Commons Sitting of 2 February 1860

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Pontefract, Hugh Culling Eardley Childers, esquire.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Church Rates Law Amendment; Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment. 2° Newspapers, & c.

HONG KONG.—MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the papers for which an Address was moved last Session, with reference to certain charges made by Mr. Chisholm Anstey, Attorney General of Hong Kong, against certain Officials there; and also with reference to the suspension of Mr. Anstey in his office of Attorney General.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the papers were ready; and he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would renew the Motion he made last Session. The papers would then be produced in a few days.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the transactions relating to the Duchy of Savoy arc so peculiar in their character that perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to ask, Whether he has yet determined upon the propriety of producing the communications between
  446
  Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France, respecting the contemplated annexation of that duchy to the French Empire?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I have considered that subject, and have communicated with Her Majesty's Ambassador in Paris, and I have come to the conclusion that it would not be proper to produce the papers for which the right hon. Gentleman asked the other day. I am quite willing, however, to state the general purport of those papers. In the beginning of July, in consequence of a despatch from Mr. Harris, the British Minister in Switzerland, Count Walewski was asked by Earl Cowley whether there was any truth in the rumour that there was a project on foot for the annexation of Savoy to the Empire of France? Some conversation passed between them, but Count Walewski's remarks were not explicit on the subjection which Earl Cowley asked for information. Some time after this Count Walewski assured the noble Earl that there was no intention on the part of the Emperor of the French to propose the annexation in question. On the former occasion Earl Cowley stated that such a proposal would be viewed with disapprobation by Her Majesty's Government, and the language he held was approved by Her Majesty's Government. On the second occasion Her Majesty's Government directed a despatch to the British Ambassador in Paris, expressing the satisfaction with which Her Majesty's Government had received the assurance that no such project was in contemplation.

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL SERVICE EXPENDITURE, & c.

  ANNUAL SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. WISE, pursuant to notice, rose to move that, in the opinion of the House, it would be desirable to appoint every year a Select Committee to inquire into the Miscellaneous Civil Service Expenditure of the preceding year; into the payments made out of the Consolidated Fund; and into those on account of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues. The hon. Member said he hoped hon. Members would not consider it waste of their time to give a little attention to the subject of his Motion. Whether they looked to the past expenditure of the country or to the fact that £55,000,000 were now required for the debt and defences of the country, the necessity for a stringent in-

  447
  quiry into the expenditure was apparent. It had been often proposed that the Estimates for the year should be referred to a Select Committee; but that he had always opposed, for he could not help regarding the scheme as a device to cast off from the Executive Government the duties and responsibilities which properly belonged to their office. But the proposal he now made was of an entirely different character. The desirableness of assisting the Treasury to exercise a further check and control over the national expenditure, and of assisting the House to come to some just conclusion on the matter, and to enable them to exercise a beneficial influence over the expenditure of the money they had to vote, could not be denied. He should he satisfied if the House would adopt the principle of his Resolution; but at present the Civil Service Estimates, as they came before hon. Members, were a snare to them. With the exception of the Army and Navy, and the Estimates for the British Museum, with one or two others, it was impossible for the House to come to a just conclusion upon them. He was therefore disposed to believe, without any want of confidence in the Government of the day, whoever they might happen to he, that an annual review by a Committee of the House of the expenditure and revenue of the Woods and Forests Department, of the charges on the Consolidated Fund, and of the miscellaneous expenses in connection with the Civil Service, would be attended with a considerable reduction in the amount of outlay. He was convinced he only echoed the general opinion of the country when he said that the Miscellaneous Estimates were increasing with excessive and alarming rapidity. Independent of the ordinary sources of expenditure, there were many secret drains upon the public funds, so mysterious and complicated that they seemed almost to evade the control of the Treasury, as they certainly defied the investigation of the House. The people of this country placed large sums of money in the hands of the Government with cheerful alacrity whenever they were asked for important national purposes; but they had a right to insist that these sums should be faithfully appropriated and frugally expended. He believed that if this Committee were appointed and the Estimates examined for a series of years they would find that among much that was useful many things had crept in that were of very doubtful utility if not absolutely useless. He thought hon. Members were bound to
  448
  listen to the questions which were always being addressed to them by their constituents as to what was done with all the money voted every year, and prove themselves really and truly the guardians of the public purse, by demanding a proper system of inquiry into the annual expenditure of the country. It was the practice of the occupants of the Treasury bench to declare that they were not responsible for the amount of expenditure, and that it was forced upon them by the House of Commons. Were hon. Members willing to accept that declaration and the responsibility which it devolved upon them? Were they prepared to admit that no inspection of expenditure was required, and that no reduction in its amount could be effected? He believed most hon. Members were agreed that the Civil Service Estimates were too large, that many of the charges upon the Consolidated Fund ought to be otherwise provided for, and that the Lands and Forests revenue fell below what it might be made by proper management. He was satisfied that the examination of a Committee would lead to the saving of thousands, if not millions of money, without any injury to the strength or efficiency of the public service. He wished to call the attention of the House to an important Parliamentary paper which had been issued, giving an account of the increase in the Civil Service Estimates for the last twenty or twenty-five years. In the year 1839 the total amount of these Estimates was £2,651,000, while last year they came to £7,880,000. In 1817, when we were at peace, they were only £1,480,000, and before the Reform Bill, in 1830, £1,872,000. The average for the ten years ending 1827 was £2,115,000; for the ten years ending 1837, £2,269,000; for the ten years ending 1847, £3,016,000; and for the last ten years, £5,710,000. The expenditure for the twenty years ending 1839 was £43,226,000; and for the twenty years ending 1859, £94,955,000. It was instructive to compare the totals of each class of expenditure in 1839 and 1859:—Public buildings, parks, &c, 1839, £197,000; 1859, £793,000. Salaries and expenses of public departments, 1839, £723,000; 1859, £1,413,000. Law and justice, 1839, £666,000; 1859, £2,544,000. Education, science, and art, 1839, £175,000; 1859, £1,328,000. Colonial and consular, 1839, £339,000; 1859, £428,000. Superannuation and allowances, 1839, £200,000; 1859,

  449
  £242,000. Miscellaneous,1839, £217,000; 1859, £985,000. It was stated that the Houses of Parliament, new and temporary, had cost the country no less than £2,716,000; and yet if any hon. Member would take the trouble, as he had clone, to walk round the building, he would find that the stone was already in a stale of decay, that numerous fissures were apparent, and numerous experiments going on to arrest the cracks. Buckingham Palace, he was sorry to say, was in much the same condition. But they had only to look at St. Paul's, Somerset House, the Banqueting Hall, or the Horse Guards to see that their ancestors did not make such errors as we did in the selection of stone. If there had been a Finance Committee appointed regularly every year he was sure that this matter would have been minutely and carefully inquired into, and no doubt some of the enormous expenditure might have been saved, or, at least, laid out to better purpose. The grants for harbours of refuge were considerable, no doubt; but the country did not grudge it, they wished to be a great maritime people, and they were willing to pay the cost; and all that was asked was that the money should be economically spent, and that value should be got for the money. He found that as much as £26,000 a year was spent in hiring departmental offices, and he could not help thinking that a miserable and wasteful plan of carrying on the government of a great country like this. Surely they might find a national building for the National Debt Office, which was to be regarded as a national institution if any was. A great many buildings were also rented for the use of Commissions; and he might mention, by the way, that since 1830 no less than £831,171 had been spout in Commissions. During the last twenty years the furniture in the public departments had cost £450,000. He freely admitted that the gentlemen connected with the Treasury and the offices of the Secretaries of State were generally not extravagantly provided for in that respect. He believed that in those departments the duties were very efficiently discharged. But still, taking the expenditure in the whole of the public departments together, it would be found that it was exactly doubled. This increase of expenditure did not arise—he was happy to say—in the charges for the two Houses of Parliament, which were in 1852, £89,000 and last year £80,000. As far as the House of Commons was concerned, the
  450
  whole expenditure was £52,000, of which £41,000 was supplied by fees. Probably in no public office in the metropolis, were economy and efficiency so combined, and all who had had experience of the House of Commons and its officers knew that the latter had always discharged their duties with an efficiency and a courtesy which deserved general thanks. Between 1839 and 1859 they had spent £6,000,000 in printing and stationery. In 1856, the item was £458,000, but he was happy to see that last year it was reduced to £337,000 He should be very sorry to curtail the printing of useful documents, but he thought the printing should be limited to papers of that kind. The stationery and official postage items were both very much abused. Gentlemen connected with the Science and Art Department, for which the charge was £93,000 a year—did not study economy in those respects. He received from time to time from that department, in common, he supposed, with every Peer and Member of Parliament, bushels of papers, which went into their housemaids' baskets. He had recently received one, rather more than usually attractive. It was in a huge official envelope, bearing on the outside, "Henry Cole, Science and Art Department, South Kensington—On Her Majesty's Service," and consisted of an almanac printed on a large sheet of paper. This almanac was sent him at the public expense; but he did not wish to obtain that publication in that way—he could afford to pay for his own almanac, and really he thought the Treasury ought to check this sort of nonsense. The next item to which he wished to direct attention was the Secret Service money; they imagined that they could not do without Secret Services, but under that head there had been an expenditure during twenty years of £954,600, and he very much doubted whether the secret information which had been obtained was worth the money. Then he found that of late years there had been a very great increase of salaries. When any complaint was made of increase of salaries they were generally told that a great number of salaries were paid in lieu of fees. In 1854 the fees amounted to £138,000; last year they had dwindled down to £111,000, and of that sum the House of Commons' fees supplied £41,000; so that the fees did not amount to any very large sum, and could not contribute as largely to salaries as was represented. He had a great respect for both Law and

  451
  Justice, but he thought the expenditure under that head, which had enormously increased, required revision. The item was £2,500,000 with the addition of £718,000 charged on the Consolidated Fund. He did not say that the charge on the Consolidated Fund was improper, because the Judges ought to be provided for in that permanent form. Into the important item of Education, Science, and Art, there was a Commission inquiring at the present time, but he was anxious to call attention to the fact that the expenditure under that head had increased from £175,000, in 1839, to £1,328,000 in 1859. He hoped the country was receiving an equivalent for that expenditure. They voted last year £230,000 for pupil teachers, and his experience taught him that the pupil teacher system was becoming a failure; that they married very early, if they were attractive young women, or went out as governesses; and that in one way or the other they left the service of the educational staff, so that they lost the services of these pupil teachers as soon as they had completed their gratuitous education. The Inspectors of schools cost £61,000 or £62,000 a year, and yet he feared that we had a very imperfect system of education. The next item was the Consular and Colonial expenditure. He was pleased to think that the Committee which sat on the Consular system two or three years ago had not been without its effect, and he sincerely trusted that Her Majesty's Government would carry out the recommendations of that Committee. Her Majesty's late Government entered very warmly into the question, and were, be believed, prepared to adopt measures likely to lead to great and beneficial changes. The Colonial charges were very large indeed, amounting in five years to £22,000,000. Then there were the Superannuation and other items, into the details of which he would not enter, but he begged to call the attention of the House to Class 7. Those Estimates were generally laid on the table at a very late period of the Session, when there was no time for investigation. They were termed temporary charges, but he was sorry to say, after the first appearance of an item in that class, it was generally continued for ever afterwards. One of his great objections to that portion of the public expenditure was that it included large sums for the improvement of the metropolis. With all respect for the metropolitan Members, he objected to the
  452
  large sums invariably demanded for metropolitan purposes. In counties they built bridges, made public gardens, and discharged at their own expense all the duties which No. 7 of the Estimates did for the metropolis. For instance, they had recently voted for Battersea Park, Chelsea Bridge, and Vauxhall embankment, no less than £525,000. The next portion of his remarks would embrace the second portion of his Resolution. With regard to the Consolidated Fund the items comprised in it were never brought before the House; they were printed in a blue-book at the end of each Session, but something more was required than an inquiry within the four walls of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in 1854,, expressed an opinion that there was no point on which the House was more apt to be led into laxity than that of laying on the Consolidated Fund charges which it ought not to bear, the consequence of which was that in some measure they escaped the control of Parliament and were forgotten, and the right hon. Gentleman also said that it would be advisable to establish some means by which the attention of the House would be drawn periodically to these charges. That was exactly the principle which he (Mr. Wise) wished to carry into practical operation. The first item on the Consolidated Fund was £385,000 for the Civil List; and with that he had nothing to do, as it was a fixed charge on the revenue of the country—the only observation he would make with regard to it was to express a hope that Her Majesty would live many years to enjoy it. The present charges on the Consolidated Fund for the Civil List amounted to. £1,900,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the year 1834, that of this sum there were 34 items which amounted to £970,000; but at this moment it was difficult to say whether any hon. Member would understand them. There were, he believed, 100 or 200 Acts of Parliament relating to them. Then came the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which cost from £50,000 to £60,000. He was glad to observe that there had been a great improvement lately in the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, for a few years ago they used to bring in very little and cost a great deal. In the Duchy of Lancaster there was a Chancellor, a Vice-chancellor, an Attorney General, and fifty other officials; in short, to use Burke's

