Commons Sitting of 15 June 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Report—New Forest Poor Relief* (193):
TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, Whether he intends to proceed with the third reading of the Tests Abolition (Oxford) Bill that night?
  MR. COLERIDGEsaid, in reply, that, looking to the state of public business as appearing upon the paper, and to the fact that notice had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford that he meant to take a division upon the third reading of the Bill, he (Mr. Coleridge) did not think it would be for the convenience of Members generally to attempt to bring it on that evening. With the leave of the House he should, therefore, postpone his Motion to another occasion, probably the 3rd of July.

  IRELAND—PROBABLE RESIGNATION OF JUDGE LONGFIELD.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITESIDE: Sir, a very remarkable statement has appeared in the newspapers within the last few days, of which I wish to ask some explanation at the hands of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Judge Long-field is reported as having said, in a case before him, that—
  "He hoped that the parties would not delay sending in their requisitions for the further information of the Court, as he was anxious to dispose completely of all cases before him, to avoid the inconvenience of a re-argument before his successor of cases already heard before himself. He regretted to say that he thought it unlikely that he could hold much longer the situation which he at present filled. He had read that morning
  466
  a Bill brought into Parliament so unjust to himself that he considered it as equivalent to a Bill for depriving him of his office by imposing on him more business than, at his time of life, he could undertake to discharge. He had requested his registrar to furnish him with a return of orders made by him in Court for the month ending the 3rd day of June. The orders amounted to 257. Of those, 136 were made in cases transferred to him from the Court of the late Judge Hargreave, and the remainder in cases originally his own. This was exclusive of orders to give out title-deeds and fiating petitions, settling rentals, conveyances, schedules, partitions, and declarations of title. The number of petitions fiated by him during the above period amounted to forty-five, twenty-three of which were cases which came to him owing to the death of Judge Hargreave. The number of titles read by him during the same period was thirty-seven, twenty-five of which were in cases referred to him. He protested against the injustice of imposing so much additional labour on him, and had written to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject, protesting against the injustice, and had received an answer this morning, in the ordinary language of official civility, to the effect that the Government were prepared to carry the Bill as it stood. The only part of the Bill with which he was now concerned was that which related to the additional duties imposed on himself. He would, however, say that he entirely disapproved the policy of the Act."
  ["Order, order!"] The learned Judge goes on to say that it will diminish the security of titles conferred ["Order!"], and to speak of other matters. I therefore beg to ask my right hon. Friend, Whether Judge Long-field has notified his intention of resigning his judicial position in the Landed Estates Court without any retiring pension; and, if so, what are the grounds of that resignation; whether as a consequence of that resignation any changes are contemplated in the constitution of the Court; and whether, assuming that any correspondence has passed on this subject between Judge Long-field and the Lord Lieutenant, my right hon. Friend sees any objection to its production?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: In answer, Sir, to my right hon. and learned Friend, I have to say that there has been a certain correspondence between the Irish Government and Judge Long-field, in the course of which that learned Judge has given the Government reason to believe that it is probable he will not continue for any lengthened period of time to fill the office the duties of which he now so ably administers, and which it would be very much to our regret if he were t6 resign. But he has not intimated his intention of resigning at present; in short, he has not resigned. The correspondence has not however terminated, and, under

  467
  the circumstances, I do not think it ought to be given to the House.
  MR. WHITESIDE: But what I want to know from my right hon. Friend is the cause of the quarrel. What is it all about?
  [No answer was returned to this question.]

THE LATE BANK FAILURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HODGKINSONsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in order to mitigate the inconvenience arising from the recent failures of Banking and Discount Companies, Her Majesty's Government will bring in a Bill to enable the official liquidators of such Companies, when in course of liquidation under the Joint Stock Companies Act, to issue to depositors and other creditors Certificates of indebtedness, and to render such Certificates and the debts thereby certified, transferable by indorsement?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONreplied, that the object intimated by the Question of the hon. Member was that the Government should bring in a Bill to create a new class of securities transferable by indorsement, and of a kind at present unknown to the law. The question had been maturely considered, and he had not been able to satisfy himself that any sufficient ground had been made out for exceptional legislation in respect of these particular companies alluded to—namely, banking and discount companies, while undergoing liquidation under the Joint Stock Companies' Act. The official liquidator would not be in possession of the whole state of the account as between the creditors and the company, so as to be able to give a certificate of indebtedness which would be reliable, until the winding-up was complete. Under these circumstances, the Government were not prepared to bring in a Bill to effect the object mentioned by the lion. Gentleman.

  BANK OF ENGLAND AND RATE OF DISCOUNT.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANTsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice, Whether, if the Bank of England was to reduce their rate of discount below 10 per cent per annum, the power granted to them by the Government Letter of issuing a larger amount of notes than is fixed by Law would cease. As it might be necessary to say a few words in explanation of the ques-
  468
  tion, he should conclude with a Motion, that he might put himself in order. He understood that by the Letter addressed to the Governors and Deputy Governors power was granted to the Bank of England, contrary to the terms of their Charter, to issue a number of notes in excess of the amount fixed by law as proportionate to their reserve, on condition of the rate of discount being fixed at 10 per cent. A Court of Directors was held accordingly, and passed a Resolution by which the rate of discount was raised to 10 per cent to meet the exigencies of the case. It was rumoured amongst commercial circles that the hesitation of the Bank of England now to reduce the rate below 10 per cent was not so much owing to its position as to the fact that they were under the impression that the Government Letter would at once be at an end if they reduced their rate of discount below 10 per cent. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the Letter would be null and void so soon as their rate of discount was reduced below 10 per cent? He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, as this is a question of great importance I will endeavour to make it perfectly clear, though I may be somewhat lengthy in the answer I give to it. The question appears to me to involve the prior question, whether the Bank of England, under the Government Letter, can issue a larger number of notes than is allowed by law. It is desirable, in a matter so important, to define quite accurately the meaning of the terms employed, because the ideas entertained on a very important question may materially depend on the meaning of the terms employed. No power, strictly so called, has been granted by the Government to the Bank to issue any amount of notes beyond the quantity determined by the Act of Parliament. The letter to which the hon. Member alludes is an engagement on the part of the Government, in a certain contingency, to make an application to Parliament, and that is the whole extent of it, the Government having themselves no power in the matter, which would enable them to confer powers upon others. I will, therefore, construe the question of the hon. Gentleman in this manner, in accordance with what I take to be his meaning, whether the engagement by the Government would be still in force in the event of the

  469
  reduction by the Bank of the rate of discount to a lower rate than 10 per cent. With respect to that, all I have to say is that it is simply a question of the construction of a document—nothing else, and the hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to ask us what construction we put on a document for which we are ourselves responsible—and I will tell him. I think it quite certain that the letter only applies to advances which are made at a period at which the rate of interest at the Bank of England is not less than 10 per cent. Now, it does not admit of doubt, on the simple, and natural, and fair construction of the document, that the engagement is limited to a period for which the Bank of England continues to charge interest at the rate of 10 per cent; The House will observe that I distinguish entirely between the question of the construction of the document and the question of policy as to the course proper to be taken in any future circumstances which may occur. If the Bank of England thinks it expedient, and considers themselves warranted in any future circumstances to reduce the rate of interest, then, in my opinion, the engagement will cease to be in force; but if I am asked what the view of the Government will be upon any subsequent circumstances in which the Bank of England may find it necessary, if so the case should be, to raise its rate of interest again, my answer would be that the event must be considered a new event, and dealt with on its merits, and that the same principles on which they have acted in this case would govern the Administration in any similar contingency. I have thus endeavoured to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, which I consider to relate—first, simply to the existence of a covenant on the part of the Government; second, to what I consider the primary object of his question, the nature of that covenant; and thirdly, also, to the policy which may be pursued in any future contingency that may arise, and which, when it does arise, must be dealt with on its own merits.

