Commons Sitting of 3 March 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o East India Loan County Courts.
2o Law of Property and Trustees Relief Amendment.
3o Marriage Law Amendment.

REGISTERS OF TITLES (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he intends to bring forward a measure for improving the Registers of Titles to Land, and whether he proposes to diminish the cost of Registration and Search in Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, a Bill was in preparation for improving the Registers of Titles to Land in Scotland, but he could not say upon what day he should be able to bring it forward. The attention of Her Majesty's Government had also been directed to the diminution of the costs of Registration and Search in Scotland; but, in consequence of a measure that was passed last year, they had not yet been able to ascertain to what extent those costs should be diminished.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS (SCOTLAND)

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACKIEsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate whether, under the Act 10 & 11 Vict. c. 47, relating to the Service of Heirs, or under any other Statute, or by any practice of the Scottish Courts, the Sheriff of Chancery, where any alteration or amendment in the course of proceedings is necessary, has power to attach a condition of Money Payments to Charitable Institutions before pronouncing Decree of Service?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the Question was of a somewhat peculiar character. He had given it the fullest consideration in his power, and had every anxiety to give an answer; but, as it was a question of law, he thought he should best perform his duty by declining to express any opinion upon it.

THE HIGHWAYS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, as South Wales is excluded from the operation of the Highways Bill now before the House, the Government intend to introduce a Bill to amend the South Wales Highways Act?
MR. HARDYsaid, that at present it was not his intention to introduce any other Bill on the subject of Highways, as his hands were sufficiently full with that which he had before the House. At the same time, if the House arrived at the conclusion that a similar measure would be beneficial to South Wales, he would give every facility to any hon. Gentleman who might think proper to bring in a Highways Bill for that part of the empire. He would take that opportunity of observing that an alteration which he had made in the English Highways Bill would, he thought, meet the views of some hon. Gentlemen who had given notice of Amendments; he had struck out of the Bill that part which related to the Poor Law Board.

COUNTY VOTERS.—QUESTION.
MR. DODSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the data upon which is founded the Government Estimate that the extension of the right of Suffrage to £10 Occupiers will increase the number of County Voters in England and Wales by not less than 200,000?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Government Estimate of the amount of increase of the County Voters by the Bill which the House gave me leave to introduce the other night is mainly formed on six documents which are already on the table of the House, and in the possession of hon. Members. Those six documents are—1. The Return of the Rating of Tenements, No. 59, headed "Poor Law Board, February, 1851." 2. The Return of the Rating of Tenements, No. 630, moved for by Mr. Poulett Scrope, and ordered to be printed August, 1849. 3. Return moved for by Mr. Locke King, in the second Session of 1857, No. 4, headed "Electors." 4. The Return now in the course of being issued by the Poor Law Board, headed "Population of Parishes," also moved for by Mr. Locke King, and ordered to be printed the 10th
1172
of February, 1858. 5. The Poor Law Returns ordered to be printed in February, 1852, on the Motion of Mr. Poulett Scrope; and 6. The Return headed "Ratepayers," moved for by Mr. Newdegate, and ordered to be printed on the 12th of August, 1854. These six documents were submitted to the labour of actuaries, who were assisted in obtaining local information generally throughout the country; but it is not in my power to put in form any document of the precise data on which our opinion is formed. The basis of the calculation was founded on the document I have just named.

THE STADE DUES—QUESTION.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date the notice for the termination of the Treaty of the 22nd day of July, 1844, in reference to Stade Dues, between the United kingdom and Hanover, according to the Eighth Article of that Treaty, was given to the Hanoverian Government. Whether that notice was withdrawn or suspended, if so, whether it has been renewed, and at what date the said Treaty will actually terminate under the notice announced to the House as having been given by the Under-Secretary of State.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDin reply said, that the notice for the termination of the Treaty between this country and Hanover regulating the Stade Dues was provisionally and formally communicated to the Hanoverian Government, in accordance with the Eighth Article of the Treaty on the 14th of August last. Shortly afterwards, when his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office was in attendance on Her Majesty at Hanover, lie was urged by Count Platen to withdraw the notice, but declined doing so. Lord Malmesbury, however, intimated that if his Excellency would impart to him the reasons why he wished the notice to be withdrawn they should be carefully considered, and if they should be deemed satisfactory the notice might be withdrawn. In consequence of that, and of some communications which took place between our Envoy at Hanover and Count Platen, it was afterwards represented to Her Majesty's Government that Hanover considered the notice withdrawn or suspended; but to that view the British Government refused to accede, and in the last communication which had passed between the two Governments it was stated by Lord Malmesbury

1173
that any change in the date of the notice could only be made by official negotiations, and that the British Government could not do otherwise than maintain that the notice of the 14th of August was in full force and effect. Her Majesty's Government had not thought it politic to withdraw that notice, and it had never been either withdrawn or suspended, and the Treaty would therefore expire on the 14th of August in the present year.

SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can inform the House, or place a document on the Table to show what number of Persons in the Civil Service, whether their remuneration be computed by day pay, weekly wages, or annual salary, will be entitled to superanuation allowance, and at what amount of charge to the public, under Clause 2 of the Superanuation Bill?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought it almost impossible to give the Return asked for by the hon. Baronet, for it would not only require a great deal of time, but the consideration of questions to be settled hereafter. On going into Committe on the Bill he would endeavour to give the House some general information as to the number of persons likely to come under its provisions.
  MR. RICHsaid, he thought it would be convenient if the hon. Baronet, the Secretary to the Treasury, would undertake not to move the Committee after ten o'clock the following night.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEintimated his intention not to proceed with the Bill after that hour.

  THE CLOCK TOWER—QUESTION.
  MR. HANKEYsaid he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether the Bells are now all fixed in the Clock Tower; whether the Works of the Clock have also been placed there; when the Clock will be in working order; and the total expense of the Clock?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would read the House two letters which he had received on the subject. The first was from Sir Charles Barry, dated Old Palace Yard, March 2.
  "In reply to your letter of this day's date, I have to inform you that the bells of the great clock
  1174
  at the New Palace, at Westminster, were hoisted as soon as they were approved by the referees appointed to judge of their tone and quality, and have been fixed more than three months. With respect to the clock, I am unable to say what progress has been made with it, or when it may be completed; but Mr. E. B. Denison, under whose sole superintendence the manufacture and supply of it is placed, will, doubtless, be able to afford the information which the First Commisioner of Her Majesty's Works requires respecting it. I am, &c.
  CHARLES BARRY.
  Mr. Denison in his letter said.—
  "The answer to the first part of the question you have sent me is that the bells have been fixed in the Clock Tower; but they are now let down a little, to enable some pieces to be put into the frame, of the nature of diagonal braces to strengthen it against the shake caused by the blow of the great hammer. The clock is not fixed because the clock room will not be ready for it until the weight shaft is properly covered over, and the pendulum-room constructed in it, and an enclosed passage made through the air-shaft to give access from the clock-room to the west dial works. This must also be made of iron, because the air-shaft is, in fact, a chimney: and it must be made carefully, so as to be air-tight, or else the fumes of the ventilating fire will come into the clock-room. I am assured that the clock-room will be ready for the clock in a week, and that the bell frame will be finished very soon, and therefore I see no reason why the clock should not drive the hands and be striking in a few months."
  He would endeavour to ascertain whether he could give the further information asked for by the hon. Member.

THE NEW FOREIGN OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works when he intends to exhibit the Designs for the new Foreign Office?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that as soon as he received the working drawings and the price at which the contractors had engaged to complete the proposal Foreign Office he would select them for exhibition; and he could assure the hon. Member that there would be no proposal for a Vote until the designs had been submitted to the inspection of the House.

PRISONS AND WORKHOUSES (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government in preparing the Estimates to bring forward Votes for the maintenance of Convicts and Convicted Misdemeanants confined in County Jails after sentence, the expenses of Witnesses at Assizes and

  1175
  Sessions, and half the Medical Relief in Unions in Ireland, as recommended by a Committee of this House in the last Session of Parliament, and in accordance with similar Grants in Great Britain since the year 1846.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward Votes for the maintenance of Convicts and Convicted Misdemeanants confined in County Jails after sentence, and also for the expenses of Witnessess at Assizes and Sessions. Correspondence was still going on respecting the matters referred to the Select Committee last year. As to the subject of Medical Relief in Irish Unions, it was under the consideration of the Government, but he was not prepared to say when a Bill in reference to it would be introduced.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he wished to inquire whether the Army Estimates exceeded those of the preceding ones by upwards of £1,000,000, and if so whether the Government would have any objection to lay on the Table the correspondence which had taken place on the subject between the Treasury and the War Department?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War (General Peel), he could not give a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question. It should, however, be answered on the following evening. In the meantime, he might observe that the excess was not in the year expiring, but in the previous year, with which the present Government had nothing to do.

  JEWS ACT—LEAVE.
  Mr. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to move that, whereas this House has, upon two previous occasions, resolved
  "That any person professing the Jewish religion may henceforth, in taking the oath prescribed in an Act to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian,'"
  leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the foregoing Resolution may be made a Standing Order. He thought he should be able to show the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had given notice of an Amendment,
  1176
  "That no Resolution, under the provisions of the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 49, shall be moved in this House, unless at least one day's notice of such Resolution shall have been previously given in the Votes; that this be a Standing Order of the House—"
  that the Bill he proposed to introduce was a reasonable and rational measure; and that then no further trouble would be given to the House on the subject. His Motion would leave it optional to either House to make the Resolution a Standing Order. There was no doubt that both Houses of Parliament intended that the Resolution should have the effect of a Standing Order; because one of the arguments used by the Earl of Derby in reference to that Bill was this—
  "If you admit the Jews by an Act of Parliament, an Act of Parliament will be required to repeal it; but if you admit by Resolution the constituency will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion whether that Resolution should be confirmed or rescinded."
  Now, if there were no Resolution in existence at the commencement of a new Parliament, no Resolution could be confirmed or rescinded. It was clear, therefore, that both Houses intended a Standing Order as well as Resolution; and all that he wished to do was to supply that deficiency. The House of Commons had passed a Resolution admitting a Jew twice; and thus the House was put to the trouble of repeating a Resolution, which it was clear was intended to be a Standing Order. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would be able to appeal to their constituents, if his Bill passed, and say, "Have we done right in admittting the Jews? And shall we take the same course for the future? If you think they ought not to be there. we will endeavour to rescind that Standing Order." But if such an appeal were made to the constituencies, from John o'Groats to the Land's End, they would say that the Standing Order should remain; the people of England, from one end to the other, would say, "Let us have done, now and for ever, with that bigotry and intolerance, and persecution, and injustice, which have marked the course of so many Parliaments, and leave the Standing Order where it is." Moreover, unless the Resolution were converted into a Standing Order, great inconvenience would arise at the commencement of a new Parliament, because a mere Resolution would not survive from one Parliament to another. Thus, through a palpable inadvertency, the right of a Jewish Member to sit might, by a manœuvre, be defeated or

  1177
  postponed. If a Jewish Member had to wait for admission till every other Member had been sworn, and the Queen had opened Parliament, he might be kept out of his seat for a week. This was inconsistent with that religious equality which it was the intention of the Legislature to establish. All these difficulties would be overcome by the simple expedient of making the Resolution, once for all, a Standing Order; and it was with great deference that he asked the House to pass an Act to enable this to be done, and when once done he was sure that no future Parliament would then disturb it. It would remain on their Journals as a lasting memento of the bigotry and intolerance and injustice of bygone days. He begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the 21st & 22nd Vict., c. 49, in the manner mentioned.
  MR. BYNG seconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, intituled 'An Act to provide for the Relief of Her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion.'"
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, my Amendment is far more humble than the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. No one, as the House well knows, deprecated more sincerely than I did, the passing of the Act to which the present discussion refers; but, however much I was opposed to the object which that Bill had in view, I, for one, am prepared to obey the law, especially when I consider that the Act itself embodies a compromise between the two branches of the Legislature, which had long differed upon the subject of the admission to seats in this House of persons who do not profess the "true faith of a Christian." Now, the hon. Member for Finsbury seems to impute to me a desire to disturb that arrangement; but the House will recollect that when the hon. Member for Hythe (Baron M. de Rothschild) came to the table to be sworn, and a Resolution under the Act of last Session was proposed, I abstained from dividing the House. But now that the hon. Member for Finsbury has proposed, first, that the House shall adopt a Standing Order, in defiance of that Act which he has abandoned, and now asks for leave to introduce a Bill that may accomplish his object, I feel justified in moving, by way of Amendment, that which I believe to be the proper course for the House to adopt; in short, that notice should be given to the House of the intention to move a Resolution under the provi-
  1178
  sions of this Act. I believe I can show the House that both the Resolutions upon which the proposal of the hon. Member is founded were hastily adopted by the House. It will be borne in mind that the first of these Resolutions was in favour of seating the hon. Member for the City of London (Baron L. Rothschild). Now I myself, and many other hon. Members of this House, were totally ignorant as to the time when that Resolution would be moved, except that it must be moved before four o'clock on any one of four of the days of the week, on which the House sits in the evening, and at any time before four o'clock during the Wednesdays' sittings of the House. I was totally ignorant, and so were the great body of Members of the House, of the time when it was intended to move the Resolution for seating the hon. Member for Hythe (Baron M. Rothschild till just before he appeared at the table. And let me direct the attention of the House to this fact, that the Act of Parliament clearly contemplates, as you, Sir, stated, and most properly stated, that this Resolution should, when adopted, become a Sessional order; but this House has failed to afford its Members in their collective capacity an opportunity of hearing the Resolution proposed, and of instituting those inquiries which it was obviously the intention of Parliament should be instituted before either branch of the legislature is asked to consent to a Resolution under this Act. Well, Sir, what happened in the case of the hon. Member for the City of London? Why, that he took his seat in this House whilst holding the office of and acting as Consul-General for the Austrian Empire in this country! Indeed, Sir, I am quite aware that the hon. Member has felt that his continuance in that office was inconsistent with his position as a Member of the British House of Commons, and that he has transferred the office to another Member of his family, and not to the hon. Member for Hythe, an act which is no doubt honourable to him as an individual. But the House has done nothing to guard its own character and dignity. I ask, is it right that the House of Commons should pass a Resolution without notice, and then find that it has unwittingly admitted to a seat in this House the Consul-General of the Austrian Empire? Take, also, the case of the hon. Member for Hythe. It is a minute point, perhaps, but it is one that should have been ascertained before the House was called upon to adopt the

