Commons Sitting of 19 May 1865

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Master and Servant, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions [May 18] reported—Inland Revenue Acts.
Ordered—Inland Revenue Acts.*
First Reading—Malt Duty* [160]; Coroners (Ireland)* [161].
Select Committee—On Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment * [117], nominated.
Committee—Roman Catholic Oath [86], Debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Amendment * [82]; County Voters Registration * [135]; Commissioners of Supply Meetings (Scotland)* [136], [Mr. Finlay], and passed.

BREAKWATER AT ALDERNEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that damage has been done to the Breakwater at Alderney, which it will take at least £50,000 to repair, and if

  561
  serious apprehensions are entertained for the safety of a larger portion of that valuable structure?
  MR. PEELstated, in reply, that in the last Papers respecting Harbours of Refuge, presented the other day, the hon. Gentleman would find an account of the damage upon the occasion of these storms. It appeared that the masonry walls of the Breakwater had breached in two places of considerable length two feet below the level of the sea at low water. No damage had been done to the base upon which the wall was built, the most important part of these breakwaters, and no apprehensions were entertained, as far as he was aware, for the safety and stability of the structure. The cost of the repairs had been estimated at £15,000, but the cost to the public would not be so much, as the contractor was liable for any damage till the breakwater was completed, except in the case of damage arising from great storms, in which case he was liable to pay one-half.

INDIA—CASE OF MR. BUCKLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Memorial of Mr. Buckle, relating to his arbitrary dismissal from the office of Civil and Sessions Judge of Moorshedabad by Mr. Beadon, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, contrary to the protests of the Judges of the High Court of Judicature, Calcutta; if so, what steps he has taken on the subject?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply, said, he did not think the terms of the question conveyed an accurate notion of the facts of the case. Mr. Buckle, who had been employed in the Opium Department, had been appointed a Judge according to the old practice of providing in some way or another for members of the Civil Service, and in dealing with causes without a jury he gave satisfaction. He was subsequently removed to a Court where he sat with a jury, and the High Court at Calcutta made representations to the effect that he did not satisfactorily conduct trials with juries; in fact, that he was not competent to sum up evidence. Upon that representation Mr. Buckle had been removed from his post and from all judicial employment, but he (Sir Charles Wood), believing that the reasons for removing that gentleman from all public employment were insufficient, had
  562
  requested the Lieutenant Governor to give him some other employment for which he was qualified.

  ARMY—THE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION ACT—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to bring into operation at Aldershot the Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that Dr. Leonard, the Inspector under the Act, had been directed to report at the end of last year upon Aldershot and the local hospitals which were likely to be available for the purposes of the Act. He reported that neither the Infirmary nor any other hospital in the neighbourhood was adapted for the purposes of the Act. Under these circumstances arrangements were temporarily made to remove persons subject to the operation of the Act to the Lock Hospital in London. The very limited experience they had had of the working of the Act at Portsmouth, Devon-port, and other places, had shown that, unless the provisions of the measure could be thoroughly and completely carried out, little or no good could result from putting the Act in force. Dr. Leonard had lately made proposals for trying the experiment upon a more complete scale at Aldershot, and the matter was now under consideration.

DEVIZES TURNPIKE TRUST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Returns of Correspondence relating to the Turnpike Trusts of the neighbourhood of Devizes, for which an Address was moved on Thursday, the 11th instant, will be laid upon the table of the House?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, in reply, that the Correspondence relating to the Turnpike Trusts in the neighbourhood of Devizes would be laid upon the table that evening. There had been no unnecessary delay, for the Return consisted of fifty-two pages, and included the signatures of 995 persons who had memorialized for or against the Turnpike Trusts. He thought the attention of the Chairman of the Printing Committee might be called to the question whether the petitions did not rather refer to private interests than to public matters.

  INDIAN MEDALS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. MILLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to his reply to a question addressed to him on the 15th instant, Whether he is prepared to order that the Medal be now distributed to all the Troops, regular and irregular, who were actually engaged (that being the admitted principle and limitation) in the field against Rebels and Mutineers in the Bombay Presidency during 1857, 1858, and 1859, as it was a matter of absolute certainty that Officers and Men of several Corps, regular and irregular, employed in the Deccan and elsewhere, and who were actually engaged against Rebels and Mutineers, have not received the medal?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply, said, he did not admit that any officers or men who were entitled to medals had not received them. As far as he knew, all those who wore entitled under the general orders of the Government of India and the recommendations of Lord Clyde had received the medals, and therefore he was not prepared to issue any fresh order upon the subject. If any particular cases were brought under his notice they should receive his careful attention.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to know whether there were not certain officers employed against the Bheels, and as in the case of the Tantia Topee raid they were practically rebels, and whether those officers were not entitled to medals?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was under the impression, without having the papers before him, that there were present officers employed in putting down the bands of robbers, the Bheels, and the Government of India did not consider that the ruffianism of robbers was to be treated in the same way as the putting down of a mutiny.

  UNITED STATES—PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Proclamation of the President of the United States, offering 100,000 dollars for the arrest of Mr. Jefferson Davis; and whether Her Majesty's Ministers are prepared to make any representations to the Government of the United States in
  564
  reference to the treatment of the Southern leaders?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the only answer I can give to the question of the hon. Gentleman is that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of attempting any interference in the internal affairs of the United States.

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

  ATTORNEYS' &c., CERTIFICATE DUTY.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. DENMANsaid, he rose to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is just and expedient that the annual Duty payable upon Certificates taken out by Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors in England and Ireland, and by Writers to the Signet, Solicitors, Agents, Attorneys, and Procurators in Scotland, should be abolished."
    A few weeks ago (the hon. and learned Gentleman said) he, in common with most other Members, was entirely ignorant of the details of this tax, but, having been waited on by various gentlemen representing that branch of the profession, he had promised to look into the matter; and, having done so, he had come to the conclusion that they had a real grievance, and that this was one of the most unjust charges levied on any part of the community. Every solicitor and attorney must necessarily pass through an expensive education. When he took out his articles he had to pay a stamp duty of £80, and when he was admitted he had to pay a further tax of£25, making a total tax of 100 guineas—a larger sum than was paid by barristers or any other profession. The attorneys did not complain of this, however, for they thought that when paid it was done with for once and for all, and it was a sum which they would not be called on to pay again. But that was not all. Before he could do a single stroke of work; before he could know whether his business would be lucrative or not, he had to go to the Stamp Office in the month of November or December and pay a tax of £9 in the metropolis, or £6 in the country, which was a license for him to carry on his business during the year. This had to be renewed annually. There was no other profession taxed upon this principle or in this way, and it was rather

    565
    curious to see how such an impost came to be inflicted upon the attorneys. In 1785 Mr. Pitt, in his budget speech, in which, at the close of a long, exhausting war, be had to provide for a deficiency of £413,000, had to announce amongst other unpopular taxes, one upon maid-servants and another upon shops. These taxes were warmly opposed, and in a debate on the 10th of May, in which Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan took part, a Mr. Medley had the honour of being the first to suggest that a tax should be placed upon those unpopular people, the attorneys and barristers. He gave a droll account of the increase of lawyers, and said that, when be was a boy, there were but two in his part of the country, whereas they had lately had to pull the old sessions House down, because it was not large enough for them, and build a new one. Alderman Watson made a speech, in which he urged the strongest objections to the proposed tax on female servants, and suggested a tax on effeminate men and foreign servants, or, as a much preferable measure, even a double tax on solicitors. On the 23rd of May, when the debate on the Shop Tax Bill came on, to which all London seemed opposed, Alderman Watson again started up and expressed his opinion against the shop tax. The Alderman then proposed certain taxes in lieu of the tax on shops, observing that he thought the State should receive a share of the lawyer's fee he calculated that there were then 5,000 attorneys in the kingdom, and if a tax of £30 were imposed on each, there would be an income from that quarter which would amount to about £30,000 more than the proposed tax upon shops was estimated to return. In the course of the same debate Mr. Pitt, after defending his proposal, said that although a tax upon attorneys might be considered an eligible one, nevertheless, no gentleman could be sanguine enough to suppose that it would yield £150,000. The eminent statesman went on to say that he knew some persons were desirous that such a tax should be adopted, for various reasons. Some wished for such a tax in their zeal for the revenue, others advocated it as a proper impost in time of war, or to make up a deficiency arising at the conclusion of a war; others, again, recommended it as being useful for purposes of regulation. There was, however, he said, another set of gentlemen who warmly embraced the idea of such a tax upon attorneys from a feeling of
    566
    resentment arising from the losses they had sustained in their connection with those professional persons. Subsequently, when it was ascertained that there was a deficiency of £20,000 to be made up, Mr. Pitt came forward on the 8th June, with the proposal to tax attorneys, observing that from the many recommendations made by Members, he did not think that it would be an impost to which objection would be taken. That statesman then proposed a tax of £5 on London attorneys, and £3 on country attorneys, estimating a return from the whole of £10,000 a year. He also proposed a tax of 2s. 6d. on each warrant of arrest issued by attorneys. The latter tax, which was no grievance to attorneys, as they charged it to their clients, was subsequently abolished, while the unjust and oppressive annual charge had not only been continued to the present day but considerably increased. That was the state of things in 1785. From that period until 1815 that tax remained unaltered. Between those dates, however, there were heavy charges placed upon the articles of clerkship, increasing from £120 to £150. In 1815 the tax upon attorneys was increased to £12 for London attorneys, and £8 to the country practitioners, and so it remained until 1853, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer made an alteration in it. In 1850 Lord Robert Grosvenor, now Lord Ebury, brought the matter before the House in the shape of a Bill to abolish the tax, believing it to be a great grievance and an injustice. In spite of the old stock argument that the noble Lord was interfering with the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had not as yet been introduced, and that he was dictating to that right hon. Gentleman, the House, by a considerable majority, affirmed the principle of the Bill. The Government having, however, used their powers of protraction, which were available at all times to crush any attempts at legislation by private Members, the Bill of Lord Robert Grosvenor was delayed to so late a period of the Session that it was impossible to proceed further with it. In 1851 the noble Lord again introduced his measure, but owing to the circumstances arising from the peculiar state of parties in the House nothing could be done in the matter. In 1853 Lord Robert Grosvenor once more brought forward the subject on the 10th March, but was told that he had brought it forward at the wrong time.