  453
  words, "all the apparatus of a kingdom to manage a country gentleman's estate." But if they had no right to inquire into the Civil List they had a full right to inquire into the management of the Lands, Woods and Forests, belonging to the Crown. By an Act passed in the reign of George IV. it appeared that the expenses of collection were the first charge on the revenues, then pensions, and whatever was left went to the State. It was high time that this mode of proceeding was altered, and the Committee on Public Monies was of the same opinion. In their Report they expressed an opinion, "that these charges should be brought under the system of votes for expenditure, just like the charges respecting other branches of the public revenue." But in answer to this Report the Treasury had made a minute to the effect that "My Lords" were of opinion that, considering the peculiar nature of this revenue, it was advisable to postpone any further consideration of this point until a further investigation took place preparatory to a new surrender of the Crown Lands to the public, and a grant of a new Civil List to the Crown. He never could understand the reason of the Treasury for recommending this postponement. Mr. Huskisson, Lord Monteagle, and other public men whose judgment should have great weight, were of opinion that the control of Parliament ought to he exercised over these revenues quite as much as over any other branch of the public revenue. According to a Parliamentary paper lately delivered, the revenue of the Crown Lands, Woods and Forests, from 1816 to 1859 was £13,273,295, and the expenses upwards of £6,000,000. The income for 1858-9 was £446,771, and the sum received by the Consolidated Fund was only £280,040, from which was to be deducted a Vote on Estimate 2, of £23,000, so that it cost £190,231 to get £256,540. In 20 years the total revenues from that source amounted to £6,705,917, out of which was to be taken £2,214,000 for management, and £995,000 for permanent improvements, leaving a net profit to the State of £3,495,000. This was as much as if a country gentleman, with a gross rental of £3,300 had to pay £1,100 for management and £500 for permanent improvements, leaving himself with an income of £1,700. What tenant for life would admire that state of things? Yet it exactly represented the position of the country with reference to the revenue of the Crown lands.
  454
  No doubt the gentlemen at the head of the department had effected considerable improvements of late; but there was still a vast amount of unseen and uncontrolled expenditure. Leaving the Lands, and travelling now to the mysterious recesses of the Woods and Forests, it appeared from this paper that the receipts of the Woods and Forests from 1803 to 1859 had been £2,589,183, and the receipts £2,085,304. In 1859 the receipts were £47,181, and the expenses £52,984; in 1858 the receipts were £68,743, and the expenses £58,170; and in 1857 the receipts were £63,811, and the expenses £55,469. In order that it might not be thought that he had selected an exceptional period he would take the four years ending 1852, in which he found that the receipts were £186,000 and the expenses £188,000. In the four years ending 1856 the receipts were £307,000 and the expenses £245,000. For the three years ending 1859 the receipts were £175,000 and the expenses £166,000; making for that period of 11 years a total of receipts of £673,000 and of expenses £600,000. Taking now three of these Crown forests, it appeared that in that of Dean the receipts last year were £11,900 and the expenses £11,300; in the New Forest £16,000 had been received and £11,000 expended; and in Windsor Forest, which from its vicinity to the Castle was exceptionally placed and required additional outlay in salaries, upon labour, and maintenance of deer, &c., the receipts had been £5,000 and the expenses £19,000. When the large establishments and expenses connected with the Woods and Forests were complained of, it was urged that they were absolutely requisite for the management of this extensive property, which amounted nominally, in forests alone, to 103,000 acres; but he believed it was the fact that they had not a really beneficial interest in more than 30,000 acres. A few years ago the Treasury directed three gentleman of eminence to visit these portions of the Crown property, and they proceeded during their term of inspection to Delamere forest, which he would take as an example of the injudicious mode of treatment that had sometimes been adopted. The Commissioners reported that the 4,000 acres of which the forest was composed "was in every respect unsuited to the growth of oak, and that such a crop ought never to have been planted upon it; the trees had been planted in such places and

  455
  of such sizes as to preclude all chance of their success; that considerable loss had been sustained by an unskilful mode of cutting down trees; that a very large amount in value of thriving larch trees, admirably suited to the soil in which they were growing and approaching rapidly to good timber, had been displaced to give room for stunted thriftless oaks, which were of no present value and never could attain any." He desired in an especial manner to direct the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the arrears which were permitted to occur in the rent accounts which were made up to April in every year. In 1857 the arrears which were thus permitted to remain due amounted to £220,241; in 1858 to £206,680; and in 1859 to £202,248. The Treasury certainly ought to have the power of checking this system, which seemed, at all events, to have existed for three years, and which must he attended with very injurious effects, as it permitted so large a sum as £200,000 to remain in the hands of the country agents and stewards charged with the collection of the revenues of the Crown. Another subject highly deserving of consideration was the manner in which the capital account was made up; for if there was one paper more unsatisfactory and mysterious than another of those laid on the table of the House it was the capital account of the Estates and revenues of the Crown. Within the last thirty or forty years Crown property to the value of £2,409,203 had been sold, and this system of constant sales and re-investments was attended with inconvenience and enormous expense. Last year an amount of no less than £13,037 was paid for legal expenses and plans incidental to these sales of Crown lands; and though it might be extremely desirable to consolidate this property, which was scattered through almost every county in England, and so to get rid of a large army of receivers, surveyors, stewards, and agents, he thought the improvement might be more judiciously effected than by this perpetual system of buying and selling, adding to the expenses and diminishing the revenues. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, a few years ago, taken the wise and judicious course of removing a great number of charges from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates for the year; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, whom he believed to be at heart a sincere financial Reformer, would persevere in the same
  456
  beneficial direction. There were a number of changes which, in his opinion, might with great advantage be removed from the Consolidated Fund to the yearly Estimates, where they would be exposed to the consideration and criticism of the House. Among these he placed the charge for the Lunacy Commission of £12,500; that for the Audit-office of £6,300, which was in addition to the sum of £32,466, appearing on the Estimates for the expenses of that office. Then there was the sum of £10,000 for secret service money, in addition to the £32,000 in the Estimates; and this item he should like to abolish altogether, believing that it was opposed to the openness of the English character, and that the country had never derived any substantial benefit from such expenditure. The sums of £10,000 for the government of the Isle of Man; £17,000 for the augmentation of stipends to the Scotch clergy; and £20,300 to the West India clergy might in like manner be transferred advantageously to the Estimates. The salary of £20,000 to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland ought, perhaps, to be retained on the Consolidated Fund as long as the office itself was maintained; but it should be remembered that in addition to this £20,000 there were further payments on foot of Castle expenses to the amount of £4,378, and to the Household of £6,431 yearly. The allowance of £2,769 to the in-coming Lord-Lieutenant for his outfit was classed under the head of Contingencies, but the House would bear in mind that within a comparatively few years there had been eight Viceroys appointed. The allowance of £2,000 a year to the High Commissioner of the General Assembly of Scotland, and of £2,000 to the itinerant preachers, he should also like to remove; and last, and not least, he was particularly desirous that the £180,000 paid for diplomatic services should be brought into the Estimates. A Resolution which he proposed last Session was rejected by a majority of twenty-eight in a House of 256 Members, but he still hoped that Parliament would see the advisability of exercising a control over the expenditure in that department. The diplomatic service cost the country last year £268,898, and the consular service £252,796, making a total of £521,694. Besides this charge on the Consolidated Fund, he found that in the last eleven years there had been expended on the same account—miscellaneous, £248,000; special missions

  457
  £133,000; Embassy-house, £253,000; chapels, £96,500; rent and outfit, £108,000, and £70,000. So that, if some supervision were not exercised over these sums, they would go on increasing until in a few years the cost of these united diplomatic services would amount to millions, instead of thousands. He had given a plain unvarnished tale, with the object of inducing the House to adopt some measures that might more effectually check this stream of expenditure, which received but a very inadequate consideration, when the period of late sittings and hot nights came on, and when Members were tired and the House was impatient to enter on other business. The only conclusion at which he had been able to arrive was, that the people of England had too much money. Southey had said that a Government never could be too rich, but that the same observation did not apply to the people who were governed. To impose taxation was easy, and to disburse it was agreeable; but the payment of taxes, except in cases of great national emergency, was a process that was always painful and disagreeable. A rigid reform in the expenditure might be very annoying to many of those persons who represented ignorant incapacity and distinguished destitution; but to the people of England a more rigid economy would be very acceptable. Before placing any now burdens on the public, the House ought to inquire whether the money it had already granted was properly expended. There was no wish to diminish the efficiency of the national service, or refuse anything that would be for the national advantage. All that was asked was, that the public money should not be wasted, that the revenue should really be used for the public benefit, and the little interests of little men should not be allowed to interfere with the great interests of a great country. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he rose to second the Resolution, but after the able manner in which the subject had been introduced, he would only allude to one or two points. Some said the Government was to blame for the excessive expenditure, others blamed the House; but he feared that the enormous increase in the Estimates of late years could not be ascribed to the Government or the House of Commons alone, but that Parliament, the Government, and the public were all more or less involved in the blame. So many parties
  458
  were interested in a largo expenditure that the public had become apathetic, and this was among the influences at work which had induced the House to relax its scrutiny of the Estimates. It had been said that only the upper classes were interested in this expenditure. But on examination it would be found that the amount of the expenditure by which this particular class was benefited was really very small. The middle class had a very large share in the advantage of this expenditure, and so had the class of mechanics and workmen, the largest recipients of all, though out of the 63,000,000 of revenue collected, it was impossible to say that that class contributed more than 20,000,000, and that only indirectly. There was a combination of the influence of all classes to urge on an increase of the expenditure. Gentlemen who had attended the discussions on the Estimates must have observed how frequently those discussions turned, not upon the extravagant expenditure, but upon there not being enough spent in different departments. Some hon. Gentlemen took up the case of the officers employed in the administration of the Poor Law, others that of the mechanics in the different dockyards, or the officers of the Customs' Department. From both sides of the House they heard arguments why there should be an increase in the expenditure for the benefit of particular parties. Another principle also operated in the same direction. The Executive of the day, in order to carry out certain views of local government, would place on the Console dated Fund certain sums as charges in relief of local expenditure. The House sanctioned the practice, and the central Government gained greater control in a certain department of administration. But the result to the country was that the expenditure was raised to more than it would have been had it been borne either by the general or the local government alone. It was simply burning the candle at both ends. The education grant, large as it was, had in a great measure been swollen in that way. Then sums had been granted in aid of county rates—for prisons, county police, the medical poor law staff, and a variety of establishments of that sort. By the Act of 14 & 15 Vict, the office of Woods and Forests had been divided into two—the office of Public Works and that of Woods and Forests. The result was that each office cost nearly as much as one did before. The cost of the old office was