  1179
  Resolution in his favour. I understand that the original paper, which attests the return of the hon. Member, is not duly stamped; at least, it was not at half-past three o'clock in the day. This, as I have already said, may be a minute objection, and may be the result of omission, but may be the result of other circumstances. Let us remember how carefully the House of Commons has, at all times, guarded itself against the introduction of an undue number of office-holders under our own Sovereign; how constantly, how repeatedly, how perpetually it has done so; and I ask is it prepared, deliberately to sanction a course of proceeding which has led to its seating the recognized and avowed representative of a foreign Power within its walls? Why, the hon. Member for London himself feels, and to his honour feels, that that is not a position in which the English House of Commons ought to stand; but by the haste of your proceedings under this Act you left it to the hon. Member for London to do the duty which ought to have devolved upon yourselves; and I ask the House now if it is prepared to trust to the good feeling and sense of propriety of the individual Member so seated, by a Resolution of the House, for all time to come; or whether, by adopting the ordinary course of requiring that notice should be given of any Resolution of this kind, it will place itself in a position to guard against similar errors in future? Sir, I must say that, bowing completely to the decision of the House as I do, it nevertheless appears to me that it would be advantageous to the House to distinguish between a case of privilege and a Resolution, passed by virtue of a special Act of Parliament. In the former instance, a Member comes to the table by privilege, and in deference to the rights of his constituents and the people we suspend all business until he has made his claim, and taken the oaths and his seat. But under this new law, which embodies the feelings and opinions of both Houses of Parliament, it is determined that the House shall, by Resolution, declare whether certain important words in the oath taken and subscribed to by Members generally shall be omitted in deference to the conscientious scruples of those who object to them. To me, therefore, the reasonable course appears to be, that the claim of the Member to have those words dispensed with, should be made either by his appearance at the table or
  1180
  by notice; I think myself it had better be made by his appearing at the table, and that then notice should be given to the collective body of the House of the intention to proceed under this special Act, and to adopt a Resolution for the admission of such persons. That seems the plain intention of the Act, which, as I said before, is a compromise resulting from a long-continued difference between the two Houses of the Legislature; and I would earnestly urge upon the House that, for the sake of its own character, one of its most valued possessions, it should not proceed in these cases with the haste and want of deliberation which have already led to results so little creditable to our character. Only conceive what may happen (though I do not pretend to say that it has happened), if such Resolutions are allowed to be proposed without notice. A person may be elected to a seat in this House who desires that a Resolution of this sort should be adopted. He need not present himself in the first week, nor the first month, nor on the first Session after his election; but if there is any objection to him his friends may watch from day to day until the House contains only those, or a considerable majority of those, who are favourable to his admission, and they may then bring him from some coffee-house across Palace-yard, where he has been lying perdu—present him at the table, interrupt the whole business of the House, and carry a Resolution having the binding force of law by means of a majority that may be but a shadow of the House itself, and totally or almost totally, exclude all those who entertain objections to the Resolution from giving it that consideration which it is clearly the intention of the Act to secure. I should not have mooted this question. It has been left for the hon. Member for Finsbury to do that; but as it has been mooted, I pray the House to adopt the Amendment which I now propose, as consistent with the Act in question and with that deliberate care for its own constitution which has ever been one of the most valuable characteristics of the English House of Commons. If you approve of the introduction to seats in this House of persons who cannot profess the Christian faith, at least admit them deliberately and respect the compromise which has taken place between the two branches of the legislature on this subject. This seems then to be the reasonable solution of the difficulties which have arisen, and I trust the House

  1181
  will not, because it emanates from one who has always earnestly and perseveringly deprecated the object of the recent Act, be indisposed to accept it. I will not trouble the House further. I only ask it to act in accordance with its own character and dignity; and to accept an Amendment which is moved in no spirit of faction or of intolerance. I therefore move that no Resolutions under the provisions of the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 49, shall be moved in this House unless at least one day's notice of such Resolution shall have been previously given in the Votes; and that this be a Standing Order of the House.
  Amendment proposed,—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'no Resolution, under the provisions of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, shall be moved in this House, unless at least one day's notice of such Resolution shall have been previously given in the Votes,' instead thereof,"
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MALINSsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) the practical difficulty which existed in the course he had taken. In doing so, however, he must state that he entirely concurred in his view of the question. Parliament had now decided that Jews should sit in the House of Commons, and in the other House also, if that House, as the House of Commons had done, should so resolve; and knowing the most mature deliberation with which the question had been discussed in every possible form before that conclusion was arrived at, he was most anxious that the discussion should not be renewed, With that view, if it were competent for this House now to pass a Standing Order, he should most cordially concur in the passing of it, with the express object of avoiding such renewal. Now the Jews had been admitted he could not think it expedient that any Member of that religion who might be elected to this House should, on presenting himself at the commencement of the Session, be exposed to that kind of discussion and those inconveniences which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought it expedient to preserve. But the hon. Member for Finsbury, by the form of his Motion, showed himself fully alive to the fact that the House had not the power of passing such an order; because the Act enabled the House to admit Jews by Reso-
  1182
  lution only, and did not empower them to pass a Standing Order for the purpose. The hon. Member for Finsbury, feeling this difficulty, proposed to provide a remedy by the introduction of a Bill. Such Bill would doubtless go through its various stages in that House, and he would himself support it; but in the Lords it might lead to a revival of the controversy, which he had hoped had been for ever brought to an end. Under these circumstances, therefore, he would suggest whether it would not be better to let the law stand as it was for the present, and wait for a more favourable opportunity to place the law in a more satisfactory state.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he did not intend to trespass on the time of the House on the question of the admission of the Jews to Parliament. He had always considered it one of the most painful questions brought under discussion, and that pain would be increased considerably in the event of its being again discussed, by the consideration that the House had now Gentlemen of that persuasion sitting amongst them. He rose for the purpose of stating his entire concurrence with what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and of expressing his dissent from the course which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury. It appeared to him that that hon. Member had some-what contradicted himself by the course he had taken. The hon. Member had said he believed it to be the wish of the country that Jews should have a seat in that House, and he went on to describe what he called the bigotry and intolerance of bygone days. He would only say on that part of the question that his conviction was that the great majority of the people of this country were opposed to the admission of members of the Jewish persuasion to seats in that House. But he further wished to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the position in which they were now placed by the course proposed to be taken by the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Member proposed to make that a permanent arrangement which was at present only a temporary one. He seemed to forget the great difficulties in which the question had herertofore been involved. He seemed to forget that, however inconvenient and incomplete was the mode which had been adopted by the two Houses of Parliament in coming to a settlement of the question, it was considered by many Gentlemen in both Houses that at last a settlement had been

  1183
  arrived at, and by large majorities in both Houses the proceeding finally resolved upon had been so accepted. He contended, therefore, that those who had been dissentient to the admission of persons of the Jewish persuasion to seats in that House might fairly complain of this attempt to depart from the arrangement which had been come to by the two Houses of the Legislature. It appeared to him that the extreme anxiety of the hon. Member for Finsbury to make the arrangement permanent, instead of temporary, arose very much from the belief in his own mind that there was a strong feeling of hostility throughout the country to the admission of members of the Jewish persuasion to seats in Parliament; and, therefore, he desired to prevent if possible the revival of a discussion on the question at a future period. But he (Mr. Bentinck) was of opinion that in the circumstances under which the arrangement of last Session was made, those who were opposed to the admission of persons of the Jewish persuasion to that House, had a perfect right to call upon the House to adhere to that arrangement, and give those who differed from the majority upon the question an opportunity of re-opening it hereafter, and of testing what was the real opinion of the people on the subject.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he believed that the present was a very suitable opportunity for remedying an admitted defect in the Act of last Session, with respect to the admission of Jews to Parliament. The House had shown by repeated majorities that they were resolved to admit Jews, and they were bound to place the admission of those persons upon sure and certain ground. The hon. Member for Finsbury, taking a fair and constitutional view of the question, asked leave to introduce a Bill, to make what had hitherto been simply a Resolution, a Standing Order. The House would pass that Bill through its various stages; it would then go to "another place," and he hoped and believed would there meet with a favourable reception. Seeing that no possible disadvantage could arise from placing the admission of Jews upon a firm foundation, and that the House was bound to do so in justice to itself, he would cordially support the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government, whether in their opinion the House was not competent to deal with the question at issue with-
  1184
  out a Bill? and, if not, whether they would be so good as to inform the House what they thought should be done? Entertaining the views he did upon the subject of oaths, he could not hesitate to give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and he must say that he was surprised at the opposition of a man so earnest and sincere as was the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. His (Mr. Coningham's) opinion was, that oaths which were administered as a matter of course, were, in their effect, demoralizing, and very soon become nothing but a matter of form. It was only as a matter of form that an oath was administered to the Members of that House. It was a sham. It was hypocrisy. He asserted that the administration of oaths could only tend to create hypocrisy and promote perjury throughout the land. It was the opinion of that eminent and learned man the present Archbishop of Dublin, that if oaths were abolished—leaving the penalties for false witness—on the whole, testimony would be more trustworthy than it is. Whilst no less distinguished a writer than Mr. Buckle, the author of The History of Civilization in England, spoke of oaths which were enjoined as a matter of course as at length degenerating into a matter of form. He said that what was lightly taken would be easily broken. Fortified by such authority he denounced the administration of oaths as a relic of barbarism and ignorance, and earnestly trusted that at no distant day the whole system might be abolished, and that they would content themselves with a solemn declaration, which would constrain the conscience of no man, and yet be equally binding upon the honour of an Englishman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in the opinion of the Government, if the House were determined to convert their Resolution into a Standing Order, it would be necessary to proceed by Bill. For his own part, he very much regretted this proposition had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury. Remembering what took place last Session—he would not say the compact that had been entered into—but the representations that had been made to many hon. Gentlemen to induce them to come to an arrangement which on the whole was highly satisfactory to the majority of the House, he certainly did regret that a course should now be taken which would re-open that question, and perhaps lead again to painful discussions, and possibly misunderstandings

  1185
  with the other House. Had it been in their power to change the Resolution into a Standing Order without legislative interposition, he might have felt that many reasons might be urged in favour of such a proposition; and he should not have despaired of its being carried, if not unanimously, by the general concurrence of the House. But, as he was advised, that was clearly impossible, and the House could only proceed by Bill, thus embarking upon a course of legislation which might not be as tranquil as they could wish. He should certainly oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, because it was open to the same objection as the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, inasmuch as it sought to disturb the arrangement that was entered into last year, and he thought it was extremely desirable after what then occurred that the question should not be re-opened. The Jews had substantially attained what they desired. He knew there was no small majority of that House not unfavourable to the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, but still he would appeal to him whether, in such a manner and for such a purpose, it was worth while to revive bygone discussions which had been productive of so much bitterness.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not prepared to express a decided opinion in opposition to what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the inability of the House to convert a Resolution into a Standing Order; but at the same time he did net wish by remaining silent to bind himself to the doctrine that it was not in the power of the House, without obtaining the sanction of Parliament, to make the conversion in question. There were high authorities for the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he thought the House should be very cautious in a admitting that it was necessary to ask the house of Lords to grant them a power which, perhaps, they already possessed, and which, at all events, it was not at all clear they did not possess. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had stated that a Resolution and a Standing Order were two different things. Now, the fact was that they were both of the same character; both Orders of the House—both, in fact, Resolutions; and he thought it would be found that every Standing Order of the House embodied in it a Resolution of the House. If they wished to make a Standing Order the first step
  1186
  was to pass a Resolution, and then convert it into an Order, of a more permanent instead of a temporary character, so that it still remained a Resolution, though by being called a Standing Order it was implied that it had a more permanent authority. He did not give this opinion with any confidence, but still he thought it was one well deserving of consideration. Before they decided, he thought they ought to look to the authorities. He must, protest, however, against a statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which implied there was anything like a compact last year upon this question. His own opinion was, and had been, that the course pursued last year upon this question was more likely than any ether which could be adopted to revive the angry discussions which had taken place—nothing could be more unsatisfactory or more clumsy than the so-called settlement which had last year been effected. His doubt was whether it was worth while to go to the House of Lords to ask them to assist the Commons in doing that which perhaps the Commons could do without their authority, and even if the Commons could not do it without the concurrence of the House of Lords, he doubted whether the Commons should send up to the Lords such a Bill as the one proposed, instead of calling upon the other House generously to concede the admission of the Jews generally. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury pressed his Motion to a division, he (Sir George Grey) wishing for time to consider the matter, would vote for the introduction of the Bill—a course he was the more ready to adopt, as no resistance had been offered during the present Session to the introduction of any Bill. As to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire, he had no hesitation in rejecting it. He apprehended an hon. Member duly elected had an undoubted right to take his seat without any unnecessary delay, and that it would be an injustice to keep any hon. Member who came to that table to take the oaths twenty-four or forty-eight hours without taking his seat.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he thought h should not be justified in complying with the appeal made to him to withdraw his Motion. He was not disposed to pay the Lords, as a body, so ill a compliment as to suppose that they would reject the Bill, and some of the Peers, with whom he had

  1187
  spoken, declared to him that they had no idea that the Resolution passed under the Act of last year would not have the effect which was now sought to be given to it. No doubt the House had a right to convert a Resolution into a Standing Order, but there was this peculiarity about the particular Resolution in question, that the House had received it embodied in an Act of Parliament, and therefore it was doubtful whether that Resolution could be converted into a Standing Order without the assent of the House of Lords, and whether a Jew taking his seat under a Standing Order made by the sole authority of the House of Commons would not be subject to pains and penalties. His best justification for introducing the measure was the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had no objection to withdraw that part of the Amendment which stated that his Resolution should be a Standing Order of the House.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid that, when the question was last year before the House he expressed a strong opinion, and he retained it still, that if the Jews were to be admitted to seats in Parliament, it would be better that they should be admitted openly and directly, than that the question should be left open to consideration, and to the constant discussions that would follow upon it. Now he owned that he thought they had got into great difficulties by the Act of last Session. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) that it was not by any means clear what was the force of the Act of Parliament with respect to the Resolutions made under it. It was by no means clear to what extent they might be carried, whether beyond a Session or even beyond a Parliament. His own impression was, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) would be extremely inconvenient; because, if it were agreed to, the House would lay itself open to the objection which had been urged by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Grey), that a hon. Member was entitled to take his seat as soon as had been elected. He thought it would have been better to pass a Sessional Resolution at the beginning of every Session. But in point of fact there was so much difficulty about the question, that he would suggest to the hon. Member for Finsbury, as the best mode of getting out of it, that without going again to the other House of Parlia-
  1188
  ment, and instead of pressing his Motion for leave to introduce a Bill, he should refer the matter to a Select Committee, to consider the best mode of carrying the Act of Parliament into effect. They would then have a Report from hon. Members of different parties in the House who would have considered the measure fully and maturely; and thus they would be in a much better position to arrive at a decision on the subject.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if he was to understand that Her Majesty's Government and the House generally were willing to adopt the proposal just made by his right hon. Friend, he should be very happy to waive his own opinion, in deference to that of the House, and withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) was one to which the House might, with propriety, accede. The Government hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Finsbury would not be indisposed to listen favourably to the suggestion.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he had listened with much pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), because of its conciliatory tone, and thought the course proposed by him very likely to lead to a satisfactory settlement. He should therefore have no objection to withdraw his Bill, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would move for the appointment of a Committee. [Mr. WALPOLE: Hear, hear!] Well, then, he placed the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, feeling sure that from the experience which he had had of the right hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Committees, the inquiry would be fairly and properly conducted.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would now move, as an Amendment to the original Motion, that the question be referred to a Select Committee to consider and to report as to the best mode of carrying the Act of last Session into effect.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report to the House on the best mode of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, to provide for the Relief of Her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion,' instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed—
  "To consider and report to the House on the best mode of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, to provide for the Relief of Her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion."