    567
    Nevertheless, the noble Lord carried his measure through its first stage by a majority of 219 to 167. On the 27th April the Bill came on for its second reading, when, after some discussion, it was postponed on the ground that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his intention of dealing with the subject. Now, it should be recollected that it was the annual payment which the attorneys considered a grievance, and not the charge upon the articles at the entrance to the profession. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget he, however, proposed to reduce the latter charge and not to touch the annual certificate. The right hon. Gentleman observed that the profession was subject to three charges—namely, on the admission to practice £25, the annual certificate £12, and the articles of clerkship £120. The amount of the tax, as appeared by a recent Return, was as follows:—In England, £68,752; in Scotland, £10,756; and in Ireland,£9,460—making altogether £88,968. Now, he (Mr. Den-man) asked whether it was fair, in the present prospects of the country, that for the sake of a sum of £90,000 they should any longer continue a tax that was unjust, anomalous, and arbitrary. Its origin was unjust, because it was admitted to have been originally imposed from the feeling of resentment or petty spite on the part of persons who suffered in a pecuniary way from certain attorneys. It was anomalous and arbitrary because, by a series of legislation, Parliament had provided not only for the necessary and expensive education of this class of men, but also subjected it to certain conditions and restrictions to which no other trade or profession was exposed. No tax was felt so hard as the income tax when it pressed upon what was called brain-work. But as regarded attorneys, the tax in question was a double or triple tax on brain-work. He thought he had now made out a case to justify the House in declaring that this was not a just tax, and that it ought to be repealed. It was fallacious to argue that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this tax he would be obliged to repeal other taxes also. The auctioneers and pawnbrokers had brought the case of their special burdens under the attention of the House, and he did not mean to say that they had not good ground for the claim which they advanced, but he did contend that their case did not at all stand on a par with the case of the attorneys, for it could not be said that an auctioneer
    568
    was a professional man in the same sense that it could be said of an attorney. He had received through the post a paper stating the grounds upon which persons engaged in various trades considered they had as good a claim as attorneys to be exempted from the duties to which they were subjected, and expressing a hope that he would support their case, but none of the occupations mentioned in that paper could be called professions, with the exception of perpetual curates, and though those persons had to pay an annual ad valorem duty, they did not, like solicitors, pay a large sum in the shape of duty upon entering their profession, nor did they pay a sum whether they received any annual income or not from their profession. Another argument against the Motion was that the surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal with this year was a very modest surplus. No doubt it was the smallest surplus, with the exception of one, which the right hon. Gentleman had had during the present Parliament, but he (Mr. Denman) did not think that was a sufficient reason for not entertaining the present Motion. Nor, by the way, could he admit that any surplus ought to be complimented for its modesty which was even partly made up of an unjust and arbitrary tax. The next argument might be that the budget for the present year was settled, and that it was too late now to attempt to interfere with the surplus. But this question had been decided by previous Parliaments. It was decided in 1850 and 1853, and against all the power of the Government and all the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who always said that it was either too soon or too late to deal with the matter. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured him, upon his official responsibility, that this tax could not be parted with this year, he would listen respectfully to what he said, and not bring forward vexatiously any Bill to interfere with his surplus this year. But in the event of his having a seat in that House next year, he wished, if he again brought forward the question, to avoid being told that he ought to have taken the opinion of the last Parliament upon it. What he now wished was, to obtain an expression of opinion by this Parliament, in accordance with the decisions of the House in 1850 and 1853, that this tax was unjust and inexpedient. He hoped that if the decision of the House was in favour of his Resolution, the right hon.

    569
    Gentleman would gracefully bow to that decision and act upon it. When Lord Robert Grosvenor proposed a Bill for the abolition of the certificate duty the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the then Solicitor General (Sir Hugh Cairns), voted for it. The present Lord Chief Justice of England (Sir Alexander Cockburn) also voted for the Bill, and described the tax as unjust and oppressive. He (Mr. Denman) could not see upon what principle attorneys were subjected to this tax when no similar tax was imposed upon barristers, physicians, surgeons, architects, civil engineers, railway directors, and Members of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) imagined that by proposing to take off the entrance duty he would induce the attorneys, from fear of their profession being thrown open, not to trouble him again with appeals for the abolition of the annual certificate duty, he had reckoned without his host. The tax which the profession felt to be unjust was not the entrance duty, but the annual certificate duty, which bore severely upon young men struggling for existence. The heads of the profession who had petitioned against the tax had not done so with the object of benefiting themselves in a pecuniary sense, as the amount to them was of no consequence; but they felt it was a duty they owed to their younger brethren to try to get abolished this unjust tax which hampered them in carrying on their business. Even if this tax were abolished, the profession would continue subject to exceptional restrictions. Their bills were liable to be taxed, so that they were prevented from having exuberant prosperity. The tax on the London attorneys was equivalent to an additional income tax of 4d. in the pound on an income of £540, and of 4d. in the pound on an income of £360 on the country attorneys. And the tax had to be paid in advance, although the attorney might not make a farthing of profit during the year. In his speech on the Budget this Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this tax had been paid by attorneys for many generations; I he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman use such an argument. It was as bad as the argument, which had also shocked his sense of justice, that the attorneys are an unpopular set of men. Looking at the highly delicate and important functions which they had to perform, and the mode in which they performed them, with
    570
    rare exceptions, he thought the only principle on which hatred towards them would be justified by those who had sanctioned this objectionable tax, was that hateful principle odisse quem lœseris. The right hon. Gentleman also said that abolishing this tax would be class legislation, but he (Mr. Denman) would put a case by way of illustration. Supposing the £90,000 which this tax yielded was imposed on nine of the richest Members of the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to relieve those Members from that burden, would that be class legislation? He thought that class legislation was the passing of the measure which imposed the tax. Upon these grounds he proposed the Resolution, and in doing so he confidently relied upon the good sense and justice of the House for its success.
    MR. VANCE, in seconding the Motion, said, this duty pressed with peculiar hardship upon solicitors in Ireland. The tax was not extended to Ireland until 1806, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had great difficulty in raising money, was obliged to borrow it at ruinous rates of interest, and levied taxes on silk stockings and persons wearing watches. The tax operated unfairly, as it had to be paid alike by the young solicitor whose income was extremely small, and by the old practitioner whose gains might be enormous. In 1850 the Bill for its abolition was carried by a majority of 19 in 1851, by a majority of 30; and in 1853, by a majority of 42. It might be said that the profits of the profession were very large, and ought to be taxed; but in Ireland those profits of late years had been greatly diminished, and especially by the establishment of the Landed Estates Court in that country. The surplus of £280,000 which existed was amply sufficient to allow of this tax being repealed, more especially as the delay in repealing the tea tax would increase the Chancellor of the Exchequer's profits.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is just and expedient that the annual Duty payable upon Certificates taken out by Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors in England and Ireland, and by Writers to the Signet, Solicitors, Agents, Attorneys, and Procurators in Scotland, should be abolished," (Mr. Denman,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. HUNTsaid, he did not wish to enter into the merits of the question, hut protested against the time when the Motion was brought forward. He asked whether they could fairly decide upon the merits under existing circumstances. The Motion affected the interests of all those persons who were employed in electioneering throughout the length and breadth of the land. An hon. Member below the gangway had said that all the boroughs were in the hands of attorneys. He (Mr. Hunt) did not go as far as that, but he dared say that a great many in that House were indebted for their seats to the exertions of that meritorious body of men. Would they vote that night as free and independent Members of Parliament, or under the influence of an undue pressure brought to bear upon hon. Members before the general election? He should certainly vote for going into Supply as a means of defeating the Motion.
    MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, that the principle of the Bill of 1850 was distinctly affirmed by the House on two or three occasions, and that the measure was only lost on the third reading at three o'clock in the morning. On other occasions the Bill had been lost by what he might term misadventure. He hoped the House would relieve attorneys from the injustice to which they had been so long subjected by this duty. They were by it more heavily taxed than any other class who required licences to carry on their trade or profession. Having been a member of the profession himself, he would add that he believed they were quite incapable of being improperly influenced by any decision at which the House might arrive on the question, and that if hon. Members owed their seats to the exertions of solicitors, it was because the latter had zealously taken up their cause, and not because they were actuated by any unworthy motives. He hoped that if the Resolution passed, and it was too late this year to act upon it, it would be understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should next year deal with this duty.
    MR. BLACKsaid, that he could see no good reason why writers to the signet and solicitors should be subjected to the tax, while advocates and barristers were exempted from it. There were about 1,600 solicitors and attorneys in Scotland; and many of them had strongly represented to him the grievance to which they were subjected. They complained less of the tax than of the degradation to which they
    572
    were exposed in being compelled to take a licence for the exercise of their profession.
    MR. CLAYsaid, that he was not open to the suspicion of making a bid for the favour of solicitors, seeing that he would equally be in favour of removing the annual licence duty charged to horsedealers, auctioneers, and others. He objected to all licences whatever for carrying on trades. He saw no reason why a solicitor or an auctioneer should pay a tax more than a butcher or a baker.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in rising to state the reasons which induced the Government to offer a stout resistance to the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Denman), I shall not say one single word that can be construed into disrespect towards my hon. Friend, or towards that most valuable and useful profession whose interests are in some degree involved in this debate. We know that vulgar insinuations are sometimes heard with regard to that profession, which, while it affords the noblest scope for the highest qualities, affords scope also for those that are lower. But for myself I have always held the opinion that a worthy and honourable solicitor is himself one of the most valuable members of society; nowhere is the principle of honour to be found in a purer state, and it is no less pure because it is combined with the most enlightened and disinterested prudence. I am sorry that the researches of my hon. Friend into the Parliamentary history of this question have stopped short of the point of greatest interest. I am not going to allege that there has been any compact; the solicitors are free to raise this question at any time, and in any manner, they think fit. But I so far agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), that I do think the external proprieties would have been more consulted if the application for the removal of this tax had been made at a period somewhat more remote from the great event likely to happen in a few months.
    MR. DENMANrose amid cries of "Order" to offer some explanatory remarks.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a perfect right to explain hereafter what his meaning was, but he has no right to interrupt any speaker for that purpose.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproceeded: After a long Parlia-

    573
    mentary agitation of this question the House of Commons in 1853 came to a decision, the result of which forms the last Parliamentary declaration on the subject. On that occasion the largest number of Members voted. In favour of the second reading of the Bill for abolishing this duty 102 ayes voted, but the measure was rejected by 186 noes. My hon. Friend quoted with great emphasis and unction some words of the Lord Chief Justice of England, who, at one period of his life, when imperfectly informed, denounced this duty. But the latest and most important act of the Lord Chief Justice was in a very different sense; and my hon. Friend will find that the name of Sir Alexander Cock burn appears in that majority of 84 which sanctioned the continuance of this tax. My hon. and learned Friend said it was dangerous to throw out suggestions to the Minister of Finance with regard to taxes that might be imposed. I can calm my hon. Friend's mind on that subject. Hon. Members are not very guilty in this respect, I whatever they may be with regard to suggestions to take off taxes. My hon. Friend has said that if I assure him there is no available surplus which can properly and safely be applied to the purpose which he has in view he will not force on his proposal in the shape of a Bill. Giving credit to my hon. and learned Friend for the candour and moderation which distinguished I his speech, I must say that I have objected, and always will object, as opposed to the true interests of the country, and as detracting from the character and dignity of this House, to all attempts to pledge the future by abstract Resolutions. My hon. Friend has alluded to what he calls the old stock argument about no time, either before, after, or during the Budget, being the proper time for bringing forward a financial proposal. But that is an excellent argument where applicable. The time to bring forward any proposal is when the House has all the other proposals before it; it can then either adopt the plans of the Minister if it deems them best, or substitute any other for them. But it cannot be regarded as a practical course to bring forward a single proposition pledging the House to a certain line of conduct, in order that credit may be gained with a portion of our constituents, being utterly uncertain whether it may ever be in our power to redeem that pledge. Such abstract Resolutions, barren of all results, and only laying the ground
    574
    I—as we have seen by experience—for questioning and suspicion hereafter, are I not only objectionable in themselves, but in this case we really have no money that we can wisely and prudently deal with at this moment. My hon. Friend the Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Vance) talks of the handsome present which has been made to the Exchequer by the postponement of the remission of the tea duty. I am not in possession of the actual figures since that postponement, but I can state that whereas the average daily payments of duty on tea were about £9,000 in London alone, they have lately been but as many hundreds a day. No doubt a portion of that loss will be recovered when the reduced duty comes into operation, but necessarily it will only be a small portion of what we should have received had the reduction taken immediate effect. The surplus of £200,000 may be open to question on account of its smallness, but certainly not as being too large. We have no right to suppose that because we began one year with a small surplus and ended it with a large one, such will always be the case; and there is nothing in the circumstances of the present year that should warrant us in departing from the general rules of prudence that govern our action. With regard to the general argument, I am no great admirer of these taxes; but, in considering taxes as they affect a particular class, it is a fact of the greatest importance that they have been paid for several generations. Thus, it in the end involves no hardship, for the trade or profession adapts itself to the burdens it has to sustain, and the amount of remuneration bears a proportion to those charges. I am sensible that there is something invidious in the nature of this tax, but I deny that a case has been made out to distinguish it from all other annual duties payable by professions and trades. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) put the case on its true footing. It is quite impossible, with justice, to draw any broad line of distinction between professions and trades. How can you say that it is right to tax trades, and that it is wrong to tax professions? What is the sum really at issue?—the total amount of these annual duties payable by professions and trades? After excluding all licences on the sale of spirits—which I grant stand in a class by themselves—it is not less than £600,000 a year. Are we in a condition now to entertain the question? If my hon. and learned Friend