SITTINGS IN THE HOUSE.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that during the present Session hon. Members have failed on many occasions to obtain sitting room in the House. This had arisen from the inadequacy of the House to contain the number of Gentlemen of which
  470
  the House of Commons was composed. He had been informed that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, giving a lecture to some of his admiring constituents, stated that, while the number of the Members was 658, the House contained adequate accommodation for only 300. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman might not have overstated the case, because he had heard it asserted that, taking the galleries into account, there was accommodation for 400. Perhaps there might be room in the body of the House for that number, so that more than one-third of the Members had not sitting room. Now, we were accustomed to hear of every Gentleman elected to that House taking "his seat in Parliament;" but this was perfect nonsense. An hon. Member might secure a seat if he was down at a quarter past three o'clock in the afternoon; but if there was anything important on the paper, it was impossible after the hour at which the Speaker took the Chair to get even standing room, where a Member could hear the proceedings which were going on, and apply his mind to the subject under discussion. This was a question which affected their utility as representatives. It was comparatively bootless to debate at great length how Members of that House were to be elected, if, when they were elected, they had not that accommodation without which they could not perform their duties with credit to themselves, or with justice to their constituents. What had occurred only on the previous day before the division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, on Clause 4 of the Reform Bill? There was a crowd amounting to a mob about the door. The space without the Bar could not be kept clear, because there was not room within the Bar for the Members who wished to know what was going on; and there were a number of Members in the lobby who could not get in to hear the Question put. If we were told that in China a deliberative Assembly were sitting in a room of such contracted dimensions as compared with the size of the Assembly, that fully one-third of those entitled to take part in the deliberations could not get seats, we should say, "What fools the Chinese are!" But this was the state of things among us, who held ourselves up as models of men of common sense. During the present Session every seat in the House had been filled night after night; numbers of hon. Gentlemen bad been standing at the Bar, and others had not been

  471
  able to get in at all. This ought not to be allowed to continue. It was injurious to the character of the debates, and to the due representation of the people. More than that, every time there was a full House scenes occurred which were altogether imcompatible with the dignity of that Assembly. The crowding, and pushing, and squeezing—the constant noise and interruption—was perfectly absurd to spectators. He wanted Her Majesty's Government to apply their minds to this matter, and to employ some able and experienced men to find out whether it was not possible to find a remedy, and, if it was, what the remedy should be. He should, perhaps, be met with the answer that, if made to accommodate the whole of the 658 Members, on ordinary occasions the House would be so large that hon. Members could not be heard. That allegation was simply absurd. There were in the metropolis rooms twice the size of the House of Commons, and yet speakers were heard perfectly well by the audiences in those rooms. Something, certainly, must be done, and he suggested that a considerable improvement might be effected by taking in the space behind the Speaker's Chair. He begged to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to cause an inquiry to be made with a view to affording adequate accommodation to Members in the House, and prevent thereby the serious inconvenience which Members have suffered, especially during this Session, for want of a sufficient number of seats? He hoped that hon. Members who took an interest in this question would express their opinions on it before the First Commissioner rose to reply to his Question; and in order to give them an opportunity of doing so, he now moved the adjournment of the House
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—(Sir George Bowyer.)
  MR. CRAWFORDsubmitted that on an evening when Supply was put upon the paper with the view of giving hon. Members an opportunity of bringing matters of interest under the notice of the House, it was contrary to the custom and the general understanding which had prevailed in that House, for the hon. Baronet to occupy time by a subject which only recently had been discussed, and which, however interesting it might have been to the hon. Baronet, was not, he ventured to think,
  472
  viewed in that light by the House generally. It was not desirable that the ordinary course of business on Supply nights should be interrupted by discussions raised on Motions for the adjournment of the House.
  MR. COWPERagreed with the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) as to the inconveniences of the course adopted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer); and, therefore, he should not follow the hon. Baronet into a discussion of the matter. The question of the number of seats which the House ought to contain was, he believed, carefully considered when the House was built; and for good reasons it was determined that it should not be larger than it was now. He thought the experience of the last eighteen years, during which discussions had been carried on there, had not led to the belief that the House ought to be enlarged, and he thought the enlargement would not conduce to the proper conduct of public businsss. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, had not had the matter under consideration; and he could not say that they were prepared to direct such an inquiry as the hon. Baronet suggested.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEcould not concur with the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works and the hon. Member for the City of London in the view which they took of this matter. It was rather a question of privilege. While the grass was growing the steed starved; while the Reform Bill and other important measures were being discussed those who were entitled to take part in the discussions had not room in the House. There was room enough that evening, but hon. Members knew very well that during a discussion which had already occupied several weeks, and was likely to occupy as many more, there had been very undignified struggles for every inch of room. He was aware that a favourite theory with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in office was that the accommodation in the House was ample. The occupants of the Treasury Bench, who contrived to appropriate to themselves a very extravagant amount of space, were very fond of confining independent Members to a very limited extent of accommodation. Was it a Constitutional doctrine that the number of the Members of the House of Commons being 658, there should only be accommodation for about 300 of them? Was that a part

