HC Deb 13 July 1858 vol 151 cc1399-429

House in Committee.

Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.

(1.) £3,568, Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, he did not doubt but that the Ecclesiastical Commission was of great benefit to the interests of the Church; but that being the case, he thought it would be more just to the public and would tend to the ultimate advantage of the Church if this payment were defrayed out of the estates of the Church, and not out of the public funds. The Church ought to pay its expenses. He did not mean to say a word against that Commission, one of whose members (Mr. Deedes) he was glad to see present; but while he believed that the Church benefited by their labours, he thought the Church ought to hear its expenses. He should therefore move the rejection of the Vote.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he wished to remind the Committee that this Vote formed a part only of the expenses of the Commission, and that the other and by far the larger portion of its expenses was borne out of Church property. His own conviction was, that the reason why the Ecclesiastical Commission had worked so well was that it did not wholly represent the interests of the Church, but that it was beneficial, also, to those who might be fairly considered to represent the public as holders of Church property, and, therefore, it was arranged from the first that while a portion of these expenses should be borne by the public, the other and larger portion of them should be borne by the Church. Both the Church and the State gained by the Commission, and, therefore, it was not reasonable that the expense should be altogether saddled upon the property of the Church. Last year the surplus in the hands of the Commissioners was only £5,000, this year it amounted to £15,000, which sum, as was well known, was spent in the augmentation of small livings. But if the Committee insisted on taking this sum out of the surplus, it was his belief that, far from conferring a boon upon the State, it would be detrimental to its best interests, as well as those of the Church.

MR. WILSON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had only confirmed him in an opinion he had long held, that his Vote was only an indirect mode of endowing small livings, and was most objectionable on that account. He believed that a Committee sitting on the Miscellaneous Estimates had recommended the discontinuance of this Vote, and he believed it was the intention of the late Government to consider the propriety of discontinuing it altogether. He could not expect the present Government to take that course, as they had not yet had an opportunity of considering the subject; and, therefore, he for one would not oppose the Vote on this occasion, but he would hold himself free to reject it in future years.

MR. HADFIELD

said, nothing was more common than that every estate should bear the expenses of all that was done for its benefit. A Church establishment like that of England, with a revenue of £6,000,000 a year, ought surely to pay this paltry sum, which, small as it was, was an eyesore to multitudes in the country. He hoped the Committee would reject the Vote.

MR. DEEDES

said, the hon. Gentleman argued the question as if the Ecclesiastical Commission existed for the exclusive benefit of the Church, whereas the fact was, that his right hon. Friend had already stated, that if the accounts of the Commission were analysed, it would appear that a much larger sum than what was now asked for was expended on matters in which the Church was not directly connected. A great deal of the time and attention of the Commissioners was occupied with the enfranchisement of property, which he did not say was of no benefit to the Church, but which was at least of equal benefit to the persons who occupied that property, and he believed that the expense arising from that source was more than double the sum now required. It appeared to him to stand in much the same relation to the public that the Charity Commission did. Why was the expense of the Charity Commissioners charged upon the public, and not upon the property of the charities, some of which were very large, and which were scattered throughout the country? That question had been argued in this House, and it was very properly decided that the question was one of public interest, and that the public ought therefore to bear the expense. With regard to the surplus which had been referred to, the large amount was in part owing to various benefactions which had been received through the year; and if that source of supply were continued, he thought great good would be done. He should certainly have been surprised if the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) had expressed his intention to vote against the sum; because, if the Government to which he belonged were opposed to it, they had had ample time to strike it out of the Estimates.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there could be no doubt the public were benefited by the process of enfranchisement, but primarily and directly the benefit accrued to the Church; and, therefore, the expense of enfranchisment, as well as the other expenses ought to be borne by the Church. The late Government did promise last year to take this Vote into its consideration, which was generally held to imply a pledge that they were in favour of its discontinuance. But it would be hard to bring this Vote to an end wholly without notice, and he believed that if they had still remained in office they would have proposed this Vote, with an intimation that it would be for the last time. He should have been glad to hear the present Government give such a pledge, but he could understand that they had not had time to consider the question.

MR. VERNON SMITH

rose only to say that he was Chairman of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee in 1848, which recommended the cessation of this Vote. That recommendation has never been carried into effect. He believed the answer of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), who was then Prime Minister, was to the effect that he would put an end to the Vote as soon as the funds of the Commission were in a more favourable state. He thought that the time had now arrived, and that the Commission was now in a condition to defray all the expenses that properly belonged to them.

MR. A. SMITH

said, he was not satisfied with the answer of the Government. The public were not at all concerned in the enfranchisements which had been referred to, but the lessees of the property; and if any expense was incurred in that way they ought to pay it.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

said, as he was not trammelled by having supported his Vote in office, there was nothing to prevent him going to a division.

Motion made and Question put,— That a sum, not exceeding £3,568, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray a portion of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 61: Majority 6.

Vote agreed to, as was also,

(2.) £16,340, Charity Commission.

(3.) £20,000, Incumbered Estates Commission and Court for Sale and Transfer of Land in Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

objected that though a Bill had been introduced to abolish this Court by the end of the year, its expenses for twelve months were here to be voted.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

explained that part of this sum was to be taken in advance for the establishment of the new Court, and that it would be repaid out of the fees.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £11,402, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for the Salaries and Expenses of sundry temporary Commissions, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