    575
    thinks it necessary to obtain a declaration of the House on the whole question, well and good; but, if he complains of one injustice, do not let him engraft upon this system of annual duties another injustice, by drawing a distinction between those who are in the same predicament. Why should the autioneer pay an annual duty of £10, and the attorney be relieved from an annual duty of £9? Is there anything in the trade of an auctioneer that ought to be discouraged by this House? Why should the trade of a pawnbroker be taxed? We levy from him a sum of £30,000 a year. Who is he? He is the man who ministers to the first necessities in the matter of money of the lowest class of the population, and every farthing of what is drawn from the pawnbroker is taken from the pockets of the poor. Well, is that tax to remain, and shall we be doing an act of justice if we relieve a powerful profession, every member of which has access, and some very intimate access, to the Members of this House, and select them in preference to those who have a stronger and more urgent claim? Take the case of a hawker. We lay a tax of £48,000 upon hawkers. The whole of this sum comes from a trade which is pursued in minute details by men, hardly one of whom is worth £100 of capital in the world, and who drive their trade in the villages and among the peasantry of the country. Without closing my eyes to the objections against exceptional legislation of this kind, and which includes all these cases of annual taxation, I think that if the House is prepared to deal with one, it ought to deal with all. You may do it. You may modify the proposals of the Government with regard to the tea duty and the income tax, but I am afraid it is rather late. That is what ought to be done. You, too, ought to deal with all these duties which stand substantially in the same position, and not make an invidious selection of the claims of those who are the most powerful and wealthy, and, at a moment, too, when their influence is raised to its maximum by causes which it is unnecessary to mention. My hon. Friend says the question before us is whether this tax is to be permanently maintained. I have always disclaimed that issue, and I disclaim it now. There are taxes that must be permanent, but there is nothing in the question of the permanent retention of this tax that is not fairly open to the consideration of the
    576
    House. But the question now is as to the abolition at the present moment and under existing circumstances. I think my hon. Friend failed in that portion of his speech as to the relative position of the annual duties paid by attorneys and the duty upon entrance. Above £100 is paid by a young man intending to become an attorney before he is admitted to practise his profession, and after he is admitted he pays an annual duty of £9 in London and £6 in the country. My hon. Friend says it is monstrous to exact £9 a year in London and £6 a year in the country, but that it is perfectly allowable to make him pay £100 before he can practise his profession. The education of an attorney is expensive, and we by our recent legislation have made it more so; and does it strengthen my hon. Friend's case to say that the grown-up attorney in practice ought not to pay an annual duty of £9 or £6, while the young man, almost a boy, before he can earn a farthing by his profession, should be compelled to make this heavy payment in advance? It is said that although he may be driving a profitable business one year, yet that his business may fall off another year. But so may an auctioneer's, or a pawnbroker's, or a hawker's. If you want to give relief, the true way is to look, first, at the case of these heavy taxes on admission, which are a tax in favour of the rich and against the poor, inasmuch as they require an advance of capital from the youth to the State, before he is allowed to carry on his business. That is a question which, if my hon. Friend ever proposes to deal with by a Bill, I shall feel it my duty to raise and argue at length. The House, meanwhile, will do well to avoid entangling itself with abstract declarations, which are worthless in the present, and embarrassing in the future. We have gone as far as we consider safe and desirable in the reductions we have to propose, and I am confident that the House will not call upon us or expect us this year to propose any further reduction.
    MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the House ought to know the circumstances under which the majority on the last division was obtained. There were two proposals for reduction of taxes before the House—the abolition of advertisement duty and of the duties now under discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that the Government could not afford to part with the money from both. The

    577
    House gave the preference to the abolition of the advertisement duty, and he (Mr. Craufurd), having been somewhat active in promoting the repeal of the advertisement duty, and having obtained what the right hon. Gentleman called a "snap division" in its favour, voted on that occasion against the repeal of the annual duty paid by attorneys.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 146: Majority 3.
    Words added:—Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is just and expedient that the annual Duty payable upon Certificates taken out by Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors in England and Ireland, and by Writers to the Signet, Solicitors, Agents, Attorneys, and Procurators in Scotland, should be abolished.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  WIDOWS OF WARRANT OFFICERS.

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the petition of Widows of Warrant Officers of the Navy, and to move that the cruel exception which deprived those who became widows prior to 1860 of any Pension is not approved by that House. The subject was not one of great importance, either as to the amount of money involved or as to the influence which the class of persons interested in it could command. But though they might have no influence on a general election, and their case had not created much interest in the community at large, yet he believed the justice and generosity of the House would be disposed to comply with their prayer. The Warrant Officers of the navy were a class whom that House was desirous to encourage. Persons who rose from before the mast to the rank of Warrant Officers formed the elite of our seamen, and it had always been the practice both of the House and of those who administered the affairs of the navy to encourage the best seamen to rise to that rank. There had been, however, considerable difficulty in inducing seamen to avail
    578
    themselves of the promotion thus placed within their reach, and among the inducements held out, and wisely held out, was the grant of a pension to their widows. Up to 1830 the widows of Warrant Officers received a pension; but from 1830 to 1860 pensions were given them only under certain exceptional rules. These exceptional rules were made very much to his credit by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring), who, when First Lord of the Admiralty, thought it hard that the widows of Warrant Officers who fell in action, or were drowned, should not receive pensions; and accordingly, in 1861, those who became widows in either of these ways were entitled to the boon. In 1859 the Royal Commission upon the Manning of the Navy took the whole matter into consideration, and they stated in their Report that Warrant Officers complained that their widows had been deprived of the pensions to which they were formerly entitled; and they said that they were of opinion that the benefit conferred upon officers of the higher ranks should not be withheld from those seamen who had risen to the rank of Warrant Officers, and they also recommended that the favour should be made retrospective. The Royal Commission were, therefore, of opinion that those who had become widows between 1831 and 1859 should receive pensions according to the rank their husbands held. In 1860, very much to the credit of the present Government, pensions were given, but not retrospectively, and the result had been that there was a class of persons, whose petitions he now held in his hand, who felt aggrieved, and were in bad circumstances in consequence of the pensions not being made retrospective. He would mention an instance. There were two Warrant Officers who had both served in the trenches before Sebastopol. One died, not in action, but of disease in India during the mutiny; the other lived to the year 1861, died without having served in the Indian mutiny, and his widow has received a pension, while the widow of the other had not. That was an instance of the way in which the rule worked unjustly. He believed that the Admiralty only required the sanction of this House to induce them to carry out the views of the Royal Commission, and to relieve from abject destitution the widows of those poor persons who had deserved so well of their country. The Commissioners had unanimously recommended that the pensions

    579
    granted to the widows of deceased Warrant Officers should be retrospective; and the sum required to carry out this recommendation was so small that he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the subject was fairly explained to him by the representatives of the Admiralty, would throw no obstacle in the way of doing this act of justice. In their petition the widows of the Warrant Officers stated—
    "That in the generality of cases their husbands joined the Royal Navy at a very early age (in some cases below fourteen years of age), and by good conduct, bravery, and general ability, obtained promotion to the rank of Warrant Officers, which they held to the date of their decease, giving the utmost satisfaction to their officers, and assisting, as they believe, to uphold the dignity of their profession and the honour of the British flag.
    "Your memorialists would respectfully mention that keeping in view the anxious wish of the Admiralty and your honourable House to elevate the social standing of the British Navy, their husbands expended all their earnings in maintaining a respectably-elevated position, their salaries being far below that at present allowed; but the consequence to their widows has been poverty, degradation, and wretchedness, consequent on the want of any provision being made for them at the death of their husbands, which has been accelerated by exposure in different climates and the various other contingencies belonging to their exposed position.
    "Your memorialists respectfully pray your honourable House to examine the evidence taken before the Royal Commission for Manning the Navy and the recommendations of the Commissioners founded on that evidence, where they unanimously agree that the pensions granted to the widows of deceased Warrant Officers should be retrospective, and they venture on humbly appealing to you, as the representatives of the national honour as well as the guardians of its resources, that, as in justice they are proved to be deserving this consideration, so in mercy they require it to save them in their old age from perishing from want, or, what is nearly equal to a respectable person, to be forced to end their days in the pauper's home, the mark of derision to the scoffer, who points to their degradation as the reward obtained for the honest and manly defence by their husbands of their country's rights and liberties.
    "And your memorialists, on behalf of about 100 widows similarly circumstanced, will ever pray."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the cruel exception which deprives those Widows of Warrant Officers of the Navy who became Widows prior to 1860 of any Pension is not approved by this House,"—(Sir John Hay,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, Sir John Hay
    580
    that the present Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) was mainly answerable for the terms of the Report agreed to by the Royal Commission, for he had drawn it up, and there never was a Report which received more general and stronger support from the House and from the country. He therefore claimed the aid of the right hon. Gentleman on their behalf. He had presented petitions on this subject from some of the widows of those Warrant Officers. They were the widows of men belonging to the class of all others which ought to be made most contented and respectable in the position they occupied. The Commission had reported in unmistakable terms that the widows' pensions should be retained, and that the restoration should be retrospective. At the same time, he was bound to say that these poor people did not look for full justice. All that they claimed was that henceforward they should receive pensions due to the rank of their husbands, but they would not look for the arrears of past years. As the opinion of the House could not now be taken, the House having divided once upon the main question and done justice to a more powerful body, he hoped the Admiralty would attend to the case and would not neglect the claims of the widow and the orphan, where the injustice was so flagrant and the amount of money asked for was so small.
    ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Sir, I rise with considerable satisfaction to support the claims to a pension in behalf of these distressed and friendless widows. I may be permitted to observe, in order to press this claim influentially, that the class of officers I advocate—the boatswain, the gunner, and the carpenter—are at all times selected by the captains of their respective ships for promotion not only on account of their good conduct, but also on account of their perfect qualifications and knowledge of the several departments of the service. They are deserving of every encouragement, and I express my earnest hope the Admiralty will not hesitate to do this act of justice to the widows of this deserving class of officers. Their widows are not many in number, the sum required is small, and year by year will become rapidly lessened by death.
    LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he had a most painful duty to perform every year in resisting these demands upon the Exchequer, and in refusing to allow the retrospective operation of Orders in Council framed for the benefit of officers of the navy. If these claims were

    581
    confined to a particular branch of the service, an exception might perhaps be made. But hon. Members must remember that this case of the Warrant Officers' widows was not a single one. In or about 1833 pensions were taken away from other classes of persons besides that now in question; and if the rule were relaxed in their favour, it would probably be followed by a claim for arrears, and certainly by a demand for pensions from other persons. ["Name!"] He disliked naming them, because it might induce them to come before the House with their grievance, but he referred to the dockyard labourers. [Sir JOHN HAY: They are not naval officers.] No, but they were public servants, and were as much entitled to consideration, being civilians, as naval officers were. It was quite true that the Royal Commission recommended that these pensions should be made retrospective. But that Commission was only dealing with one subject. They did not enter into the general question of financial policy involved in the claims of other classes. The Commissioners made their recommendation most honestly and conscientiously; but they did not consider that, if pensions were granted to the widows of Warrant Officers, the door would be open for another batch of grievances, which might involve the Government in considerable difficulties. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was mistaken in saying that pensions had been taken away from these widows. That was not the fact. All that had been done was to announce that after a certain date Warrant Officers' wives who became widows would not be entitled to pensions. Soon after he came into office the pensions were granted by Order in Council, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) and others complimented the Admiralty for the efforts they had made on behalf of these widows; but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any hon. Member opposite had thought of saying that pensions should be granted to persons who were at that time already widows. It would be an agreeable task to him to make application to the Treasury on behalf of these unfortunate widows, if it could be granted without any public inconvenience. But, taking a large view of the subject, and fully appreciating the kind motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he felt bound, on the part of the Government, to ask the House not to agree to this Motion.
    MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the Report of the Commission, and especially to the words "and we think that in fairness the payments should be retrospective." As the whole amount involved would not exceed £2,500 a year, he thought the noble Lord might undertake the agreeable task of applying again to the Admiralty on behalf of these unfortunate widows.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 42: Majority 20.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GRANT DUFF: I had originally intended to put the proposal which I wish to submit to the House in the form either of a Motion or of a question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India. But on examining the Government of India Act, I found that the India Office is already bound to lay upon our table a document so very similar to that which I meant to ask for, that I cannot imagine that anything further will be required than very briefly to call attention to the fact that neither the letter nor the spirit of the existing law, with regard to the information about India which is laid he-fore us, is, or ever has been, complied with. After enumerating the various accounts which must be laid before us, the 53rd section goes on to say that such accounts—
    "Shall be accompanied by a statement prepared from the detailed Reports from each presidency and district in India, in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress and condition of India in each such presidency."
    Now, I think there can be no doubt that these words point to a document of reasonable size, to a document certainly not larger than that famous minute of Lord Dalhousie's, in which he gave an account of the progress of India during the eight years of his rule, If the right hon. Gentleman admits my interpretation cadit qiwstio, the India Office is already bound to do all that I desire, and will naturally put itself en regle as soon as possible. It is possible, however, though not, I think, probable, that the right hon. Gentleman may say that, although the letter of the law has been clearly broken, its spirit has been complied with. The practice of the India Office has been as follows:—Instead

