Commons Sitting of 20 July 1859

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Wicklow, Right hon. Lord Proby.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Local Government Supplemental; Consolidated Fund (£7,000,000).
2° Edinburgh, &c., Annuity Tax Abolition; Weights and Measures; Diplomatic Pensions; Imprisonment for Small Debts; Judgments (Ireland).

EDINBURGH, &c., ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BLACK*,in moving the second reading of the Annuity Tax Abolition Bill, said—When last Session I moved the second reading of this Bill, I was reproved for giving no explanations or reasons why it should pass. I do not intend to expose myself to the same reproof on this occasion. At the same time I will endeavour to condense, as much as possible, what I have to say on the subject. I shall confine my observations to Edinburgh, as I am best acquainted with that part of the case. I will not enter into the history of the origin of the tax, but only notice that the Act of 1661 is the ruling Act by which the tax was collected. But this odious tax was largely increased and intensified by a fraudulent collusion between the clergy and the magistrates in 1809, when, without giving notice to the inhabitants, they smuggled into a private Bill a clause by which the clergy overreached the magistrates, and, after long litigation, secured the plunder which the magistrates intended to have devoted to their own purposes. I shall not be surprised if hon. Members imagine that I am only retailing a popular calumny, but I repeat that I am prepared to prove that this is a literal fact, as I
  108
  have with me extracts from their own averments in their written pleadings before the Court; and if it is denied, I can read those extracts, which, although curious, I will not trouble the House with at present. When speaking of the Established Church in Edinburgh it will be well that we understand what we are speaking about. I daresay many English Members imagine that it holds a position in Edinburgh somewhat similar to that of the Established Church in England. Fortunately I' can refer to a document which will not be controverted, in which the numbers of the adherents of the different denominations are stated by parties who could have no bias on the subject, and only acted in their official capacity when preparing the Census of 1851. I request the especial attention of the House to this statement:—
  Results of the Census of 1854 with respect to the Religious Establishments in Edinburgh and Leith:—

  Religious Denomination.

  Places of Worship.

  Sittings.

  Attendants, Morning.

  Attendants, Afternoon.

  Established

  26

  19,994

  8,674

  6,887

  United Presbyterian

  20

  20,465

  12,792

  15,235

  Free

  29

  20,830

  15,315

  15,922

  Other Denominations

  48

  20,584

  12,105

  9,183

  Total

  123

  81,873

  48,886

  47,227

  The whole number who attended divine service on that particular day was 48,886. Now, do hon. Members imagine that one-half or one-third of these belonged to the Establishment? there were just 8,674, or less than one-fifth. The statement includes Leith, which is almost a suburb of Edinburgh; but that does not affect the proportions. Now from this, I ask if it is reasonable that four-fifths of other denominations should be taxed to provide for the ministers of one-fourth. Another inference I draw from this is, that it is not to the Established Church alone that we are indebted for the maintenance of religion and morality. Here we have ninety-seven places of worship maintained by Dissenters, against twenty-six by the Church; the adherents of the Church often assume that it is to the Establishment we are mainly indebted for the maintenance of public worship. Another assumption is, that it is the church of the poor. Now here are 20,000 sittings, and only 8,674 occupants; for the poor would be welcomed to those empty pews, but they will not

  109
  go. It is the churches of the Dissenters that are the churches of the poor. Let us then keep in mind that by the Census of 1851, the Established Church in Edinburgh is not a majority, but in short can only rank as one of the sects, and not the most numerous; not the first or the second, but only the third on the list. I have the pleasure to know many of the Established ministers to be men of talent and learning, and most estimable characters, but they have the misfortune to be placed in rather an odious position by this tax, and I wish to give full scope to their talents and usefulness by relieving them from their disagreeable position. The division of last Wednesday on the Church Rates Abolition Bill was a significant fact, showing the advance of public opinion against compulsion in matters of religion. Now the church rates are mild compared with this tax. They only compel the population generally to support the fabrics where the members of the Establishment worship; but this tax extorts from members of other communions money to support the ministers of a sect to which four-fifths of the community do not belong, and to which some are decidedly opposed. Ministers' money in Ireland was abolished two years ago. The two taxes were the same in principle—both taxed the many for the support of the few, both partook of the essence of persecution. For if it be persecution to compel men to profess a creed which they do not believe, it is no less persecution to compel men to support the preachers of a creed in which they do not believe. I do not, however, say that the doctrines of the Established Church are contrary to the general creed, though there are some who are compelled to support it who consider their doctrines heretical, and the large majority consider that this taxing power to support religion is quite opposed to the great laws of the Statute-book of the Christian religion. But, independent of this, the tax of ministers' money in Scotland is greatly aggravated beyond the same impost in Ireland. In Ireland it was only-dwelling-houses that were assessed. In Scotland neither shops, warehouses, nor cellars escape the ecclesiastical maw. In Ireland it could not exceed 55 s. in any one case, with us it may reach £20, £30, or more. In Ireland there were no exemptions; in Edinburgh it is principally the tradesmen, the middle and the poorer ranks, that pay—the aristocracy escape, all who are members of the College of Justice, who
  110
  are a large class, are exempt. And let it be kept in mind that the tax is in itself heavy, heavier than the income tax, even after it has been increased by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When you keep in mind that all this grievance and injustice has been saddled upon the people by two Acts, the one passed in times when persecution was rampant, and by a monarch who was more intent on his unhallowed pleasures than the welfare of his country, and by a clause surreptitiously smuggled into a private Bill—I say when they think of these things, is it to be wondered at if the citizens of Edinburgh wince under the lash? For some time there has been a lull. This I account for by the circumstance that this House has been annoyed from year to year by Bills upon this subject, and the inhabitants trust that Parliament will, as it ought, relieve them from this intolerable grievance; and, on the other hand, the ministers abstain from extreme measures lest they should injure their cause in this House. The volcano is at present at rest, but it is still burning within, and may burst forth at any moment. In 1833, no less than 846 persons were prosecuted, many had their goods destrained, and five were imprisoned. I have myself seen the most disgraceful scenes in the streets of Edinburgh, the military and dragoons parading the streets, assisting the auctioneer to sell the goods of a tradesman to pay the stipends of the ministers. Not long ago I had a letter from a citizen, enclosing resolutions of an association to refuse payment of the tax, and that more than 500 had come under an engagement to resist. Under such circumstances I ask again if the inhabitants of Edinburgh are not justified in claiming—in demanding relief from Parliament? But oh, say you, what substitute do you provide for this tax? It is not our business to provide for the Establishment. If you want an Establishment provide for it. But we were desirous to find some substitute, and I conscientiously believe that what we have proposed is both a legitimate and a sufficient substitute. But we are not wedded to it. If you can find a better we will not object. When this question was last before the House, various objections were brought against the measure, which I had not time to answer, although I was anxious to do so. As I shall have some time to day, I will take the opportunity of noticing one or two of the errors which have been fallen into. One of these was that large grants of lauds and teinds were