MR. LOCKE KING

said, he rose to move that the item of £1,861 for the Statute Law Commission be struck out of this Vote, as the Commission had been long denounced by public opinion. If any one were to look to the bottom of this Commission he would see that it was based upon the most selfish consideration. There was but one paid Commissioner, whom he should not hesitate to name, Mr. Bellenden Ker. That gentleman and a former pupil of his, the Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Brickdale, with the clerks and messengers, divided the grant among them. The old Criminal Law Commission, of which this Commission was the successor, was a job far more liberal. During the sixteen years Mr. Bellenden Ker had been upon that Commission he had received the sum of £10,400. In 1850 that Commission ceased: because Mr. Bellenden Ker was the only Commissioner left, it was found necessary to find or invent another situation for that learned gentleman; hence the appointment of the present Statute Law Commission. Great promises were made by the Lord Chancellor of that day, who undertook that in the next Session the whole statute-book should be expurgated. A staff of learned gentlemen was accordingly employed, who in a short space of time al- most accomplished wonders, but they were ignominiously dismissed, because they did so much that, if their labours had been continued for some time longer, the Commission would soon have ceased to exist. A distinct plan of procedure was laid down by Lord Cranworth, by which expurgation was to precede consolidation; but this plan was resisted and argued against by Mr. Bellenden Ker, and the result was that the Lord Chancellor's promise was broken, and the work of consolidation was to go before that of expurgation. There could be no doubt that the course thus pursued was the wrong one. At length the Attorney General promised that if the matter were left to him he would, in the space of eighteen months, consolidate our whole statute law. Nothing, however, was done. Occupying the post which that learned Gentleman did, he had kept on the notice paper from day to day a reference to a series of Consolidation Bills; but those measures had not yet made their appearance, and at this advanced period of the Session they were not likely ever to do so. In 1856 six or seven Bills were thrown upon the table of the House of Lords late in the Session, but they did not then pass, as it was not intended that they should. In 1857 those Bills were again introduced into the House of Lords, and passed through it with a protest from the Lord Chief Justice of England. Those measures were passed there upon the faith of the Statute Law Commission; but on coming down to that House they did not receive a second reading, in consequence of his own interposition, he having assured the late Government that if they went on with the Bills he would take the sense of the House upon them. It was most fortunate for the country that those measures did not become law, for he had been given to understand that though they were Consolidation Bills they were not accompanied with repealing enactments; so that their effect would have been to continue the old and the new law in force together, thereby adding to the confusion which already existed. Enormous sums had been spent upon these Commissions. The Commission which commenced in 1833 had expended directly £50,000 of the public money, and yet it actually did nothing. The present Commission, too, which had not passed a single Act, except the one relating to the sleeping statutes which he had himself carried through in spite of them, had already nearly absorbed £20,000 of the public money. The Vote now proposed for the Commission was only £1,861; but in addition to this sum, they were warned by a note appended to the Estimate that there were fees which would have to be paid to the draughtsmen employed by the Commissioners to draw Consolidation Bills, and execute other works connected with the revision of the statutes, and which would be defrayed from the Civil Contingencies Fund. The amount of such fees awarded in the year ending December 31, 1857, was £3,312; but whether an equal sum would be required for the present year, the note attached to the Vote said depended upon the course hereafter adopted by the Board. These fees were at first included in the Estimate, but now there seemed to be a disposition to keep them out of sight. When the Attorney General promised to bring in the Bills to which he had referred, the learned Gentleman did not like to say that they should be accepted upon the faith of the Commission, but proposed that they should be sent before a Select Committee. So that the workmanship of a Royal Commission was thus to be subjected to revision in a Committee-room upstairs, and the House was to take the whole responsibility. Believing that this Commission would, as long as it lasted, be the greatest obstacle to law reform, he begged to move that the item of £1,861 be altogether disallowed.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, it was surprising that one who, like the hon. Member for Surrey, had from the very first devoted the greatest attention to the proceedings of the Statute Law Commission, should have remained up to this time unconvinced that it had already effected great public good, and that it would be most impolitic to stop its progress now, when the whole nation was interested in the result of their labours. It might not be known to the House though well known to the hon. Member, that for at least 200 years the state of our statute-book had been the subject of grievous complaint, and various projects had been proposed and suggestions offered for its improvement by the most eminent lawyers and greatest statesmen whom this country had ever produced. Until the present century, however, not a single Bill was introduced into Parliament calculated to remedy so serious an evil. Since the year 1816 no less than eleven Commissions or Committees had sat upon the subject, presided over or directed by such men as Sir S. Romilly, Lord Brougham, Lord Tenterden, and Sir R. Peel, but down to 1853 nothing was done, and he begged to remind the hon. Gentleman, when he talked about the expenses of this Commission, that three alone of the Commissions of which he bad spoken had cost the country little short of £100,000, and yet nothing was done. The present Commission had sat only since 1854—perhaps, as it was preceded by another Commission, he might say 1853—and the cost of it was scarcely one per cent on the preceding useless and fruitless Commissions. He would state shortly what it had done. He would not stop to consider the great difficulty which had stood in the way of all reform on this subject. The statute-book consisted, as they all knew, of some forty large folio volumes, containing statutes with no other arrangement than according to the succession of the reigns of the Sovereigns and the successive years of those reigns. Many of these statutes, instead of being confined to the subject that one would expect from their title, embraced a great variety of totally different and unconnected subjects. These statutes had grown until the bulk of them constituted a great evil. If this were the time he could quote the language of eminent Judges, in which they complained that such was the state of our statute law that no man, however learned and however vigilant he might be, could know what the law was. It was impossible for any one, in looking through our statute-book, to trace his way through the multitude of conflicting and complicated provisions they contained; and the intricacy was much increased by the fact that out of the forty large folio volumes of the statute law, upwards of thirty were filled with statutes or parts of statutes which were either repealed or obsolete, or superseded, or in some way had become useless.