    583
    of preparing a statement from the detailed Reports according to the statute, and laying that upon the table, it has laid upon the table the detailed Reports themselves, just as they came from India. If the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to the Statutable statement, chooses to give us these detailed Reports, it is well; but it is a work of supererogation. If, however, we are to choose between the Reports in extenso, and the statutable statement pre pared from the Reports, I for one should infinitely prefer to have the statutable statement. That statement was meant to be read. These Reports can, to the immense majority of Members of Parliament, be useful only for reference. Their value, even for purposes of reference, is greatly diminished by our not having that guide through their mazes which the statutable statement would have provided. Most persons who have tried to read them will, I think, complain that they are blinded with excess of light, and overwhelmed with avalanches of information. Anyhow, the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that he has utterly failed in obtaining readers for these detailed Reports, when I remind him that, whereas, for several years they were laid printed upon our table just as they came from India, were then re-printed in two huge blue-books, and sent round to all Members, they were last year not even re-printed at all, so that one copy of the detailed Reports pre served in our Library, just as it came from India, represents all the information about the material and moral progress of that country supplied last year to the House of Commons under the provisions of the Government of India Act. This state of things is quite indefensible, for no one can defend the direct contravention of an Act of Parliament; but, even if the Act did not exist, it would surely not be expedient to refuse to give us the information for which I am asking. My proposal could not be resisted on the ground that there is any difficulty in drawing up such a statement. To do so would be to pro claim that there is not sufficient ability in the India Office. Such an assertion would, however, be perfectly monstrous. To mention the names of persons now serving there might be improper, but who that takes an interest in India does not know that the two Mills, father and son, were for many years employed in the India House, and what would not be the value of a series of say
    584
    forty annual Reports drawn up by these two men? Nor could such a proposal be resisted on the ground of its being undesirable that the House of Commons should keep an eye upon Indian affairs. That doctrine, if still secretly cherished in some quarters, is no longer openly maintained by any one; and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman entirely repudiates it. There is no reason in the world why Indian questions should, if properly treated, be unattractive to the English public. Any man with ample command of materials, acquaintance with the country, and fair literary powers, ought to be able to produce an annual Report upon Indian affairs, which at least a third of the House of Commons would read, and which would be quoted and commented upon by the leading newspapers in England, in India, and on the Continent of Europe, and which would have at once the effect of bringing the enlightened opinion of this country to aid in the task of governing India, and of making our increasingly just and benevolent policy in the East better appreciated by France, by Germany, and by Russia; thus at once positively adding to our strength by the wisdom which comes from a multitude of counsellors, and negatively by diminishing the distrust with which our doings are regarded in Europe, a distrust which, although it is the offspring of ignorance, is for nations as well as for individuals, a distinct element of weakness. I cannot better express my view as to the nature of the document which is required than by quoting two or three lines from the last paragraph of Lord Dalhousie's Minute, which, after all limitations and deductions for self-gratulation have been made, and read even by the glare of the Mutiny, will keep its place as one of the noblest State Papers of modern times—
    "It would seem," said Lord Dalhousie, "that some few hours may he profitably devoted to a short review of eight eventful years, not for the purpose of justifying disputed measures, but for the purpose of recalling the political events that have occurred, the measures that have been taken, and the progress that has been made."
    Wars, and foreign relations, acquisitions of territory, administrative progress, education, railways, the Post Office, agriculture, internal navigation, public works, improvement of the military service—such are only a few of the subjects which Lord Dalhousie treated at sufficient length in forty pages of the ordinary blue-book size.

    585
    The chronicler of a single year might easily put all that need be said in a considerably shorter compass. Lord Dalhousie thought that not the least useful of the measures, which had emanated from the Government of India under his rule, had been the resolution to require a Report from any governor, lieutenant-governor, and chief officer of a province, narrating the incidents that had occurred during the previous year in the country under his jurisdiction; and I am quite sure that not the least useful Act, amongst the many useful Acts, of the right hon. Gentleman's administration would be to cause to be prepared from these Reports, which Lord Dalhousie required, a clear, condensed Report upon the whole state of India for presentation to the House of Commons. Any opinion, however, which any of us may express with regard to the expediency of preparing such a document is really beside the question; for I must, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, maintain that, till the 53rd clause of the Government of India Act is repealed, the non-production of such a Report is a direct violation of the law.
    MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he concurred generally in the views of the last speaker, and he thought, that neither in letter nor in spirit had the right hon. Baronet conformed to the Act of Parliament. The documents presented to Parliament were so bulky that they could not properly be called a statement. They were rather the documents from which the statutable statement ought to be compiled. The right hon. Baronet might demur to preparing such a digest himself; and even if he did not, his version might be supposed to be coloured. But would there be any difficulty in getting the Governor General to have a digest of the Report made under his own eye, in accordance with the spirit of the Act? He did not complain of the economy which had led to discontinuing the printing of bulky volumes which no one read; but the fact remained that there existed only one copy of the Indian Reports for the use of the House. If the right hon. Baronet would not agree to the suggestion to get an epitome made in India of the statistical details of the Reports now sent home, perhaps he would, at all events, get a larger number of copies, say fifty, sent instead of one, for the use of hon. Members who took a special interest in Indian matters.
    SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the
    586
    hon. Member who had brought forward this question only did him justice in supposing that he did not wish to keep back any information from the House. He could only say that the Government had laid upon the table all the information they possessed on the subject. For himself, he confessed he had never till within the last few days looked at the clause in the Act of Parliament which had been referred to. It was passed upon the Motion of Lord Monteagle in the other House, and no discussion took place upon the clause in either House of Parliament; but he had never understood the words of the Act to mean that such a Report as the hon. Member had alluded to should be furnished. Some Gentlemen might like to have Indian reports in the shape of "reading made easy," but he did not think that Parliament should pay for the compilation. What he had always believed to be the intention of the clause was that the Government should produce, with respect to India, the same sort of blue-books as were presented yearly with respect to the colonies. This had always been done, and elaborate reports from all the provinces of India were yearly laid on the table. But he confessed he thought it was not consistent with the duties of the Secretary of State for India to compile a Report from those documents which would probably have more or less a certain amount of colouring. He should be happy to afford hon. Members information in the shape that would be most agreeable to them; but he really thought that an extract prepared from those important documents on the condition of India would not be the sort of thing to lay before Parliament. For himself, he entertained the strongest opinion in favour of having the original documents laid before both Houses. It had sometimes occurred to himself to find some material fact omitted from a précis which had been prepared for him; and he did not think the House ought to be satisfied if a précis, made in the office of the Secretary of State, and not the original paper, were laid upon the table. A great deal of useful information was contained in the district Reports from India, and he did not think that putting all these Reports together hodge-podge would be by any means a desirable arrangement. With regard to the distribution of the Reports, he had to observe that it was his duty, to lay the Reports on the table I but whether they were to be printed and distributed was not a matter for him to

    587
    determine. It was a question for the Printing Committee and the House themselves. If it was the wish of the House there would not be the least difficulty in having them printed, or a certain number might be placed in the library, and a copy could be given to each hon. Member who might apply for it. With a view to meet the wishes of his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird), he should have great pleasure in directing that fifty copies, instead of one, should be furnished from India of the annual Reports, which were now sent; and next year (he could not promise this year), he hoped they would be at the disposal of those hon. Members who were chiefly interested in Indian affairs.
    MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he understood that his right hon. Friend intended to disregard the Act of Parliament, which was very distinct in its provisions. He confessed he thought such a Report as his right hon. Friend deprecated would be very useful. It might be drawn without any especial colouring, and might furnish an account of what had been done in each Presidency in the increase of schools and railways, of any important events that might have occurred, or changes in the law, with a few remarks in the way of general information. The great defect of the present Reports was that they were too voluminous and published in a ver inconvenient shape. A Report was prepared some years ago by Mr. Melville of the India Office, which gave a very fair view of the progress of India during the period to which the Report related. He believed that if such a statement was now prepared, it would be read with interest by the Members of the House and by the public, and would tell beneficially on Europe and the rest of the world. He did not think it was right deliberately to disregard the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would direct his attention to that point.

    ARMY—RATING OF HOUSES OF OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question on the subject of the local taxation of houses occupied by officers of the army in the performance of their official duties. Early last Session he had brought the subject under the notice of his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War, who stated that it would be necessary for the autho-
    588
    rities of the War Office and those of the navy to confer together on the subject, with a view to the adoption of a general system applying to both army and navy. About six weeks afterwards he made an inquiry as to this taxation, and was informed that the Admiralty were as much interested in it as the War Department, and it had been intended that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) should confer with some one connected with the administration of the army; but, owing to circumstances with which the House were acquainted, the hon. Gentleman left the Admiralty. Later in the Session he moved an Address to the Crown on the same subject. The Under Secretary of the Treasury stated on that occasion that the matter was under the consideration of the Treasury in connection with the general question of the exemption of Government property from local taxation, and that in order to render official residences liable to assessment there must be a beneficial occupation. He was not, however, prepared to give a definition of what was regarded as beneficial occupation. Now, he must say that it was rather hard upon those officers that this definition had not yet been arrived at. But the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury also made the extraordinary statement that it was advisable that the emoluments of officers should be fixed and certain, rather than be made up of uncertain emoluments from free quarters, free from rates. He (Colonel North) could understand the occupants of Hampton Court paying rates, but officers in the army were not in the same position. They were placed in quarters and must reside there whether the place was healthful or unhealthful, agreeable or disagreeable, in the performance of their duty. On the same occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that "the point as to the liability of these officers to pay rates ought to stand over for consideration until the general question had been brought to issue." The fairer mode would have been that they should not be called upon to pay till that was done. The first remonstrance by the officers of the army had been made, as far as he could discover, about five years since, and this question remained still undecided. These rates were no trifle. At Chelsea, he believed, they amounted to 2s. 4d. in the pound. He maintained that it was desirable to keep the officers of the army as much as possible apart from the duties which should exclusively appertain to civilians. The House knew perfectly