  473
  of the Constitution? Was that one of the ancient lines of the Constitution? If it was, he asked to have the rule applied impartially. The Speaker ought to sit on half a chair; the Sergeant-at-Arms ought to be similarly disposed of; and the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench ought to sit two deep, one upon another. When he saw the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer sitting on the knees of the Under Secretary of War, and the Secretary to the Treasury balanced by the First Commissioner of Works, he would then say that all arrangements were convenient, and hon. Members had no reason to complain. The present arrangement was most unjust to independent Members, who, when they urged their complaints on the subject, were met with the covert insinuation that every one of sufficient importance got a seat, and that those Members who did not were such contemptible beings they ought to be glad to be allowed to stand where they could. ["Oh!"] But that was not a Constitutional doctrine. All Members were equal in that House. Whether they were good speakers or bad, whether they were important or unimportant, they all had as much right to seats in that House and to take part in the councils of the nation as if they were so many Chancellors of the Exchequer. Therefore, he did urge on Her Majesty's Government and on the First Commissioner of Works the propriety of giving this subject a rather more serious consideration than they had hitherto done. He undertook to say there was no other deliberative assembly in the world in such a disgraceful condition. They knew that in every other country, whether under a despotic or a republican rule, there was ample accommodation for those who were brought together to discuss public matters. That accommodation usually was carried to what would here be thought the outrageous extent of a desk as well as of a seat for each Member. It would be a long time before they could get such luxuries in the House of Commons; but it was disgraceful to us that the House of Commons was the only deliberative assembly to be found in the world in which the Members had to struggle for seats. He could not conclude without reminding right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who now so pleasantly accommodated themselves, that they only held their positions by courtesy. If they continued to disregard the wants of others, they
  474
  might find some evening an irruption from independent Members which would send them from their comfortable seats.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne) bad misapprehended what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works. Neither of those Gentlemen had in the slightest degree intimated that this was not a fit and proper subject for discussion. It had been discussed at considerable length one evening during the present Session, though he was not aware whether the noble Lord was present on that occasion. There could not be the slightest objection to the matter being again discussed, provided that the Member who brought the subject forward conformed to the rules of the House, and did not attempt by surprise to thrust aside other business of independent Members, and, as had happened in the present instance, by giving notice of a simple question, and then, having obtained possession of the House, for the purpose of putting that question, rising and saying that he would put himself in order by moving the adjournment of the House. That was a precedent so inconvenient with regard to the business of the House that it appeared to him that his right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Crawford) were quite justified in saying that they would be no parties to the discussion of the subject when it was brought forward in such a manner.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SCOTLAND—WIGTONSHIRE ELECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. CRAUFURDwished to ask the Lord Advocate, Why he has not yet brought to trial the persons accused of the abduction of Robert Agnew, who states that he was taken from Newtown Stewart, drugged and detained at Glentrool during the polling day at the last Wigtonshire election; and when and where the trial will take place?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEreplied, that the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was referred to the Crown authorities in August last, at which time it did not appear to him that there was sufficient evidence to justify him in ordering the case to be tried, and accordingly it was not sent for trial. Very recently, however—within the last six weeks or two months—some

  475
  additional evidence had been reported to him, and he thought it justified him in sending the case for trial. It would accordingly be tried on the 2nd of July next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he expects to be able to bring on the Terminable Annuities Bill; and whether, considering that the discussion is to be taken on the next stage of the Bill, he will name an early day, and give notice of that day to the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that he was unable to name a day for the discussion of the Terminable Annuities Bill, but he hoped it would not be delayed for any long time, though he did not assent to the ground named by the hon. Member—namely, that the discussion should be taken on the next stage of the Bill—unless the hon. Member meant the discussion on his own very important Motion. The Bill itself had been already discussed at considerable length. It was quite understood that the hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity, with full notice, of making his Motion, and he trusted it would be possible to name a day before any long time had elapsed. As notice of a Question had been given which he could not subsequently answer according to the forms of the House, he would take the present opportunity of replying to it. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Heneage) wished to "call the attention of the House to the mode in which agricultural statistics relating to 'Cropping ' are being collected in certain districts of England; and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the rumour that certain confidential Income Tax Assessment Books for Schedules A and B had been given up by the sworn district Income Tax Commissioners to inferior officers of the Excise, for the purpose of assisting them in their collection of the above-named 'Cropping' statistics." Instructions had been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue directing the Surveyors of Taxes to furnish the officers of the Excise, in cases where it was found necessary, with the names and assessments of persons under Schedules A and B, with a view to enable those officers to ascertain who were the parties from whom the statistics ought to be obtained. The District Income Tax Commissioners, he might remark, were not
  476
  sworn to secrecy with regard to Schedules A and B, but only with regard to Schedule D. He would suggest that this was a matter of public jurisdiction, and that the best course to be adopted by the hon. Gentleman would be to call for the information as to the instructions, which could, if it were thought desirable, be laid before the House forthwith. Before sitting down he wished to state that they had now arrived at a period of the Session when it became necessary for the transaction of public business to propose the use of morning sittings, and that it was the intention of the Government to propose in the course of the evening that the House should meet at twelve o'clock on Tuesday next. Last year the morning sittings had commenced about the 31st of May. In the course of the evening he would state to the House what business it was proposed to take on Tuesday next.

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

  THE SUGAR DUTIES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BARCLAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the present effect of the Differential Duties on Sugar. He had no desire to enter into a long argument upon this much vexed question, and he might state that he had no personal interest, either through himself or through his constituency, in the production of sugar. For many years, however, he had been well conversant with the operations carried on in the sugar producing manufactories in one of the largest of our colonies. With regard to the present differential duties on sugar he thought they produced an injurious effect, and that they were capable of considerable improvement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when concluding a debate upon the subject in the last Parliament, admitted as much, and it was certain that we should not have a better class of refined sugar introduced into this country until some alteration was made. The system of classifying the duties on sugar had failed. In 1854 the number of classes into which sugar was divided was raised from three to four, and that had a prejudicial effect upon the higher classes of the commodity, and that prejudicial effect was afterwards increased by the subse-

  477
  quent raising of the classes from four to five. One effect of the differential duties had been the introduction, to a large extent, of beetroot sugar, and he was speaking within limits when he said that within the last year 80,000 tons of beetroot sugar were introduced into this country. He thought that effect could hardly have been contemplated when the differential duties were imposed. The sugar planters were now placed in this difficulty—formerly they were obliged to lower the value of their sugar to meet the differential or classification duties, but now the planters of Jamaica and Barbadoes had been called upon to raise the quality of their sugar to meet the new competition which arose from the introduction of beetroot sugar. This question had been treated here, too, much as a refiners' question. The colonist did not wish to refine, and the difficulty of his position was increased by the fact that, while he must produce good sugar, he must take care not to make it too good for England. He did that sometimes, when the sun was bright and the season favourable, and then he had to give the unpleasant order that the sugar should be mixed with colouring matter—namely, good agricultural mould—in order to make it admissible into England. This was to be traced to the fact that there was once an able and excellent man, a Member of that House, who was indoctrinated with the refiner's idea, and in this case, as in others—
  "The evil that men do lives after them."
  A machine had been lately introduced by which sugar could be highly refined; only five or six revolutions of this machine could be allowed for sugar intended for the English market; but the most highly-refined sugar was sent to Bombay, Australia, and France, and other countries, but it was never seen in England, except at exhibitions. This was the injury resulting from the well-intentioned classification or differential duties. In England, when we purchased wheat, barley, or malt we were anxious that that which was purchased should be equal to sample; but in importing sugar the fear was lest the sugar delivered should be better than the sample. The effect of that had been to shut the higher classes of sugar out of the English market. There had lately been invented an ingenious machine called a "concretes," which was intended to make something that should not be sugar at all. The "concrete," however, was to be
  478
  adapted to the uses of the manufacturer; it was expected that it would come in at the lowest duty, if not at the same duty as molasses; and it would probably cause great trouble to the Custom House officers. The question in the colonies was whether the old machinery should be laid aside and the "concretes" used; and it would certainly be a retrograde step for the colonists to begin the manufacture of "concrete" under the artificial stimulus supplied by the present classification of the sugar duties. It was to be hoped that in a short time the principles of free trade would prevail. He did not expect that any immediate action would be taken upon the subject; but he trusted that during the recess, or early next Session, the subject would be considered by the Government with a view to a modification of the present duties, if not to the establishment of a uniform duty.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he was more and more satisfied by investigation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in altering the duties, bad made a great mistake. It was a monstrous thing that the people of this country, who were the largest consumers of sugar in the world, should be compelled by law to consume sugar of the worst quality; but that was the fact, although it was one scarcely to be credited. A I very small portion of what was consumed in this country was really sugar; it was something which had been re-made by the sugar refiners of this country. He entreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the recess, seriously to examine the question, satisfied that he would come to the conclusion it was absolutely necessary that the law should be altered, so as to place this country upon a similar footing to that of every other country in the world, and enable its people by law to consume real instead of manufactured sugar.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he was very far indeed from complaining that his hon. Friend had brought forward a subject which had not been discussed for two years; but, as he had truly stated, it involved a number of separate questions of great importance and great difficulty. Indeed, in closing his speech, he had passed cursorily by one point which might be said to involve a still unsettled controversy—as to whether, in the event of our adopting a uniform duty upon sugar, we could combine therewith a permission to refine in bond. Without entering into the subject fully, he would