COLONIAL AND FOREIGN WOOD.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. MITCHELLsaid he rose to move a Resolution to the effect that it was the opinion of the House that the duties on foreign and colonial wood should be repealed. Considering the uncertain state of the revenue at the present moment, he did not propose by his Resolution to ask the House for the repeal of the duties on wood this year or at any definite period. What he wished the House to do was, to express its abstract opinion as to these duties and on the expediency of repealing them as soon as the state of the revenue would render such a measure possible. To show how the question stood he would give the House a short historical summary of the gradual reduction of those articles. In 1841, and for a considerable time previous, the duty on foreign wood had stood at 55s. per load, and that on colonial 20s. Wood was one of the three great articles a change in the duties on which was proposed by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London in 1841. He need not say that that proposal was unsuccessful. In 1842 Sir R. Peel brought in his celebrated budget, in which he proposed that the duties on foreign timber should be reduced to 30s. in 1842, and to 25s. in 1843. The duty on colonial timber he brought down at once to the merely nominal sum of 1s. a load. On that occasion Sir Robert said, that if there was an article on which a reduction of duty would be a benefit to the people, it was wood. The impost remained unaltered at this amount until 1845, when, in the budget accompanying the total repeal of the Corn Laws, Sir R. Peel proposed that the duties upon foreign wool should be reduced to 20s. a load in 1846, and to 15s. a load in 1847. This state of things continued until 1850, when the repeal of the Navigation Laws relieved from duty the manufactured article of shipping. As one
  1190
  who had given a cordial support to that measure, he certainly did not feel it his duty to object to that clause, because he felt that when British shipowners were exposed to competition with all the world they were entitled in turn to buy their ships in the cheapest market. But then they were left with this anomaly, that while the manufactured article was admitted free of duty, the raw material was left burdened with a heavy one. The consequence was, that in 1850 he (Mr. Mitchell) brought forward a proposal for allowing ships to be built in bond. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood,) who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, declined to deal with the subject at that time, in consequence of the state of the revenue, and on account of the great difficulty which a system of drawbacks would entail, but he promised to consider the question at a subsequent period, and in conformity with that promise the right hon. Gentleman in 1851 proposed and carried a reduction of the duties on foreign wood of from 15s. to 7s. 6d. a load upon hewn, and from 20s. to 10s. a load upon sawn timber. That was the point at which the duty at present stood. Now, what had been the effect of this reduction in stimulating the importation and consumption of wood in this country? Prior to 1843 the annual imports of wood somewhat exceeded 1,100,000 loads. He would not trouble the House with the amount in each year up to 1857, but in that year the wood imported was 2,494,964 loads. In this quantity he had included both hewn and sawn timber. The importation, therefore, had nearly doubled in the fourteen years from 1843 to 1857, during which the reduction of the duty was made. He was bound to admit that there had been a falling off it 1858, but that might be accounted for by the crisis in the preceding year in this country. The timber trade was always the last to feel a commercial crisis, and it was also the last to recover from it; but lie had no doubt that the small falling off in 1858 would be abundantly made up in the present year. It would be seen that colonial timber had experienced a considerable reduction in the amount of protection afforded to it; but there had nevertheless been no falling off in the colonial trade. In 1857 the quantity of wood imported from our Colonies exceeded the total quantity of our imports, foreign, and colonial, in 1842. He (Mr. Mitchell) objected to the continuance of the timber duties on four grounds—First,

  1191
  it was the only duty that existed on a raw material—at least, he knew of none of any importance. There were three great articles which entered into all our manufactures—coal, iron and wood. Fortunately we had the two former within our own shores; but, with the exception of oak, we were obliged to bring all our timber from abroad. But it was unfortunate that we had to import so much of an article which entered so largely into our manufactures; but surely it could not be to our interest to aggravate that misfortune by imposing a duty besides, and to do so was contrary to the whole course of recent legislation, the tendency of which had been to free raw materials from taxation. The duty on the wood used in the smallest hovel which could be erected in this country would amount to 20 s., while upon an ordinary cottage of six rooms it would be £3. Its pressure in this way was therefore considerable. Another ground of objection was that it operated as a protective duty in favour of Canada to the extent of 14 s. a load, or thirty per cent. Now, he did not know why we should go out of our way to benefit Canada, inasmuch as the Canadian Legislature, he believed, were imposing duties on our manufactures in favour of native industry. With the exception of sugar, there was no other large article placed in the same position as timber. His third reason for objecting to the present duties was, that at the present moment they were unequal and unjust. All the higher classes of wood, such as African oak, teak, and mahogany, were admitted free of duty. The consequence was, that, while the mahogany table of the rich and the middle classes was free of duty, the deal table of the poor cottager was taxed. This was effected under Sir Robert Peel's tariff, who, with a view to encourage the furniture trade of this country, admitted all the furniture woods duty free; and since that time the importation of mahogany had doubled. His fourth reason was the claims which the shipbuilding interest had to their notice. He thought that interest had been treated with the greatest possible injustice. Ever since the repeal of the Navigation Laws the shipbuilders of this country had had to sustain a competition with the foreigner in the building of middle-class ships; and he need not remind the House that they had to pay certain enhanced prices in proportion to the cost of bringing the wood to this country, and thus they were placed under considerable disadvantages. For
  1192
  instance, take the price of white oak. At Dantzic it was worth 80 s. a load, and the import charges amounted to 22 s., making the cost about 30 per cent. more. Again, the price of pine was 40 s. a load, and the import charges about 20 s., or an enhanced cost of about 50 per cent. Those were disadvantages under which shipbuilders in this country were placed in the competition they had to sustain with the shipbuilders of the Baltic. Independently of this natural disadvantage, however, Parliament imposed an artificial one, in the shape of a heavy duty. Ships built in this country were divided into various classes—from 4 A to 13 A—the lowest being registered at Lloyd's as A 1 for four years, and the highest class as A 1 for thirteen years. He found the actual per centage of duty on the cost of the hull of a ship registered as a 4 A ship to be no less than 9¼ per cent., which he considered was a great disadvantage. He calculated the quantity of timber at 400 tons, at £5 10 s. per ton, which gave £2,200 as the value. Such a ship could be built only of foreign timber. The hull of a 5 A ship at £6 per ton would give a value of £2,400; and the duty would be equal to 8¼ per cent. on the outlay. The hull of a 6 A ship at £6 10 s. per ton gave a value of £2,600; and the per centage of duty upon that was about 7⅝. On a 7 A ship at £7 per ton, and on a value of £2,800, the duty was 7 per cent. In consequence of the duty being injurious to the trade, the lowest classes of ships—those registered as 4 A and 5 A, &c.—were not much built in this country. When they came to the higher classes, they would find that the ships were built of timber of the favoured sorts, such as teak, oak, and mahogany, and consequently the per centage of duty was a much less rate in proportion to the cost. He should now ask the House to consider whether it was just or politic to maintain a tax which, while the manufactured article in the shape of a ship was admitted duty free, pressed heavily upon the raw material which the shipbuilder had to use. For the accuracy of the statements which he had made he could vouch, and he had been deterred from bringing them under the consideration of the House some years ago simply because he felt that during the progress of the Russian war it would be inexpedient to ask for the remission of a tax which yielded £600,000 per annum. Now, however, that the year 1860 was at hand, when a great alteration in our financial position would

  1193
  be produced by the falling in of the terminable annuities, he thought he might very fairly venture to ask the House to pronounce the continuance of the duty undesirable.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he rose to second the Resolution, and in doing so he would beg to call the attention of the House to the words of it, and to point out that it contained nothing to pledge hon. Members, should they assent to it, to the repeal of the duty at the present moment, or indeed to do so at any particular time. All it called upon the House to do was to affirm the general principle, namely, that the timber duties were unjust both in principle and practice. Neither his hon. Friend nor himself was anxious that the remission of the duties should take place at a time which would be injurious to the public service. It had been recognized over and over again that a tax on the raw material ought not to exist if it could be possibly prevented. That principle had been carried out so far as it concerned cotton, wool, and other things—timber alone was the exception. Upon those grounds it was perfectly fair to ask the House to ratify the Resolution. His constituents had a special interest in its repeal as they were more largely engaged in shipbuilding than any others in the country; for on the Wear there was more shipbuilding than in almost all the rest of the kingdom. Two years since the shipbuilders on the Wear turned out 60 per cent more ships than the whole of England did a few years ago; and that showed that the port of Sunderland and the interests of his constituents were largely concerned in the fate of this question. There was a duty on imported timber of from 10 to 25 per cent, but at the same time ships built in the Baltic and in Canada were permitted to be brought to this country and sold without any duty being charged at all. Such a system interfered to prevent shipbuilding in the north of England, and operated most injuriously upon the shipbuilding interest generally. It was well known that Canadian timber was not so good for ordinary purposes as Baltic timber, but the duty on Canadian timber being only 1s. a load, whilst on Baltic it was 7s. 6d. and 10 s., an inducement was offered to use an inferior article, and the consequence was that a great number of houses had been built of timber which was not fit for the purpose. Her Majesty's present Government were generally supposed to have a special lean.
  1194
  ing in favour of the shipping interest; but that impression could no longer prevail if they should resist that fair and reasonable Motion. With these few remarks he begged to second the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That it is the opinion of this House, that the Duties on Foreign and Colonial Wood should be repealed."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that when he first saw the Resolution on the paper it appeared to him to be one which was aimed at the immediate remission of a very important item in the revenue of the country. It seemed, however, from what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that it did not necessarily bear that construction; but he could not help thinking that a mere abstract Motion, calling upon hon. Members to express an opinion as to the expediency of taking a certain course at some future time, and under some possible circumstances, was one which was more suited to the proceedings of a debating society than to the deliberations of the House of Commons. If, therefore, the Resolution under discussion were agreed to, it must, he thought, be regarded as pledging the House to a repeal of the duties in question, if not immediately, at all events at no distant period. Now, it was, he believed, an established rule in the conduct of its proceedings that the House should first vote the Supplies necessary to be granted to Her Majesty, and should afterwards resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, to decide upon the mode in which those Supplies were to be raised. The usual course was to wait for the Estimates, and after hearing from the recognized authority on those matters—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—an account of the state of the finances of the country, then to consider the relations between income and expenditure, and what were the most proper taxes for reduction or remission if such could be made. But this Motion was made before half the Estimates had been laid before the House, when only a single vote had been taken in supply, and without any reference to the comparative claims of other articles to be released from taxation if such a course was possible. It must be borne in mind that the produce of these duties was no less last year than £564,000, which was too large an amount to give up at a moment's notice. At all events, it was necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he came to make his

  1195
  financial statement, should approach the subject with his hands unfettered by any Resolution of the House. What would be the effect of passing such a Resolution? Naturally, all the other interests which thought they had a claim to the remission of duties, would get their friends to come down, and make a tolerably good muster, and say—of course without prejudice to anything—"Just let us declare that this or the other is a very bad tax." The result would be that nearly every existing tax might be condemned by Resolution of the House. But if that would be an inconvenience to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the finances and expenditure of the country what would be the effect upon the timber trade? Consider the effect on the timber trade if to-morrow morning it went out that the House had adopted a Resolution that those duties ought to be repealed. At present the timber trade was in a state of considerable agitation, and great efforts were being made to raise prices. The effect of passing this Resolution would be to increase that agitation, and to a certain extent it would paralyse those engaged in the trade, who would not know on what footing they were to proceed. And if the Resolution were passed, and no effect were given to it, those who had made arrangements believing that it would be carried into effect, would have a fair right to complain that the House had acted so as to inflict upon them serious injury. Then the mover and seconder of the Resolution had taken it for granted that the reduction of those duties would have the effect of reducing the price of timber. It was, however, a remarkable fact that former reductions of duties upon timber had nut been always attended by a diminution of price to the consumer. In 1842 the duty on foreign timber was reduced from 56 s. to 31 s., and on colonial from 11 s. to a nominal duty of 1s. The immediate effect of that was to produce a considerably increased importation. In 1840 the price of duty-paid timber was somewhere about 83 s.; in 1844 it had fallen to 56 s. The next great change was in 1851, when Sir Charles Wood further reduced the duty on foreign timber from 15 s. to 7s. 6d., not reducing the duty on colonial, because it was merely nominal. The effect of that bad been perhaps to stimulate, to a certain extent, the importation of foreign timber; but prices were actually higher now than they were before that alteration; and there-
  1196
  fore the whole of the revenue sacrificed had gone, not into the pockets of the customers, but those of the growers or importers. He had in his hand a statement which showed that in 1844 the price of Memel timber on board was 31 s., the duty being then 25 s., making a total of 56 s.; but in 1858 the price on board was much higher, and the price to the consumer was rather higher. In 1850, the prices of Memel and Dantzic timber, the best fir, ranged from 65 s. to 70 s.; they were now from 75 s. to 80 s., showing an increase of 10 s. The same with regard to Riga fir; it had risen from 65 s. to 75 s. The probability was that if they were now to take off the duty on foreign timber, the same result would follow; though the revenue would lose, the consumer would gain very little indeed. This country was not wholly dependent on foreign timber, but partly on that of Canada; at present we took nearly equal quantities of each. Now the price was necessarily regulated, not by the price at which the merchant could afford to bring it here, but by the price which he could get when he brought it here; because, though the reduction of duty would enable him to bring it here at a lower price, he would not sell it at a lower price when he could get a higher; and as long as the duty on Canadian timber remained the same, its price must regulate that of all the timber sold in the country. It should also be borne in mind that though the importation of foreign timber had been considerably increasing, that of colonial had been decreasing, although it was almost free of duty. From that they might infer that colonial timber could not be brought profitably to this country at a lower price than at present. Therefore, whether they took off the foreign duty or not was immaterial to the colonial producer; he would be obliged to demand the same price for his timber then as now; and if he did so, the foreign producer would also demand the same price for his timber as he did now. Therefore, though the foreign producer might gain considerably by the reduction of duty, the consumer would probably gain nothing. The total quantity of foreign timber imported last year was 1,100,000 tons, and of colonial very nearly the same, 1,095,000 tons—the consumption of colonial timber having, since 1843, fallen off by 186,000 tons, and that of foreign having increased during the same period by 454,000 tons. The case of the hon. Mover broke down at this