    589
    well the nature of vestry meetings. For his own part, he believed that there were no assemblies where bad blood was sooner engendered. But if officers were called on to pay rates they could not, of course, be prevented from attending them. It was of great importance that they should be kept free from such influences. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would tell them that evening what beneficial occupation was, so that they might arrive at some satisfactory conclusion with reference to this disputed question. The law of the land was, be believed, on the side of those whose cause he advocated. It had been decided that an officer was exempted in respect to reasonable occupation by himself and family, but in the case of officers commanding large garrisons, such as Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Chatham, it was absurd to think of limiting them to two or three rooms. It would be impossible under those circumstances to expect the honour of the country and the dignity of the service to be duly upheld. Recently he believed that seventeen or eighteen officers had appealed against the local rate. The cases came on for trial at Maidstone, and it was determined that four of them should be gone into and the decision be regarded as binding upon the remainder. The result was that the magistrates quashed the rates with costs, and the parish had appealed to the Queen's Bench. He did not think, however, that it was fair that the officers should be put to the expense of defending such cases. He was glad to say that the Horse Guards and the Admiralty took a more liberal view of the subject than the War Department. One officer out of the small pay he received paid £12 6s. in the shape of local rates, independent of the house duty and income tax. Marines and sailors had reason to be thankful for the manly way in which their interests were protected by the Admiralty; but the army were by no means under similar obligations to the War Office. They had been treated in a very shabby and improper manner. At Chatham the general officer commanding the troops had to pay rates, while the officer in command of the Marines and of the Fleet paid none. He begged leave to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any decision has been arrived at as to the exemption from Local Taxation of Houses occupied by Officers of the Army in the performance of their official duties?
    MR. PEELsaid, he could answer the question of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    590
    There was not now, and, as far as he knew, there had not been at any time any question awaiting decision at the Treasury as to the exemption from local taxation of houses occupied by officers of the army in the performance of their official duties. The fact was it was open to any occupier of a house, whether an officer of the army or otherwise, to maintain that the house he occupied was not liable to be rated to local taxes; but the decision upon the liability or non-liability of that house rested not with the Government, but entirely with the courts of law. He was quite aware that, as a general rule, the occupation of a residence for official purposes did not constitute a beneficial occupation; but the application of that rule to any particular case must of course be a matter for argument, and it was for the courts of law to decide, when the question was brought before them, whether the occupation was beneficial or not. The officers' houses at Chelsea Hospital were rated, but that was in consequence of the provisions of a local act. Within the last week the Court of Quarter Sessions at Maidstone had decided that some residences at Woolwich were not liable to rates. There had been conflicting decisions; but he knew no means of getting rid of the difficulty except by passing an Act declaring that houses occupied for official purposes shall not be liable to local rates. That question, however, had not been under the consideration of the Government, and, as at present advised, they had no intention of proposing such a Bill. The question had been under consideration for a year or two whether the rates of houses liable to rates, occupied by officers in the performance of official duties, should be paid by the officers or by the Government. The course of the Government was not uniform. The Admiralty appeared always to have repaid to their officers the rates which in the first instance had been paid by them. The War Department required officers to pay the rates themselves. The matter had been considered by a Committee; and the Treasury had expressed an opinion that the course pursued by the War Department was preferable. No doubt it was very desirable that the Government should pursue a uniform course, and the matter was still the subject of correspondence; but, at the present moment, the Treasury did not see fit to alter the conclusion at which they came last year—namely, that the practice of the War Department was preferable to

    591
    that of the Admiralty. If the officers themselves were rated they would, no doubt, take an interest in parish matters so as to keep down the rates; and if the Government paid the rates they would have no means of doing anything of the kind, nor of seeing that the property was not rated beyond its value. Where new appointments were made officers would themselves pay the rate charged on their residences.
    COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to know whether the houses in Downing Street paid rates. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer pay rates on his official residence, or, if paid, were they paid out of the Exchequer?
    COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought the answer which had been given to his hon. and gallant Friend was anything but satisfactory. Officers on entering the army were led to believe they would get free quarters; and he thought the practice which his hon. and gallant Friend reprobated was neither more nor less than a breach of good faith, and far from creditable to the War Office. The Admiralty kept faith with their officers—why should not the War Office do the same?

  LUNATICS IN GAOLS, &c;.(IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is intended to provide asylums for dangerous lunatics and insane persons now confined in Gaols and Workhouses in lie-land and also whether it would not be advisable to give magistrates in Ireland the same power possessed by magistrates in England of committing dangerous lunatics to the County Asylum, instead of compelling them by law to commit them to gaol as at present? The hon. Member added that there were 16,000 lunatics in Ireland, 8,000 of whom were at large and 8,000 confined in gaols, workhouses, and asylums There were at present in the gaols 669 who had been committed a3 dangerous lunatics; and a very large proportion of these had remained in prison for a considerable period. The confinement of lunatics in gaols had been condemned by the Inspectors of Asylums and of Prisons; and the fact was that lunatics were not efficiently looked after in gaols, and the discipline of the gaols was much interfered with by having lunatics there, and the difficulty of management was increased. The
    592
    last Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics recommended that the Irish system should be assimilated to that of England. It had long been expected that Government would bring in a Bill to remedy the evil; and in 1859 Lord Derby did bring in such a Bill, though he did not remain in office long enough to carry it. Last year there were 2,455 lunatics in workhouses, many of whom would no doubt be cured under the proper treatment to be had in an asylum. He knew that six asylums were now being built, but this would not cure the evil unless the magistrate had power to commit lunatics to those asylums.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the Government was supplying, as fast as possible, the want of accommodation for lunatics in Ireland by building new asylums. They were building six in addition to sixteen already existing. It was very wrong to commit lunatics to gaols, but it arose from want of accommodation. Even under the present arrangement, whenever a lunatic was certified by the proper medical officers of the gaols to be dangerous, he was, if possible, at once removed to a lunatic asylum. The Mullingar case, to which the hon. Member had referred, where ten dangerous lunatics had been committed to the gaol, when there was accommodation in the asylum, could only have arisen in the ordinary course adopted in Ireland, which was to commit lunatics to gaol on the advice of a medical officer till the Government was communicated with, when the lunatic, with the least possible delay, was transferred by the Lunatic Inspector to an asylum. When the six new asylums were built the accommodation would be sufficient, except as regarded the Richmond district, in Dublin. Returns of the Ballinasloe district, which comprised the counties of Roscommon, Galway, and Mayo, showed that eighty-three lunatics were confined in the gaols at Galway, Roscommon, and Castlebar. In a short time the asylum at Castlebar would be open, and that would accommodate the counties of Roscommon, Galway, and Mayo. It was true that the magistrates committed lunatics to the gaol in the first instance, but on the Report being made to the Government the lunatics were transferred as soon as possible to the asylum in the district. The hon. Gentleman wanted magistrates in Ireland to have the same power as in England of committing dangerous lunatics to the asylum of the county to which they belonged;

    593
    but in Ireland there was a want of accommodation which the Government were doing all in their power to repair, The course which had been adopted in Ireland, however, of committing a dangerous lunatic to gaol was cheaper for the counties than the process of sending him to the Sessions as a criminal lunatic. In their Report of last year the Lunacy Commissioners entered very fully into the matter, and he thought everything was now being done to remedy the defects of past years. In the course of two years and a half every one of these district asylums would be completed, and they would accommodate all the criminal lunatics now in gaol or that would be committed to gaol. In the Dublin district the Government had found some difficulty in getting the county of Wicklow to agree to their terms, and the matter was still under consideration.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to point out the dangerous consequences which ensued from the committal of lunatics to prisons constructed for the separate system without a large common room in which different prisoners could meet together. He thought that, considering the importance of placing dangerous lunatics under proper treatment in the earliest stages of their malady, the magistrates in Ireland should have the power of sending them in the first instance to the asylum instead of the gaol. In some cases where there was plenty of room in the asylum these men were kept in gaol for a fortnight. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would have no objection to insert in the Bill which was to be read a second time for the regulation of such asylums a clause to carry out the views of the hon. Member for Meath.
    SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he admitted that it would be desirable to give the magistrates in Ireland the same power as they had in England; but up to the present time this was impossible. When the new asylums were constructed the Government could bring in a Bill to assimilate the law of the two countries.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he desired to have some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the First Commissioner of Works upon a matter connected with the Estimates which they were about to consider. They were told that an extra Estimate would shortly be introduced relative to the new Gallery to
  594
  be erected somewhere or other for certain collections in the British Museum. Last year the country had to pay upwards of £3,000 for designs for certain buildings that were projected at South Kensington, to which certain of these collections were to be removed, but which the House did not think fit to approve. It appeared that the Government were now having similar plans prepared; and he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of deciding whether it would sanction the transfer of these collections from the British Museum to Brompton. It was hardly respectful to the House that a statement should not be made upon the Civil Service Estimates, similar to that which was always made upon those for the army and navy. According to the short analysis of these Estimates, there appeared to be a saving of £13,000 this year, but the fact was that that apparent saving would be swallowed up by the Votes for public buildings, which it was understood were to come before the House. Nor, indeed, ought the comparison to be made with the Estimate of last year, but with the actual expenditure, in which case the apparent diminution upon the Estimates of this year would entirely disappear. The actual expenditure upon the Civil Service up to the 31st of March last was £7,257,000 while the Estimate for this year was £7,624,000; and if to this Estimate the sums allowed out of the Consolidated Fund were added, it would appear that for Civil Service purposes there was an increase of £2,000,000 over the expenditure for 1854. From a Return of the increase and diminution of the expense of the public offices it appeared that during the year 1864 there was an increase of £132,000 and a decrease of £52,000, showing a net increase of £80,000. He should like to have some explanation of these various matters.
  MR. PEELsaid, that having already spoken upon this Question he was unable to give the hon. Member the explanation which he desired.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee:—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £76,000, Harbours of Refuge.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) would be able to give the Committee some information with regard to the damage done to the Works at Alderney.
  MR. PEELsaid, he had already stated that evening that the engineers of the works in question had reported two breeches in the wall during a great storm. They stated, however, that the base of the wall, which was the most important part of the structure, had received no injury, whatever. The expense of repairing the damage would amount to about £15,000, half of which, as it was the result of a storm, would fall upon the contractors under the terms of their contract.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £49,930, for Holyhead and Port-patrick Harbours, &c.
  In reply to Mr. O'REILLY,
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that Holyhead Harbour was completed for the reception of passengers and mail packets.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the Irish mails were very irregular, and the letters were not delivered until ten or eleven o'clock in the day. He asked when the Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Cork would be laid before the House?
  MR. PEELsaid, the elaborate nature of the Returns had caused a delay in their production.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £70,677, to complete the sum for Public Buildings in Ireland.
  (4.) £3,000, to complete the sum for New Record Buildings, Dublin.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that he understood it was not intended to complete the whole of these buildings internally at present, but he believed that the cheapest plan would be to complete them at once.
  MR. PEELstated that the buildings were completed externally, but it was not thought necessary to go to the expense of fitting up more than four-tenths of the interior until it should be all required for use.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £813, National Gallery of Ireland.
  (6.) £19,474, Lighthouses Abroad.
  In reply to Mr. FINLAY,
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the lighthouses at the Bahamas were entirely supported by Parliamentary Votes. The other side of the Florida channel was extremely well lighted by the American Go-
  596
  vernment and at the service of our shipping free of expense. With respect to the Little Basses Lightship, it was intended to make her self-supporting. Her only value was to ships passing to the Bay of Bengal, and it was thought desirable to levy a small due on all ships benefiting from that light.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he was glad to hear that some tolls were to be levied for these lights, for it was monstrous that the people of this country should be taxed for them. In the Bahamas there were no less than eight lighthouses, and he should like to have some explanation with respect to the new lighthouse which had been erected there at a cost of £7,500.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know whether any portion of the charge for the lighthouse at Ceylon was borne by that Island or by the Indian Government? He was in favour of doing away, as far as was practicable, with passing tolls, but then he did not think it right that the expense of maintaining a lighthouse at Ceylon should be defrayed altogether by this country. It was only fair that the Indian Government should pay half.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the prrticular portion of the Vote to which the hon. Gentleman referred was for the maintenance, not of a lighthouse, but of a lightship at Ceylon, and that it was intended to make her as far as possible self-supporting. Ceylon had no special local interest in the keeping up of the vessel, which was chiefly of service to the shipping passing up the Bay of Bengal. The Indian Government had, he believed, declined to contribute towards the cost of the lightship, and it appeared to him but fair that the power should be exercised of levying dues on all ships which were benefited by her light. It would, he might add, be necessary to incur some further expense in that quarter in providing a spare ship to be made use of in case of accident. In answer to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith), he might state that it had been found expedient to have a new lighthouse at the Bahamas owing to the dangerous nature of the channel navigation.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that being of opinion that some portion of the expense of the lightship at Ceylon should be borne by the Indian Government, he should move that the Vote should be reduced by half its amount.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £4,000, Lunatic Asylum, Isle of Man.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to ask how it was that, the Vote having been rejected by the House last year, it was again brought forward by the Government in the present Session?
  MR. PEELsaid, he attributed the rejection of the Vote last year partly to his not having explained the circumstances under which it was introduced with sufficient clearness, and partly to the fact that the correspondence, which would have furnished a full explanation, had not been laid on the table of the House, That correspondence, however, had since been produced, and it would be seen by it that in 1858 the condition of the criminal pauper lunatics in the Isle of Man having been brought under the notice of Mr. Walpole, at the time, Secretary for the Home Department, he bad called the attention of the local authorities to the subject, and that the result was an application to the Treasury, who had undertaken to pay half the expense of erecting a lunatic asylum in the island, provided the authorities there would undertake the payment of the other half. The House of Keys, availing themselves of that offer, had passed a Bill for the purpose of making the necessary valuation of property with the view to raise their share of the money, and the Government, under the circumstances, deemed it to be their duty to carry into effect their part of the arrangement by proposing the present Vote. The Vote, in fact, was only the appropriation of a portion of the surplus revenue of the Isle of Man, which amounted to £10,000 or £12,000 a year, which was paid into the Imperial Exchequer. It was also thought that the island was entitled to this Vote because the Crown had bought the sovereign rights of the island.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he did not see on what ground the Isle of Man should be placed on a footing different from that of Scotland and all other parts of the Kingdom, which were obliged to pay for lunatic asylums out of their own local taxes. If Scotch accounts were balanced in the same way as the Secretary to the Treasury proposed in the case of the Isle of Man, it would be found that Scotland also had a large surplus revenue.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, he wished to ask, whether the county Mayo, which was at present spending £30,000 for purposes exactly similar to those covered by this Vote, would receive any assistance out of the public funds, if an application to
  598
  that effect were made. In what did the difference between this portion of the Kingdom and the Isle of Man consist? He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury if he thought the House was bound to pass this Vote because the Government had promised to recommend its adoption. He did not see why the House should this year reverse the Vote of last year.
  MR. PEELsaid, the Isle of Man had a Legislature of its own. There was a great distinction between the Isle of Man and the county of Mayo. When the sovereign rights of the Duke of Atholl were bought, it was thought equitable that the surplus revenues should be paid into the Exchequer. In his opinion this was a special case for the grant of public money. Before, the revenues of the island belonged to it, and were expended there, and it appeared no more than justice to expend now a portion of those revenues upon the local wants of the place.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, the proceeds of the Customs duties in this country were applied towards sustaining the general burdens, and unless the Isle of Man were prepared to maintain an army, navy, and police of its own, it ought to contribute towards the maintenance of these national forces before it could claim any surplus revenues. The fact of there being a surplus of £12,000 a year showed that the Isle of Man was wealthy, and had I a good trade, and it surely could afford to pay for its own local expenses, as well as any other part of the Kingdom.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, the Customs duties in the Isle of Man were not of the same amount as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. £300,000 were spent some years ago as a gross job in acquiring the sovereignty of the island, and now the Committee were asked to perpetuate a system thus inaugurated.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he must protest against the doctrine that because sovereign rights had been acquired by the State over any portion of its proper dominions it was bound to spend in that portion of its territory whatever surplus revenues might arise therein. Such an agreement had once existed in Hanover, but at that time Hanover contributed largely to our military strength in time of war.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not know whether hon. Members had read the letter from the Governor, in which it was