It would be necessary, in order to effect a consolidation, to reduce these forty volumes to something like four, and that instead of from 15,000 to 18,000 public general statutes, and some 36,000 to 37,000 other statutes, they must reduce the general statute law of England to some 200 or 300 Acts of Parliament, each Act embracing an entire subject, and expressed in an analytical and consistent form. He owned he thought it was a discredit to the Legislature that 250 years should have elapsed not only without anything being done, but without anything substantial and really useful being attempted by Parliament. The present Statute Law Commission, which the hon. Gentleman sought to extinguish, had not only attempted, but made great progress in accomplishing this great work, and he hoped, with the support of Parliament, that in a very short period, perhaps in two years from the time at which he was now speaking, the whole work would be effected, and the whole statute law of England consolidated. Nothing but the urgency and the severe pressure of public business which had recently occupied so large a share of the attention of Parliament had prevented him from submitting to the House the scheme of consolidating and amending the statutes and the preliminary measures, such as the appointment of a competent officer or board with a view to future legislation, which he trusted, ere long, would lead to its accomplishment. Before proceeding to state to the Committee what the Statute Law Commission had actually done, it was but right that he should do justice to the late Government, and above all to the noble and learned Lord who lately filled the office of Lord Chancellor, and briefly state the reasons why the efforts so successfully made by the Statute Law Commission had not yet had the effect of bringing before Parliament a number of Bills which he was sure would satisfy both the House and the country that they had made great progress in accomplishing the object in view. In 1853 Lord Cranworth, the then Lord Chancellor, submitted to the Statute Law Commissioners a plan of operations on which they immediately began. The gentleman who had been mentioned on this and former occasions, Mr. Bellenden Ker, was a member of the earlier Commissions, and of the late Commission, and he felt bound to say with regard to that learned gentleman that he had acted in a manner so disinterested, and had so devoted his whole time and attention to the public service, that he felt that nothing he could say for him would amount to the need of praise that was due to him for all he had done in relation to the statute law. It was true that he had received a payment of £1,000 a year, not, indeed, as a member of the Statute Law Commission, but because he had also, during that period, assisted the Lord Chancellor in all Bills, and especially law Bills, which had been submitted on the part of the Government to either House of Parliament. He had made pecuniary sacrifices amounting to a large annual income rather than leave unfinished, without his necessary assistance, the great work which successive Lord Chancellors had wished to accomplish. And now, let them see what the Statute Law Commissioners had done since 1853. In the first place, four Reports had emanated from them, embodying the principles on which it was suggested that the statute law should be consolidated. Besides these Reports, indices had been made, Bills had been drawn, and various other works performed, which, although they were not in their present shape, Bills which could be submitted to Parliament, yet those who had to complete the work of consolidation would find in them all that was required in respect to that particular branch of the law to which they related. Let him say, also, that although down to the year 1853 no one single Consolidation Bill had emanated from the Commissions existing to that time, from 1853 to 1857 the Statute Law Commissioners had caused to be prepared, and, as to most of them, to be completed—and the rest of them were in an advanced state of progress—no less than forty-three Consolidation Bills, embracing, he might almost say, all the most important subjects comprised in the statute law. These Bills were now actually, moat of them, ready to be laid on the table of the House. And he thought he could state to the satisfaction even of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. L. King) why they had not been introduced. With respect to many of the Bills, great difference of opinion would inevitably exist, and it became a question whether, having taken the sense of one or the other House of Parliament, or some Committee of one or the other House of Parliament, upon something that might be deemed a fair specimen of the whole system of consolidation, they should bring forward any one Bill until the whole of the Bills of which the consolidation was to consist should be finished. The present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas suggested to the Commission that they should take some one branch of the law involving all the difficulties that could possibly arise, and he truly said that if they succeeded in that, they might hope to succeed in others. Lord Cranworth accepted that challenge. He called on the members of the Statute Law Commission to select a difficult and complicated subject, a fair test of the statute laws, and by common consent the criminal law was chosen. He would not detain the Committee, by going through the means they resorted to in order to accomplish the task allotted to them; but this he would say with pride and with confidence, that, from the very able and strenuous assistance they had received from the learned gentlemen who were employed to reduce to form and order the criminal law of the country, and with the assistance generally of the Statute Law Commission, of Mr. Bellenden Ker, of Mr. Brickdale, the secretary, and, above all, of Mr. Greaves, who had dedicated all his invaluable time and talents without fee or reward, with the assistance of Lord Granworth, of Lord Wensleydale, of the late Chief Justice Jervis, and of other eminent members of the Statute Law Commission, the whole of the criminal statute law had been reduced and consolidated into nine Bills. These Bills were laid on the table of the House of Lords in 1856, and there was the whole of the recess to consider them. In 1857 they underwent some criticism, he would not say opposition, for there was none, but they underwent an investigation, and they then passed the House of Lords and were sent down to this House. The late Government, however, at an early period of the Session of 1857, thought that the subject was too large and important to be dealt with at once by the House, notwithstanding that those Bills had received the sanction of the House of Lords. In that Session, however, the Bills were brought forward in the House of Commons and read a first time, and the intention of the Government was that they should be referred to a Select Committee of the House, who might report on the entire scheme in conjunction with a scheme perhaps scarcely less important—the appointment of an officer to supervise future legislation. In the month of March, however, in consequence of an event which they all remembered,—Parliament was unexpectedly dissolved, and it did not meet again for the despatch of business till the month of May. The consequence was that the Committee which had been appointed was interrupted in its progress, and no complete Report was made; and when Parliament met again, nothing further was done in the matter. At the beginning of the present Session his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Sir H. Keating) then Solicitor General, gave notice that he should bring forward the several criminal Bills, and it was only owing to the sudden and unexpected change of Government that he was prevented from doing so. Since the present Government had been in power other urgent public measures had been constantly under the consideration of Government, so that it had been impossible for those to whom this matter was committed to consider these Consolidation Bills. The Committee had now to determine whether the Statute Law Commission should be put an end to before Parliament had an opportunity of considering these Bills, and he trusted they would not think of adopting such a course. From the labours of the Committee they would soon have the opportunity of considering not only the consolidation of the statute law, but no less than ninety-three Consolidation Bills, which only awaited the approbation of the House of the system on which the consolidation had proceeded, and which Bills would effect at least one-third, perhaps nearly one-half, of the entire consolidation of the statute law. He should not detain the Committee by going further into the subject. The hon. Member forgot that the Statute Law Commission had not only prepared a consolidation of the criminal law, but the law of real property. The hon. Member for Surrey, much to his surprise, took to himself the great credit of having done all in the way of consolidation that had been accomplished during the last five years. Now, the hon. Gentleman had conferred honour on the Statute Law Commissioners by taking up and passing through Parliament a Bill of which the Commissioners were the real authors, for they had furnished all the materials of which his Bill was composed; but, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman took up the work before it was completed, and so introduced a Bill with many imperfections. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would be persuaded to give a little further time to the Statute Law Commissioners to proceed with this undertaking, and he might feel assured they would at last accomplish a work worthy the approbation of this House and of the country.

