Commons Sitting of 1 June 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE nominated—Holyhead Harbour (List of Committee.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Civil Service Estimates.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Trout, &c. Fishing (Scotland) [Bill 146]; Navy Prize Money. &c. [Bill 147].
Second Reading—Dockyards Protection Act Amendment (Lords) * [Bill 130]; Port Erin Harbour (Isle of Man)* [Bill 123]; African Slave Trade Treaty [Bill 144].
Committee—Vice Admiralty Courts (Lords)* [Bill 129]; Cayman Islands (Lords)* [Bill 132]; Alkali Works Regulation (Lords)* [Bill 135]; Offences (South Africa) (Lords) [Bill 118], on re-committal—R.P.
Report—Vice Admiralty Courts*.
Considered as amended—Inland Revenue [Bill 97], re-committed, considered, and reported [Bill 145].
Third Reading-New Zealand Boundaries* (Lords) [Bill 112].
Withdrawn-Admiralty Court (Ireland)*[Bill 41].

CHINA—DEATH OF LIEUTENANT TINLING.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he wished to correct an answer which he gave on Friday night to the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) with regard to the death of Lieutenant Tinling. He had then stated that the Admiralty had received no official intelligence with regard to the death of that Officer. He found that on the day previous there had been received a letter addressed by Captain Dew to his superior officer, Admiral Kuper, in these terms—
"Encounter, Ningpo, March 16.
"Sir,—I deeply regret having to report to you the death, on the 5th instant, of Acting-Lieutenant Tinling, of this, ship, from the effects of a wound received under the walls of Shou-hing. The service has lost in him a most gallant and promising officer.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Tour most obedient servant,
"R. DEW, Captain."
These were the only particulars which the Admiralty had.

RECRUITING IN IRELAND FOR THE FEDERALS.—QUESTION.
MR. HOPWOODsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Federals are recruiting in Ireland, and if they are preparing to take active steps to prevent it?
SIR ROBERT PEEL, in reply, said, the Government had no direct information that recruiting had taken place in Ireland. They were aware that agents from the United States had been there, but of course there was no open recruiting. A great number of young men had certainly gone from Ireland to America, and on inquiry the Government had found that their passages had been paid; and there was every reason to suppose that those Irishmen, in America, had been induced by the Federal authorities to enlist in the
176
Federal army. The Government here were following the matter up, and were taking steps to discover the delinquents if they could. The recruiting, however, Was not done openly.

OFFICERS OF THE LATE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Why any Officer of the late Indian Army, now, doing duty at the depôt at Canterbury, should not receive the pay due to his rank; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make up to the Widows and Orphans of the Indian Service the loss they have sustained by the late decision respecting Lord Clive's Bounty? These Officers had been doing duty, he believed, at the recruiting depôt at Canterbury, and had received no pay whatever since the 1st of June last. On the 13th of May the army agents of one of these Officers received a letter from the Secretary of War's Office, stating that before replying it was necessary to communicate with the Under Secretary of State for India; but that an answer would be sent as soon as a reply to that communication was received. Upon another application being made, it was stated that no reply from the Under Secretary of State for India had been received, and the agents deemed it useless to make any further application. There was one case which he knew—["Order!"]—He considered, it necessary to explain the case, in order to make the Question intelligible. ["Order!"]
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply, said, he could not complain of the hon. Gentleman attempting some explanation of the Question on the Paper, because he could not learn, as far as the War Office and the India Office were concerned, that there was any Officer doing duty at Canterbury who was not receiving the pay due to his rank. He apprehended that his hon. Friend was mistaken as to the facts. What his hon. Friend probably referred to was the case of some Officers whose furlough had expired, and who had not been put on active duty in England. Indian Officers, on coming home, were allowed to remain on furlough, receiving certain pay for two years and a half. If they overstayed their furlough, they received no pay. They were no longer entitled to pay under the Indian regulations, and they were not entitled to pay until they commenced

  177
  doing duty under the War Office regulations. If this was not the case to which his hon. Friend referred, he could not guess what it was. But for the pay of officers serving at the depôts of the new regiments the War Office, and not the India Office, was responsible. With regard to the second Question of his hon. Friend, the decision of the House of Lords was only given two or three days ago, and a point was to be referred for the opinion of the Judges. The amount paid to widows and orphans of the Indian. Service was twenty or thirty times as much as was received from the Clive Fund.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question, which was, whether any Officer or Officers have been doing duty at Canterbury without receiving any pay?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that so far as he could learn from the War Office—for it had nothing to do with his own Department—no such state of things as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred existed, and no Officer was doing duty at Canterbury who was not in the receipt of full pay.

VENTILATION OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in this warm weather, it would not be better to ventilate the House by the ordinary expedient of opening the windows, rather than continue the present mode of shutting the windows carefully, and pumping up the air from the cellars below the House?
  MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that his opinion was, that if the windows were open, as the hon. Gentleman proposed, the air that would be admitted would be neither so cool nor so pure as that which they were then enjoying. The hon. Gentleman, however, was mistaken in supposing that the air they were breathing was pumped out of the cellars. If the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to go below, he would see that the air was admitted in the most natural and easy way into a chamber below the House; there it was purified; it was washed in a shower of pure water; and the air was afterwards passed through a canvas filter where all the floating impurities were intercepted. It then came through the floor, and travelled at the rate of one foot a minute towards the
  178
  ceiling. The air was warmed in winter by hot water, and was iced in summer. The object Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney had in view was, that the air in all seasons should be of an equal temperature, that of 64 degrees of the thermometer. Sometimes it varied a degree above or below, rarely more. On Friday evening last, when the hon. Member wished to have the windows open, the thermometer outside the House was 78 degrees, while the thermometer in the House was only 65 degrees; so that if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion had been adopted, the windows would have admitted into the House air that was 13 degrees hotter than they were then breathing. He (Mr Cowper) had no prejudice against opening windows, and the rule adopted was, when the air outside was near 64 degrees, the windows were opened; when it was considerably more, they were kept closed.
  LORD ROBERT CECILinquired what the cost of the ventilation was.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he could not state it separately, as it was included in the warming and lighting of the House.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that one of the floors through which the air came was the floor on which they trod.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the floor and its covering were frequently washed and cleaned.

THE GALWAY PACKET SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Galway Packet Company are bound by their contract to land Mails as well as Telegrams when the Ships call at St. John's, Newfoundland?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that he understood the question of the hon. Member to refer to the Contract of 1859, inasmuch as no other had yet been concluded. In accordance with that Contract the Government thought the Company were bound to land Mails as well as Telegrams at St. John's, but the Company took a different view. The Galway Packet Committee, he might add, which sat in 1861, declined to express any opinion as to the true construction of the Contract, which was the point on which the matter depended.

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he rose to ask, Whether any arrangement has been

179
come to between the Government and the Commissioners of the International Exhibition with respect to the appropriation of the Exhibition Building to any particular use?
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know when the subject would be brought on?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, an arrangement had been come to by the Government, but subject to the approval of Parliament, to purchase the interest of the Commissioners in the site of the Exhibition Building, and a certain limited portion of the building which belonged to them, for £120,000; and likewise to purchase the interest of the Contractors in the residue of the Building, not including the annexes, which were altogether separate, but nearly the whole of the residue, for £80,000. His noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), who had just entered the House, would perhaps in the course of the evening be able to fix an early day when the subject would be brought under the consideration of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I propose to bring on the matter on Monday next.

RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the Government proposed to lay on the table further papers in reference to Brazil?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he had that afternoon laid on the table further papers on the subject.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, it was only within a very short time he had heard—and; he had heard it with great regret—that Diplomatic relations had been interrupted between this country and Brazil. Under the circumstances, he was anxious to know whether the Government would lay on the table any additional Papers relative to the misunderstanding with Brazil, so that the House might be able to form an early judgment as to the state of affairs.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he must repeat the statement which he had made in the absence of the hon. Gentleman, to the effect that additional Papers had already been laid on the table.

CASE OF THE "ALEXANDRA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he wished to ask,
  180
  in the absence of Mr. Attorney General, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, When the case of the Alexandra is to be tried?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that he was unable to give the hon. Gentleman the information he desired.

  SPITHEAD FORTS.—QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he rose to ask, What course the Government proposed to take with respect to the Spit-head Forts?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would have very shortly to move for leave to bring in a Bill to authorize the issue of Terminable Annuities for the continuance of the Fortifications now in progress. On that occasion it would be his duty to give explanations about everything connected with the subject.

INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 97.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would propose the omission of Clause 21, and the substitution of the following clause:—
  "Whereas it is expedient to alter and amend the conditions and restrictions upon and under which occasional licences to sell beer, spirits, or wine, may be granted and used, as provided by the 13th section of the Act passed in the 25th and 26th years of her Majesty's reign, chapter 22: Be it enacted as follows:—1. That the consent of one justice of the peace, as in the said section mentioned, only shall be necessary. 2. That the hours during which such occasional licence shall authorize the sale of any beer, spirits, or wine, shall extend from sunrise to one hour after sunset. 3. That upon the occasion of any public dinner or ball it shall be lawful for the person who shall have obtained an occasional licence under the provisions of the said act, to sell the said liquors during such hours before or after sunrise or sunset as shall be allowed and specified in that behalf in the consent to be given by the justice of the peace for the granting of such occasional licence."
  Under the operation of the act of last year a licensed victualler was obliged to procure the consent of two justices, acting for the petty sessional division in which his house was situated, in order to enable him to sell his liquors elsewhere. Now, although there might be no objection whatever to granting the occasional licence which he sought for that purpose, yet there was often very great difficulty in procuring the assent of two justices, as prescribed by the law. A case had come within his own knowledge in which a man had travelled about fur two days without being able to find two justices. An unnecessary hardship was therefore, he thought, in that respect inflicted, and

  181
  he proposed that the law should be so far relaxed as that the consent of only one justice should in these eases be required The other relaxation which he desired to have introduced referred to the hours a which liquors might be sold under the operation of occasional licences. When a cricket match took place, for instance, it very often happened that a meal was post poned until after dusk in order that play might be continued and the match concluded. Now, he found that one minute past nine was the latest hour of sunset, and he wished to have the time extended one hour beyond that, instead of being confined within the present limit.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought no good case had been made out in favour of the proposed relaxations. When the existing Act was passed, it was pointed out that occasional licences might be extremely mischievous in their consequences, inasmuch as their effect would be virtually to bring the public-houses, from which it was the object of clergymen and others to withdraw the people, by providing for them amusement elsewhere, to those very places of recreation. He thought it was therefore a wise provision of the law that the assent of two justices should be obtained before a man could obtain such a licence; otherwise there would be no sufficient guarantee that they would be granted with due caution, One justice, for instance, might be a brewer, or a maker of gin, and would naturally give a licence with delight and as a matter of course. It was desirable, therefore, in his opinion, that the privilege of obtaining occasional licences should be hedged round with the safeguard of rendering the sanction of a second justice indispensable.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry to find that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets objected to the clause, which appeared to him to be a rational Amendment of the law. When these occasional licenses were proposed last year, they were an experiment, and there was a strong feeling in the House that they ought, on moral and social grounds, to guard the experiment with an amount of restriction which would prevent its being liable to abuse. The Act in which the proposal was embodied had been in operation twelve months, and had been acted upon very extensively, no less than 10,000 licences having been taken out under it, and in no single instance had any mischievous consequences resulted, to his
  182
  knowledge. The effect of the Act, he might add, was not so much to introduce a new practice as to place under restriction a practice, founded on necessity, which had grown up without the law, and in a certain sense in spite of the law. He certainly thought a considerable restriction was imposed with reference to a licence which could not last more than three (lays, and might only last one. He thought they ought not to impose restrictions which were not necessary for the purposes of revenue and police. Neither for one purpose nor the other was it necessary to have the signature of more than one magistrate, and on those grounds he entirely assented to the proposal of the hon. Member.
  Clause (Alteration of the Law relating to Occasional Licences) brought up, and read 1o; 2o.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would move the addition of words reducing the duty to be paid for those licences from 5s. to 2s. 6d. Such a reduction would cause the number of such licences to be largely increased. He knew an instance of a cricket club, which was in danger of being destroyed, because the publican who supplied it with refreshments thought that 5s. was too large a sum to pay for a licence every time the members assembled.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "in lieu of the Duty now chargeable there shall be charged for every Occasional Licence the sum of two shillings and sixpence."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not see that his hon. Friend had made out any case. If the club to which he referred suffered so much from the high price of this licence, how did it manage before the occasional licences were introduced last year? The usual principle was to make the payment for an occasional licence rather heavier than the charge for one for the whole year. The charge for the ordinary public-house licence was £17, or about 1s. a day. The charge for these occasional licences, which were good for three days, amounted to 1s. 8d. a day, or only 8d. more than that for the yearly licence; while the proposal of his hon. Friend would reduce it to 10 d. a day, or less than that paid for the annual licence. Although he could not assent to the proposal, he should not, when the

  183
  House had more information before it, refuse to re-consider the Question.
  MR. KER SEYMERsaid, that without knowing anything of the cricket-club referred to, he had no doubt that the way it managed before the introduction of the system of occasional licences was by the regular infraction of the law: At the same time, he would recommend his right hon. Friend to make the small concession asked by the hon. Member for Sussex. When there were but small gatherings of people, the publican could not afford to pay so much for the licence.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought the observations of the hon. Member had great weight in them. He had been a cricketer all his life, and he never knew a case where they were not supplied with beer. It was illegal, but it was done.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had not heard a Single complaint of the injurious operation of the law, and he therefore thought it desirable to wait a little before making any alteration.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that if a reduction was to be made, it would, in his opinion, be better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exercise his generosity at once.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would he wise to consent to the Amendment, because in such, small matters there Was more worry than the revenue obtained was worth. Unless the amount charged for a licence to sell at small cricket matches was reduced, people would get some dodge to evade the law, and no revenue would be obtained. People would have beer, and all the Chancellors of the Exchequers in the world would not stop them. They had been accustomed to have their beer, they ought to have it, and they would do so. Not more than half a barrel of beer probably was consumed at a village cricket match, and the tax proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would run away with all the profits. Everybody obeyed the law as long as compliance was not very inconvenient; when it became so, means were somehow found of evading it.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should put the licence at 2s. 6d. a day for each day that it was used.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexpressed his readiness to adopt that suggestion, and added that he would,
  184
  at a future stage, introduce a provision for the purpose of carrying it into effect.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause added.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved to insert Clause (Commissioners of Taxes for any Division of a County may hold their Meetings within an adjoining City or other Place of exclusive Jurisdiction).
  Clause agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the income tax hitherto had not been deducted from dividends in the funds where these were less in amount than 50 s., oh account of the smallness of the recipient's interest. That principle, however, had been entirely altered by the passing of the Stock Certificates Bill, for even the largest holder in the funds might now receive his dividends in very small amounts. With regard to so much of the dividends, therefore, as were paid in the shape of coupons attached to the certificates, it was obviously necessary to repeal the provision. He therefore begged to move that—
  "Whereas by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, c., certificates of title to shares in the public stocks are authorized to be issued having annexed coupons entitling the bearer to the dividends payable in respect thereof, and by section 11 of the same Act it is enacted that the income tax shall be deducted from any coupons payable under the said Act in like manner as it may be deducted from the dividends payable at the Bank in respect of the stock of proprietors inscribed in the books of the Bank, be it enacted, that the income tax shall be deducted from any such coupons as aforesaid, although the half-yearly payment thereon shall; not amount to 50 s., anything in any former Act to the contrary notwithstanding."
  Clause added.
  MR. HUNTsaid, there was an accidental omission in the Highways Act of last Session which he desired to remedy. That Act, in necessitating an immense number of instruments liable to stamp duty, virtually imposed a new tax upon the ratepayers. That was an indirect consequence of the General Stamp Act, and was not foreseen last Session when the Bill was passing; and he thought that both upon principle and according to precedent he could justify the exemption for which he contended. This was, that when the Legislature superseded the old system of discharging functions by introducing a new system of paid agency, stamp duty ought not to be imposed for the first time.