  599
  pointed out that the measures proposed to he carried out had been approved by three Governments. On the faith of that the local Government had raised a considerable sum. The asylum would contain accommodation for criminal as well as pauper lunatics. Even in England and Ireland the State defrayed its share of the maintenance of criminal lunatics.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, nothing would be easier than to overcome the difficulty last suggested by removing the criminal lunatics from the Isle of Man to Dartmoor, or the nearest establishment of a suitable kind in the United Kingdom.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that some compromise should he adopted in this matter. The House, he thought, would not haggle with so small an island for a few thousand pounds if, as suggested, the national faith was pledged to the expenditure.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, it was important to ascertain how the faith of the country stood pledged, if at all. If an undertaking by a Secretary of State that he would propose a particular Vote to the House amounted to a pledge on the part of the country to grant the money asked for, the Committee of Supply might as well abandon its functions at once. He wished to understand distinctly from the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement that the Isle of Man possessed a revenue and a Legislature of its own, was to be taken as a declaration that the Isle of Man undertook its own defence, and would not make any call on the national forces. The colonies paid towards the Imperial expense incurred in their military defence. The Isle of Man was a part of the Empire, with a local Legislature, hut it did not pay for its own defence. The House could not admit that it was bound by any engagements which might have been made by any Member of the Government as to the payment of this money.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no Member of the present Government would presume that he could bind the House beforehand to any Vote of money. The authorities of the Isle of Man, however, had reason to expect, from the assurances, first of the late Sir George Lewis, and afterwards in still stronger terms of the Government of Lord Derby, that the Vote now before the House would be recommended and supported by the Government. Did the Parliament of this country treat the Isle of Man with greater
  600
  liberality than the colonies? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last was in error in supposing that the colonies contributed towards their own military defence. The rule had been that they did not so contribute, and the contrary principle was only of partial and recent adoption. He believed that the Isle of Man paid over to the Imperial Exchequer a larger proportion by far than any other dependency of the Empire. The dependencies which in many respects it most resembled were the Channel Islands. The latter had an independent Legislature, hut they did not contribute a farthing to their own defence, while the Isle of Man paid over one-third of the whole revenue to this country. The Channel Islands were so far favoured that they received grants from the Privy Council for their schools, without contributing a farthing to the fund from which those grants were taken.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he saw no reason why the lunatic asylums of the Isle of Man should be paid for out of the Imperial Exchequer. The Vote was refused last year, and that, in the absence of any new arguments, was a very good reason for refusing it again.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that if hon. Members would read the note appended to the Estimate they would find that the probable cost of this building was about £20,000, in addition to £2,016 for the purchase of the site. Half the amount was to be provided by Parliament, and the other half by the island. The House was now asked to vote £4,000, which was one-half the cost of the site, and of such portion of the work as would be paid for within the year. The correspondence was laid before Parliament in 1864, and he wished to know why the Government did not take the opinion of the House on this subject at an earlier period.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he agreed that the expenses of lunatic asylums were generally borne by local rates. An objection to this Vote, however, came with an ill grace from Members for Scotland, for the very next Vote was one of £20,000 for Courthouses in Scotland. In Ireland the latter expenses were defrayed out of county rates.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought it quite right to restore to the Isle of Man £13,000 of the money taken from the island in taxes, but the Government forgot I that they drew £4,000,000 out of Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, towards the erection in the Isle of Man of an Asylum for the reception of Criminal and other Lunatics."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 33: Majority 16.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £20,000, Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation of the large sum of £38,000 for the Sheriff's Court of Edinburgh, which was not larger than other Courts in various parts of Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it had been very difficult to obtain a site, and though the sum was large, it was not larger than the necessities of the case required.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £27,000, Rates for Government Property.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, there was no ground for assisting local rates in England out of the Consolidated Fund when nothing of the kind was done in Ireland.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, it was only within the last few years this Vote had been proposed. It was an enormous advantage to the people of Greenwich to have Government establishments there. Would the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich be content to-morrow that those establishments should be transferred to the Shannon or the Cove of Cork? If the establishments were removed to Ireland, and grants were asked in aid of local assessments, there would not be the least chance of getting them. Government establishments prevented pauperism. He should oppose the Vote, and if encouraged would go to a division upon it.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, the Committee that sat upstairs had settled the question of Government rating. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M'Mahon) spoke of the advantage of Government establishments. But in the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford, where the dockyard was, the rates were 12 s. in the pound. Was there anything like that in Ireland? In Woolwich, also, where the Government occupied the best part of the river frontage the rates were exceedingly high. Of late years various improvements in drainage, lighting, and other matters had been introduced for the whole district, and would
  602
  it not be monstrous that the Government occupying lands for the benefit of the nation should not contribute to the expenses incurred? Who wore the roads? Why the artillery, and the people paid for them. Were the Government of this country so poor that in places where they possessed these large establishments the inhabitants should light, watch, pave, and make sewers, and the Government pay no rates? The fact was that this Vote was miserably small and inadequate, and ought to be increased.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought that the Government establishments at Woolwich added more to the value of the property in their neighbourhood than that property was depreciated by the additional poor rate at which it was assessed.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that this £27,000 could surely not be the whole sum to be contributed by the Government in aid of local rating.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask, whether it was intended that any portion of the money should be applied in payment of rates in Ireland or Scotland?
  MR. PEELsaid, that no distinction was made between England and any part of the United Kingdom, There were two heads into which this Vote was divided. The first related to property newly acquired by the Government. With regard to this property, the Government indemnified the parish against any loss sustained by its transfer from private hands to those of the Government, and the same rates were paid as it would have been liable to if it had remained private property. But there was this condition—that the rateable value should continue the same as it was when the property was acquired by the Government. That course, he thought, satisfied every claim which could be preferred by the parishes concerned. It was true that the parishes lost the advantage of any increasing value, but this was a conjectural estimate, and you must take into account the benefit conferred upon the district by the large scale of Government expenditure. In such an arrangement the Government were fortified by the authority of Parliament, this being the rule laid down with regard to purchases made for fortification purposes. The other head referred to property long in the possession of the Government. That property had always been exempted from rating, and the Government thought this exemption ought to continue, and that the present body of ratepayers had no right

  603
  to the benefit asked for by them, they having acquired their property in the parish knowing that the Government property there paid no rates. The only exception to the general rule thus laid down of maintaining the non-liability of this class of Government property was where the proportion of that property to the rateable property of the parish was very largo. This proportion as recommended by the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, was fixed at one-sixth, and he thought that such an arrangement would meet the claims of the parishes on account of any burdens which might devolve on them owing to those Government establishments.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, be thought that the recommendation of the Committee, which was presided over by the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, should be carried out, and the rating of Government property be regulated by Act of Parliament. At present it was altogether an arbitrary matter.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he must remind the Committee that, with ordinary persons, it was the quarter sessions which decided upon the rating, but the Government claimed to assess themselves. The Committee which had been referred to came to the conclusion that Government property ought to be rated upon the same principles as the property of individuals; but now the Government asked the Committee to vote this sum of £27,000, as representing the total amount it should contribute to the rates for all its property in the United Kingdom. Such a proposition was absurd, and he hoped that next Session the question would be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, his attention had been drawn to the inadequate contributions which the Government made to the rates of those districts in which their great establishments were situate. In the principle of exempting Government establishments from local rates on the ground that they benefited the district in which they were situated were carried out, every large private establishment ought to be exempt also. Whatever advantages resulted to certain districts from the presence of Government establishments, those advantages were counterbalanced by the consequent disadvantages.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that hardships did arise to individuals from the present system, but it must be recollected that the system was not one of to-day, but
  604
  had existed for a long period of time, and to call upon the Government to contribute to the rates on account of all these establishments, in the same proportion as individuals, would impose a charge upon the public purse that would affright the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, in fact, would lead only to taking out of one pocket to put into another. It might, indeed, render it necessary to re-impose a part of the income tax which had been taken off. He hoped, however, the subject would be fully considered in a future Session.
  SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation of the different modes of assessment adopted by the Government.
  MR. PEELsaid, the difference consisted in the fact that the Government did not think they ought to pay upon the same principle in places where the property had been long in the possession of the Government as in places where property had been recently acquired and thus transferred from ratepaying occupiers to them.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he thought that the same principle of contributing to rates should apply to every part of the United Kingdom.
  Vote agreed to.
  MR. HADFIELD MR. HADFIELD moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hadfield.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. It was early, twenty minutes to eleven, and if, as was supposed, Parliament was to rise in the second week of July, some progress must be made with the Estimates with which at present they were very backward.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (10.) £51,064, to complete the sum for the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he saw a charge in the Estimate for the attendant on the ventilation of the House. That individual was paid by the country for pumping cold and unwholesome air into the House to circulate about the feet of hon. Members to such an extent that it was impossible for hon. Members to remain in it in the early part of the Session, and it was the most cruel