  1197
  point—whether the reduction would really have the effect of benefiting the consumer; and if so, the whole case he had made fell to the ground. The hon. Gentleman had also denounced the duties as anomalous because some of the most valuable kinds of wood were wholly exempted. As those favoured woods were exactly those which were mostly used in shipbuilding, he did not see how the shipbuilders of this country could be benefited by the change proposed by the Resolution. It was further said that this duty was bad as being a protective duty, and there could be no doubt but that duties of that description were very objectionable in principle, and he could not deny that this duty was to a certain extent protective, and therefore objectionable. But there must have been something exceptional in the case of these duties which had induced Sir Robert Peel and the other great Free Trade authorities in the three Ministries since his time to exempt timber from the general operation of the doctrine, that all protective duties must be abolished. The fact was, that the quantity of home-grown timber which came into competition with the classes of foreign timber subject to duty was so small that the present duty could not be said to act as a protection in favour of the produce of our own country, and with regard to the colonial timber, the difference in the cost of freight was much more important than the difference in the duty. So that though the duty was in theory objectionable as being protective, the protection was really so trifling that the objection had little practical weight. If there were no other tax which pressed heavily upon the country, it might be a matter for consideration whether they ought not to take off the duty on foreign timber; but certainly no case had been made out to justify the House in expressing an opinion upon the subject before the general statement of the finances of the country had been made. He did not consider it necessary, in opposing this Motion, to enter into any details, but simply rested his objection on the general ground that it was inexpedient under ordinary circumstances to anticipate a financial statement, and even if it were considered expedient in certain exceptional cases, it had not been shown that this was a case which justified such an interference with the ordinary course of business.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he could have wished that the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) had confined his objections
  1198
  to the points upon which he had first addressed the House; for, objectionable as were the timber duties in principle, and much as they had been condemned by almost every eminent statesman in that House from the time of Sir Robert Peel, he (Mr. Wilson) could never vote for their repeal until he saw the way clear in a financial point of view. The removal of the duty would be a great advantage, but it was a much greater advantage that they should have a good financial arrangement. But, apart from the consideration arising out of the financial state of the country, he was bound to say, that he, for one, would never vote for the repeal of that duty on the Motion of an independent Member. Ho must confess, however, that when he came to the second series of objections, he was greatly surprised at the doctrines which had been enunciated by the hon. Baronet opposite, which seemed to him to be a return to those principles of protection which he thought had been for ever abandoned. The hon. Baronet had said it was not a protective duty, because they had to pay a larger freight from Canada. Why, would not the same argument apply to corn? On the same principle the hon. Baronet might ask the House to impose a duty of 5s. per quarter on German corn because it cost 5s. a quarter more to bring it from Canada than from Germany. That was an argument which had been strange to his ears for ten years. With regard to the first series of objections, he quite coincided with them. The effect of this Motion would be to pledge the House to repeal the timber duty when they did not know whether it would be consistent with the financial arrangements of the year or not, and if it should turn out that they were unable to fulfil their promise, they would be open to the charge of deceiving the country. Feeling how important it was that at the present juncture the national finances should be in as good a position as possible, he must vote against the Motion.
  MR. HUDSONsaid, he must complain of the great injury which the shipbuilders of Sunderland sustained in consequence of the pressure of the timber duties. He was quite sure, that if the Government had the power, they did not want the will to remove them, and therefore he saw no reason why an independent Member should not take the opinion of the House on the question. When the Navigation Laws were repealed, it was held out to the shipbuilders, by the then Presi-

  1199
  dent of the Board of Trade, who brought in the measure, that the oppressive tax on timber should be repealed, and that the shipping interest would labour under no disadvantage whatever. The tax was a blot on our Statute book in an age of free trade, seeing that it was almost the only article which was taxed in the shape of raw material. Since the doctrine of free trade had been recognized by the Legislature, they must be prepared to carry it out to the full, without any exception. It was true that at first the duty was felt by the producer, but eventually it fell upon the consumer. Nor was the hardship confined to the shipping trade. As the House knew, a portion of the population of Sunderland were engaged in the manufacture of glass, and one of the manufacturers had recently told him that he calculated he paid £300 a year taxes upon the wood which was used in packing cases alone, and inasmuch as the French and German glass was admitted into this country duty free, it was felt to be a great hardship that the glass manufacturers of this country should have to pay duty upon their packing cases. For his part he should cordially support the Motion if it were pressed to a division, believing, as he did, that it related to a subject calling loudly for the interference of the House, and that if the duties in question were remitted, the effect would be to lower the price of timber generally, and bring it more extensively into use, especially in the building of houses and cottages for the humbler orders of the people.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he could never have made any promise at the time of the abolition of the Navigation Laws that the timber duties should be repealed, because it was not in his power to perform any such promise. What he said was, that the duty was objectionable, and that he hoped the time would soon arrive when it could be repealed. He must express his surprise at the doctrines which had been enunciated by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He could not agree in the panegyric passed upon these duties by the hon. Baronet. His opinion, on the contrary, was that they constituted one of the worst kind of taxes ever imposed on the people of this country. With regard to the shipping interest there Was no fear that British shipbuilders would not be able to compete with these of foreign countries. So for was it front being true that the shipbuilding trade had been transferred to other
  1200
  countries in consequence of the withdrawal of protection that precisely the contrary took place. At the present moment there were more ships built in England and sold to foreigners than were purchased by Englishmen. He believed if the raw material of timber were made cheap great benefit would accrue to all classes of the community, and not to the shipping interest alone. Though he was in favour of the principle embodied in the Motion, he should not, however, vote for an abstract Resolution pledging the House to the repeal of any tax whatever until he had heard the financial statement of the year.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he joined in the surprise which had been expressed at the fallacies enunciated by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), which he thought were long ago exploded. With regard to the reduction of the timber duties, he certainly thought that it would lead to a greatly increased consumption, and therefore he quite agreed with those who had urged this question on the consideration of the House. It was quite clear that the hon. Gentleman behind him did not wish to press for the immediate repeal of the tax, but only wished to get the opinion of the House with respect to its continuance. He thought, therefore, that if the hon. Gentleman would consent to add to his Motion some words which would be expressive of the opinion of the House that the timber duties should be repealed at the earliest period consistent with the general state of the finances of the country, it would meet the view of almost every one conversant with the question, and ensure the support of the House.
  MR. MITCHELLsaid, he was quite willing to respond to the appeal of the noble Lord, and therefore he would propose to add to the Motion the words, "as soon as the state of the revenue admits of it." He might make this remark. It seemed to him that if the argument of hon. Gentlemen who objected to bringing forward a question of this kind at the present time were tenable a private Member would be altogether precluded from doing so, inasmuch as if he brought it on before the Budget he was met by the cry of "Wait till the financial statement is made," and if afterwards the objection would be immediately raised that inasmuch as the financial arrangements of the year were already completed he was too late to propose any alteration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the proposed addition to the

  1201
  Motion renders it much more objectionable. As it now stands, the Motion only asserts that the duties on timber ought to be repealed, but as amended by the addition, it pledges the House to repeal those duties as soon as ever the state of the revenue permits. I should like to know whether those hon. Gentlemen who sit near the hon. Member, and who have pressed on the House the necessity of repealing the paper duty and other taxes on knowledge, think it advisable that the House should be pledged to apply the first surplus which may accrue in the revenue to the repeal of the timber duties. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) that this is the only mode in which taxes of this sort can be brought under the consideration of the House, and that unless the House sanctioned Resolutions of this character it is impossible that the grievances of any class of the community can be redressed. There are means by which before and after the financial statement is made, and before it is adopted, the character of any tax can be brought under the consideration of the House, and the opinion of the House expressed upon it in a manner which must influence the financial Minister if he have any surplus to devote to the lightening of the burdens of taxation. I cannot say that the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at this moment of such a nature that there need be any scramble among the community as to which class shall get a relief, and I must ask the House to support the Minister who at present occupies that position—one of no little difficulty,—and not to sanction a Motion of this kind, winch must have an injurious effect upon the public mind, and must lead to a great deal of feverish anxiety in the various branches of this particular trade. The observations of the Secretary of the Treasury have been much misrepresented. He did not for a moment I maintain that this tax, which is a tax on raw material, was not a bad tax; he admitted that it was one of a protective character. What he said was—and I agree with him—that there were many other taxes on raw materials worse than the tax on timber. In that he is supported by the highest authorities. I should be happy myself to put an end to this tax, bat at present I am not in a position to hold out any hope of the kind. In a very short time, certainly in a month hence, it will be my duty to call the attention of the house to the financial state of the coun-
  1202
  try, and it will be open to those who represent the timber trade, or who are in favour of the abolition of this tax, to bring the subject before the House, when, no doubt, it will receive a fair consideration.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MITCHELLsaid, he would then put his Motion in the amended form.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That it is the opinion of this House, that the Duties en Foreign and Colonial Wood should be repealed, as soon as the Revenue admits of it."
  The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 133: Majority 56.

EXCISABLE LIQUORS (SCOTLAND).

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  VISCOUNT MELGUNDsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the laws regulating the side and consumption of Exciseable Liquors in Scotland. Since he had given notice of his Motion, which he thought was a very reasonable and moderate one, a good deal of opposition—more than the occasion justly warranted—had been excited against it. With the permission of the House, he would say a few words in explanation of his own position with respect to the question. It was now about a year since statements were made in that House by the Government and by several hon. Members that abuses of a very grave character existed in Scotland with reference to the working of the Publichouses Act; and hopes were expressed that some inquiry would be instituted into this subject. He was convinced, after full consideration, that some inquiry was desirable. Deputations waited upon the late Government urging that inquiry should take place, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth admitted that they had made out a primâ facie case for inquiry, though he could not say what course he should take. After the late Government went out of office similar representations were made to the present Government. But, nothing having been done by the Government, he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject last Session. Several of his friends, however, requested him, as the Session was then far advanced, to postpone his Motion until this Session, promising, at the same time, to support it when again brought forward. To that course he felt called upon to assent, and accordingly withdrew his Motion. He had hoped that the right bon. Member for Cam-

  1203
  bridge University (Mr. Walpole) would have been induced to take up the subject, and it would have been a great satisfaction to him if that had been done. Inasmuch as the Scotch Publichouses Act, commonly called Forbes Mackenzie's Act, was the offspring of a Committee of that House, he thought it better to proceed, in the first instance, by moving for a Committee of Inquiry into the operations of that Act than by asking for leave to bring in a Bill. Forbes Mackenzie's Act was of a restrictive character, and partook very much of the character of a sumptuary law; but that was a description of legislation which was only to be defended when it accomplished its purpose without raising incidental grivevances of as serious a character as those it was to remove. This Act, in that character, was not unprecedented, especially in Scotland; for in that country they had had a law to determine the number of dishes that should be put upon the table, and the apparel which the family might wear. Some 200 years ago a severe statute was passed against alehouses, subjecting those who frequented them to penalties, and afterwards to the jougs—the stocks of Scotland—being a kind of tackle for securing the offender to the church door when penalties had failed of their effect. That statute seems to have failed of its effect, for a few years afterwards another was passed, according to the preamble, "in consequence of the abominable and much-abounding sin of drunkenness." The chief features of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, as far as they occasioned the grievances complained of, were these:—It closed all publichouses and hotels at eleven o'clock at night, and prohibited the opening of publichouses, inns, or hotels on Sunday. It gave a discretionary power to the magistrates to limit the number of publichouses, and complaints had been made that the magistrates had not acted impartially. He believed these complaints were well-founded; the magistrates were often imbued with such strong opinions of the propriety of suppressing drunkenness by the power of the law, that when they sat judicially they were quite incapable of acting in an impartial manner. They frequently heard appeals on cases they had themselves decided. They were liable to be canvassed by bodies of men whose principles of total abstinence led them to endeavour to procure the refusal of all licences; and, when so canvassed, the magistrates often acted in a man-
  1204
  ner that proved they did not wish to deal with every case on its own merits. They had a general form of certificate which they required to be filled up before they would grant a licence. Any applicant for one was refused, unless he would accept certain conditions. One of these conditions was, that no licence should be granted for a publichouse if it had a back door. He did not wish to make any attack upon the magistrates, but it was extremely doubtful if men holding strong opinions of this kind could fairly be allowed to exercise the powers of the bench. A conflict was provoked, and in the Courts of Appeal one set of magistrates would admit every licence, while another would refuse them all. Whether the Forbes Mackenzie Act had prevented any drunkenness or not, the collateral evils that could be traced to it were undoubted. In the returns of the convictions under the Act in Aberdeen there were three columns, one was for persons charged as disorderly, another for those drunk and disorderly, and a third for those found drunk. If in one year there was a decreased noted under one of these heads, there was a precisely similar increase in another. The result was—that in 1852—the year before the Act passed—4,700 persons were taken by the police for drunkenness; in 1857 there were 1,760 such cases. That showed an apparent decrease; but it was made up for by the number of persons taken up for other crimes and found drunk, the numbers being 729 in 1852, and 1,520 in 1857. In Inverness the number of persons taken up by the police for being drunk in 1852 was 204; in 1857 the number showed a considerable diminution—it was only 93; but from all the private information he had received, and from the statements in the newspapers, he believed the Act in Inverness was almost a dead letter. There was an apparent decrease in the cases of drunkenness, but the facts did not tell one way or the other. In Glasgow, also, there appeared to be a diminution of the number of cases of drunkenness, but the number of persons charged with being drunk and disorderly had increased. With regard to Sunday drinking, he believed this Act had had some effect. In Ednburgh the returns gave 1,739 as the number of drunken cases on a Saturday, 922 on Sunday, and only 869 on Monday, the most sober day of the week. Taking the average of the whole year, exclusive of the Saturdays, the number of Sunday cases were quite equal to those

  1205
  occurring on the weekdays. The advantage of the Sunday over them was only that of 922 to 1,007. The number of licensed houses in Glasgow, in 1853, was 1,994; in 1857 they had been reduced to 1,673, but the increase of the number of convictions, in 1857, was 223. Crime had also increased. The reduction of licensed houses below the demands of the public had led to an alarming increase of illicit trade in spirituous liquors. The undoubted effect of the Act had been to decrease the number of licensed houses, and there had been in consequence a falling off in the revenue, while shebeens, or unlicensed houses, where drink could be had on all days and at all times, were become more numerous. When licences were withdrawn, the landlord usually set up a shebeen, and drove a better trade than before. One account stated that there were more persons selling spirits without a licence than with one. Another account stated that the Act was systematically broken. He believed it was an undoubted fact that in Edinburgh there were between 200 and 300 unlicensed houses where drink was constantly sold, and one evil of such places was, that persons were kept there until they were sober, whereas the publican had to turn his customers out at a certain hour, and it was his interest not to allow them to drink so much as to become noisy and quarrelsome. The profits of the illicit trade were enormous, and there were instances of persons who had paid more than £200 in fines, in a few years, and still carried on their business. Another account stated, that in one small house spirits to the amount of £200 or £300 had been sold during four months, and several accounts went to show that drinking at home had increased. All these statements, although not made upon his own authority, were sufficiently supported to justify investigation. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, an impartial body of men, stated in their Report for last year that, in their opinion, the restriction on the number of licensed houses would not reduce intemperance, and that Edinburgh and Glasgow furnished abundant evidence that it was not by such means the habits of the population could be changed. In Edinburgh, the cases of fines for keeping unlicensed houses had increased from eight in 1853 to twenty-one in 1857, and in Glasgow from two to twenty-two. The repression of shebeens and clubs had given rise to
  1206
  the employment of the police and others as spies. In Glasgow it had been the custom to employ the police, and a more unfortunate custom he could not well conceive. It led to a most unpleasant feeling in the minds of the people towards the police, and sometimes to riot and bloodshed. He was sorry to say that two officers of police had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six and eight months for a violent attack on the conductors of one of these shebeens. The establishment of clubs was an invention by which people were able to obtain drink at any time, and members of them were allowed to introduce a friend. In Glasgow, Lieutenant Stupart, the inspector of police, introduced a student of divinity, named John Kirk, to some police officers; and Kirk and another student, named Bruce, introduced the officers to the Shakspeare Club, in the Trongate, both under false designations. By an expenditure of 8s., supplied by Stupart, a case was made out against the conductors of the club, who were fined £7. It appeared that Kirk was employed by the police in making out these cases, and that Stupart supplied the money to the officers, who were introduced by him, for it appeared that a person named Montgomery, the keeper of the Independent Workmen's Club, was informed against by a policeman and Kirk for selling four cigars without a licence. The policeman and Kirk had spent 18 s. in five clubs in the same night. In another case two men, dressed as carters, called upon an old man named Cameron, on a Sunday, and said they had come a great distance, and should be glad of a little spirit. The old man at first refused, though he afterwards consented, but he declared on his deathbed he never took anything in payment. He was prosecuted. The two carters appeared against him in the uniform of the police. He was fined and sent to prison, where he was deprived of his clothes, dressed in a felon's suit, compelled to lie on a bard board, and not allowed to see his friends. At last he was liberated in a dying state, and only survived a few days, leaving a family entirely destitute. The vile practice of dressing the police in plain clothes had been discontinued in Glasgow, but they still employed men and women, who were known as police substitutes, received money from them, and were then left to their own devices to find out the

