adequate supply of good lymph. He felt sure that if our present system were continued, the ravages of small-pox would be materially extended. By the first clause of this Bill it was not to come into operation until February next. He would, therefore, suggest that they should not now proceed with this Bill, but that previously to next Session the subject should be inquired into, and he had no doubt that a good practical measure might then be introduced. Under these circumstances, he would move that the Bill should be committed that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "This House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"— instead thereof.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the principle of this Bill had been affirmed in the last Session of Parliament, and this measure was merely introduced to correct two errors in the Act of last Session. One was, that a wrong number of days was prescribed, at the end of which the child was to be brought before the medical man for examination; and the other was, that in the Act of last Session no sufficient mode of recovering the penalties was enacted. There were also two or three clauses inserted by the request of the Registrar General. He could not, under the circumstances, assent to the postponement of the Bill.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to:—Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to throwing the expense of the vaccination system upon the poor rates. That was, in fact, to impose a new burden upon the land, which was already sufficiently taxed.
MR. BAINESsaid, that the principle of making the vaccination system a charge upon the poor rates had been affirmed in 1840 and 1841.
MR. HENLEYcould see no reason why they should not attempt to redress an injustice, if one had been inflicted.
MR. BRADYsaid, that it seemed to him to be very undesirable, that the vaccination stations should be at the workhouses.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he wished to hear the opinion of the Government, not only upon the present Bill, but upon the Act of last year. Did they think that the principle which the House then adopted was a good one?
MR. BARROWsaid, he also thought it was undesirable to pass the present Bill. He had a strong objection to throwing additional charges upon the poor rates.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he wished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor law Board the view the Government took of the measure of last year, and in the absence of such explanation, he proposed to throw out the clause altogether, in order to throw upon them the responsibility of legislating on the subject.
MR. BAINES, in answer to the appeal made to him by the noble Member for Totness (lord Seymour), as to his opinion of the Act of last year, said he was not present when that Act was passed, and he was, therefore, personally in no way responsible for it. But such an Act having been passed by the legislature, he had felt it his duty to endeavour to carry it out in the sense which he understood the legislature intended. For himself, he entertained doubts, whether it was the wise course to place the vaccination in connection with the Poor law in any way; but Parliament having taken a different view, his duty was simply to carry out the law as he found it. With regard to the present Bill, the Committee was aware that the Act of last year contained a provision that the child should be brought to the medical man for vaccination on the eighth day, and imposed a penalty on the parent for neglect; but it had since been discovered that the eighth day was the wrong day, and that it should have been the seventh. To cure that fault, therefore, this Bill was necessary. With regard to the charge, the Act of last Session having received the sanction of the legislature, it was better, in order to carry out that law, to place the charge upon the poor rate instead of the Consolidated Fund. If it was thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, it would be difficult to say what jobbery might take

371
place, or what the extent of the expenditure would be, and therefore he thought it more desirable that the control should be with those who paid the money.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONbegged to observe, that this clause had been introduced at the request of the Registrar General.
MR. BRADYsaid, he doubted whether the alteration of the Bill, from the eighth to the seventh day, was an improvement. He thought that in this climate the eighth was the proper day for bringing the child to the medical man.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTONsaid, that the opinion expressed by the right hon. President of the Poor law Board amounted to a condemnation of the Bill. He would therefore recommend the postponement of the measure.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that as doubts had been expressed as to the alteration of the day, and, after the opinions expressed in favour of the withdrawal of the Bill, he should recommend the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) to consent to withdraw all the clauses but the second. Next Session the whole matter might be referred to a Select Committee, who might inquire how the Bill of last Session had worked.
MR. MICHELLsaid, that medical men all over the country declared that they were unable to carry out the provisions of the Bill of last year. He was opposed to it on constitutional grounds—as no parents ought to be compelled to have their children vaccinated.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, with respect to the course to be taken with the Bill, he could only say that it was not his Bill, having come down from the other House; but he thought legislation on the subject laudable. He did not feel justified in abandoning the Bill.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he did not object to the principle of the Bill, but only to the mode of carrying out the details. He would refer to the difficulty of carrying out the clause compelling the parent to take the child for inspection a certain day after being vaccinated. He would, therefore, propose to reject all the clauses except the second, so as to leave the question to be dealt with generally next Session.
MR. BRADYsaid, that small-pox was more prevalent than usual this year, and that arose from the Act of last Session absolutely operating to prevent medical men from vaccinating with the necessary facility.
MR. BARROWmoved that the Chair-
372
man leave the chair, with the view of getting rid of the Bill.
MR. FITZROYhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press that Motion, because it was important that the second clause of the Bill which related to the penalties should be passed.
MR. BARROWsaid, that on the understanding that the Bill would be confined only to the second clause, he would not press his Motion.
Clause 1 put, and negatived; Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3,
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, if this clause was not passed, it would reverse the legislation of last Session enacting compulsory vaccination, which he thought desirable. He could not abandon the clause.
The clause was then put, and negatived, as were all the other clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported as amended.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. GAYLEYsaid, he wished to propose the following instruction to the Committee—
"That it is expedient in this Bill, renewing the Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 104, to define more clearly the intention of the following words in the first clause of that Act, namely, 'It shall be lawful for any Ecclesiastical Corporation, sole or aggregate, with the approval in writing of the Church Estate Commissioners, who shall pay due regard to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of lands, under lease or otherwise, arising from the long-continued practice of renewal, to sell to any lessee, under any lease granted by such corporation, the reversion, estate, and interest of such corporation in all or any of the lands comprised in such lease, for such consideration, upon such terms, and in such manner as such corporation and lessee may, with such approval as aforesaid, think fit'"
He thought it right that the attention of the House should be called to this question, and he, moreover, wished to call to the recollection of the House what had taken place many years since, when the present lord Monteagle, then Mr. Spring Rice, introduced a Bill on the subject, and reminded the House that Parliament had decided that due regard should be paid to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of land, whether under lease or otherwise. In the year 1832 the Real Property Commissioners recommended that a final settlement should take place between the Church and the laity on the basis of customary payments. In the Agricultural Com-

373
mittee of 1833, a plan was suggested in favour of the uniform settlement of the tithe question at the rate of 75 per cent; but the noble lord the President of the Council stated that it had been the custom of Devonshire from time immemorial to pay only 40 to 50 per cent, and that it would be absolute confiscation to come down to the House, and say that the persons who had paid only 40 or 50 per cent should be called upon to pay 75 per cent. The noble lord accordingly brought in a Bill in the year 1836 to settle the tithe question precisely on the basis of customary payments. After the year 1837 Parliament began to interfere between the landlord and the tenant, and the lessor and the lessee. The parties were previously competent to drive a bargain with each other; but when Parliament backed one party to stand out against the other, the other had no chance whatever, and that was the injustice of which, practically, the lessee had to complain. In 1850, when the Estates Commissioners Bill passed, which enabled the Bishops to transfer their material interests into the hands of the Estates Commissioners, and to accept in return a fixed income, he had asked his noble Friend (lord J. Russell) whether that Bill would prejudice the lessees' case; and his noble Friend said "No, no." But the House would observe how it had very materially prejudiced it; for when once the tenure was changed, and the power to lease was transferred from a dying body like the bishop to the hands of an undying body like the Commission, the Commission might choose to say that they would not renew, and, consequently, the indirect effect of passing the Estates Commission Act had been to prejudice very materially the lessees' interests. That was not carrying out the intentions of Parliament as expressed in the Act of 1851, or providing that due regard should be paid to the just and reasonable claims of the holders of lands under lease or otherwise. The Bill of 1851 having passed as a permissive Act, he (Mr. Cayley) was in hopes that at the expiration of the three years his noble Friend would have brought in a compulsory measure in order to effect a settlement of the question. In 1851 the principle of the compensation of the lessee where loss was sustained by him was affirmed by Parliament, but it was done in a singularly vague manner, and no general discussion had taken place. If the noble lord the President of the Council was re-
374
ferred to, to state the sum at which the amount of compensation should be fixed, he would have no fear of the result. For a period of 200 years successive renewals of church leases had been allowed, and such was the confidence felt in the continuance of the system that settlements in some parts had been made with reference to them. The tenure was peculiarly popular among the yeomanry of the country, as by it that class became virtually proprietors of the land, and in the diocese of Durham, where one or two cases of disputed title occurred, it was not the bishop or the dean who came forward to vindicate it, but the lessee, who, it was considered, was most interested in the question. Such entire reliance had been placed upon that custom in the diocese that nearly the whole of the town of South Shields had been built upon leasehold land. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House was, that the Estates Commissioners based their calculations on the lives actually in the leases. Now that rule would press very hardly upon the holders of leases, particularly of small properties; because, in consequence of the reliance which had been placed on obtaining renewals, the lives were frequently not in so favourable a state for the lessee as they might have been. After all, this came to a question of extracting more from the lessees than they had been in the habit of paying. The plan which the Government proposed in 1837 would have had the effect of taking 250,000 l. a year more out of their pockets than they had previously been charged with. This, at thirty years' purchase, amounted to 7,500,000 l. The Church Estate Commissioners, however, according to the system they had pursued, would take 12,000,000 l. from them —really a very large sum to charge upon so limited a body of persons, especially when it was recollected that they had hitherto considered themselves as practically the proprietors of the land.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that such an instruction was unnecessary, because, under the title of the Bill, the Committee were empowered to entertain the question referred to by the hon. Member.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must appeal to the hon. Member to allow the House to go into Committee. He could then move any Amendments he wished.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
MR. H. G. LIDDELLsaid, he wished