  605
  thing possible to ask the House to vote anything for his salary. The House was kept in such an uncomfortable state that some hon. Members were unable to remain for the night, and others were obliged tore-tire to warm themselves to enable them to return to their duties. The House was made so injurious to health that hon. Members suffered very considerably in consequence. When the east wind was blowing it was thought in this country to be a very comfortable thing to get inside a building; but in that House the east wind blew as disagreeably as it did outside. Some attributed the disagreeable state of the House to the gas in the roof, but that was a very curious idea, when in truth the whole evil was caused by the cold air that was blown into the House from below. The sooner the nuisance was got rid of the better.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, be had made a personal application to the officer in question, and his reply had been very unsatisfactory, he (Mr. Whalley) could not do his duty, although he had tried his best, and the effect of the present arrangements was to drive away all the independent Members. He understood the law of nature to be that the upper stratum of air should be cooler than the lower, in order that the impurities of human breath and other impurities might be carried off. But in that House they had created an artificial beat above. The system of ventilation adopted in that House was the cruellest form of despotism ever invented. Instead of allowing the hot air to escape they sent it down on hon. Members. He had been up above and down below, and really—speaking for himself—he could not stand it. Whether it was by creating an artificial heat above or forcing in artificial east winds from below he could not say, but the system of ventilation was fundamentally wrong; and nothing could be more deliberately ruinous to the health of independent Members.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11). £39,488, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to call attention to the large expenditure for messengers, not only in this, but in all the public Departments. The sum asked for the expenses of messengers in all the public Departments in London was no less than £34,794. When he had occasion to make any communication to a public Department he usually intrusted it to the post, and he generally found that it arrived
  606
  safely; but whenever he received an answer it was delivered by a messenger. Why could not the Departments make use of the Post Office in the same way instead of having such a multitude of messengers, many of whom were lounging about doing nothing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to the subject he would find that at least one-third of the staff would be quite sufficient.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to ask why it was necessary to come to that House for Votes on Account if the salaries were due at the end of the quarter?
  MR. PEELsaid, the salaries were paid at the end of the quarter, but by the recent Appropriation Acts it was impossible to use any of the unappropriated balances, and consequently he was obliged to come to that House for a Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £20,188, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to ask how it was that in the Vote for the Treasury the number of messengers employed, and the salaries given, were stated in detail, and a lump sum taken for the Home Office?
  MR. PEELsaid, that the latter sum was limited to the Home Office alone; whereas in the Treasury it included those employed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Office also, and they required to be separated.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he did not see why the details could not be given in both cases.
  MR. PEELsaid, they should be given next year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £48,885, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that as we had adopted a policy of non-intervention—of never assisting our friends, and of letting any injustice go on in any part of the world—the time had come when some of our Foreign Office machinery might be dispensed with. In the new path of peace on which we had entered we had neither to defend our territories nor raise a finger when treaties are broken. The only object of our diplomacy had hitherto been to prevent other nations from going to war. Nobody ever proposed seriously to attack us; the only way in which we ever got into wars was by de-

  607
  fending our friends, and if we had made up our minds to let our friends take care of themselves, and let foreign nations go on cutting each other's throats within sight of us without interfering, we might as well get rid of some of the expense which our diplomacy caused us. ["Move, move!"] Certainly not; he was not going to do anything so invidious. His hon. Friend opposite the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had now quite a sinecure in his post of Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In former times he had had occasion to trouble him very frequently; but latterly he had not had occasion to ask him a single question.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Devizes, he would say that the question of the maintenance of our Foreign Office did not depend upon the adoption or not of the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. The voice of history warned us that so long as this country maintained its Protestant principles and remained the great bulwark of civil and religious liberty, it must always expect to have arrayed against it the animosity of States which had a different policy. This country was an asylum of persons who for their political or their religious principles had to leave the land of their birth, and as long as we desired to have England pre-eminent in upholding the principles of civil and religious liberty we must maintain our Foreign Office.
  Vote agreed to, as was also,
  (14.) £23,658, to complete the sum for the Colonial Department.
  (15.) £13,824, Privy Council Office.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, that he did not think the country got value for the £1,500 paid to the Medical Officer of the Privy Council. Considerable sums had been spent on experiments connected with vaccination. He thought that the experiments and Reports of the medical branch of the Department were superficial, and the conclusions come to empirical and not satisfactory.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know was this medical officer the gentleman who had made the very elaborate Report which had been used by the Government in the recent debates on the Poor Laws, and who seemed to have a very slight acquaintance with truth. If so, the salary ought to be stopped. In referring to that Report his observation was
  608
  founded on the statements made by hon. Members in the course of the debate.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the document referred to was not penned actually by an officer of the Government, but by a gentleman specially employed for the particular duty. He (Mr. Bruce) was not then prepared to accede to the criticizms passed by certain hon. Members upon it. He should on Monday have an opportunity of conferring with Dr. Hunter, when, he believed, he would be able to show the House that the charges directed against that gentleman were made under a misapprehension. He (Mr. Bruce) referred especially to those of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire. He must say, that he know no more able nor hardworking officer than Dr. Simon, who had already conferred the greatest benefits upon the public by his inquiries, which had been attended with the best results to the public health. He believed that those inquiries ought to be continued by that gentleman.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he concurred in the opinion that the Privy Council should have the means of prosecuting these local medical inquiries. But the question for consideration was whether the expenses were not exorbitant for what they obtained. It was well that the Board of Health was done away with, inasmuch as it had made foolish Reports, which invited the severest criticizms year by year. The present system, which was established in its stead, was a much better one. This Department of the Government should, however, pay more attention to the way in which those Reports were made up if they wished to enlist the respect of the House for them.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to know how the Special Report was to be paid for. How did it appear in the Estimates? He was not prepared to join in the remarks which had been made adverse to it, because the more clear and bold the colouring of pictures relating to the domiciliary arrangements of the poor the better. He felt sure that on a fair and candid report a state of things far blacker and more disgraceful to our civilization would be found in our manufacturing districts than that reported in the agricultural neighbourhoods. As an owner of property in the manufacturing districts he had found himself continually foiled in his efforts to provide for the manufacturing classes dwellings more favourable to decency and comfort by the ignorance of the very peo-

  609
  ple for whose welfare he had expended his money. It was of no use to furnish their rooms with the means of ventilation if the people would never open the windows; when he had made arrangements for ample and separate sleeping accommodation, a large portion of the space so provided would be used for the purposes of lumber and storage, and the whole family would crowd into one room. Instead, therefore, of reporting adversely upon the condition of the agricultural districts only, he hoped that the medical officer would give an equally graphic and an impartial description of the existing state of things in both agricultural and manufacturing districts.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that the scheme alluded to by his hon. Friend was included in the contingent expenses under the Public Health Act, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 97, which amounted to £7,000, including £2,000 for the National Vaccine Establishment, and £2,000 for vaccination inspection. The Report alluded to contained a great many particulars with reference to an outbreak of fever at Liverpool, and the seven volumes of Reports which had hitherto appeared had treated the subject of our large towns at considerable length. He believed that the charge against Dr. Hunter of presenting a report in which his adverse criticizm was the result of animus was most unjust. It was the first time it had been made, though he had frequently before used strong terms of censure.
  MR. HUNTsaid, be believed that Dr. Hunter's inquiries would lead to more accurate reports if some notification of his intended visit to the part of the country were made by that gentleman, so that persons in the neighbourhood might have an opportunity of furnishing him with correct information and of rebutting charges made by interested parties.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was unable to judge himself of the accuracy of Dr. Hunter's report, but a distinguished Member of the House (Mr. Henley) had said that it was incorrect, and that statement was echoed on both sides of the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) £50,523, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he must complain of the cost incurred through the registration of joint-stock companies, and thought that some fees for registration ought to be charged.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he must call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that fees to the amount of £21,000 were received in the year 1864.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the expenses in connection with this Vote bad increased from £65,000 last year and £62,000 the previous year to £68.000 in the present Estimate. The increase of expenditure on account of superannuation was especially objectionable. Two gentlemen, Lord Hobart, and Mr. Edgar Bowring, had been superannuated, one at the age of thirty-eight and the other at the age of forty. One of these Gentlemen, Mr. Edgar Bowring held two offices, and though only one of those offices had been abolished, his superannuation was calculated on the salaries of both offices. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of this Department, who was not only known as an advanced Reformer, but was an advocate of peace, and above all retrenchment, whether these gentlemen had been employed in any other Department of the public service after the alteration or abolition of the offices they previously held.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he thought that now the restrictions had been so much removed from trade, one-tenth or even one-half of this Vote might be devoted to the protection and encouragement of agriculture, and that the name of the office itself might be changed to "the Board of Trade and Agriculture."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to know how much the Vote had been increased by the Railway Bills passed last year. Great hopes had been entertained that the Board of Trade would have been able to relieve hon. Members of a large portion of the duties which devolved upon them with respect to railroads.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped that in future the Vote for the Designs Office would appear either in the Patent Vote, orin the Vote for Education, Science, and Art.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there was an inquiry into the office of the Board of Trade, with a view to its re-organization, and the office of registrar was abolished. The office of registrar had been abolished, and Mr. Edgar Bowring took the superannuation allowance to which he was entitled under the Act for an abolished office. With regard to Lord Hobart, his duties had become very slight, and he retired upon a superannuation allowance on

  611
  the understanding that if duties could be found for him in the service of the Government, he would be required to perform them. With regard to the general staff of the Office it was not greater than was necessary for the work to be done. Parliament, by passing year after year new Acts, had been imposing upon the Board of Trade duties which required a considerable staff to perform them. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) would be glad if he could see his way to a reduction of the number of officials; but he did not think that object could be attained without impairing the efficiency of the Department.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to ask, how it was that the salary of the chief of the Statistical Department had been increased from £800 to £1,000.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the reason was that there had been an addition to his duties by the abolition of other offices.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved, that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
  MR. PEELsaid, he hoped that the Vote for Exchequer Bonds would first be taken.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (17.) £1,000,000, Exchequer Bonds.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit 'again."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 44: Majority 77.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
  Committee to sit again on Monday next.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.