  479
  say that there was another view besides that which had been stated with clearness and force. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not at all feel that he individually had had the important share attributed to him in the establishment of any principle with respect to our sugar duties. He had concurred in what had been done, but he had not been a principal agent in urging upon the House and the country the adoption of any system. In point of fact, the present system in principle rested, he thought, mainly upon the results of the investigations of a Committee of that House which sat in 1861 and 1862. A distinction must be drawn between a question of principle and a question of fact. The question of principle was this—ought you to have one rate of duty for all descriptions of sugar, or ought you to have a rate of duty which should be according to the value of the article upon which it was imposed? Even if the views which his hon. Friend entertained were adopted, they could not expect that sugar would be imported in a perfectly pure state. The question was, whether there should be uniform duty for all the various degrees in the manufacture of that article, or whether the duties should vary in proportion to the quality of the sugar. Now, ever since the trade in sugar was opened in this country, the judgment of Parliament had been that the fairest system upon the whole was to have a varying scale of duties, each of them adapted to the capacity of the article imported for producing a pure sugar. That had been the principle upon which our duties had been founded. [Mr. J. B. SMITH: The law is not founded upon that principle.] He said that the question how far our scale of duties attained this end, and was properly adjusted to the different qualities of sugar, was perfectly distinct from the question whether there ought to be a scale at all. He was not going to argue this point; but when it was said that good sugar could not be imported into this country, and that the manufacturer abroad was obliged to spoil his sugar in order to get it into England, the charge simply meant this:—While in England there was a scale of duties supposed to be adapted to the various qualities of sugar, in other countries a uniform duty existed; and doubtless, therefore, the relative inducement to send to the British and the foreign market differed widely. Some sugars might be more profitably sent here, on account of the low rate of duty applica-
  480
  ble to them. But it did not therefore follow that our system was in principle an unjust, and the foreign system a just one. It might be said that the foreign system treated the lower quality sugars with extreme severity, and that was the reason, and not the scale of duties existing here, which brought them to the English market. It was a petitio principii to say that because it paid better to send certain qualities of sugar to Belgium or elsewhere, therefore the English scale of duties was a wrong one. However, with regard to the question of fact, a great deal must be conceded to the view taken by the hon. Member. No doubt, in 1864, when the sugar duties were last re-cast, the relative rates of duty were all favourable in England to the lower qualities of sugars. In that year, and about the time we were altering the application of our principle, a communication came from the French Government to the Government of England representing that, without interfering at all with the liberty of each State to levy from sugar for fiscal purposes whatever amount of tax it might think fit, it was very desirable to remove every artificial inducement by which sugar was led to one country rather than another, and that it would be also most desirable to combine with the system regulating imports a reconsideration of the bounties upon exports, so that with regard to exports from countries where refining has taken place, there would be a perfect freedom of trade in the absence of these peculiar inducements. Her Majesty's Government could not but perceive that that would be a beneficial arrangement—beneficial alike to the importers, the refiners, and the consumers. They, therefore, entered very freely and cheerfully into the views of the French Government. A Conference was accordingly assembled, comprising representatives of England, France, Belgium, and Holland. The deliberations were confined to these four countries; but, practically, they included the great mass of the importations into Europe. Those international representatives instituted an investigation into the whole subject, and they considered that certain things ought to be done at once in their respective countries, with respect to a modification either of duty or drawback. The provisional arrangements thus suggested were all of a character tending to equal trade. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, cheerfully concurred in them, and promised to submit to Parliament the measures which were

  481
  necessary to give effect to the views of those international representatives at that stage. Corresponding steps were taken in other countries, and the first proposals of the Conference were thus attained. But the solution of the principal question required a longer time. The members of the Conference examined the scale of duty subsisting in England, and likewise considered with great care, on the part of their respective countries, the question whether the duty upon sugar ought to be uniform, or whether it ought to be adapted to the varying qualities of sugar. And they came to a conclusion which he understood to be as follows:—that they thought the English system right in principle, but thought the practical application of it bad. They concluded that our system was not opposed, but, on the contrary, conformable to and required by the true principles of free trade that sugar should be taxed on entry into their respective countries as nearly as possible in proportion to their capacity for yielding a pure article. But then came the question of the scale which should be applied. They said that that question could not be solved except by instituting a very elaborate series of experiments. They, therefore, had to obtain the sanction of their respective Governments to the institution of these experiments; they had to choose a place for making them, to hire buildings, and, in fact, with a view to the solution of this problem, to start a kind of little sugar refinery. The prosecution of those labours necessarily required a very considerable time; but he imagined that the experiments must at present be reaching their completion. When they were completed the result would be reported to the several Governments. And it would then be proposed, as the condition of an international arrangement, that, whatever amount of duty the respective Governments might think fit to levy—because upon this subject it would not be right to enter into even a conditional arrangement—the adjustment of that duty would be such as to be conformable to the different qualities and values of sugar. It was remarkable that the result of the inquiry should be, as he understood, the conversion of the representatives of France and the representatives of one of the other two countries taking part in the Conference, to the principle upon which our sugar duty was raised. He was not informed of the actual result of the experiments, but the result anticipated was that probably a more contracted range would be
  482
  recommended for the scale of duty. When the result was communicated to Her Majesty's Government it would then be their duty to consider whether they were able to recommend to Parliament the adoption of the scale proposed; and early next Session the question would be raised and Parliament would be informed of what had been done. There could be no doubt, he apprehended, that Her Majesty's Government were right in entering into this joint Conference, because to destroy the barriers which now interposed between different countries in this way was a matter of great importance. He could only say that Her Majesty's Government would approach the question with perfect freedom from prejudice; if they had been wrong they would, to the best of their judgment, correct the error; and when all the facts were made known, they would be laid before the Rouse of Commons, in the hope that such an arrangement might be come to as would be most conformable to the principles of free trade as commonly understood among us. Up to the present moment, as he had said, the inquiry had been favourable to the principle of the English system even among those who could not be suspected of partiality. And it was worthy of notice that all the advocates of a uniform duty shrunk from a rigid application of their own principle, because while they would have a uniform rate upon everything below a certain standard, they were for another rate of duty upon refined sugar. Now this test was purely arbitrary, for every sugar was more or less refined, and no sugar was perfectly refined; and therefore even according to the plan acquiesced in by the advocates of a uniform duty, you had a rate varying with the perfection or imperfection of the refining process which these respective sugars had undergone. The question was thus considerably complicated, but it was one which, he thought, was susceptible of a fair settlement by the Government and the House of Commons.
  MR. BRIGHT: I merely wish to say one or two words after hearing the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I recollect the speech that he made when this question was under discussion before, and when the new scale was offered to the House. At that time I could not but wonder at the ability and ingenuity of the speaker who could pursue this question through so many different channels and make it almost plain to the House. But the conclusion I have come to is this, that