375
to call the attention of the House to the propriety of giving the places where funds arose from dealing with church property a prior claim to relief from them. This principle had already been approved by Parliament in dealing with the tithe rentcharge. At Hartlepool, Berwick, Newcastle, leeds, and other towns in the north, the means of spiritual instruction were quite inadequate to the demand; in one large parish, containing 22,000 inhabitants, there was only one church and one parochial school, capable of instructing about 100 children. At Gateshead there was not church and school accommodation for one-seventh of the population. The clergy of Hartlepool had not, altogether, an income of more than 1,500 l. a year, and the incumbent of one of the largest parishes in that borough had only 170 l. a year. In several townships there were neither churches nor schools, and the natural result followed in the degraded condition of the juvenile population. He did not wish to throw any blame on the Estate Commissioners, but he did think that those places from which large sums of money were derived had a prior claim to relief from them. One object of ecclesiastical property was undoubtedly to provide for the spiritual wants of the people, and Parliament ought not to be indifferent to the purposes which that property was intended to meet. If the House assented to the introduction of an arbitration clause in the present Bill, they would undoubtedly facilitate the enfranchisement of church property. This would necessarily place large funds in the hands of the Estate Commissioners, and it was therefore especially necessary that the House should now recognise the claims of the places where the property so enfranchised was situated.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he thought that nothing could be so desirable as to have some good and clear guide with respect to what are just and reasonable rights to compensation on the part of the lessees.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4,
MR. INGHAMsaid, he was convinced that some alteration in the machinery was necessary in order to ensure greater despatch in the transactions under the Bill. He would, therefore, suggest that there should be a body for arbitration, or set of arbitrators appointed, to get rid of the difficulty to which he referred, and would
376
consequently move the introduction of the following words to the clause l
"That the Bill be extended for two years, and that in every case where a treaty shall have been entered into under the provisions of this Act, for the sale, purchase, or exchange of any episcopal or capitular estate in England, or of any interest in such estate, it shall be lawful, by the consent of both parties to such treaty, to refer to arbitration the finding of the annual value of such estate, and of the value of the fee simple thereof, subject to the exceptions and reservations, if any, to be excepted and reserved thereout, and that such finding shall be adopted in computing the terms of such sale, purchase, or exchange, regard being had, in the final settlement of such terms in every such case, to the just and reasonable claims of the present holders of land under lease or otherwise, arising from the long-continued practice of renewal; and that in every such case one arbitrator shall be appointed by each of the parties to such treaty, and the two arbitrators so appointed shall, before they proceed in the matter referred to them, appoint an umpire or third arbitrator, and the proceedings upon such arbitration shall be conducted in like manner, and subject to the same rules and enactments as upon a reference made by consent upon a rule of court or judge's order. Provided always, that it shall be lawful for the parties to such treaty to appoint one and the same person to act as sole arbitrator; and in such case the valuations, acts, and award of such arbitrator shall have the same effect as valuations, acts, and award of the arbitrators and umpire, under the provisions herein contained; and in every case the costs of such arbitration and award shall be in the discretion of the said arbitrators or umpire, as the case may be."
He considered that the clause did not interfere with the present voluntary character of the Bill, and he thought that the interests of the lessees would be better stated before a court of arbitrators, and more easily decided upon than in protracted negotiations with capitular bodies.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that if the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to enable the dean and chapter, on one side, and the lessees on the other, to appoint arbitrators to decide between them, all he could say was, that it was now open to the parties to do so, and there was no objection in point of form, which prevented the dean and chapter, on the one side, and the lessee on the other, appointing joint or single arbitrators for the purpose of ascertaining what, in their view, was the value of the property. Any clause of this nature was, therefore, unnecessary, and absolutely a work of supererogation. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that the Church Estates Commissioners were to be bound by the arbitration entered into between the two parties, the case was totally different, and the proposition was one to which that House should not accede. It

377
should be borne in mind that the principle on which the House had sanctioned this dealing between the capitular body and their lessees was this, that there was a hidden value in the property which it was fair should be divided, not between those two parties. but between the body that was interested in it (the capitular body) on the one side and the general interests of the Church on the other. It was only out of the surplus which was to be derived after the arrangements had been made that there was any hope of deriving funds for the relief of that spiritual destitution which an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. G. Liddell) had pointed out in such strong and just terms as prevailing in different districts within the county which he represented. The whole objection was that an arrangement should be made to suit entirely the objects of the two parties who contracted it, and it was necessary that it should be made with reference to the interests of the Church at large, for the purposes to which he had already alluded. The capitular body and the lessee might have a joint interest in depreciating the interest of the estate to the lowest possible amount. The capitular body would derive no advantage from the augmentation of the value, and the lessee, connected as he might be with the other, as agent or trustee, would have a manifest interest in depreciating the value of the property with which he had to deal. If the decision were made by two arbitrators, one of whom was appointed on behalf of each of those parties, it might occur that the interests of the Church, which were ultimately to be served, would only be injured. Before any opinion could be expressed on the clause it was necessary to understand whether the arbitrator's decision was to be subject to the uncontrolled revision afterwards of the Church Estates Commissioners, or whether it was to be held as one that should be binding and compulsory upon them.
MR. INGHAMsaid, that the proposed clause contained nothing to interfere with the power of the Church Estates Commissioners to pronounce a final decision on these questions.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that in that case the apprehensions which he had expressed with respect to the clause were removed; but he did not know whether the Committee would be disposed to agree to a clause merely to sanction that which the two parties might do at present. The only objection he saw to the proposed
378
clause was, that in its working it was likely to excite dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Church Estate Commissioners in cases where they set aside the award of the arbitrators.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, the explanation of the hon. and learned Member the mover of the clause was certainly exactly the reverse of that which he expected, for he understood it was intended to provide something definite in the way of arbitration. That might have been the subject of discussion, but, as explained by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the clause would be not only unproductive, but mischievous, by causing much useless irritation and heart-burning between the lessees and the Church Estates Commissioners. As he read the clause, he understood that the award of the arbitrators would be binding on the Commissioners, for, although it came before them for confirmation, if it did not bind them, it would be of no utility whatever. There could be no doubt that, however liberal the arrangement might be, under the Act of Parliament the lessee would lose some years' valuation, and regard ought to be had to his interest. The clause, as it stood, did not seem to confer any benefit upon him, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would either give some further explanation or not press it.
MR. INGHAMsaid, at present there were no means of knowing how the sum charged was calculated. What he wished by this clause was to have an arbitrator, not for the purpose of fixing the sum to be paid, but of ascertaining the value of the fee simple, the rent, and other particulars which might form the basis upon which the calculations would be made by the authorities when they came to consider the amount to be paid, and which amount would, of course, depend on the value of the lease and the consideration to be given to the lessee beyond his term, the whole matter being eventually submitted to the Church Estates Commissioners. At present, they had no power to reduce the amount, however excessive it might be.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, the present was a permissive Bill, and the great advantage of the proposed clause was, that it did not interfere with its permissive character. But his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), would turn it into a compulsory Bill. Now, he asked, would that be preserving its character, and would they keep within its title and direction if they introduced a

379
compulsory clause of that nature? The object of the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Ingham) was to establish some machinery for the purpose of bringing the parties together, and he begged to ask whether it would be consistent with the opinions of the noble lord the President of the Council, that an arbitrator should be appointed by the Church Estates Commissioners to act on behalf of the Church generally; and, as that could not be done without the assistance of Parliament, it would get rid of one of the objections that had been urged?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that Parliament having adopted this plan for the enfranchisement of capitular estates, it was desirable to carry it into effect; his hon. Friend who spoke last said with great truth, that the intention of Parliament was, that this Act should be voluntary, and it was advisable to maintain that principle. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) had stated correctly that it would not be sufficient that the bishop or the capitular body on the one hand, and the lessee on the other, should each appoint an arbitrator who should choose an umpire, because it might be that the interests of the two parties alone would be consulted, and that of the Church neglected; for, although there might be many instances in which the lessee and the chapter might have no interests in common, in other cases large estates might be transferred without proper regard to the general interests of the Church. His hon. Friend the Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison) bad said this was a question of giving great facilities for arrangement between the lessee, the ecclesiastical body, and the Church Estates Commissioners, and he (lord J. Russell) thought it was desirable that such facilities should be given, and considered that the suggestion the hon. Member had made would tend to produce a just and fair settlement of the question. He did not know whether the exact words drawn out by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General would answer the purpose, but he proposed to insert after the word "treaty," the words "with the approbation of the Church Estates Commissioners," and, after the words "in every such case one arbitrator shall be appointed," to omit "by each of the parties," and insert instead, "by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the other by the lessee or the intending purchaser." That seemed to
380
him a very fair proposition, and he should like to know the opinion of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge on it. It was with great pleasure he had observed during the discussion that justice had been done to the Church Estates Commissioners, who, it must be admitted, on all hands, had manifested a very fair and impartial spirit in the working of the Act.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he doubted very much whether the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Malton would facilitate transactions of the kind they were now considering. He could quite understand that a capitular body would be willing to enter into negotiations with their lessees, when they were to be conducted by each party nominating an arbitrator; but he feared they would not be equally ready to do so if they knew that, the moment they commenced a negotiation, another body would send down an arbitrator. He did not think that the Committee had any reason to be dissatisfied with the progress that had been made in the enfranchisement of church property, seeing that in the last two and a half years, 3,000,000 l. of property had undergone that process. Every one knew what would be the course of proceeding under this clause. In all cases of arbitration, the arbitrator of one party fixed the price as high as possible, and the arbitrator of the other as low as possible, and then the umpire took the medium. Now, no doubt, in arbitrations under this clause, the lessee would fix the value of the property as low as possible; but if the Church Estates Commissioners fixed the price as high as possible, he (Mr. Goulburn) would be asked by some hon. Member how they came to fix so exorbitant a value upon the property; and it would be no answer to that complaint to say that they had done so because they knew the umpire would take the medium between the highest and the lowest price. The Commissioners would thus be placed in a very difficult and invidious position.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he thought the object of the clause was, to give some protection to the lessee, but if it were true that the latent value which was said to be in the property was to be applied to the funds for decreasing spiritual destitution, what became of the lessee's interest in the renewals? He thought the clause as it stood might be easily carried out, and he did not see, because extreme cases might occur, in which lessees attempted to depre-

381
ciate the value of the property, that they should be debarred from a fair consideration of their rights arising out of the long-continued practice of renewals. The lessees had held those estates in continued succession since the enabling Acts of Elizabeth, and all the improvements in the property for the last 200 years had been made by them; it was not fair, therefore, that they should be subjected to the control of the surveyor appointed by the Church Estates Commissioners and be placed under his veto. Such a proceeding would not be in accordance with the intentions of the legislature, conveyed in the Act of 1851.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, it was not correct to say there was a latent value in the property, for, although an additional amount might be obtained by the Church Estates Commissioners if they compelled the lessees to sell separately, which they would have to do at a disadvantage, yet until that occurred, whatever latent value existed was enjoyed by the lessee.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he concurred in thinking that much injustice had been done to the lessees, and that the only question was, whether they should adopt or reject the addition to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member. He trusted the Committee would, without further discussion, accept it in its amended form.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not think the words that had been introduced by the Solicitor General would give the Church Estates Commissioners the appointment of one of the arbitrators.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would beg to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the words of his Amendment—
"In every such case, one arbitrator shall be appointed by the Church Estates Commission and the other by the lessee or intended purchaser."
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) was under a misapprehension in supposing that the value was to be ultimately settled by arbitration.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.

VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE—DR.REID.
MR. G. DUNDASsaid, he begged to move for copies of the correspondence between the Board of Works and Dr. Reid
382
from the 1st of June, 1852, to the 10th of February, 1853. He was desirous of bringing this question before the House, believing it to be due to the character of Dr. Reid, that some explanation and inquiry should be made with regard to his most unwarrantable dismissal from the position he held in connection with the House; for which he had abandoned an honourable and lucrative profession. He was not biassed in Dr. Reid's favour by any personal feeling, but his opinion of the case had been gathered from documents from which he should give extracts bearing on the case, and he trusted that he should be able to establish such a case of hardship as to induce the House to grant an inquiry into its circumstances. He would shortly state, with regard to the antecedents of Dr. Reid, that he was for many years a practical chemist in Edinburgh, and bore a reputation as a lecturer on chemistry, and he had made a number of successful experiments in ventilation in his own lecturerooms. In 1834, after the Houses of Parliament were destroyed by fire, and the new ones projected, the question of the ventilation of those buildings came under consideration, and in consequence of the evidence given by Dr. Reid, he was desired to make further experiments, and the temporary House of Commons was placed under his care and ventilated in such a manner as to call forth from lord Duncannon, then Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, in a letter written by him, an opinion that the experiments of Dr. Reid were most satisfactory. Dr. Arnott, about the same time, had given an opinion in favour of Dr. Reid's system. In 1840 Dr. Reid entered into an engagement to ventilate and warm the new House of Parliament, and the nature of that engagement had been much misapprehended. Dr. Reid understood that his services would be required until the new buildings were finished; and nothing less would have induced him to give up his lucrative occupations in Edinburgh. But the engagement as interpreted by the Treasury bore a very different aspect to that in which Dr. Reid viewed it. He (Mr. Dundas) believed the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Molesworth) differed from the view of that engagement taken by Dr. Reid, and that he interpreted it to extend only to such time as the Houses of lords and Commons remained untenanted. [The hon. Member here read portions of a correspondence between Dr. Reid and Mr. Mills, tending to show that

383
the engagement was supposed to extend to the management of the whole building.] Dr. Reid's system was a large and comprehensive one, and embraced the whole pile of buildings. In 1844 his duties were extended to the superintendence of the lighting of the House. The Duke of Newcastle, then lord Lincoln, and the other Commissioners of Works at that time, expressed the highest opinion of Dr. Reid's capabilities; and urged that, as he had been so successful in warming and ventilation, he should also be intrusted with the lighting of the House. However, misunderstandings arose between Sir Charles Barry and Dr. Reid. He (Mr. Dundas) would say little about them; but would content himself by stating two instances of misunderstanding between them, which he thought would place Dr. Reid in a different position in the eyes of those who now thought he was to blame. He had no desire to depreciate a gentleman who had produced a building like the Houses of Parliament; but he must say, that he regretted that he had not lived at a period some hundred years antecedent to the present time, when very different views were entertained with regard to the comfort and usefulness of buildings like these. The first misunderstanding arose in consequence of the many changes made by Sir Charles Barry in the great central tower. All Dr. Reid's air-passages and channels were connected with the central tower, and the alterations proposed by the architect in that tower entirely confused all Dr. Reid's operations. In 1845, in consequence of the disagreements between the architect and the ventilator, a conference was proposed with the view of settling their differences. This conference, in Dr. Reid's view, partook of the nature of a private conversation; but some time afterwards Sir Charles Barry sent in to the Board of Works a paper which he called "Minutes" of what took place at the conference. The accuracy of those Minutes was, however, repudiated by Dr. Reid. In 1852, when lord John Manners was Chief Commissioner of Works, he recommended that Dr. Reid be appointed for life; but Dr. Reid found it impossible to accept this offer, subject to those thwartings which had been practised upon him. Difficulties occurred, and Dr. Reid received notice that, on the 1st of November, 1852, his services would no longer be required. He was, however, directed to get his arrangements ready before the meeting of Parliament in November. He set to work with
384
great energy, and employed a great many men. Up to this time he had had very little control in directing the arrangements to ventilate the House. Four days, however, before the opening of Parliament, his office was taken possession of, his works put a stop to, the young men whom he had been training up were dismissed, and the whole matter placed in the hands of a man whom he had no confidence in whatever. Dr. Reid threatened to go to law to assert his rights; but an arbitration was proposed, and after some delay he consented to it. When the reference had been gone into, however, the arbitrators were informed that if they gave any decision which could not be supported in a court of law, they would subject themselves to heavy penalties. The result was, that he received only a small sum compared to what he was entitled to. Sir John Forbes, one of the arbitrators, stated that if it had not been for the restrictions placed on the arbitrators, he should have awarded a much larger sum. On these grounds he trusted that the House would agree to the production of these papers.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence, Documents, and Communications between the Board of Works and Dr. Reid, from the 1st day of June, 1852, to the 10th day of February, 1853:
"And, of the Evidence taken last year at the Arbitration between the Government and Dr. Reid."
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he thought this a very extraordinary motion, and one which the House should not be asked to entertain. The question had been settled last year by an arbitration which Dr. Reid consented to, and a Vote of the House was passed in consequence for the sum of 3,250 l. When he (Sir W. Molesworth) came into office, he found that his predecessor had put an end to Dr. Reid's engagement with the House of Commons. Dr. Reid complained of injustice, and demanded compensation; and it was agreed that the matter should be referred to the decision of two arbitrators, one appointed by Dr. Reid, and the other by the Government. Dr. Reid demanded compensation to the sum of 10,000 l. in all. The arbiters, however, awarded him 3,250 l., and that sum was paid to him. The reference lasted no fewer than thirty days; the evidence, of which the hon. Gentleman now wished copies, covered 5,000 folio pages; and the cost of supplying those

385
copies would be not much short of 1,000 l. If the hon. Gentleman wished to read the evidence in question, he (Sir W. Molesworth) would afford him every facility for doing so, if he would call upon him at his office. Having said this much, he thought he need not further occupy the time of the House.
Motion negatived.

CLAIMS OF MR. STURGEON.
MR. BOWYERsaid, that pursuant to notice, he would beg to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the claims of Mr. Edwardes (as representative of William Sturgeon) on the funds allotted by the French Government at the peace to compensate for confiscation of the property of British subjects. Between the years 1778 and 1793, Mr. Sturgeon, a British subject, expended very large sums of money, amounting in the whole to upwards of 26,000 l., upon the erection and stocking of a very extensive manufactory for the fabrication of porcelain and delf at Rouen, in Normandy. Mr. Sturgeon was undeniably a British subject, and in 1793 his property was confiscated by the Revolutionary Government, simply because it was that of a British subject. By the treaties of Paris of the 30th of May, 1814, and of the 20th of November, 1815, and the conventions entered into in pursuance thereof, very large sums of money were provided by the French Government for liquidating the claims of British subjects in respect of losses incurred by the confiscation of their property; and by the 59th Geo. III. c. 31, entitled—
"An Act to enable certain Commissioners fully to carry into effect several conventions for liquidating claims of British subjects and others against the Government of France;"
it was provided (inter alia) that parties dissatisfied with the award of the Commissioners should have a right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. Mr. Sturgeon, however, was one of a number of claimants who did not present their claims to the Commissioners within the time limited by the conventions; but there was a Treasury Minute, made on the 2nd of May, 1826, to allow further time to those parties to put in their claims, and the Commissioners were thereby required to investigate those claims on the same principle in all respects as they had done those which had been preferred in due time. Under that Minute, Mr. Sturgeon's case was investigated by the Commissioners. He claimed
386
22,000 l., which, together with simple interest, computed from the time of the confiscation to the 24th of June, 1826, amounted to 43,586 l.; the Commissioners, however, awarded him only 5.000 l., which sum, after the deductions of 2 per cent, as authorised by the Act of Geo. III was paid to him. The reason why so small a sum was awarded to Mr. Sturgeon arose out of his inability to produce his deeds, books, and papers, which were proved before the Commissioners to have been seized and destroyed by fire during the revolution, and from the Commissioners not having given due weight to the secondary evidence produced in support of the claim. It was material to observe that the Commissioners admitted the validity of Mr. Sturgeon's claim. The question adjudicated upon by them, however, was merely that of the amount. Mr. Sturgeon remonstrated against their decision, and made several applications to the Treasury; but he failed in obtaining any legal redress, because at that time there was no right of appeal. Another Minute of the lords of the Treasury, dated 8th of June, 1830, stated, among other things, of
"those whose claims, not having been presented within the time limited by such convention, have been subsequently admitted to adjudication under a Minute of this Board, and have been, on adjudication, either only partially allowed or disallowed altogether." "With respect to the second class, as their admission to participate in the advantages of the convention was an act of pure bounty on the part of His Majesty, they cannot, strictly speaking, have any right to an appeal from the decision of the tribunal to which His Majesty thought fit to assign the task of distributing his bounty. But as, in admitting those parties to share in the benefits of the convention, it was my lords' intention to admit the satisfaction of those claims, as far as they were found to be just, without any objection as to the time of their presentation, my lords do not see any inconvenience likely to result from giving to such of them as may wish to prefer an appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of the Commissioners in their respective cases, a power to prefer that appeal, provided that such appeal be lodged within a definite period."
By a Minute of the lords of the Treasury, dated 15th of March, 1833, it was stated—
"The only claimants who would have had a right of appeal under the proposed Bill are those whose cases were considered under the authority of the Minute of this Board of the 2nd of May, 1826, and were disallowed, or only partially allowed, by the Commissioners. It appears, however, that the opinion of the Privy Council may probably be obtained upon these cases, which will be few in number, supposing even the whole to claim the right of having the decision of the Commissioners reviewed by that tribunal, without an Act of Parliament for that purpose."