  185
  The Now Poor Law Act expressly exempted from stamp duty every kind of instrument required to carry out its provisions, and the principle of that Act was on all fours with the Highway Act of last Session. Under the old Highway Act parishes were empowered, if they chose, to appoint paid surveyors, and the appointment was exempt from the stamp duty. It was true that under another Act parishes might form themselves into districts, and appoint a paid surveyor, and in that case the appointments might he subject to stamp duty; but that enactment was a dead letter, there being no case in which such a district had been formed, and there fore the question of liability had never arisen. The 23 & 24 Vict., c. 68, the Act for the formation of highway districts in South Wales, upon which the English Act of last year was modelled, contained exemptions in express terms; and he did not see why the law for the two countries should differ upon this point, lie there fore begged to move—
  "That no mortgage, bond, instrument, or any assignment thereof, given by Way of security, in pursuance of the provisions of the 12th section of an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament, intituled 'An Act for the Better Management of Highways in England,' nor any contract or agreement or appointment of any officer, made or entered into in pursuance of any of the provisions of such last-mentioned Act, shall be charged or chargeable with any stamp duty whatever."
  Clause brought up, and read]o.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he trusted the House would not accede to the Motion of the hon. Member, and thereby encourage the pernicious practice of creating exemptions under the general law. He thought it very inconvenient that the House, without having the general subject before it, should be asked, almost at the last stage of a revenue Bill, to affirm such a proposition. He did not hesitate to say, that if the exemption were one which ought to be entertained, a Bill calling attention to the subject should have been introduced. The discussion with reference to exemptions was mainly carried on in that House by the Members who had a special interest in the subject, and there was no regulation that the opinion of the finance department or of Her Majesty's Government should be taken on proposals of the kind; and therefore he was not
  186
  prepared to admit as precedents exemptions which might have been hastily or inconsiderately sanctioned. The hon. Member stated that the Poor Law established an exemption from the payment of stamp duties; but that law was passed at a period when the burdens on land were pressing with extreme severity. It was necessary at that time to unite the judgments of men in favour of a great measure of reform, and there were therefore particular reasons for permitting such an anomaly to be introduced. The General Highways Act, 5 & 6 Will. IV., united parishes into districts, and sanctioned the appointment of paid officers, but did not free those appointments from stamp duty.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. By section 9, those appointments were expressly exempted from stamp duty, and by another section, the bond given by the collector to the surveyor was also free from stamp duty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not been aware of these exemptions. The hon. Member had also referred to the exemptions under the South Wales Act. That Act was passed under peculiar circumstances, which made such an exemption popular and desirable. The question, however, was settled last Session, when the House passed a Highways Act for the whole country without the exemption. There was an immense multitude of agencies of local government and authority, for counties, parishes, cities, and municipal bodies of different kinds, and the House ought to determine whether it was right that all those subalterns of local government should be discharged from all obligations to the revenue. If not, there was no special gound for exemption in the case of the Highways Act. The question was rather as to the time and manner of abolishing these anomalous exemptions than of extending them, for they were attended with great inconvenience, and caused great dissatisfaction. If the House thought that all these local authorities ought to be exempt from payment to the Imperial exchequer, it would be most unjust to confine the exemption to particular persons employed under the Act.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to show why the principle of the exemptions established by the South Wales Act should not equally apply to appointments under the Highways Act. It was thought right to free the appointments under the Poor Law and

  187
  in the Highways Act of William IV. from stamp duty, because the burden really fell on the ratepayers. He trusted that the House would divide with him.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should support his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), because he did not think it fair to impose additional fiscal burdens upon the class who paid highway rate. The area of property liable to maintain the roads and similar burdens was very restricted, ranging between £80,000,000 and £90,000,000, while personal property was exempt. He, for one, would do nothing to increase the burdens on that property; nor was it fair to say that any officer appointed under the Highways Act should pay a new tax as stamp duty on his appointment.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the exemption in the South Wales Act was not even referred to in the Committee which sat on the Act of last Session. No one at that time seemed to have thought for one moment that it ought to be extended any further.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYobserved, that the reason why that had been the case was because the question never arose. The Members of the Committee thought that the Inspectors would be no more liable to the tax than they were under the old law; otherwise the point would certainly have been mooted. There was no reason why an English surveyor should be called on to pay a stamp duty of £25, when a Welsh one, with exactly the same salary, paid nothing.
  Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey), in answering the appeal made to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had conclusively given his authority in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Northampton, because, though the right hon. Baronet had said that the question had not been raised in the Committee, he was not able to say that the Home Office by his direction had left out that particular exemption on purpose. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it might be right to revise the whole system of these exemptions, but it was hardly right to lay upon one part of the community a burden not borne by another.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his late right hon. Friend (Sir George Cornewall Lewis), who held the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department before his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey), was the person
  188
  under whose authority the Bill referred to was revised; and as he never made the proposal to the Treasury to agree to that exemption, he was justified in saying that it was not thought by the Government that the exemption was right. He never said that there were good reasons why the exemption should be made in the case of South Wales, but that there might have been reasons of a local nature. Now, he entreated the House—
  MR. LYGONrose to order. The right hon. Gentleman had already addressed the House; and the practice of the House was; that a Member should be heard only once on the same Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak on the Question now before the House, which is, that the clause be read a second time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Lygon) had listened with great satisfaction to the second speech of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), but his impartial mind could not bear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be allowed to speak a second time. If an exemption of the kind were to be given, it ought not to be introduced upon the Report of the Inland Revenue Bill, and sanctioned by a single vote of the House. It was an anomaly of a kind which essentially required to be considered in conjunction with other collateral subjects bearing upon it, and it was impossible to give it that consideration in the shape in which it was now proposed.
  MR. LYGONsaid, as he had always understood the rules of the House, they were, that a Member could address the House only once upon any Motion, but that a Member who proposed a Resolution had a right to reply. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), having brought forward a Motion, was entitled to speak in reply; but he was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been permitted to make a second speech. He ventured to think that the rules for the conduct of business had been well and wisely framed, and that they should carry on their business better by adhering to them. The right hon. Gentleman said that such a proposal as that made by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire ought not to be introduced upon the Report of the Bill; but that objection came with a singularly ill grace from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, during

  189
  the whole of the financial proceedings of the Session, had been begging hon. Members at each stage to take that stage pro formâ, as they should have another opportunity of discussing the matter on the Re-port. He sincerely hoped, after what had occurred, that on future occasions the House would see the inconvenience of taking stages pro formâ, and would insist in each case upon having the subject fully discussed.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that an hon. Member, having moved a clause, has a right to reply. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire moved a clause, and, having spoken upon it, a Motion was afterwards made that the clause be read a second time. That was a distinct Motion, upon which the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman had the power of speaking a second time.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had quite properly stated that the case of exemption had not been raised before the Committee. The Bill that was passed left unrepealed a very large number of clauses in the General Highways Act, which still continued in force. It was quite in the mind of the Committee that no taxation would attach to the appointment of paid surveyors. He was perfectly certain, had there not been such an impression, the exemption would have been proposed.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, with respect to the remark made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that £300 a year was a very large salary for a surveyor, he believed that it was not an unusually high one. It should be remembered that the surveyor in many cases was obliged to pay two or three sub-surveyors. He thought it was very hard on such men to have a further reduction of £20 or £25 made from their salaries.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed the House in a difficulty. In the first place, he said that the clause was not a proper thing to be introduced into the Bill; and when his hon. Friend quoted precedent after precedent, the right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, these precedents are not in point." The right hon. Gentleman, however, had shown no ground whatever why, if Wales were exempt, England should be taxed. The question of those exemptions was a very large one; but while things were left as they were, he did not see why England
  190
  should be taxed when Wales did not pay. He should, therefore, support the clause of the hon. Member.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 146: Majority 30.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would then move the re-committal of the Bill, for the purpose of inserting the clause passed in Committee of Ways and Means on the previous Friday, settling the duty on excursion trains. At the same time, he proposed to make another alteration of a technical character with reference to the time of taking out tobacco licences. It was generally very convenient that all persons who took out licences should take them out at the same time. Tobacco licences were chiefly taken out by teadealers and publicans, The teadealers' licences expired on the 5th of July, those of the publicans on the 10th of October. Now, although the teadealer could take out his tobacco licence at the same time as his other licences, the publican could not do so, and be proposed to enable the publican to take out his tobacco licence on the 10th of October, along with his other licences.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he thought that the proceeding of the Chancellor of the Exchequer furnished occasion for another of those protests which hon. Members had been obliged to address to the right hon. Gentleman so frequently during the Session. The right, hon. Gentleman had got the Resolution relating to excursion trains passed through Committee of Ways and Means the other evening, and he wished to thrust it into a Bill which had already passed a second reading. That proceeding might be orderly, but it was very inconvenient. He had given the House no notice, too, of his intention, and thus had taken hon. Members by surprise. It seemed to him that it would have been fairer to the opponents of taxes upon excursion trains if the right hon. Gentleman had given notice of this measure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no desire to proceed against the general feeling of the House; but the proceeding was strictly regular, and it would be very convenient not to delay bringing into operation the new arrangement.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had made that statement at first; he should not have said a word.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the parties interested in the change of duties on railway passengers had not been taken by surprise. They had been received with the greatest courtesy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their suggestions had been fully considered.
  Bill re-committed, in respect of Clauses relating to Railway Passengers and Tobacco and Snuff Licences; considered in Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in moving the insertion of the clause as to railways he might mention that the very judicious arrangement suggested by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), as to occasional licences, could not be carried into effect, because, although on the whole there would be a reduction in some cases, there would be an addition of taxation; and therefore a Resolution in Committee of the Whole House was necessary.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not know whether the clause as to excursion trains would in any way affect the 56 lb. of luggage allowed to third-class passengers by Act of Parliament.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the law would be unaltered, as the clause had no bearing whatever upon the 56 lb. of luggage allowed to third class passengers.
  Motion agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would then move the insertion of the clause as to tobacco duties.
  MR. LYGONremarked that the clauses ought to have been printed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the first clause had been printed. The other clause would be printed before the next stage, and the reason it had not been printed before was, that it was only suggested by an independent person on Saturday, and the Excise had to be consulted before the clause could be drawn.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND—CASE OF THE GIRL BENNETT.—QUESTION.
MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the question of which he had given notice, and which he had postponed on the previous Thursday, believing it to be the wish of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich that he should do so. The Royal Commissioners, appointed by Royal Charter for the management and conduct of the Patriotic Fund, had applied a portion of the funds furnished by the generosity of the nation to the establishment of two schools, a boys' school and a girls' school, and the sum devoted to the establishment of the girls' school was ample, being no less than £203,000. The girls' school, to which alone he need direct attention, was called the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, and was opened in 1859 with a limited number of inmates, which had been increased to 268, and was intended, and perhaps had been increased to 300. The school was at Wandsworth, and a girl named Bennett was subjected to solitary confinement for two days for some act of insubordination by the express direction of the chaplain. She was locked up for two days, being released at night to go to bed, and at half past eight in the evening of the same day, when another girl went to visit her, to take her food and to release her for the purpose of going to bed, she was found burnt to death. She was the daughter of a soldier, but not a pupil. She was too old to be admitted as a pupil, but she was admitted as a servant, for the purpose of instruction in domestic duties, and, he believed, received no wages. It was quite clear that she was a servant, and not a pupil, and he believed the chaplain had no more right to subject her to solitary confinement than to shut up an hon. Member of that House. An inquest was held, and a verdict was returned of accidental death. Having had communication with several members of the jury, he found that they entertained at the time the strongest feeling of dissatisfaction at the way in which the inquest was held. They complained very strongly of the limited nature of the inquiry, the evidence which was supplied being meagre and scanty, and still more of the absence of all investigation as to the person responsible for the most lamentable event which they had to inquire into. They had, never the less, appended no observations to their verdict, which was very strongly con-