  483
  probably it would be better if the House were to look to some not distant day when we could get rid of this duty altogether. I suppose the sum raised by it is now between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 sterling, and the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the revenue of the country increases in ordinary years by an amount not falling far short of £2,000,000. He has also told us in past times that our expenditure is gigantic, that it is intolerable, and, I think, discreditable. I have not gone through half the adjectives which the right hon. Gentleman has used to denounce our excessive expenditure. He proposes, further, to begin a process of paying off the National Debt. Now, I should be content with regard to the National Debt if the House would be rather more careful not to increase it—for if it does not increase, then, with our prosperity, our increase of population, and great increase of wealth, we shall be better able to bear the burden of the National Debt than heretofore. Well, if the revenue increases £2,000,000 a year, the expenditure could be very easily reduced for several years by £1,000,000 or £2,000,000. I think it was the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) who, in a speech to his constituents not long ago, intimated that the expenditure of the country might very easily be brought down to £60,000,000 a year. If the course I point out were taken, it is quite clear that the sugar duty, which now brings in from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000 a year, might be reduced at the rate of £1,000,000 annually until it was disposed of. There is no duty levied upon the people which is so seriously felt, and which is so burdensome to them as this duty. It is an article of first-rate importance, especially for the living and rearing of children; and we know how necessary and beneficial it is to the poorer class of people when there is a good summer and fruit is plentiful, for by its aid they are enabled to supply their cottages with an abundance of a luxury which to them is of the first importance. I do not go into a discussion of the uniform as against the sliding scale. Years ago I spoke in favour of a uniform duty, and on this occasion I merely rose to point out that if the House were so desirous to deal with this question, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a particularly good mood for conciliating us all—by reducing £1,000,000 a year we might soon get rid of this duty altogether. If this were done, in all parts of the United Kingdom there would be a sense of grati-
  484
  tude to the House that it had economized the expenditure and given a relief in taxation which would be felt in every family in the country.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEdid not care to go into the question whether our expenditure could be very much reduced; but even if that were the case, there would possibly be found a rival claimant for relief which might prevent the sugar duties from being wholly repealed—an article, too, which contained a very large quantity of saccharine matter, and though perhaps not so useful for feeding children, it was considered very useful for the nutriment of those in more advanced life. There was, no doubt, a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to a uniform duty, and the only way in which the difficulties connected with the subject could be overcome, or the complaints which however unreasonable were sure to arise terminated was by making the duty so small that it would not be worth while to keep up the scale, as would be the case if the duty were reduced to ½d. per lb. With such a duty he believed the enormous consumption which would ensue would in a very short time recoup the revenue for the loss sustained. The hon. Member for Stockport hoped they should have another Committee. He wished the hon. Member had been on the last Committee, as he himself had been, which sat during a whole Session, and at which more than 6,000 questions were put. On that occasion the Secretary for the Colonies and other Members of the Committee who went into the inquiry, fully persuaded that a uniform duty was the only one which commended itself to common sense, were converted to the contrary opinion before the close of the investigation, and voted in favour of a classified scale. But "uniform duty" and "classified scale" was a question rather of words than of fact. The late Mr. Wilson, when asked why they put different duties on different kinds of sugar, replied, "We do nothing of the kind. We charge pure sugar at the same rate wherever we can find it." There were two sorts of buyers of sugar—the refiners and the grocers. The refiners were like Custom House officers—all they cared about was how much pure sugar was contained in the sample. They did not trouble themselves at all about the look of it except as an indication of this. But the grocer selected what was pleasing to the eye as well as what contained a large proportion of actually pure sugar. In the

  485
  Mauritius and other places they tried to make their sugar look so well that the grocer would give for what was pleasing to the eye more than the refiner would give, who regarded only the presence of the pure sugar; and if in consequence of some defect in the manufacture they lost the grocers' market altogether, they were obliged to fall back upon the refiner, and then they did not get the price which they expected. He would give an illustration which his hon. Friend, who was a good horseman, would very well understand. Some people bred cart horses, and others thoroughbreds. If those who bred the latter missed attaining a certain degree of excellence, they got what was perfectly worthless as a thoroughbred, and what was much less valuable than a lower bred horse. His interest was exactly the same as that of his hon. Friend, it was that of the colonial proprietor and not that of the refiner. He held it was the interest of the colonies to send home that article which would pay them best, and that was generally an imperfectly finished article. He did not believe that the colonies could ever compete with the refiners. The Returns moved for the other day showed the effect of the system as regarded consumption. He said last year that the enormous consumption of 36 lb. per head showed that the duties had not had the effect of excluding sugar. Within the last two years the consumption had been raised to nearly 40 lb. per head, and there was no other country in the world which showed half that consumption. The proof of the pudding was in the eating, and so this enormous consumption showed the working of the present scale of duties, and that it was not probable they interfered prejudicially with the growth, manufacture, or import of this valuable commodity.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGwas understood to say that if the refining could be carried on in bond, the sugar could be sold ld. a pound cheaper.

BUST OF THE LATE MR. HUME.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. EWARTrose to make the following Motion:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to cause to be placed within the precincts of this House, a Bust, offered by his widow, of the late Joseph Hume, esquire, who for nearly forty years ably, laboriously, and disinterestedly served his Country in the House of Commons."
  486
  He (Mr. Ewart) said, that his only claims to bring the Motion forward consisted in the long personal friendship which had connected Mr. Hume and himself, and in his association with Mr. Hume in many of the labours which he had undertaken and accomplished. It might be truly said that Mr. Hume's life was one of patient devotion and continuous labour, devotion and labour for public objects and in the public cause. One of the characteristics most commonly ascribed to him was economy of the public money, to which he attended with unwearied vigilance. He seemed to have taken as his rule the well-known quotation of Burke—
  "Magnum vectigal est parsimonia;"
  but, though such was the character attributed to him, he did not carry it to an extreme; it was only one among his many good qualities. Though he watched, with unceasing attention, the public expenditure, yet, for a good object, he would bestow the public money with no unsparing hand. He would liberally promote the cause of education, of art, or science, and acting on this principle, he supported an annual grant to that distinguished body, the Geographical Society. One object on which he was intent, in which he was successful, and in which he (Mr. Ewart) had the honour of being associated with him, was the free opening of public places and public monuments to the people. Thus, Hampton Court, Kew, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's, and other places of historical or scientific interest were either thrown open or made more accessible to the public. One of the successful efforts of Mr. Hume was the repeal of the Combination Laws. That repeal set free the disputes between capital and labour. But Mr. Hume was no bigot on either side, and supported the claims of workman and of master with strict impartiality and unprejudiced judgment. With regard to education, Mr. Hume might be commemorated among the founders of the London University, which formed a new era in the history of education in England. But the most important labours of Mr. Hume were devoted to the extension of free trade. Of free trade he was one of the foremost and most successful pioneers. In those early days of commercial reform it might be interesting to hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that a country Gentleman (Mr. Whitmore) led the van among free traders. He (Mr. Ewart) believed there was scarcely another Member of the House surviving except the

  487
  Speaker and himself, who had supported free trade in its infancy during the early days of Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Hume, and their illustrious leader, Mr. Huskisson. One of the great objects pursued by these early free traders was the opening of the China trade, in which Mr. Hume took an active part. Another object of his reforming zeal was the abolition of private light dues. The right of establishing lighthouses was then a private undertaking, a privilegium, the profits of which accrued to the owners of lighthouses. Mr. Hume succeeded in establishing one uniform and public system of lighting; abolishing the monopolies, and placing the lighthouses of the country under the general guardianship of the Trinity House. Mr. Hume was an early advocate of the repeal of the Navigation Laws, a reform which demanded some courage in its promoters, since they had against them the opinion of the great apostle of free trade, Adam Smith himself. Mr. Hume was also one of the earliest advocates of the repeal of the Corn Laws. As long ago as the year 1829, he proposed a gradual yearly reduction of 1s. a quarter of the duty on foreign corn till it should vanish into nothing. He was also one of the earliest supporters of a system now universally admitted to be the polar star of our colonial policy, the principle of colonial self-government. Perhaps the greatest achievement of his public life was the proposal and Report of the Import Duties Committee, in which he (Mr. Ewart) had the honour of acting with him. That Committee was enlightened by the evidence of another Mr. Hume, James Deacon Hume, of the Board of Trade, the first among the witnesses in favour of the removal of our duties on foreign productions. It was singular that this reform sprung from the practical experience of the Board of Free Trade itself, and the enlightened intelligence of its members. It might be said of them in the words of Moore, that
  "The extinguishers themselves took fire."
  He (Mr. Ewart) believed that the late Sir Robert Peel owned that his great commercial reforms were based on the evidence and Report of Mr. Hume's Committee. With regard to the public character of Mr. Hume, it was marked by three great qualities, which distinguished and inspired all his actions; public spirit, patient unwearied labour—labor improbus, to borrow a strong expression from Virgil—and moral courage, one of the rarest of political vir-
  488
  tues. If ever there was a man who, in a good cause, could defy
  "The world's dread laugh, Which scarce the firm philosopher can scorn,"
  that man was Joseph Hume. Mr. Hume, he (Mr. Ewart) believed, never sought office. Gibbon complained that, when he was in Parliament, "his vote was counted in the day of battle, but forgotten in the division of the spoil." Mr. Hume was content to be a pioneer and sometimes to lead the forlorn hope of Reform. It was to him (Mr. Ewart) a melancholy satisfaction to have paid this last tribute to the worth of his lamented friend. With regard to Mr. Hume's private virtues, this was not the fit occasion to record them. But he (Mr. Ewart) should never forget the manly simplicity of his character, his unclouded temper, and the steady warmth of his friendship. He (Mr. Ewart) would only add that he hoped this mode of commemorating Mr. Hume's services would also be the inauguration of a new system of honouring those who, by their conduct in Parliament, have deserved well of their country.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to cause to be placed within the precincts of this House, a Bust, offered by his widow, of the late Joseph Hume, esquire, who for nearly forty years ably, laboriously, and disinterestedly served his Country in the House of Commons,"—(Mr. Ewart,)
  —instead thereof.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it had been his good fortune to enjoy the acquaintance of Mr. Hume for twenty-five years, and he rejoiced that at last in that scene of his labours there was a sense of his services to his country. Mr. Hume's native town had erected a statue to him in gratitude for the distinction he conferred upon it; and the people of England had by a penny subscription raised an amount which enabled the trustees to have Mr. Hume's portrait painted, which was now in the University of London, and also to found a scholarship of Political Economy in that University. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that no man laboured for the public service with a more entire absence of self. By his influence with both sides of the House he might have obtained honorary distinctions, and it was to be regretted that

  489
  it had not been thought worth while to pay him even the empty compliment of making him a member of the Privy Council. Sir Robert Peel, although opposed to him in politics, declared that he was the most useful Member the House of Commons had had during the time he had been in it. He thought it could not fail to be a great gratification to the widow and family of Mr. Hume if this Motion should be accepted by the House.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, it would give great pleasure to the people of Scotland if this Motion were acceded to. Having had the honour of the friendship of Mr. Hume during the last thirty years of his life, and being well acquainted with his public services, he desired to make one or two observations on the subject before the House. He knew how anxious he was in the labours he undertook for the public service only to discharge his duty, and how entirely free he was from any kind of selfishness or party feeling; and he held that the House would do itself honour and pay a deserved compliment by acceding to the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart). If ever there was a man who deserved well of his country for singlemindedness, integrity, and a desire to promote the public welfare that man was Joseph Hume. He was never characterized by rancour or selfishness, and towards his political opponents his conduct was considerate and generous.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that having had the honour of being a Member of that House in the time of Mr. Hume, he felt impelled to add his testimony to the character of so distinguished a man. No Member ever did so much to save public money and to induce economy and a watchfulness over the public expenditure as Mr. Joseph Hume; and one proof of his worth was that now that he was gone none had arisen to fill his place. He held that the House would do credit to itself by acceding to the proposition.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he willingly indorsed all that had been said in praise of Mr. Hume, but he would ask the House to consider whether the mode of doing him honour was one which should be adopted as a matter of course, and constitute a precedent for future occasions. Hitherto when the House thought it right to honour one of its Member, everything had been done at the public expense and by the action of that House. In the present case, however, the Motion was not
  490
  that the House should take some action to do Mr. Hume honour of its own motion and its own capacity, but that it should receive a bust offered by his family. Nothing of the kind had ever been done before, and he thought they should be careful how by accepting this offer they set up a precedent which might be inconvenient on some future occasion. He did not see how, if they accepted this, they could afterwards refuse similar offers from the families of Members who had occupied distinguished positions within the House. When a monument was put up in that House it should be, he contended, the work of the House alone.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I so far agree with what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith), that I think that this Motion ought by no means to pass as a matter of course. In this case the House of Commons ought to exercise its duty under a great sense of responsibility, and with considerable care and scruple. But the question really is whether the circumstances of the case are such as to justify the Motion made by my hon. Friend. There is, perhaps, no department of the duties of the House that requires nicer consideration than that of the modes in which it shall pay honour to its most distinguished Members after they have ceased to belong to it. But for my own part, I think I have observed there are no duties of the House in which it shows more consideration and a greater capacity for preserving the line of prudence and wisdom than in those very duties which require so much delicacy and care. I am not in the least afraid that from our acceding to the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) we shall be involved in future embarrassment; because, while I admit that these are cases which hardly allow of being dealt with by a general rule, I think there is in the House abundant ability and abundant disposition to judge each case as it arises according to the circumstances, and every probability that a judicious opinion will be arrived at. Therefore, by no means as a matter of course, but after careful consideration, I, for one, and, I may say, on the part of the Government, give a cheerful assent to the Motion of my hon. Friend. I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of my hon. Friend. If any particular type of character is to be judged and estimated according to the rarity of its appearance,