387
The Minute then went on to provide that if there should ultimately turn out to be a surplus, after payment of the claims which should be admitted by the Privy Council upon appeal, the fourth class of claimants mentioned in the Minute of the 8th of June, 1830 (who were claimants in respect of losses at Bordeaux, and the subject of a distinct convention, whereby a specific and distinct sum of money, though insufficient, was provided for their satisfaction by the Government of France), should receive out of that surplus a certain portion of their demands, which the particular fund had been insufficient to satisfy. Now, what he, on the part of Mr. Sturgeon, contended was, that that money was wrongfully distributed to the Bordeaux claimants, and that it ought to have gone in satisfaction of such claims as those of Mr. Sturgeon. Besides, no notice whatever was addressed to Mr. Sturgeon, or to any person acting for him, of the liberty to appeal to the Privy Council, whilst such notice had been given to every other person similarly situated. In 1853, Mr. Edwardes, acting as the representative of Mr. Sturgeon, petitioned the Queen in Council for leave to appeal from the award of the Commissioners. The appeal was heard on the 31st of July, in the same year, and dismissed. In the course of the argument, lord Justice Knight Bruce intimated that the Court might be willing to adjourn the case, to give the petitioner the opportunity of applying to the lords of the Treasury to allow their lordships to hear the case on the merits; but their lordships ultimately decided that they had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, being of opinion "that the merits, if any, could only be brought forward before them at the instance of the lords of the Treasury." An application was subsequently made to the lords of the Treasury to have the appeal heard before the lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but they declined to comply with it. No laches could be imputed to the petitioner. It was not till 1833 that Mr. Sturgeon had the right to appeal, and then, after the right to appeal accrued under the Treasury Minute, he had no notice of the right of appeal. In July, 1842, upon an application from Mr. Sturgeon, the Treasury answered that arrangements had been made to distribute the whole of the fund — this, in fact, amounting to an intimation that there was no money. Now, assuming that there was no money in 1842, there was, at least,
388
money in 1833, when Mr. Sturgeon ought to have had notice, and when, if he had had notice, he would have made his appeal. It was, then, the fault of the Treasury that the petitioner had no opportunity of bringing forward his claim in 1833, when there were funds in hand to meet it. Besides, to this plea of nulla bona it was a very sufficient answer to say, "You have given away our money to the wrong persons"—namely, the Bordeaux claimants. The petition did not proceed in 1842, because it was not until 1850 that the petitioner was able to prove, by the discovery of a private Treasury Minute, that he had no notice of the right of appeal in 1833. The petitioner now came to that House as a last resort. From what he (Mr. Bowyer) knew of the case, he believed that the Committee which was now asked for would have a very short labour to perform, and that they would come to the conclusion that Mr. Edwardes was wronged in not being allowed to appeal, and that he ought to be allowed to appeal to the Privy Council.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLseconded the Motion, believing that reasonable ground had been shown for inquiry.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the claims of Mr. Edwardes (as representative of William Sturgeon), on the funds allotted by the French Government at the Peace, to compensate for confiscation of the property of British subjects."
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he thought that the House ought to pause before they allowed the time of a Committee to be taken up in inquiring into a case from which there was so extremely little chance of anything practical issuing. Mr. Sturgeon was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman to have made his claim to the Commissioners under the convention of 1815, which provided a fund for the losses of English subjects living in France during the revolution. Now, the House must recollect that that convention and fund were applicable solely to cases in which confiscation of British property had been made by the French Government. Mr. Sturgeon's claim had received the careful consideration of the Commissioners, and it was not the fact, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that the Commissioners admitted his claim; on the contrary, the Commissioners never did nor could admit it. Mr. Sturgeon declared that the whole of his property at Rouen was plundered and destroyed, and the fact was, that it had

389
been plundered and destroyed by a common mob, and the petitioner had no claim whatever upon the fund which the Commissioners had to administer. From that day to the present Mr. Sturgeon had been unable to furnish any statement of the property he had lost, but, besides this, he (Mr. Wilson) repeated that this was a case which did not come within the meaning of the convention, and in which the Commissioners had no power to act. There was, however, no question that Mr. Sturgeon had suffered a considerable amount of loss, and in 1827 the Commissioners, looking to the whole circumstances, resolved to take into their merciful consideration the case of a gentleman of such high character and respectability; and, notwithstanding the fact that, properly speaking, he was shut out from any participation in this fund by the nature and character of his loss, they did recommend the Treasury, as a settlement in full of all demands upon them, to grant Mr. Sturgeon 5,000 l. out of the money at their command. He would ask the House whether at this period of time, the claim having been settled in the manner which he had described, it would be wise and prudent to institute an inquiry into a question of this kind? The House must remember that this fund was now entirely exhausted, and that any claim of this nature must be satisfied out of the common taxes of the country. Under all the circumstances, he hoped the House would not agree to the appointment of this Committee to spend its time hopelessly in raising a matter which had long been settled.
MR. BOWYER, in reply, said, that the property of Mr. Sturgeon had been both confiscated and destroyed, and that the destruction of the property had taken place after the confiscation. The claim of Mr. Sturgeon was, therefore, no doubt one which came within the operation of the convention.
MR. MALINSsaid, he should support the proposition, and he believed that high authorities had decided in favour of the claim. With regard to the assertion, that there were no funds available, he thought that, if the fund which had existed for settling these claims had been expended for the benefit of the public, the public would not object to funds being raised to defray a just claim.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 40: Majority 1.

THE SHIP "THETIS"—CAPTAIN DICKEN SON'S CLAIMS.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT,in moving for a Select Committee, stated, that on December 5, 1830, H.M.S. Thetis, then on her passage from Rio Janeiro to England, was wrecked at Cape Frio, on the Brazilian coast, having on board treasure to the value of 810,000 dollars. The commander in chief of the station, Admiral Baker, having proceeded to the scene of the wreck, returned with the firm conviction that the freight could not be saved, nor any of the stores but such as might be drifted upon the coast. Captain Dickenson, then in command of H.M.S. lightning, one of the squadron, earnestly importuned the Admiral to allow him to attempt the recovery of the treasure. The Thetis had been wrecked under a line of almost perpendicular cliffs, of considerable height, and exposed to the heavy swell of the South Atlantic Ocean. She had gone entirely to pieces, and, with the force of the sea, the stores and treasure were driven beneath large masses of rock, at a depth of water varying from six and a half to twelve fathoms. Admiral Baker permitted this enterprising officer to proceed to Cape Frio in the lightning; no better proof can be given of his constructive talent than the fact that the diving-bell and air-pump, with other mechanical appliances, were due to his ingenuity, and that he formed an enormous derrick, twelve feet longer than the shears in Portsmouth Dockyard, from which to suspend his diving-bell, out of twenty-two fragments of the spars collected along ten miles of coast. He then commenced his work, and had raised 100,000 dollars, when he was acquainted by Admiral Baker that he had received instructions from the Admiralty, of date August 11, 1831, by which it was clearly to be understood that the public service was not to be put to any expense by the endeavour to save the treasure from the wreck of the Thetis, beyond the attendance of the ship employed on that service, and the use of the crew when the service of the station admitted of it. In consequence of this letter Captain Dickenson was refused the assistance of further public stores; two alternatives were thus presented—the one forthwith to abandon the enterprise, the other to prosecute it at his own risk; to his credit he chose the latter, and thus was driven to the necessity of expending a sum of nearly 700 l. at his own cost. In the face of disease, the

391
hazard of storms, and liability to number less accidents, he continued his operations, by which 583,801 dollars were recovered of the merchant's treasure, and of the public stores to the value of 2,000 l. after a trying service of fourteen months. The King's stores actually issued to the Lightning, and expended by her from January 1, 1831, to March 10, 1832, when the service was transferred to the Algerine, were, in actual value, 1,064 l., while the stores lost or otherwise expended amounted only to 375 l. Many of the former, such as anchors, cables, &c., having suffered little or no wear, were reissued to the squadron. It appears that the actual amount of treasure which had been raised from the bottom of the ocean was 588,801 dollars by the lightning, and about 161,000 dollars by the Algerine—making a total of 750,000 (of the 810,000) restored to the owners and the country under circumstances of the most forbidding difficulty, and these dollars netted the sum of 157,000 l., of which 54,000 l. were awarded as salvage; but the salvors received only about 29,000 l. —12,000 l. having been incurred in expenses, and the Admiralty having demanded, for wages, victuals, naval stores, and wear and tear, the sum of 13,872 l. 8s. 7d. From the foregoing statement it will be seen that the sum actually paid to the salvors, for eighteen months of perilous services, amounted to 28,200 l., less agents' charges. It has been shown that public stores, to the value of 2,000 l., had been recovered, and that the cost of the stores used amounted to 1,054 l.; the gain, therefore, was in favour of the public. The Lightning had been withdrawn from the above service on occasions when required by the senior naval officer on the station, and at all times was kept prepared for any service which might have demanded her employment. The charge, therefore, for victuals and wages, amounting to 10,626 l. 5s. 9d., was most unfair, and the charge for naval stores and wear and tear, amounting to 3,207 l. 2s. 10 d. equally unjust, as the ship was lying at the anchorage of Cape Frio, and suffering no wear and tear at all except that which would have been incurred had she been on any other part of the station; in fact, the ships were engaged in a way conducive to the honour and credit of the country. This employment was not, in any degree, detrimental to the public interests, and they were acting in pursuance of Admiralty or-
392
ders. This sum, then, of 13,833 l. 8s. 7d. Captain Dickenson claims for himself, the officers and crews employed on this arduous service, being the salvors, as evidently no charge was contemplated by the Admiralty letter of August 11, 1831, and it was an unjust deduction when first demanded by the Admiralty in December, 1832, and actually paid on September 13, 1834, to the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Navy. In the Marine Bill, brought in last Session, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, with great justice, introduced a clause inhibitory of the advance of any Government claims for wear and tear of stores in case of salvage, or any other expenses attendant on the same. I therefore appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to reverse the claim of 1832, and in justice restore the 13,672 l. 8s. 7d., which, without precedent, as far as I am advised, were unjustly deducted from the reward and hard earnings of a very meritorious and unparalleled service. The Board of Admiralty will, by this act, redress an injustice committed in 1832, by following out the enlarged view taken in 1853, when the officers and men employed in that arduous enterprise will no longer be disheartened—no longer be smarting under a sense of wrong by what they consider to have been an arbitrary deduction. With what consistency could the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty answer me some evenings since, that he considered it to be inexpedient to reopen this question, because an adverse decision had been awarded by successive Boards of Admiralty, and that a limit must be set to the advancement of claims, when common right requires the redress of a wrong, only deepened by the lapse of years, to which the right hon. Baronet alluded, while he himself, by his clause in 1853, has openly acknowledged that he considered such a charge, in cases of salvage, contrary to justice? I would earnestly impress upon the House that I ask for no grant of public money for past services, but am merely making a renewed application for the repayment of money unjustly deducted from energetic officers and men, and paid over to the account of the Treasurer of the Navy on a claim which I—and I think the House will agree with me—have shown to have been utterly destitute of foundation. I am sensible of the indulgence with which the House has listened to the statement I have made in

393
submitting this Motion for a Select Committee, and I can assure hon. Members that no circumstance less than an enthusiastic love for my profession, and the firm conviction that I advance a claim of stern justice, would have induced me to have undertaken a duty I so imperfectly have performed.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he would second the Motion, as he believed that a case could be made out which required justice to be done. The zeal, ability, and ingenuity of Captain Dickenson had tended to save the sum of 157,000 l., and it could be shown before the Select Committee, if the House should accede to the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend, how great that zeal and ability had been. The Admiralty had made a large deduction from the amount awarded to the salvors, on account of the wear and tear of the ships employed in the service, and the wages of the men; but the whole of the operations had been conducted with the consent of the commanding officer on the station, and the ships were ships employed on the station, and therefore their crews would have had to be paid whether these services had been performed or not. He, therefore, trusted that the House would grant the Committee asked for by his hon. and gallant Friend.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the Claims of Captain Dickenson, R.N., on behalf of himself, the Officers, and Crews of Her Majesty's Vessels employed on the subject of Salvage, &c., connected with the recovery of Treasure in the Wreck of Her Majesty's Ship Thetis, off Cape Frio, on the Coast of Brazil."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he felt convinced that he needed not to assure the gallant Admirals, the mover and seconder of the proposal before the House, that he gave them full credit for the motives which had led them to bring this subject before the House, and also that, if he could agree with them as to the justice of the claim, he would be the last person to oppose the Motion; but he was bound to say, that he had come to a conclusion different to that which had been arrived at by the hon. and gallant Admirals. The subject was by no means a new one, for he had first become acquainted with it some twenty-three years ago, and as to the facts of the case there was no dispute. The Thetis, having on board a large amount of treasure belong-
394
ing to merchants, was lost, under circumstances in which accident was more or less mingled; but, at the same time, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty of that day, there had been considerable, if not culpable, neglect. The Admiralty, feeling that there had been a great amount of loss incurred by private persons on account, to a certain extent, of the conduct of their officer, thought it right to consent to the unusual course of allowing the few ships on the station to be employed in attempting to recover the treasure; but, contrary to the expectation of the Board of Admiralty, fourteen months had been occupied in the task. He did not mean to speak in a tone disparaging to the exertions of Captain Dickenson on that occasion, and, as he had stated, he had acted under the consent of the Board of Admiralty; but it had been decided, after these ships had been employed upon so unusual a service for the space of fourteen months, to place a check upon their being further employed, by making a deduction for the wear and tear of the ships and boats, which had been very considerable. Various suits had been instituted by the salvors against the deduction made by the Board of Admiralty, and they had all been defeated, and he wished to remind the hon. and gallant Admiral, that the deduction to be made was not fixed by the Board of Admiralty, but by the Admiralty Court, after a full and careful consideration of the facts of the case. He was of opinion, that if the money ought to be paid, Captain Dickenson ought not to receive one farthing of the money, and that if any one was entitled to the money, it was the merchants whose treasure had been lost. What he had stated on a former occasion, that, after the case had been frequently decided, some limit ought to be put to these claims, he could only now repeat, and on this particular question there had been repeated decisions. Under the law, Captain Dickenson had not a shadow of claim to this 13,800 l. If it were a question at all—though he denied that it was—the question lay between the Government and the parties whose treasure was lost; and, therefore, entertaining these opinions deliberately and decidedly, he could see no necessity whatever in instituting any further inquiry. The facts were clear, and investigation had already taken place. and consequently, though feeling the highest respect for Captain Dickenson, who, in an honourable position at Greenwich Hospital, enjoyed the reward of

395
his past services, he felt bound to resist the Motion.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he entirely disagreed with the right hon. Baronet, who thought that this was a question between the Government and the merchants. He regarded the case as one requiring investigation. It was all very well to say that Captain Dickenson was housed at Greenwich Hospital; but in that position he was placed for his general services, and not for exertions made in the Lightning, in reference to this particular transaction.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that the performances of the Lightning, her captain, and crew, in bringing up this treasure from a great depth, were the admiration of the whole Navy at the time. He thought the House ought to decide in favour of the Motion, in order that a Committee might see whether there was not justice in this claim. As to the gallant officer being in Greenwich Hospital, he trusted that that circumstance would constitute a title to consideration rather than otherwise. The gallant officer was there because he was old and worn out in Her Majesty's service, and not because he was commander of the Lightning.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, that having considered this case more than once, he had come to the conclusion that Captain Dickenson had no claim. He did not mean to detract from Captain Dickenson's merits, for he concurred in everything that had been said with respect to them, but he was bound by the law as laid down, and the Judge himself informed Captain Dickenson that the money was not his, but the salvor's, if anybody's.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he considered that no sufficient ground had been shown for conceding the Motion, besides which, he deprecated the growing habit of making that House a court of appeal against the decisions of the ordinary tribunals of the country.
ADMRIAL WALCOTT: I am happily persuaded that nothing which has fallen from the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, or from the gallant Admiral the Member for Gloucester, has tended in the slightest degree to weaken the impression of the statement made by me. The right hon. Baronet has repeated that successive Boards of Admiralty and Treasury have decided against the claim I advance, and the gallant Admiral has adduced an opinion to the same import as
396
held by the late Sir Thomas Hardy when at the Admiralty. I therefore, with the permission of the House, will read a letter addressed to Captain Dickenson by Admiral Sir Charles Napier, then a Member of this House, in contradistinction to the foregoing statements.
"July 28, 1842.
"My dear Sir—I have much pleasure in informing you that your claim is favourably looked upon both by the Admiralty and Treasury. I have spoken about it to Sir George Clerk, and I last night mentioned it publicly in the House.
Yours truly, "CHARLES NAPIER."
The Court of Admiralty may, for aught I know to the contrary, have admitted the demand made by the Admiralty, but this I right well know, that on the appeal to the Privy Council a very different view was taken. In this there can be no dispute, that the efforts made to recover the treasure were marvellous in their origin and successful in their results—that of 810,000 dollars hopelessly sunk in the ocean, 750,000 were recovered, and the human being lives not who, in justice, could deny the fair claim to one-third part of that amount to the salvors. As to the underwriters they were most essentially benefited, for at one time the depreciation was to the extent of 75 per cent, and certain I am, did not party prevail, I should be followed into the lobby by almost every hon. Member now in the House.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 41: Majority 1.

SLOOP "STAR"—COMMANDER F. P. WARREN.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the return for which he was going to move was one of considerable importance as regarded the management and discipline of Her Majesty's Navy. He was induced to bring forward his Motion in consequence of a statement which had appeared in the public papers giving an account of certain cases of flogging and cruelty on board Her Majesty's sloop Star, commanded by Commander Warren. It was said that nearly all the crew of the Star had been flogged, that many petty officers had been disrated to able seamen in order that they might be put in a position to be flogged, and that a considerable number of able seamen had been reduced to ordinary seamen. He, on a former occasion, asked the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the statement was correct or not, when the right hon. Baro-