MR. M'MAHON

said, he was satisfied that the progress of consolidation would only be impeded by the continuance of the Statute Law Commission. If they wanted consolidation, the best course they could take would be to abolish the Commission, and throw the responsibility upon the Attorney General. The consolidation of the statute was in some respects like the work of cleansing the Thames. They should lay down a principle, as was done in France and the United States, and name the proper men to whom the work should be intrusted. At present they had no plan whatever, and if they were merely to have an addition of four folio volumes to the statutes, the Commission would have done more harm than good. The Attorney General had referred to the labours of the Commission in regard to the criminal law; but so little knowledge did they possess of the criminal law of the country that they actually fancied the law that applied to petty larceny in England would not apply to Ireland, and that there must be one law for England and another for Ireland. He had carefully examined the Bills which passed the House of Lords, and to which the Attorney General had referred, and he felt perfectly confident that the right hon. Gentleman would be ashamed to stand up and ask the House to pass those measures as proper and fitting models of consolidation. When they came before the House he should he prepared, with regard to the law of libel, to show that the gentlemen who prepared those Bills evidently knew nothing at all about the subject. In truth, the present mode of proceeding was utterly indefensible. If the Attorney General would take the matter up on his own responsibility, he was sure there was not a Member of the House who would not have confidence in his labours, and there would be some chance of progress, but if they went on as they were now doing, instead of clearing the statute-book, they would find that year after year they were only adding to the evil which they wished to remedy.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would express a hope that the Committee would not enter upon the discussion of Bills that were not before them. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would be able in a few days—probably in the course of next week—to introduce Bills which embodied the views of the Government, and they would be printed for the consideration of hon. Members. In the meantime he hoped they would confine themselves to the question before the Committee, and give their sanction to the very moderate expenditure which was required for the Statute Law Commission.

MR. BAINES

said, with regard to the criminal law Bills, he believed they bad been drawn up by Mr. Greaves, under the superintendence of Lord Wensleydale. The Attorney General said it was the intention of Government early next Session to go on with the inquiry before the Select Committee, and one object of the inquiry was which of the two methods of carrying out a scheme of consolidation ought to be adopted. Last Session the noble Lord the Member for the City of London suggested that instead of merely stringing together enactments which were scattered up and down the statute-book, they should amend the law as they went on. On the other hand, it was said that to attempt more than a bare consolidation of existing enactments would be to undertake a hopeless task. It was proposed to submit to a Committee the question which of these plans should be adopted, or to ascertain whether some middle course could not be pursued. But in every case there could be no doubt that the Commission had been accumulating for some time past a quantity of materials which would be found of the greatest utility whenever the Legislature determined upon any definite mode of action. He might particularise a work which had been undertaken by Mr. Wood at the instance of the Commissioners—namely, a register or digest of all the Acts of Parliament, or parts of Acts, which were actually in force. Mr. Wood had begun at the present time, and he was going back year by year through the statute-book. He had already reached the commencement of the present century, and he (Mr. Baines) had every reason to believe that when completed it would prove a most valuable work. He believed that the portion already finished would be ready to be laid on the table in about a fortnight; and in his humble opinion the Commission well deserved the confidence and approbation of the Committee.

MR. MELLOR

said, that though according to the Attorney General nothing had been done by any of the Committees or Commissions which had sat before 1853, Mr. Bellenden Ker had been a member of every one. He thought they would be doing a great service to the cause of law reform if they declined to continue the Vote.

MR. MALINS

said, that the hon. and learned Attorney General said that nothing had been done by the Commissioners until 1853; that since then great things had been done, and that in two years more the whole statute law would be consolidated. But, two years ago, his hon. and learned Friend had promised that the whole statute law would be consolidated in eighteen months. He now promised that it should be done in two years from the present time. He had told his hon. and learned Friend on the former occasion, and he again told him then, that the truth was the House was spending money on that which for practical purposes could never be of any use. It might be true that ninety-three Bills had been prepared. But they were told that Bills were to be submitted to a Select Committee of that House. But how, unless they had a perpetual Parliament, or unless they abdicated their other legislative functions, were those ninety-three Bills to be passed through Parliament? Considering the practical difficulties that attended the subject, he was not surprised that more had not been done; but he thought that consolidation was almost impracticable.

MR. WHITESIDE

admitted that the question of the mode of effecting the object in view was a very fair one for consideration. And he thought it possible that a better mode of proceeding than that now in force might be adopted. Still he thought there was great force in the words of the right hon. Member (Mr. Baines) that whatever became of the Statute Law Commission they had collected a mass of materials of opposite opinions and of different views as to the subject, which was of great interest, and would be exceedingly useful to Parliament in a future Session. He thought that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) had unnecessarily alarmed the Committee, for he did not understand the Attorney General to say that ninety-three Bills were to be placed on the table of that House at once. What he understood him to say was that a Committee of learned and able men of that House might, with the materials collected by the Statute Law Commissioners, decide on the scheme or plan to be pursued for the consolidation of the statutes, after which the Commission would be no longer required, but that the individual men who were most competent might be appointed to do the work. He hoped that the Vote would not now be rejected, but that the Commission would be continued a little longer.

Motion made and Question put,— That the item of £1,861, for the Statute Law Commission, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 85: Majority 33.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £26,198, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Fees, Salaries, Expenses, and Compensations payable under the provisions of the Patent Law Amendment Act, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he wished to call attention to the extravagant fees payable to the law officers of the Crown in England, amounting on the whole to £8,500 per annum, while the Attorney General for Ireland obtained only £1,200, and the Lord Advocate for Scotland £850. It had been estimated that the sum derived by the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for England from their offices under the Crown and from their private practice was about equal to the salaries of three of our learned Judges, or of three Secretaries of State, including the Prime Minister. Their duties in connection with the Patent Office were of the most trivial description, and might easily be discharged by a clerk. It ought to be remembered too, that the persons who paid the fees, whatever their abilities might be, were generally very poor. He moved that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £4,000.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that the hon. Gentleman should recollect what was done in this matter in 1852. The patent law was then materially altered, and the cost of a patent was reduced from £500 to £50 or £60, while the emoluments of the law officers were materially reduced. The hon. Gentleman should remember that there were no two men in the kingdom who were more overworked than the Attorney and Solicitor General. They had a large private practice, part of which they had to give up to attend to their public duties. They had to advise the Government constantly on matters of the greatest importance. It might be that during the period they held office the Attorney and Solicitor General derived greater emoluments than other professional men. But he did not believe that the fees paid by the Government to the Attorney and Solicitor General were anything like those which they would receive as fees for a similar amount of business from private persons. Putting aside the question whether the law officers should or should not be paid by salaries, he must say that so long as the law officers of the Crown were paid by fees he should be sorry to see a reflection cast on them by a reduction of those fees.