  [Bill, 86.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. VANCEsaid, he must move the adjournment of the debate, on the ground of the lateness of the hour and the absence
  612
  of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate), who was unfortunately indisposed. Many Members wished to speak on a subject of such enormous importance. He was anxious to know whether Government were inclined to accept the proposal that had been thrown out in the course of the debate upon this Bill by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole)—namely, that Government should take charge of the matter, and should frame one uniform oath, that would afford adequate protection to the Established Church, and could be taken by all Members of the House, of whatever religious persuasion. He thought, from the general expression of the feeling of the House upon the subject, that this was the course the Government were bound to adopt. In the expectation that they would do so he made the Motion.
  SIR BROOK BRIDGES, in seconding the Motion, said, a great number of Members interested in the question had been induced to leave the House in consequence of seeing so many Orders of the Day on the Votes, and therefore it would not be fair to force the matter on in their absence. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, whether he would not, under the circumstances, postpone the consideration of the question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that in answer to the appeal of the hon. Baronet, he could only say that the measure had already been twice postponed. There had been a decisive majority in favour of the Bill. He did not wish to take any unfair advantage, but as he was a private Member, and therefore had not the control of the business of the House, he could only put the Bill down as the first business to be gone into by the House, and if the matter was always to be postponed, no private Member would undertake to introduce a Bill.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, this was a question of very serious importance and nicety. On a former occasion a person of great authority had made a suggestion, and he now asked whether the Government was prepared to take charge of this important question. He did not think the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Vance) at all unreasonable. By adopting this course the Government would meet the wishes of the House, and, at the same time, preserve the securities for the Protestant Constitution.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Bill proposed an oath to be taken by Roman Catholic Members, which would leave but a slight difference between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic oaths. He thought that one uniform oath would be very desirable. If the singular portion of the former oath, dating from the Emancipation Act, which required Protestants to swear that they did not believe that the Pope had power to exercise any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this country, were expunged, the oaths would be exactly alike.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was not only sorry but surprised that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) the right hon. Baronet was not prepared to substitute a uniform oath for that proposed by the Bill, which he believed afforded no possible security to the Protestant Church.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was perfectly aware that it had been suggested that Government should take charge of this Bill, but he was not aware that Government had entered into any arrangement to do so. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) that the Government should have undertaken the duty of legislation on this subject if it had appeared to them that by so doing they would have promoted the object better than by leaving the matter in the hands of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mon-sell). He did not think there was any reason for supposing that such would be the result of the Government undertaking the subject. It was true that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) had expressed his desire that the Government should take the matter up, but he had not indicated the basis of arrangement or pointed out the way of settlement. No doubt it would be the duty of the Government to bring in a Bill to enact an oath that would be entirely satisfactory to all parties if they could see their way to do so, but as there was no mode by which they could at present unite all parties in assenting to any proposal, it surely was not their duty to do it. It was, doubtless, expedient as a general rule that questions of importance should be handled by the Government, but he greatly doubted whether that was the case in the present instance. They were not altogether without experience in the matter. It had been found on a former occasion that the taking up of the subject by the Government had
  614
  a tendency at once to throw into the category of party questions in a far greater degree than when it was in the hands of a private Member. When a Bill of the same kind was introduced by Lord Russell, with all the weight and authority of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, that measure failed to pass; whereas his right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell), availing himself of his position and just influence as an independent Member, had succeeded in obtaining for his Bill the assent not only of a large majority of that House, but happily of a majority very variously composed; and he had received valuable support from hon. Gentlemen opposite in the shape not only of votes, but also of very able speeches. He congratulated his right hon. Friend on having placed the question in a position so favourable. The results which had attended his labours went far to show that the Government had done wisely in leaving the matter to him, and likewise in forbearing to bring forward at the present moment what might he a more perfect measure, lest they should fail in carrying that more perfect measure, and also obstruct the most valuable object of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Vance) had said that in consequence of the illness of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate), and also as it was past twelve o'clock, he thought that the debate should be adjourned; but he had not said that the Government, or anybody else, should have brought in such a Bill.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, it was obvious that a very great change of opinion had taken place on the subject since the period referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had given a cordial vote in favour of the Bill, believing that the time had passed when the dreadful things once attributed to the Roman Catholics were to be apprehended, and also that no real security was obtained for the Established Church by the oath. But as a Protestant he would be placed in a disadvantageous position, as compared with the Roman Catholics, if he were asked to swear to more than they were required to swear to. All denominations should be placed upon one footing in that matter, and he thought that no more fitting opportunity was likely to occur than the present for the Government bringing forward such a measure.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that if this Bill were passed Protestant Members

  615
  could then bring in a Bill to alter their oath in a similar way. He thought that the Government should give an early Government day to discuss the present Bill.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYhad thought it remarkable that the Government should have been so ready to report Progress at half past eleven; but the reason was evident now. It was only fair that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who was prevented by indisposition from being present, should have an opportunity of expressing his opinions on that question.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had ample opportunity for speaking when the Bill was introduced, and he might also have addressed the House on Wednesday before the debate closed, if he had thought proper.
  MR. KENNEDYsaid, that any attempt by the Government to bring in a new Bill this Session would only result in the question being postponed perhaps for another six years.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to put it to the House, whether they ought not to show some little consideration for the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) who might have retarded the Bill if he had risen to speak upon the second reading, and who really had had no sufficient opportunity of expressing his opinion upon I it. The question was, in what manner the oath was to be altered, leaving out words which to the ordinary understanding were not intelligible. Before the House went into Committee the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) should inform the House on what authority he was prepared to justify the change he sought to introduce.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that it was undesirable to pass this measure at the present moment, because its adoption would necessarily be associated by the public with the recent attacks upon the Irish Church and the approaching elections.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he was one who attached very little importance to oaths of this kind. They were too easily taken, and too often forgotten; but, holding these opinions, he must say that it was inexpedient at the present time to propose the change which was sought, and this for two reasons. First, on account of the repeated attacks made in this House upon the Irish Church; secondly, on account of the near approach of the
  616
  general election. It would he said that this Bill was brought in for the purpose of influencing votes then. Though it might be of some advantage to the Government, care should be taken lest the course which was adopted might arouse the Protestant feelings of the nation.
  MR. DENMANsaid, this was a cowardly and unworthy argument. Because it might be said that they were doing something which they knew to be just under the pressure of the approaching election, therefore they were to perpetuate what they knew to be unjust. If this was a just Bill hon. Members ought to support it, and not care what the people might say out of doors with respect to the motives which actuated its supporters. To use the words of the right hon. the Member for the University of Cambridge, "the oath was offensive, and contained insulting statements." If this was so they ought to get rid of it.
  MR. WALPOLE: As the hon. and learned Member has alluded to me I may say a few words, especially as the argument I used was hardly that which he has attributed to me. The argument I used was this—and the more I have thought upon it the more I am prepared to adhere to it—that when you make a deliberate compact—tacitly it may be, not in words, perhaps—when you come to a deliberate agreement or understanding that upon certain conditions a great change is to be made in your law, you ought not to disturb the conditions unless you see some great practical grievance pressing upon some persons, and the grievance ought to be made out to the satisfaction of the House. I adhere to the view that if it were made out to the satisfaction of the House that there are circumstances which require an alteration in the oath such a change ought only to be made after the gravest consideration, and to be recommended on the responsibility of the Advisers of the Crown. And further, that if we see a change necessary we ought to consider whether we can frame the oath in such a form of words as that all Members of the House may take it. If Her Majesty's Government will take the matter in hand I will do my best to see what form of oath is to he framed, But unless the Government do so, after thirty years during which this oath has been taken, and which was confirmed in 1858, it is hardly fair at this advanced period of the Session to expect Members to assent to change without more discussion, upon the subject,

  617
  and especially at this hour of the night. This is a course which ought not to be pursued, and until a proper opportunity is offorded it is not reasonable at this hour to press the measure.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, as some hon. Members spoke in favour of a uniform oath they ought to bear in mind that there was a class (the Jews) which had been recently admitted by Resolution to seats in this House, and that the admission was a kind of by-play. It would be fairer to consider how the oath could be framed to meet this class.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 115: Majority 71.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BANKS STANHOPE MR. BANKS STANHOPE moved that the House adjourn, and he did so on account of the course taken by the Government. In order to favour the present Bill they had intentionally neglected the business of the House by abstaining from proceeding with the Estimates, though on other days they charged Members on the Opposition side with obstructing business when particular items were objected to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Banks Stanhope.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that at half past ten o'clock a Motion was made to report Progress, but the Government nevertheless went on with the Estimates until twenty minutes to twelve o'clock. The House had by the division expressed a decided opinion that the Bill ought to be proceeded with; but as at that hour it would be impossible to make much progress with the Bill, he suggested that the Bill should now be allowed to go into Committee, with the understanding that Progress would be immediately afterwards reported.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he feared that if that course were pursued it would be afterwards impossible for any one to move an Instruction to the Committee to frame a uniform oath to be taken by all Members.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought the conduct of some hon. Members very inconsistent. They complained that the Government did not make the Bill a Government measure, and when the Government did the next best thing, by allowing the Bill to come on for discussion at half-past eleven o'clock, they still objected to that course.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he believed that the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance) was under a mistake in supposing that if the Bill went into Committee and Progress were reported, it would not afterwards be competent for an hon. Member to move an Instruction to the Committee.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought that if the course suggested by the Secretary for the Home Department was followed there would be every opportunity for the further discussion of the subject.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that if the Government thought the Bill of such importance as to induce them to give up proceeding with the Estimates at so early an hour as they had done, with a view to its being brought on, they ought to take the subject into their own hands.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that hon. Members were entitled to have a full opportunity of discussing whether the House should or should not go into Committee on the Bill.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that if the Government were in earnest in their support of the Bill, and were desirous that it should not be a shuttlecock between opposing parties, they ought to lend his right hon. Colleague all the facility and assistance in their power in pressing it forward.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the Bill, if it were to pass that House, would have to go before another Assembly, composed of lawyers and statesmen, who would give it a calm and conscientious consideration, and that if it were sent up to that Assembly in a crude shape it might be very summarily rejected. He would, therefore, suggest that the best chance for its success would be to allow it to be discussed fairly, with the view to the introduction into it of such Amendments as were desirable, and as hon. Members on his side of the House were prepared to propose. For his own part, nothing would ever induce him to consent to depart from the vital principle of the constitution as established at the Reformation, and which he conceived to be embodied in the oath as it now stood.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman was determined to adhere to the principle of the constitution as he supposed it to be embodied in the Roman Catholic oath—
  MR. WHITESIDEexplained that he referred to the oath taken by Protestants, in which they denied not only the tern-

  619
  poral, but the ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction of foreign Powers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had given good reason why they should only do one thing at a time. He would leave those who did not hold the pernicious doctrine to which he objected to say they did not, and those who did hold it should not be required to renounce it. That being so, what great bulwark of the constitution was to be found in the circumstance that those who did not believe in the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope expressed their non-belief—however great the satisfaction they derived from it—while they had no fear of the non-renunciation of the contrary belief in the case of Roman Catholics who held those pernicious doctrines.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was answering what the Home Secretary had said with respect to altering the oath by striking out the words which contained the principle which he (Mr. Whiteside) advocated.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had called a distinction between the Church and its temporalities a flimsy one, but he would remind him that it was a distinction made by that eminent statesman, Edmund Burke. In his speech on Wednesday the right hon. Gentleman went as far, in order to insult the Roman Catholics, as the form of the House allowed him.
  Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 102: Majority 66.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he should make another Motion of adjournment, as a matter of form, to enable him to state that the learned Attorney General would never have ventured on the address he had delivered a few minutes previously at an hour when the House was in a frame of mind to understand it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to order. As the right hon. Gentleman having the conduct of the Bill was understood to be willing to accede to the Motion, perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) would not object to shorten his speech.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that when the Attorney General chose to raise upon a
  620
  proper occasion the question that it was of no importance that there was a denial—a constitutional legal denial—of that which he sneered at—namely, the jurisdiction of any foreign Power in our law, he was willing to discuss it fairly with him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had left out the words which alone raised the matter between them. The denial of the jurisdiction of any foreign power in our law was in the present oath. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Spiritual.] The right hon. Gentleman put in the word "spiritual" now. With regard to that, those who did not believe—and all who were Protestant did not believe—in the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope professed that in the oath taken in the House. But if the holding a different tenet were dangerous to the constitution it would follow that those who held it would be asked to take the same oath. They were informed that all our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects held that tenet, and it was not considered so dangerous as to induce us to ask them to renounce it.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would agree to the Motion for the adjournment.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday next.

  INLAND REVENUE ACTS.
  Resolution [May 18] reported.
  "That it is expedient to make provision for allowing a Maltster the option of having the Excise Duty on Malt made by him charged according to the weight of the Grain used in the making of such Malt instead of by measure."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 161.]

  SALMON FISHERY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment Bill do consist of seventeen Members:—Committee nominated:—Mr. BARING. Mr. ACLAND, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. HENRY FENWICK, Mr. EDWARD FENWICK, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. KNIGHT, Mr. LAWSON, Mr. LYGON, LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, Mr. MORRITT, COLONEL PENNANT, Mr. WHALLEY, Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM, Mr. M'MAHON, and Mr. MACKIE:—Five to be the quorum.

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law respecting the election, payment, and duties of Coroners in Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 161.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.