  459
  £28,000 a year; that of the Woods and Forests was now £23,000, and that of Public Works £26,570. There were two accounts kept at the Woods and Forests—the capital account and the income account—and many items appeared in one which did not properly belong to it, and ought to appear in the other. He looked upon the notion of the Crown at any future time reclaiming these lands as a mere myth. It would be a most dangerous proceeding; it would altogether alter the relations between the monarch and the people were the Sovereign to depend for his revenue upon any income arising from estates, and not voted by Parliament. The arrangement was a mere matter of form, but that form was a wholesome reminder of what was due from Parliament to the Sovereign, and also of what was due from the Sovereign, by showing that the maintenance of the Crown came from the same source as the Crown itself. He objected to the items of expenditure for the improvement of the Crown property, as, on the settlement of a future civil list, those would be used against the country, It should be understood, if there was any intention of retaining the estates, that no more expense should be incurred merely to increase the value of the property. He could describe it as nothing more nor less than a fraud upon the people. Knowing how impossible it was to get the Estimates fairly passed, and that it was only by going before such a Committee as his hon. Friend proposed that the results of this expenditure, and the grounds of them, and the reason why they should be discontinued, could be properly analyzed, he felt that no better plan could be devised than that which his hon. Friend suggested. He therefore cordially seconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it would be desirable to appoint every year a Select Committee to inquire into the Miscellaneous Civil Service Expenditure of the preceding year; into the payments made out of the Consolidated Fund; and into those on account of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues."
  MR. LAINGobserved, the House was very much indebted to the hon. Member who had made the present Motion, for having brought under its notice a subject of great importance, and one which excited out of doors a considerable amount of public interest. The expenditure on the civil service was not very well understood, and a very general impression seemed to prevail throughout the country that it
  460
  had gone on of late years increasing to a very alarming extent, and that, too, notwithstanding it was supposed to be in a great degree under the control of the House of Commons, and, not like the expenditure for military and naval purposes, influenced by circumstances which might render a large outlay unavoidable. It was, therefore, that the civil service expenditure was regarded as affording the best test of the economy of Parliament, and it was for that reason, among others, that he held the opinion that if the specific Motion before the House—that of a Standing Committee to examine the expenditure of the preceding year—should be deemed to be well adapted to secure the end for which it had been brought forward, and which every hon. Member must be anxious to attain, it should he at once acceded to. It was quite clear, at all events, that, so far as the convenience of the Government, and especially of the Gentleman holding the office he had the honour to fill, was concerned, the appointment of the proposed Committee would be most acceptable, as relieving them from a very heavy responsibility; hut as responsibility could not be thrown to any degree upon one of two bodies without pro tanto relieving the other from its pressure, it was a point well worthy of consideration whether the accomplishment of such a result would in itself be expedient. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wise) had, it was true, contended that the objection which he had just pointed out might, in a great measure, be removed by submitting to the notice of the Committee, not the Estimates of the ensuing, but those of the past financial year; but as nearly four-fifths of the expenditure of one year were made up of sums which reappeared in the Estimates for the next, it was quite clear that the Committee, in sanctioning those items, would, to a very considerable extent, remove from the shoulders of the Government any responsibility which might attach to their re-insertion, and would furnish the Minister with a satisfactory answer to any such inconvenient questions which might be addressed to him by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) as to the largeness of the amount which the House might be asked to re-vote under any particular head. Be that, however, as it might, he felt it to be his duty to lay before the House the real state of the Civil Service Estimates, in order that hon. Members might be in a position to judge upon whose shoulders it was most desirable that

  461
  responsibility with respect to them should be permitted to rest. He should not, in endeavouring to effect that object, go further hack than the financial year 1852-3, or just previous to the period, when a large amount had been transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates, inasmuch as any calculations based upon their previous amount would, because of that change, be completely illusory. As an instance, the hon. Gentleman who had brought the question under the notice of the House had referred to the greatly increased expenditure in connection with the public offices last year as compared with the year 1846; but it was important, in dealing with that subject, to bear in mind that the increase was to be accounted for by the transfer from the Consolidated Fund to the Estimates to which he (Mr. Laing) had already alluded; the fact being that, instead of there being any increase, there was in many instances a slight diminution in the salaries of officers employed in our public departments. But, to proceed to the statement of the civil service expenditure, taking the financial year 1852–3 as a starting-point, he found that in that year the sum voted under that head was £4,407,000, while in 1859 it was £7,840,000, thus showing, in the expenditure in the latter over the former year, what at first sight appeared to he an actual increase of £3,433,000. It must be home in mind, however, that of that amount £1,500,000 must be laid to the account of the transfer which in 1853—[An hon. MEMBER: 1854]—had been made to the Estimates from the Consolidated Fund. That being so, hon. Members could not fail to perceive that, for the purpose of fair comparison, they must deduct that sum of £1,500,000, which would leave the real increase of expenditure for the whole of the civil service, as between the two years which he had mentioned, somewhere about £1,900,000. And how, let him ask, was that amount made up? Chiefly of items which were the result of legislation for which Parliament itself was responsible. Now, the first great item of increase during the seven years ending in 1859, which he should mention, was that under the head of education, science, and art, in which there was an increase of £860,000; the next was that which came under the head of law, justice, police, prisons, convicts, &c, in which the increase for the same period had been £550,000: that under the head of harbours being
  462
  £150,000; of public buildings, parks, & c. £150,000; of stationery, postage, telegraphs, & c, £100,000; making altogether a total increase of rather more than £1,800,000. There were, however, in addition other charges made in the Civil Service Estimates last year, which were in reality connected with naval and military objects, as, for instance, a sum of £130,000, which had been voted for the purpose of laying down a telegraph to Gibraltar, to enable us to communicate with that fortress and also with our fleet in the Mediterranean; and a sum of £60,000 in connection with the exchange upon remittances to troops in China, which, together with some smaller amounts, made up a sum of £200,000. This added to the £1,800,000 he had before enumerated amounted to £2,000,000, the total increase for the seven years ending in 1858 being, as he had said before, about £1,900,000. Thus upon a limited number of items he had accounted for the whole of the increase during that period. With respect to the expenditure which was incurred for the public departments he thought it desirable to make a few remarks with the view of removing from the public mind the erroneous impression that money was lavishly laid out in connection with them in order to increase patronage, especially for the benefit of the upper classes of society. Now, if such were the case—which it was not—the charge would apply to the expenditure for the Treasury, the Colonial Department, and the other great public offices, inasmuch as clerkships in those departments were much sought after by young men of good family hut scanty means. He, however, found that while the total expenditure for the Treasury was, in 1852, £54,400, it was in 1859 not more than £54,600; while in the case of the Colonial Office the expenditure, which in the former year was £38,815, was in the latter not more than £30,978, The only public office, in fact, in connection with which there had been any materially increased outlay in 1859, as compared with 1852, was the Foreign Office, and the increase in that instance was to be accounted for by the multiplication of telegrams and special messengers, caused by the increased activity of the diplomatic service of late years. In the case of the Poor Law Office there had been an actual decrease in the expenditure in 1859 as compared with 1852, the sum voted for it having been in the latter year £95,000, while in the former it had been only £59,800. Taking the Civil

  463
  Service Estimates generally, indeed, he found that, while there was a great increase in that expenditure which might he said to come more especially under Parliamentary control, a very considerable regard to administrative economy was observable in the management of the public offices. There were, for example, a great many items in the Civil Service Estimates over which the Government could hardly be said to have any control whatever, as, for instance, in those cases in which new establishments were brought into existence owing to a Vote of the House of Commons, with a fixed scale of expenditure attached to their maintenance. His remark applied especially to the department of law and justice. That House had seen fit to extend the advantages of cheap justice to the country by establishing the County Courts; hut that had not been done without considerable expense to the country. When such a system was once set going they could not disorganize it by arbitrary reductions; there was, therefore, but little control over such matters in the hands of the Government. He was afraid that in matters of expenditure a Committee would not be quite so satisfactory as the hon. Gentleman supposed; and he could not give a better instance of what was likely to occur than that which happened in the case of a Committee over which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise), presided—namely, the Committee on our Consular Establishments. The recommendations of that Committee were of great value, and led to great improvements in our consular system; but, in so far as economy was concerned, the result would have been an increased expenditure of £40,000 or £50,000 a year had the Government, in revising the consular system, and carrying out the principles of the Committee, not been able to do so in a less expensive way. But by employing commercial consuls in the less important stations they would, he hoped, be able to carry out the recommendations of the Committee at the more important places, without any national increase of cost. He referred to that as affording the House a proof of the difference that existed between the action of a Committee and a Government. Indeed, he could hardly recollect an instance in which a Committee had sat to investigate any matters involving expenditure—such as harbours of refuge, designs for the Foreign Office, or other public works—in which the result of their labours, however beneficial to the public, had not been op-
  464
  posed to the interests of economy. Another objection to the appointment of this Committee was that all the large items on which the possibility of carrying out an extensive system of economy mainly turned related to subjects of such general interest that the House could hardly be expected to listen to the opinion of any Committee, however respectable, in the event of its recommending a reduction in them. Among these was the Vote for Education, by far the largest and most important to which his hon. Friend had referred. The annual increase that took place in the Vote for Education alone swallowed up over and over again all that could be economized in smaller matters. If they were only to have regard to economy nothing would be easier than to say how the expenditure for education could be cut down; but, in the case of questions affecting the higher interests of the country generally other considerations had to be attended to. His hon. Friend referred to the Woods and Forests. There, again, a great difficulty—and that a constitutional one—stood in the way of such an inquiry as he suggested. If the Government or the country were absolute owners of the whole of the Crown property there might be no difficulty in saying what were best to be done. Probably it would be to convert the whole of their landed property into money, and invest it in securities, where no staff of officials or foresters would be required to guard it, because a large landed property scattered all over the kingdom, including a great amount of waste land, was just that sort of property that required all the supervision and economy of a private individual owner to manage it well. They all knew how the estates of joint-stock companies were ordinarily managed, and it was very probable that the State could not manage such matters better than a joint-stock company would do. But, then, there was the constitutional difficulty that the property belonged to the Crown, that we were not the real owners of it, and were not in a position to dispose of it. We had only made a bargain with the Crown, by which we agreed to manage it during the life of the Sovereign and they could not with a due regard to constitutional considerations, sell that of which we only had the temporary usufruct. The management of the Woods and Forests had, however, been under the consideration of Committees of that House from time to time. Some years ago a Committee, presided over by Lord Duncan, took great interest in the

  465
  subject, and many improvements were the result of its investigations. It was admitted that the department was much better managed now than formerly, and the gentlemen at the head of it, Mr. Gore and Mr. Howard, were exceedingly assiduous and attentive to their duties. He knew that they were anything but extravagantly disposed, and during the short time he had been in office he was able to say that they had endeavoured to manage the property in the best possible manner. He would say, in such circumstances, let the House watch the results, and if in course of time they were not satisfied, then let a Committee be appointed to discover abuses and infuse fresh vigour into the department. He believed the appointment of a Standing Committee would be open to the objection that it would relieve parties from responsibility to whom they ought to look for the right discharge of their duties; and he could not see that, with a responsibility resting partly on a Committee and partly on the Treasury and Woods and Forests, the system would work well. There only remained the question regarding the Consolidated Fund, and there also a difficulty arose on a point of political principle. The charges on the Consolidated Fund were those that, for certain reasons, they did not wish to subject to the fluctuating chances of an annual Vote of the House of Commons. Among these were the charges for the administration of law and justice, certain ecclesiastical and theological payments, and the grant to Maynooth, which were paid out of the Consolidated Fund to avoid exciting questions being raised in that House. In considering the appointment of a Committee to deal with these matters with a view to economy, the House should bear in mind that, on the question of transferring Votes of this kind to the Estimates, there was something to be said on the other side. Instead of leading to economy it was just as likely that there would be a pressure on them to increase the Votes, so that they might in reality have to pay larger sums than when the charges came out of the Consolidated Fund. He attached much force to this objection when he considered the increase that had been made in items which were annually open to revision. He had thus adverted, as shortly as he could, to the reasons which induced him, while agreeing in the object proposed by his hon. Friend, to doubt whether such Committee as he had suggested was the best mode of attaining it. In doing so he
  466
  had been obliged to point out that the abuses complained of arose very much from causes beyond the control of the administrative department; but before sitting down he was anxious to guard against being understood as meaning that every thing had been done that ought to be done to carry out economy in the public expenditure. If the Government were supported by public opinion and by that House in enforcing economical views, a good deal might yet be done,—he would not say to return to the Estimates of former years, but certainly to arrest that increase, which, if it went on as at present, would in a very short time be formidable indeed. Government really could not do much unless they were supported by the opinion of the country. If public opinion, as reflected by that House, was constantly urging a more liberal expenditure for objects of admitted utility, which, though, perhaps, separately forming but small items in the Estimates, yet made up a considerable aggregate, the Government could not long oppose a very effectual resistance. But if, on the other hand, they were supported by the House, there were some questions on which a good deal might be done. The question of education, to which his hon. Friend had referred, was one on which he did not say considerations of economy were paramount; but still he thought, if these were admitted to have due weight, a good deal might be done. Again, if every hon. Gentleman in that House who had a taste for architecture took every opportunity of enforcing it according to his own notions, with a total disregard of expense, a very large expenditure must be incurred, seeing the necessity there was for the erection of many public buildings. The same thing might be said in regard to harbours of refuge, in respect to which there had been a constant pressure from all parts of the country on the Government for the expenditure of a large sum of money; but if supported, as he trusted they would be, by public opinion and the House enforcing economy in these matters, he did hope the case was not altogether desperate. He could assure his hon. Friend and the House that the attention of the Government during the recess had been most earnestly devoted to this subject. He might say there was not a Vote in the Estimates for past years which he himself had not gone through carefully, anxious to make reductions. He could not venture to promise that the result of these reductions would be a very great diminution in mat-