  1207
  best method to entrap their game. These were the general grounds on which he ventured to ask for an inquiry. It was undoubtedly true that immorality to a great extent prevailed in many towns in Scotland. The complaints were not, in all cases, the same. He believed the city of Glasgow was the worst place in all Scotland, though Edinburgh and some other towns were not very much better. In proposing that, consistently with precedent, the House should of itself institute an inquiry into this matter, and not delegate its powers to any other body. He was perfectly willing to leave the appointment of the Members of the Committee to the Committee of Selection, the Government, or any other impartial tribunal. At the same time, provided the investigation was fair and complete, he should be satisfied with whatever method the House in its wisdom might think fit to adopt.
  MR. CRAUFURDseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquite into the Laws regulating the Sale and Consumption of Excisable Liquors in Scotland."
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, that while he acknowledged that the noble Viscount's motives were strictly fair and honourable, he was compelled to move as an Amendment to his Motion, that the proposed inquiry should be conducted by a Royal Commission, instead of by a Select Committee. It was admitted on all hands that Mr. Forbes Mackenzie's Act entailed individual hardship, and was capable of many amendments. But if a Committee were appointed the case against that Act would be put before the public in an exaggerated and too salient light; while on the other hand, due prominence and weight would not be given to the evidence in support of its good working. The testimony in favour of the Act would emanate from the quiet respectability of the country, such as magistrates, ministers, and inspectors of police, who would state in a calm and sober manner that the measure, though certainly attended with some hardships, had on the whole operated satisfactorily; whereas a few well-established grievances, paraded and made the most of by active and hostile witnesses, were likely to create a factitious impression against the law, and to put out of sight its many countervailing advantages. Moreover, there would be great inconvenience in requiring the attendance of ministers of religion, magistrates, and others, to speak of the working
  1208
  of the Act before a Committee of that House; and if such a tribunal were appointed, not only would a very serious expense be incurred, but there was no guarantee that political changes might not interrupt its labours and disperse its members before the blue book they had undertaken to compile was half completed. Two parties had identified themselves with this subject: those who were in favour of a Committee, and those who were in favour of a Commission; and at first sight there might appear but a little difference between them. The fact was, however, that those who supported the Motion for a Committee demanded inquiry in a hostile spirit. The friends of the Forbes Mackenzie Act on the other hand asked for a Royal Commission, which they believed could pursue its investigations continuously to a close, and collect the materials for a sound judgment, by visiting the different localities concerned, and taking the general sense of the country on the question at issue. Whisky was the curse of Scotland, and he would be a rash man who would seek to remove any practical restraint on the national vice of drunkenness. No legislation imposing restrictions of this kind could be prevented from inflicting individual hardship; but what had to be considered was, the general wellbeing of the community. There was a clear distinction between the inn or the eating-house and the dram-shop, the last was an unmitigated evil; and when the question lay between the interest of the whisky-seller and that of the poor man's family, who suffered so much from the squandering of his wages upon drink, he must say all his sympathies were with the latter. When so much was said about extending the political power of the masses, he trusted that liberal Gentlemen who were so anxious to give the labouring man a vote, would, by supporting his Amendment, show that in their opinion temperance was a most essential qualification for the suffrage.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he would second the Amendment. He had listened to the observations of the noble Viscount with great surprise. Judging from his own experience he could hardly have recognized the Act from the description given of it by the noble Viscount. As far as the district he represented was concerned, there could be no doubt that drunkenness had been materially diminished under the Forbes Mackenzie Act, which was regard-

  1209
  ed as a boon to the labouring classes. His opinion was in favour of a Royal Commission, because he believed it to be impossible for a Committee to investigate the subject as it ought to be done. Hon. Members who had served upon Railway Committees knew that the evidence was prepared for them in such a way that the most acute mind could scarcely find out the truth. There would be the publicans on one side and the teetotallers on the other, and between their conflicting evidence it would be difficult for the Committee to come to a decision. Then, the expense of bringing 200 or 300 witnesses to London would be very great, and, after all, the investigation might be cut short by a dissolution. A Royal Commission could choose their witnesses and make their inquiries upon the spot, and he was quite convinced that they would come to an easier, quicker, and more satisfactory conclusion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'a Select Committee be appointed,' in order to insert the words 'an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission,' instead thereof."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he understood that the Government intended to offer no opposition to an inquiry, and it was, therefore, undesirable that the House should involve itself in a discussion as to the disputed facts relative to the Forbes Mackenzie Act. He was of opinion that the Government had acted wisely in conceding an inquiry. When at the Home Office a deputation had waited upon him to complain of time operation of the Act. He would not at that time pledge himself to accede to a Motion for inquiry until he had heard the opinions and representations of others, and he wished to guard himself now against agreeing in time denunciations of the operation of the Forbes Mackenzie Act. He had heard from many persons that the effect of that Act had been highly beneficial, and that its operation had caused a more decent observance of the Sunday in Scotland in places where drunkenness used to prevail. On the other hand, representations were made that the Act had increased the illicit sale of excisable liquors, and that while licensed houses were shut up whisky was drunk to a great extent in unauthorized places on Sundays in defiance of the law. These conflicting representations were a fair subject of inquiry, but he had heard no reason fur departing from the ordinary
  1210
  and universal course of conducting an inquiry into similar subjects—namely, by a Select Committee. Inquiries into the sale of excisable liquors had frequently been made by Parliamentary Committees with the greatest convenience and advantage. Not the slightest difficulty or inconvenience was felt in obtaining witnesses from all parts of the country, and the expense would be far less than that of a Royal Commission. It was a serious reflection upon the House that it could not conduct a fair inquiry upon such a subject. The hon. Member who proposed a Commission said that this would be more acceptable in Scotland; but a little longer experience in that House would have convinced him that a Committee, impartially chosen, would be the best tribunal. There would be no such waste of money as the hon. Gentleman anticipated. No witnesses would be summoned except with the sanction of the Committee, and a well-constituted Committee would not send for them till they were wanted. The expense of bringing witnesses from Scotland was not much greater in the present day than bringing them from Manchester, York, or Newcastle. But what would be the expense of a Commission? He supposed it would be in part at least a paid Commission. It must have a paid secretary. The travelling and hotel expenses of the Commissioners must be paid, and he would answer for it that the cost of the Commission would far exceed that of a Committee. Then the hen. Gentleman said he should prefer a Commission because the labours of a Committee might be cut short by a dissolution. But was that a doctrine which the Lord Advocate would sanction? Was time House of Commons called upon to abrogate one of the most important of its functions because it was possible that a dissolution might intervene? If so, let the House at once suspend all inquiries before Committees. He trusted that the Government would adhere to time ordinary Parliamentary course, and that they would not be parties to casting the reflection upon the House of Commons that they were unable to conduct an inquiry into the working of the Forbes Mackenzie Act.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he believed the operation of the Forbes Mackenzie Act had proved useful and beneficial to Scotland, but the House was not now called on to enter on a discussion which might have been proper on the second reading of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, and

  1211
  he should not follow his noble Friend into the discussion of the principle of that Act or the other irrelevant topics which he had introduced. The question then before the House was whether they should proceed by Commission or Committee. This question excited a good deal of interest in Scotland, and he had presented numerously signed petitions that day praying for inquiry by a Royal Commission. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth bad endeavoured to persuade the House that it could not accede to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite without casting a slur on the impartiality of the Committees of the House; but the petitioners disclaimed all such intention. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole), had signified his opinion that the best way of arriving at a fair and full inquiry into the question would be by means of a Royal Com mission, upon which the noble Lord (Viscount Melgund) had on the instant risen and given notice that he should move for a Committee. As the majority of the people in Scotland greatly preferred, for obvious reasons, that the inquiry should be conducted by a Commission, by which alone a full and satisfactory inquiry would be conducted, so as to ascertain, by inquiry on the spot, the real wishes and feelings of the people, they had felt called on, without meaning the slightest disrespect to the House, to express their preference of the course suggested on the part of the Government by his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State, whom no one would accuse of wishing to derogate from the character or impartiality either of the House or its Committees. It had been objected by some—and he thought that the right hon. Baronet who spoke last seemed to agree in that view—that a Commission ought not to be appointed except upon the Report of a Committee of the House; but he was told by the highest authority in the House that there was no such rule, and that, in adopting the course suggested by the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment, they would not be deviating from the ordinary course of proceeding. If a Commission were appointed it would be able to visit all the towns even as far north as Inverness and Wick, in fact, all the towns where there was any considerable amount of population, and inquire not only into the operation of the Act, but what he thought was more necessary, into the feeling of the people with
  1212
  regard to it. He believed there were two parties to the inquiry—first, the publicans and those unhappy persons who were given to indulging in that nectarious mountain dew, which, he was sorry to say, was apt to bring people into a state of extravagant exhilaration; and secondly, all those who felt interested in an inquiry into the matter. The latter believed that two-thirds of the crime and one-half of the pauperism of the country was owing to the unfortunate propensity for drink, and they wished to remove from Scotland the stigma that attached to it on account of this wretched state of things. As to the returns of the quantity of spirits consumed in Scotland, he thought that Scotland was not treated justly by them; for he believed that a good part of the spirits put down to them was consumed by persons on this side of the Tweed. He did not profess to be a teetotaller himself. When he was out on the moors he was not unwilling to mix the pure water of the hill-side with a little of that still purer dew which was to be found on the mountain; but he thought it was high time that the Scotch cleared themselves of the too-well founded charge of being the most drunken people in Europe. If a Committee were appointed he hoped that it would be continuous, and not broken off. He believed that the Bill introduced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be carried through the House, and then there would be no fear of the sitting of the Committee not being continuous, and doubtless such was the opinion of his noble Friend when he proposed this Committee, and the Government might rely on his support. Still he thought he saw a small cloud rising in a volcanic region of the House which might overspread the political heavens, and drive them to take refuge in the arms of their constituents; but he was not much afraid that that would be the case. There were many things of minor importance in the Bill, besides those referred to by the noble Viscount, that would have to be inquired into. The noble Viscount's inquiries went into some matters to which the Act did not extend, but he had little doubt that the evils he complained of did not exist. If the shebeens did exist in the way that was complained of, he thought that it was owing to the negligence of the police. Thirty years ago he could have found a dozen private stills at work in the course of a morning's walk, but that had all been put down, and he did not think that such a thing as smuggling existed at

  1213
  all now; and it was to be remembered that in this case there was not such a violent and difficult class to deal with. He would not trespass longer on the time of the House, but would conclude by expressing a hope that the suggestion which was made by the Government, as it had emanated from the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, would be adopted by the House, and in so doing they would comply with the unanimous wish of the Scotch people.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would have been glad if he could have taken the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir G. Grey) that the inquiry which, he admitted, ought to be instituted into the working of the Mackenzie act should be made by a Committee of that House, and not by a Commission; but having given the matter his most serious consideration, he believed that the preferable mode would be to issue a Royal Commission. He should have been glad if he could have relieved the Government of the responsibility of the question, but they were willing to undertake the responsibility of recommending a Royal Commission if the House should think that mode the preferable one. He did not entertain any doubt as to the impartiality of a Committee, but he hoped he might take for granted that in nominating a Commission the Government would get credit for endeavouring, at all events, to secure the services of Gentlemen who would also be impartial. It would be out of place for him to express any opinion upon the merits of the Mackenzie Act. That was a question upon which great difference of opinion existed in Scotland, and it was highly desirable, on that ground alone, that there should be an inquiry in order that the truth might be ascertained. If a Committee were appointed, the probability was that no witnesses would be tendered to it except such as held strong opinions upon the subject, and even if an effort were made to procure more reliable evidence, it could not be successful without compelling persons to come to London, who, like the masters of great works in Glasgow, for example, could not leave their ordinary occupations without inconvenience and hardship. On the other hand, a competent unpaid Commission, conducting their inquiries on the spot, visiting the different localities, not contenting themselves with listening to the evidence brought before them by interested parties, but picking out such witnesses as they thought would tell the truth, and
  1214
  making their own observations, could not fail to lead to a beneficial and satisfactory result. The habit of drinking to excess in which many, though he was glad to say but a small minority, of his countrymen indulged, led to a great portion of the crime which it was his misfortune to have to prosecute in his official capacity; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would consent to the proposed inquiry, which might result in a diminution of the consumption of ardent spirits in Scotland.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEremarked that English Members could form no conception of the agitation which the question as to the mode in which the proposed inquiry should be conducted had excited in Scotland. He believed he had received more letters upon it than he had upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. It was not correct to say, that those who preferred a Committee to a Commission were in favour of publichouses and drunkenness. His own feeling was decidedly in favour of the Mackenzie Act, as he thought that, upon the whole, it had operated beneficially, but he maintained that it had been attended with very varying effects in different parts of the country. Those portions of it, for example, which related to the closing of publichouses at a certain hour of the evening were very well adapted to small villages and rural districts, but it was almost impossible to carry them into effect in large towns. We might have a curfew in thinly populated places, but even William the Conqueror would have failed to establish it in great cities like Manchester and Glasgow. A Committee was preferable to a Commission, because it was a ready and convenient mode of informing the House upon the practical operation of the Mackenzie Act, and so enabling them, if necessary, to legislate on the subject. In a Commission on the other hand, the truth would be learned amidst the mass of evidence. The nature of the subject to be investigated afforded another reason for preferring a Committee of inquiry. The conduct of publicans, magistrates and police had to be inquired into, and he entertained the gravest doubts respecting the propriety of delegating the duty of inquiring into a matter of this kind to any Commission, however fairly constituted. An investigation by the power and authority of that House was needed, and the matter would only be shelved and got rid of by referring it to a Commission.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he did not rise to