397
net said that only a few punishments had taken place on board the Star, and that those punishments were inflicted in a case where some seamen had stolen a cask of wine and got drunk upon it. He (Mr. Williams) had since that statement received a communication from the crew of the Star, and they indignantly denied the charge, and he was sure the right hon. Baronet had been deceived. He would place his information against the information of the right hon. Baronet, and was ready to go into an inquiry with perfect confidence of being able to show that the right hon. Baronet had been entirely misled. The right hon. Baronet had refused to give the return asked for by the Motion, upon the pretence that the House of Commons was not a fit place for having anything to do with either the discipline or the management of Her Majesty's Navy. The House of Commons had done more for the Navy and the Army than any Board of Admiralty or any Commander in Chief had ever done, by exposing the cruelties that had been practised in both services. What was the consequence? The practice in the Army was to inflict 1,000 lashes. That was the maximum punishment, and it was contended that they could not inflict a single lash less without bringing the Army into a state of insubordination. Well, a Motion was made for abolishing flogging in the Army, and what followed? Why the Duke of Wellington reduced the number of lashes from 1,000 down to fifty. That was done entirely in deference to the opinion of the House of Commons. It was just the same with respect to the Navy. 1,000 lashes was the punishment in the Navy, and these were inflicted with a cruelty that would disgrace a cannibal. Well, he himself brought forward and exposed cases of cruelty in the naval service over and over again; and what had been the consequence? Why, the punishment had been brought down to forty-eight lashes in the Navy. According to returns presented to the House, the number of men flogged in the Army in 1845 and the first six months of 1846, was 341, who received 38,500 lashes, being an average of 112 lashes to each man; the number of men flogged in the year 1852 was forty-five, who received 1,900 lashes. being an average of not quite forty-six lashes to each man. In that same year there were 101 regiments in which not a single stroke on the back of any man was inflicted. In the Navy, in 1842, 2,107 men were punished, who re-
398
ceived 71,024 lashes; in 1852, only 578 men were flogged, who received 17,500 lashes. Why did the right hon. Baronet refuse to give the return he asked for? Did he mean to say that, after the House had placed in his hands 13,000,000 l. to expend on the Navy, and that without a single word of objection, they were not entitled to the information that return would give? If the statement made respecting the Star was correct, great mismanagement must have taken place, and the House ought to be informed of it. But the right hon. Baronet at last thought fit to remove Commander Warren from the Star. What did the crew say? They said they were ready to shed their blood in the service of their Queen, but they objected to have their blood shed by the cat-o'-nine-tails by this Commander Warren. He was not surprised that the Government should have removed that man from his ship, for many desertions had taken place in consequence of his treatment of the crew. And what were the crimes for which these brave men were flogged? He had a list of some of them, among which were "telling untruths," "foul language," "disrespect," "insolence," "fighting," "quarrelling," "irregularity," "bad language," "smoking at his post," "absent without leave," and "negligence;" these were the sort of crimes for which these noble fellows had their flesh torn from their bones. It was a disgrace to the country and to the age. There was no flogging in the French army or the French navy. Our fleets and our armies were now joined with the fleets and armies of France, and what must the French think of us when they heard the groans of brave men when suffering under the lash? They must look upon us as degraded beings. He was quite convinced the sympathy of the House would be against the system, and would support him in the Motion he now begged to submit to the Chair.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Petty Officers, Seamen, and Marines, respectively, who were flogged on board Her Majesty's sloop Star, while under the command of Commander F. P. Warren, stating the alleged offence, the number of lashes inflicted on each, the number who were flogged more than once, and the number of lashes inflicted in each flogging; also, the number of Petty Officers disrated, and of Able Seamen reduced to Ordinaries."
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had thought that he was under some obligation to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth on account of the courtesy which had induced him on more than one occasion, at his (Sir J. Graham's) request, to postpone this Motion, and he had not been slow in thanking him for that attention to his request. But he certainly had hoped that the delay would have led the hon. Gentleman to make a dispassionate statement, and that he would have made that statement, when calling for inquiry, perfectly accurate. He would not go through the various cases which the hon. Gentleman had introduced into his statement. The hon. Gentleman had said that there was a time when 1,000 lashes were inflicted in the Navy. He (Sir J. Graham) denied the accuracy of that statement altogether. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that 13,000,000 l. had been placed at the disposal of the Board of Admiralty. Now, the hon. Gentleman might be excused in a matter long since past; but he certainly ought to be accurate as to a circumstance which took place during the present Session of Parliament; but 13,000;000 l. was not the amount. Then, the hon. Gentleman hinted, that there was a fondness on the part of the Board of Admiralty for corporal punishment. So far from that being a correct state of the case, the Board of Admiralty was against corporal punishment in every case where it was possible to be dispensed with. The very statement which the hon. Gentleman had adduced proved the fact, for he had shown that within the last twelve years, so far from any fondness having been evinced for that kind of punishment, there had been a constant disuse of it, both in the Army and the Navy, so that that species of punishment had, within a few years, been brought down to a smaller amount than was ever known at any former time. Then the hon. Member wished to be in. formed what number of petty officers, seamen, and marines were flogged on board Her Majesty's sloop the Star; and yet the hon. Gentleman himself stated that a petty officer could not be flogged. The terms of his Motion would, however, lead the public to believe that that punishment could be inflicted on them. The hon. Gentleman then said—taking credit to himself, which he (Sir J. Graham) was not desirous of denying to him—that in consequence of some question which he brought before the House, the Board of Admiralty had insti-
400
tuted an inquiry into the case of the Star. So far from that being the fact, however, an inquiry was instituted by the Board into. that case before the hon. Gentleman's question was put. Again, the hon. Gentleman said, that in consequence of that inquiry, which he imagined was instituted by reason of his question—which he (Sir J. Graham) denied—Commander Warren was removed by the Board of Admiralty from the command of the Star. Now, Commander Warren was not removed at all. He was not removed from the command of that ship. On the contrary, the Board of Admiralty was prepared to allow Commander Warren to go out in command of the ship Star, and it was only in consequence of his own solicitation, on account of ill health, that he was not now in command of that ship. The hon. Gentleman further stated, that there was a great unwillingness on the part of the crew to serve under Commander Warren; whereas, the fact was, that two-thirds of the crew had expressed their perfect willingness to go with him to any part of the world. The hon. Gentleman also added, that numerous desertions had taken place from the ship. He would not speak positively, but his belief was, that not more than two desertions from the ship had occurred since what had taken place in that House on the subject. But, on the last occasion, he (Sir J. Graham) had to appeal to the House against instituting itself into a tribunal, or court of review, in reference to the decisions of the lawfully constituted authorities on the subject of the discipline of the Navy, and he then stated that it was not usual for that House, on ordinary occasions, to institute itself into such a tribunal. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a private conversation held between himself and the hon. Gentleman, in which he (Sir J. Graham) stated his objection to the case being brought before the House. He (Sir J. Graham) had not come prepared to hear the hon. Gentleman state to the House the substance of a private conversation; but, nevertheless, publicly he was ready to repeat what he had said privately to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood him, if he thought he had said, that it was not one of the functions, nor the high privilege of the House of Commons, to lay down principles for the guidance of the Executive in every branch I, of the Government. If the House of Commons should lay down the principle, that

401
corporal punishment should cease in the Navy, then, though he might demur altogether from such a decision, still, if it were deliberately pronounced, after debate, by a full House, his decided opinion was, that, the Executive must yield to that decision. But, on the other hand, if, in anything, in laying down a principle for the guidance of the Executive, the House should interfere with the authority of the Executive in matters of discipline and regulation, his opinion was, that it would be fatal both to the Army and to the Navy. In this particular case of the Star, an inquiry was first instituted by the Board of Admiralty; an eminent naval officer was directed to investigate the case, and it was afterwards referred to another, who fully reported on the facts. That Report was carefully considered at the Board of Admiralty, at which were present himself, three admirals, and one naval captain, and they all came to the conclusion that there had been indiscretion and misconduct on the part of the commanding officer, but not of such a character as subjected him either to be tried by court martial, or to be superseded. The commander had the opinion of the Board read to him, and he was then admonished to be more careful in future. With respect to the crew, it was shown that there had been much want of discipline, much insubordination and drunkenness among them. It was true, that at Rio de Janeiro, four men had been flogged on one occasion, and, although the hon. Gentleman had denied the statement, he (Sir J. Graham) would repeat that those punishments arose out of the circumstance that a cask of wine was broken open, and that four sailors were drunk and grossly insubordinate on that occasion. They were accordingly punished, and, in his opinion, were properly punished. Similar cases of insubordination and intemperance were on other occasions punished, but it was a gross exaggeration to say that two-thirds of the crew had been punished. It was quite erroneous to say that petty officers had received corporal punishment on board that ship. He should be very sorry if the House, in a matter of discipline which had been carefully reviewed by the proper authorities, should erect itself into a tribunal or court of appeal in this special case. If the House should desire that corporal punishment should not be inflicted in any case, he hoped that they would at least allow that justice had been administered in a merciful manner by the Executive, and that they would not do
402
anything that would tend to weaken that authority which was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of order, discipline, and subordination in the Navy. He, for one, was fully aware that corporal punishment was most painful either to witness or to inflict. As he had already stated, the cases in which it was inflicted were very few, but it was absolutely necessary, when a vast body of men were congregated in a narrow space under circumstances so peculiar, that, in order that authority might be upheld in the hands of one man, punishment must be brief and decisive. At the same time, that authority was so limited that it could hardly he abused without detection; for, as he had on a former occasion stated to the House, that although the service required prompt punishment, yet the rule was, that corporal punishment should not be inflicted till after the lapse of twenty-four hours—that there should be a warrant for the execution of the punishment in which the facts of the case justifying its infliction should be recorded, which warrant should be transmitted to the Board of Admiralty. Each case was submitted to the Board, and he was sure the House would not believe that the Board of Admiralty was so wanting in feeling and humanity as not to look into, or that there was any disposition on their part against looking into, all these cases. He could assure the House it was a most painful duty, but he trusted that it was a duty which, for the honour of the laws and for the safety of this country, more especially in a time of war, the Executive would never neglect faithfully to discharge. He hoped, therefore, the House, on the whole, would be content with the statement he had made, and not agree to the Motion, nor interfere with the arrangements which the Board of Admiralty had already effected. The ship had gone to a distant station, and the matter was at an end.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he was led to believe, from a letter of Admiral Dundas, which he had seen, that the best way of abolishing flogging would be to discontinue the supply of rum in the Navy. Sir John Ross had found that he could do very well without it in the Arctic regions.
MR. W. WILLIAMS, in reply, said, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, instead of meeting the question, had had recourse to special pleading. He (Mr. W. Williams) knew that petty officers, as such, could not be flogged; but the moment they were dis-

403
rated they could be flogged, and this had been done for the purpose. He did not ask for any change in the discipline of the Navy; all he wanted was a statement of the extent of punishment in the Star. The right hon. Baronet said that Commander Warren had not been removed; but he had requested that this Motion might be postponed until the Admiralty had determined what should be done, and he understood him to say that Commander Warren had been removed.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I did not say that; I said he had resigned.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that was merely a gentle way of letting him down.
ADMIRAL BERKELEYsaid, he must deny that any petty officer had been disrated for the purpose of being flogged. Such a course would be contrary to the rules of the service.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRINTING (HOUSES OF PARLIA MENT, &c.).
MR. J. GREENEsaid, he begged to move for a Select Committee to consider the most efficient mode of providing for the printing required for the Houses of Parliament and the public service. There were at present two modes of supplying this printing work—namely, one under the control of the Stationery Office and the other by what were termed the Parliamentary printers, who received 20 per cent for printing Parliamentary papers. He thought it right the printing and stationery of the House of Parliament should be placed under the surveillance of the House itself, seeing that they amounted to some 80,000 l. a year. He had no doubt a saving of 40,000 l. annually could be effected under these heads. He did not speak without information on the subject, as he had embarked much money in a printing speculation some time since, which, had it been supported, would have resulted in cheapening, as well as facilitating, the art of printing, which was now very imperfectly understood by the great bulk of society, and even by men who had large capitals embarked in the business. By the system to which he was referring, he undertook to demonstrate that no less than 6,000 letters could be composed in a hour, whereas only 1,000 could be composed at present. He undertook to demonstrate that that which now cost a shilling, could be done under the new system for one farthing. In fact, the 5,000 letters which
404
now went to make what was called a "galley," could be composed or "set up" under this system at a charge of 7½d., though the cost of such at present was 3s. 10 d. These were not mere assertions; he should demonstrate them, and that the saving would be some 40,000 l. a year, which, in a time of war, with taxation pressing heavily on the community, ought not to be overlooked. He undertook to give the Foreign Office a good and useful printing office, which it had not at present, and also to ensure them a system which, on occasions requiring confidence, could be managed by their confidential clerks, who would be enabled to compose and print confidential communications, in any language, in the briefest possible time, and at the least possible expense to the country. He (Mr. Greene) was not anxious to have anything to do with the composition of the Committee; let Her Majesty's Government nominate it, and he would be ready to carry his statements into proof. He, therefore, thought he was not asking too much at present, when the result was certain to be the demonstration of economy, simplification, and expedition in the printing department of both Houses of Parliament.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to consider the cheapest, most expeditious, and most efficient mode of providing for the Printing required for the Houses of Parliament and the Public Service."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question was one of very great importance, involving considerations much more serious than those already brought under the notice of the House. There were, in fact, two questions before the House of an entirely different character. The first was, as to the printing required for the Government and Houses of Parliament, and whether it was performed in the best manner. Now, as respected the printing done for the Government, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) of course, could not speak of that limited part which was of a most confidential character, and which could not be considered on ordinary mercantile principles. But with respect to the ordinary printing of the Government, as far as he was aware, he believed the best arrangements which the market permitted were made for that purpose. As regarded the printing of Parlia-