  467
  ters which had gone far beyond control; but he did venture to hope that when the Estimates were produced it would be seen their exertions on the side of economy had not been altogether useless. He thought the best course the House could take was to leave the whole responsibility for the present on the Government, watching their progress very closely, scrutinizing very jealously every subject of expenditure in the Estimates, and if, after giving them a fair trial, they were not satisfied with the results, let them come down on them with a Committee, not a standing or annual Committee under which the Government might shelter themselves, but a Committee which would be a reality, and would bring home to the Government a sense of their responsibility.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that both the House and the country were exceedingly indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing this important question before them at so early a period of the Session. He was rather disappointed with the speech of his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury. It was obvious to every one that something must be done to check the public expenditure, and keep it within reasonable bounds. There was an absolute necessity for economizing the national expenditure, Even Gentlemen who were inclined to be liberal, if not lavish, in voting sums of money for the army and navy, and for the defences of the country, ought most carefully to examine the Civil Service Estimates. The hon. Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Laing) said it was the duty of every member of that House to scrutinize the Votes as submitted to Parliament, especially those proposed by the Government. Well, ever since he had the honour of a seat in Parliament, for the last five years, he had attended in that House almost every Supply night, and he must say the conviction forced itself on his mind that no great benefit would or ever could result to the cause they all had at heart, of national economy, by debating and dividing upon a few of those small items which formed together our Civil Service Estimates. During the period to which he had referred he believed he was correct in stating, that with three or four exceptions, every vote proposed by the Government had been carried without reduction, although, perhaps, in double that number of instances Votes had been expunged in consequence of there having been a very narrow run the
  468
  year before; but this he held to be a very small result; and without objecting to each great subdivision of Votes, or examining each Vote carefully and seriatim, he did not think much progress would be made, or any great reduction effected until Gentlemen who, like his hon. Friend and himself, thought the expenditure was excessive, took a different course, and adopted such a plan as this at a very early part of the Session, saying to the Government, "We are not prepared to expend £7,500,000 on the civil service; we think £7,000,000 or £6,500,000 quite sufficient, and we wish you to form your Estimates on that basis." He held, in point of fact, that at present the House had no efficient control over the public expenditure. They ought to throw on the Government the responsibility of bringing forward those Votes which were absolutely necessary, but with some such limit as he had suggested. He was disappointed that the Secretary for the Treasury had not been able to state that the Government had been enabled very much to reduce the civil service expenditure. He had had considerable faith in the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was in hopes that he would have devoted his great abilities to this subject, and with success; for he was firmly convinced, not only that a great saving might be effected without difficulty or detriment, but with considerable advantage to the public service. If any one doubted this, let him read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) upon this subject when last in office, who distinctly admitted that there was a very great profusion in the civil service expenditure. Besides, the expurgation of Votes would save a great deal of the precious time of the House. His hon. Friend objected to this Committee, and there was a good deal of force in his objection to it, being a Standing Committee; but he had looked in vain for any declaration of what the Government intended to substitute. The House and the country were agreed that the expenditure must be checked, and unless the Government were prepared on their responsibility to tell them that it should be reduced, he was to a considerable extent shut up to support the proposition of his hon. Friend; and should the result not be satisfactory, then he thought it would be the hounden duty of the House to affirm some such Resolution as he had suggested. It was true that the mind of

  469
  the country was not at present in a very economical mood, but sure he was the day would come when they would be forced by public opinion out of doors to devote more attention to this subject than they had hitherto done, and it would, without doubt, be one of the first great subjects discussed in the reformed Parliament, He thought they would show themselves exceedingly shortsighted, if, supposing there was no economical disposition on the part of the people, they attempted to blink what, in his mind, was one of the most important questions which could come under the consideration of the Legislature.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) has stated that he was not entirely satisfied with the tone and general effect of the speech of my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury. If that be so, it must be because my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury did not wholly succeed in conveying his meaning to the mind of the hon. Gentleman. Nothing could be fairer than what my hon. Friend said. He stated that we have at present to contend with this difficulty—that the mind of the country is not greatly set upon public economy, and that as we live under a popular Government, in which, in the long run, the scale of expenditure is undoubtedly determined by public opinion, we must naturally expect, that when the public feeling is such as my hon. Friend candidly stated, that feeling will be reflected in the tone and sentiment of this House, as likewise in the tone and action of those who compose the Executive. Under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would not form excessive anticipations as to any strong and decisive impression being produced by any particular Government on a course of feeling which has become established, habitual—I might almost say inveterate—for some years past. We have been tending in all respects towards a great and rapid increase of expense, and it is in the nature of things that the remedies to be applied to such a state of affairs should be feeble in their origin, and that their first results, at any rate, should be moderate in extent. It is vain to hope, unless you have the concurrence of a powerful feeling out of doors, that the efforts of any particular Administration, at any particular moment, will be attended with great results in the reduction in your civil and miscellaneous expenditure. The hon. Gentleman may say—if your power is small,
  470
  you may, at all events, show that your intentions are good. Well, when we lay our Miscellaneous Estimates on the table and enter on their discussion, I think we shall be able to satisfy the House—I am sure we shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, than whom no hon. Member is more anxiously bent on economy—that we have given to this question our best attention. But he would find, from the statement of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that the great bulk of the increase in those Estimates is due to a very small number of subjects, and that out of that small number there are one or two which it is extremely difficult for the Government to control. I promise my hon. Friend, however, that when we produce our proposals in regard to them, it will be seen that, if little can be done at any given moment by any given Administration, we have yet sincerely endeavoured to examine into the means, both of checking the present rapid increase, and, where possible, of introducing a diminution in this important branch of our expenditure. I am sorry to say that one of the great offenders in this matter is, as has been already mentioned, the educational Vote. We have given the most careful consideration during the recess to this part of the Estimates. But we found ourselves confronted with this important fact—that a very assiduous and intelligent Commission was appointed two or three years ago to inquire into this whole subject; and that it was hardly possible for the Executive Government to propose, until that Commission had reported, any changes in the educational Vote materially affecting the principles on which it is founded. We have endeavoured, however, at this early date, both to check the rapid expansion of this branch of expenditure, and also—where we could do it without unduly trenching on the province of the Commissioners—to give Parliament an indication of the direction in which further improvement in the way of economy may be made. I am bound likewise to add, that I am satisfied the Commissioners take a very serious view of the great public evils involved in the rapid increase of this Vote, and that it will be a main object of their labours to recommend such changes as will control, if not altogether arrest, that increase. I regret to say my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has rather understated than overstated this evil in describing the gigantic strides with which, from the smallest beginning, the

  471
  educational estimate has advanced to £2,000,000 per annum. Those practically acquainted with this subject will tell you plainly that, if you continue to act upon the rules now in force, no very long course of years will have elapsed before this £2,000,000 reaches £3,000,000, or, indeed, a much greater amount. The growth of this expenditure not only tends to augment the national burdens, but has a most enervating effect upon the public mind; and therefore on moral considerations, as well as financial, it demands our most earnest attention. With respect to two or three other important sources of increase which have already been pointed out, I venture to say that it will be found that the Government have turned their best attention to them during the recess. With regard to the Motion now before us, I wish to distinguish between it and the course which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) invites us to take. I cordially welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in the cause to which he has devoted his energies, and in which he has shown not only so much zeal, but so much ability. I could not recommend the House to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, namely, that the House at the commencement of the Session should refuse to go beyond the limit of £6,500,000 in voting these Estimates, and that the Government should be compelled to frame them accordingly. It would break my heart to think that no other remedy was open to us. I do not think, even on the ground of prudence, it would be a fit mode of dealing with an important question. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to this subject; I am sure good will come out of this discussion. It is not that the mind of the people of England is obstinately fixed in these matters. It derives its tone in a great degree from the temper of this House. And when it is seen that we are in earnest on the subject of economy the public out of doors will, no doubt, soon be found in harmony with us. Although we are certainly acted upon by the popular sentiment, we can also in turn act powerfully on that sentiment. The House and the country, in truth, act and react on each other. But with respect to this Motion, I frankly own I do not think it is in a state in which it can be advantageously adopted. The hon. Mover included in his view at least three subjects; in fact, there are nearer thirty than three, each of which must obviously
  472
  go before any Committee that has to enter on this vast field; so that instead of any one Committee being capable of investigating all the subjects it will require at least six Committees to get through all the business referred to them. Any Select Committee which had charge of the department of Woods and Forests and the Land Revenues alone would have sufficient work on its hands. Any Committee appointed to examine into the expediency of making further transfers from the Consolidated Fund to the Votes would find ample labour cut out for it. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to a particular item. It is an affair of £2,000—the salary, I think, of the Commissioners of the General Assembly. It would take a Committee more days than I should certainly like to sit to determine whether a multiplicity of items of that description ought to be transferred to the Votes or not. I am sorry it was not practicable to carry further the transfer already effected. It was with great reluctance that we stopped short where we did. But the inquiry was a very onerous one, and it alone would require the undivided exertions of a Select Committee to conduct it satisfactorily. As to the Civil Service Estimates, I venture to say no single Committee could embrace the business of reviewing that expenditure. It is so vast and so varied, and some of the questions involved in it are so difficult, that it would task the time and attention of several distinct Committees. In truth, the hon. Member has sketched out in his Motion views and objects that call for a much larger machinery than this House could supply and keep in operation from year to year. And here I come to a point on which I am at issue with the framer of the Resolution. A Select Committee of this kind appointed every year would not only not be a good measure, but would be a decidedly bad one. It would begin with taking away from the Executive its proper responsibility, and would end by resolving all responsibility into pure vapour; for it is impossible that a Select Committee could really be charged with the duties or the responsibilities of a public department from year to year. What the House of Commons can do in this matter must be done periodically. By periodically passing from one subject to another this House may be able, through its Committees, to do a great work in reviewing the Miscellaneous Estimates; and periodically, I grant, every one of the hon. Member's subjects is a