MR. GILPIN

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment which he could not prevent from assuming a personal character. At the same time he did not think they could keep out of view the strong opinion entertained by many that officers of the Government, of whatever kind, should be paid by a direct Vote. He did not believe that the emoluments of the law officers were too large, but he should prefer a different mode of payment.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he did not intend any reflection upon them. At the same time he must say that the duties of the Home Secretary were quite as great and important, though his emoluments were much less.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that these fees were not paid as a general retainer to the Attorney and Solicitor General, but for their services in connection with patents, which he believed were generally of a routine character; that they were very much delegated to others; and that they were in excess of the services rendered in this particular way. Unless it could be shown that this sum was a fair remuneration for services rendered under the Patent Law Amendment Act, it could not, he thought, be fairly supported.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, it was very odious to speak on a matter so personal, but he felt it due to the office he held to say a few words. He would admit that these sums seemed large, but the Committee must remember that the Attorney and Solicitor General were dealt with in a manner in which no other public officers were dealt with. The Attorney and Solicitor General were provided with no accommodation in the way of offices for the transaction of the business that passed through their hands. In the next place, they had, at their own expense, to engage skilful clerks to transact that business, and a considerable sum was thus expended. He admitted that if, after appointing clerks, the law officers were to transfer to them business which they ought to transact themselves, that would be an abandonment of their duty; but that was not done. Every patent and provisional specification of a patent passed under the eye of the law officer of the Crown to whom it was referred. Not a week passed over in which, out of twenty or thirty patents that passed under the eye of each of the law officers, nine or ten were not sent back on account of some irregularity, or on account of their containing some improper claim which the Crown ought not to grant. He took it upon himself to say that the fees on this particular piece of business were not higher than the fees on a corresponding amount of business, such as would come regularly before the law officers in their ordinary practice, irrespective altogether of the outlay involved in the providing of offices and the engagements of clerks. The business transacted by these law officers in relation to patents was of a serious character, and could not be neglected without serious injury to the trade and industry of the country.

MR. COX

said, he thought this was an exorbitant sum. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself said it could only be justified in consequence of the law officers being put to certain charges, and having to pay for clerks. It was unfortunate, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not look further into the Estimates, for there was an item of £750 for clerks.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had the satisfaction of paying two clerks for patent business, for whose salaries no provision whatever was made in the Votes. The fees referred to were not for the clerks who did the patent business; they were the fees which came regularly to the clerks of the Attorney and Solicitor General for the time being.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he thought that if the Government would consider the subject before they met again, he would not trouble the Committee to divide.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) appeared to be under the impression that some portion of the duties of the Attorney and Solicitor General were performed by deputy. He could assure him there was no portion whatever of any public duty imposed upon them that they were not obliged to perform in their own persons. With respect to the fees, he could also state that in consequence of the difference that existed between the fees paid by the Crown and those paid by individuals the acceptance of office was productive of loss rather than of increased emoluments.

Motion made, and Question, That the item of £8,500, for Fees payable to the Law Officers of the Crown in England, be reduced by the sum of £4,000.

put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. WILSON

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Government to the circumstance that the amount received from stamps upon patents last year was £88,860, while the whole expense of the Patent Department was only £46,840, and therefore he would suggest that the amount of stamp duties levied upon patents should be reconsidered.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the whole of the stamp duties would probably be reconsidered next year, and the subject referred to by the hon. Gentleman would not be omitted.

MR. A. SMITH

said, he wished for information respecting the sum of £1,500 required for the Museum of Patented Inventions at Kensington, and the further sum of £580 for the salaries of a curator, secretary, and assistant. He should move to reduce the Vote by £2,000.

Motion made and Question proposed,— That the item of £5,126, for Patent Office, Salaries, &c., be reduced by the sum of £2,000.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

explained that there was formerly a Museum of Patents in Chancery Lane, containing a number of valuable and most useful models and a library, which were of great assistance to inventors. The space being small and the situation inconvenient it became necessary to remove the museum, and accommodation was offered at Kensington. After some time the space at Kensington was required for other purposes; but the Commissioners offered to allow the Patent Museum to remain if the Government would expend a small sum in providing a building for the reception of the models and library. That arrangement was agreed to, and the present Vote was the necessary consequence.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he readily admitted the value of the museum, but he thought Kensington a most inconvenient locality for it.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that point had been considered, and the present arrangement was only temporary.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the Museum of Patents had no connection with the Museum at Kensington. It had been removed there by the consent of the Royal Commissioners until proper accommodation could be found, which the Government were now making arrangements for doing.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(6.) Motion made and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £13,822, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

MR. WHITE

said, that last year a promise was made to make this Board self-supporting, by imposing a fee on every barrel of herrings branded. The Vote appeared to be a wretched remnant of the protective system, for he saw no reason for putting a brand on a barrel of herrings any more than on a bale of cotton or any other article; and he should move that the Vote be disallowed.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

observed, that in the county to which he belonged more fishing was carried on than in any other county in England, and the fishermen there did not receive a single sixpence from the public funds. He thought the time had come for getting rid of this Vote.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, it was true that a part of this Vote, having reference to the branding of barrels of herrings, was objected to last year, and an intimation was given that a portion of the Vote should be discontinued. A Bill had passed through the House in the present Session to provide for the branding of herring barrels, but not in time to meet the requirements of the fishery for the present year, and therefore it was necessary to continue the Vote for another year. There was a very strong feeling among the fishermen themselves in favour of continuing for a time the system of branding which gave a character to the herrings of Scotland. The Bill which had passed would bring to the test the expediency or inexpediency of that system. If the parties interested did not voluntarily comply with the provisions of that Bill, it would be obvious that there was no great value in the system of branding.

MR. COX

said, he was sorry that the hon. Members for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), and Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), who resisted the grant to the Metropolis of any assistance out of the Consolidated Fund, were not now present, for he should like to ask them whether they approved of public money being given in aid of the fisheries of Scotland. He should certainly oppose this Vote, with the exception of the amount required for pensions.

MR. WHITE

said, he did not mean to include the pensions, and, therefore, he would modify his Amendment by moving that the Vote, with the exception of the pensions, should be expunged.

MR. DUFF

said, that the Board of Fisheries had other duties to perform besides branding herrings. They had officers stationed along the coast of Scotland whose duty it was, when herrings were brought in, to see that those sent out and exported abroad were properly packed, and were of a proper quality. They had also to supervise the whole of the fisheries, and manage the fishery police, as well as the piers and harbours in many of the fishing stations.

MR. WILSON

said, that a portion of the Vote was appropriated to the supplementing (in the proportion of one to three) the amounts raised by voluntary subscriptions for piers and harbours on the coast of Scotland, and any hon. Member might satisfy himself that this was a wise expenditure by reading the report of the Commission on the subject.

Motion made and Question put,— That a sum, not exceeding £2,160, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 119: Majority 61.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) £2,000; Board of Manufactures (Scotland).

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked what were the duties of this Board.

MR. WILSON

said, that at the period of the union with Scotland it was arranged that £2,000 should be applied annually to the encouragement of Scotch manufactures; but, as the manufacturers of Scotland had made such progress that they no longer required this encouragement, it was provided in 1836 that this amount should be applied, under the control of the Treasury, to the promotion of art and science in that country. The result had been the establishment of one of the finest schools of design in the kingdom.

MR. WHITE

said, the Vote appeared from the Estimates to be required for the encouragement of manufactures in Scotland, but it seemed to be really applied to the promotion of art and science in that country, and he hoped that next year the Government would state honestly and distinctly in the Estimates to what purpose it was devoted.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £5,000; Highland Roads and Bridges.

MR. GILPIN

said, he should oppose the Vote, as he did not see why the expense of these roads should not be defrayed by an assessment upon local property rather than by a charge upon the public purse.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, that a report of the application of this money was made annually to Parliament.

MR. COX

said, he thought it would be a much more sensible thing to apply this £5,000 to the repair of roads and the abolition of turnpikes in the metropolis and its neighbourhood, instead of devoting it to the maintenance of roads in Scotland which were seldom used.

MR. COLLINS

said, that as he had always opposed imperial grants for metropolitan improvements, he felt bound on principle to take a similar course with respect to the present Vote.

MR. CAIRD

said, the Vote was applied to the maintenance of roads in districts in which it would not be easy to support them by assessment, and those roads were used principally by English tourists.

Motion made and Question put,— That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account of the Commissioners of Highland Roads and Bridges, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 73: Majority 45.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £2,000; Slave Bounties.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

asked, how many slaves had been captured last year?

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, that he was not prepared to state the exact number then, but he would do so on a future occasion. He understood that a definite sum per head was paid for each captured slave.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER

said, that if the sum was, as he understood, £5 per head, the number of slaves captured last year was only 400.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £900; Publication of Ancient Laws and Institutes (Ireland).

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

observed, that some time ago a Commission was appointed to inquire into the expediency of publishing those laws, which contained much valuable information with regard to the ancient character and habits of the people, and the Commission having reported in favour of the object, this Vote was proposed in furtherance of it.

Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes.

(11.) £9,000, Process Servers (Ireland).

(12.) £58,900, Pensions (Merchant Service).

(13.) £2,084, Registration of Joint Stock Companies.

(14.) £1,693, Registration of Designs.

(15.) £50,000, Treaties of Reciprocity.

(16.) £4,700, Inspectors of Corn Returns.

(17.) £20,000, Distressed British Seamen Abroad.

(18.) £3,600, Quarantine Arrangements.

(19.) £17,850, Revising Barristers (England and Wales).

(20.) £3,856, Constabulary Police (Aldershot and Shorncliffe).

(21.) £3,000, Inspection of Burial Grounds.

(22.) £1,053, Professors (University of Cambridge).

(23.) £27,100, Lighthouses Abroad.

MR. A. SMITH

called attention to several items forming this Vote.

MR. HENLEY

said, that lighthouses had been erected at Ceylon and other places for the protection of the shipping trade. The expenditure had been imposed on the Government by the pressure of the trading community, by whom representations were constantly made by the trade of the country as to the necessity of lighthouses.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he wished for further particulars as regarded this Vote, and hoped they would be furnished during future years.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, there was a diminution in this Vote of £10,000 during the present year.

Vote agreed to; as was also the next Vote.

(24.) £1,000, Orange River Territory.

(25.) £20,000, Improvement of the Kafirs.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

said, he thought the proposed grant very objectionable, and observed that the Cape colonists had shown very little disposition to assist the mother country in her severe struggles in India. He might refer to a despatch from Lord Stanley to Sir George Grey on this subject, dated May 5, showing that in the four years ending March 1859, Parliament had voted for colonial purposes in Caffraria—£140,000 for promoting civilization, and £210,000 for the passage, settlement, and pay of the German Legion, besides which £30,000 would be required for the pay of the Legion next year, and there was an outstanding item of £35,000 for extra pay last year. To put a stop to this expenditure he should move the rejection of the Vote.

MR. CHEETHAM

said, he did not object to the policy of the Vote, but he would suggest that its payment should be divided between the Cape colony and this country.

LORD STANLEY

said, that the Cape colony had nothing to do with the Vote. It was a vote for British Caffraria, which was a distinct colony, although it had the same person for Governor. The grant had been originally fixed at £40,000 a year, and it had then been understood that it was not to last for more than three years. But the Government had felt unwilling to withdraw it altogether this year. They had, however, reduced it by one-half, and they hoped to be able to put an end to it altogether next year.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, he must express his strong disapproval of the practice of making grants of that character. Promises of reduction had been made annually, and he therefore hoped the hon. Baronet would persevere with his Amendment. He believed that if Sir George Grey were not able to govern Caffraria by some other means, the sooner they got rid both of him and of that colony the better.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, while he was at the head of the Colonial Office he differed from Sir George Grey on many points; but he must say, that in his opinion the energy and ability which that distinguished man had displayed had earned for him the gratitude of his country. There never was an idea held out by Sir George Grey that any part of the money would be repaid to the country. On the contrary, it was a payment necessary for the establishment of the colony—it was money well laid out, and the amount was by no means extravagant. He held that Sir George Grey was entitled to the thanks of the country for the course he had taken.

MR. NICOLL

objected to the grant as an improper application of the public money. It was a species of black mail paid to the Kafirs.

(25.) Motion made and Question put,— That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for promoting the improvement of the Kafirs, and the settlement and government of British Kaffraria, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1859.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 30: Majority 147.

Vote agreed to, as was also,

(26.) £29,940, Treasury Chest.

(27.) £2,000; Gallery of Portraits.

MR. BRISCOE

said, he must ask for explanation concerning this Vote, and wished for its postponement. This Vote would lead to a large outlay of public money, which was wholly unwarrantable in the present state of the public finances. Besides, nobody could get to see this collection, and if it were formed at all it ought to be part of the National Gallery. The object, he understood, was to collect the portraits of persons eminent in English history; but on looking over the list of portraits already acquired, there were some whose claims to be there he could not understand. For instance, there was the portrait of Mr. Murphy. He should like to know who he was and what he had done to have a place in a National Portrait Gallery? Again, there was a portrait of "La Belle Hamilton," a very pretty woman no doubt in her time, but he was not aware that it was of any national interest to preserve her portrait.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that great results had scarcely ever been obtained at so small an expense as had been accomplished by the National Portrait Gallery Commissioners. Historical interest was of course the first consideration in the selection of the portraits, but many of those which had been collected were works of high art. For instance, the Commissioners had recently been fortunate enough to obtain a portrait of Sir Joshua Reynolds by himself, which was really worthy of Rembrant, and was one of the finest productions of the English school. Of course, some day or other, the collection would form part of the National Gallery; that was one of the chief objects in commencing it. The effect of this Vote naturally was to stimulate the public spirit of persons who possessed portraits of interest, and no doubt in time many very valuable works would be presented to the Gallery. Already it was enriched by the Chandos Shakspere, presented by the late Lord Ellesmere, who purchased it at the Stowe sale for 1,000 guineas. The collection would be the germ of a National Portrait Gallery of the highest interest, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would sanction this Vote.

MR. BYNG

said, that having recently seen the gallery, he could bear testimony to its great value, and he had no doubt it was the first step towards the formation of a great national collection of portraits.

MR. EWART

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide against the Vote.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(28.) £2,000; Cholera (West Indies.)

(29.) £1,600; Boundary Survey (Ireland).

SIR DENHAM NORREYS moved the omission of the Vote. He had always understood that the boundaries had been settled years ago.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, that the boundaries were continually being altered, and required revision.

Motion made and Question put,— That a sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to Her Majesty, for the expense of adjusting and defining the Boundaries of Counties, Baronies, and Parishes in Ireland, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1859.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 91: Majority 27.

The following Vote was then agreed to,

(30.) £3,100; Agricultural and Emigration Statistics (Ireland).

(31.) £6,318, New Public Offices (Belfast).

MR. CHEETHAM

said, he wished to ask why the country was to be saddled with the expense attendant upon the town of Belfast?

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, some time ago it was considered necessary to build a new custom-house and an inland revenue establishment in Belfast. In order to effect those objects, the Government were obliged to purchase a certain quantity of land, which was to serve as approaches to those buildings. The corporation of the town had undertaken to pay a portion of the cost of this land, but unfortunately they got into difficulties, and were unable to carry out their undertaking. The building of those public offices entailed certain improvements to the town. A portion of the land thus purchased for the corporation would be resold, and the money thus obtained would go some way to cover the present Vote.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he hoped that if this Vote were agreed to, Irish Members would remember that public money was sometimes expended on other places besides the metropolis.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

remarked that he viewed with some suspicion such a Vote as the present placed upon the Estimates, when he recollected how many members of the Government were connected with Belfast.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the debt was incurred long before the present Government came into office, and the present Vote was merely one for the purpose of liquidating liabilities already incurred.

MR. COX

said, that the borough of Finsbury wanted improvement as well as Belfast, but the House of Commons would not Vote money for the "general improvement of the borough of Finsbury."

MR. WHITESIDE

said, this was the first time money had been voted for Belfast, while grants had been made for parks elsewhere. It should also be recollected that the custom-house of Belfast received large revenues for the general treasury of the kingdom, and, as the building was in a most dilapidated state, it became necessary to build a new one for the collection of the taxation. The same might be said of the post-office of the town.

MR. ELLICE (Coventry)

said, he could not understand why it was necessary to effect those improvements in Belfast at the public expense to the extent of purchasing a quantity of land for the purpose of selling it again.

SIR F. BARING

said, this Vote would go to the improvement of approaches, which was an improvement of the town. The public buildings alluded to had been paid for already.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, it appeared that money was advanced for the improvement of Belfast by the late Government, and the present Government would no doubt seek for the repayment of that money so advanced.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he understood that powers had been taken to purchase land for the custom-house and another public building in Belfast. Power was at the same time taken for the purchase of other land which the corporation were anxious to buy. The corporation got into pecuniary difficulties, and were unable to fulfil their contract when the purchase money became due. The Government, being liable, were obliged to advance the money; but that land was yet to be sold. Already £500 had been received out of it, and ultimately, he believed, that no charge would fall upon the public.

Vote agreed to.

(32.) £15,000, Four Courts Extension (Dublin).

MR. VANCE

asked, whether the proposed extension of those law buildings was for the accommodation of the new commissioners of the Encumbered Estates Court, and the Land Transfer Offices, and whether it was intended in the meantime to furnish any accommodation to those Commissioners before the new buildings were completed?

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, the object was the extension of the Four Courts, and the removal of the Incumbered Estates Court down there. The object of the Bill now going through the House was to secure the site. He was not able to say whether in the meantime the Incumbered Estates Commissioners could be accommodated in the Four Courts.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

asked whether it was contemplated to include the new Court of Probate in this building?

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

was understood to reply in the negative.

Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes,

(33.) £5,000, National Gallery (Dublin).

(34.) £1,000, Royal Dublin Society.

(35.) £10,000, Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.

(36.) £2,033, Royal Institution, Edinburgh.

(37.) £7,500, General Register House, Edinburgh.

(38.) £200, Repository for Public Records.

(39.) £6,000, Completing the Stylobate, &c., Nelson Column.