405
mentary papers, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not informed, but he had every disposition to believe that considerable economy could be effected. However, it was not a matter that belonged to the Executive Government to consider; but his belief was that if a Committee were appointed very considerable advantage might be expected to result, as he had no doubt that portion of the public service might be more advantageously and economically performed than at present. Having arrived at that opinion, he should think it but right to act upon it on the proper occasion. At present he did not think there would be any advantage in appointing a Committee to inquire into the subject. The Session had now arrived at a period so advanced that it was plain no Select Committee could make progress with so important a question in the time that yet remained before the Session terminated. However, it was a question of time, and should be considered of during the recess. But even if the Government should not move in the matter, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be glad to see the House undertake an inquiry into a matter so entirely within its own control and cognisance. However, he believed the Motion of the hon. Gentleman raised other considerations—considerations of delicacy and difficulty, of which, perhaps, he was not aware. The hon. Gentleman was himself interested in a trading enterprise of great importance, which, according to his own representation, tended to economy and expedition in the important process of printing.
MR. J. GREENEsaid, he begged to state that he formerly was interested in the matter, and had embarked a large sum of money; but that he was not pecuniarily interested at present.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he certainly inferred, from the hon. Gentleman's previous statement, that he had an interest in the proceeds of that money so embarked. If that were so, that consideration of itself would, in his opinion, raise many subjects for doubt as to why a Committee of Inquiry should be sanctioned by that House, on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The House would require to exercise great caution before appointing such an instrument of inquiry into the enterprises of a commercial character, in which one of its own Members had a pecuniary interest, and in which the apparent object was to turn the discovery to
406
such purpose that it might be employed by himself. Even if such were not the case, there were other grounds on which it would not be possible to accede to this Motion. The hon. Gentleman called the attention of the House to the application of a new mechanical process in the art of printing, the effect of which would be to reduce the expense of setting up a galley of 5,000 letters from 3s. 10 d. to 7½d.; as also to simplify and expedite the art of printing generally. The question then resolved itself into this, whether it was a fit matter for that House to undertake to determine upon the comparative excellence and cheapness of different mechanical processes, or to leave the question to the open market, where the capital and enterprise of the country afforded a better means than that House possessed of deciding the matter? They were on secure ground in going into the open market for the best and cheapest; but they would be on dangerous ground if they, the stewards of the public money, undertook to examine into these matters, and to decide which was the best and cheapest, in defiance of the judgment of those engaged in trade, and who speculated on improvements of that description. Ought not the proprietors of the morning newspapers to take an interest in a system which would reduce the expenses of printing from 1s. to a farthing, as also accomplish in an hour what now required six hours? There might be something of a spirit of monopoly in the present system of printing; but if the valuable invention referred to by the hon. Gentleman combined all these advantages of time, economy, and a reduction of expenditure of some 4,800 per cent, why had it not been availed of sooner? It would be wrong, in his opinion, to make that House an organ for experimenting on questions of the kind. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not undervalue the statement of the hon. Gentleman; and, if the attention of the trade had not been previously directed to the subject, he felt glad an opportunity was afforded the hon. Gentleman of submitting his statement to the House. If the hon. Member could do as he alleged, he would be a greater benefactor to mankind than Faust and Guttenberg, and bronze statues would soon be raised in his honour. In conclusion, he wished it to be understood that the Government were most desirous to adopt any plan by which the Government printing would be more economically performed. If any hon. Member was interested in the pe-

407
cuniary result of an enterprise of this kind, it was a serious matter for him and for the House to consider how far they would be justified in granting an inquiry of this kind. He hoped the House would not accede to the Motion of the hon. Member.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in any affair of this nature, if a Member had a pecuniary interest, it was matter for grave consideration whether he should in any way possess the advantage of the sanction of that House upon his undertaking; but he thought that when such an important saving was in question an inquiry should be conceded.
MR. GEACHsaid, he perfectly concurred in the principles laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the guidance of that House, but he could not see what distinction there was between the case of printing and that of the manufacture of small arms. The right hon. Gentleman had stood up in that House on a former occasion to advocate the Government's becoming manufacturers of arms on a very large scale instead of going to the public market, where the means of producing arms were as extensive as the means of executing printing. He hoped the Report of the Committee of which he (Mr. Geach) was a Member would prevent the right hon. Gentleman from persevering in the course on which he had entered. With regard to the Motion, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not desirable for the Government to undertake what was proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He could not help remarking, however, that he believed that, if the invention for perforating postage stamps had not been referred to a Committee of that House, it would never have been adopted. He was satisfied that a much larger saving might be effected in the printing of postage labels; but in almost all the Government offices there were people holding permanent appointments who were obstructive of anything like improvement; and it required a Committee of that House, composed of persons who were accustomed to business, and who would not be put aside by a mere statement of difficulties, to do anything effectual. He hoped that next Session the right hon. Gentleman would call in the assistance of a Committee with regard to Government printing and avail himself
408
of the services of Members of practical experience.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the hon. Member who had last addressed the House having alluded to the manufacture of small arms, he begged to inform him that the Government had carried on the manufacture of small arms for many years; but with reference to the case alluded to, he was prepared to say that if they could have found fifty or sixty manufacturers of them upon improved principles, they never should have thought of turning manufacturers themselves. The only reason why the Government thought of undertaking the duty was, the difficulty of finding persons willing and competent to perform the work they required to be done. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Geach) expressed an opinion that the Treasury were willing to promote economy in every branch of expenditure, but that there were permanent officers in every department who obstructed all improvement. He could not assent to this statement. He was bound to say that it was not the fault of the Treasury that inquiry had not been made into the expense of public printing before. More than a year ago Mr. M'Culloch and Sir Charles Trevelyan pressed the subject upon his attention, but, owing to the pressure of Parliamentary business, it had been found impossible hitherto to take it up. He had, however, given preliminary instructions for a thorough investigation during the recess, and if the subject should not be concluded during the recess, then there would be no objection to a Parliamentary Committee.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, it was his opinion that economy would be materially promoted by the appointment of a Committee; and he hoped the inquiry would be taken up in earnest at an early period next Session.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the subject derisively, and that he had not given sufficient care to the main subject of discussion. Attention had been called to a mechanical contrivance by a person of great scientific skill, to which his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Greene) had lent aid by supplying funds to work it out, and the result of which would produce enormous improvement in the art of printing. His hon. Friend had pledged himself to establish this fact to the satisfaction of the Committee. When a Member of that House made such a statement, he con-

409
tended that it was deserving attention. The printing for the two Houses of Parliament cost, he believed, 120,000 l. a year, and his hon. Friend said he could effect a saving of one-half. He (Mr. FitzGerald), therefore, submitted that this was a matter well worthy of inquiry. Besides, he urged that the invention. if practicable, would be found to produce the greatest effects upon education. He had seen the contrivance himself, and certainly it appeared to be of great simplicity. He should support the Motion.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that if the hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion had confined himself strictly to the terms of it, there might have been no great objection to it; but he had very candidly stated that his object in obtaining the Committee was to discuss the merits of a particular patent. Upon this point, however, he thought that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been complete. It was not the duty of that House to inquire into the merit of a particular patent, because, if it were available for anything, no doubt it would be taken up by the trade to whom the House offered its printing for competition. There could be no question that the general expense of printing for that House was excessive and might be curtailed, but this was very much owing to the enormous amount of returns which were moved for. An hon. Gentleman, or one of his constituents, thought that a particular matter ought to be inquired into, and he forthwith moved for what was called an unopposed return; that was to say, he went to the Secretary of the Treasury, and said, "If you will not give me this I shall make a Motion, perhaps occupy the whole evening and prevent going into Supply." The Secretary of the Treasury, whose duty it was to expedite business, was of course driven to say, "Well, then, take your unopposed return." The fact was, that accounts and descriptions of everything under the sun were printed for that House under the name of unopposed returns, and this it was that occasioned the great expense of printing.
LORD NAASsaid, he must protest against the doctrine that under no circumstances was a patent a fit subject for inquiry by a Committee of that House. On the contrary, he held, if any hon. Member made out a case showing that a patent might be turned to the public advantage, that it was the duty of that House to inquire into it.
410
He would remind hon. Members that some years ago a Committee of Inquiry into the postal communication with Australia entered into the whole question of the screw as a propeller moved by steam; and he believed that the appearance of the screw was materially encouraged by the investigations of that Committee. The Committee now proposed might, it seemed to him, produce somewhat analogous benefits, and he believed it would, for having seen the invention in question, he must say it appeared to him one of a valuable public character.
MR. LUCASsaid, he should support the Motion. The proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Greene) did not rest upon the merits of the invention, but upon the existence of an abuse admitted by the Treasury. He had had some little experience in printing himself, and, therefore, he might safely assure the House that the invention recommended by his hon. Friend embodied improvements of the most ingenious and admirable character. And although he would not venture upon any prophecies as to its ultimate success, yet he felt sure that there never was a system that more fully justified inquiry and examination than that brought forward this evening.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he considered the proposed inquiry to be invaluable; and though it might not be brought to a close that Session, yet the House would, by consenting to the Motion, be laying the foundation for a complete investigation next year. As far as regarded the merits of the invention itself, all he would say was, that the Bible Society, a body well calculated to speak upon such a subject, were enamoured with the project.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion, and for the reason that he did not think the House of Commons ought to be made the channel for advertising inventions. On more than one occasion the House of Commons had been found puffing schemes which traders would not take up, and when they had been finally rejected as useless, the inventors had come down upon them for compensation. They had lately an instance of that in the case of postage stamps. And how did that end? Why, in the House of Commons having to pay 4,000 l., and their being made the laughing stock of the commercial community. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) spoke much on the excellence of this invention; then let him

411
try it himself. Was he not a proprietor of a newspaper? And when he succeeded in realising his theories, it would be quite time enough for the House of Commons to take them up. They were told also that the Bible Society entertained a high idea of the project, and that it was admirably adapted for their purposes. Then let the Society carry it into effect. The Bible Society required a great deal of printing to be done, and at a cheap rate; they were, therefore, the best persons to test the experiment. No doubt the House of Commons might print a great deal too much, and considerable reformation was needed on that head, but at that period of the Session it would be ridiculous to set about an investigation of that kind, and he should, therefore, strongly oppose the Motion.
MR. J. GREENE, in reply, said, he must deny that it was possible for private individuals to test the value of the experiment equally well with the House of Commons. The Treasury themselves had admitted the great necessity of reform in this branch of the public expenditure, and as no steps had been taken to remedy the evil it was evidently not safe to leave the matter in their hands.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 32: Majority 24.