  473
  legitimate subject for such an inquiry. But let us not deceive ourselves about the power and effect of these Committees. A Committee of this nature sat eleven years ago. What was the issue of its labours? Why, a recommendation to abolish the office of a Lord of the Treasury, whose salary was included in the Miscellaneous Estimates. [Murmurs.] I believe I am correct in stating that that was the principal and substantial measure which proceeded from them. Therefore I am not very sanguine as to the operation of such a Committee, unless it be appointed with a very special aim, and devotes all its best energies to the discharge of its duties. I hope that, for these reasons, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accede to his Motion. I give no opinion on the question whether the time has yet arrived at which it would be desirable to appoint another Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates. Do not understand me to place any negative on that subject, I would rather reserve my opinion upon it. But I think, if I may say so, that having a new Administration in office, it might be as well if the House allowed us to lay our Miscellaneous Estimates on the table, and if the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member reserved it to himself to consider whether it would be for the public interest that a Committee of this kind should be appointed. Such a Committee as is now proposed I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mean to press, for I certainly do not think it consistent with the duty of the Government to assent to it.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to make an observation upon the two speeches which had just been delivered from the Treasury Bench. If those speeches were logical and to be taken as authoritative there was no remedy for the present evils, of which nobody appeared to complain so loudly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Because, if no such Motion as his hon. Friend had proposed were adopted, it was quite clear that they were shut up to the plan which was now followed, and which, according to every speaker who had yet addressed the House, was leading us to a condition of things most alarming and deplorable. He always found the Chancellor of the Exchequer complaining on these occasions that the House and the country were not sufficiently economical, and yet every Chancellor of Exchequer refused to accept anything that would give the public departments the power to resist proposals of in-
  474
  creased expenditure. Years ago it was a common thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when asked to sanction such proposals, to say, "What do you think Mr. Hume will say?" Mr. Hume was not there now, and unfortunately his mantle did not appear to have fallen upon any Member of the House. He had heard Chancellors of the Exchequer make this answer to those who besieged the Treasury for additional expense. Why did they thus use the great economist's name? Because they felt the necessity of having some power beyond their own to hold up in terrorem, even if it were only the pretence of a power. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer had such a Committee as was now proposed to refer to and to fall back upon—not a Committee like the Library Committee, that nobody knew anything about—and he for one never heard of any thing they ever did—but a Committee honourably chosen every Session, not packed for special objects, as they generally were—the Treasury might then say, when gentlemen came to them from all parts of the country demanding additional expenditure, "We cannot put such an increase into the Estimates. If we do, do you think the fifteen Gentlemen appointed by the House of Commons and before whom all these things must come, will agree to a proposal of this nature?" Thus between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee a very efficient check would be put upon many items of expenditure that were now voted without question. A few years ago a Committee sat to inquire into the Civil Service Estimates. One of the older Members of the Committee, not now in the House, told him that there was a young Member of the House connected by special ties with the Whig families, and it was his casting vote that destroyed that otherwise immortal Lord of the Treasury. What was the fate of that young Member afterwards? Why, they never put him on a Committee which had anything to do with the expenditure, from that day to this, and never would unless he repented of that most grievous sin. Another Committee was afterwards appointed. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who was then Prime Minister, agreed that a fair Committee should be appointed to inquire into the expenses incurred by official salaries, and he fulfilled his pledge. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) was a Member of that Committee, he was another, the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) was

  475
  also upon it, and it was composed of the usual number of Members. The Committee examined Sir R. Peel, the present Prime Minister, the noble Lord now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and many hon. Members then in the House. What did they recommend? There were many recommendations that they agreed to unanimously, there were many others upon which a large majority were agreed, and the total of the reductions they recommended amounted to from £70,000 to £80,000 a year. What was the result? The salary of the Judge-Advocate was reduced by £500, and that of the Secretary of the Treasury by an equal sum. The Government reduced the salary of a noble Lord at the Poor Law Board £500, whereupon thinking his services worth more, he resigned. [Mr. DISRAELI: The Secretary for Ireland.] Yes, there was the Secretary for Ireland. No one knew what salary the Secretary for Ireland received. It appeared that there was a great amount of dining and hospitality, a thing very well understood in Ireland, which was said to be necessary for that official, and the Committee were told that a high salary was necessary. However, the salary was reduced by £2,000, and these reductions, which did not amount to one-tenth part of what the Committee re-commended almost unanimously, were all that had been carried into effect by the Government. He (Mr. Bright) had frequently remonstrated with the Treasury Bench on the subject but without effect. Then there were the Scotch Judges. Every one knew that if the work were equally divided between them there would be no per sons with so little to do as the Scotch Judges. In fact, there were so many Judges and so scanty a Bar, that great difficulty was found in supplying the bench with men of sufficient ability. The Committee recommended that a reduction in the number of Scotch and Irish Judges should be made when a vacancy occurred. Very soon afterwards a Chief Justice died in Ireland. He put it to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who was then Prime Minister, whether it would not be proper for the Government to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee, and reduce the number of the Irish Judges. The noble Lord made answer that he had consulted—whom did the House think? Why, the profession, every man of whom had entered it, with the honourable ambition of becoming one of these Judges, and who, of course, saw that his chance would be very much diminished if
  476
  the vacancy were not filled. The noble Lord said he had consulted gentlemen of the profession, and he did not think that there were too many Judges. The noble Lord, therefore, entirely disregarding the opinion of the Committee upon which he himself sat, made the appointment and filled up the vacancy. Unless Ministers took a different course from this, and adopted the recommendations of a Committee, and the changes they thought necessary, how could any reduction be made in our present growing and extravagant expenditure? Take the education Vote, for example. Was there ever anything in any country so monstrous and absurd as the proceeding in regard to this education Vote? The House voted money, they handed it over to some one to distribute it, and he ventured to say there were not five men in the House who knew into whose hands it went for distribution. The head of this department was a great Lord in"another place"—the President of the Council of Education—and this great Lord having nothing to do, of course required some one to help him. Accordingly, a Vice-President was appointed, and he had a salary. The appointment was made to relieve some one who had a salary from the necessity of doing anything for it. So another appointment was made of a Vice-President of the Council of Education. Another piece of patronage was made, and another salary was paid. This education Vote was expended for the most part upon one particular class and sect of the community,—it went towards the education supposed to be given by the Established Church of this country. It was not, for reasons well-known to many hon. Members, distributed in fair proportions among the various classes of the community. He confessed he thought it a monstrous thing to vote a sum which his hon. Friend quoted at something like £1,500,000, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was getting up to £2,000,000, without any sort of a Report being made that enabled the House to examine the Vote minutely or control it at all. The Government ought to aid the House, as the House ought to aid the country, in checking and controlling such an expenditure. To do this would be the office of such a Committee as was now proposed—not a Committee packed with four Gentlemen from the Treasury Bench on one side of the House and four from the ex-Treasury Bench, all mixed up in the matter, and all hoping to enjoy the distri-

  477
  bution of this expenditure, but an honest and fair Committee appointed by the House itself, and not influenced by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken imploringly to the House in favour of economy, and complimented the Hon. Gentleman who made this Motion as an ally. If he were sincere in that—and could it be doubted?—a Committee composed of twelve or fifteen Gentlemen chosen from both sides of the House must be of use, if they could help the House to scrutinize these Votes. It would be much better to leave the money to fructify in the pockets of the people than to allow it to be expended, as at present, for fifty unnecessary objects, some of which were positively pernicious. He trusted that the House would agree to the appointment of a Committee, and he had no doubt that it would be of great service. He warned the House, however, that while £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 were squandered in this and other directions, the time would come when the subject must receive the most serious attention. He would say no more now, as other occasions would present themselves. But if there were any one of a truly Conservative spirit, who wished to see the institutions of the country founded upon an unquestionable and stable basis, so that they would last his time and his children's who came after him, he could not show this Conservative spirit better than in helping any Chancellor of the Exchequer to lessen the vast expenditure and taxation of the country. There might come a time when we might not have two or three good successive harvests, two or three good cotton crops, and seasons of abundance and prosperity. There might be a time of cloud and storm, when these matters might be called in question in a spirit they would all be loth to see. Those who were sitting in that House were the guardians of the public purse of this country, and ought to warn their countrymen against the pernicious folly that had distinguished the public, the Parliament, and the Cabinets of this country for years past. It was their duty to warn them that if they did not change their policy it would lead to disaster and confusion if not to utter ruin.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that as far as he could understand the objections which had been made to the Motion under discussion, the only grave argument brought against the appointment of a Committee was that it would break in up-
  478
  on the responsibility of the Executive. In his opinion, however, it would have no such effect. It would leave the responsibility of the Executive just where it was, with this difference, that officials would know they were acting under the vigilant supervision of Parliament. He could not conceive a more effectual mode of doing what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was so desirable—influencing public opinion out of the House, than by the appointment of an annual Committee of their own body to examine the expenditure of the preceding year, and bring its salient features under the notice of the House and of the country. It was perfectly clear that as business was at present done the Estimates were mere matter of form. It was not enough for the House merely to pass the Votes—it was their duty to see, further, how the money had been spent. The inquiry now proposed might appear alarmingly comprehensive, but it would rest with the Committee to determime how many points they ought to deal with in the expenditure of any given period. Since the disjunction of the Board of Works and the Woods and Forests Departments the latter had been unrepresented in the House; and, in a constitutional point of view, there did not appear to be any more entirely irresponsible officials than the two gentlemen who acted as Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The expenditure of that department was some £90,000 a year, but all the account of it set before the House was two totals of £47,000 and £48,000 put down as "money spent." Surely, some more detailed and explicit statement was required; and that it would be the business of the Committee, if agreed to, to recommend. If it was true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to admit, that the money for educational purposes was spent, and might be spent, to any extent, without his authority, it was clearly high time that some system of inquiry such as was now proposed should be adopted without delay. If the House chose to spend £2,000,000 in education, let them do it, but let it also be accounted for. Believing that the Motion was of a practical character, and was calculated to effect one of the most important objects which the House, as regarded the public purse, could accomplish, he should support it.
  Question put:—the House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 93; Majority 28.

  List of the AYES.

  Agnew, Sir A.

  Lawson, W.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Lee, W.

  Bailey, C.

  Levinge, Sir R.

  Ball, E.

  Locke, John

  Baring, A. H.

  Long, R. P.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Longfield, R.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Lyall, G.

  Bazley, T.

  Lysley, W. J.

  Black, A.

  Mackie, J.

  Blackburn, P.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Bowyer, G.

  Mellor, J.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Miller, W.

  Bright, J.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Briscoe, J. I.

  Monson, hon. W. J.

  Brocklehurst, J.

  Napier, Sir C.

  Buller, Sir A. W.

  Paget, C.

  Butler, C. S.

  Palk, L.

  Caird, J.

  Parker, Major W.

  Cave, S.

  Pease, H.

  Cayley, E. S.

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  Churchill, Lord A. S.

  Pilkington, J.

  Clay, J.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Portman, hon.W. H. B.

  Collier, R. P.

  Powys, P. L.

  Collins, T.

  Pugh, D., Carmarthen

  Dalglish, R.

  Ricardo, J. L.

  Davey, R.

  Ricardo, O.

  Deedes, W.

  Ridley, G.

  Dickson, Col.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Roupell, W.

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Russell, H.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Ewart, W.

  Salt, T.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Scully, V.

  Ewing, H. E. C.

  Seymour, W. D.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Smith, J. B.

  Forster, C.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Gard, R. S.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Garnett, W. J.

  Steel, J.

  Gordon, C. W.

  Stirling, W.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Steuart, A.

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Tollemache, J.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Tomline, G.

  Gregson, S.

  Torrens, R.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Hadfield, G.

  Turner, J. A.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Vandeleur, Col.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Holland, E.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Walter, J.

  Horsfall, T. B.

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Howes, E.

  Way, A. E.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Westhead, J. P. B.

  James, E.

  Williams, W.

  Kendall, N.

  Willoughby, Sir H.

  Kennard, R. W.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Kershaw, J.

  Wyld, J.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Kinglake, A. W.

  TELLERS.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Wise, J. A.

  Langston, J. H.

  Smith, Augustus

  Langton, W. H. G.

  List of the NOES.

  Antrobus, E.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T,

  Atherton, W.

  Baring, T. G.

  Bagwell, J.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  480

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Hume, W. W. F.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Blake, J.

  Kingscote, Col.

  Blencowe, J. G.

  Laing, S.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Legh, W. J.

  Botfield, B.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.

  Bovill, W.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Macaulay, K.

  Bristow, A. R.

  Malins, R.

  Byng, hon. G.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

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

  Marshall, W.

  Martin, J.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Massey, W. N.

  Castlerosse, Visct.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Northcote, Sir S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Palmerston, Visct.

  Cubitt, Mr. Ald.

  Peacocke, G. M. W.

  Deasy, R.

  Puller, C. W. G.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Rolt, J.

  Disraeli, Rt. hon. Benj.

  Rothschild, Baron L. de

  Duff, Major L. D. G.

  Rothschild, Baron M. de

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Russell, A.

  Elphinstone, Sir J. D.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Evans, T. W.

  Seymer, H. K.

  Fenwick, H.

  Seymour, Sir M.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Seymour, H. D.

  Fitz Gerald, rt. hon. J.D.

  Spooner, R.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Stanley, Lord

  French, Col.

  Taylor, Col.

  Gavin, Major

  Thynne, Lord H.

  George, J.

  Upton, hon. Gen.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Gifford, Earl of

  Warre, J. A.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Wemyss, J. H. E.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Whitbread, S.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Whitmore, H.