MR. GRIFFITHS

said, he understood that it was intended to make the proposed lions of granite, and to make them rose colour. He trusted that the Government would see that they were made of bronze.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

believed that the material was not yet decided, but that the best would be selected. He understood that his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) was in communication with Sir E. Landseer on the subject of lions, and he hoped that the column would do honour to the metropolis and to the hero whom it commemorated. The suggestion of the hon. Member should be attended to, but though he should admire bronze lions, he should look with some apprehension at the sight of four red lions in Trafalgar Square.

Vote agreed to.

MR. COX

said, he would move that the Chairman report progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that there were only seven more Votes. He believed there was a general understanding that they should be finished if the hon. Gentleman would allow them to go on.

MR. AYRTON

said, the next Votes that followed were all such as would cause discussion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought that when the Committee was so full would be an advantageous time for the discussion to be taken. He would not press the Committee if there was any serious objection to going on.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House," put, and negatived.

(40.) Motion made and Question proposed,— That a sum, not exceeding £8,836, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1859, expenses in payments to Engineers, and other charges incurred in the examination of a Plan and Estimate for the Main Drainage of London.

MR. COX

said, if they were to take the discussion, he must, say that this was a most monstrous proposition. The Committee was called on to vote £8,000, or rather nearly £9,000, for the examination of a plan for the drainage of the metropolis, which was proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1856. The Committee ought never to consent to it. The Metropolitan Board of Works proposed a plan which was submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Works. If that had not been done, the Committee could not have been asked to vote this sum, and the Board of Works would have been enabled to mitigate the evil from which the metropolis had been suffering. How could £9,000 have been expended on the examination of a plan? In fact, it was submitted to three engineers, who were instructed to find fault with it, and they proposed plans of their own which were to cost sums varying from three to eleven millions of money, and it was now said that the plan to be proposed by the Government was that which was originally proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £6,000.

Motion made and Question proposed,— That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1859, expenses in payments to Engineers, and other charges incurred in the examination of a Plan and Estimate for the Main Drainage of London.

SIR BENJAMIN HALL

said, if the hon. Gentleman had been a Member of the House when the Act of 1855 passed, he could not have made the statement he had just made, for he would have been aware that it was the express desire of the House that the First Commissioner of Works should have a veto on any plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works. When the plan in question was submitted to him he thought it his duty to employ the best talent that could be obtained to advise him as to the course to be pursued, and he placed it in the hands of Mr. Simpson, Captain Galton, of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Blackwell. Captain Galton, of the Board of Trade, made no charge for his services, and the other gentlemen were satisfied with a remuneration of £1,500 for their services, which, looking to the nature of the remuneration received by gentlemen in their position, was little enough. The hon. Gentleman said, that he (Sir B. Hall) had instructed the engineers to find fault with the plan. He denied that statement, and it was a statement which ought not to have been made by the hon. Gentleman; and he called on him to give the authority on which he made such a charge. He would repeat that he did not give any such instructions, and if the hon. Gentleman insinuated that he gave improper instructions, the hon. Gentleman said that which was greatly incorrect. No doubt Mr. Bazalgette might have prepared a plan, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it might be that which was to be carried out now, and it might be a good one; but that gentleman had the assistance of Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Locke, who were members of the Commission of Sewers before that time; and the Metropolitan Board of Works had since appointed two referees—Mr. Bidder and Mr. Hawksley—who must be also paid. He hoped that the House of Commons would not think that he (Sir B. Hall) had done anything but that which was strictly his duty. He regretted that so large an expense should have been incurred, but it should be recollected that this was one of the greatest works that was ever undertaken, and that it was the duty of the gentlemen employed to make every inquiry, at any reasonable cost, and he thought that when it was considered that the work about to be done would cost three or four millions, this sum was not so large in proportion to the magnitude of the work.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

said, that although the sum was large, if it had been incurred, it must be paid. He would not, therefore, oppose the vote; but he could not help observing that this was but another specimen of the lamentable condition in which the Government of the metropolis was placed, with no regular body to manage its concerns. It was the duty of the Government, and, if they did not do so, of Parliament, to take early and vigorous measures to regulate the Government of the metropolis. You could not deal with the metropolis as you would with other places; it was so large that if you created one municipal body for its government, that body would become so powerful that it would be almost as powerful as Parliament itself, and might become dangerous to the constitution. But he did not see why districts of the metropolis like the City, Lambeth, and Westminster, should not be put under municipal government, and delegates sent from each district to a Board which should represent the whole community of the metropolis, and which would be worthy to be entrusted with powers which, at the present, no body could be entrusted with. Such a Council, he thought, would command public confidence in the metropolis. The only danger would be, that it might be liable to the charge of being, as respected its relation to Parliament itself, an imperium in imperio. He must say, that he thought the power given to the Chief Commissioner of Works—an official who was appointed for political reasons, and was changed with every Government, to put a veto on the decision of the Metropolitan Board of Works—was a power with which he ought not to have been entrusted. He thought, however, they should be grateful for what the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had done during his term of office, for he had done more probably than any of his predecessors.

MR. AYRTON

said, the expense under consideration was uncalled for and unnecessary, but having been incurred, however improperly, the duty only remained to the Committee to sanction its payment. The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wortley) as to Parliament being overshadowed by the metropolis being erected into a municipality he regard- ed as puerile, and he looked forward to the day when this great city would have a municipal constitution commensurate with its importance.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, the course the Government took on coming into office was to consult the law officers of the Crown, whether this expense ought not to be addressed to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Their opinion was, that that body was not responsible for the charge, and the Government had therefore no alternative but to propose this Vote to the House.

MR. COX

said, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment, and at the same time to disclaim the slightest personal feeling towards the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) in proposing it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

intimating that, as there was not much business on the paper, perhaps they might go into Committee of Supply this day,

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

stated, that there were some supplementary Votes still to be proposed, especially one by the Secretary of War for the sanitary improvements of barracks.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

said, he would move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of asking a question he had ineffectually endeavoured to get an answer to in Committee—When was the Dublin Police Bill coming on?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the hon. Gentleman was unreasonable. The Bill was on the paper, and would be referred to in its regular course. He might add, that he hoped to take the Bill at an early hour next Thursday.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.