  1215
  express any opinion on the merits of the Act which had been the subject of discussion, nor did he intend to offer any opinion as to the course which ought to be taken with respect to it, but he wished to understand whether the Lord Advocate meant that the Commission should sit in Edinburgh and take evidence there, or perambulate the country and go wherever they liked. He presumed that the latter was intended, for, if not, he could not see any advantage in a Commission sitting in Edinburgh over a Committee sitting in London. He wished the House, then, to consider the expense if a Commission should be appointed. The Commission, being a roving Commission, must travel all over Scotland, and must take evidence, not only in large cities but in the most remote rural districts, because it was said that the operation of the Act differed in these different places. Now, let the House consider the volumes of evidence taken in single towns by Commissions on the corrupt practices of Members of Parliament, and reflect on the bill of costs occasioned by those Commissions. If a Commission were appointed in respect to the matter under discussion he presumed it must be a paid Commission. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he knew the expense which even unpaid Commissions bad led to. There must be a secretary and Mr. Gurney's reporters from London, for he had been told by Commissioners that they could not depend on local reporters. The Commission which went to Newcastle-upon-Tyne to inquire into the causes of the cholera there cost upwards of £2,000 and the inquiry only lasted two or three weeks. Independently of the saving of expense and of time which would be effected by the appointment of a Committee instead of a Commission, an additional advantage would accrue from the presence in this House of thirteen Gentlemen who had listened to the evidence, and who would be enabled individually to give their opinions as to its bearings. He had heard no reason in favour of a Commission but many in favour of a Committee.
  MR. HARDYsaid, that, if the hon. Member who had just sat down had heard no reason in favour of a Commission, he (Mr. Hardy) had heard none in favour of a Committee. He thought that the result of previous Committees which had sat upon questions of this description was unfavourable to such a mode of inquiry in the present instance. The Committee on public-
  1216
  houses in 1853–4 was composed of eminent men. They sat at uncertain and distant intervals, sometimes one, sometimes another Member was absent, and, in the end, they made a report, the responsibility of which nobody seemed to undertake, and which had never been acted upon. In that case, too, as would probably happen if a Committee were appointed now, the inquiry, instead of being quiet and impartial, was a conflict of partisans. The present was not the time to discuss the law on this subject; but he quite admitted that the time had come for inquiry—not such an inquiry as would elicit the evidence of interested and prejudiced persons only, but one which would guide the House to a definite conclusion. The last speaker had said that a Commission would be a roving Commission. So, to a certain extent, it would. But it would not go into any little village. It would visit all the large towns and many of the country districts. By this means many persons, not feeling violently on either side, but taking a just view of the matter, would offer themselves for examination; whereas if a Committee sat, only extreme partisans of either side would be brought up to London. He believed that a Commission would act in a judicial manner, and furnish the House with information upon which it might safely legislate.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he was of opinion that the decision come to by the Government in this matter would give satisfaction to the people of Scotland. If the inquiry was to be by Committee, the proceedings would be a conflict between the teetotallers on the one hand, and the licensed victuallers on the other; and the opinions of the great majority of the public, and of the magistrates, clergy, and police would not be ascertained. The operation of the Act in Glasgow, and the mode in which it had been put in force by the magistrates of that city, could not very well be inquired into by a Committee up stairs. On the other hand, a Commission would very soon arrive at the truth of the matter. He had heard very few complaints of the operation of the present Act, and he could not shut his eyes to the beneficial effect which had resulted from it to the lower classes of society, nor had he met with one impartial thinking man who took a different view of the question. Those complaints which were made had their origin amongst the spirit-dealers and manufacturers. No doubt there were some defects in the Act, but

  1217
  they could be investigated, and where proved could be remedied by the Bill which would be brought forward after the inquiry was over.
  LORD JAMES STUARTsaid, he had presented to the House a number of petitions from the County of Ayr in favour of the present Act. Every one of those petitions were from towns of considerable importance, and they were all in favour of an inquiry by Commissioners. He had also presented a petition from Buteshire asking for such an investigation, and he fully coincided in the view taken by the Government.
  MR. E. ELLICEsaid, he had had some difficulty in making up his mind as to the form of inquiry which should take place. He was one of those who were in favour of the existing Act; still he thought there were some of the minor provisions of it which might possibly be amended. The Act generally had been most beneficial to the working classes, and he believed the feeling was that the Act should be maintained. He believed also that the spirit-dealers and manufacturers had given up any intention of obtaining an alteration of the Act so far as it regarded the restrictions upon the sale of spirits. In Glasgow and Edinburgh there might be some aggravation of the complaints, but in the rural districts no complaints at all existed. It had appeared to him at the first blush to be a matter of little consequence whether the inquiry were conducted through the medium of a Committee or a Commission, but that he had ultimately arrived at a decision in favour of the latter, as he found the field of inquiry was to be larger than he originally supposed. No doubt all accusations ought to be inquired into on the spot, where the evidence could be properly taken, and where the parties—the accusers and the accused—could be brought before the Commissioners. There were four sufficient reasons which compelled him to come to the conclusion that a Commission, and not a Committee, would be the best form of inquiry. First, the Government had accepted the responsibility of the task, and he for one did not wish to relieve them of that responsibility. Secondly, there were the strongest possible grounds for believing that the labours of the Commissioners would be concluded very shortly. Thirdly, greater justice would be done to all parties. And, fourthly, the inquiry selected was that generally in favour in Scotland.
  VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, this was a question which affected the welfare and interest of the working classes of Scotland by whom, a few years ago, a large quantity of spirits were consumed. Some parts of the Act might possibly require amendment, but all that the House had now to consider was whether the inquiry should be before a Committee or by a Commission; and he humbly thought that the Lord Advocate and the Government had most wisely adopted the latter course. The inquiry could be much more impartially carried on by a Commission, and therefore he should vote for it; but he begged to protest against its being supposed that all those hon. Members who voted for a Commission were teetotallers.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) that under very similar circumstances last year he proposed that a Commission, instead of a Committee, should be appointed. He (Mr. Kinnaird) referred to the inquiry into the Universities of Scotland. A Royal Commission would go down to Scotland and settle the question; but a Committee sitting in London would effect nothing. The objection taken by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) as to the expense of a Commission, might be answered by referring him to the inquiry into the Harbours of Refuge. The inquiry before a Committee entirely failed, for they made a most unsatisfactory Report, and then a Commission had to be appointed, and a very able Report was the result. Therefore, on the point of economy, the objection utterly failed.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, whilst acquiescing in the appointment of a Commission, he wished to express a hope that the evidence taken would be reported from day to day.
  VISCOUNT MELGUNDsaid, he wished to signify his readiness, after the discussion which hail taken place, and the views which had been enunciated on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers, to withdraw his Motion. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  Question, "That the words proposed to wish to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words inserted.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved—That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint

  1219
  a Royal Commission to inquire into the Laws regulating the Sale and Consumption of Excisable Liquors in Scotland.

THE WEST INDIES.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that in rising to move for a Committee to inquire into the present state of the West Indies, and the best means of promoting immigration into them, he would first of all touch on the former part of his Motion. It was very common to hear it said that the emancipation of the negroes in the West Indies had been a failure. He read not long ago in one of our leading periodicals that the philanthropists had been the ruin of the West Indies. There was a floating impression in the public mind that freedom had destroyed the production of the staple of the West Indies, had plunged the planters into hopeless penury, and the negroes into a kind of voluptuous barbarism. It was not surprising that such a notion should prevail. No one could deny that in 1847 and the ensuing years the owners of West Indian property were thrown into a state of the utmost distress, and, of course, since slavery was done away in 1834, and that crash fell within thirteen years afterwards, the world could not but assume that emancipation had caused the events that followed so hard upon it; the more so, because the abolition of slavery caught the eyes of the whole people; every one bore it in mind, whereas that which really came like a thunderbolt upon the planters was much less within ken. That which really struck the planters down was the enormous fall in the price of sugar, which in 1840 was 49 s. per cwt. (without the duty), and in 1848 had fallen to 23 s. 5d., a fall of more than one-half. He had given a long and minute study to the history of the West Indies during the last fifteen years, and the thing which had most struck him, and which could not have failed to strike any one who made the same investigation, was the close parallel between the history, during that period, of the West Indies and of Ireland. In each country the very seine causes had wrought the very same effects—had brought about the same ruinous, the same rotten state of affairs. Each country was at length overtaken by a great calamity, which at the time seemed fatal. Each country—the old order of things having been swept away by that calamity—each country was now rising steadily and swiftly to a high degree of
  1220
  wealth. In the West Indies, just as in Ireland, but to an even greater extent, the proprietors used to be absentees, but what made that more disastrous in the case of the West Indies was that the planter could not let his sugar estate, but was obliged to carry on the costly and precarious processes, not merely of cultivating the sugar cane, but of manufacturing the sugar at his own cost, under his own hand, by means of agents. And so hard was it to find any man who at once understood the management of a sugar estate, who was willing to live in the West Indies, who was trustworthy, sober, and energetic—so hard was it to find such agents that he believed in five cases out of six the estates were scandalously mismanaged. Those who had gone deeply into the history of the West Indies were, he believed, of one mind—that it was this, far more than any other cause, that cut the very roots of West Indian prosperity. The absenteeism of the planters led to a host of other evils, and as one of the most judicious observers, Mr. Bigelow, the American traveller, declared, it could not have failed some day to bring about general bankruptcy and ruin. There was another trait of West Indian society, just like that of Ireland in the days gone by. Almost without exception the sugar estates were heavily incumbered. Most of them were mortgaged far beyond their value. The owners of the estates were always struggling with an incubus of debt which they could not possibly shake off. The effect of all that was, that even when monopoly and slavery were at their zenith—when even the sugar of our own oriental dominions was not allowed to compete with theirs on the same level, even then, petted as they were by the laws of England, the West Indians were continually coming to the Government of the country with the most doleful lamentations. That state of things was the legacy which slavery and monopoly had left behind them; and then, when the price of sugar suddenly fell to less than one-half of what it had been a few years before, the effect was precisely analogous to that of the famine upon Ireland. The proprietors were thrown into deep distress. All society was unhinged. The crash was terrible. But there, as in our sister country, the consequence was, that the ownership of the soil changed hands. It passed from those who were absentees, drowned in debt; it came into the hands of those who were for the most part resident and free from those

  1221
  trammels. And, now, what was the result? The result was, that although labour was still free, that although trade was still free, or rather he would say because labour was free, and because trade was free, the West Indies were now rising to a pitch of wealth and happiness unknown to them before. It would be impossible for him to lay before the House the immense mass of evidence which demonstrated that fact. He was assured of it by mercantile men in the city, and from proprietors of West India property; he found it strongly set forth in the reports from the Governors of the islands, which formerly full of dismay, were now bright with cheerfulness and hope; but the keystone of the arch consisted of the statistics furnished by the Board of Trade which showed that the imports and exports together of the West Indies and Guiana had amounted in the four years ending with 1853 to £32,500,000, and in the four years ending with 1857 to £37,000,000, an increase of £4,500,000 in four years; and further that the annual exports of sugar, coffee, cotton, rum and cocoa, were valued in 1857 at £500,000 more than the average of the ten preceding years. So much had been said of the ruinous state of these islands that perhaps the House would be surprised to learn that the exports from Great Britain to the West Indies in 1857 exceeded her exports, in that year to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Greece, the Azores, Madeira, and Morocco, all combined. Or, perhaps, it would give a more vivid idea of the value to us of these islands, if he mentioned that our exports to them in 1857 equalled our exports to the Channel Islands, Malta, the Ionian Islands, the Mauritius, the Gold Coast, the Gambia, Sierra Leone, and what are called our sundry possessions, all together. Considering what mere specks the West Indies look in the map of America it was astonishing that their trade to and fro should now actually amount to £10,735,000. That was the value of their commerce in the year 1857. He would only add that in 1857 the value of the sugar imported into this country from our West Indies amounted to £5,618,000. Surely all this demonstrated that free labour was holding its own in spite of the competition of slavery. Probably it would be said that all this was mainly due to the immigrants. In the last five years 25,000 immigrants had come to all our West Indies, including a large number of women and children. It
  1222
  was altogether absurd to imagine that this great prosperity was owing to the labours of those few thousand men, and, in fact, the islands which had not received immigrants were quite as flourishing as those that had. Clearly, then, our West Indies were possessions of immense and increasing value. The Committee might inquire, however briefly, into this point, and report to the country whether it was true or not that in spite of free labour and free trade—or rather as he thought, because of free labour and free trade, the West Indian Islands were attaining a high degree of prosperity. He was aware that this proposal would meet with strong resistance, for he had often noticed that nothing so vexed the soul of a West Indian gentleman as to be told that he was well off. And as those gentlemen had a great and legitimate influence with the Colonial Office, no doubt the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton) would appeal to the severely practical mind of this House, and would put the question, "Supposing the hon. Member for Newport obtains this conclusion from the Committee, What will he do with it?" But, as the people of this country laid out £20,000,000 in emancipating our slaves, and as that great deed was not, as some said, the work of a few philanthropists, but was done by the whole people with all their heart and soul, it would be of some value to learn upon the authority of a Committee of that House what was the result of that great experiment. He thought it would be worth while, even at the cost of a few hours' labour to a few hon. Gentlemen, to have a Report as to whether the measure of emancipation had been successful or not; and whether it was true that the Negroes had sunk into a condition of indolence and barbarism or not. He was as certain as that he was standing there, however, that if that point were fully inquired into, it would be found that, whilst some of the negroes were indolent and some barbarous, yet the greater part of them were living upon their own properties in industry and comfort, and that, to a far greater extent than was generally believed they were willing to work on the estates of those who treated them with kindness, and paid them fair wages. But the main topic of inquiry for the proposed Committee would be what were the best means of promoting immigration into the West Indies. He did not propose that the Committee should inquire whether immigration be necessary or

  1223
  not. On that point he differed altogether from some gentlemen for whom he felt the greatest respect—namely, the Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society. Their views were opposed to all immigration; but with millions of fertile acres under a tropical climate lying untilled, it would be an un-mixed good if we could fill every island as full of people as Barbadoes itself. The greater the influx of labourers, the greater the production of wealth, and that would tell for the anti-slavery cause throughout the world; and so far from the competition of the immigrants being any bane to the negroes, it would be a wholesome spur to them. So far from denying the scarcity of labour, he could hardly conceive what supply of labour could ever meet the boundless demand for it created by such a soil in such a climate. But the time had certainly come for an inquiry into the system upon which that immigration should be carried out. The first question into which, no doubt, the Committee would inquire would be what ground there was for the allegation so often made, that from 33 to 50 per cent of the immigrants perish. That had been stated repeatedly by gentlemen connected with the West Indies. In the Report of the Immigration Commissioners of 1857, the mortality on the voyage alone from Calcutta was reckoned at 17 26 per cent. Cases were also referred to, in one of which 40 per cent of the immigrants either died on board or had to be taken to the hospital on landing. Out of 2,411 Coolies taken to Guiana and Trinidad 349 died on the voyage and large numbers had to be taken to the hospital on landing. These, he felt convinced, were peculiar cases, and were not to be attributed to ill-usage of the immigrants, but they seemed to justify the demand for an inquiry. But, so far as the voyage was concerned, out of two ships that brought immigrants from Calcutta in 1858, the mortality was 7·12 per cent in one, and only 3·28 in the other. This led him to hope that the inquiries of the Committee on this head might have the very useful result of calming the indignation which had been felt in many parts of the country at the supposed waste of life among immigrants. But should it prove that the mortality was large, then the Committee would inquire whether it could be lowered by further precautions, or by a stricter enforcement of those now laid down. What might prove a still more important branch of inquiry was whether a free immigration could
  1224
  be set on foot, under which the Coolie would not be bound to the planter who had paid for importing him during a term of years. His anti-slavery friends had a strong feeling of the hardship to the immigrant of being thus in reality a bondsman. But, if he made a contract, the law must keep him to it; and, although it might be galling to him, still there were woes enough in the world without our moving heaven and earth to save him from a brief annoyance. Still the result of the system was to create a whole catalogue of what he might call artificial offences, to which penalties had to be attached. There were penalties on the planter if he did not supply his immigrant with proper medicine, nourishment, food, clothing, and due wages; penalties on those who employed other planters' Coolies; penalties on the Coolies if they shirked their work; penalties on the Coolies if found two miles from their employers' estates; penalties on the Coolies if they damaged their employers' property; penalties on the masters of vessels if they carried Coolies away. The whole of this cumbrous system of penal law was the substitute for the ordinary and natural system under which an employer bought the labour that he wanted, and discharged the labourer who did not please him. It might be unavoidable, but he would like the Committee to examine whether a more free immigration would not be possible—an immigration that would simply bring in labourers, leaving them and the employers to make what bargains they pleased. Lastly, the Commitee would inquire into the question which now awakened a vast amount of bitter feling in the West Indies—the question by whom the cost of immigration should be defrayed—whether it should be defrayed wholly by the planter who used the labour of the immigrant, or in some part by the whole community. According to all the present schemes, including the last Act passed by the Jamaica House of Assembly, two-thirds of the cost was supposed to fall on the planters who received the emigrants, and the remaining one-third fell on the taxation of the whole island. It would, he thought, be easy to show that in reality one-half fell on the whole island. But, at any rate, the community paid one-third; and what was the real result of that? Nothing else but that the State gave a subsidy to the planter. The planter wanted a certain amount of work done for him, but, instead of paying the whole cost as any other manufacturer would have to do, the State bountifully