  Haliburton, T. C.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Hankey, T.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  TELLERS.

  Henley, Lord

  Brand, hon. H.

  Hood, Sir A. A.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen.

  Hubbard, J. G.

INCOME TAX.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he rose to move for a
  "Select Committee to inquire whether it be possible to adopt some mode of assessing the Income Tax, whereby the injustices and vexations now generally complained of may be wholly or partially obviated."
  He hoped the House would give him their attention for a short time while he adverted to the course which had been taken with regard to this tax. They would find that it had always been looked upon as a war tax, or one that ought to be imposed only with the view of meeting some temporary emergency. In 1798 it had first been proposed by Mr. Pitt as a war tax. In 1842 the original Income Tax Act was passed by the late Sir Robert Peel, and in 1845 it was again carried through

  481
  Parliament by that right hon. Gentleman. In 1848 the tax was renewed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India (Sir C. Wood), in order to make up a deficiency in the revenue. In 1851 it was again renewed by the same right hon. Gentleman, with a view to enable the Government to remove some anomalies in the taxation of the country. In the year 1851 and in the following year a Committee was, on the Motion of the late Mr. Hume, granted, for the same purpose as those which he now wished to inquire into, but its labours were brought to an abrupt termination by the dissolution. In 1853 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained a renewal of the tax, and he then referred to a period to which they were now advancing, when the income tax was to expire altogether. This, therefore, was the time when they ought to review this tax, and see whether anything could be done to put it upon a footing of equality as regarded all classes of the community, for he firmly believed that with the present increased taxes to abolish it altogether would be a great financial error, especially if the House wished to see the policy of the late Sir Robert Peel fully carried out. The President of the Board of Trade had on a former occasion spoken in favour of this view, and he would not deny that now was the time to review the operations of the tax, and to see whether they could not get rid of its glaring inequalities. It might be the possible intention of the Government to ask the House to reimpose this tax for a limited period; but, if that were so, nothing, in his opinion, could be worse than thus tampering with the feelings of the people. The Government imposed the tax for a limited period of time, thus giving hopes that it would be allowed to lapse at the end of the time stated, but when that time expired it was again imposed. He would also remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in his memorable speech in 1853 he had described this tax as one with respect to which it behoved them to adopt a bold, decisive, and unfaltering policy, and he would urge the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to pursue that policy now. He would also recall to the recollection of the House a declaration of opinion, the insertion of which the right hon. Gentleman the member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Estcourt) moved in the report of. the Committee of 1852, to the effect that it was repugnant to reason and feeling to im-
  482
  pose the same sort of tax upon incomes derived from real property and incomes resulting from trades and professions, which were essentially unstable. Mr. Pitt, in his day, held the same view, and he (Mr. Urquhart) contended that whatever the opinions of mathematicians and statesmen might be on the subject, it was purely a matter of feeling to the country at large that permanent and fluctuating incomes were assessed on the same principle. Almost all professional men, if they were at all prudent, could not regard their whole earnings as income, being obliged to make provision for their families and often to replace trust funds or other capital advanced to them in order to make a start in life. Whatever Reform Bill might be proposed by the Government, and whatever its fate, the time was not far distant when the great bulk of the population would enjoy far more control over public affairs than they did now, and they would be more inclined to exercise their new power with moderation towards the higher classes if they found that those classes had done their best to avoid any appearance even of selfishness. They would soon be called to give an account of their stewardship, and the best thing they could do was to put their books in order. He believed that nothing would tend more to strenghten the hands of those who desired Conservative Reform than looking this question steadily in the face. He, therefore, trusted that those who were anxious to retain a territorial aristocracy, those who desired a Reform which should not set class against class, and those who wished to see the financial and commercial policy, commenced in 1842, still further developed to support the motion which he had now the honour to submit. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had mixed with the discussion of this question considerations which were essentially distinct. The hon. Gentleman had very frankly and ingenuously avowed an opinion that the income-tax ought to become a portion of the permanent finances of the country, and that, as it ought to become a portion of the permanent finances of the country, it was desirable that an inquiry should be instituted to see whether it could be so constructed as to avoid the injustice and vexation of which general complaint was made. The hon. Member could hardly fail to see that, under those circumstances,

  483
  he proposed that the House should intimate an opinion to-night on one of the most important questions which they had to consider next week as part of the finances of the year. The income-tax, as it now stood, expired on the 31st of March, or rather the time in respect of which it was leviable expired on that day. The hon. Gentleman would certainly appear, by the Motion which he made, to prejudge altogether a question which the House ought to approach in a state of perfect liberty, namely, whether the income-tax should be continued, and likewise whether it should be continued as a permanent or temporary measure. He thought it was an inconvenient moment to come to a vote which would carry with it an indication of opinion on a subject of vast importance, associated also with other questions of equal moment. It appeared to him that if the income-tax was to be renewed—he did not say as a permanent tax, but if the income-tax was to be renewed—and there was a general feeling that it would be continued for a considerable time, and if, under those circumstances, there was likewise a general feeling in favour of an inquiry such as that proposed, Her Majesty's Government would have no difficulty in deferring to that general wish. He thought the hon. Gentleman would agree that it could not be ascertained to-night, and in a thin House. [Mr. URQUHART: Hear!] If he was to understand that the hon. Member assented to what he had stated, he would not further trouble the House. But he was bound to say, that he was not sanguine of the results of any such inquiry. The hon. Gentleman had very fairly admitted that a Committee had sat for two Sessions upon the subject, and they had never been able to mould any practicable measure. At the same time, as he had said, he thought it was a question which ought to be decided by the general feeling of the House, when the proper time came, if that time should arrive. He hoped that, under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied to reserve his own perfect liberty of raising the question on a future occasion, and not press his Motion at present. Motion, by leave, with drawn.

BEVERLEY ELECTION.

  PROSECUTION MOVED.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, that in rising to move that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute Daniel Boyes and Robert
  484
  Taylor for bribery committed at the election for Beverley in April last, he did so as Chairman of the Beverley Election Committee, and it was with the concurrence of all the members that he now submitted this Motion. Their Report was presented at so late a period of the last Session that it was impossible then to move that the recommendation be carried into effect; in fact, the Report was presented on the 11th of August, and there was no time for printing and circulating the minutes of evidence before the prorogation. He would state, without any exaggeration, the grounds upon which the Committee came to the resolution to recommend this prosecution. These persons were proved to have committed bribery in nine several cases, which the Committee reported with all particulars to the House. They would find, if they looked through the minutes of evidence, that Mr. Daniel Boyes was a person of some note in Beverley, that at the last election, which took place on the 28th of April, Mr. Boyes was very active; that an empty house was hired; that in that house Mr. Boyes sat during the day previous to, and the day of the polling; that a gatekeeper kept the outer door; that voters were ushered in to Mr. Boyes one by one, who questioned them as to their wants and their votes; that in a few words a sort of bargain was made that the voter should have one sovereign for a single vote, or two for a plumper; that when it was settled Mr. Boyes said "Go on," and called out "one," or "two," as the case might be; that in a dark passage a hand was extended, and one or two sovereigns put into the hand of the voter; that the man whose hand paid the money was Robert Taylor; that Taylor said, "Pass on;" that the voter then went down another flight of stairs into the street; and that he was then walked, or put into a carriage and driven to the poll. Those were the plain facts of the case, and he did not think he need add to them. The Committee took evidence as to nine distinct cases of bribery, but as one case would illustrate the whole he would only read an extract from the evidence of one witness, James Stokell:—
  "That is two sovereigns?—Yes.
  "Upon that did you go to the room in the Toll Gavel?—Yes.
  "Did you see Daniel Boyes there?—Yes, I did.
  "Did you see Wilberfoss Herdsman at the door?—No, I cannot say that I did.
  "Was there anybody at the door before you went into the room?—I should not like to say whether there was or not. I went into the room.
  "You saw Boyes?—Yes.

  485
  "What time of the day did you go there?—Something like, may be, dinner time.
  "One or two?—I cannot say; about twelve o'clock; eleven or twelve.
  "On the polling day?—Yes, on the polling day morning.
  "Did you get anything in that house?—Yes.
  "Who gave it to you?—Robert Taylor.
  "What did he give you?—Four half-sovereigns.
  "Did they make up two quid?—Yes.
  "Before you went in to Robert Taylor had you seen Daniel Boyes?—Yes.
  "Did he say anything to you?—I went into the room with the understanding as to those two quid, and I said, 'I have come to see you, meister;' and I said, 'What do you please to want with me?' He says, 'Who is thou going to vote for V I said,' I expect you want me to vote for Mr. Walters and Mr. Glover.' I said that to Boyes, and he said to me, 'Oh, be damned to Glover; we have nought at all to do with him.' Then I said to him, 'Then I shall vote for Major Edwards and Mr. Walters.' He said then I should get a sovereign, and I called my words back again, and I said, 'Sovereign; that is like nought; I must have two, and then I will go the whole hog.' He looked at the book; I expected it was a poll-book that he had, and he said, 'It's all right; give him two. He is a good fellow; he is all right.' I went through another door through there, and Bob Taylor gave me four half-sovereigns, and then they had finished with me; then there was the cab concern next."
  "Did you go the entire hog, and vote for Mr. Walters?—I went from there to the King's Head.
  "Did you vote for Mr.Walters?—Yes, after a bit.
  "For whom?—I voted for Major Edwards for principle, and for Mr. Walters for two sovereigns, and I told them so when I voted.
  "Who did you say that to?—To the man that took the vote.
  "Did you say it at the polling-booth?—Yes, and I showed them the money.
  "Had you the two sovereigns in your hand at the time?—Yes, I had the four half-sovereigns.
  "Was Mr. Walters there when you said that?—I do not know him; I never saw him in my life. I do not know him.
  "You showed the money in the booth?—In the Corn Exchange.
  "Had Mr. Walters asked you for your vote before?—No; I never saw the gentleman."
  That was the kind of evidence which the Committee received, and in each of the nine cases it was proved that the voter had gone up to the room occupied by Boyes, and that in a dark passage leading therefrom he received from a hand, subsequently proved to be that of Taylor, the one or two sovereigns, as the case might be. Nothing could be more clear than the proof of bribery in all those cases, and even the learned counsel who appeared for the sitting Member did not dispute it, but argued that there was no connection between Boyes and the sitting Member. When, however, the Committee found that
  486
  bribery had been carried on so systematically, and by a man who was a leading character in Beverley, it felt that it would be wanting in its duty if it did not suggest to the House the expediency of ordering a prosecution against him and the person who had been his accomplice in the transactions. It appeared that Mr. Boyes was not only a leading character in the political circles of Beverley, but also filled the office of town councillor, and therefore ought to have been one of the last men to seek to corrupt his fellow-townsmen. Having thus explained the circumstances, he (Mr. Cobbett) had only now to conclude with the Motion of which he had given notice.
  Motion made and question proposed:—
  "That, in pursuance of the Recommendation of the Select Committee appointed to try the several Petitions against the Return for the Borough of Beverley, Her Majesty's Attorney General be directed to prosecute Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for Bribery committed by them at the last Election for the said Borough, in April 1859.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he had a strong opinion that the House of Commons would neither consult its own dignity nor general utility by resolving on this prosecution. He did not appear as the advocate or apologist of these men; but he contended that they ought not to stand in the pillory alone, and further, he believed that if the prosecution were determined on they would be acquitted. From criminals they would become heroes. He spoke with all respect to the recommendation of the Committee which was presided over by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), but would observe that it comprised no lawyer acquainted with the practice in criminal courts. It was true that one Member of the Committee was a distinguished equity lawyer, but the fact of his being an equity lawyer proved that he could not be very well versed in criminal proceedings. Supposing that the House should order the prosecution of those two persons, he was certain no jury would convict on the evidence brought before them. Matters had been so managed in these cases that each person went in alone; so that the only evidence which could be adduced was that of the party who had received a bribe. But if he were put into the witness-box to prove it he would, with a look of impudent deference towards the Judge, demand, and would of course obtain, the protection of the Court. The rest would, of course, follow his example. Or even if they did answer,