  111
  made to Edinburgh for the purpose of maintaining the ministers. Now I had an opportuity of searching the city records and seeing the charters, and I found that all that the burgh received was quite trifling. It was granted for three purposes—the maintenance of the poor, the establishing schools and colleges, and supporting the ministers, as, in consequence of the depreciation of money, by which the pound Scotch was reduced to ld. sterling, the whole amounted only to £200 or £300, which the magistrates very properly devoted to the University. It has been said the tax is not personal, but a tax on property. The hon. Member for Wigtown completely proved this to be a personal tax in his speech when this measure was before the House last Session. When it is recollected that by the Act imposing the tax, it is expressly declared that only tenants shall be liable, but proprietors and heritors shall be exempt; when we take into account that the most distinguished political economists have maintained that rent is a personal tax; when we see that certain persons are liable and certain persons are exempt—it is very like nonsense to say that it is a tax on property. Then as to the tax being the same as teinds, in Scotland at least: teinds at the Reformation became the property of the Crown, which were partly gifted to the favourites of the King or sold to the proprietors, with the reservation that a certain portion was to be set aside for the maintenance of the clergy. The teinds never belonged to the proprietors, they only held them in trust. Mr. Black then shortly referred to Leith, and showed that the £2,000 was the property of the city, which the inhabitants of Leith had no more right to than the inhabitants of Dalkeith. He said there were several other subjects to which he would have alluded, but he was unwilling to take up too much of the time of the House; and, alluding to Lord Elcho, he said there was one which was a hobby of the noble Lord's, which, he said, if he set it in motion he was afraid the noble Lord would get up and ride. [Lord ELCHO: Go on.] Well then (continued Mr. Black) the noble Lord formerly brought forward this question and the not rebuilding of the church as a reason for voting against the Bill. Now, I maintain that it should have had a contrary tendency; for the Town Council, as representing the community, which consists of four-fifths of dissenters, and naturally consists of a great majority of those who fuel
  112
  aggrieved by this tax, have sometimes a hostile feeling to the Church. I want to relieve the Church from the Corporation, which are like two dogs tied together, which want to go different ways. Mr. Black then referred to the speeches of the late Lord Advocate Baillie and the late Home Secretary, and said he knew them both to be sincere and honest men, and had no doubt that if the late Ministry had been in power they would have brought in a Bill to settle this question. He trusted the present would not be less liberal than the last Government, and that they would support the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he did not rise to propose the actual rejection of the Bill, but to ask what were the intentions of the Government with respect to it. The Bill proposed to accomplish three objects. To the first of these, which related to local arrangements in the town of Montrose, there could be no objection. The second of its propositions, which he believed to be objectionable, continued the payment of the tax by the town of Leith for the benefit of the clergy of Edinburgh. But the third, which was the vital principle of the Bill, was the entire disendowment of the Established Church of Scotland, so far as the town of Edinburgh was concerned. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was, that those who wanted a church should pay for it. This was, in fact, an assertion of the voluntary principle, and he wished to know if the Government were prepared to concur in that doctrine? If the principle was good for Edinburgh, it was good for the whole of Scotland; and if it was good for Scotland, it was good for the rest of the United Kingdom. It was therefore most important that the Government should declare their intentions on the subject, and whether they were prepared to give their sanction to a measure, the object of which was of the character which he had described. If the Bill had provided any proper substitute for the annuity tax instead of the voluntary system, no doubt it would be accepted unanimously by the House.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that this was by no means a new proposition, and former Governments of which he had been a Member had agreed to the principle of a Bill similar to that contained in the present measure. The difficulty had always

  113
  been to find a substitute for this tax; but that, he thought, it was not impossible to accomplish. There was a great similarity between the annuity tax and ministers' money in certain parishes in Ireland, and he confessed that he had no hesitation in giving his assent to the principle contained in the present Bill. He thought it desirable that this limited and local impost should cease. At the same time the introducer of the present measure did not propose the total and immediate abolition of the annuity tax, but reserved existing interests. In giving his vote for the second reading of the Bill, be wished simply to signify his assent to the abolition of the annuity tax in its present form, and to express his desire, in the event of the Bill not passing during the present Session, that it might be in the power of the Government in the next Session to propose some plan—not exactly in accordance with schemes which had been previously proposed, and which had not received the assent of Parliament—but some plan establishing, though not an equivalent, a substantial substitute for the present tax. The statement he now made was a bonâ fide statement, founded on a consideration of the details of the question, and in the event of the present Government being in office next Session, and the Bill now under consideration not going through all its stages in this Session of Parliament, the Government would then bring forward a measure founded on the principle he had described of providing the required substitute, and so settling the question on equitable grounds.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that it was with no small curiosity he desired to hear in what way the Government intended to deal with this question; and the course which the Government seemed inclined to take was, in the event of a division, to vote for the present Bill, simply to affirm, as it was represented, that this was a question which ought to be settled. He concurred in the opinion that the question called loudly for settlement; but the principle in the present Bill was dangerous, and no one in favour of a Church Establishment, as he was, could allow the Bill to pass a second reading without opposition. The annuity tax was a question which had been unceasingly agitated in Scotland for a long series of years; it had been the subject of repeated inquiries and reports by Committees and Commissions, and it had long formed the stock-in-trade of the Liberal members from Scotland, and especially of the Members
  114
  for Edinburgh. His hon. Friend brought the measure forward year after year; wrote columns about it in the local papers, and discussed it in frequent speeches. The theme might be a valuable and legitimate one for his hon. Friend in his private capacity, but he doubted whether it was one which he could thus incessantly press upon Parliament in his public character. The question had frequently been presented in the form of a legislative measure. When he (Lord Elcho) was in office in 1853, a Bill was introduced, though it never reached a second reading, having for its object the settlement of the question. By that Bill the annuity tax was reduced in amount, and he believed that many of those who objected to the tax on the allegation of conscientious scruples would have supported that Bill, which, though it diminished the amount of tax, did not affect the matter of conscience. That Bill, like all preceding Bills up to the present year, was founded on compromise, in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee of 1851; but the spirit in which the present Bill had been drawn might be learnt from the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who distinctly stated that he objected to the grievance of a Church Establishment. That, indeed, was the principle of the hon. Member's Bill, and on these grounds, and these grounds only, though anxious for a compromise on the question, he felt bound to resist the second reading. It was said that this question was analogous to the question of ministers' money in Ireland. He admitted the analogy; but the mode in which it was proposed to deal with the annuity tax was antagonistic to the mode in which ministers' money was dealt with; for in the latter case a substitute was found, and provision was made for the Irish clergy out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was also alleged that this was neither more nor less than a Scotch church-rate question. He denied that altogether. The annuity tax was a fund established by statutory enactment—it was a compulsory payment; whereas the church rate might be termed a voluntary rate, as it depended on the decision of the majority of the parishioners. The fact was that the annuity tax was analogous to tithes; and what the Bill proposed to do was to deprive the clergy of the Established Church of Scotland, so far as Edinburgh was concerned, of the fund by which they were at present main-