  1225
  relieved him of one-third or one-half the burden of paying his own workmen. The State gave him a large sum of money in order that his business might bring him in a larger profit. No wonder that the planters were hot for a scheme based on such a delightful principle. No wonder they were loud against all other schemes under which each man would have to give his quid for his quo, and pay for what he got out of his own instead of out of other people's pockets. The case was exactly like that of a parish under the old Poor Law, where the farmer paid some 5s. or 6s. a week to his labourer out of his own money, eking it out by a rate on the whole parish. No two things could be more alike than that old exploded parish system, and the one adopted with regard to the West Indian immigration. Or again, it was just like the old bounty system. In that case, as in the other, the State gave large pecuniary aid to those engaged in certain trades, lost without such aid their trade should fall to the ground. He had not the assurance to dilate to the house on the folly and injustice of those old and exploded systems; but whatever might be said against them might be said with equal truth of the system by which the whole community was taxed in order to aid the planter in carrying on his business. No doubt, they would be told that the sugar trade was of great value to the West Indies, and without those subsidies it would soon fall off; but was it ever found that a trade declined on the withdrawal of aid from the State? But, even were that so, would that be the least reason for giving to the sugar trade an artificial prosperity? Nor could it be said that, though unsound in principle, it was a matter of no practical importance. Those most versed in the state of Jamaica said, with one voice, that the reason why she rose so slowly, while her sister islands were rising fast was, that her finances were in a state of disorder, that she was suffering from extreme taxation, and he was told that with a view to this immigration scheme, additional burdens were being placed upon the flour and other articles of food consumed by the negroes themselves. In The Times report from the West Indies, of October 2, 1858, it was mentioned that "the Government had in no way relaxed the stringency of its financial enactments, and the country was suffering greatly under the pressure of heavy taxation." Neither could it, be said that, after all, in the long run, the planters paid the
  1226
  taxes, and therefore the whole cost at last rested on their own shoulders. If that were so, why should they so strenuously insist on this Feature in their immigration schemes? Why should they prefer to have the money extracted from them through the painful and costly means of the tax gatherer, instead of paying it at once by a check on their bankers? He had stilted the main points into which he hoped the Committee would inquire, and he trusted the House would feel that they were questions worthy of investigation. He need not say that he proposed this Committee in no spirit of hostility to the West India planters, but in the hope that it would assuage the embittered feelings on both sides. He believed, indeed, that if the Committee were granted, if it throughly and impartially examined into the points to which he had adverted, the result would be to place immigration on a sound and wholesome basis, and thus greatly to enhance the growing prosperity of the West India islands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the Condition of the West Indies, and the best means of promoting Immigration into them."
  SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON: Sir, let me, in the first instance, express my sense of the temperance as well as the ability with which the hon. Gentleman has introduced his Motion. The bearer of his father's name enters into the discussion of all questions that affect humanity with an hereditary title-deed to respect. It is clear that he will preserve that heirloom without a flaw. If I question his views I can equally honour his sincerity. The hon. Gentleman has divided the subjects of his inquiry into two heads—the present condition of the West Indian Islands, and the
  question of immigration. I will take the latter first, for it goes to the core of the question, and I am glad this subject is to be openly discussed. I take it first on its broadest ground. Sir, I should he dealing unfairly towards those friends of the Anti-Slavery Society whose petitions have been before me if I did not assume that on principle they are opposed to the whole system of labour immigration which I found established in the West India colonies. On my part, I so sympathize with zeal on behalf of the negro, even where I think those who entertain it misguided and misinformed on details, that I entreat beforehand forgiveness if inadvertently a single word should

  1227
  escape me that may seem to disparage the humanity that I hold in reverence. But I must say, frankly and firmly, that from that system of immigration I am convinced that no Minister, responsible for the welfare of the West India colonies, can depart. Let the House listen to facts and figures, and then say if I am wrong in the convictions I express. The hon. Gentleman says that the prosperity which characterizes many of the colonies does not arise from immigration alone. No; but where immigration has been continued prosperity has followed. Sir, the experiment of Coolie immigration was first tried in the Mauritius in 1835 or 1836; it was then commenced by the planters as private importers of labour. Abuses arose; the immigration was consequently suspended in 1838. In 1843 the Government took it into their hands, and by the Government it has since been conducted. Now hear the result. Since the experiment there have been introduced into the colony 170,000 persons; out of these, in 1836, as many as 134,291 were still residents. The effect on the produce of the colony has been this:—The sugar crop in 1844 was 70,000,000 lbs.; in 1855, ten years afterwards, it amounted to 238,480,000 lbs. That has been the effect on the produce. What has been the effect on the immigrant population? Three-fourths of those immigrants who returned to India at the end of three or five years brought back with them from 1,200 to 50 rupees each, and Sir G. Anderson, who had formerly been a distinguished Judge in India, in 1850 reported his opinion in these words—"The immigrant, as a labouring population, is perhaps nowhere in the world in such favourable circumstances." But I may be told that the Mauritius is a special and singular example: is it so? Take next the case of British Guiana; into that colony about 23,000 Coolies have been introduced; they do not, as in the Mauritius, form the whole of the agricultural population, but a considerable part of it. The produce of the sugar crop, which in 1841 was little more than 34,000 hogsheads was in 1855, 55,366 hogsheads. While this was the increase to the wealth of the colony, what was the benefit to the immigrants? Judge by this instance,—In a single ship which left British Guiana last year 277 Coolies paid into the hands of the authorities as the amount of these savings for transmission to India more than £6,000. I turn next to Trinidad. I find in the despatch from the Governor,
  1228
  dated September 26, 1858, that the population returned by the census of 1851 was 68,600; by immigration and the influx of strangers it is now raised to about 80,000. About 11,000 Coolies have been introduced into that island. Now wages in Trinidad are not so high as in British Guiana, but I find that 343 of these labourers on their return to India paid into the hands of the authorities for transmission the sum of £5,389, and took with them more than £900. Such has been the gain to the immigrant; what has been the gain to the colony? The imports of Trinidad in 1855 were £554,534, in 1857 £800,830; the exports in 1855 were £387,999; in 1857 there were £1,013,414 and the Governor in summing up the cause of this sudden and marvellous increase of the surest signs of prosperity, says—
  "But it is to the stream of immigration, though expensive, and by no means sufficient, which has flowed into the island during the years under review, that it is mainly indebted for the progress it has achieved."
  Now, turn to the other side, and compare this increase of produce in colonies caused by immigration with the decline of produce in Jamaica, where immigration has been suspended. In Jamaica the produce of sugar for three years after the apprenticeship was 1,812,204 cwts., and during the last three years it has fallen off to 1,244,373 cwts. Now, then, I respectfully ask you who advocate the cause of humanity, who feel with me that humanity belongs exclusively to no colour and to no country, who, if you advocate the cause of the negro, must advocate equally the cause of the Indian, I ask you whether, when we find that more than 200,000 persons left countries in which labour was worth from 2d. to 3d. a day, where impressment and forced labour exist, where, as was said by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, "the strong universally preyed upon the weak"—left, I say, those countries for British colonies, in which easy labour secures comparative affluence, where the labourer lives under British law and has at all times access to a British magistrate—I ask you to say whether humanity should bid me arrest that immigration, fling these human beings back to oppression and to famine,—and why?—because their labour benefits our fellow British subjects and saves a British colony from ruin. You object to the system of indentures to a master. Just hear the answer as it is

  1229
  supplied to me by the Immigration Commissioners,—
  "It has, however, been objected that the Coolie, being paid for a certain time under indenture, is in reality in a state of bondage. The answer is that, before the indenture system was established, the Coolies abandoned their work and wandered about the country, and, in many instances in the West Indies, perished miserably from disease and want."
  Their condition was thus described in August, 1859, by Mr. Carberry, a stipendiary magistrate in British Guiana, whose sympathies are much more with the Coolies than with the planters.
  "With the indentures," he says, "the immigrant becomes an useful and industrious member of society. His labour is alike profitable to himself and his master. Without it he too often becomes a wandering mendicant, a nuisance, and disgrace to the colony, and finishes his career in the public hospital; in the interest, therefore, of the Coolie himself the indenture system is necessary."
  But it is said by the Anti-Slavery Society, there has been great mortality on board the immigrant vessels from Calcutta. Undoubtedly, there was in the years 1856–57. But it is fair, while allowing this fact, first to remind the House that the rate of mortality was taken from selected vessels, and that it may be in much accounted for from causes that do not apply to Coolie immigration alone. Take the very worst cases that occurred. In Calcutta ships the average mortality was in the year 1856–57 a little more than 17 per cent; but in 1847, on board the vessels that carried the Irish immigrants to America by a far shorter voyage, the mortality was much the same—about 17 per cent. Imagine what advantages would have been lost to Ireland, England, and America if, on account of that melancholy average, the Irish exodus had been stopped. I hold here recent reports of the mortality of Coolies from inquiries instituted in India. The causes are most carefully analyzed; remedies which will receive the most diligent attention are suggested. The most searching of all the inquirers, Mr. Morant, who is the inspector of gaols and prisons, thus sums up:—
  "I am distinctly and decidedly of opinion that the great sickness and mortality of 1856–57 need not recur; that, whether exceptional or not, it can be prevented by proper care and attention, and that there is no need to prohibit the continuance of immigration on grounds either of humanity or policy."
  What he thus says is borne out by facts and figures; for I have here a return showing the average of mortality on board Calcutta vessels during the whole eleven
  1230
  years immigration has taken place. Ninety-four ships have been sent from Calcutta to the West Indies, and the average mortality in all these years had been but 6 1–5th per cent; while on board thirty-one vessels sent from Madras to the West Indies that average has been under 2 per cent, and it will be satisfactory to the House to learn that in the last year there has been a marked decrease in mortality, both in Calcutta and Madras ships, for whereas in 1857–58 the mortality in the first was 13 per cent, in 1858–59 it has been only 6 1–6th per cent; while in the Madras ship in 1858–59 the mortality has been a seventh part of 1 per cent. Stress has been laid on the Coolie immigrants in Jamaica. In most of the petitions that have been before me it is stated to be 50 per cent. What are the facts? I find by the last return, August, 1858, that the total number of Coolie immigrants since the immigration began was 4,451, and that the number of those who had died, disappeared, or were unaccounted for during those thirteen years was 1,597. I am told, in fact, that a number of these immigrants chose to re-emigrate to Panama to work at the railroad, and lost their lives by that climate; but that was their own fault. But suppose they all died its Jamaica; calculate that mortality, as taken for the thirteen years, it gives, not a per centage of 50 per cent, but a per centage of only 2 1–6th per cent. But, taking it, as I think you ought, by calculating the average mortality of those who had returned to India during the thirteen years, you only get about 4 per cent. And this is a specimen of the exaggeration by which honest and well-meaning men have been deceived. As to the colonies generally. we find by returns that the average mortality among the Coolies in the Mauritius is a little more than 3 per cent. In British Guiana it is under 4 per cent; in Trinidad it is returned as so low that I think there must be some mistake into which I will inquire; meanwhile, I think I may safely assume it not to exceed 3 per cent. I turn, then, to the second class of argument—namely, that which condemns the present system of immigration as unfair to the Creole. It is said that there is really no scarcity of hands to meet the habitual requirements of the labour-market in the West Indian Colonies; that immigration is an attempt on the part of the planters to beat down the wages of the negroes. But surely it is a sufficient answer

  1231
  to that assertion that the proprietors pay an extra sum to obtain elsewhere the labour which you say they can find more conveniently at home. Is that human nature? Do men do so even in the West Indies? Does Barbadoes do so? No! Barbadoes sends for no immigrants, because Barbadoes has a sufficient population, and that population is eminently industrious. But does the absence of immigration keep up wages? No! Wages in Barbadoes are lower than those in any of the colonies to which emigration has been admitted. Compare the average wages of Barbadoes even with those at Jamaica, where you say the planter wishes to drive so hard a bargain with the Creole. Wages at Barbadoes since emancipation have ranged at 1s. 1½d. per day to 10 d. At Jamaica they have ranged from 1s. 6d. to 1s. And in colonies where immigration is admitted freely, a man, be he Creole or Indian, can obtain by task-work at least 2s. a day. But is the immigrant a competitor for labour at less wages than are current with the native. No; it is provided that the immigrant shall receive as a minimum the current rate of wages paid to an unindentured labourer, and these wages cannot be low if, as we have seen, they enable the coolie to return home in a few years with what to him is affluence for the rest of his life. But it is said, "At all events, for this importation of labour the planters should pay exclusively; the population should not be taxed for the labour that competes with their own." Sir, I grant at once that the planter should pay the greater portion of this expense; that is a condition which both my predecessors and myself have kept steadfastly in view. And, according to the Jamaica Act, the planters pay two-thirds; but that is not all. The money applicable for the payment of the first immigration is the sum of £50,000 remaining on the Imperial guaranteed loan of £100,000. The repayment of that loan is to be effected by an export duty, and an export duty falls on the producer, that is, the planter. But granted that a portion of the expense does fall on the general community, if the immigration conduces to its prosperity, it may fairly be expected to contribute towards it. Increased prosperity is always followed by increased civilization; more money is required for schools, for religious worship, for public works; every individual in the country rises higher in the scale in proportion as it becomes more prosperous; is it unjust to call on the
  1232
  Creole to pay something towards what enriches and exalts the country in which we have made him a freeman? Well, Sir, then I venture to think there are really no grounds for this Committee. So far as the West Indies are concerned, there are no petitions from them demanding this inquiry, nor are there any special measures for their benefit proposed. So far as information is concerned, it is given to you every year in blue-books as numerous and as bulky as the most passionate student of blue-books could desire. And we are now printing for Parliament papers upon nearly all the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. But it must not be supposed that we shrink from inquiry. And I make the hon. Gentleman two proposals: 1st. Let him wait till the papers about to be printed for the use of hon. Members are on our table; if he then wants more information, let him specify the points in which those papers are defective; if the Government cannot give it, then let him move for his Committee upon those points; and we will see if those points do really need a Parliamentary inquiry, in which case we will concede it. Or, 2dly, if he insist on a Committee immediately, I will grant it, provided he thus defines its inquiry—namely, "To inquire into the present mode of conducting immigration into the West Indian Colonies, and the best means of promoting that object." I think that is fair; but if he take my advice he will wait for information before he decides on moving for any Committee at all. Let me say, in conclusion, a few words to the friends of the Anti-Slavery Society. I have fought by their side in my youth, and now, when I think they have been mis-informed, I still believe that our object is the same—namely, to give complete and triumphant success to the sublime experiment of negro emancipation. It becomes them above all men to do their best to render prosperous the Colonies in which slavery has been abolished. Every hundred weight of sugar produced by the immigrant at Jamaica is a hundred weight of sugar withdrawn from the market of Cuban slaves. Will slave states follow our example, unless capital flourish under it? Can capital flourish unless it has the right to hire labour wherever labour is willing to be hired? I warn them, that if by any indiscretion of over zeal on our part one West Indian Colony becomes vitally injured, it is we who shall rivet the bonds of negro slavery wherever it yet desecrates a corner of the earth.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I rejoice to say, especially at that time of night, that I do not feel the least disposition to trespass more than a few minutes on the attention of the House; but having recently filled the situation which is now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. B. Lytton), I feel it incumbent on me to address a few words on the present occasion. I think the House must have observed of recent years, a great alteration in the mode in which colonial subjects have been treated within its walls. I, at least, can remember when no class of subjects was debated with more acrimony—indeed, it was often the favourite battlefield when domestic policy did not present any point particularly tempting for those conflicts. But a much better feeling has of late years arisen upon these questions. I am bound to acknowledge that during the two years I had the honour to be Secretary for the Colonies I received from Gentlemen who were opposed to me in general policy nothing but counsel and assistance. I do not recollect that a single hostile Motion was made by any hon. Gentleman, and both from my sense of duty to the Colonies, as well as the recollection of that circumstance, I trust I shall always endeavour to view colonial subjects entirely free from party bias. On the present occasion I am glad to say that I am able to express an almost complete coincidence of opinion with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree in hoping that my hon. Friend who has brought forward this Motion with such ability, and in a manner so becoming his name and position, will not, on the present occasion invite the House to undertake an inquiry into the general state of the West Indies, which I am sure is unnecessary, and may be mischievous. I think this noose should be sparing of inquiries into the state of our Colonies. I have never said, and I will never say, that this House should not keep a vigilant eye upon the British Colonies as well as upon every other great interest committed to it, but I do say that very sparing interference is wise. This House may depend upon it that there is growing up in the Colonies a jealousy not only of unnecessary interference on the part of the Executive, but on the part of the Legislature itself. They think justly that they are able to manage their own concerns better than we can manage them for them. This House may depend upon it that they will best preserve the supreme authority in the last resort respected and revered, by
  1234
  exercising it only on the greatest and not on light and unnecessary occasions. That being the case, I ask what reason can be given as to the necessity of any inquiry into the general condition of the West Indies? From my knowledge of the Colonies, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be adverse to the feeling of the British West Indies. Jamaica has a great popular constitution—a great popular Legislature; and I think they will consider any inquiry into the affairs of that island on the part of this House unnecessary. I see no good in such an inquiry, and, seeing much evil, I cannot but join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that my hon. Friend will not press that part of his Motion on the present occasion. The general picture of the West Indies at this moment is extremely gratifying. There can be no doubt they have struggled through that period of distress which long weighed on them. Some are in a state of great prosperity. They are all in a state of improvement both as to their agricultural and their moral and social position. I hope the two races, black and white, are becoming amalgamated, and acting in greater harmony together. I know that black and white lawyers sit side by side as barristers in their courts of justice. I know that official situations are held by men of colour, and when I had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Office, I always rejoiced to find a man of colour, of character, and ability, to whom I could give an appointment. If those causes are left to operate I think the House may rely on an improved condition of the Colonies, both socially and morally, being produced. The general state of things with regard to the sugar trade is very curious and interesting. I believe it is the fashion to say that the West Indies, as sugar-producing colonies, are almost entirely ruined. But, with the exception of Jamaica, there is as much sugar produced and exported from the rest of the islands as there was in 1831, before the Emancipation Act. I say, with the exception of Jamaica, and I cannot attribute the falling off in agricultural prosperity of that island to the causes assigned by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe the great, if not the sole cause, has been the unfortunate mismanagement of her own self-government by which her finances have been ruined and her affairs confused. A wretched constitution has induced jobbing and confusion, and resulted in most disastrous

  1235
  consequences. I am glad to find that the foundation has been laid, by the improvement of her constitution, for a better state of things, and I trust that Jamaica will, are long, resume her natural position at the head of the West India Islands. Jamaica used to send to this country 1,500,000 cwt. of sugar; now she sends not quite 500,000. But the void in her exportation has been filled up from another source. The Mauritius has taken the place of Jamaica and now sends us about 1,500,000 cwt. In fact, wherever you find an adequate supply of labour, whether it be in the Mauritius, in Trinidad, Demerara, or Barbadoes, there you find the cultivation of sugar succesfully conducted, and the whole community in a state of prosperity. The lesson taught by this—and I hope it will be borne in mind not by us alone but by the whole world—is, that the question whether free labour can compete in a tropical climate with slave labour depends upon the sufficiency with which that free labour is supplied; and happily in our own colonies the experiment has worked satisfactorily. My belief is, that by encouraging by all legitimate means the introduction of free labourers into your own sugar-producing possessions, and taking care that they are not checked in their career of improvement, you are doing far more to put down the slave trade and slavery than can be accomplished by all the squadrons you may fit out and all the treaties you can devise. I should look with the utmost alarm at the carrying out of the views of the well-intentioned but mistaken men who ask as a boon for the coloured races, above all people in the world, that you should check the supply of free labour for your own colonies. Successive Governments have carefully watched the whole system under which this immigration has been conducted, in order that the interests of humanity might not be neglected, and that, as far as could be done under a highly artificial and complicated set of arrangements, the claims of the planter upon the Coolie should be reconciled with the right of the latter to protection in his comparatively defenceless position. One other point of great moment is, whether free labourers can be taken from the coast of Africa and carried to our colonies? My own opinion is that any attempt to effect this on the part of England or any other country will only end in a revival of the slave trade in another form. Another question of great importance is, whether a supply of labour is obtainable
  1236
  from China? No doubt, if a system of Chinese immigration could be established under proper safeguards, it would be of great advantage to the West India Islands. But there are difficulties in the way. One of them is the alleged impossibility of insuring by fair means the introduction into our Colonies of a due proportion of Chinese women. The attention of the late Government, and doubtless that of their successors, was turned to this point; and the Earl of Elgin had special directions to make inquiries into it as far as his other and more pressing duties would permit. When one of the West India Islands had expressed a wish to send out an agent to China to assist in promoting the same object, every facility was offered on the part of the British Government to the mission of that officer. I will only add, that if the hon. Member who has made this Motion will follow the advice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and confine the proposed inquiry to the subjects to which I have retorted, I have little doubt that it will be attended with useful results.
  MR. CROSSLEYsaid, that feeling deeply interested in the question of the abolition of slavery, he had listened with much satisfaction to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. He had had the advantage of visiting the Slave States of America, where he found the slave owners extremely anxious to have his opinion as to whether he had not found the "domestic institution" much better than he expected. He endeavoured to persuade them that it was more for their interest to give the labourers day wages and make them independent. instead of having to purchase them at a high rate and then to hold the whip over them to make them work. They allowed the truth of his remarks, but replied they had no choice and no chance of acting on this suggestion, that slave labour was all that they had to depend upon. He thought the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies had shown that more work was to be done and greater economy effected by free labour than by slave labour; but there was a feeling in the country that there was great hardship connected with immigration—that it was only slavery under another name. It was very important that this should be set right. He (Mr. Crossley) thought the planters themselves ought to pay the whole expenses of immigration, just the same as if either agriculturists or manufacturers in this country required labour from abroad

  1237
  they must pay for it themselves and not come upon the public purse for any portion of it. He would advise the hon. Member for Newport to accept the proposition of the Secretary for the Colonies, in order that this immigration might be conducted in a proper manner, feeling sure, as he did, that the best way to put down slavery would be to allow colonial produce to be raised by free labour.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he also would urge upon the hon. Mover the propriety of accepting the first piece of advice offered to him by the Secretary for the Colonies, and of resting satisfied with the information already before the House, together with that which would speedily be produced in addition. There was no sufficient ground for the proposed inquiry, which, moreover, was not demanded by any general feeling out of doors. Exaggerated and unfounded alarms had indeed been excited by a small body of that somewhat dangerous class of persons called philanthropists; but the free immigration of Coolies had been a great blessing to our West Indian colonies, and the correction of any abuses in the working of the system might safely be left to the vigilance which was constantly exercised both by the immigration Commissioners and the Indian Government.
  MR. E. EWINGobserved, that Demerara had the finest soil for the cultivation of sugar, and all that the colony wanted to enable it to beat the slave-owners of Cuba was a sufficiency of labour. He did not think that a system of differential duties would do the planters any good.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that he would accept the first proposal of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He would study the Papers which were about to be published, and if they did not afford information, would renew his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COUNTY COURTS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the 32nd section of the County Courts Act, 9 & 10 Vict., c. 95, and to make further provision in lieu thereof, explained that that clause had reserved the jurisdiction of certain officers of the city of Westminster and borough of Southwark, and that the deaths of two of these officers
  1238
  which had occurred lately had afforded an opportunity for the introduction of this measure.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented and read 1o.

MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished to take another opportunity of entering his protest against and declaring his conscientious opposition to this Bill. It provoked the opposition of all the women of England, and of all the thinking people throughout the United Empire. It was said when tins Bill was before the House on the last occasion, that the clergy of London were in favour of it. He had no answer to make to that statement at the time, but now he had an answer. That evening he had presented a petition from the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, urging that the marriage of a man with a deceased wife's sister was contrary to the Word of God and the law of the Church. Another petition had also been presented by him from Sion College, a corporation of the clergy of London, which alleged that if this Bill passed the law would be destructive of the social interests of the people, and to the discipline and doctrine of the Church of England. He had also presented a petition from the town of Leeds, signed by nearly the whole of the clergy, and of the same purport as those to which he had alluded. Hostility to the measure however was not confined to those classes. The feeling of the country was against the passing of the law. He was satisfied that even should the Bill pass that House it would not become law. He begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question put, "That the words 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 89: Majority 48.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

MANOR COURTS, &c., (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill re-committed.
  House in Committee.
  MR. COXsaid, he must object to the House going on with this Bill at so late an hour. It was understood that no important matters should be considered after twelve o'clock, and it was now a quarter past that hour. His objection was one that went to the whole Bill, and he should move that the hon. Chairman report progress.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the chair."
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that though it was past twelve o'clock they had seen most important business transacted after that hour. The hon Member had put forward a Motion which originally was the Motion of another hon. Member, and the matter had been fully discussed on a former occasion.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 95: Majority 89.
  MR. COXsaid, he would then propose to expunge certain words in Clause 1. The Bill, he said, proposed to give to an unlimited number of persons an unlimited amount of compensation. That was a most objectionable provision; but if the Attorney General for Ireland was prepared to state the number of courts which he intended to abolish, and the sum which would be required to compensate the Judges, he would not further oppose the progress of the Bill.
  Clause 1, line 9:—Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'Act' to 'Courts,' in line 12, in order to insert the words 'no seneschal or judge shall hereafter be appointed to any Manor Court in Ireland, and upon the death of any person at present holding the office of seneschal or judge of any Manor Court, or on his ceasing to hold such office by resignation, removal, or otherwise, the Manor Court of which such person was judge or seneschal shall be abolished, and no action or suit shall be commenced or prosecuted therein.'"
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that every Judge on the Bench of Ireland for the last thirty years had declared against these courts, which encouraged perjury and small litigation. Many of the courts sat in publichouses, and the men who gave most money for drink got the most verdicts. It was only proposed to give compensation according to the business done in the last year, and he believed that with respect to
  1240
  nine out of ten of the courts there would be no title to compensation. He did not see the advantage of maintaining bad courts when there existed good courts where the causes could be tried. He had not set out a schedule, because a great many of the judges of these courts would not receive compensation, which the fact of putting them into a schedule would have admitted, and the provision that those which had had real business during a year would receive compensation would have been abused by the getting up of business for the purpose of getting into the schedule.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDobserved, that on a former occasion he had suggested that in place of abolishing the courts and giving compensation no new judges should be appointed. It was matter of complaint that the extent to which the public finances would be charged under the Bill was not stated. In a great many of the courts the emoluments were considerable, and compensation, if given at all, must be in proportion. If the hon. Member for Finsbury went to a division, he should feel bound to support his Amendment, the effect of which would be that these courts would expire gradually, without one farthing of expense to the country. Having been unable to obtain any information from the Government as to the number of courts, he had made inquiry himself, and found that there were numerous officers of these courts claiming to be in the receipt of £50 to £350 a year. The courts were not so wholly inefficient as Mr. Whiteside represented. The judge of the Antrim court stated that he had issued 10,000 processes in one year without having any appeal from his decisions.
  MR. SPAIGHTsaid, he would not share the responsibility which would be incurred by perpetuating these courts. In giving evidence as to the working of these courts, one gentleman said that the jury did not always deliberate, but sent to the plaintiff for a quantity of punch, refusing to give their verdict until they got their drink. In another instance a gentleman went into one of these courts and found the judge, jury, and witnesses speaking Irish, and on inquiry discovered that the judge did not understand English.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEobserved that he had no doubt but that the courts in question were quite as abominable as they had been represented. Why, he asked, had not the right hon. and learned Gentleman

  1241
  who introduced the Bill inserted a schedule identifying the number of courts to be dealt with?
  MR. DOBBScontended that the whole details of manor courts in Ireland were well known from the inquiry which had already taken place before a Committee of that House, and as he believed they were a nuisance, the sooner they were abolished the better.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he thought the assistant barristers in Ireland ought to be made permanent, but deprived of any practice at the bar. They ought to be put on a similar footing to County Court Judges in Ireland.
  MR. MACARTHYsaid, he was persuaded this Bill would he of the greatest value to Ireland, provided liberty of appeal was added to it.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he thought the absence of any recommendation by the Committee which sat on this subject for the abolition of these courts showed that there was no great urgency for getting rid of them in the precipitate manner proposed by the Government, and at so large an expense.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 14; Majority 56.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  The remainder of the clauses agreed to, with some Amendments.
  MR. GROGANsaid, he would move a clause saving the jurisdiction of the Recorder's Court, the Lord Mayor's Court, and the Court of Conscience of the borough of Dublin.
  MR. WHITESIDEopposed the clause, and it was negatived.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.