  487
  the Judge would tell the jury that, as when a receiver gave evidence against a thief it was the course of justice to require that evidence to he confirmed in some material portions, so in the case before them there ought to he some untainted witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. It must be recollected that each of the nine cases was separate and distinct, and the evidence in one could not be called in aid of another. He had looked through the evidence in the blue-book, and he asserted that there was not a tittle of independent 'credible testimony to support the statement of the parties who admitted they had been bribed. Besides, who were these men whom the Committee had recommended to be prosecuted? They were not of high social rank. Boyes was a man who kept a public-house in a back street, in the borough of Beverley, but who had at last worked himself into a place in the town council. Taylor was an ex-grocer, who having spent one-half of his life in adulterating the food of the electors, now devoted the other to the adulteration of their principles. Having commenced by dealing in West India sugar, he had now transferred his commerce to a more lucrative article, locally known as "Beverley sugar." But let the House look at the way in which the Committee had dealt with this whole matter. These men, who were Radicals in opinion, were singled out by the Committee for prosecution, but were they the only persons who were guilty? He found in the Report of the Committee that bribery had been carried on by men named David Ritchie, Jacob Wilkins, and James Baker, who had given or offered bribes, all of them men of greater social position than the two persons brought before the House, but they were on the Conservative side of politics, and the Committee did not recommend them to be prosecuted. The fact that the recommendations for prosecution should be confined to persons belonging to the party opposed to the majority of the Committee certainly required some explanation. He did not doubt that an explanation could be given, but without it conclusions might be drawn adverse to the impartiality of the Committee. But even this was not all he found in the Report of the Committee—two of the most glaring cases he had ever met with in his life—one a case of gross intimidation, the other of unblushing treating—were recorded there, yet a prosecution to punish the guilty parties was not recommended. Then the agent of the Conservative party had employed a whole force of
  488
  three score runners at the rate of 22 s. 6d., but the Committee contented themselves with finding that the practice was "objectionable." The House had had already some experience in prosecutions with regard to Beverley, and the result ought to be a caution. Not very long ago Mr. Glover was prosecuted for an offence which had not been uncommon before his time, though the offenders might not have been prosecuted. He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, but the effect was to raise up a false but still extensive sympathy for him, and when he went down to Yorkshire at the expiration of his imprisonment he was received with a popular ovation such as a conqueror might have been proud of. The Old Bailey criminal drove into Beverley in a carriage and four, accompanied by one of the jury who convicted him, and surrounded by an applauding concourse of the people! He was, in fact, regarded as a victim to his own imprudence, and a martyr in a struggle against the unjust partiality of Parliament. The same reaction in public feeling might take place in this case if the House were not cautious how it proceeded. And let the House observe what was done at other places. The Election Committee at Hull reported that 487 persons were employed by Mr. Hoare's committee as runners, and 493 by Messrs. Clay and Lewis; that of those employed by Mr. Hoare 300 were voters, and that they were paid in all sums varying from 2s. 6d. to £3 5s., while the greater number of them were pursuing their ordinary avocations. Yet there was no recommendation to prosecute in that case nor in the case of Norwich, where the Committee reported that the high bailiff of the County Court of Norfolk was mixed up with corrupt practices. Now he did not see how they could undertake to prosecute a miserable hawker at Beverley whilst they could let men like the high bailiff of Norwich, pass unscathed. Then, take the case of Wakefield; it was clearly shown that Mr. Wainwright, the solicitor and agent of Mr. Leatham, offered a person £15 to induce him to procure the vote of another person for Mr. Leatham, while the honourable candidate was waiting in the adjoining room, and his carriage standing at the door! And there the money expended amounted to thousands of pounds, while at Beverley it was only showed that the amount expended in bribery amounted to £22, and £5 of that was given to one voter who came from Carlisle, and whoso expenses were £3 15s. Then there was the Glou-

  489
  coster case, where the bribery was most unblushing, and the Committee in then-Report stated that Alderman Withom was one of the persons by whom the bribery was effected. The Commissioners in their Report, speaking of the election of 1857, said they did not find that Sir R. W. Carden or Mr. Price were privy to the bribery that was practised; but in reference to the election of 1859, they found that Mr. Price and Mr. Monk were not privy to the corrupt practices that prevailed at that election, but they observed an ominous silence as to the privity of Sir R.W. Carden. If the House wished to produce a salutary effect upon the community let them fly at higher game, and attack baronets, aldermen, magistrates, and lawyers who had been guilty of bribery. The entire sum proved to have been spent by Boyes and Taylor at the Beverley election amounted to only £22; and if they only should be prosecuted, he believed that the House, instead of punishing miscreants would be proclaiming martyrs. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving an Amendment,
  "That, without at all impugning the judgment of the Beverley Election Committee, this House is of opinion that the inquiries before Committees of this House, and under the recent Commissions which have sat in various places, having clearly demonstrated that many persons of higher social rank have been involved in graver criminality, it would not be expedient to limit the direction to Her Majesty's Attorney General to the prosecution of Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for bribery committed by them at the last Beverley Election."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "without at all impugning, & c.," instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SELWYNsaid, that he had intended to have simply seconded the Motion made by the Chairman of the Beverley Committee, because, although he was a younger Member than the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. W, D. Seymour), he had already seen the inexpediency of inflicting upon the House long and unnecessary speeches. After the direct attack, however, which had just been made upon him and the rest of his colleagues on that Committee, he could not be altogether silent. He did not wish the House to attach undue weight to the recommendations of an Election Committee; and when the proper time came for discussing the constitution of these tribunals, he should be prepared to contend
  490
  that there could hardly be a more uncertain, unsatisfactory, and expensive mode of deciding the validity of an election. Meanwhile, however, he thought the House would attach some weight to the recommendations of such a Committee, especially when they were made unanimously, as in the present instance. Though the hon. and learned Member had read the Report of the Committee, he appeared to have entirely misconceived its spirit and object. The Beverley Committee did not think themselves warranted in inquiring into the social rank of the persons mentioned in their Report; but they did ascertain the position which Boyes held in the borough. He was a town councillor; at a meeting of the party to which he belonged he was elected chairman; and he was one of a deputation of two who were sent up to London to find candidates. A man who took this prominent part in local politics, and who on the eve of a general election came up to London professing to have two seats at his disposal, would probably have been found at that time to be much higher in social rank than his antecedents might have led one to expect. But the Committee did not inquire into what saloons he was admitted, nor from whose receptions he was excluded; they found that, in reference to this particular election, he was the man of most note in the borough. It was he who was the first to receive the candidate on his arrival, and to introduce him to the electors; he surrounded him with crowds of his partisans in the Market-place, and afterwards made addresses to them from the lodgings of the future representative. Yet it was sought to represent him as a man of no consequence—as a mere publican in a back street. The duty of the Committee, he believed, was to detect whatever persons had been guilty of direct, systematic, and unblushing bribery; they found that the payment of money in the place with which Boyes was associated was open and notorious in Beverley; and they unanimously arrived at the conclusions which were embodied in that Report. If the House were really desirous of putting an end to the practice of bribery, what better opportunity could they hope for than the establishment against a man possessing such political influence of the fact that he had been the real briber? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton said that the amount alleged to have been spent in bribery in that case was small, and that no court of law would convict.

  491
  parties upon the evidence which had been brought before the Committee. But the truth was that the existence of the bribery had been so open and so notorious, that it had not been found necessary to enter into any detailed evidence in support of the case of the petitioners as far as regarded that fact. The Committee might, as was alleged, be destitute of experience on criminal points, but they had common sense to guide them in the inquiries which they had pursued; their investigations had not been made with any design of obtaining materials for a conviction against Daniel Boyes, for after the admission by counsel for the sitting Member that bribery at the election had been undoubted, open, and general, the only question remaining to be decided was, whether such practices had taken place with the privity of the sitting Member, or of any agent of his. All that the Committee recommended was, that Boyes should be put upon his trial; that all the evidence which could be obtained should be adduced against him, and that he should have the fullest opportunity of clearing himself if it were in his power to do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that other persons had been guilty of bribery, and that no Motion had been brought before the House for putting them upon their trial. But the Committee had nothing to do with those other cases; their only duty was to consider what course the House ought to take upon the evidence which had been adduced in the course of their own inquiries. He might add, however, that if guilt had in their opinion been satisfactorily established against any other persons, they would have made a similar recommendation with regard to them. The hon. and learned Member had further indulged in a variety of insinuations against the Committee, and among other things he had suggested that they were influenced by party motives in the Report which they had made. He had had no opportunity of consulting the other Gentlemen who had acted on that Committee, but he believed he might say in their names, as well as in his own, that he would not condescend to allude further to such an insinuation. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the proceedings of other Committees, with which the Committee on the Beverley Election had nothing whatever to do, for it was one of the imperfections of the present system that particular cases were tried without the slightest opportunity of knowing what was going on in the adjoining Committee-room.
  492
  In conclusion, he might mention—though he felt almost ashamed of the necessity for doing so—that the Committee by whom the Report had been made in the Beverley case consisted of three Gentlemen from the Liberal, and only two from the Conservative side of the House.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, it was his intention to support the original Motion for the prosecution of Boyes and Taylor as he conceived it to he no valid reason for postponing or abandoning the trial of those who had been shown to be offenders that a greater number had not been discovered. So far from joining with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr.D. Seymour) in the fear that the prosecution would not be successful, and that delinquents of a higher grade in society would thus be screened, he believed that the effect of the trial would be to render the case even more powerful against those whom the hon. Member was so anxious to bring to the bar of criminal justice. But if the prosecution were deferred till some comprehensive measure had been passed rendering everybody amenable who had been guilty of corrupt offences, the probable result would be that these men would escape and all the others with them. The fact that Taylor and Boyes were Liberals only made him the more anxious that they should be prosecuted. It had been suggested on their behalf that bribery could not be proved unless the money were given in the presence of half-a-dozen witnesses; but if no prosecution were to take place for bribery till cases occurred where bribes were thus publicly given, he was afraid that his hon. and learned Friend would have to wait a long time. However, in Boyes' case no less than eight witnesses were forthcoming to give direct or corroborative evidence of the acts of bribery in which he had been concerned. He wished to know, if the House declined to interfere in a case like the present, where the bribery had been extensive, systematic and notorious—where a Committee had reported the fact to the House, and had recommended that the two principals in that bribery should be prosecuted, and where, lastly, the Chairman of that Committee had moved that the recommendation contained in their Report should be acted on, under what possible combination of circumstances could the House ever again direct a prosecution? The practical effect of such a course would be, not as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Digby Seymour) supposed, that criminals would be changed into martyrs,

  493
  but the country would be led, and with some show of reason, to believe that the House was not in earnest in its professions of a desire to put down these offences; and Committees would for the future abandon the thankless task of making the reports to the House. If the existing constitutional checks were not applied when a flagrant case of bribery was exposed, it would be as well to put a stop to legislation on the subject altogether, to remove the existing barriers, and to trust for repression to what some hon. Gentlemen considered an infallible remedy—the Ballot. He believed that the Ballot would tend to restrain bribery, though it might not afford a panacea for all the evils which were complained of at elections. Whatever measure might be adopted with a view to future advantage, it was manifest that beneficial results must follow from the vigilant administration of the law in the present instance.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was a well-established principle of Parliamentary tactics, when a remedy which was clear, definite, and simple in its nature, was proposed for a recognized grievance, for some hon. Member to come forward and impeach the remedy upon the ground of its limited nature, and to recommend to the House some wide and comprehensive measure which was not likely to be immediately adopted, which would probably be postponed until the Greek Kalends, and which, by being impracticable, and substituted for that which was practicable, might defeat the measure which was proposed to the House. He did not accuse the hon. and learned Member for Southampton of resorting to any mala fide proposal for the purpose of defeating this measure. He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member really felt fired with the indignation he had so eloquently expressed, and thought that it was incumbent upon the House immediately to take measures for the wholesale proscription and prosecution of persons charged with bribery. He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member was perfectly sincere; but he must permit him (Sir George Lewis) to differ from him as to the propriety as well as the policy of the course he had recommended. It appeared to him that the duty of the House was alike plain and simple. The Committee appointed to inquire into the Beverley election found that two persons had been guilty of very flagrant and manifest bribery, and recommended that a prosecution should be instituted. The hon. and learned Member
  494
  objected to the recommendation, partly on the ground that those persons were not of sufficient social eminence, and partly because the prosecution, if instituted, would fail. The latter objection seemed to rest on very uncertain conjecture. The object of the Committee who inquired into the case was not to get up evidence for the purpose of founding a prosecution thereon; they merely collected evidence to support the recommendation which they might make to the House, and there was no sufficient reason for doubting that if this case were put into the hands of the Solicitor to the Treasury, aided by the professional skill of the Attorney General, he would be able to obtain evidence upon which a prosecution might be founded with reasonable hope of success. The Motion proposed to order the Attorney General to institute a prosecution, and that was the received form in which this House usually instructed the Attorney General. But if the Attorney General on examination should come to the opinion that the evidence would not support a prosecution, and if he expressed that opinion to the House, he (Sir George Lewis) would venture to predict with some confidence that the House would not be so unreasonable as to insist upon the execution of its order. At all events, without pretending to anticipate that decision, he felt sure that it would give a patient hearing to any information which the Attorney General might think it would be his duty to give. That, he thought, was a sufficient answer to the doubts which had been thrown out with regard to the probable success of this prosecution. The remarks made with regard to social eminence and the amount of bribery had received a sufficient answer from the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn), but it seemed to him that if that House were in earnest with respect to the prosecution of cases of bribery, where the offence appeared manifest, it must begin by taking some few cases pointed out in the Reports of Election Committees. It was a strange argument to contend that, because one man was prosecuted, impunity was given to others, and as well might it be said in respect to the ordinary execution of the criminal law that because one man was indicted for petty larceny another could not be prosecuted for burglary. As far as the present case went, it was quite clear that it would be a precedent for the prosecution of others guilty of greater amount of bribery. If it were right that persons reported against by other