IRISH LOAN FUND SOCIETIES.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTmoved for a Select Committee to inquire into the management of the Loan Fund Societies in Ireland. He begged to call attention to two Acts of Parliament, passed respectively in the years 1836 and 1843, for the regulation and management of those societies which were placed under the control of a Loan Fund Board, and certainly these enactments seemed to be sufficient for the security of the money that was lent. His attention having been called to the circumstances of two loan fund societies in the county he represented, he had looked to the abstract of accounts transmitted to Parliament, pursuant to the Acts to which he had referred, and they seemed fair enough so far as they went; but they were so exceedingly meagre, as to leave great room for imposition. He afterwards attended at the loan fund office, to look more particularly into the accounts, and he found that the figures in several columns were exceedingly garbled. It appeared that some of the persons who had
412
borrowed money from them were men of straw, or had gone to America, and that the persons who professed to be their securities were not to be found. It appeared, also, that a great part of what had been paid off by the borrowers was never actually stated to have been paid off, and no doubt there had been dishonesty in some instances on the part of the clerks, and most culpable negligence in other instances. The result was, that the treasurer, out of his own private resources, had to refund a portion of the money to the poor people, who received a dividend of 8s. in the pound. He thought that, for the sake of similar societies still remaining in Ireland, they should ascertain the amount of security in existence, and what amount of security the Government could force the treasurer to give.
Mr. FAGANseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the management of the Loan Fund Societies in Ireland."
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he thought there could be no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman; but it was not a question, strictly speaking, in which the Government had anything to do. Many years ago, persons who were in the habit of lending small sums of money to the industrious poor, thought it would be a good thing to obtain facilities for the recovery of those sums, and Acts of Parliament were passed for the purpose, but no Government security was given. A great many persons, at the time those Acts of Parliament were passed, entertained great doubts as to the policy of them, and whether in reality those charitable institutions would be of advantage to the industrious poor; and if doubts were entertained when those Acts were passed, it appeared, from experience, that nothing could be more prejudicial to the interests of the poor than those loan funds; but other persons entertained different opinions. According to this loan fund system, it was impossible to avoid making bad debts. A sum of money was borrowed at five per cent, and lent out at nine per cent, leaving only four per cent for the payment of expenses and the covering of bad debts. They, consequently, found it necessary to keep the money always out on loan, and when they could not get good borrowers they must take bad ones, and in many of them bad debts were contracted where there was the

413
greatest vigilance and accuracy of management. But in the two loan fund societies to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, there was no accuracy at all. The gentleman who had the management lost about 550 l., and the debenture holders were also losers, but there was a severe loss inflicted on the gentleman to whom he referred, who seemed to be perfectly single minded, and to have been actuated by the most charitable motives. In conclusion, he begged to say, that there was no objection to the appointment of the Committee.
MR. FRENCHsaid, that in 1831 a Bill was brought in by him to limit the interest paid upon the contributions to five per cent, the surplus (if any) to go to charitable purposes. Under that system 17,000 l. was paid over to charitable objects in one year, and the system went on satisfactorily until the famine in 1847. He thought the Government had acted wisely in granting the Committee.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he concurred in the propriety of appointing the Committee, but he thought it well to consider how far the Loan Fund Board could be placed on a more satisfactory footing.
Motion agreed to.

TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
LORD NAASsaid, he would now move for
"Copies of Correspondence that had taken place between the Irish Government and the magistrates of the county of Donegal, relative to the liberation on ticket of leave of Miles Sweeny, a man convicted of a Ribbon offence in 1851."
He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, that in making this Motion he did not intend the slightest hostility to the Government; but he thought it desirable at the outset of a new system that the public should know the exact principle upon which those tickets of leave were given. The circumstances to which he was about to allude happened in a remote district in Ireland, and occasioned a considerable degree of alarm amongst the magistrates and the well-disposed inhabitants of the particular county in which the event occurred. It appeared that a man of the name of Miles Sweeny had been convicted in 1851 of an agrarian offence. In about two and a half years afterwards this man was released, and sent back to the same district in which it was found he had pursued a most lawless course. Many years ago Sweeny's father
414
was evicted from his farm. Sweeny then occupied a cottage in the neighbourhood, and a man of the name of Starrett succeeded him in the farm, and occupied the house which had previously belonged to Sweeny. Twelve months before the commission of the outrage referred to, Sweeny threatened to disturb Starrett's position in a most lawless way; and intimated to the latter, that unless he was compensated in respect to some claim which he had set up, he would revenge himself on Starrett. On the 5th of April, 1851, Sweeny, with a party of followers, broke into Starrett's house, declaring, upon their entrance, that they had come there for justice. They thereupon beat Starrett very severely, and from the effects of the injuries which he received he died shortly after the trial; and his mother was so severely treated on the same occasion that she was never likely to recover from the effects of her injuries. In addition to the commission of those dreadful outrages the party of Sweeny stole everything they found in the house; and they took away a horse, which they subsequently killed to prevent detection. There was great difficulty in obtaining evidence in consequence of the lawless state of the country; but Sweeny was ultimately brought to trial, was convicted at the summer assizes in 1851, and was sentenced to ten years' transportation. Since then that part of the country was greatly disturbed, there being no less than forty agrarian outrages between the spring and summer assizes of last year. Two baronies were proclaimed, and a third stipendiary magistrate was sent down there, together with a number of extra police, at the charge of 1,500 l. a year upon those baronies. At the summer assizes in 1853, Chief Baron Pigott delivered a most impressive charge, and said that seldom in the course of his judicial experience did he know the country to have been in so lawless a state as part of the county Donegal was at that time. To show the state of the country at the last summer assizes, a most daring outrage was perpetrated under the eyes of the Judge himself. A man was about to be tried for a Ribbon offence, and while the Judge was sitting in the court, and the grand jury were going through their business, in the presence of the police, the grand jury, and the Judge, a party of Ribbonmen entered the town, and carried away the principal witness upon the trial. The Judge was so struck by this extraordinary proceeding that he adjourned the

415
assizes, but returned in a fortnight afterwards to try the perpetrators of this outrage, who in the meantime had been captured by the magistrate. The complaint now made in respect to this man Sweeny was this—that notwithstanding the lawless state of the country and of this Ribbon system, this man Sweeny, who was notoriously a bad character, was in a short time after his conviction and sentence of transportation sent back, with a ticket of leave, to the place of his birth—where he was, no doubt, now pursuing the same course of lawlessness and crime. A strong remonstrance was drawn up by the magistrates, and sent to the Lord Lieutenant, together with resolutions, setting forth the great encouragement to outrage which the enlargement of this offender gave, and protesting against the ticket-of-leave system. The resolutions agreed to were these—
"We, the undersigned magistrates of the county of Donegal, with the most anxious desire to carry into effect the wishes and decisions of the Government, as well as the law of the land, crave leave to lay before your Excellency the very great increase of difficulty thrown in the way of our duty, by the plan at present adopted, of granting 'tickets of leave' to convicts, whereby they may return to the scenes of their former crimes.
"In this county two prisoners of the name of Sweeny (Miles and Shane), brothers, were tried at the summer assizes, 1851, for burglary, assault, and robbery, upon a man named William Starrett, from which assault, and its consequences, the man subsequently died. The cause of this outrage was agrarian, the enforcing from Starrett a compensation for land given to his fattier, from whence the Sweenys or their father had been evicted many years before.
"They were convicted, and sentenced to ten years' transportation. Miles Sweeny has now been at large in this very district since the winter of 1853.
"We, the undersigned, with the utmost respect, submit for the consideration of your Excellency the great encouragement this man's enlargement gives to the Ribbon confederacy—a system organised expressly to protect landholders against the laws, and so prevalent now in this country, as your Excellency is aware the greater part of it is proclaimed, and not only to afford encouragement to evil-doers, but to impart increased terror and dismay to the well-disposed, and to render it still more hopeless than it has hitherto been to obtain information or assistance to bring offenders to justice; and we very earnestly pray your Excellency that, in the solitary instances of conviction on offences arising out of 'Ribbonism' the prisoners may not be allowed 'tickets of leave' to return home, which are considered, and indeed cannot be distinguished by an ignorant people from, a pardon; and are, therefore, calculated to render the law still more impotent than it is in all such cases."
416
He (Lord Naas) quite concurred with these opinions, and thought that it was most desirable to know whether it was proposed by the Government to grant these tickets of leave to persons convicted of agrarian outrages. They ought also to know whether they were to be given, in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, as a mitigation of punishment, or whether they were to be granted as rewards for good behaviour in prison. He certainly did not think that tickets of leave should be granted as a sort of quasi pardon or mitigation of punishment. It was certainly possible that the liberation of this man might have arisen from one of those mistakes which would inevitably arise sometimes; and in that case nothing more could be said about it. But he could not but think that the inhabitants of this district, so long the scene of agrarian outrage, ought to receive an assurance that these perpetrators should not receive tickets of leave, or at any rate that they should not be permitted to return to the scene of their former crimes.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, there was no objection to give this correspondence, though he must observe that there was nothing in the papers which came before the Irish Government to show that the man in question was convicted of a Ribbon offence. He was sorry to say that the county of Donegal was not in a good state, that disturbances prevailed there, that a district had been proclaimed, and that it would be necessary to continue that proclamation. He apprehended that the ticket-of-leave system which had been recently introduced in place of transportation was now on its trial, and that such tickets would only be granted when he behaviour of the convicts in prison was such as to give a fair prospect that if let out they would not endanger the peace of society. Those remarks had, however, no reference to the present case. The man Sweeny having been convicted of a burglary and a violent assault, was sent to Spike Island, where he remained until two or three months ago. The Lord Lieutenant then received a petition from his wife, stating that he was in bad health, and praying for his release. This petition was referred to the medical officer of the Spike Island prison, who reported that the prisoner was in fact labouring under a dangerous disease, which would be greatly aggravated by continued confinement. That report was sent to the Judge who tried the case, and he having stated that he thought it was

417
proper that under the circumstances the man should be released, the Lord Lieutenant ordered the liberation. Nor did he (Sir J. Young) believe that any Government would keep a man in prison at the risk of his life, when he had been sentenced to a punishment much less than death. He might again remark that there was nothing in the paper that came under the notice of the Government to show that Sweeny had committed a "Ribbon" offence.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.