193
demned by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. As he would have, before he sat down, to say something of the conduct of the lady superintendent, he thought it but right to mention that she was not at Wandsworth at the time of the occurrence of the accident to which he was referring, and that she had nothing to do with it. Two schoolmistresses had also been subsequently dismissed for alleged misconduct or neglect on that occasion. In consequence of the accident, the attention of the Executive Committee was drawn more closely to the management of the school, and they, after some deliberation, determined to appoint a Ladies' Committee to assist them in its care and direction. A committee of thirteen ladies was accordingly appointed, and they, having applied themselves with great zeal to an investigation of the state of affairs, arrived at the conclusion very soon that the morals and discipline of the school were in a most unfortunate condition, and that its past management had been marked by grave and serious neglect. They found, among other things, that a girl who was within two months of having completed her sixteenth year had been flogged with a birch rod by the lady superintendent under the express directions of the chaplain, the servants of the establishment refusing to inflict the punishment. They found that the school was pervaded by a general system of thieving and dishonesty, that no steps had been taken to put a stop to those unfortunate practices, or to point out to the children the consequences resulting from them They further found that on one occasion two girls had been sent alone to London by order of the honorary secretary—Captain Fishbourne—to be mesmerized. Another point which attracted their attention was that the girls in the school were allowed to go out with one of the servants of the establishment to visit the adjoining town of Wandsworth without any proper control. As a result to be expected, it was found that the conduct of those girls who quitted the asylum for the purpose of going into domestic service had been very far from satisfactory. The Ladies' Committee reported to the Executive Committee, by whom they had been appointed, that being convinced that the institution had been entirely mismanaged, they could not continue to act with the parties to whom the Executive Committee had hitherto intrusted the local management; that the chaplain had assumed powers not autho-
194
rized by the Executive Committee—that his punishments had been severe and totally unsuitable and revolting, especially in a girls' school; that the lady superintendent was unequal to the control of such an establishment, as not possessing sufficient judgment of her own, and as having consented to follow unauthorized orders which she herself felt to be objectionable. The Ladies' Committee embodied in their report various other suggestions, but the Executive, while giving to these suggestions a respectful consideration, positively refused to dismiss the chaplain or the lady superintendent. They said the mode of inflicting these punishments and other circumstances in the conduct of the institution were disapproved by the Committee; but it was stated by the lady superintendent and the chaplain that they had in all cases acted under the authority or with the sanction of the senior honorary secretary, Captain Fishbourne, to whom, as stated in writing by the chaplain—
"everything that happened or was done of the most trivial description was made known, as their only means of communicating with their rulers, and whose decision was considered by them to be final and his arrangements indisputable, whether according to their views or not."
From that he (Mr. J. A. Smith) inferred that the Executive Committee were of opinion that the real responsibility for all the acts to which he had alluded rested with Captain Fishbourne, and not upon the chaplain and lady superintendent, and therefore declined to dismiss the subordinate officers. That, he must confess, he thought a very excellent reason for relieving Captain Fishbourne also from the duties he was unequal to, but not at all a sufficient reason for continuing in the confidence of the Committee persons who so little deserved that confidence. Captain Fishbourne occupied a very singular and anomalous position. He was called honorary secretary, but he nevertheless received, he believed, no less a sum than £700 a year in the shape of salary. Before, however, he proceeded further, he must, in fairness to the Executive Committee, state that their determination not to discharge the chaplain or the lady superintendent had subsequently been confirmed by the Royal Commissioners. That being so, the Ladies' Committee again met, and out of the thirteen members of which it was composed seven resigned, and agreed to a resolution to the following effect:—
"Under these circumstances, feeling ourselves utterly powerless to accomplish any good, and hope-

195
less of obtaining redress for any abuses we might hereafter detect in the establishment, we find ourselves under the necessity of declining any longer to sanction with our names a system of management of which we so entirely disapprove, and which cannot, in our opinion, either honestly and faithfully carry out the benevolent intentions of the Victoria Patriotic Asylum or do justice to the munificent contributions of the nation towards the orphans of its Crimean heroes, and we have therefore to request the Executive Committee to have the goodness to erase our names from the list of the Ladies' Committee."
Such were the facts to which he deemed it to be his duty to call the attention of the House, and which he thought were amply sufficient to justify his Question. But some other circumstances had, within the last few weeks, taken place, which he thought justified him in saying that the management of the school was still open to grave and serious objection. Lord Colchester had, ever since the appointment of the Executive Committee, been its chairman. Very recently his Lordship addressed to the Luke of Newcastle, the President of the Commission, a letter resigning that office, and stating as his reason that the Executive Committee had come to a unanimous vote sanctioning punishment with the cane by the schoolmistresses at their uncontrolled discretion, and without reference either to the chaplain or the lady superintendent. He (Mr. J. A. Smith) hoped that he had not used, he was sure he did not mean to use, a single word disparaging to the character or the motives of the honourable, excellent, and distinguished men to whom the Queen had intrusted the management of the Patriotic Fund. He had meant and did mean, to express a very grave and serious doubt whether the persons whom the Executive Committee had honoured with their confidence had discharged their duties in a manner which was creditable to themselves, or conducive to the good working of the establishment committed to their charge; and as the Secretary of State for War was, in the eyes of the public, the natural friend of the soldier's child, he ventured to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Patriotic Fund, and the causes of the resignation of the majority of the members of the Ladies' Committee of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, appointed in January 1862; also to notice the admission of the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, that a girl of sixteen years of age had been flogged in that Establishment; and further, that the conduct of the officials
196
who had committed this act was condoned by the Executive Committee; and to inquire what step have been taken to prevent the recurrence of such practices?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that as the Question had been addressed to himself, he felt it necessary to inform the House that the management of the Patriotic Fund was in no way under the control of the War Department. It was true that the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis did in the last Session reply to a Question almost precisely similar to that asked by the hon. Member for Chichester; but on a subsequent evening, in explaining the answer which he then gave, he distinctly stated that he was in no way officially responsible for the management of the school. It was perfectly possible, that as the hon. Gentleman had said, the public looked to the War Office for the protection of the soldier's children; but as the Secretary of State had no power whatever to interfere with the management of the establishment, it would be unreasonable to expect him to assume any responsibility with regard to it. Following the example of the late Sir George Cornwall Lewis, however, he might, while disclaiming any obligation to answer the Question, state that his attention had been drawn to the Report of the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and to the case of flogging which had been mentioned; that it had been inquired into as stated by the Executive Committee, whose decision was disapproved of by the Ladies' Committee; and that subsequently the proceedings of the Executive Committee were brought under the notice of the Commissioners, who declined to interfere. He was glad to see in his place the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwih (Sir John Pakington) who as both one of the Royal Commissioners and a Member of the Executive Committee would, he was sure, be ready to give any explanations which might be necessary.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, the answer of the noble Lord is that which I expected he would give; and as he has alluded to the fact that I have the honour of being both one of the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and also a member of the Executive Committee, I trust that the House will permit me to offer an explanation which I sanguinely hope will be satisfactory both to the House and to the hon. Member for Chichester. I intimated the other night, and I must now repeat, that I think the Executive Com-

197
mittee have very considerable reason to complain of the unusual shape of the hon. Gentleman's Question. I have known the hon. Gentleman for many years, and I cannot suppose that he intended anything unfair; but it is the feeling of the Executive Committee, in which I share, that he has shaped his Question so as to bring into undue prominence certain particulars in a manner quite inconsistent with the usual Parliamentary form, and which, had I not known the hon. Gentleman as well as I do, would have led me to believe that it was intended to create in the minds of hon. Members a premature prejudice against the Executive Committee, who have acted in this manner under grave responsibility. At the same time, I am willing to admit that I can take no exception to the tone of the statement which the hon. Gentleman has now made. I wish that he had from the first confined himself to the legitimate course which he has now adopted—namely, that of stating openly and frankly in his place in Parliament that he thinks the management of the establishment has been open to objection, and allowing those who are responsible to offer their explanation equally publicly. The Question alludes in very prominent terms to the flogging, as the hon. Member calls it, of a girl of sixteen. The hon. Gentleman has just stated that she was not sixteen. She was a girl in her sixteenth year, and for an act of insubordination she was punished with a birch rod. I do not, either in my own name or in that of the Committee, for a moment vindicate that proceeding. The Executive Committee entirely disapproved of it, and have taken such precautions as will most effectually prevent the recurrence of any such punishment. I will go further, and state that we have ascertained that in the early days of this establishment there were several things done, and several practices adopted, of which we are equally unable to approve. At the same time, although it is not my duty to cast blame upon parties who are not before this House, and who are not referred to in the Question, I am bound to state, that for the irregularities to which I have adverted there are parties who are more to blame than either the lady superintendent or the chaplain. The lady superintendent is the daughter of a very distinguished naval officer, and a lady of the highest character. The chaplain is a most highly respectable clergyman of the Church of England; and both these persons are,
198
as I am sure the House will admit, entitled to the strictest justice at the hands of those who have to judge of their conduct. The hon. Gentleman has fallen into a mistake in saying that the management of this school is in the hands of the Executive Committee. In the first instance that was in some respects the case; but the Executive Committee afterwards appointed a sub-committee of their body, called the House Committee, to undertake that duty; and as I was not a member of that body, I only speak of what occurred at this early period from hearsay. I also ought to have said that this whipping of the girl took place in the month of January 1861, and in January 1862 occurred the death by fire of another pupil. I hope I need not assure the House that the Executive Committee, and every one connected with the establishment, heard of that melancholy event with the feelings of sorrow which it was calculated to inspire; but I do think that the hon. Gentleman has made a most extraordinary statement this evening. The coroner's jury returned a simple verdict of "accidental death," and I believe that no verdict was ever more thoroughly justified by the facts; but the hon. Gentleman has told us that he has made it his duty to hold private communication with the jurymen who sat upon that inquiry, and that he has ascertained from them that they were dissatisfied with the whole of the proceedings upon the inquest. I think that I may venture to say that I am dissatisfied with the proceeding of the hon. Gentleman. I never heard of a more irregular proceeding, and I hope that the House will not allow its judgment to be influenced by the private conversation between the hon. Member for Chichester and the jurymen, who, whatever feelings they may have entertained about the proceedings, did not record them in the verdict which they found. I am sure that my hon. Friend is the last man to say that in a discussion in this House we can listen to any opinion of a jury except as it is recorded in the verdict returned by the jury upon the case into which they have to inquire. But what else did the hon. Gentleman tell us? If there is any particular object in his Question, it is to censure the Executive Committee for what he called "condoning" the officials—namely, the lady superintendent and the chaplain; and he has told us, in speaking of this melancholy event, that when it occurred the lady superintendent

199
was far away from the building, and that her two schoolmistresses, who were in fault, were dismissed. Under these circumstances I was surprised to hear him endeavour to swell his charge either against the officials, as he calls them, or against the Executive Committee, by alluding to this melancholy event of which I have given to the House an explanation which I think must be considered quite satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that the sad event led to the appointment of a committee of ladies. I am very sorry to be obliged to admit the fact to which the hon. Member has also adverted, that a great difference of opinion arose between those ladies and the Executive Committee, and was carried to such an extent that seven out of the thirteen ladies resigned their positions on the Committee. No one is more sensible than I am of the excellent and most benevolent motives with which those ladies undertook their duties; and further, I am quite willing to admit that they discharged those duties with considerable ability and acuteness. They accepted the trust reposed in them, and the first thing they did was to assemble at the Institution, and carry on a diligent inquiry into the mode in which its operations were conducted. If I remember rightly, they were appointed last year late in January, or in the beginning of February, and in the month of February they held two meetings, which resulted in a report, not to the House Committee, but to the Executive Committee, which replied with a promise to institute a searching investigation into every complaint made by the Ladies' Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite admitted that the Executive Committee did correct by far the greater number of points objected to by the Ladies' Committee, and those corrections were amply acknowledged by them. But I deeply regret to say that excellent and unquestionable as were the motives of these ladies, they adopted a course at the commencement of the investigation by the Executive Committee which was both injudicious and unfortunate. The majority of the ladies forwarded a communication stating that they would not continue to act unless we dismissed from their situations the lady superintendent and the chaplain. The House will see that the Executive Committee was thereby placed in a most painful and embarrassing position. We had two alternatives before us, either to dismiss this highly respectable lady and clergyman
200
from their situations, because the Ladies' Committee told us to do so on pain of losing their services, or, on the other hand, to go judicially into an investigation of the conduct of these two persons, and to come to such a conclusion as our sense of justice might dictate. I hope the House will not suppose that the Executive Committee hesitated which course to adopt. Our investigation of the circumstances occupied a considerable time, although no pains were spared to arrive at a just and prompt conclusion. In March we received an intimation from the ladies that they would insist on the dismissal of these officers, and on the 9th of May the Executive Committee adopted this Resolution:—
"Resolved, That the Committee, having carefully considered the communications and evidence which have been submitted to them, with respect to the management of the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum, and certain punishments which have been inflicted, disapprove and regret the conduct of the lady superintendent and the chaplain in some instances. But considering the peculiar circumstances under which the schools have been carried on, in the absence of regular supervision, excepting that of the senior honorary Secretary of the Royal Commission, the Committee are of opinion that a recurrence of these faults may be prevented by improved regulations and proper inspection, and that therefore it is not necessary to proceed to the extreme measure of now calling upon either the lady superintendent or chaplain to resign their situations."
That Resolution was passed without a dissentient voice by the Executive Committee, and I will beg leave to read the names of the Gentlemen by whom it was adopted:—Lord Colchester in the chair, General Lindsay, Sir John Pakington, Colonel Adair, Rev. F. C. Cook, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and Captain Fishbourne. On the 28th of May another meeting of the Executive Committee was held, and was more fully attended, nine gentlemen being present on that occasion. These were Lord Colchester, as before, in the chair, Sir John Pakington, General Lindsay, Sir Alexander Spearman, Mr. Thomas Baring, M.P., Sir Richard Kirby, Captain Fishbourne, Colonel Adair, and Colonel Lefroy. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and confirmed; and although my name stands as one upon the list of gentlemen I have named, I think I may appeal without presumption to the House whether those are names likely to come lightly or rashly to a decision. We did so after grave consideration and full discussion of the evidence; and I never saw any body of gentlemen

201
more unanimously persuaded of the justice of the course they took. The next step was to present a report, embracing the whole of these proceedings, to the Royal Commissioners, and at a meeting of that body Earl Grey, who was not satisfied with the decision of the Executive Committee or the report to which they had agreed, moved a resolution in a contrary sense, declaring that the lady superintendent and chaplain ought to be dismissed. That Resolution was fully considered by the Royal Commissioners present, only two of whom supported it, a majority of seven voting for its rejection. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire accidentally left the room, and was not present at the division, but came in immediately afterwards, and expressed his great regret that he was not in time to record his vote with the majority. Therefore I think I am fairly at liberty to say that eight to three of the Royal Commissioners were in favour of the unanimous decision of the Executive Committee. The two Commissioners who supported Earl Grey's view were Earl Nelson and Lord St. Leonards. The opinion of Lord St. Leonards, I need not say, is entitled to great weight; but his daughter being a member of the Ladies' Committee, he entertained a very warm opinion on the matter. However, there was a meeting of the Royal Commissioners about ten days or a fortnight ago, which Lord St. Leonards attended, and in the most frank spirit he declared that having passed several hours on the previous day in looking over the establishment at Wandsworth, he felt bound, after the part he took the year before, to state that he had never seen greater improvements effected in the time, or a public institution in a more satisfactory condition. It only remains for me now to answer the latter part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that we have endeavoured to take every possible precaution to prevent the recurrence of any of the features which we felt bound to disapprove in connection with the institution. Instead of leaving the care of the asylum to a sub-committee, the two committees are now identical, and the supervision devolves upon the whole Executive Committee. That Committee has been re-constituted, and among other additions I may mention that it now includes the names of the Rev. Dr. Woolley, inspector of Government schools under the Admiralty, and also that of the Chaplain
202
General to the Forces. We have established regular monthly meetings at the asylum, at which all the proceedings are investigated by the Committee, and lately we have gone a step further and organized a regular inspection, week after week, by individual members of the Committee. I hope my hon. Friend will admit that in taking these steps we have shown our anxiety to place, as far as we can, the management of this great establishment in a satisfactory position. The Ladies' Committee, unfortunately, pledged themselves to resign before the decision of the Executive Committee was taken, and thereby cut the ground from under them, and were obliged to carry out their intention. I believe, however, that even these ladies will rejoice to hear that the management of the institution is now placed on a satisfactory basis, and that this has been done without inflicting injustice or casting a stigma on two most respectable individuals. The hon. Member has stated that he considers the resignation of Lord Colchester a grave matter, and has said that the masters and mistresses now will have the power of using the cane at their uncontrolled discretion This is not the fact; there is a punishment book in which all punishments are entered. The Committee have adopted a resolution that corporal punishment may be inflicted to the extent of giving three stripes on the hand with a cane, and it was on the adoption of that resolution that Lord Colchester resigned. Last year, when the Executive Committee were investigating these matters, and were engaged in drawing up a new code of rules, they made it their duty to visit three or lour of the great public establishments in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, in which children of both sexes are brought up. Notwithstanding a strong assertion to the contrary, they found that the use of the cane to a limited extent is considered necessary in these schools. In visiting one of these asylums, the first thing that attracted my attention in the board room was the regulations permitting the infliction of this corporal punishment with the cane. When the House remembers the class of children in these establishments, and the necessity of preserving discipline, they will, I think, consider that the Committee have not acted very far wrong in borrowing this regulation from the large schools near London. I trust I have satisfied the hon. Member that the report of the Ladies' Committee has re-

203
ceived respectful attention. The whole establishment has been put on a new footing, and that has been done without making a victim of two persons who did not deserve it. The Executive Committee consider it to be their duty to look to the future rather than to the past. I may add, in conclusion, that the Executive Committee do not shrink from the responsibility of what they have done, and are perfectly willing to submit to any inquiry which Parliament may think it necessary to institute.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman would give great satisfaction, after the reports that had been current. The late Secretary of State for War had told him that the Report of the Committee of the Patriotic Asylum would be laid before Parliament, but it had not yet been presented. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: It will be laid on the table to-night.] At present no one knew whether the Committee were responsible to Parliament or not. An institution containing three hundred girls certainly required a ladies' committee, and he wished to know whether all the ladies had resigned.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that only seven out of thirteen of the Ladies' Committee resigned. The asylum had never ceased to be superintended by ladies.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had justified the use of the cane in the girl's school, as he believed that other punishments might be found, and that it was undesirable to give the mistress the power of inflicting personal chastisement upon some unfortunate girl in a moment of anger.
MR. BRISCOEsaid, the House and the country were greatly indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing forward the subject. He believed he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the use of the birch would be entirely discontinued in the school. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Oh, yes.] He disapproved of such a mode of punishment, and was glad to hear that it would no longer be practised. He hoped, that under the new arrangement, such a thing could not occur again as a girl being sent without medical advice up to London to be mesmerized. He should like to have heard that there existed a committee of ladies to superintend the management of these poor orphan girls.
MR. CORRYsaid, he wished to supplement the explanation of the right hon.
204
Baronet (Sir John Pakington) by stating that a medical officer of experience had been attached to the establishment, which he visited every day in the week. No case could be treated without his positive order; and therefore sending two girls to be mesmerized could not take place under the existing regulations.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £30,243, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that while he was willing to vote on account of the Royal Palaces any amount that might be necessary for the comfort and dignity of Her Majesty, he was at a loss to understand why such large sums for repairs should be required from year to year.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the Vote was not arranged quite as perspicuously as could be desired. For instance, they jumped from Windsor to Pimlico, and from that to Richmond or Hampton Court, and then back to Windsor again. It was also a question whether the large sums expended on furniture should not have come out of the Privy Purse. Some few years ago it was said that the savings in the Civil List amounted to several thousands a year, which were paid into the privy purse. If that was so, it was not fair to make those additional charges. He wanted to know why the ornamental gates which had been removed from Hampton Court to Kensington had not been restored to their place at Hampton Court?
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he believed that if they were to have furniture bought for the Royal Palaces without the check of the Commissioner of Works, the expenditure would be very much increased. He thought the check at present exercised was a good one.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he did not object to the Vote on that score, but what he wanted to know was why the matter was put under two or three different heads?
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that in reference to the Vote for St. James's Palace, he wished to direct the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works, to the total inadequacy of that Palace at the present time for the reception for those of Her

205
Majesty's subjects who wished to pay then respects on state occasions. He was a strenuous advocate of economy on all fitting occasions, but he believed he was only expressing the opinion of the Committee when he said that the state of the building was a disgrace to the country, and he trusted that the proper authorities would take that subject into their immediate and earnest consideration.
MR. COWPERsaid, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith) complained of the system upon which the accounts were arranged; but it was methodical and intelligible. The division of the Palaces was under three heads:—those in the personal occupation of Her Majesty; those in partial occupation, such as St. James's; and those not occupied by Her Majesty. With regard to the furnishing of the first, the expense was provided by the Lord Chamberlain; but the expense for the furnishing of St. James's Palace, as far as related to the State rooms, came out of the Vote before the Committee; and that was the case also with respect to the Palaces under the third head. The ornamental railing which had been at Hampton Court was so damaged from long exposure to the weather that it must be protected from the open air. The managers of the South Kensington Museum thought it worthy of being restored at a considerable expense. It was a beautiful specimen of English iron workmanship, and was a great addition to the Industrial Museum; but it could not be again placed in the open air without injury.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £82,751, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there were items of £3,000, £4,000, and £3,100, or upwards of £10,000 altogether, for supply of water to both Houses of Parliament, to other public buildings, and to the fountains of Trafalgar Square. That was a very heavy charge for a thing which ought have been amply provided for many years ago. He also wished to know why the sum required for the house and furniture used by the officers who were engaged in preparing
206
the plans for fortifications, was included in that Vote, and why it was not made a portion of the charge for the fortifications themselves?
MR. COWPERsaid, that the War Department in Pall Mall was not large enough to afford accommodation for the staff engaged in drawing the fortification plans, and it had been necessary to hire a house for the purpose.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he rose to call attention to the totally inadequate supervision exercised over the public works and buildings in which the Government were interested. If the present were an age of engineers, it was certainly rather extraordinary that Parliament should have so singularly neglected to make adequate provision for the supervision of their great public works and buildings. Considering the enormous start over all the world in public works which the country had taken a few years ago, it must be notorious to every one that they were rapidly losing ground in comparison with continental nations. He did not wish that they should servilely copy the arrangements of foreign nations, but something must speedily be done, for it was impossible to go on with the present insufficient arrangements, which in a few years hence would probably place them under the necessity of resorting to a change, perhaps, of a somewhat revolutionary character. He had nothing to say against the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper), who carried out the duties of his office in a manner that was fairly satisfactory to the House; but his very position was a sufficient indication of the unsatisfactory nature of their arrangements. He was a Minister with the fine sounding title of "First Commissioner of Works," but his energies were principally devoted to the supervision of the casual erection of one or two great works in the metropolis, to look after the public parks, and to see that the furniture of the public offices was properly purchased and properly accounted for. What might be called the general engineering superintendence of the public works was divided between two or three different Departments. Harbour works, for instance, were supervised partly by the Admiralty and partly by the Treasury; military works, even when called "civil buildings," by the War Department; and the Board of Trade had the supervision of the railway works, and in part of lighthouses. Other lighthouses were under special Commissions,

207
some of the larger departments looked after their own buildings; and, in fact, the functions of supervision were so confused and scattered among different Departments that it was impossible they could be efficiently and economically exercised. He hoped that before long some hon. Member of the House would take up the subject, and would enforce the necessity of a change. He had no wish servilely to copy the arrangements of their neighbours; but if the supervision of the civil buildings and harbour and other public works not strictly military works were concentrated under one Department, and if that Department were charged with the functions now exercised by five or six, great inconvenience and many blunders would be avoided.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The proposal of my hon. Friend, I am afraid, would involve a more material change in our system of conducting great public works than is congenial to our constitutional arrangements. It is quite true that in France and other countries the Government exercises great control over all works, whether private or public, but that is not a proposition which would be in accordance with the feelings of this country, or with the general arrangements which prevail here. I do not admit what my hon. Friend starts with—that we are behind other countries in architectural development. If anybody will go to Liverpool, to Leeds, to Manchester, or to other great towns, he will see buildings of the most beautiful description, erected, not under the control of the Government, but by persons employed by the municipalities of the towns themselves. Those buildings are really an honour to the country and are quite equal in beauty to anything on the Continent. My hon. Friend, I am sure, cannot mean that a Department of the Government should supervise and direct the municipal corporations and the public buildings of the towns.
MR. CHILDERS: I confined my remarks exclusively to the public buildings of the Government, and public works.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There are very few public buildings connected with the Government, and those few are under the supervision of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. It is quite clear that different public works require different supervision. You would not put the same man to supervise the erection of a barrack whom you would put to supervise a post office or a harbour.
208
There must be different kinds of supervision, and I do not believe, that if my hon. Friend looks carefully into the subject, he will find any arrangement different from that which now exists which would be compatible with our constitution.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought there was a great want of consistency of plan in the public works, as well as of regularity in the way in which they were conducted. He objected to the first item in the Vote of £25,000 as "the sum that will be required for the maintenance and repair of public offices, and charges attendant thereon." Some explanation should be given of that. The last item in the Vote was £13,512 for Scotland, whereas last year's Estimate was only £10,890. That made it the more necessary that details should be given. The point, however, to which he wished specially to direct attention was that the country was called upon to pay rent when they occupied public property. That practice had only commenced within the last few years. It might be said that the rent came back to the public; but the important point was, that if public property was occupied by the Crown for its own personal accommodation, it paid no rent; but if for the public service, it did. The country was, in his opinion, as well entitled as the Crown to the use of that property rent-free. They might as well charge rent on the palaces or parks. A ground rent of upwards of £1,000 was paid on the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street. Again, a sum of money had been voted to purchase land for public offices, and it had actually been paid to the Woods and Forests. He should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £7,000, the amount charged for rent of Crown property.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £75,751 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings; for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same; for Rents of Houses for the temporary accommodation of Public Departments, and Charges attendant thereon."
MR. BRISCOEsaid, he thought that proper details of the Votes should be given, otherwise comparisons could not fairly be made one year with another. Looking to some of the other items, he asked was it necessary to expend £4,000 on pipes and engines every year? With regard to the

209
miserable fountains in Trafalgar Square, he thought it would be much better to do away with them and fill the spaces with azaleas and other beautiful plants, than continue them as objects of public derision.
SIR MORTON PETOobserved, that the amount paid last year for the rent of public offices was £24,000; that year the Estimate was £26,358. That income represented little short of a million of money capitalized. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, during the recess, consult some architect who was competent to deal with the question, having special regard to the fact, that at present many of the public offices were so distant from each other that it was as much as any man, having occasion to go to several of them, could accomplish in the course of a morning.
MR. COWPERsaid, the apparent increase in the Vote of £3,259 over the Vote of the last year was owing to certain re-Votes which it was necessary to take of monies unexpended on the 31st of March last, and which had, according to rule, to be repaid into the Exchequer. Therefore, the Vote of the year did not really exceed that of last year. The sum for repairs in public offices and palaces was not given in detail, because it was made up of eighteen hundred separate items which would have greatly swelled the bulk of the printed Estimates. The same remark applied to some subsequent items for buildings in Scotland. He was surprised to hear complaint made of the sum for the supply of water to the Houses of Parliament and other public buildings, &c. The sum required for the ordinary supply was £4,000 a year—a less amount by £800 than that for which it could be obtained from the companies; besides which the water obtained from the artesian well behind the National Gallery was the most pure water in London. There was another item of £4,000 for engine, pumps, and pipes to provide a proper supply in case of fire, the means previously available for that purpose being deemed insufficient. That was in the nature of a first charge, not a recurring expense, and would be a very prudent and economical outlay, as the Government did not insure any of the public buildings. The great improvement that had recently been made in fire-engines, by the application of steam, rendered it unnecessary to have a reservoir of water at such a height as that of Primrose Hill, as had been suggested. Pipes would be laid down
210
which would bring the water from the Serpentine at any moment when it was required, and the steam engine would be of sufficient power to raise it to the level of the tanks on the top of the Houses of Parliament, the New Foreign Office, the India Office, and the other public buildings in that vicinity. The Motion of the hon. Member for Truro, with a view to prevent any rent being paid by the Office of Works to the Office of Woods went in a wrong and retrograde direction. The separation by the Act of 1851 was intended to prevent the land revenue from being spent on objects which ought to be defrayed out of the Votes of Parliament. But the effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be that the revenues from the hereditary lands of the Crown would be spent instead of the funds voted by Parliament, and a door would be opened for abuses which the present arrangement was intended to repress. If the ground rent of the Geological Museum were withheld, it would virtually be contributed by the Office of Woods, and confusion of accounts would arise from depriving the laud revenue of the rent it would otherwise receive from letting the property to private individuals, merely because it happened, for the time being, to be occupied for a public purpose. The Office of Woods received all the proceeds it could obtain from land beneficially used, as the trustee for the public. Its funds could not be applied to public buildings under the Office of Works in lieu of Votes of Parliament. The hon. Member asked whether it was not right that a public use should be made of some of these houses. There was no objection to that, but the accounts of the two Departments ought not to be intermingled. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not go to a division.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto) had raised an important question, but it was not altogether new to that House. When Lord Llanover was at the Office of Works, he broached a great scheme for purchasing a large tract of land in the immediate vicinity of the Houses of Parliament as a site for public offices, at an expense of considerably over a million sterling; but the House took fright at the magnitude of the proposal, and it was allowed quietly to drop. He was afraid, that although the execution of such a gigantic scheme might be wiser and more economical in the end than the existing

211
arrangement, the House would be again appalled at its proportions. The various Departments were, no doubt, in an unsatisfactory state; but it should be recollected that many of the offices were temporary in their nature, and it was hardly worth while to go to great expense in purchasing sites and erecting stately buildings upon them. He observed a small item for Burlington House. What did the Government propose to do with that building and the ground attached to it? The late Government had a scheme for devoting Burlington House to important public purposes; but when the Earl of Derby left office, that scheme was knocked on the head, and Burlington House still remained almost unoccupied. He wished to know whether any additional use was to be made of it.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the enormous item of £10,900 for rates and taxes on public buildings, or donations in lieu thereof, and insurance.
MR. COWPERreplied, that in cases of leases the Government were often bound to pay rates and taxes. They were not so bound by law in the case of Crown property, but they Were in the habit of giving donations in lieu of rates and taxes. He might mention that only a small portion of the £26,000 was spent for Government offices, properly so called, considerable sums being given for such houses as law offices and courts, museums, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Seamen's Registry. About £12,000 was the amount paid on account of offices which might be accommodated in a permanent building. He did not contemplate such an extravagant scheme as that to which the noble Lord opposite had alluded; but he hoped that in the course of a few years the sites which had been purchased for public offices would be covered. The site in Downing Street, for example, might probably have an office built upon it as soon as the Foreign Office was completed He was not prepared at present to make any statement with respect to Burlington House.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had not explained the necessity for having three Copyhold Commissioners in a house rented at £900 a year.
MR. COWPERsaid, that more work had been thrown upon the Commissioners by several Acts of Parliament. The Commissioners had a great deal of business to
212
do, and the building they now occupied was not too large for them. It was necessary that they should be lodged somewhere.
LORD JOHN MANNERSthought it would have been more to the point if the hon. Member had asked the head of the Government why, when one of the Commissioners died some time ago, the vacant office was filled up.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would withdraw his Motion. He had made it as a protest in reference to the matter, which he denied was so much one of account as one of principle.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £13,879, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £6,464, the amount charged for the Science and Art Department. That sum was not really wanted for furniture, which formed the subject of a separate item, but for fittings. It was, in short, a sly way of getting a few thousand more under the head of furniture.
MR. COWPERsaid, the reason why the Vote was so large was that additions had been made to the museum at South Kensington, and money was required for glass cases and other fittings to fill the galleries and halls. He could assure the Committee that the items had been carefully examined, and that the fittings and furnishings in question were really necessary in order that the public might enjoy the full use of the Museum.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, his complaint was that a promise had been made that all unexpended balances should be paid into the Exchequer, and that there was a balance of £8,000 which remained unpaid.
MR. PEELsaid, that the promise was made with regard to the Votes, not of 1861–2, but of last year, and would be strictly adhered to.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he wished to point out, that in addition to the large Vote in the section of the Estimates under consideration, there was another sum of £6,600 in book 4, also for fixtures, fittings,

213
&c., for the South Kensington Museum. Surely that was spending too much on glass eases?
LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved, that although glass cases and other fittings did not require to be renewed annually, there was a Vote of £7,100 last year for the same purpose. The excessive amount of the Vote rendered it necessary for the Committee to look into it.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he held that no expenditure afforded so much satisfaction and instruction to the public as that on the Kensington Museum. He went into the Committee on the Museum with a strong prejudice against it, but was convinced of its excellence and utility by the evidence he heard there.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would suggest that the Vote should be withdrawn and brought up with the other item in book 4.
MR. COWPERexplained, that as the articles in question were ordered by the Office of Works, the Vote ought to be taken in the branch of the Estimates under consideration. The reason why the Estimate for fittings was so large that year was that the Museum had been considerably extended.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he wanted to know who ordered the £6,600 worth of fittings in book 4.
MR. COWPERsaid, the Science and Art Department ordered the amount to be expended under its own Estimate.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask why the Vote for the Museum was divided between two Departments. There could be little doubt that it was done in order to conceal the magnitude of the expenditure. If the Museum at South Kensington were as beneficial as was alleged, it was to be remembered that it cost £34,000 a year, and was not situated where it would be within reach of the working-classes.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £9,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Supply and Repair of Furniture in the various Public Departments."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 66: Majority 43.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £77,952, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary
214
to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith."
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would acknowledge that great credit was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works for the care he had bestowed upon the improvement of Victoria, Batter-sea, and other public parks; but he thought the Committee might call on the right hon. Gentleman to do something more for the accommodation of the public, The eastern extremity of Pall Mall, where it was joined by the Haymarket and Cockspur Street, was so crowded as to be quite dangerous, but by a small change the right hon. Gentleman might enable the public to drive down the Mall on the north side of St. James's Park. A great public convenience would be effected by opening a communication from Cockspur Street down the Mall to Buckingham Palace. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought also to take into consideration the very dangerous state of the southern extremity of Park Lane. If all carriages passed through Grosvenor Gate to Hyde Park Corner, the dangerous part of Park Lane would be avoided. He did not know whether the Committee would be of his opinion, but he should be very glad to see omnibuses allowed to pass through Hyde Park. It would be a short cut for those who were going from Victoria to Paddington station, and would afford great pleasure to people who used that mode of conveyance. If not at present, he hoped that in some future year the accommodation which he had suggested would be afforded to the public.
MR. SELWYNsaid, he wished, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to call attention to the condition of the new Conservatory called the Winter Garden at Kew. No part of the public expenditure had given greater satisfaction than that which had been laid out on Kew Gardens, and he thought that Sir William Hooker was one of the most efficient, and at the same time one of the most economical, of public servants. The great desideratum of this new conservatory had been repeatedly referred to in all his Reports since 1859, and the plan had been approved of, and had become so notorious as to be published as the frontispiece of almanacs and in The Builder. The building was to be of five parts—a centre, two small octagons, and two wings connected by the octagons with the centre. The

215
centre and the two octagons were finished, and some expenditure must have been laid out on the wings, as the ground was dug out and foundations in concrete laid for the pillars. There were substantial buildings of brick and slate for the workmen, a cottage for the clerk of the works, and a temporary road, which greatly disfigured the most beautiful portion of the gardens. The Government had been informed by their able officer, Sir William Hooker, that it was absolutely essential to complete the structure, and not to leave it unfinished, presenting as it did an unsightly appearance, which did no credit to the architect. He thought that, Sir William might have added, "and would do no credit to the Board of Works or the British nation." He could not believe it possible, that having finished three-fifths, the Government intended to abandon the other two-fifths of the building; and although no sum was asked for in the Estimate for this year, he concluded that they intended to finish it at some future time, and he begged them to consider what an unthrifty course that would be. If the buildings for the workmen were taken down, and the temporary road destroyed, other buildings and another temporary road would have to be made when the works were resumed, and be believed, that no private gentleman who could command either means or credit would conduct his business in that way. Speaking as an ordinary observer, he also imagined that it must have been cheaper to cast the whole of the iron girders which were required for making the wings and the octagons and centre at the same time. He should therefore like to know what expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of the wings, and whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed to complete the whole building.
MR. TITEsaid, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The buildings at Kew were a great success, architecturally and scientifically. He agreed that the unfinished state of this building was unsightly, and would lead probably to a greater expense than if it were finished at once. Economy was, no doubt, a great object in the days; but he recommended the Government, when an opportunity offered, to complete the building. Another reason for immediate completion was, that it would allow of the classification of the plants, for the better study of botany.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the Vote, which was an increase of £17,000 on the last year's Vote, appeared to him to be extravagant, and one which required explanation. Bushy Park, Greenwich Park, Hampton Court Park, and the Home Park were all in grass, and he could not comprehend the necessity of the expenditure under those heads. As on a former occasion, he wished to protest against the plan of grazing horses in Hampton Court Park, because of the injury to the lime trees, and he really thought the grazing of cows, which would do no injury to the trees, would return, within 6d. per head per week, the same as horses. The sum of £25,000 seemed a good deal for Hyde Park, and he did not know what was obtained from the £5,000 spent on Victoria Park.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he fully agreed that the Vote, required explanation. The maintenance of St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks cost £23,624, besides the cost of the department of the ranger, bringing it up to £25,000. Kensington Gardens, which figured for £3,900, were not included, and how so much could be spent he could not understand. The Committee ought, he thought, to insist, on having some detailed explanation as to how the money was expended.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £7,952. He was ready to give the First. Commissioner of Works every credit for keeping the parks in a good state, but he could not give him credit for economy, inasmuch as he thought he had got a most inefficient set of men employed about them, and that the outlay upon them was unnecessarily large. The expense of maintaining the West End Parks and Kensington Gardens amounted to £30,000 a year, and he had been informed that the sum expended on annual flowers was not less than £5,000, which, when their perishable nature was taken into account, was, in his opinion, a very wasteful expenditure.
MR. COXobserved, that parks to which the remarks of the preceding speakers applied, were really parks, which could hardly be said of the few acres of ground which were dignified by the name of Kennington Park, and for which the Committee was asked to vote £1,436. How any one could be found with sufficient ingenuity to lay out so large a sum on so small a plot of ground he was at a loss to understand. It was simply a park, he contended, for sheep, the children who were ad-

217
mitted to it not being allowed to amuse themselves on the grass, but being obliged to play on the gravel walks. He wished to know why there was no Return of the money received for depasturing sheep.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the Votes asked for the parks were to him annual causes of astonishment. Indeed, he could not understand how so much money could be spent on them. All private experience was opposed to the expenditure. A private gentleman, wishing to build a lodge, could accomplish his object for £300 or £400, while in Hyde Park it was deemed necessary to spend. £1,500 or £1,600 for a similar purpose. If private proprietors were to keep up their grounds at a cost equal to that which was asked for the Green, St. James's, and Hyde Parks, they would speedily be ruined. Those parks were, no doubt, well kept up, and contributed much to the enjoyment of the public; but then he thought it would be well if the First Commissioner of Works would show the Committee that the money laid out upon them was fairly expended.
MR. CAVEsaid, he desired to have some information with respect to the monolith which had astonished the town by suddenly appearing, where the spring formerly was, at the east end of the Serpentine. He should like to know whether it came from Egypt, was brought by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs from Assyria, or found its way from the Summer Palace at Pekin? It would be well, in short, if the First Commissioner of Works would tell the Committee what it was, where it came from, why it was put there, what was the cost of putting it there, and what had become of the spring which used to be there?
MR SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to ask for information as to the distinction between the Ranger's Department and the Department of the Board of Works. He wished also to learn by whose authority it was that the band of the Commissionaires played night after night during the whole season in the Cambridge inclosure, adjoining Spring Gardens, in St. James's Park. Although he lived in that neighbourhood himself, he had no objection to the performances; but he knew that the music was regarded as a serious inconvenience to many gentlemen residing close by. Thus to invite the inhabitants of St. Giles's and Westminster to be present throughout the summer in large crowds
218
to listen to the band was, he thought, a wanton interference with the rights of those who paid heavy rents for the houses near the inclosure, as there was ample space by the water in the park, where those performances might take place without being a nuisance to anybody.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would inquire whether it was necessary, now that there were no deer to take care of in the parks, to keep up the office of deputy ranger. There was a large piece of land attached to the ranger's lodge which ought to be thrown open to the public.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he could bear testimony to the improvements that had been made in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens during the last thirty years. At the same time, he would recommend, that the road over the bridge from Bayswater to Kensington should be opened to public as well as to private vehicles. There might be some question as to the expenditure upon the Parks, and he should therefore be glad to see the Vote postponed until fuller information was before the Committee.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the first four Votes in the Estimate exceeded by £55,000 the expenditure on those of last year.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should be sorry if anything happened to postpone the erection of the great house in Kew Gardens. There could be no use in disguising the fact that the Parks were very expensive, but no comparison could fairly be instituted between the expenditure upon them and those of noblemen and gentlemen in the country, because the former were not only Parks but great gardens, and in some instances almost scientific gardens, intended for the amusement of the people, and the consequent necessity for opening up walks and providing a large staff added greatly to the expense. He should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works some explanation of an item of £400 or £500 for making a horse ride in Battersea Park, and of the appearance in Regent's Park of a large permanent structure for the use of the band, which was out of all proportion to the objects which surrounded it and interfered with a very beautiful view.
MR. COWPERsaid, that he could not explain the excess of £55,000, which existed only in the imagination of the hon. Member for Lambeth, [Mr. W. WILLIAMS:

219
It is in the book.] The hon. Member did not appear to have read the Estimates with the care which he should have expected from so eminent a financial reformer. If he compared the two Estimates, he would find that the Vote under discussion was £732 less than that of the last year.
MR. W. WILLIAMSexplained, that what he said was, that the expenditure last year was £55,000 less than the Votes asked for this year.
MR. COWPERsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman complained that the sum expended was less than the amount voted, that was a fault of which his Department was very often guilty. They had, for many years, been gradually diminishing the expenditure, without at the same time diminishing—indeed, on the contrary, while increasing, the attractions of the Parks. With respect to the expenditure contemplated during the ensuing year, he should be glad to give the fullest and most detailed explanations. It was impossible to compare the cost of the Parks with that of those belonging to private individuals, because they were the resorts of enormous numbers of persons, who necessarily occasioned a great deal of damage by trampling on the grass and wearing away the walks, and whose presence required the employment of a considerable number of officers to insure the preservation of order. In Hyde, Green, and St. James's Parks alone forty-six constables were employed. The salaries of the persons employed amounted to £2,608, and their liveries cost £371. £1,100 was contributed to parochial assessments; the maintenance of lodges, railings, drainage, seats, &c., cost £1,781. It must be remembered that not merely were there trees, grass, and shrubs to be maintained in the parks, but roads as well. In Hyde Park, St. James's Park, and the Green Park, collectively, there were eight miles of roads to be kept in order, and twenty-five miles of gravel walk, making in the aggregate thirty-three miles. Portions of Hyde Park were as much frequented by vehicles as the street, and required to be kept in as good order. The cost of macadamization in Regent Street was at the rate of £4,000 a mile. He did not estimate the surface in the Park as equally expensive, but it was evident that a large outlay was requisite to maintain it in proper condition. If the gravel walks were not kept in proper order, the public complained; and they did worse,
220
for they walked on the grass, turning the sheet of verdure into an and plain.
The offices of Ranger and Deputy Ranger had originated when deer were kept in the parks, and, according to ancient custom, the gates of the external boundaries of the park were considered to be under the Ranger's authority, while the interior was under the control of the Office of Works. The salaries and wages of the fourteen gatekeepers, and of the superintendent in the Ranger's department, amounted to £1,320, and the cost of their liveries £97. All things considered, hon. Members, he thought, would be of opinion that the outlay upon the parks was not excessive. Every attention to economy, he could assure them, was paid. Labourers were employed in considerable numbers at the proper season; but as soon as these could be dispensed with, the staff was diminished. It was a mistake to suppose that the flowers in the Parks were costly; they were of a simple and cheap kind, and were reared in pits in the vicinity. The expense for flowers last year in Battersea Park only amounted to £180.
The horse ride at Battersea Park would be on the embankment, which was being gradually and inexpensively formed by allowing builders and others to deposit rubbish. Ultimately, he hoped that a ride might be formed round the whole outer circle of the Park. Until the ground was taken for building, the waste land there could not be applied to a better purpose.
The Sunday bands had been in operation for seven years; he had permitted their continuance because they drew people out of unhealthy homes and public-houses to enjoy the Parks, and did not justify the complaints of residents in the neighbourhood. The band platform in Regent's Park, provided nearly seven years ago, was almost worn out, having been very unfit for the purpose from the beginning. He had therefore thought it right to provide a new one, and to include the cost in the Estimates. The band thought it a practical improvement, and the audience liked it exceedingly.
The house at Kew, to which reference had been made, was originally designed in five parts, the centre and octagons being complete in themselves without the wings. £33,000 had already been spent upon the building, besides £3,000 upon the warming apparatus. The cost of the wings would be £14,000 additional, which was

221
more than the Government felt warranted in proposing under existing circumstances.
He was unable to say where the spring which used to exist near the Serpentine was gone, but it disappeared at the time when the Metropolitan Board of Works were carrying the great sewer across the park. It was in reality not a spring, but a collection of water which percolated through the gravel, and when that was disturbed it took a different direction. The granite which now formed the drinking fountain had been selected as the material which did not suffer from the London atmosphere. A small work of art fitted for a garden would not have been as suitable to the place as a huge uncut boulder from Cornwall. It excited comments from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it had elicited the admiration of persons competent to judge. With the addition of the surrounding poplars, it was a very agreeable and picturesque object. [Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned the cost.] It had cost about £180. Kennington Park, although of limited area, was greatly frequented, owing to its position. Special orders were given that the grass was to be enjoyed as freely as was consistent with its preservation. The actual cost of maintenance was £890. He must remind the Committee that there, as in other parks, the cost of watering was very considerable; that operation having to be repeated every day during the summer months.
He had been rather surprised to hear the complaint of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who found fault with what gave intense delight and satisfaction to multitudes every evening. He was dissatisfied because a number of people assembled in St. James's Park to hear a remarkably good band play gratuitously. It was true that some small payment was exacted from those who entered the inclosure, but the great majority of the audience paid nothing whatever. Some of the residents in the neighbourhood approved of these musical performances; and if any wished to give up their houses on that account, others were ready to take them. It was useless, however, to argue the question, which was altogether one of taste; some persons loved music and others did not.
MR. PEACOCKEobserved, that the grass on the south side of Rotten Row was useless to riders, because there was no shade, there. In the interest of the equestrians,
222
therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to throw open the ground covered with grass on the north side, where there was a shade? He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would open Kensington Gardens to riders.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, there was nowhere in England so remarkable a farce as that which was regularly enacted by Committees of Supply in that House. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear!]. They had upon the Treasury bench a government pledged to rigid economy, and they had on his side of the House very distinguished Members anxious to pass to the other side, pledged to a still more stringent system of economy. The result was that Votes were proposed; two or throe hon. Members made speeches, in very nearly the same words every year; the Votes passed, and thus ended the absurd farce. But he rose on that occasion to protest against the First Commissioner of Public Works in coming thither at a time of great public trial and adversity, when they were at their wit's end to devise some measure of relief for thousands of their countrymen who were actually starving, and asking the House of Commons to vote large sums of money for the ornament and luxury of the idlers and indolent of the metropolis. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the ornamentation of the parks, it was time to call his attention to the enormous distress which prevailed throughout the country, and to ask, whether the proposed expenditure was decent or becoming? Though the leading Members on both sides of the House were pledged to such a course, he would protest against it, and hoped the time would come when the House of Commons would no longer throw away the resources of the country when greater demands were made upon them.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that the arrangements for the band in Regent's Park were very satisfactory, and from personal observation he could bear testimony to the fact that the crowds who listened to the music seemed to be of the same opinion. He was not able to say the same thing with respect to the arrangements made in St. James's Park for the band of the Commissionaires. It was no small annoyance for the residents near where the band was stationed to have music for three hours every night during the whole of the London season. If the band stationed itself at a similar distance from the houses in an opposite direction,

223
the residents could have it removed as a nuisance; and they had reason to complain that the protection of the Government and of the police was given to the band at the place where it was; stationed. He had no objection to money being raised for the corps by means of musical performances; but those might take place in a part of the park where they would cause no annoyance to any one.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, that the band of the Commissionaires, which performed every day in St. James's Park, was an exceedingly bad band and a great nuisance, and he hoped they were not paid out of the public money.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that in the Vote for Royal Palaces there was an increase of £11,660; in the Vote for public buildings an increase of £28,241; in that for furniture of public offices an increase of £4,268; and in that for Royal parks and pleasure gardens an increase of £11,288, making a total increase of about £55,000. The right hon. Gentleman had given no satisfactory explanation on that point.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that his objection was to the extremely unsightly character of the stand which had been put up in Regent's Park. It was placed in a position that excluded a view of the trees.
COLONEL FRENCHobserved, that his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner had not answered his observations with reference to the Royal parks.
CAPTAIN KNOXsaid, that the poor of the metropolis had but few pleasures, and it conduced much to their health to be drawn from the miserable streets in which they lived into the parks, and the bands administered to their pleasure. He trusted the Government would stand by the Vote
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to call attention to the injury that was being done to the trees in Bushy Park by horses being sent in there to feed. If properly managed, he knew of no reason why that Park should cost the nation anything.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he had nothing to say against the expenditure on the public parks, and thought that the right hon. Gentleman deserved the highest credit for the improvement he had effected in Regent's Park. He never saw a park so much improved in so short a space of time. At the same time, he wished to draw his attention to the disgusting and unsightly
224
mound in St. James's Park. When passing through St. James's Park not long ago on a hot day, he observed a body of labourers turning a heap of something over. On approaching to investigate the work, a most offensive effluvium arose from it, and the labourers told him they were turning over the manure-heap of the First Commissioner of Works. If the right hon. Gentleman had a manure-heap placed at his disposal, why did he not deposit it where it would not offend the eyes and noses of the inhabitants of the metropolis. He hoped an early opportunity would be taken to remove it.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, that an elevation had been noticed in Hyde Park, which turned out to be a boy and a dolphin. He did not observe that any money had been appropriated in the Votes for that work which must have cost a considerable sum, and was, as many thought, a very objectionable object.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the Vote for that work of art was obtained three years ago. A drinking fountain in the park was allowed to require ornamental sculpture, and he should have thought that the subject of a boy and a dolphin was unobjectionable. The group was the work of an eminent sculptor, Mr. Munro, and was very much admired. With respect to the inquiry of his hon. Friend, the breeding of horses at Hampton Court was not in his department; but he would inquire about the lime-trees, any injury to which he should greatly regret. The mound alluded to by the hon. Member (Mr. Liddell), consisted of the sweepings of the roads and out of the lake in St. James's Park, which had been accumulated in what was thought a quiet corner, but which, it appeared, had not escaped the observation of the hon. Gentleman. He believed that it had been offensive to the smell, but it would be laid upon the grass in a manner as little offensive as possible. The grass was so injured by the soot, and by persons walking and rolling upon it, that it was necessary to put something on it.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. If it were good to open Kensington Gardens during the last year to riders, it must be desirable to do the same this year.
MR. COWPERsaid, that for two years the ride in Kensington Gardens had been open to the public, and had answered very well. Last year the entrance which used to be through the land arch of the bridge

225
between Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens was required for pedestrians, because the road itself was open to carriages for the Exhibition. There was also the same difficulty this year, because the bridge had been opened to carriages, and it was necessary for the convenience of pedestrians to admit them under the bridge. He had opened to equestrians the south side of Rotten Row. At the end of last year the north side was opened, but the riders had interfered with the persons on foot, and by no means showed the consideration which could have been desired for their comfort. He was anxious to place the horses where they interfered the least with the comfort and recreation of the pedestrians, and had therefore admitted the riders to the south side of Rotten Row. He did not remember the cost of the boy and dolphin, but would let the hon. Baronet know another day. The money was voted more than three years ago, and he had not the document by him.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that hon. Members seemed to be a Committee to take care of Rotten Row, rather than a body assembled to take care of the finances of the country. There was a disgraceful column in the Estimate under consideration. He referred to that which showed an increase in every item of the Votes, so that the sum had swollen from £700,000 to £900,000. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk in thinking that hon. Members would not rise in the opinion of their constituents by permitting an increase of £200,000 in that Estimate, in a year in which Ireland was starving and Lancashire was supported by public alms. It appeared as if the function of restraining the Government in its expenditure had wholly passed from the House of Commons, and as if their sole object was to procure this or that concession to gratify some hon. Member or his friends. They would not be doing their duty at a time of so much pressure, when there was greater pressure ahead, and the prospects of the country were darkening, if they allowed the Government to take so large an increase without some protest. He should like to divide the House if he could be assured of any reasonable amount of support against this increase of expenditure on the bricks and mortar of the Board of Works.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The noble Lord and the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) complain that the functions of Committee of Supply
226
are a farce, and that no efficient control can be exercised over the Government. Why, Sir, the real fact is—and this is what makes some hon. Gentlemen so angry—that the Government themselves exercise a most vigilant control over the expenditure with regard to which they present Estimates; that these Estimates are most carefully framed, so that the money may be laid out in the most economical way possible; and that thus, when objections are made, such satisfactory answers are given that Gentlemen cannot carry a point which is shown to be against reason and good sense. Hon. Gentlemen talk about the enormous expenditure lavished upon the parks. Well, they cost about £90,000 a year, for which a great number of parks are maintained, and great enjoyment is derived by the millions of this metropolis. I must say that I think it would be a paltry economy to deprive the humbler classes in London of a legitimate enjoyment, merely for the purpose of making a small reduction in this Vote. We have been told to look at what is done in foreign countries, and especially in France. Now, do hon. Gentlemen know at all what is the expense of the single great park near Paris—the Bois de Boulogne? I am not talking of the expenditure in creating it, and a wonderful creation it is, and infinite honour it does to the author of so great a transformation in the face of nature. But I have been told on good authority, and I believe it to be the fact, that the maintenance of the Bois de Boulogne costs £140 a day—£50,000 a year, and it consists of the same sort of outlay as is necessary with us, such as watering the grass, keeping persons to look after those who frequent the park, maintaining seats, rearing flowers, and so on. Though the sum which our parks cost is indeed a large one, I think the enjoyment which the people of the metropolis, and those who come here from all parts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, derive from it, is amply equivalent to the expenditure. We are not to suppose that London is surrounded by a wall of brass and that no communication goes on with other parts of the country; on the contrary, as we know, a continual succession of visitors conies here from the country, and shares this enjoyment; and remembering that this expenditure is not so large as in other countries, I really hope that the Committee will not listen to any proposal for curtailing the Vote.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the noble Lord had shown his usual ability, but not his usual candour, in defending the Vote. He had argued that it was impossible to pick a hole in the details, because the Estimates were framed with such care by the Government. But, if that was so, why did the Estimates go on increasing year after year? If things were well managed, there ought to be a decrease, and not an increase in the expenditure. Then the noble Lord talked of the enjoyment afforded by the parks to the millions of the metropolis. That might be true, but where did the money come from? Out of the Imperial Exchequer, so that the whole country paid for the enjoyment of the metropolis. Upon what principle of justice could that be defended. Local enjoyments ought to be paid for out of local taxation, and the charges for the metropolitan parks ought to be borne by the metropolis.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing the metropolitan improvements were carried on at the charge of the nation at large. The Metropolitan Board of Works were doing great things by means of rates levied upon the metropolis itself. The coal tax was applied for these objects; and if the Committee bore in mind the large sums which were raised here for improvements, they would see that London bore its full share of charge for local improvements, as compared with other parts of the country.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £70,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 81st day of March 1864, for Maintaining and Keeping in Repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, &c., and other Charges connected therewith."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 115: Majority 48.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £36,444, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament."
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask what was the meaning of the first item of £4,570 for the completion of the unfinished portions of the building.
MR. COWPERsaid, that it was a re-Vote, including monies that should have been paid last year for the Victoria Tower and the Royal Gallery.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he also wished to know what was to be done to that part of the Clock Tower not yet completed.
MR. COWPERsaid, that soon after he came into office Sir Charles Barry pressed upon him the desirableness of carrying out his plan for enclosing New Palace Yard. He, however, thought it right to defer any decision on the subject until the southern side of Bridge Street had been pulled down. That would be done at the end of this year or in the course of the next year, and then they would have to come to a determination whether they should build a wing from the Clock Tower to Great George Street, which might be employed as public offices, or whether Palace Yard should be left on two sides open. At present, it was an open question, and nothing would be done in the present year to decide it.
MAJOR KNOXdesired to ask whether anything could be done with reference to the widening of Parliament Street.
MR. COWPERsaid, a Commission had reported on the subject, but no decision had been come to.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to know whether any decision had been come to with respect to the refreshment-rooms in the House. Those rooms were dark, narrow, and so contracted in the middle as to be something like the shape of an hourglass. So inconvenient was their shape that the waiters could scarcely pass, and great confusion arose. It was unfair to throw the blame on the manager, for it was impossible for any one to properly discharge his duty under the circumstances, Mr. Barry's estimate of last year for the necessary alterations was so high that the right hon. Gentleman did not think proper to make any proposition to the House on his own responsibility. This year, however, the Committee had made a Report on the subject, suggesting certain alterations; and if the right hon. Gentleman did not feel prepared to make any recommendation, to the House for carrying them into effect, they would bring the matter before the House themselves.
MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered the possibility of constructing an underground passage from the Clock Tower

229
to the north end of Parliament Street, in order to avoid the awkward and crowded crossing at Bridge Street.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that having spent a large sum of money in the erection of the building in which they were assembled it ought to be their first care to preserve it. He had, however, recently examined the whole of the exterior of the House, and he found that the decay was general, and unless something was speedily done the ornamentations of that House would disappear. Various processes had been tried to preserve the stone-work, and notably that of an Hungarian, a protégé of Sir Charles Barry's; but the portion operated upon by him was found to be in as bad a condition as any other part. There was one preparation—that of Mr. Daines—which did appear to answer, and which was spoken of by Mr. Sidney Smirke and Mr. Gilbert Scott in very favourable terms. After such a report as that, it was scarcely fair that the gentleman should have been treated as he had been; for while he had expended some £600 out of his own pocket, he had received only about £90 back; whereas the Hungarian had received large sums. He (Sir John Shelley) understood that when that gentleman proposed that his process, which had been highly approved, should be tried upon portions of the building to which it had not been previously applied, the right hon. Gentleman told him he might do so at his own expense. That was hardly fair. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to give some good reasons for not employing one who had been so successful.
MR. ROGERSsaid, he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the necessity of improving the ventilation of the dining-rooms, and that part of the House adjoining them.
MR. REPTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would try whether some improvement in the approach to the House above ground could not be made. It was very difficult to get to the House at present, and one policeman could do little in keeping order where about forty or fifty carriages, carts, and horses were collected at the same time.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there was a large item on the Votes for the erection of stables for the Speaker. He wished to ask where it was proposed to erect those stables and whether the £6,530 was to cover the whole expense.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYwished to
230
ask with regard to the twelve statues to be placed in the Royal Gallery, whether their execution was to be intrusted to a few individuals; and if so, whether it would not be desirable that the Committee should have an opportunity of knowing whether the selection had been judiciously made? He also wished to know whether the statues were to be executed from models in the gross, or whether a guess was to be made at them from models in the small?
MR. GREGORYsaid, there were a few matters connected with the Vote to which he wished to call attention. In the first place, he wanted to ask for information with respect to the decorations in the Queen's Robing Room. Some time since, two gentlemen of very high reputation, both members of the Royal Academy—Mr. Dyce and Mr. Herbert—were employed to decorate the Queen's and also the Peers' Robing Rooms. There had been very considerable delay; those gentlemen had been paid considerable sums, and he was sorry to say the work was not executed. With regard to Mr. Herbert he wished to make every allowance. He believed Mr. Herbert had been doing his best—he had been slow, but he was thoroughly conscientious in his endeavours to produce a work worthy of the place. But with regard to Mr. Dyce the matter was totally different. Mr. Dyce had been paid the whole amount he was to receive for the execution of his work, and year after year had passed and yet the work had not advanced. In the last Report of the Commission, dated 1861, Mr. Dyce was alluded to in the following terms:—
"The stipulated remuneration for the entire series having been long since received by him, we have only to express our earnest hope that he will see the importance of prosecuting the work with greater assiduity."
He wanted to know whether any representations had been made to Mr. Dyce, with a view to ensuring his carrying out the engagements for which he had been paid? All he should say, if Mr. Dyce was not disposed to fulfil his engagement, he should characterize his conduct as scandalous—and he paused upon the word "scandalous" that there might be no doubt as to what he meant. There was another point. There were to be twelve statues, and the less said of them the better. He understood that six had been sanctioned by the House, of which four were George IV., William IV., James I., and Charles 1.; and no doubt, in the opinion

231
of some persons, the ornamentation of the House would be greatly improved by their appearance. Two more were to be produced, Charles II. and George III.; and as the Royal Commission on the Fine Arts had come to an end, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would have the selection of the other works. The Commission had been expressly instituted for the encouragement and promotion of art throughout the country, but there had as yet been Very extraordinary favoritism in the selection of the artists. Out of the whole twelve statues five had been intrusted to Mr. Munro and four to Mr. Thornycroft, and two to Mr. Woolmer and Mr. Munro jointly. He wished to know if such a mode of proceeding was the best way to encourage and promote art throughout the country?
COLONEL SYKESanimadverted on the sum charged for taking up the mats and sweeping away the dust of the House. He thought £1,100 was too large a sum for such a service.
MR. COWPERsaid, he quite agreed that it was very desirable to adopt an effectual mode of preserving the stone of the Houses of Parliament. The matter had been referred to a very scientific and able Commission, but their Report had not justified him in adopting any one of the processes which had been suggested. Mr. Daines's process had not been recommended. It consisted in the use of a perishable material, being a combination of oil and sulphuric acid, and was not of a permanent character. It had not yet had that amount of trial which would justify his proposing a Tote for its application. The same course had been taken in regard to it as to the other processes; the inventor was allowed to make experiments on the walls of the building at his own cost. No doubt M. Szerelmy had been paid; but that was on a different ground, because his plan had the recommendation of Professor Faraday and Sir Roderick Murchison. He agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that the Report of the Select Committee on refreshments was deserving of great attention. They spoke in the Report of the bad ventilation of the dining-room, and the plan mentioned by them was an effectual way of meeting the desired object; but he thought it wiser to give a little further consideration to the subject. With regard to a tunnel under Bridge Street, he thought it would no doubt be very convenient for persons going from the Houses
232
of Parliament along the banks of the river, but it could only be made in connection with the embankment. The Vote for the Speaker's stables was merely a re-Vote of the sum taken in 1860–1. There had been great delay in finding any site for a stable in the immediate neighbourhood of the Speaker's house, and, after two years spent in negotiations, they had to abandon the prospect in despair. The site now fixed on was at the end of Millbank Street—a very healthy spot, the only objection to it being its distance from the Speaker's house, and that objection it was proposed to diminish by a telegraphic wire, the expense of which was included in the Estimate. He had had some communication with Mr. Dyce with regard to the painting in the Queen's room, and he was assured that Mr. Dyce was going on with his work as rapidly as he could. The period of the year during which the artist could advantageously paint the walls of that apartment was limited, but it was more important to have excellence than rapidity in the completion of the work—a very noble and admirable work it no doubt would be when finished, with all the skill and masterly talent of Mr. Dyce. He hoped the delay would not be repeated in future years. The Tote for statues was not for new statues, but for the completion of the six already ordered. The year before last a Tote was taken for four statues, which were intrusted to Mr. Theed and Mr. Thornycroft. Only one instalment had been voted for two statues intrusted to Mr. Woolmer and Mr. Munro. The Fine Arts Commission having finished their labours, the responsibility of selection would now rest with the Government. The series of statues was an historical one, and the selection depended on the positions to be occupied, not on the characters of the Sovereigns. The Tote was only to complete the statues already ordered, and would not be applied to any new works.
MR. TITEsaid, he had had the honour of being a Member of the Committee which had been referred to in connection with the decay of the stone of which the Houses of Parliament were constructed; and though it was composed of some of the most eminent chemists, engineers, and geologists, he was sorry to say that the Committee could not come to any satisfactory conclusion on the subject. Mr. Daines's process had been brought under their consideration, and the eminent chemists who acted on the Committee found that it
-
233
amounted to covering the stone with boiled oil with a small quantity of sulphur in it. He did not think it would be expedient to make any large outlay of public money on such an operation. He hoped, however, that some effectual means would be discovered for arresting the decay, which did not extend beyond a certain height from the ground. The Committee recommended that any one should be invited to experiment upon the decayed portions, a plan which he believed was being acted upon. He might further observe that the ventilation of the House was still imperfect, both the upcast shafts constantly throwing out a black sooty gas, and he hoped that some remedy would be found for that defect also.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would stop all further expenditure under that head. The application suggested for preserving the stone of which these Houses were built was merely the specific employed abroad for curing the mange in dogs. If the style of art which they had seen develop itself on the walls and in the passages of that edifice was what they might anticipate in the future, the sooner the proposed expenditure upon it also was stopped the better.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had no objection to "Moses bringing down the tables of the Law to the Israelites," or to the statue of George IV., the two congenial subjects proposed for artistic illustration by the Votes of that evening; but as the right hon. Gentleman had already obtained the money for executing them, he could not understand why he should come to them for it over again; £6,000 had been already voted for Moses, and £4,800 for George IV., and on the former £3,500, remained unexpended, and £3,200 on the latter. Yet they were now asked for another £1,600 for the one, and another £1,300 for the other. If the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors had not paid Mr. Dyce in advance, there was little doubt that his work would have been finished before then.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he did not think it fair to Mr. Daines to require him to put up scaffolding at a large expense in order to test a process which had already been shown to be of some good. He hoped the destruction of the stone would no longer be allowed to go on without some remedy being applied, if even it were only of a temporary character.
MR. COWPERsaid, the noble Lord was
234
not, perhaps aware that on the 31st of March last there came into operation a new rule, by which all unexpended monies then in the hands the Government had to be repaid into the Exchequer. Consequently the Votes asked were for amounts which had been previously voted and paid over to the Exchequer, because unexpended at the date named; and they had now to be re-voted. Engagements had been made with the artists which must be kept. The mode adopted for paying the artists was the almost universal one of advancing a certain sum before completion. All the smoke which issued from the chimneys of the Houses of Parliament was produced in the private apartments. The fuel used in the public parts of the building was coke, not coal. It would be hardly worth while to interfere with the private residents. Nothing was doing to repair the frescoes, because the exact source of decay had not yet been discovered.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL— [BILL 186.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the first Amendment of importance was the omission of the clause which provided that by a Resolution of the House of Commons alone a writ might be suspended for five years. Under the alteration it would require a Resolution of both Houses. He attached some importance to the clause; but as he did not wish to imperil the Bill, he had no objection to agree to the Amendment.
  Agreed to.
  Several Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment, to leave out Clause 11, read.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he hoped the House would support him in resisting the next Amendment, which was the omission of a

  235
  clause introduced in Committee at his, instance, providing that the expenses of a Commission should fall upon the peccant borough. The clause had been unanimously accepted by hon. Members, and it related to a subject which was peculiarly in their jurisdiction. He moved that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. VANCEsupported the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not disposed to differ with the Lords in regard to the clause, which was not in the Bill as originally framed, and would introduce a rather novel course of proceeding.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 61: Majority 21.
  Amendment agreed to.

AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE TREATY BILL.

  [BILL 144.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is only just to the United States to draw the attention of the House to this Bill We all know that for a great number of years the African slave trade was protected by the shelter of the United States flag. Last year, however, the Government of the United States, in the most handsome manner, agreed to a treaty by which that protection was no longer to be afforded. They concurred in those arrangements usual between different Powers, giving a mutual right of search, constituting mixed tribunals for the trial of vessels caught in carrying on the slave trade, and making other provisions Connected with those adjudications. It was found that the extent of the area to which those arrangements applied was not sufficient. This year, therefore, the Government of the United States agreed to a supplementary article extending to the neighbourhood of Madagascar the right of search, which in the first treaty was confined within too narrow limits. It is due, I think, to the liberality of the United States Government that I should point this out to the House. Last year the measure was passed very much as a matter of form, and without sufficiently attracting the notice of Parliament or of the country. It is no more than justice to the American Government, who have behaved in the most
  236
  honourable and liberal manner in regard to this matter, which is of great interest to this country, that the second reading of the Bill should be marked by some attention being paid to it.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he was very glad that so important an addition had been made to the treaty as represented by the noble Viscount. There was, he hoped, no slave trade to Porto Rico or St. Domingo; but the extension of the right of search to the seas which surrounded these islands would enable British cruisers to close more effectually the avenues of communication with the arch-offender Cuba; and if British sailors were sufficiently active, they might in some degree neutralize the advantages given to that island by British capital and British legislation. Similar activity might also be desirable off Madagascar; for the French Governor of Réunion openly threatened the British Consul there, that if England enforced inconvenient regulations respecting coolies, the French would resume African immigration; and if it was not already known what that meant, a despatch from Sir Baldwin Walker, just laid on the table of the House, in reference to the immigration from Mozambique to Nos Bé viâ the Comoro Islands would enlighten them. He heard also that M. Regis, of Marseilles, still continued to keep up his establishments in Africa for that purpose, which made him suspect that the Emperor was already beginning to repent of his anti-slavery edicts, mild and moderate as they were. He regretted much that this very important treaty excited so little attention last Session, and that the measure for carrying it into effect was coldly received and passed without remark, like a mere Continuance Bill. He should be sorry that America and France should imagine that the interest of England in the great question of the slave trade had died away; and though he did not wish to pay compliments to the American Government for having thus late done simply what was just and right, yet, as he had felt it his duty more than once in that House to express himself in strong terms upon their conduct in reference to the slave trade, he would not be backward in acknowledging that most important and honourable change in their policy, a solitary bright spot amid the gloom of their deplorable civil war. With regard to the whole measure, he would only advert to the highly important equipment clause, by which the presence of certain fittings on

  237
  board a vessel was no longer, as hitherto by American law, mere presumptive evidence of slave trading, but proof positive unless rebutted. He would also call attention to the 16th clause, under which the crew were to be sent home for trial, which the recent execution of a slave captain in New York showed to be no empty form. A Spaniard, who had made many successful slaving voyages, and whom he casually met in the Gulf of Mexico, said to him, "We don't care much for capture, that is simply a matter for insurance; but if you wish to stop the slave trade, which" (he did the English the honour to say) "I don't believe, hang the captain, or one of the crew if you can't identify the captain, and you will stop the trade in six months; we cannot insure against hanging." On the other hand, it seemed inexpedient to send slaves captured near Cuba direct north to New York, perhaps in the depth of winter. He had always thought, too—and that was a provision of the Bill, not the treaty—that head-money was not a good mode of rewarding sailors, as it laid them open to the charge which he had often heard, though he believed it to be entirely without foundation, of allowing vessels to take in their slave cargoes before capturing them. There were other points on which he might remark, but he was too well satisfied with so important a step to be minutely critical. He might mention two circumstances new possibly to Her Majesty's Government, and interesting, as showing what had been the effect of the mere rumour of the measure. He once stated in that House that Havannah was illuminated on the receipt of the news of the Bill of 1846, which equalized the duties on free and slave-grown sugar. As a contrast to that, he had heard that on account of the apprehension caused by the Treaty the demand for machinery had slackened in Cuba; and more than this, that certain proprietors had given orders that their slaves should no longer be worked for the same excessive number of hours, not from motives of humanity, but because they they knew, that when the supply was stopped, slaves would be too valuable to be worked to death in eight years, as they had hitherto been under the most approved and economical estate management in Cuba. Important, however, as the treaty was, its objects could not be fully attained so long as there remained the flag of any nation under which the slave traders could find shelter, and unfortunately
  238
  the tricolor gave them the protection they once enjoyed under the stripes and stars. Late advices from Sierra Leone mentioned the departure of a French screw slaver with 1,250 slaves for Havannah. They were told also that the French were re-establishing works at Whydah, a notorious slave-trading port; but the most remarkable circumstance was detailed in the Sierra Leone paper the Free Press, of the 16th of April, which he would ask permission to read to the House, and with which Her Majesty's Government were no doubt already acquainted—
  "An English cruiser, the Zebra, took, on suspicion of being a slaver, a vessel which carried the French flag, but which flag was hauled down when the officer from the Zebra went on board. The vessel arrived here without colours, and in charge of a lieutenant and prize crew, and the usual steps were taken to place her in the Vice Admiralty Court. The French Consul presented a formal protest against the seizure of the vessel on the ground of her being really French, but the Governor declined to interfere between the seizors and the decision of the Court. On Saturday morning, a French steamer of war arrived in the Roads, and it is reported that the captain declared his intention of awaiting no decision; but that having satisfied himself of the nationality of the vessel, he would proceed to take her by force. From the appearance of the military and naval preparations, we believe that they would have signally failed, but fortunately the Court came to a decision releasing the vessel."
  He did not wish to remark upon the grave international question involved in that strange proceeding, but merely to show how hopeless it was to stop a trade carried on under the flag of a powerful nation. He trusted, however, that Her Majesty's Government would not delay to make use of the powers given them by this Treaty, but would at once send a squadron of swift gunboats to the coast of Cuba, if they had not already done so. The Cuba coast was of immense length, but from the south-east (the slavers' course) it could only be approached by two channels. In those latitudes near the shore, the wind blew from the sea during the day, and from the land at night. There was an interval about sunrise when there was a dead calm. Nothing moved. The vessels in the offing lay
  "Like painted ships upon a painted ocean,"
  waiting till they could carry the breeze in with them. At that time the swiftest sailer was at the mercy of a steam gunboat. He was one of a deputation which laid these facts before the noble Viscount some years ago. The noble Lord acted on the suggestions made to him, and with

  239
  such effect that the slave-trade was for a moment paralysed, till the traders got up stories about insults to the American flag, which eventually induced Government, for the sake of peace, to withdraw the squadron and allow the slave trade to be carried on under that flag with perfect impunity, with what result Consul General Crawford's recently-published despatches fully testified. That difficulty had been happily removed by the present treaty. He congratulated the Government on the result of their negotiations. If they were determined to take advantage of the situation, and to send a few fast steamers to their old cruising ground in the Caribbean Sea, and if the negotiations which it was stated were pending with France proved equally successful, then it might be hoped that free labour might be at length relieved from the unfair competition by which it was well-nigh paralysed, as the memorials he had lately presented from the West Indies showed, notwithstanding some prosperity statements lately made by some who might have known better—it might be hoped that it was indeed the beginning of the end, and that that abominable traffic might become a matter of history even in our day.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to express his great satisfaction at the language used by the noble Lord with reference to the United States and their liberality in agreeing to the treaty. He hoped they might accept it as an indication that the policy that had been hitherto adopted with reference to America, the policy of non-intervention, would be the policy of the future, and that the Government would not be swayed by the reports of public meetings held in the North, which he did not believe represented the liberal intelligent and enlightened opinion of the country. If the Government followed the policy of non-intervention, he had no doubt that it would be supported by the country.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that every one must acknowledge the great liberality of the Government of the United States in this matter, and feel gratified at their desire to wash their hands finally and for ever of any participation in the slave trade. He would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should consider the expediency of either taking possession of Whydah, or of obtaining some footing there, whereby a deadly blow might be given to the traffic in slaves.
  MR. TORRENSobserved, that he was of opinion that the discussion should be postponed until the House had an opportunity of considering the Bill.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he conceived that the measure was of the greatest importance, and that it would save this country a great deal of expense which otherwise it must incur if it wished to check the slave trade.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he was astonished, if the Bill were one of the most important of the Session, as the noble Lord had declared it to be, that it had not been produced. The noble Lord had not told them a word about the clauses of the Bill. Where was it?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Bill only confirmed the treaty, which had already been laid on the table of the House, and in it the hon. Gentleman would find all the substance of the Bill.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday.

OFFENCES (SOUTH AFRICA) BILL (Lords.)

  [BILL 113.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. The extension of British law and British authority to large tracts beyond the South African Colonies would be certain to involve us in disputes with the various native tribes. The Colonies of the Cape of Good Hope and Natal had perfect legislative powers to deal with the question, if there was any necessity; but he contended that it would be better to leave it alone altogether. Kaffir wars had already cost this country sufficient to make Parliament extremely careful not to sanction anything which might involve us in another; and the Bill, if it did not remain a dead letter, was not at all unlikely to have that result. He would conclude by moving that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Adderley.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERSsuggested that the Executive Council should be made responsible for the extension of British jurisdiction.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he must protest against a measure of such a dangerous character, likely to lead to aggression and increase of taxation to the Imperial taxpayers, being passed in such haste and with so little deliberation.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEridiculed the fears and alarms of the opponents of the Bill as completely groundless.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill re-committed; considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday.

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. LAIRDmoved, that the Select Committee on Holyhead Harbour do consist of the following Members:—Colonel Dunne, Mr. Corry. Mr. Laird, Colonel Pennant, Colonel Vandeleur, Lord Naas, Mr. John Tollemache, Mr. Lefroy, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Dalglish, Colonel French, Lord John Browne, and Lord Richard Grosvenor.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the nomination of this Committee, but at the same time I beg to say, on the part of the Government, that we retain all our original objections to its appointment. The Government were of opinion from the first that this was not a case which it was desirable to refer to a Select Committee; but the House overruled their decision on that point. We were quite willing to concur with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) who moved for the Committee in the composition of an impartial tribunal; but unfortunately we were altogether unable to arrive at any common view on that head. In my opinion, the list of names which the hon. Gentleman opposite has undertaken to move is as far as possible from being an impartial Committee. I have not a word of objection to offer to the name of any individual member of that Committee; but, as a body of gentlemen, these cannot be said to come without prejudice and with open minds to the consideration of this question. The minds of the majority, at
  242
  any rate, are not in that impartial state, and therefore this list is in no degree entitled to be spoken of as an impartial Committee. To begin with, the majority are Irish Members or Irish gentlemen who have a direct personal concern in the amount of accommodation to be offered at Holyhead. That majority is backed up by the hon. Member himself (Mr. Laird) who has given his opinion on the question in favour of the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Queen's County (Colonel Dunne) who introduced the subject. Of the remaining Members some are locally connected with the traffic finding its way to Holyhead Harbour; so that in point of fact, after deducting the two Gentlemen holding office, who are supposed abundantly to represent the views of the Government, only one, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish), is left to represent the independent Members of the House of Commons. The Government might, of course, propose that some of these names should be omitted and replaced by others more impartially selected; but that is a course which would be invidious and annoying to those Gentlemen to whom individually we should regret to be wanting in proper respect. After, all we have protested in limine against the Committee as one the appointment of which ought not to take place; and I need not add that our own view is very much strengthened by the materials of which it is proposed to constitute the Committee. I only state this to avoid giving trouble to the House and to the hon. Member, and to give him fairly to understand that we retain all our original objections, very much heightened and strengthened by the not altogether common course adopted in the selection of these Gentlemen. My right hon. Friend (Mr. M. Gibson), whose name has been put upon the list, will be very glad to give every assistance in his power to the Committee; but I feel myself bound to say, even before the Committee sits, that we do not think the subject one that ought to be referred to its consideration, and that we shall not be able to look upon its finding as the verdict of an impartially constituted tribunal.
  MR. GEORGE: The course which the right hon. Gentleman has just pursued is one which, I venture to think, is very unusual. The right hon. Gentleman does not venture to propose the insertion of other names upon the list in place of those now standing upon it; but, by some process of reasoning, which I am at a loss to

  243
  understand, he arrives at the conclusion that these names, although individually fit to serve upon the Committee, in the aggregate are not likely to come to a fair decision. I say it with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do think it would have been more becoming in him, more graceful in Her Majesty's Government, to bow to the decision of the House in reference to the appointment of a Committee on a subject of such serious interest to the two countries, and to have waited till the subject had received, as I have no doubt it will receive, the impartial consideration of that Committee, than to prejudge, as he has done, the entire question—intimating, at the same time, in terms not to be misunderstood, and very far from complimentary to that tribunal, that Her Majesty's Government are hardly prepared to pay attention to the decision of that Committee, whatever it may be. At such an hour it would not be becoming in me to comment upon the names put upon the Committee. I can only say, with regard to my own name, that when it was intimated to me that there was the slightest objection to it, not directly, but on account of my connection with a company forming one of the contracting parties for the carriage of the Irish mails, I at once bowed to the objection, and declined to allow my name to be placed upon the Committee.
  COLONEL FRENCH: After the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford, it is hardly necessary for me to add anything, but I cannot refrain from saying that the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman is entirely without precedent. He states that the appointment of this Committee was carried in opposition to the Government. If that be so, I should imagine it was the duty of the Government to bow to that decision. The right hon. Gentleman objects to the Irish Members of the proposed Committee. Pray, how are Committees to be constituted in this House? At this moment there are about twenty Committees sitting. Several of these are without an Irish Member at all; nine of them, I think, include only one Irish Member, and of the remainder the proportion of Irishmen does not exceed two in any instance. The Irish Members had a right to the nomination of this Committee, but they wished to act in a spirit of fair play, and they offered to the Government the nomination of a certain number of Members. The names of several Gentle-
  244
  men, of whom some were English, were submitted to an officer of the Government, and were capriciously rejected. At this moment there are upon the Committee eight Members who do not represent Irish constituencies; that is, more than one-half. To the intimation, therefore, which we have received that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not pay attention to the Report of this Committee, whatever it may be—
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Those were not my words.
  COLONEL FRENCH:—No; but that was the meaning of them. We regard that intimation as an idle threat. The recommendations of the Committee must stand or fall by their justice and truth; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopts that tone towards us, we must appeal to the House, to decide whether their Report is or is not entitled to its favourable consideration.
  MR. ESMONDE:—I also must enter my protest against the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if the observation be not un-Parliamentary, I would designate that course as unbecoming, feeling as I do very strongly on the subject. He says that upon a question of that sort Irish Members are so much interested that they are not fit to sit upon a Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman had to cross the Channel as often as we have in all sorts of weather, according to his own opinion he would not be fit to sit on this Committee. We heard it stated, early this evening, that the mode in which Supply is taken is a farce. If Committees are to be appointed, and then their recommendations are to be treated in the manner proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the appointment of Committees will become a much greater farce than the taking of Supply. I do not think we have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for anything we may have gained by the appointment of this Committee; for I remember sitting till a late hour, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the adjournment of the House, to avoid being beaten on this very subject. The course he now pursues puts me in mind of the forced consent of Othello's father-in-law to his marriage with his daughter—
  "I here do give thee that with all my heart
  Which, but thou hast already, with all my heart
  I would keep from thee."
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee nominated, as follow:
  Colonel DUNNE, Mr. CORRY, Mr. LAIRD, Colonel PENNANT, Colonel VANDELEUR, Lord NAAS, Mr. JOHN TOLLEMACHE, Mr. LEFROY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. HERBERT, Mr. DALGLISH, Colonel FRENCH, Lord JOHN BROWNE, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

TROUT, &c. FISHING (SCOTLAND).

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render uniform the law with respect to fishing with the single line for trout, and other fish, not of the salmon kind, in Scotland. His object was to remove an anomaly in the law of Scotland. By the general law it was lawful to fish with the line, and where no trespass was committed for fish other than those of the salmon race; but in three or four rivers in the district with which he was by representation connected, by a recent construction of a statute, persons (and the propietor of the fishery himself when it had been let for salmon fishing) were prohibited from fishing, even with the line, for any fish whatever. It was to remove that manifest inconsistency and injustice that he proposed the present Bill.
  Bill to render uniform the Law with respect to fishing for Trout and other Fish, not of the Salmon kind, in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM EWART and Colonel SYKES.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 146]

NAVY PRIZE MONEY BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to move for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the distribution of prize money, bounties, &c., to the navy.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he should not oppose the Motion, at the same time he wished to mention that a Bill was being prepared by the Admiralty dealing with the subjects of naval prize courts and prize money. He hoped that the hon. and gallant Admiral would not ask the House to read his Bill a second time, until that measure had been introduced.
  Bill for facilitating the distribution of Prize Money, Bounties, and other such Monies, to the Navy, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN HAT, Admiral DUNCOMBE, and Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 147]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.