  115
  tained without proposing any substitute. Were hon. Members prepared to abolish tithes? Let them reflect what they were asked to do with respect to Scotland might react on England. In 1849 Sir John Shaw Lefevre, who was sent down to Scotland to report upon the annuity tax, stated:—
  "Although the impost complained of is a tax, and not a rentcharge Tested in the ministers as an endowment, yet it is a tax which the State has guaranteed to the ministers and their successors for their benefit, and, unless the rights even of their successors are dealt with in a spirit of justice and moderation, a feeling of distrust and insecurity will be created as respects other endowments, which will not be limited to the Established Church of Scotland."
  The hon. Member proposed that in lieu of this tax the clergy should rely on the letting of pews. If that were not the voluntary system, he should like to hear explained what the voluntary system really was? It was likewise proposed that the clergy of the Church of Scotland should the supported by the collections now made rat the church doors for the support of the poor. Thus the hon. Member not only tasked the House to sap the foundation on which an Established Church rested, but in the same Bill he also proposed that they should plunder the poor. He trusted that the House would not sanction such a proposal. It appeared that the Government were rather unfortunate on Wednesdays. Last Wednesday week they had to swallow the Endowed Schools Bill, forced down their throats at the point of the bayonet by the hon. Member for Birmingham. Last Wednesday they had to swallow the total abolition of church rates; and now, a Wednesday having come round again, they had to show whether they had any Conservatism left among them, and whether they would resist a Bill which contained a principle destructive to any Church Establishment. He was anxious to see what course would be taken in the division by some of his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet. Were they prepared to vote for a Bill which contained the principle of the total abolition of an Established Church? But whatever the Government or individual Members might do, so strongly did he feel the necessity of maintaining the Church Establishment, that he for one could not consent to see the present measure dealt with in the manner proposed by the Home Secretary. He thought that they would be wanting in their duty to their constituents, and to the Constitution—one of the main features of which was the main-
  116
  tenance of the Established Church—if they allowed the Bill to pass without opposition. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  MR. SPOONERseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, "Toleave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words' upon this day three months."
  MR. W.MILLERsupported the Amendment, stating that he had been instructed by the Provost and Burgesses of Leith to oppose the Bill by every means in his power. He denied that the clergy were open to the charge of having wrung their dues from the people by distraint. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black) professed great reverence for the law, but he had not paid these rates for two years, and his example had not been without its effect. If there was any ground for the complaints of the pressure of this tax they might easily be obviated to a considerable extent by removing these exemptions which were now possessed by members of the legal profession and other classes in Edinburgh.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that the time had arrived when the House must deal with this question with a view to settling it. Attempts at compromise had hitherto failed. He should be extremely glad if by some concessions on both sides the question could be settled; if, however, no such compromise could be effected, he would not be deterred by the taunt that he was sanctioning the voluntary principle from giving his support to this Bill. The tax was unequal in its incidence, and was open to all the objections against both Church Rates and the Established Church of Ireland. So long as it existed in its present form it would always be insecure; and it was time for the Legislature to interfere to put an end to the tax. The measure introduced in 1853 was highly objectionable, as merely shifting the burden to the Consolidated Fund. No benefit would result from reducing the tax and making its incidence more equal by extending it to all classes. This would only excite a more general opposition. Any attempt at compromise was hopeless; in a large city like Edinburgh, the voluntary system might safely be relied on for raising the few thousand pounds which were paid to the clergy of the Established Church. The experience of the Free Church and

  117
  the Dissenting bodies proved that pew-rents were largely available for the support of the clergy.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he had hoped to hear some proposal on the part of the Government for dealing with the subject to which he could have given his assent. He had, however, been greatly disappointed at the statement of the Home Secretary, who called upon them to affirm the principle of the Bill, which involved the entire abolition of the Established Church. He could not help thinking that the Cabinet had fallen into the trap laid for them last Session by the hon. Member when they were anxious to obtain votes to defeat the Reform Bill then before the House. He thought the straightforward course would have been that the Government should have accompanied their offer to introduce a Bill on this subject in the next Session with the condition that the present Bill should be withdrawn. By the course they had taken they had placed themselves in the position of giving their support to a measure which would have no practical result, promising themselves at the same time to introduce something which would be wholly different next year. The present Bill was in every way objectionable; but he could not condemn in language sufficiently strong the proposition by which it was sought to lay sweeping and sacrilegious hands on the funds collected at church doors for the poor. He gave his cordial support to the Amendment which had been proposed by the noble Lord.
  MR. CAIRDprotested against the accusation which had been made with regard to the Bill of his hon. Friend, that it involved a robbery of the Church and of the poor. At present the most wealthy classes in Edinburgh were altogether exempt from contributions to the support of the clergy of the Established Church, and he thought that exemption ought not to be maintained. Yet these persons were loudest in their denunciations of the measure. It had been said the effect of this Bill would be to rob the poor of Scotland; but they were now provided for by law, and being totally independent of the collections at the church doors, this Bill would not in the slightest degree affect their interests. He was glad to learn that the Government intended to take up this question, and he hoped they would settle it in a satisfactory manner.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaw no use in prolonging the discussion, as the Go-
  118
  vernment had promised to take up the subject with the view of settling it, It was most desirable that an end should be put to this tax, in a manner which would involve no injustice to any of the parties whose interests were concerned; but the various attempts which had been made to settle the question since 1831 had proved unsuccessful. He was himself no advocate of the voluntary principle, and did not hold that Church Establishments were unscriptural; but the abolition of the annuity tax had been urged by many persons who were not adherents of the voluntary principle, or opposed to the principle of Church Establishments. The main question was, what equivalent should be substituted for the annuity tax, and he regretted that his noble Friend had not offered any suggestion on that point. The noble Lord seemed to think that the application of the seat-rents to the support of the clergy would be an acknowledgment of the voluntary principle; but that appeared to him to be a mistake. It was one thing to maintain the voluntary principle to the extent that no Establishments ought to exist, and it was another thing to exclude the voluntary principle altogether from a Church Establishment. What would have been the condition of that vast metropolis with regard to pastoral superintendence and the benefits of a Church Establishment if the voluntary principle had not been acted upon? As streets and squares were gradually built, churches were seen constantly rising in their midst, and were they supported by taxes or endowments? No; they depended mainly upon that voluntary principle to the application of which to the Established Church of Scotland his noble Friend objected. If he (the Lord Advocate) believed, as had been said, that this Bill involved anything hostile to the Established Church of Scotland, he, for one, would not give it his support; but he did not think there was a word in the Bill which justified such an objection. The question was, not as to the principle of the Bill, but whether his hon. Friend had or had not proffered a substitute adequate for the purpose, and he thought that was a very proper matter for consideration in Committee. His hon. Friend proposed that the tax should be retained during the lifetime of the present incumbents, and that did not, therefore, amount to its immediate abolition; but it was quite open to the friends of the Established Church to say that in their view a sufficient substi-