  495
  Election Committees, or by the recent Commissions issued in respect of Wakefield and Gloucester, should be prosecuted, he was sure that the House, if those persons had not received certificates from the Commissioners, and if there appeared a prospect of success in the prosecutions, would listen to any hon. Member who should feel disposed to bring the subject under consideration. It was, therefore, a reason in favour of the present Motion that it established a principle applicable to all cases
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHwished to a correct misapprehension into which the hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour) had fallen. He had represented Mr. Glover, the late Member for Beverley, as receiving a formal acquittal, and as having proceeded in a carriage and four through that town in a very triumphal manner. Now that was not a correct representation as far as regards the merits of the case. Mr. Glover received a mitigation of the sentence from the Home Office mainly on the ground that the law under which the offence was committed had been subsequently abolished. Indeed, so soon as it appeared to be the intention of the House to abrogate the law requiring a qualification for Members of Parliament, it was felt desirable that no person should remain in prison expiating a penalty for the disregard of an obligation, which the law had ceased any longer to impose.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  "That in pursuance of the Recommendation of the Select Committee appointed to try the several Petitions against the Return for the Borough of Beverley, Her Majesty's Attorney General be directed to prosecute Daniel Boyes and Robert Taylor for Bribery committed by them at the Election for the said Borough in April, 1859."

CHURCH RATES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. HUBBARD, in asking for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of church rates, said he trusted he should need no other justification for bringing before the House the question of the law of church rates than the importance of the subject itself, the wide difference of opinion which prevailed respecting it, and the general desire that was felt to come to some settlement. The Bill he had prepared proposed to take a middle course between the extreme views which were entertained on
  496
  either side. But it was not in the nature of a compromise. True, it occupied a middle ground which might fairly be the meeting place of those who held the most contrary opinions) but he repeated that it was not a compromise so far as he was concerned, for in the Bill which he begged to move nothing was conceded which he did not believe to be required by justice, and nothing was retained that could be lawfully conceded. The measure had been framed with a sincere desire to meet and to satisfy every complaint which could be fairly urged by those who were dissatisfied, and who were not members of the Church of England. But, on the other hand, it abstained from needlessly injuring the interests of religion by interfering with those settled means which Churchmen possessed for raising amongst themselves the funds which were requisite for the sustentation of their religious edifices, and for the maintenance of the services within them. The House would permit him briefly to explain the nature of the few clauses of which the Bill was composed. In the first place, it contemplated that those who did not conform to the services of the Church of England might, upon due notice given of an intention to make a rate, state that they did not conform to her services, and were desirous of not contributing to the rate. These two positions were not always concurrent, but if any persons should be at once dissidents from the communion of the church and unwilling to pay the rate, they should then be relieved from any liability to contribute thereto. These hostile elements being thus eliminated from the vestry, that body would then consist of a church vestry so called, and in that vestry, as a matter of course, no nonconformist would find his place, for he could not very well be excused from contributing to a rate for a special purpose, and yet claim a right either to take part in raising that rate or in disbursing the funds so raised; and in the church vestry thus constituted no other question would be raised than that which related to the raising and the application of such rates. It had long been the complaint that in various parts of the country, and particularly in towns, many churches and district chapels were forced to contribute to rates which were levied and disbursed by the mother church, whilst they themselves had in addition the onus imposed upon them of providing for their own expenditure. One of the clauses of his Bill would remedy that inequality in the existing practice—it would constitute every such district church or

  497
  chapel an ecclesiastical district, and recognize in it a power of raising a rate for its own purposes; and upon the raising of such rate every such church or chapel would be exonerated from contributing to any other church whatever. The only other clause which he need mention was one that would assimilate both the assessment and mode of collecting church rates to that which prevailed with regard to poor rates, and would withdraw the cognizance of such cases entirely from the ecclesiastical courts. He would say no more descriptive of the contents of the measure. He was anxious that the House should permit the Bill to be printed and laid before it, and he would only-say in conclusion that it had been prepared with an earnest desire to contribute towards the settlement of this long-litigated question, and individually he might add that in the part he had taken in the matter he was influenced by two feelings that were perfectly compatible—one, an entire and frank admission of the principle of civil and religious liberty; the other, a dutiful allegiance and loyalty to the Church of England.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Law of Church Rates ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUBBARD and Lord ROBERT CECIL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

ANCHORS, ETC.—(MERCHANT SERVICE.)

  SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that it was in the knowledge of all who had considered the subject of which he had given notice, that imperfection in the cables and anchors which were manufactured for the mercantile service annually led to a very great loss of life and property. He begged the House, therefore, to bear with him for a few minutes whilst he laid before them a statement which he thought would warrant them in granting him a Committee to inquire into a matter of even so unusual a nature as that of an article of manufacture. It was about forty years since chain cables were first introduced for the use of shipping, and in 1832 a test was instituted by the Government for trying the strength of cables used in Her Majesty's service. In 1840 a disaster occurred at Liverpool in a tempest—the floating lights of that harbour were blown adrift. This led to an investigation by the corporation, and the substitution of chain instead of ordinary cables in light vessels. The corporation, on that occasion, tendered for the maximum s trength of the chain cables, and so
  498
  successful were they that no accident had since occurred to the light vessels in that port from weakness of the cables. Previous to this a testing machine was erected by an eminent merchant there, which was subsequently made over to the corporation, and is now carried on under their control. A testing-house had been since established at Sunderland. The House would be surprised to hear that no less than 82½ per cent of chain cables sent to the former testing-house broke, and no doubt many of the losses which had been sustained, both of life and property, were attributable to the weakness of the cables used. In 1859, Mr. Blake was deputed, by the operative chainmakers, to address the directors of the Merchant Shipping Association and others on the subject. He stated, on behalf of the chainmakers, that the inferiority of untested chains was very great, and caused an enormous annual loss of life. They therefore prayed that some remedy might be adopted, which should prevent the use of inferior chains. In 1857, Mr. M'Donald, the superintendent of the chain cable testing machinery at Liverpool, reported to the corporation that a great many of the chains made and tested upon the hydraulic principle were defective, that innumerable cracks were discovered after the manufacturer's test, and that from the great strictness with which the duty of examining chains was performed, the manufacturers were somewhat opposed to the trial, while the testing establishment was, in his opinion, in a high degree entitled to the public confidence. Mr. M'Donald had, moreover, on the 13th of January, in the present year, made mention of the case of the Royal Charter as affording evidence of the necessity which existed for insisting upon an efficient public test of cables. He added that from 1855 to 1859 it was found at the testing-house that 82¼ per cent of chain cables sent to be tested inferior, and 58½ per cent of close chain for topsail sheets; and on the 20th of the same month he stated, in a report, that he had the history of every chain sent in to be tested—the number of fathoms which had failed, and the cause of the defects. With regard to the expense of the machine, it might be stated that the machine at Liverpool was self-supporting, consequently that objection could not be urged as a grievance. It was lamentable to see the ignorance of shipowners and surveyors in this respect, and it was very culpable on the part of Lloyd's to insure vessels which

  499
  went to sea with untested cables. He would give the House instances of three vessels which had been wrecked in consequence of the weakness of chain cables. It would be recollected that the Tayleur sailed from Liverpool, and in passing down the Irish Channel she could not be brought about. She dropped three anchors in succession, but in each instance the chain broke, and every soul on board was lost. The loss of the Prince at Balaclava had been attributed to the fouling of her screw, which prevented her from using her steam-power, while the loss of the Royal Charter was attributed to the surging of her cables consequent on the use of her steam; all the men-of-war rode out the Balaclava gale, and the probability is that the Prince would have done so too if her ground-tackle had been as good as theirs. It was, however, a moot point whether it was desirable to work a vessel under such circumstance up to her anchor. The Royal Charter had two chains, and the weather was moderating when her cable parted. It was known that 13 s. 6d. a cwt. was paid for her cables, and it was said that sum was below the price that ought to have been given for good iron. Further, it was the belief of all competent judges that it was entirely owing to the superiority of her chain cables and anchors that enabled the Great Eastern to ride out the fearful gale which wrecked so many vessels while she was at Holyhead. With respect to anchors, he would not go into that question, because the same reasoning applied to it as to cables; but he would merely observe, that when the question of anchors was first considered by the Great Eastern Company, it was found that if an ordinary description of anchor were used, it would require one thirteen tons in weight, and grave doubts were entertained whether it would be possible to handle such anchors in rough weather. The company, however, had adopted Trotman's anchors, which gave the greatest strength in proportion to their size, and subsequently it was found their adoption had been attended with success. The improvement in the manufacture of iron within the last few years was so great by means of the cold-blast system, that cables' could now be made of a strength which was unheard of twenty or thirty years ago. In a ninety-gun ship in the navy, the cable was 2¼ inches. The extreme strain such a cable was calculated to bear was 120 tons, and the proof two-thirds of that, or 82
  500
  tons. But in the Great Eastern the cable being 2⅝, or only three-eighths more than the other, the maximum strain was 240, and the proof 170 tons. If these results can be relied upon it is possible, at a small additional expense, to furnish ships with cables which will hold them in any weather; and, on these grounds, he asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade to consent to the appointment of a Committee on a subject so deeply affecting the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects. If it were appointed, he could bring evidence quite sufficient to prove that it would be beneficial for the shipowners to adopt cables such as would hold ships in any gale. In every respect the question was so important, that although his Motion was of a somewhat unusual character, he thought there could be no objection to the granting of the Committee.
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURseconded the Motion.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that although it was true the Motion was not very usual, yet, inasmuch as he thought it quite possible the investigation would bring out some interesting information, and be generally useful, the Government would not oppose the appointment of the Committee. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had already obtained a return with respect to anchors, which might be useful to the Committee. At the same time he must say, that the Government had no intention of appointing a department for the purpose of seeing that merchant vessels carried proper chain cables and anchors, for shipowners already considered that the Government interfered too much with them, by surveying their vessels, and taking care of the public interest. He thought it would be a very easy thing for shipowners to make it incumbent upon the manufacturers of chain cables and anchors to have them tested; but if they chose such articles rather from their cheapness than strength, he did not see how anything could be done, nor did he see how they could be assisted by the establishment of a Government test. At the present moment very valuable Admiralty charts were published at a cheap rate, but merchant shipowners seemed very little obliged to them for the boon, and he believed that many ships went to sea without them, their owners preferring, for the sake of economy, to buy charts of an inferior character. The Great Britain herself, he was informed,

  501
  went ashore in Dundrum Bay mainly from the circumstance that she had not the Admiralty chart on board. There would be no objection on his part to the appointment of the Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the manufacture of Anchors and Chain Cables for the Merchant Service."
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock.