Commons Sitting of 11 February 1864

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Reginald Yorke, esquire, for Tewkesbury.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Standing Orders nominated*; Committee of Selection nominated.*
SUPPLY—Resolution [Feb. 9] reported—"That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Bank Acts (Scotland).
Ordered—County Courts (Ireland).
First Reading— Government Annuities [Bill 11].
Second Reading—Sir John Lawrence's Salary * [Bill 10].

STANDING ORDERS.—COMMITTEE.
Select Committee on Standing Orders nominated:—Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. WALPOLB, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. WRIGHT-SON, Mr. HERBERT, Mr. BRAMSTON, Mr. BONHAM-CARTEE, Mr. LEFROY, Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. PULLER, and Mr. EDWARD EGERTON.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Committee of Selection nominated:— Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. HERBERT, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Lord HOTHAM, Mr. MOWBRAY, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

UNION ASSESSMENT ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLLANDsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether there is any intention of amending the Union Assessment Act of 1862, so as to enable Assessment Committees to become Respondents in cases of Appeal at Petty Sessions against their valuations?
MR. VILLIERS,in reply, said, that he was unable to give his hon. Friend at that moment a precise answer to the question he had put. It was a very important question, and one which had an important bearing on the Act, and excited great interest among those persons who had, with so much advantage to the country, devoted their time and labour in discharging the duties imposed upon them by the Act as Assessment Committees. The subject, therefore, deserved every attention. It was only lately that many representations on the subject had reached the Poor Law Board, and it was then receiving its attentive consideration, with a view, if possible, of arriving at a just decision. He was bound, however, to tell his hon. Friend that, in the communications received, it was apparent that great difference of opinion existed on the matter among persons of competent authority, and especially as to the manner of meeting the object of his his hon. Friend, which he conceived to be that, when Appeals were lodged against the decisions of the Assessment Committees, adequate provisions should be made for those Appeals being properly heard and disposed of. It was alleged that the power of Appeal was given, but no provision was made for the appearance of Respondents. Full information, however, would shortly be in the hands of Members as to the general operation of this Act, as the Returns
462
ordered by the House at the close of last Session were then complete and would be presented; and if any Amendment of the Act appeared to be needed, there would be ample time in the course of this Session to introduce a Bill for the purpose.

THE IRISH CHURCH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When a Return relative to the dioceses of Cashel, Emley, Waterford, and Lismore, ordered on the 5th of May last, will be presented to the House?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that he very much regretted that so long a delay in the production of the Returns should have taken place. If, however, his hon. Friend would again move for them, he would take care that they should shortly be laid on the table. He had just received a telegram from Ireland stating that they were nearly ready.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he also would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Return ordered on the 5th of May last, relating to the number of Benefices of the Established Church in Ireland, to their emolument, to the number of licensed Ministers of the Church of Ireland, and to the total amount of the "Tax to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland," will be laid upon the table of the House?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the Returns were ready, and, if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to move for them, they would be presented at once.

INDIA—THE HILL TRIBES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether full information has been afforded by the Government of India in reference to the Military Operations recently carried on against the Hill Tribes on the Punjaub Frontier, and explanations given of the objects sought to be gained by the force in that quarter placed under the command of Sir Neville Chamberlain; also whether the war was commenced with the authority and approval of Her Majesty's Government; if so, whether Peace has been restored upon a satisfactory basis, or whether further measures of coercion are contemplated at a more seasonable opportunity?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD,in reply, said, he observed on the paper that day a notice for the production of papers on the subject, and he should have no objection to have those papers laid on the table. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking the subject of the utmost importance, and he might perhaps be allowed to make a brief statement with respect to it. Those who were acquainted with India were doubtless aware, that several years ago a Mahomedan adventurer named Syud Ahmed, who claimed to be a descendant of the Prophet, raised an insurrection against Runjeet Singh, and that after some severe fighting he was killed and his followers dispersed. Those who remained took refuge in the hill districts among the Eusufzaie tribes, and became a source of perpetual trouble not only to Runjeet Singh but to the English Government. They established themselves in a place called Sittana, across the Indus, whence they made expeditions into our territory, and continued to rob, plunder, and burn villages, and to be a source of the greatest trouble to us for many years. These Sittana fanatics were reinforced at the time of the mutiny by deserters from the Sepoy regiments. In 1858 it was found necessary to destroy their stronghold, and an expedition for the purpose was sent under Major General Sir Sydney Cotton. They were expelled from the place, and the tribes among whom they had located themselves entered into an engagement not to permit them to resettle there. That engagement had been for a certain time respected, but in 1861 their inroads recommenced, and we remonstrated with the tribes against permitting these people to renew their incursions on our territory; but our remonstrances failed, the tribes stating that they had no power to prevent the fanatics passing through their territory. In 1862 the Governor of the Punjaub applied to the Indian Government to send an expedition to prevent them from plundering our possessions. The Government of India declined, in 1862, to sanction any expedition; but as the Lieut.-Governor of the Punjaub represented strongly, in 1863, that the attacks on our territory were continued, an expedition against the fanatics was sanctioned and undertaken last autumn. In order to reach their new stronghold at Mulkah, it was thought advisable to proceed by the Umbeylah Pass, which leads into a district not belonging to, but close to the territory of a powerful tribe, called the Bo-
  464
  nairs, who were not unfriendly to the British, but believed that from our troops coming so near their district, it was intended to attack them. No assurance on our part could convince them that this was not the case, and they consequently attacked our forces. They were joined by the fanatics and by several of their Mahometan neighbours, and a series of well-sustained attacks were made for some weeks on the British position. Major James, Commissioner at Peshawur, who had been absent on leave in this country, arrived there at the time, and entered into communication with the Bonairs, in order to assure them that we had no intention of attacking them. They were however over-persuaded by the other tribes. General Lawrence was therefore obliged to attack their positions, and carried them most successfully, inflicting severe loss on the tribes. On this, the Bonairs came in, and sent a body of men to destroy Mulhah, and, finding it deserted, destroyed it in the presence of our officers. The whole affair, therefore, in reality arose out of an attack made by those tribes under a misapprehension as to the intentions of our proceedings. All hostilities had now ceased; the troops had returned to their quarters; and he trusted no further operations of any kind would be found to be necessary. The gallantry of our troops and the skill of our officers, he might add, had been displayed to great advantage throughout these transactions.

CASE OF MR. BEWICKE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it be his intention to continue to refuse compensation to William Bewicke, of Threepwood Hall, in the county of Northumberland, for suffering imprisonment as a felon for twelve months, under an undeserved sentence, and for the confiscation of his goods, chattels, family pictures, and library, to his great pecuniary loss and irreparable injury?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that he had never received any application from Mr. Bewicke for any compensation claimed by him under the circumstances alluded to in the question of the hon. Member. He had neither the power to grant nor to refuse such compensation. A Petition from Mr. Bewicke was presented last year to the House, asking for redress,

  465
  which, of course, meant compensation, and his hon. Friend had founded a Motion upon it. On that occasion he stated, as he felt now, that it would be extremely inexpedient for the House, on a mere statement of a particular case and by a Resolution framed to meet it and perhaps hastily adopted, to do what would involve an important alteration in the law applicable to that class of cases. He was free to admit that the law with reference to the forfeiture of property on a conviction for felony was well worthy of consideration and revision.

  COURT MARTIAL ON COLONEL CRAWLEY.-QUESTION.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the peculiar circumstances attending the trial of Colonel Crawley and the failure of the evidence against him, it is the intention of the War Department to recommend that hisexpenses should be paid?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that at the conclusion of all courts martial, it became necessary to consider whether the expenses of the prisoner should be paid by the public or not. In this instance such consideration took place, and the Government, accepting and adopting the verdict of the court martial, decided that all such expenses incurred by Colonel Crawley as were ever paid should in this instance be defrayed by the country. Col. Crawley's passage from India and back had been paid, he had been in receipt of Indian pay and allowances during the whole time that he was in this country, and quarters had been provided for him at Aldershot. The expenses of all witnesses whom he desired to bring over from India had been paid; and in fact no greater expense had fallen upon him than he would have been subject to if his regiment had been in this country instead of India. Everything which in such cases had ever been paid for anybody had been paid for Colonel Crawley. The only expenses which had not been repaid to him were those connected with legal advice. NO application had been made by Colonel Crawley for the payment of these expenses, nor could the Government accede to such an application if it was made. The position and status of legal gentlemen were not recognized at courts martial, and the Government would have no means of checking their charges,

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of a Report to his Grace the Duke of Somerset, by Sir Richard Bromley, on the organization and working of Greenwich Hospital?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that Sir Richard Bromley had presented to the Duke of Somerset an elaborate Report upon the finance and also upon the constitution of Greenwich Hospital, and his Grace had thought it right to refer that Report to the other Commissioners for their remarks. When those remarks had been received the Admiralty would take the subject into consideration, and he should then be prepared to state to the House what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to Greenwich Hospital.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.—INTEGRITY OF DANISH MONARCHY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Papers on the subject of Denmark and the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein which are to be laid upon the table will contain the Report of Vice Consul Rainalt referred to by Earl Russell in his Despatch to Mr. Paget in June, 1861; also, the Memorandum on the Affairs of Schleswig and Holstein drawn up in 1855 or 1856 by Mr. Ward, Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in Hamburg; and also the terms in which the Guarantee of the British Government was offered to Austria and Prussia, that the Danish Rigsraad would repeal the Constitution of last November, which incorporated Schleswig with the Kingdom of Denmark?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, the Reports of Mr. Vice Consul Rainalt and the Memorandum of Mr. Ward were strictly confidential documents, and it was inadvisable in the present state of things, and it would lead to no good result, to make them public. The hon. Gentleman was under a mistake in supposing that any guarantee had been given by the British Government that the Rigsraad should repeal the constitution. It must rest with the Rigsraad when it was convoked to decide whether it would or would not do so. The hon. Gentleman probably referred to the

  467
  Protocol that had been laid upon the table with the other papers.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government have not given a guarantee that the Danish Rigsraad would repeal the constitution incorporating Schleswig with the Kingdom of Denmark.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, ha had stated that Her Majesty's Government could not have guaranteed that the Rigsraad, which was a constitutional assembly, should revoke the constitution. It remained for the Rigsrad to decide what course they would take. What Her Majesty's Government proposed was, that a Protocol should be signed in London between the Powers parties to the Treaty, by which the Danish Government would undertake to call together the Rigsraad, and submit to them proposals for withdrawing the constitution. Her Majesty's Government could not of course pledge themselves that the Rigsraad would repeal the constitution when it met.

  BANK ACTS (SCOTLAND).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERin moving a Resolution,
  "That it is expedient to make provision for replacing the lapsed issue of bank-notes in Scotland upon payment from time to time of a certain charge in respect thereof,"
  said, it would be obvious to the Committee that the proposal which he was about to make was a very small one, and touched only a very limited portion of an important subject. It involved no general discussion either of the principles of currency, of the provisions of the Act of 1844, which formed the basis of our system, or of those of the Act of 1845, which applied those principles in a modified form to Scotland. Its object was to make an arrangement of a subsidiary and provisional character, which had no claim to the attention or favourable consideration of Parliament, other than that it would be useful and convenient as far as it went. It asserted no principle of a novel character, but was only an assertion of that principle which was clearly established by the Act of 1844, that lapsed issues of bank-notes—that was to say, bank-notes issued by private issuers who in course of time had from circumstances lost their right to issue them— should only be replaced by other issues put forth for the profit of the State; in fact,
  468
  that lapsed issues were the property of the State. Everything else the Bill left precisely as it was. There were some hon. Gentlemen who were at all times ready for a discussion on the currency: the passing of this Bill would neither accelerate nor postpone that discussion. He was informed that a desire was entertained in Scotland for a general inquiry into the Banking system:—he did not know how-far that desire extended, but if Parliament should think proper to sanction such inquiry there was nothing in the present measure in any degree prejudicing such an investigation. The circumstances were these:—when Sir Robert Peel's Bank Act of 1845 was passed, he embodied in that Act certain provisions under which the banks issuing notes in Scotland were to state to the Revenue Department their claim to do so; and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue having ascertained from the bankers' returns what was the average amount of notes they had issued within a certain period, that Act became the standard for fixing their rights as to the issue of bank-notes and also of the amount of the authorised issue for Scotland. The amount of the authorised issue was something above £3,000,000. During a monetary crisis in 1857 one of the Scotch banks entitled to issue about £337,000 of that amount unfortunately failed. The issues thus lapsed could only be replaced by the issue of notes representing a corresponding quantity of coin in the tills of the existing banks. The Bank Act of 1844 contained provisions, so far as England was concerned, for replacing under certain conditions a given proportion of lapsed issues of private banks, and those provisions had been acted upon in two instances—but there were no corresponding powers embodied in the Scotch Act. Sir Robert Peel, in introducing the Act of 1845, explained why no such provisions had been introduced in relation to Scotland; and, in reference to a contingency of the very nature which had since arisen, suggested a remedy substantially the same as that which was now being submitted to the House. Sir Robert Peel said:—
  "I may very fairly be asked the question, Suppose, from any similar circumstance, a void should occur in the circulation of Scotland, how would you supply it? It may be said, Suppose a bank should fail, and, in consequence, £200,000 be withdrawn from the circulation, you will have restricted the circulation for Scotland to that extent; or you will impose on it the necessity of getting an additional supply of gold."—[3 Hansard, lxxix. 1313.]

  469
  Sir Robert Peel referred to another point with which it was not necessary to trouble the House—namely, that private issues in England, unlike those in Scotland, were not allowed to amalgamate, or to become joint-stock banks, and went on to say:—
  "Permitting the issues of the united banks to be equal to the issue of the two banks, if separate, I think you will take ample security against such a possible diminution of the circulation as I have adverted to. If any sensible diminution were to occur—if the total circulation of Scotland were suddenly to fall below the £3,000,000 to such an amount as to require the intervention of Parliament, there would then be no objection on the part of the Government to devise, or of Parliament to adopt, some other remedy. I believe, however, that for such a remedy there will be no necessity, for I think the permission we propose to give to unite and incorporate two banks will meet the difficulty."—[Ibid. 1344.]
  A difficulty such as was foreseen by Sir Robert Peel had actually arisen, and the remedy the Government proposed was supplied in this Bill;—it was the same remedy substantially which was already applied to England. There were lapsed issues to the extent of £337,000, and the Government proposed to authorize the banks which were now the issuers in Scotland to issue notes to that amount on payment to the State of £2 7s. 6d. per cent on the amount of those lapsed issues, relieving the banks, however, from the composition of 8s. 4d. per cent, which they were now liable to pay in respect of stamp duty. The consequence of this arrangement would be, that for those lapsed issues the Scotch banks would come under a new burden of nearly 2 per cent, to be received by the State, in addition to its present receipts, under the head of composition for stamp duty. It was proposed to divide these issues among the existing banks of Scotland, adopting as the standard of distribution the respective proportions in which during the last twelve months the several banks of Scotland had held coin against their bank-note circulation. Now, what was the state of the gold reserve in Scotland? When the Act of 1845 was passed, it was considered a matter of public policy to make some provision for the accumulation of a metallic reserve in Scotland, a certain proportion of which was allowed to be in silver, there having been no provision whatever for such a reserve either in respect of notes or of deposits before that period. For the four weeks ending the 3rd of January, 1846, there was in the possession of the several Scotch banks a metallic reserve of £997,000 in gold; and in silver £183,000,
  470
  making a total of £1,180,000. By the last return it appeared that for the four weeks ending the 9th of January, 1864, the returns of gold were £2,048,000, and of silver £302,000, making together £2,350,000. So that the metallic reserve of Scotland had almost doubled in the interval between those two periods. This large metallic reserve was, of course, a very heavy burden upon the Scotch banks, and it was very desirable that relief should be extended to them if it could be done to the general benefit and advantage of the State. Their metallic reserve was, as he had shown, £2,350,000, and their total circulation being only about £5,000,000; that was a larger metallic reserve in proportion than was required by banking establishments in England. At the same time, the diminution he proposed did not extend beyond the £337,000, and therefore the provision for metallic reserve in Scotland world be ample for all purposes of safety. He had spoken of the effect of this Bill as diminishing the metallic reserve to the extent of the issue authorized under the proposed Bill. Still, that would not be its direct effect. There was in the Bill nothing that required the diminution of the reserve. Still, it would be cheaper for the Scotch banks to issue Bank Notes at a percentage of £2 7s. 6d. to the Government, than upon the condition of keeping an equal amount of gold and silver in their coffers. The effect of the Bill would be to release a sum of £387,000 now locked up, and to make it available for the general purposes of the country and the world. There was a Bill, not yet before the House, but deposited at the Board of Trade, which was brought in by "the London Banking Company of Scotland," and the objects of which were twofold. The Bill sought to obtain a power of issue in Scotland as against coin similar to that which the present issuers of Scotland enjoyed over and above those authorized issues with respect to which they were not obliged to hold coin. The second object of the Bill was to lay hold of, so to speak, of the £337,000 of lapsed issues, and to grant to this particular company, the right of issuing notes to that extent. It was a very serious question whether any of the provisions of the Acts of 1844–5 ought to be touched by a private Bill. He was not prepared to give an opinion one way or another in regard to that Bill, except to say that it was not possible to recognize the principle that a lapsed private issue should be taken up by

  471
  a private body of persons, who could plead no traditions or vested rights. Nor did he think they would be able to show that the profit of this lapsed issue ought to belong to them rather than to the other members of the community. It would be the duty of the Government to object to that claim. He believed that the measure he now proposed would be acceptable to the banks, and to the public of Scotland. The measure simply applied to Scotland the principle already adopted in England—that the issue of paper notes was the property of the State, and that any lapsed issue was to be replaced only on condition that the profit should belong to the State.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That it is expedient to make provision for replacing the lapsed issue of Bank Notes in Scotland, upon payment, from time to time, of a certain charge in respect thereof."
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he could not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his proposal was likely to be acceptable to the people of Scotland. It seemed to him that it would only sanction and perpetuate the existing monopoly of the Scotch banks, which was very injurious to the public. This was a matter deeply affecting the people of Scotland, and he trusted that sufficient time would be given to enable them to judge of the scope and effect of the measure, and that the second reading would not be taken until a distant day. The people of Scotland viewed with great jealousy all interference with their banking system. Ever since Sir Robert Peel's legislation in 1845 they had lost the confidence in the banks which formerly existed, so that the Scotch banks no longer kept pace with those of other countries. He objected to piecemeal legislation on this subject, and thought it would be far better to deal with the subject by a general measure. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. KINNAIRDwished to know, whether the Act would apply to all existing banks of issue?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that all the existing issuing banks of Scotland would enjoy the privilege on the payment of £2 7s. 6d. per cent per annum. In reply to the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Finlay), he did not think the effect would be so large as the hon. Gentleman supposed. It would have no direct effect on the people of Scotland at large. The amount of circulation
  472
  would be the same after the passing of the measure as before; the only difference would be, that the sum of £337,000 would cease to be represented in its present costly manner. He proposed to take the second reading in ten days, and to allow a further interval before the committal.
  MR. CAIRDasked, Whether, in consideration of this payment of £2 7s. 6d. per cent, there would be involved any guarantee by the Government?
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the note circulation in Scotland was so adequately secured that it would bear the limited change now proposed. The question of a public guarantee for the note circulation in Scotland was of a very extended nature, on which it would be impossible to enter except at a period when the House was engaged on the general subject of issue in Scotland.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, that he quite approved of the proposition before the Committee. It was sound in principle that the State, and not private firms or companies, should have the advantage of the interest of the circulating medium, which would go in reduction of the taxation of the country. When the Bank rate of discount became high, he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the desirableness of allowing one pound notes to circulate in England. One pound notes had been of great service to Scotland, and he believed that if such notes were introduced into England the commercial classes would be greatly relieved thereby.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas afraid that he could not engraft into this measure such a proposition as that made by the hon. Baronet. That was a very large question, and he was afraid it would occupy more time than the House would be disposed to give to it at the present moment.
  MR. HUBBARDunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the circulation of the Scotch banks was adequately secured: he (Mr. Hubbard) never heard that the circulation in Scotland was secured at all, except so far as it was provided for by the large property engaged in the banking business of that country. He would take a currency to he adequately secured when based on a similar foundation to that of the Bank of England. There was no such security in Scotland. Of course, the banks in Scotland were popular; but so were all banks till they failed; and we had known Scotch banks fail ere now—in fact, the

  473
  very cause of the present Motion was the failure of a Scotch bank with a note circulation of £337,000. He would like to know in what way the right hon. Gentleman conceived the circulation in Scotland adequately secured.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, two of the Scotch banks had failed; but the best proof that the Scotch banks were secure was the fact, that every farthing owed by those banks had been paid.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, there never was a bank in Scotland which did not pay in full.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no intention of stating that the circulation in Scotland rested upon the precise basis which he should desire, if the matter had been res integra, and they had had an open field to adjust everything. He had spoken merely with reference to the practical working of the system since the Act of 1845, and he believed the people of Scotland were satisfied with it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to make provision for replacing the lapsed issue of Bank Notes in Scotland upon payment from time to time of a certain charge in respect thereof."
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  Resolution, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty," reported.

  TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYrose to call the attention of the House to the amount of taxation levied for and expended in Supply during the years 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864. He said, this was a question well worth the careful consideration of the House, and he took that opportunity of making a few observations upon it, because what he had to say referred to Supply in general, and not to any particular Supply. He believed the amount of taxation and expenditure during the last five years, including the present financial year, up to the 31st of March next, would be found to be wholly unprecedented in the history of this country. Within the last five years the amount of taxes levied upon the taxpayers of this country was nearly £350,000,000. Bearing in mind that that House was the guardian of the public
  474
  purse, it might be worth while to ask why it was thought necessary to impose on the taxpayers of this kingdom such an enormous amount of taxation. The amount was almost unprecedented. Except hon. Gentlemen recurred to the period when this country was engaged in the French war, the most expensive war she ever had in hand, during the years 1813, 1814, 1815, and the two succeeding years, 1816 and 1817, they would not find that so large a sum as £350,000,000 had been ever raised, in five years, independent of loans, out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. There must be some reason for a taxation and expenditure so large. Some £70,000,000 a year were levied in a time of profound peace. There had been alarms of war, but there had been no actual warfare worth speaking of. And if that was done in time of peace, where was there any margin left for a state of war? This taxation was entirely independent of local taxation—a taxation too large to be forgotten, for it amounted to some £20,000,000 a year. No doubt our neighbours the French were apparently nearly as heavily taxed as we; but it must be remembered that the French mixed up the local with the public taxation, and if their Secretary for the Home Department were to bring in a separate budget for local taxation, it would show a sum of about £14,000,000, while in this country the local taxation was upwards of £20,000,000. It would appear, indeed, that the chief object of an Englishman was to pay taxes. It must be borne in mind that in the question which he was calling attention to he was dealing solely with public taxation and expenditure. He should prove in a few words that our expenditure during the last five years was unprecedented, or nearly so. The expenditure from 1830 to 1854 did not exceed an average of £54,000,000—it was rather under it. It was true that at that time it did not include the expense of the collection of the revenue; but making allowance for that, it would be found that during those twenty-five years our expenditure was some £13,000,000 a year less than during the last five years, and how were we to account for that enormous difference? But the question of increase became more striking by taking the last twenty years. Dividing the twenty years from 1842 to 1862 into four periods of five years each, the gradual rise and progress of the taxation and expenditure of the country would be at once seen. In the first epoch, from 1842 to

  475
  1846, the annual average expenditure was £50,250,000, so that the total expenditure in that period amounted to about £251,000,000. In the next epoch, from 1847 to 1851, there was a slight increase, the annual taxation expenditure being £51,750,000, and the total during the epoch about£258,000,000. Then came the Crimean war in the next period of five years, when, no doubt, there was a great rise in the expenditure, and during that epoch the expenditure and taxation of the country rose to an average of £66,750,000, or about £330,000,000 and odd for the whole epoch. During the last epoch to which he referred there was no war, though perhaps one year might have been influenced by the expenditure for the Crimean war, and in that epoch the expenditure and taxation rose to the enormous average of£69,750,000. The House, then, ought to consider the important question, whether there was any necessity for this extraordinary increase within the last twenty years; and whether it could be maintained with justice to those whom the House represented? He would not attempt, on the present occasion, to enter into the causes of this extraordinary expenditure; but if it were said that, as in the case of the French war, it took the country fifteen years after its termination to come down to a reasonable expenditure, so it might be impossible for the House or the Government to come suddenly down from the expenditure of the Crimean war, he would observe that not only had the Government not reduced the expenditure of the period of war, but there had been an actual increase since. He believed that it would require all the vigilance of that House to check this tendency to increased expenditure, and that the Government, with all its good wishes, was unequal to the task. The Government had advanced into the enormous expenditure of maintaining manufacturing establishments, all of which must necessarily be carried on at a great Cost, and, he did not hesitate to say, at a great loss. He believed that a system of contracts with checks to prevent trickery would be one cause of economy, and might of itself effect a great deal. He felt so strongly with respect to the enormous amount of taxation and expenditure which he had adverted to, that he determined to take the first fair opportunity to bring it under the notice of the House. Knowing the extreme value of the privileges belonging to that House as the guardian of the public purse, and seeing how lamely the
  476
  representatives of the people in such an assembly as that of Prussia got on from want of their powers being distinctly marked out, he thought that the Members of the House of Commons should show to the country that they did not neglect their duty of watching the expenditure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not know that it was incumbent on him to enter on the present occasion at any great length into the very important subject which the right hon. Baronet had so ably brought under the notice of the House. He had listened to the hon. Baronet with great satisfaction, for he thought that nothing was so desirable as that the representatives of the people should call the attention of the Ministers and of Parliament to the expenditure of the State, with a view to restraining it; and if, by the influence and authority and example of the hon. Baronet, the expenditure could be brought back to that of past years, he should rejoice indeed; but in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) office, it would be vain for him to attempt to deal with general assurances. It should he borne in mind that with respect to some branches of the public service, the increased wealth of the country made it necessary that increased expenditure should be incurred. With regard to the wages of labour, whether physical or intellectual, it could not be expected or desired that that portion of the public expenditure should be limited to the point at which it formerly stood. No doubt, there was a general tendency to bettering the condition of all the persons engaged in the service of the State. In some instances it was allowed to go too far, for so great was the pressure for increased emolument and remuneration for public service, that it was found difficult to keep within bounds. He was sure that the hon. Baronet would vigilantly direct his attention to this subject, and he hoped that the hon. Baronet's example would induce other Members to walk in the same line. But it must not be expected that the expenditure could be kept at the point at which it stood twenty or thirty years ago—or, he should rather say, to bring it back to that point—and that was on account of the estimate which the community was inclined to form of its own wants. The hon. Baronet spoke of the control of the Treasury as being less efficient than formerly. That was true to a certain extent, and was owing to the enormous increase in the volume and mass

  477
  of the civil expenditure, and not to the want of effort on the part of the political and permanent officers of the Treasury, to keep down the public expenditure. The task of exercising control had become one of increasing weight and difficulty. He did not complain of any one on this account, but he pointed it out as the result of the state of things. The development of the civil service was sometimes extravagant; but in many cases it took place for most valuable and important purposes, and he knew not any way in which an undue increase could be prevented, except by the Government obtaining a more firm and uniform support from the representatives of the people on occasions when the Government thought it their duty to resist addition to the public expenditure. When it was considered that the Civil Estimates voted by that House, without including the Estimates for the collection of the Revenue, had grown in thirty years from less than£2,000,000 to about£8,000,000, notwithstanding the great economy effected in many branches of the public service, it was obvious that that circumstance indicated a different state of things as to the increased duties which the Treasury had to perform, and as to the necessity of the Government receiving support from the House when they thought it right to resist additional expenditure. He did not now wish to enter further into the matter, for when it should be his duty to submit to the House the annual statement of Revenue and Expenditure, then would be the time for any more general discussion on the point, and on the manner in which the Government had endeavoured to maintain the application of principles of economy in restricting expenditure.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the House was deeply indebted to his hon. Friend for having brought the subject to their consideration. He had listened attentively to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he believed, fully coincided with his hon. Friend in a desire to limit the expenditure within reasonable bounds. He could not forget, when the right hon. Gentleman told the representatives of the people that it rested with them to limit the expenditure, that an officer in a high position, and with many years' experience, who remembered the more economical times of our expenditure, had constantly represented that the functions of his office had, by lapse of time and change of circumstances, and the alterations made
  478
  by legislation, ceased to have that control over the expenditure which it formerly possessed. Lord Monteagle, the Comptroller of the Exchequer, had over and over again represented to Parliament, that if the functions of his office were so improved and adapted to the present time as to enable him effectually to check the expenditure, and comment upon that which might appear in excess, the House of Commons, as the guardian of the public purse, would have in such an officer an adviser free from the trammels of party, not subject to the effects of public excitement, not liable to the pressure of private applications, because not connected with the appointments which caused the expenditure, which it would be his duty to supervise. He hoped the House would forgive him for having recalled their attention to the repeated warnings which had been given by an officer of high character, of high standing, and of long experience, that the present organisation, which, was intended to control the expenditure of the country, had become defective in as much as that an office, which once afforded an independent check, by affording independent information, had ceased to be effectual for the public service.
  Resolution agreed to, Nemine Contradicente.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill relating to the purchase of Government Annuities through the medium of savings banks, said it was a measure for the purpose of improving machinery already established by law. It had been thought of late very useful that the Government, without any interference with private establishments, or any attempt to take their proper business, should nevertheless do all it could to offer facilities for the increase and extension of frugal habits among the industrious classes. Upon that principle the Post Office saving3 banks were founded, being no more than a new attempt, under the altered circumstances of the community and the improved machinery at command, to apply the same principle which had already been applied with great benefit under the old Savings Bank system. But besides providing for the receipt and custody of savings, they had long possessed a machinery for the' grant by the Government

  479
  of small life assurances and small deferred life annuities. The purpose of this Bill was to afford improvements to that machinery. With regard to deferred annuities, it was very material that the class of persons likely to purchase them should have the opportunity of making a deposit of the premiums on them in as small sums as the Government could afford to receive. If only large payments at one time were received there was a considerable impediment to the purchase. On the other hand, the arrangements now were such, by the medium of the Post Office savings banks, that the Government could economically receive smaller amounts than they had hitherto received. He proposed by this Bill to give power to the Treasury to fix the amounts. He proposed also to remove from the existing law a restriction which was found inconvenient, and which was obviously unreasonable in itself. The Government were at present empowered to grant small life assurances up to the limit of £100, that being about the point at which, speaking generally, the ordinary private system of life assurance commenced. There were some life assurance offices which did an amount of business below £100; but, speaking generally and roughly, from £100 upwards life assurance by the public offices began to operate. The Government had power to grant life assurances up to £100; but that power was limited by the requirement that the same person who made the life assurance should likewise purchase a deferred annuity. The man who wanted a life assurance was generally a man who did not want a deferred annuity, and vice vers£. They were generally people of a different class. The object of the purchaser of a deferred annuity was to provide for old age, whereas that of the life assurer was to provide for those who came after him. The combination of the two was very inconvenient, and he proposed by this Bill to remove that restriction from the statute book.
  Moved,—" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the purchase of Government Annuities through the medium of saving banks."
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not anticipate that any objection would be made to the measure; but he thought it desirable that ample time should be given to the Savings Batiks to study the Bill, and to make any suggestion they thought necessary.
  MR. HUBBARDinquired whether the rate of interest at which the deferred an-
  480
  nuities would be granted would be identical with that of the Post Office savings banks; or whether it would, as at present, depend upon the state of the funds?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the interest would remain exactly as it was at present; it would have no connection whatever between it and the rate allowed on deposits in the Post Office savings banks.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the purchase of Government Annuities through the medium of Savings Banks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 11.]

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE.
  MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)in moving for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend the procednre of the County Courts in Ireland" said, he desired to remind the House that these courts had existed in Ireland antecedent to similar courts being established in this country, and might be taken to have afforded a precedent for the English system. At first their jurisdiction was limited to £10, but had since been extended to £40 there was also a testamentary jurisdiction, and their power extended to actions of ejectment in cases where the value of the property did not exceed £100 a year. He believed he might fairly say that the manner in which the business was conducted was, on the whole, satisfactory: they were, he believed, as a general rule, very efficient and very popular tribunals. But there was one portion of their procedure which was the subject of almost universal condemnation in Ireland, and for the reform of which this measure was intended—that was the mode of execution of the process of the Courts, which operated mainly among the humbler classes, and in whose case it was extremely important, not only that the process should be efficient, but that it should be conducted by means of a machinery to which due responsibility should attach. At present the execution of process in the County Courts in Ireland was as badly carried out as it could possibly be. By the 14 & 15 Vict, it was directed, that a decree of these Courts should be executed by the sheriff, or by a special bailiff nominated by the plaintiff in. a suit; but the practical result was that

  481
  the sheriff never executed a decree—indeed, it was impossible that they should do so; because, whereas in England the jurisdiction of each county court was specifically confined to the county in which it was situated, in Ireland the jurisdiction often extended over large districts embracing parts of several counties, and often in the course of a single year as many as 100,000 might be issued;—the result consequently was that the execution of process was committed to the hands of a bailiff appointed by the plaintiff in the cause at his own peril only. Thus it came to pass that while in the superior Courts the sheriff was responsible in those instances both to the plaintiff and the defendant for any mischance that might arise, the person generally appointed to execute process by the plaintiff in the County Court was some one of rather low character, to whose performance of the duty cast upon him great extortion, great oppression, and great public mischief were incident. Indeed, he had heard of cases in which the execution of a decree for a sum of £20 had, in such hands, cost the plaintiff £3, £4, or even £5;while, in addition, frequent assaults and rescues were the consequence of committing execution to ignorant and worthless persons, who were apt to display great recklessness and violence of conduct. To remedy that state of things was the object with which he proposed to ask the House for leave to introduce a Bill that evening. It was only, he might add, within the last month that a memorial had been received from the merchants of Londonderry pressing for some amendment in the law in that respect, while equally strong opinions in the same direction had, he was aware, been expressed by the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast. Acting, then, on what he thought was the almost universal feeling on the subject in Ireland, the Government proposed that, on the analogy that the duties of the sheriff were generally delegated to an officer who was called the high bailiff of the Court, the persons who should in future execute the decrees in question should be the sub-sheriffs of counties, who would be responsible officers fairly remunerated for the work. There were at the present moment such officers in Ireland brought very much into connection with the chairman of County Courts, and on them he thought the like duty of the executing their process might very ad vantageously be devolved, while the high sheriffs should be relieved from the nominal
  482
  responsibility in those matters which now rested upon them, and which it would, in his opinion, be somewhat harsh to continue to impose. According to the provisions of this Bill the sub-sheriff alone would be charged with the duty of executing the process of the Court. He would be made the responsible person, and so give security, not only for the efficient performance of the duties devolving upon him, but for the due transmission of the proceeds of the distraint with the least possible cost and delay to the person in whose favour the decree was made. Then, the sub-sheriff must be fairly paid. It was calculated, that by giving the sub-sheriff fees on the warrants and poundage on the decrees, he would be sufficiently paid, while suitors would be considerably relieved. It was intended to make him directly responsible to the Crown, to whom he would give security, instead of, as at present, to the high sheriff; and to place him under the control of the County Court Judge, who would have the power of fining him for any impropriety of conduct or neglect of duty. There were other provisions in the Bill, which he thought would be a great improvement upon the existing law. One of these made it competent for a Judge of assize, upon appeal, to reserve a question of law for the opinion of a superior court. He trusted that the system to be established by the Bill would work cheaply and efficiently, without injury to individual interests, and with protection and benefit to the public.
  Moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the proceedings of the County Courts in Ireland."
  MR, GEORGEexpressed his general concurrence with the scope and object of the Bill; but said that he thought it was a mistake that it was not provided that the warrants should be sent to the high sheriff in the first instance, in accordance with the practice of the superior courts, to be afterwards transmitted by him to the sub-sheriff for execution. If that plan had been adopted he believed it would obviate the difficulties which he foresaw would arise if the system proposed was adhered to.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the procedure of the County Courts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Sir GEORGE GREY.

  CHARITABLE ESTATES AND TRUSTS ACTS.—RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. FERRANDmoved for
  "Returns of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also, the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually, and the profession, trade, or calling in which each was engaged when appointed: And of the total expense of the Board to the Public Exchequer and Charitable Trusts."
  The hon. Member said, that his present Motion would enable him to test the sincerity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to prove whether he was sincere in the statement that he had just made, that the Government were extremely anxious to put a stop to all unnecessary expenditure in the civil service departments of the country. He believed he would be able to show that, so far as the Board of Charity Commissioners were concerned, there was within that body a large amount of reckless and useless expenditure of public money. That Board had been now in existence for ten years. It was a secret tribunal, from which the public were kept apart; they were ignorant of all its proceedings; and he believed, that at this moment there were few persons either in this House or out of it who were aware of the names of the gentlemen and officers employed under that Commission. There had been for a length of time the gravest complaints against the Board in all parts of the country. It was charged with negligence, with idleness, with ignorance, and with a total want of attention to the duties which were required at its hands in connection with the various charities throughout the country. He himself could bring many circumstances to light, connected with his own part of the kingdom, which would support the statement he had made; but it was not his intention at this time to allude to the manner of the working of the Commission. He would do that on another occasion. What he asked for now was a Return for the purpose of enabling him, as soon as he conveniently could, to appeal to that House to grant him a Select Committee to inquire into the construction, expense, and working of the Charity Board. He put his Motion on the notice paper under the conviction, that Her Majesty's Government would not for one instant oppose it; there was nothing unfair
  484
  in it. But he had been told by the Government that they must refuse it, and that it was invidious and inquisitorial to ask for the profession, trade, or calling of each of the members of the Board, and the time of their appointment. If it were, indeed, inquisitorial, then he said that this was an inquisitorial Board. It had the power of inquiring into the different charities throughout the country in a manner most unconstitutional, and which had been protested against, not only in that House, but in the other House by some of the highest of the legal profession in this country. But why should the Government object to this Return? It was their duty, before they allowed one of those appointments to be made, to inquire into the antecedents of every person who held an appointment; and if there were Members sitting on this Charity Board who were afraid of their antecedents being investigated, then in his opinion it was the duty of that House to take care that this Return should be made, so that the House and the country might know why the Government were so anxious not to grant it. He would give the House a brief sketch of the history of the Board. It was founded in 1853. There were four Commissioners, one Secretary, and two Inspectors appointed under the Act of Parliament. The Commissioners were to be barristers of not less than twelve years' standing. The two Inspectors (Parliament was so informed when the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill) were to be legal gentlemen of high attainments. There was to be one Secretary, to be a legal gentleman of high standing. The Act of Parliament fixed the salaries to be paid to these seven officers. There was to be paid to the First Commissioner £1,500 a year, to the remaining three £1,200 a year each, and to the Secretary £600 a year (he wished particular attention to this point), to the two Inspectors £800 a year each, making, in the whole, £7,300. Now, after this Board was formed of officers whose salaries he had quoted, the Act of Parliament went on to give to the Commissioners the power, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Commissioners of the Treasury, to appoint as many other officials as they thought proper. Ho desired to call particular attention to these powers, given by the Act of Parliament to these four Commissioners. At the time the Board was formed, the Commissioners communicated with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir William Hayter), who was then

  485
  Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury; and he wished to find out, by the Return, what was the number of officers appointed by those Commissioners, and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells at the time the Board was constituted. But he had another reason for moving for this Return. It happened, in the year 1854, that the hon. Gentleman who then represented Liskeard in this House (Mr. Crowder) became one of the Judges, and resigned his seat. An hon. Gentleman who sits on the benches opposite immediately went down to contest that borough; at that time he was Mr. Trelawny. He was a Cornish man of ancient lineage, highly respected in that county, and (what was rarely to be found on the opposite side of the House) true to his political principles. He was received with the greatest delight by the Whigs and Radicals of Liskeard. In fact, his reception was so hearty, his support so large, and the promises made to him were so numerous, that he felt thoroughly convinced that he was perfectly secure of his election. While he was under this delightful impression there suddenly appeared in the borough a gentleman, who at that time was Private Secretary to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) at the head of the Government. This gentleman appeared in the borough to oppose Mr. Trelawny. He certainly thought it an extraordinary thing, that a gentleman professing his own political opinions should come in such a disingenuous manner; but Mr. Trelawny was not at all alarmed; he knew the number of his supporters, and felt perfectly secure whenever the polling took place. But to his astonishment a member of his committee, who had considerable influence with a certain party of Radical voters in the borough, left him immediately before the polling, and carried over the voters to the side of Mr. Ralph Grey, the noble Lord's Private Secretary, who was returned, while Mr. Trelawny lost his election. He mentioned this circumstance for the purpose of bringing under the notice of the House something exceedingly suspicious, connected with an Act of Parliament obtained by the Government in the following Session. Early in the Session of 1855 the Lord Chancellor brought in a Bill to extend the powers of the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853. In asking for an extension of those powers he alluded to the circumstance of the fourth Commissioner, who should have held the appointment until the year 1857, having died, leaving a vacancy at the Board. He said that the
  486
  Government had tried to find some gentleman of high legal attainments to take the place; but all who were applied to refused to do so on account of the shortness of the period before the appointment would cease—namely, in 1857. Therefore, the Government had thought it their duty to bring in a Bill to make the appointment of the fourth Commissioner permanent, and to extend the powers of the Commissioners. But in bringing in the Bill the Lord Chancellor never mentioned a circumstance which he (Mr. Ferrand) would bring to the notice of the House. The measure was not brought in before the House of Commons until a very few days before Parliament was prorogued. It was read a first time, and when the Attorney General moved the second reading he protested against any discussion upon it as it was of the greatest importance that the House should go immediately into Committee of Supply. When the discussion on the Bill took place, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) protested against the unconstitutional character of the provisions. The Attorney General, however, declared the measure to be most pressing, as the term of appointment of the fourth Commissioner would expire at the end of the Session. There was not one word of truth in that statement, as the appointment would not have expired till 1857, and the Attorney General must have known the fact. But there was a clause in the Bill giving the Commissioners, with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury, power to appoint three more Inspectors; but the House did not hear a word about such a power until within a few days of the prorogation. The House, however, upon the statement made by the Attorney General, passed the Bill. The Commissioners immediately appointed as one of the Inspectors the agent who had deserted Mr. Trelawny just before the polling. That appointment had caused an immense sensation in the west of England, where it was felt that this individual had acted a dishonourable part towards Mr. Trelawny. He was, however, paid for his services to the Private Secretary of the noble Lord at the cost of the taxpayers of this country. The election of Mr. Ralph Grey had cost the country not less than £22,400. He would prove this if the House would grant him the Committee. The third Inspectorship was not filled up, he believed, until the present year, Mr. Ralph Grey being made a Commissioner of Customs, at a salary

  487
  of £1,200 a year by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The Commission was known as the snug nest of Whigs; and a pretty numerous neat it was, providing for not less than forty-four persons, including a housekeeper, and wife, and two maid servants—thirty-nine of whom were in receipt of salaries. In 1853, when the first Bill was introduced, the Government said they did not think the expense would be more than £5,000 or £6,000; but in 1855, after the Commissioners and the right hon. Member for Wells had been at work filling up the appointments, it amounted to £12,390, and in 1864 to £18,243. And this amount was rapidly increasing. This was the sum voted out of the public Exchequer. Not one word, however, was said of the monies the Commissioners received from the private charities, which, he believed, were enormous. As to the minor charities the Board of Charity Commissioners was literally swallowing them up with expenses. The late Mr. Apsley Pellatt stated in that House that in the first two years the expenditure of the Charity Commissioners was not less than £78,000. There was, however, no means of knowing what the expenditure actually was apart from that voted out of the Exchequer. No Return could be obtained on this subject. He believed the Chief Commissioner, whom he saw sitting opposite (Mr. Lowe), to be quite innocent of all these charges brought against the Board; and, in fact, he believed that right hon. Gentleman had mentioned to a Friend of his (Mr. Ferrand's) that his agitation on the question was right, and that a stop must be put to what was going on. The salary of the secretary was fixed by Act of Parliament at £600. He should like to know by whose authority the secretary's salary had since been raised from £600 to £800. Was it under an Act of Parliament? [Mr. LOWE: Yes.] Unless that were done under the authority of an Act repealing the former Act, it was a robbery of the public. There were forty-one persons connected with this Board who were entirely unknown to the public. He could find no account whatever of travelling expenses, except a paltry sum of £500 included in the £18,234, and he had been informed that the expenses of the Inspectors in travelling over the country were extremely large. He was also informed that private charities were taxed without any control, except that of the Board. He might be told that this Return was an
  488
  inquisitorial one; but the Board itself was inquisitorial; it had the power of summoning witnesses and examining them on oath, and if anybody refused to give evidence he was guilty of contempt of the Court of Chancery, and if he gave false evidence he was guilty of a misdemeanour. When the Inspectors had such tremendous powers in their hands the least that ought to be required is, that they should be what the Lord Chancellor promised—" legal gentlemen of high attainments." He had inserted in his notice the words "profession, trade, or calling" for the purpose of proving to the House and the country that at least one Inspector of the Board ought not to have received that appointment from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and that he would never have done so had he not betrayed Mr. Trelawny and gone over and secured the return of the Private Secretary of the Prime Minister. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Returns.
  COLONEL DICKSONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there be laid before this House Returns—
  "Of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually, and the profession, trade, or calling in which he was engaged when appointed;
  "And of the total annual expense of the Board to the Public Exchequer and Charitable Trusts."
  MR. LOWE: The right hon. Gentleman has based his Motion on the assumption that it is the intention of the Government to oppose the production of the papers. He has stated that again and again, and I can only meet the hon. Gentleman's statement by a contradiction. The Government are quite willing to give the papers, subject to two objections, both of them remediable, and both of which he has been asked to remedy. The first objection is not an unnatural one, I think. The hon. Gentleman asks not merely for a Return of the present establishment of the Charity Commissioners, but of all the appointments of all the persons in the office since its foundation. It seemed a reasonable objection at first to say, that the hon. Gentleman called for persons who are not on the establishment, but who were on it eleven years ago. But the hon. Gentleman has

  489
  entirely removed that objection, for, having gone into the history of the Charity Commission from its beginning, and having made so many charges against those who belonged to the Commission, he has done away with our objection, and we shall be very happy, as far as we can, to furnish the names of all the persons who have held office, from the First Commissioner down to the housekeeper, from the year 1853 to the present time. But if we are not able to give very accurately some of the travelling expenses and small incidental charges incurred ten year's ago, I hope he will not blame us. The Charity Commissioners are appointed to exercise quasi judicial functions under circumstances of the utmost delicacy, and to discharge the duties of courts of justice without means which courts of justice possess. It has to decide all sorts of questions without a bar, and without the power of calling witnesses in the same way as other courts. Therefore it is a difficult matter to deal with a court the proceedings of which being from their nature not public, it is impossible that the charges against them can be met in the same manner as if the proceedings were public. It is no concern of mine to defend the Parliament of 1853 which created this Commission, nor, at a distance of nine years' time, the Parliament of 1855, which passed a Bill for the appointment of three new Inspectors. If the hon. Member had given notice that it was his intention to bring charges against any Member who had been in this House, no doubt that Member would have found some one to defend him; but it is quite out of the question that we should be called upon to go into the Liskeard election of 1854, or to defend the conduct of the Attorney General of 1855. These things are not germane to the point at issue. Then, the hon. Gentleman says that in 1860 the salary of the secretary was raised from £600, at which it had been fixed by the Act of Parliament, to £800; and he wants some explanation of that. It was done with the consent of the Treasury and of this House. I was the person to carry through the Bill—a Bill which extends, to the great benefit of the public, the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. The increased salary was voted by this House, and, being sanctioned by Act of Parliament, has since been paid; and if the House votes that the Secretary should have £200 a year more than before, there was no reason to repeal the clause by which he was entitled only to £600. As
  490
  to the expense of the Commission, it is not my business to defend it. The House of Commons votes the money every year in the second number of the Civil Service Estimates, and in it all the information which the hon. Gentleman wants will be found. He has said, and has repeated over and over again, that this Commission extracted in two years £78,000 from the charities of the country. The House will not be surprised to hear, because it must be in the general knowledge of Members, that the Commission has no funds except what are voted by this House; that it has no power to extract any funds from the charities, and has never done so. The thing is a mere chimera, and there is not the slightest foundation for it, though the hon. Gentleman has pledged himself to prove his statements before a Select Committee. I am quite willing to give in this Return all the information he requires which is germane to the charges in his speech. He has made charges against the Commissioners and Inspectors, but there is no objection to give him every information about them. The Commissioners are Mr. Erie (brother of the Lord Chief Justice), Mr. Hill, and Mr. Campbell, all counsel of great eminence; and the Inspectors are five gentlemen, three of whom are barristers, one a solicitor, and the other a gentleman who has not been brought up, as far as I am aware, to any profession. There is not the slightest objection to give every information about these gentlemen which may throw light upon the charges which he brings against them; but when the hon. Member asks me to call upon the clerks, doorkeepers, and other persons of this description for a return of their professions, trades, and callings before they became connected with the Commission, I think he asks for that which it is not worthy of the dignity of this House to enforce. Many of these men may have come from humble extraction and filled humble callings, and why should these things be paraded before the country about them? As for my antecedents, they are perfectly well known, and I may say the same of my brother Commissioners. All fair official information we do not object to give to the hon. Member, but it is not part of my duty to know whether a man before being appointed was a costermonger, or whether his wife kept a greengrocer's shop. This is the only objection I have to the hon. Gentleman's Return; but I say nothing of the objection which I may

  491
  entertain to the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in the course of which he has thought fit to make violent charges without notice to any of the parties to whom he has adverted. I object to the words in the Motion relating to the profession, trade, or calling of the persons appointed; and I hope the House will see that I am not endeavouring to deprive the hon. Gentleman of any of the real information which he so lusts for.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was glad the Government did not intend to refuse the substance of the Return. As his name had been mentioned, he would say that though he could see no ground why the Government should refuse these returns, he desired to be understood as not concurring in the reasons urged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand); he could not concur in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the constitution of the Board. The First Commissioner was Mr. Peter Erie, Q.C., a brother of the Chief Justice, a lawyer of great eminence, and than whom a more respectable man could not be found. The second was Mr. James Campbell, also a Q.C., against whom not a word could be said. The third, Mr. Hill, was never, he believed, called within the bar, but he was a junior counsel of well-known learning and ability, the author of an excellent treatise of frequent reference in the law courts, Hill on Trustees. The names of the Inspectors he did not all remember. One, however, he believed was Mr. Hare, a barrister of great eminence, whose reports were daily cited in the courts, and with regard to whom it was a matter of surprise that he undertook this office. Mr. Skirrow, again, was a member of a family of well-known legal eminence, and a man of excellent character—against whom not a word could be said. He (Mr. Malins) had nevertheless made objections in 1855 to the constitution of the Commission, which he still felt to a certain extent were not removed. He meant particularly the jurisdiction of the Board, which was to all intents and purposes a court of justice and of secret tribunal, from which there was no appeal, whilst it was unprovided with a bar, the accessories which were necessary for the due administration of justice. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to accede to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), and to omit the words objected to with regard to the subordinate officials.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he was glad that the Government had permitted this Return to be made. He wished to observe
  492
  that the £18,243 taken in the Estimates last year was exclusive of the House, which must be subject to a yearly rent and to repairs. He entirely concurred with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins); and it was not from any doubt us to the character and attainments of the Commissioners and Inspectors that he acquiesced in the Motion, but because he thought too much light could not be thrown upon the transactions of public Boards. These Boards had large and extensive powers; practically there was no appeal from them; and there was need of men to act upon them, combining powers of mind, tact, and conciliation in a degree which was rarely found.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had so far given him the information he required, that he would withdraw that portion of the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman objected to, relating to the costermongers, their wives, and children, and leave them in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Returns ordered,
  "Of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually."
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.