  119
  tute was not proposed, and that subject deserved most careful consideration from the Government and the House. As the Bill could not be passed this Session, he would advise his hon. Friend to accept the proposal of the Government; and in the meantime it would be his (the Lord Advocate's) duty to consider the question with a view to a settlement which would be just to the inhabitants of Edinburgh on the one hand, and to the Established Church on the other.
  LORD ELCHOexplained that he had not objected to the application of the voluntary principle in any way in support of the Established Church; but he had complained that, according to this Bill, the churches of Edinburgh would in future be dependent upon the voluntary system.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the principle of the Bill was the unconditional abolition of the annuity tax, which had hitherto been appropriated to the maintenance of the clergy in Edinburgh. He, for one, must decline to vote for this abstraction of means that were not excessive, without some substitute. The Bill aimed at the very principle of an Established Church. He was far from saying that the voluntary system was not a proper system upon which the means of religious accommodation for the poor should be extended; but we all know this, that great as the extension of such accommodation was, and had been of late years, it was inadequate to the demands of the poor, and he was therefore strongly opposed to leaving the Church entirely dependent upon the casual and uncertain benevolence of individuals, instead of upon some fixed and assured means of support. By voting for this Bill Her Majesty's Government could not escape from this position; they accepted service under the hon. Member for Birmingham. Those who believed that the Church Establishment should be maintained out of public funds, and not left dependent upon casual charity, would vote against this Bill; and if the Government would take service under the hon. Member for Birmingham and the advocates of the voluntary principle, by voting in its favour, the country would take care that the Government wore a livery appropriate to that service. The hon. Member for Birmingham governed the Government, or at least those Members of it who wished to qualify that principle, and there was therefore no resource for those who maintained the principle of an Established Church but to adopt a course equally firm and unmistakeable. The
  120
  country would be called on to say, would they support those who would abandon the means of support of religion, furnished by the law and by custom from public funds, or would they support those who would defend an Established Church, but who were ready at all times to consider a proposition for the abandonment of those means when an adequate substitute was provided.
  MR. BAXTERhoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would accede to the proposal of the Government, and abstain from proceeding further with his Bill that Session than the second reading. At the same time he had no confidence that any compromise would be effectual on the subject.
  MR. MUREthought that, the Government having promised to introduce a measure of their own next Session, the wiser course would be to allow that discussion at once to drop. There was no use, under such circumstances, in going to a division to affirm the principle of the Bill if there was to be no further progress.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he was quite willing to surrender his "stock-in-trade" in this question into the hands of the Government after his measure had been read a second time; but he trusted that the coming Bill of the Government would abolish the tax altogether.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, they were told on high authority not to put their trust in princes. Let him advise the hon. Member for Edinburgh not to put his trust in Governments. This was just one of those questions which a Government never dealt with satisfactorily until it had been driven to the last extremity, and it was not clear that that extremity had in this case yet arrived. What had been their experience in regard to church rates? Ever since he had first sat in Parliament, now sixteen or seventeen years ago, they had had Governments proposing to settle that question; but they had never touched it except to make a complete mess of it, and to disgust both sides of the House with their attempts. The consequence was, the subject was now left in the hands of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) just as it stood many years since; and that hon. Gentleman, and those who went honestly along with him for its principle, had alone any chance of passing a proper measure through the House. He would not, however, ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh to reject the suggestion now made to him, because the same course must probably

  121
  have been taken after the second reading even if there had been no such recommendation from the Treasury bench. But the hon. Gentleman, between the present time and the next Session, bad better not believe for a moment that the Government would bring in a Bill so satisfactory as the present one to those who were opposed to the annuity tax. Without in the least disputing the goodwill of the Home Secretary, there were difficulties in the way of a Government handling that matter which would not attach to the task if undertaken by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. When it came to be discussed in the Cabinet, and the Lord Advocate had to prepare a measure, there would be all sorts of schemes contrived for warding off the objections of those who wished to have some substitute for that tax, which would be hardly less obnoxious than the impost it superseded. That tax, like church rates, must be clean abolished; and therefore the hon. Member should stand on the principle of his Bill, relying on the support he had from the people of Edinburgh, as well as on the previous decisions of that House on the same subject, and also on the larger question of church rates. Without obstructing any honest effort on the part of the Home Secretary to settle this matter, the hon. Member would arrive more surely at his end by taking the straight line to his own object than by trusting to a Government.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the difficulty of finding a substitute for that tax was admitted on all sides, and it was impossible for any private Member to deal with that question effectually. As, therefore, the Government were ready to take the subject into their own hands, and to introduce a measure upon it early next Session, nothing could be gained by pressing the present Motion to a division. On the other hand, such a step might prejudice the prospect of a reasonable compromise when the subject came to be discussed in another year.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISin explanation, said, he had not asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh to withdraw his Bill. What he stated was, that he was prepared to vote for the second reading, and that the Government would be prepared, if in office next Session, to introduce a measure of their own which would propose a substitute, and that it would be for the House to decide whether they would prefer their measure of that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He wished also just to remark
  122
  that there was a very wide distinction between church rates in England and the annuity tax in Edinburgh. The church rate was for the maintenance of the fabric of the church, the annuity tax for the stipend of the ministers.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 108: Majority 54.

  List of the AYES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Ferguson, Col.

  Adam, W. P.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.

  Fox, W. J.

  Agnew, Sir A.

  Freeland, H. W.

  Alcock, T.

  French, Col

  Andover, Visct.

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Ashley, Lord

  Gavin, Major

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Bagwell, J.

  Gilpin, C.

  Bailey, C.

  Gower, hon. F, L.

  Baines, E.

  Greenwood, J.

  Ball, E.

  Gregson, S.

  Bass, M. T.

  Grey, R. W.

  Bazley, T.

  Gurney, S.

  Beamish, F. B.

  Hadfield, G.

  Biggs, J.

  Banbury, R.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Handley, J.

  Brady, J.

  Hankey, T.

  Brand, hon.H.

  Bardcastle, J. A.

  Bright, J.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Bristow, A. R.

  Heneage, G. F.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Henley, Lord

  Butler, C. S.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Buxton, C.

  Hutt, W.

  Byng, hon. G.

  Ingham, R.

  Caird, J.

  James, E.

  Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Cavendish, hon. W.

  Keating, Sir H. S.

  Clay, J.

  Kershaw, J.

  Clinton, Lord R.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Clive, G.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Kingscote, Col.

  Cobden, R.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Cogan, W. H. F.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Laing, S.

  Collier, R. P.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Lanigan, J.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Lawson, W.

  Crossley, F.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Dalglish R.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Davie, Sir H. R, F.

  Levinge, Sir R.

  Deasy, R.

  Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

  Denison, hon. W.

  Locke, John

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Lyons, Dr.

  Dunbar, Sir W,

  Lysley, W. J.

  Duncan, Visct.

  M'Cann, J.

  Duncombe, T.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Dundas, F.

  Martin, J.

  Dunkellin, Lord

  Massey, W. N.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  Matheson, A.

  Dunne, M.

  Merry, J.

  Dutton, hon. R. H.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Esmonde, J.

  Mills, T.

  Ewart, W.

  Milnes, R. M.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Fenwick, H.

  Monson, hon. W. J.

  123

  Morris, D.

  Smith, J. B.

  Noble, J. W.

  Staniland, M.

  O'Donoghoe, The

  Stansfield, J.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Steel, J.

  Onslow, G.

  Steuart, A.

  Owen, Sir J.

  Stuart, Lord J.

  Packe, G. H.

  Sykes, Col. W. H.

  Paget, C.

  Thornhill, W. P.

  Paxton, Sir J.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Pease, H.

  Turner, J. A.

  Peel, Sir R.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Perry, Sir T. E.

  Watkyns, Col. L.

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  Wemyss, J. H. E.

  Pilkington, J.

  Western, S.

  Pryse, E. L.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Proby, Lord

  Wickham, H. W.

  Robartes, T. J. A,

  Willcox, B. M' G.

  Russell, A.

  Williams, W.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Salt, T.

  Wise, J. A.

  Schenley, E. W. H.

  Woods, H.

  Scholefield, W.

  Scott, Sir W.

  TELLERS.

  Seymour, H. D.

  Black, A.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Sheridan, R. B.

  List of the NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Hood, Sir A. A.

  Baring, T.

  Hope, G. W.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Howes, E.

  Bective, Earl of

  Hunt, G. W.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Ingestre, Visct.

  Bentinck, G. W. P.

  Jervis, Capt.

  Blackburn, P.

  Johnstone, J. J. H.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Joliffe, rt. hon. Sir W. G. H.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Bruce, Major C.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Buchanan, W.

  Kelly, Sir F.

  Burghley, Lord

  Lefroy, A.

  Burrell, Sir C. M.

  Legh, W. J.

  Cartwright, Col.

  Lindsay, hon. Col.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Lovaine, Lord

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Lowther, hon. Col.

  Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

  Lyall, G.

  Codrington, Sir W.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Mackie, J.

  Cross, R. A.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

  Mildmay, H. F.

  Davison, R.

  Miller, T. J.

  Deedes, W.

  Mitford, W. T.

  Du Cane, C.

  Montagu, Lord R.

  Dunne, Col.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  East, Sir J. B.

  Mundy, W.

  Estcourt, rt. hn. T. H. S.

  Mure, rt. hon. D.

  Fellowes, E.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Galway, Visct.

  Nicol, W.

  Gard, R. S.

  Papillon, P. O.

  Garnett, W. J.

  Parker, Major W.

  Gordon, C. W.

  Paull, H.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Peel, rt. hon. Gen.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Pennant, hon. Col.

  Graham, Lord W.

  Potts, G.

  Greaves, E.

  Powys, P. L.

  Gray, Capt.

  Quinn, P.

  Grey de Wilton, Visct.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Robertson, D.

  Hanbury, hon. Capt.

  Rogers, J. J.

  Hardy, G.

  Salt, T.

  Heathcote, hon. G. H.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Smith, M.

  Herbert, Col. P.

  Smollett, P. B.

  124

  Spooner, R.

  Vernon, L. V.

  Stirling, W.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Stuart, Major W.

  Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

  Stracey, Sir H.

  Whitmore, H.

  Taylor, Col.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Thynne, Lord E.

  Wyndham, Sir H.

  Torrens, R.

  Upton, hon. Gen.

  TELLERS.

  Vance, J.

  Elcho, Lord

  Vandeleur, Col.

  Miller, W.

  Vansittart, W.

  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for this day mouth.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for second reading read.
  MR. JOHN LOCKE, in moving the second reading of the Bill said, it was almost entirely identical with that introduced in the last Session. He believed that the House would agree to all the propositions, except, perhaps, one which had been the subject of dissensions. The question of weights and measures was considered by a Select Committee of the House of Commons as long ago as 1834, and the result was a report in favour of corn being in future sold by measure with the test of weight per bushel. Measure or weight alone would be no test of value. A pound of feathers weighed as much as a pound of lead; and a pound of bad corn weighed the same as a pound of good. To afford the buyer a proper guarantee for quality as well as quantity the tests of measure and weight should be combined. For instance, if he gave an order for such a quantity of corn to weigh so many pounds per quarter, he there had quantity and quality combined. The first clause of the Bill, however, provided merely that corn should be sold by measure. The Acts for the purpose of the tithe commutation rent charge and the corn returns were all on the principle that corn should be sold by measure; and the introduction of a new system of selling by weight would be attended with obvious inconvenience. From certain returns which had been laid before Parliament, it appeared that in 243 places corn was sold by the imperial bushel; in 14 places by local measures; and in 28 places by weight—the gross number of places being 285. Corn, therefore, being almost universally sold by measure, the object of the first clause was to remove the exceptions, and to enact that corn should everywhere be sold by the Imperial bushel, and not by

  125
  any local or customary measure. In Scot-laud and in the north of England there was the boll, and there were also a considerable number of peculiar local measures, the use of which caused much inconvenience. There was no difference of opinion on this point—that if corn was to be sold by measure it should be the Imperial measure, and if by weight it should be the Imperial weight. The first clause of his Bill provided, then, that corn should be sold by the Imperial measure only; and he submitted that unless there were insuperable objections to selling by measure that clause carried out the intentions of all the Acts of Parliament that had ever been passed on the subject; whilst if the parties to a sale of corn chose to stipulate that the measure should be of a certain weight it might still be considered a sale by measure and the transaction would not be vitiated as a sale by measure in consequence of any such stipulation. The second clause of the Bill was intended to remove a very serious inconvenience. It enacted that models and copies of weights and measures should be reverified at certain fixed intervals. By the 5th of Geo. IV., c. 74, it was provided that models of the standard weights and measures should be deposited in each county, and by a subsequent Act, passed in the following reign, provision was made for their reverification at the Exchequer in London. But no provision was made for a repetition of the process of verification in future years, and the consequence was that all the weights and measures throughout the country had become very inaccurate; and upon referring to a return, which he himself had moved for, of all the fines which had been imposed upon persons for using false weights and measures, it would be seen that persons had been fined for the slightest deviations from models and copies of weights and measures which were themselves inaccurate and had never been re-verified since the passing of the Act. This, he contended, was a very serious grievance and injury to the parties concerned. It was impossible to say that they had been justly dealt with, and therefore he proposed that the models and copies should be re-verified within the period of three years for weights and six years for measures. He also proposed by another clause to inflict a penalty upon all persons who should knowingly make or sell false beams, scales, or balances, or false weights or measures; for, singularly enough, there was no power at pre-
  126
  sent to restrain persons either from manufacturing false weights and measures or of vending them with impunity when made. They must not use them, but there was no law whatever to prevent their manufacture and sale. The penalty he proposed in this case was £10. The fourth clause provided that any person convicted of using false beams or scales, or false weights or measures, in the public streets, should be subjected to a penalty of £5, and it empowered inspectors, at all reasonable times, to examine all beams, scales, and balances, and all weights and measures used in any open ground or any public street or thoroughfare. At present the practice of selling by false weights in the public streets prevailed to an enormous extent; but his fourth clause, if adopted, would put a stop to it. The fifth clause empowered certain parties to provide correct beams and scales, and weights and measures, in all public markets, with the view of ascertaining at any moment whether business was carried on fairly or not; while the sixth enabled inspectors of markets to examine all packets and bottles exposed for sale, for the purpose of seeing whether they were of the right weight or measure. Such were the provisions of his Bill. The question as to the mode in which grain should be sold might be discussed in Committee, and he maintained that his measure embodied no principle which ought to induce the House to reject it at once.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CAIRDsaid, that the question of weights and measures was one of considerable importance and required great deliberation. It was in fact a question between the east and west of England, all buyers and sellers in the west and in Ireland being in favour of weight, and all in the east in favour of measure. At this late period of the Session it would be impossible to consider the question with that attention which it deserved, and, as the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. M'Cann) had withdrawn his Bill for the establishment of the system of weight, he thought that the present measure should be postponed also, in order that the two might be referred together to a Select Committee next Session. He moved as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read that day three months.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the

  127
  Word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months.'"
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HORSFALLthought that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark had not treated him fairly in moving the second reading of this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had assured him that it was not his intention to move the adoption of the first clause—which would have made the Bill a mere Weights and Measures Bill—and upon that understanding he had told him that he had no objection to the Bill. If the hon. and learned Member was willing to withdraw this clause, he should not object to the other portions; but if the hon. and learned Member persisted in supporting that clause he should feel it his duty to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEexplained that what he had stated to his hon. Friend was that if the first clause was generally dissented from by the House he was not anxious to press it, and that in such case the clause might be entirely dissevered from the remainder of the Bill.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he had certainly taken a different view of the conversation. His hon. and learned Friend stated that it was not his intention to move the first clause; whereupon he (Mr. Horsfall) observed, "Then it becomes a mere Weights and Measures Bill, to which I have not the slightest objection." If, then, his hon. and learned Friend pressed the first clause he should certainly give his support to the Amendment. If, on the other hand, he consented to strike out the clause he would as cordially give his vote in favour of the remaining portion of the Bill, which he considered to be most essential for the regulation of the weights and measures of the country.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsuggested that advantage should be taken of the present Bill to vest the appointment of inspectors in the magistrates and council of each borough.
  MR. HUNTsaid, they could hardly expect at that period of the Session to decide upon the relative merits of weight and measure without a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. As the only point of difference seemed to be upon the first clause he would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) that he should consent to strike out that clause in Committee on the Bill, upon the understanding
  128
  that the second reading should now be agreed to.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYalso recommended his hon. and learned Friend to adopt this course. He thought there would then be no objection to the second reading. He hoped, however, that his hon? and learned Friend would give an undertaking to bring in next Session a Bill for the purpose of carrying out the object of the first clause, with a view to its being referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. BALLsaid, that if the first clause were withdrawn the Bill would be useless, for that clause embodied the whole spirit of the measure.
  MR. FINLAYthought it would be best to refer the measure to a Select Committee.
  MR. HENLEYexpressed the hope that the hon. and learned Member would consent to withdraw the first clause. The subject was one upon which great difference of opinion prevailed, and he thought it would be well if it were thoroughly investigated before a Select Committee. With regard to the other clauses of the Bill he approved generally of their principle, though they were at the same time susceptible of modification and improvement.
  MR. G. CLIVEsaid, it was the opinion of the Government that the Bill should not be gone into, so far as the first clause was concerned, at any rate during the present Session. He had always understood his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) in the sense in which he had spoken that day; and if he would agree to expunge the first clause in Committee he would support the second reading of the Bill. One or two of the other clauses required modification; but that was a question for the Committee.
  MR. BASSsaid, that the advocates of weights on the one hand and the advocates of measures on the other were so nearly divided in that House, that he did not look forward with any confidence to such a measure as the present being passed in consequence of the appointment of a Committee next year. He did not think that the proposed Committee would be able to adjust their differences, nor did he believe that any more important or convincing evidence would be obtained by such a Committee than had been supplied by the Committee which sat upon the subject in the year 1834.
  CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON, as a representative of a corn-growing county,

  129
  begged to say one word upon the question which had arisen as between selling by weight and selling by measure. That question had been agitated at every fair and market in Berkshire, and by visiting those fairs and markets he had been enabled to ascertain what was the general feeling, whether in favour of weight or measure; and he must say that nine-tenths of the dealers in corn in that county were undoubtedly in favour of selling by measure. They said that if the object in view were the protection of the ignorant, then the ignorant would be better protected by the Imperial bushel than by weight, for if they bought by measure they would have the additional protection of weight, whereas if they bought by weight they could have no additional protection from measure.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, that in The Times of Monday there was the report of sixteen market towns, out of which twelve had adopted uniformly and without pressure the mode of selling by weight. In London offers among the dealers were made on the principle of so many pounds to the bushel, while in Ireland they knew nothing about measure; the circulars always stated the number of pounds weight which would be given. He had purchased this year two cargoes of wheat which were sold and delivered to him at the rate of 5041bs a quarter. In Liverpool, in Glasgow, and universally in Ireland, nothing whatever was heard about measure in the sale of corn. If this matter were left to itself it would turn out that in a few months there would be no corn whatever sold except by weight. At the present moment he was told that the horsekeepers of London invariably purchased oats at 40lb. weight for the bushel, and at 320lb. weight for the quarter, without any reference whatever to the bushel of measure. He wished that grain should be sold by the pound weight and its multiples, because that was a progressive system adopted by seven-tenths of the British empire, while the system of measurement was a retrogressive one. He had withdrawn the Bill which he had introduced, believing that a Committee was necessary, and seeing that there was no time for inquiry this year; but he strongly advocated a uniform system, this being the only country in Europe in which there was no uniformity in the sale of the article of food.
  MR. ADDERLEYhoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to withdraw not only the first clause, but the Bill altogether. A legitimate subject for
  130
  legislation might be found in the present ambiguous use of the terms "bushel" and "pound," and an attempt might very properly be made to enact that the bushel in use should everywhere mean a definite measure and a pound a definite weight. He was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would best reach his object by withdrawing the present measure and introducing a new one free from the defects of the present one in the course of the next Session.
  MR. BRADYdid not see what was the use of reading this Bill a second time if the first clause was afterwards to be withdrawn. He knew that the Bill would prove injurious to the people of Ireland, because there com was universally sold by weight, and even in this country purchasers judged of the value of corn by its weight, though nominally they bought by measure. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Bill.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, that it would be perfectly easy to withdraw the first clause, and pass the rest of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wished him (Mr. Locke) to introduce a Bill for enforcing the use of the Imperial measure throughout the country, he could only say he must decline to attempt such a task. The hon. Gentleman who undertook it would next have the bottle question about his ears, he would then be assailed by the fruiterers with their fruit meters, and he questioned whether he would ever enjoy a quiet night afterwards. Another hon. Gentleman had argued entirely in his (Mr. Locke's) favour. All he contended for was, that corn should be sold by the quarter, consisting of bushels each weighing 631bs. If the hon. Gentleman would consent to the second reading, he (Mr. Locke) would undertake to withdraw the first clause in Committee.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tuesday next.

DIPLOMATIC PENSIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNES, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, said, it had long been felt as a grievance that while gentlemen who had earned pensions as members of the Government or of the military and naval professions might sit in that House, there should be a

  131
  doubt whether diplomatists who had clone good service to their country were able to give the House the advantage of their talents and experience. Questions of foreign policy were every day leaving the secret councils of Downing Street, and becoming more and more matters of general discussion and interest; diplomacy was ceasing to be a craft, and men were beginning to see that it was very little more than the application of common sense to our relations with foreign countries. He thought, therefore, it was ill-advised to exclude certain persons from the House of Commons simply because they were receiving the due reward of long diplomatic service. Such men were peculiarly fitted to be Members of the House; and on the other hand it would be for the advantage of the diplomatic service itself that they should sit there. Living continually abroad, and being little mixed up with the affairs of their native country, our diplomatists often became, to a great extent, estranged from the common feelings and interests of their countrymen, and with the best will in the world they sometimes came to conclusions very antagonistic to those arrived at here. Nothing would more effectually counteract that evil than that those gentlemen should be allowed the hope of possessing a seat in the House of Commons. Both parties would be gainers, and no injury, he conceived, would result to the constitutional principles which regulated the composition of the House. He should be the last man to depreciate the value of the Act of Anne, which excluded persons holding pensions under favour of the Crown. It was only necessary to look to foreign countries to recognize the value of that measure in securing the independence of any Parliamentary system of Government. But he maintained that there was no reason for regarding these diplomatic pensions as held during pleasure. They were, he thought, on exactly the same footing as the pensions conferred on those who had held high office in the Government. Both were charged upon the Consolidated Fund; both were recognized as part of the just rewards earned by public service; and he could not see what right we had to draw any distinction between them. So far as official pensions were concerned, they were suspended so long as the persons holding them retained any office the emoluments of which were equal to the amount thus received; while diplomatic pensions were open to be done away with during the
  132
  time in which the persons who were entitled to them were engaged in the performance of diplomatic service, or were in the receipt of any pay or salary whatsoever under the Crown. And what difference, he would ask, existed between those two separate classes of pensions? The only one was, he believed, that, while in the phraselogy of the Act of Parliament official pensions was conferred "for life," no such words were to be found in relation to diplomatic pensions. It was true that persons holding those pensions might be called upon by the Government of the day to undertake the performance of any duty which came within the scope of their profession; but it could not, he thought, be denied that, in the present state of public feeling, no Minister would be found to use his power in that respect with the view of influencing the conduct of the Members of that House. The same objection, indeed, might be urged against the eligibility of officers in the army and navy. So remote a contingency as that was, therefore, one which he regarded as unworthy of consideration; while the result of the existing law was to exclude from the lower branch of the Legislature such men as Sir Hamilton Seymour and Sir Henry Bulwer, who might, under other circumstances, be Members of the House of Commons, within whose walls he felt assured many hon. Members would be glad to welcome them. He trusted the question was one which would not be confounded with that larger one which embraced the civil service of the Crown, and that the House would not refuse their assent to a measure the operation of which would be to enable men capable of rendering great service in important discussions to take part in their deliberations.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaw no good reason why members of the diplomatic profession, because they happened to be in the receipt of small pensions, should be excluded from a seat in the House of Commons, while, upon account of the peculiar information which they possessed, he thought their presence would be of great advantage in dealing with subjects of foreign policy. He therefore trusted the Bill would be carried, and that the hon. Gentleman would have the gratification of doing a substantial and graceful act of justice.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the House

  133
  would see at once that this was a question rather for the House to decide than the Government. The original cause of the exclusion from a seat in that House of persons who held diplomatic pensions was founded in the jealousy which was entertained by the House of Commons of the influence of the Crown, in whose hands the granting these pensions out of the sum (£80,000) included in the Consolidated Fund for this purpose was placed. When the present state of feeling on the subject, however, was taken into consideration, he did not think the removal of a restriction which was based on the supposed existence of an influence which did not now practically exist was open to objection. The time for this jealousy on the part of the House had long passed away, and they might consider the question on larger grounds. He thought it could not be denied that no small advantage would be likely to result from the admission to the House of Commons of such men as those to meet whose case the Bill had been framed. There had been an instance in which a diplomatic servant of the Crown—now a noble Lord (Lord Stratford de Redcliffe)—in the enjoyment of a pension of £2,000 a year, had sacrificed that pension to obtain a seat in Parliament. It was, however, too much to suppose that similar sacrifices would very often be made. It must, however, be remembered, that the diplomatic pensions stood on a very different footing from the superannuated pensions regulated by Act of Parliament. But taking into account the great use of which hon. Members versed in diplomatic subjects were likely to be in the debates in that House, he was of opinion—and in saying so he believed he was expressing the views of the Government—that there was no objection to the passing the Bill under discussion.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSthought that members of the military and naval professions were just as likely to be biased in favour of the Crown as those of the diplomatic service, and he could not see why a different rule should be applied to one body, than prevailed with reference to the other.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport had laid down a perfectly constitutional view on this question. The Act of Queen Anne might have operated as a great safeguard in those times; but at this day public feeling had done away with
  134
  the necessity of any such limitation as this. Let the House take the case of Indian retired Judges. They would be extremely sorry to dispense with the presence of the legal profession who had served in India, then why should they not admit also members of the diplomatic service? He thought the House was much indebted to the hon. Member for Pontefract for introducing this
  SIR WALTER FARQUHAR, as an old Member of the corps diplomatique thanked the hon. Member in their name for the justice he had done them in bringing forward this Bill, to which he heartily gave his support.
  MR. KINNAIRDalso supported the Bill, on the ground of the advantage which the discussions of this House would receive from the intelligence of diplomatic Members in all matters relating to foreign trade.
  Bill read 2° and committed for To-morrow.

CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ALCOCK, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, his object was to facilitate the voluntary commutation of church rates in the same way as tithes were commuted. He laid great stress on the voluntary arrangement of the church rates, for he was satisfied if it were not voluntarily done it would not be done at all. He proposed to have a body of Commissioners—he did not care how they were formed, he would suggest the Charity Commissioners—who should have power, whenever a parish called them in, to arbitrate in the matter, to look over the church-rate expenses of the parish, say for fifty years, to see what were the yearly expenses; to judge whether any of those expenses could be spared, too see in what state of repair the church was, and to determine, under all these circumstances, what the parish ought annually to provide for this purpose; and on the parish showing that they had provided a fund which would meet that demand in all time coming, the Commissioners should then have power to discharge the parish from the payment of church rates for ever. It might be said that the parishioners could form such a fund now. So they could, but then they had no assurance that church rates would not still be levied, and it was to prevent this from being done that he proposed his Bill, which

  135
  he hoped the House would read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."
  MR. G. CLIVEdid not say the Bill would not have afforded a way of getting out of the difficulties which had beset them for so many years, but he thought the House would hardly be inclined to consider such a proposition when they had already adopted the principle of total abolition. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would consent to withdraw the Bill, especially as, if even the principle was agreed to, it could not be passed this Session.
  MR. ALCOCKproposed to adjourn the debate to Wednesday next.
  MR. BAXTERlooked upon the proposal as an attempt to settle by a compromise that which had been already settled by public opinion in a different manner. He objected to any adjournment of this measure, for he did not conceive that there would be found a sufficient number of members who would support to a successful issue the Bill. He should therefore move that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WHITESIDEin moving the second reading of this Bill which, he said, was one of a series of ten Bills which he had introduced for the purpose of amending the criminal law, said he was extremely desirous of learning the intention of the Government on this subject. The principle of one of the clauses in the Bill immediately before the House was that corruption of blood in cases of treason and forfeiture of goods in cases of felony should be abolished. In cases of felony when they hung a man, reluctantly, for committing a great crime, on what principle could they deprive the innocent family of the criminal of any property which he had in his possession at the time of the convic-
  136
  tion? Surely, if they hanged the man who had made himself amenable to the law, that was enough without punishing his relatives for a crime in which they had taken no part, and the commission of which they could not prevent. He was not aware whether this law extended to other countries; but at all events, it was for an alteration on the side of humanity that he contended. If the Attorney General could not state the course which the Government intended to take in reference to criminal law reform he should most certainly take the opinion of the House on the Bill then before them, as well as upon the Offences against the Person Bill. The late Government had considered this matter, and the principle which was involved in one of his Bills was whether they ought not to abolish the punishment of death in those eight or ten cases in which it might be inflicted for offences which did not come within the definition of murder or treason. In his opinion, not only ought it to be abolished in all cases in which life was not taken away, but in cases in which it could be proved that there was no actual malice prepense. He could not understand constructive malice, like that which was alleged against a person who was tried for murder for shooting a man who had dressed himself up as a ghost in a white sheet and sallied forth to frighten the good people of Hammersmith. One man who, if not an actual believer in ghosts, at all events was not frightened at them, went out with a pistol, saw the ghost, shot at the ghost, and the ghost died. He argued, "If it be a ghost I may shoot at it, because I can do it no harm." That man was tried for murder, and the jury at the trial were very desirous to make it out manslaughter; but the Judge ruled that, by law, it was murder; and the jury, after some contest with the Judge, were obliged to return a verdict of guilty on the charge of murder. The man, however, was not executed, a pardon being granted. There was another kind of constructive murder in Ireland, which was not very intelligible. Suppose a man were to shoot at a duck in a farmer's yard, and in doing so killed a man, the law as it stood, said, that if he merely meant to shoot the duck out of sport his life should not be taken away; but if his object had been to appropriate the duck to his own use it was held that he was engaged in the commission of a felony, and ought to be hung for having killed a human being while so employed. He would abolish capital

  137
  punishment in such a case as that, but not where a person went out with intent to kill one man, and by mistake or chance happened to kill another, because there the man went out with the intention to destroy human life. In the debate upon the Conspiracy to Murder Bill the distinction between the law of Ireland and England was plainly pointed out by the then Government, and Lord Palmerston wanted to assimilate the law so as to make the offence punishable by death in both countries; but that would have been legislating in a retrogressive spirit. He was told that if this Bill passed the punishment of death for 350 offences would cease, and statutes to that number be repealed. All he could say was that that would be a great improvement. If the Government was opposed to the principle of these Bills he would take the sense of the House upon the first one; but he hoped that instead of that the Government would themselves take the question up, and carry out this great amendment. If that were their wish he should willingly leave the Bills in their hands, but should closely watch the conduct of the Government in reference to this matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had listened with surprise to the mixture of threat and persuasion by which the concluding observations of the right hon. Gentleman were characterized, and while he should be happy to have the right hon. Gentleman as an auxiliary, he could assure him he did not entertain the least fear of him as an opponent. After the many attempts which had been made to consolidate the criminal law, it was, he was ready to admit, high time that the question should be taken up, and taken up too by the Government of the day, who should be made responsible for dealing with it in a satisfactory manner. It would undoubtedly, therefore, be his duty—and he believed he had the sanction of the Government for saying so—to endeavour, in conjunction with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, to discharge through the medium of the Government the important task of putting the criminal law of this country on a sound and rational basis, a position in which it certainly did not at present stand. That work would he speedily under taken, and he trusted that the proofs that it had been pursued in an effective manner would be laid before Parliament at the commencement of next Session. With respect to the question of the
  corruption of blood, to which the right hon.
  138
  and learned Gentleman alluded, he could only say that he was disposed to regard its present position as the result of feudal times, and as not now necessary to the efficient administration of justice. He also concurred with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the general principle of its being desirable that the punishment of death should be dispensed with as far as possible, but in making that statement he must not be understood as pledging the Government to the adoption of any particular course. He should for the present content himself with assuring the House that the important subject to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had called their attention should receive his serious consideration, and as a proof of his sincerity in the matter he might state that it was only that very morning he had had a conference with the Lord Chancellor with respect to the best mode to be adopted for digesting the statute and criminal law, both of England and Ireland, and he hoped that in accomplishing that arduous undertaking he should have the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that the country was much indebted to the Attorney General for the distinct and explicit statement he had made upon this important question, and also the right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite for the interest he had always taken in it. It was essential that Government should itself deal with the question, and he strongly objected to its being referred to a Commission, because that very fact stifled law reform; for when in such a case law reform was urged, it was frequently said that the whole matter was being examined by a Commission. There were many points which should be immediately taken into consideration by the Government—such as giving power to the jury to view the ground where a murder had been committed, which was often very essential to a proper understanding of a case. In reference to the expediency of passing an Act to avoid the forfeiture of property in the case of felony, such a measure would be highly beneficial. The only effect of the present state of the law was to induce prisoners to make assignments of their property before their trial, and their unfortunate families were in consequence often deprived of their means of livelihood. He recollected a learned Judge say in while on circuit that it had always puzzled him to know how a certain class of attorneys, not in a very respectable position

  139
  got rich, and he bad at length found out the reason, which was that they undertook to defend prisoners, and, having obtained assignments of their property, did all they could to procure their conviction.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should be happy to give the hon. and learned Attorney General any assistance in his power, but he could not give his assent to any measure which was opposed to the principle of the abolition of death punishment for all crimes short of murder and treason. He did not consider that copying the Statute-book was amending the law. If they merely copied and classified the statutes, that might relieve barristers of some labour, but it would be neither amending the law nor abridging the statutes. He was opposed to exceptional legislation in this matter for Ireland; and, indeed, if they assimilated the scale of punishment in the two countries, the necessity for exceptional legislation for that country would almost entirely cease.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn, as were also the following Bills:—Public Justice Offences Bill, Malicious Injuries Bill, Coinage Offences Bill, Personation Bill, Forgery Bill, Offences against the Person Bill, Larceny, &c., Bill, Criminal Writings Bill, Punishment Bill.
  House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.