  491
  in my opinion, as tested by such a rule, the character of Mr. Hume will stand very high. I know not whether we may not compare him favourably in that respect even with the long series of most distinguished men in other times who have exercised great influence and occupied a commanding position in Parliament. A succession of those men, at all events, down to our own time has never failed; but a succession of men like Mr. Hume will be more difficult to sustain. Mr. Hume was without predecessor, and, as has been truly said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), he is without a successor. This is no small tribute—on the contrary, it is perhaps the highest tribute that can be paid to his memory. Indeed, it is, I think, ample justification for the Motion of my hon. Friend, and it may serve to allay the fears and the apprehensions of those who may think that such Motions are likely to be made too often in consequence of the precedent we are now about to sanction. I will not advert to the other name which has been mentioned in the course of this discussion, and which differs in many respects from Mr. Hume's, though illustrious in my opinion in the annals of this country. There is no conflict, no collision between them—each has had his own province and his own work; and that work has been executed in such a manner that I can wish nothing better for ourselves than that we may be enabled to do likewise. To every word of the speeches of my hon. Friends in eulogy of Mr. Hume, I, for one, render a deliberate and a conscientious assent. I think I have scarcely known—I do not know that I ever knew a character upon the whole more remarkable. Among his many excellent qualities were his courage, his patience, his rigid vigilance his strong unfailing sense of duty, which no one could fail to observe; but these qualities, which are rarely to be found in combination, were found in Mr. Hume combined with others which, perhaps, still more remarkably gave his character stamp and rank, and made it not only a single but an eminently finished character—I speak of Mr. Hume's extraordinary kindliness of spirit. Although for nearly forty years he was involved in the turmoil of political strife and even in the most worrying and irritating details of public business, he never departed from that genial cheerful spirit which always characterized him. Again, although Mr.
  492
  Hume was a fervid economist, he was a discriminating economist; and no one could do a greater injustice to his memory, when a supposed want of efficiency is discovered in a public department, than to attribute it, as many at various times have done, to what they deemed the ill-judged economy of Mr. Hume. Those who watched the career of Mr. Hume know that nothing in him was more remarkable than the conscientious care with which he endeavoured to adapt his judgment to the merits of each case. Personal illiberality or harshness was a thing entirely foreign and abhorrent to his nature—the efficiency of our establishments was the object of which he never lost sight. As has been said to-night, with clearness of view and determination he took part with the foremost in the great controversies of the age, and upon questions relating to Colonial Government, Navigation Laws, and the Corn Laws, he saw the full truth at a moment when it had hardly dawned on the horizon. Yet Mr. Hume was content to forego the notoriety or celebrity, which attends the pursuit of objects such as these, and to leave to others those spheres of usefulness in which the applause of the public forms the immediate reward of public men, and to devote days and nights, months and years, an enormous proportion of the labours of a long life, to the most irksome details, not only a thankless task in itself, but in each producing the smallest immediate effect. What could be hoped from the multitude of points he took up—from the battles he fought and gained? One day he gained a few hundred pounds, another day he gained a few thousands of pounds, and another he established a stricter rule in place of a laxer one—in every form endeavouring to improve the administrative Departments of the Government. These are just the things which in their collective results are invaluable, but which taken singly draw no observation, and attract no gratitude. In my opinion, it indicated on the part of Mr. Hume that he had attained to a very high moral eminence when he passed by the more attractive portions of the domain offered to public men which are to a greater degree connected with public celebrity, and to devote himself by choice to labours of that character the reward of which was his own sense of having performed a public duty, and in which he must have known very well that there was little else in the way of immediate reward. That character

  493
  and that repute never can fail, but on the contrary will rise higher from year to year; because it is time that is the test of all characters and reputations; it is time that detects the false and puts its seal upon the true. It is solidity of character, solidity of qualities in a public man, which really insure his permanent fame and permanent place in the recollection of his countrymen. Of course, I do not mean to assert that I agreed then or should agree now with all the views put forward by Mr. Hume; but as one who had an opportunity of observing, especially during the period that I was conversant with the administration of affairs in this country, the qualities of his mind and the qualities above all which he displayed in his character of a Member of Parliament, I will say that never did I give an assent with greater satisfaction to any Motion before the House than I now give my entire assent to the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  MR. HADFIELDthought it much to be regretted that a discovery of the merits of great public men was not earlier made. Year after year Mr. Hume had combated every species of opposition; and, at that time, to say a word in his favour was almost to lower oneself in the eyes of society. Those who were now struggling against similar difficulties, and whose names, nevertheless, would go down to posterity as benefactors of their kind, should derive comfort and hope from the eulogies which, if tardily, yet ably and eloquently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had bestowed on the exertions of Mr. Hume.
  MR. WHITEalso expressed his regret that for Mr. Hume, upon whom an elaborate eulogy had just been pronounced, more respect was not testified while he was still alive. It was known that he would have felt much gratified had his services been acknowledged even by an honorary distinction; but they were allowed to pass wholly unnoticed by an ostensibly Liberal Government. With all the singleness of purpose for which he was celebrated, Mr. Hume was a strong party man, and once declared that he would "vote black was white to keep the Whigs in office;" the requital which they gave being to habitually heap obloquy upon him. Acknowledgment of error came better late than never; but the right hon. Gentleman himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was a Member of the Cabinet which declined to accord to Mr. Hume the Privy Councillorship which it was well-known
  494
  that it would have been gratifying to himself and the members of his family to have received.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to cause to be placed within the precincts of this House, a Bust, offered by his widow, of the late Joseph Hume, esquire, who for nearly forty years ably, laboriously, and disinterestedly served his Country in the House of Commons.—(Mr. Ewart.)

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

IMPRISONMENTS IN IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SYNAN,in calling attention to the effects of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, said, that while he attributed that suspension to the policy of former Governments and Parliaments, he had no wish to complain of the attitude towards that country of the present House of Commons, for since he had enjoyed a seat in the assembly every subject connected with Ireland had received the fullest and kindest consideration. But the wildest imagination could hardly conceive the consequences which had followed from one of the measures which it was thought necessary to adopt. A Return which had been obtained with regard to Limerick Gaol showed that thirty-nine political prisoners had been subjected to the silent system from the time of their committal; that they were debarred from communication with the outside world; that they were not allowed to communicate with their professional advisers, friends, or relatives; and that, in fact, it required an order from the Lord Lieutenant himself to enable the professional adviser of one of the prisoners to obtain access to him in gaol. In no other case that he was aware of bad untried

  495
  men been subjected to a class of punishment ordinarily reserved for hardened criminals after their conviction. The Government were not authorized by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, affecting only the method of arrests, in inflicting punishment of this nature upon political prisoners, who ought to be treated with signal lenity. The whole proceeding was utterly unauthorized. The prison to which he was referring was not established under the solitary and silent system; but even had the separate principle been introduced there, the officials had no right to confine those prisoners for twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four in separate cells, and to prevent them from speaking during the remaining two hours. He believed that in their proceedings under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act the Government had acted with a kindly hand and in a conciliatory spirit. He did not mean to impeach the motives of the Government or of the local authorities; but as he wanted to know what had been done since he gave his notice in April last, he begged to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the treatment of Prisoners in the County Gaol of Limerick, under the Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act, has been unnecessarily severe and unconstitutional, and that is is the duty of Government to prevent the continuance of the same."
  MR. BLAKE,in seconding the Motion, said, he could not concur with the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the Motion in acquitting the Irish Government and the local authorities of blame in this matter. The case of the prisoners in the Limerick Goal was almost analogous to that of the prisoners in the Waterford Gaol which he had brought under the notice of the House some time since; and yet the treatment of which the hon. Member complained had been continued in respect of the Limerick prisoners, after he (Mr. Blake) had brought the facts of the Waterford case before the House and the Government. Up to the time when the Return was laid upon the table those unfortunate prisoners had not been enabled to communicate with their legal advisers for the purposes of defence, or with their friends for the purposes of their business affairs. If such things were told of the most tyrannic Government in existence, they would scarcely be believed; and as the Irish Government had well-paid Inspectors Ge-
  496
  neral of gaols to inform them as to what was going on in the various Irish prisons, they ought not to have remained in ignorance of the harsh and illegal practices in the prisons of Waterford and Limerick.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the treatment of Prisoners in the County Gaol of Limerick, under the Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act, has been unnecessarily severe and unconstitutional, and that it is the duty of Government to prevent the continuance of the same,"—(Mr. Synan,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, there was no ground for the statement made by the hon. Member for Waterford to the effect that the committals under the warrants of the Lord Lieutenant had taken place on the ipse dixit of a stipendiary magistrate, but such a committal had never taken place. The parties referred to were committed after careful examination and on grounds that made their committal imperative. As to the course pursued by the Irish Government, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Superintendents of Irish Prisons were the mere servants of the Crown. [Mr. BLAKE denied that he had said anything of the kind.] He said that, at all events, the tone of the hon. Member's remarks led to that conclusion. He was happy to be able to give his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick information and assurances which, he believed, would be deemed satisfactory. He confessed that some delay had taken place in the production of the Returns moved for by the hon. Gentleman, but still that delay had made no difference with regard to the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, because the attention of the Government had been given without any delay to the subject which the hon. Member had brought before the House. He would give the House an account of what had occurred. In the beginning of April the hon. Gentleman addressed a letter to the law adviser of the Chief Secretary, calling attention to the treatment of the political prisoners which he had himself visited, and pointing out several respects which, as he considered, that treatment was objectionable. That statement was at once

  497
  taken into consideration by the Irish Government, and the Inspectors General of Prisons, to whom it was submitted, addressed a letter to the local inspector of Limerick, directing his attention categorically to the several allegations made by the hon. Gentleman, and calling for a reply. The reply duly arrived, and it certainly confirmed the statement of the hon. Gentleman. But there was one important exception. It was alleged in the statement forwarded to the Irish Government, that the prisoners were not permitted to sign memorials to the Government, and that allegation was denied. With regard to all other points the hon. Gentleman's statement was substantially correct. He might mention that in March a circular letter had been sent by the Inspectors General to the various prisons, containing instructions to the effect that political prisoners should receive a proper and reasonable amount of food, malt liquor, bedding, clothing, and other necessaries; that they should not be required to wear the prison dress, though they might be supplied therewith if they wished it; that they were not to be compelled to work, and that they should be kept apart from convicted prisoners. With regard to the complaint that at Limerick the prisoners were confined in separate cells, he might remark that the gaol there, though originally constructed in the old fashion under the associated system, had been recently converted into a separate and cellular gaol, and it was impracticable to keep prisoners in it unless they were confined in separate cells. The next important point was the refusal of the Board of Superintendence to allow prisoners to communicate with their friends. On that and other points the Inspectors General of Prisons had given directions to the local inspectors to the following effect:—That the prisoners should be allowed not less than two hours' exercise daily, that they should not be prevented from speaking to each other at exercise, provided the conversation was not on political subjects, that they should be allowed the fullest privilege, afforded by the bye-laws, of seeing their friends, and that whenever practicable the bye-laws should be relaxed in their favour; that they should be allowed to write and receive letters; and that they should not be treated with greater strictness than was necessary for their safe custody. The letter containing these instructions was
  498
  taken into consideration by the Board of Superintendence, who objected to the third suggestion on the ground that one of the avowed objects of the Fenian movement was to seize upon the prisons. The Government objected to the course taken by the Board of Superintendence, but that body was beyond control as long as it acted within the limits of the bye-laws. It was determined, therefore, to remove the prisoners, and he believed there was not now a single prisoner in Limerick Gaol under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant. He trusted that the statement he bad made would be deemed satisfactory, and that it would not be thought necessary to carry the matter any further.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he was glad to hear the explanation that had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, because it confirmed his belief of the kindly intentions of the Government, though he did not think they exhibited vigour enough in controlling the local bodies. He understood that the political prisoners placed in Belfast Gaol were treated with the utmost rigour. He was informed that untried political prisoners in Belfast Gaol were punished as severely as if they had been found guilty before a Judge and jury of a criminal offence. He had heard that for twenty-two hours they were kept in a solitary cell; that they were allowed less than two hours for exercise, and that silence was rigidly maintained. He submitted that this matter required the immediate interference of the Government. They might get out of the difficulty by releasing many of those men against whom only a primâ facie case had been established. There were different degrees of criminals amongst those persons. He believed that many of them were anxious to be restored to their families, and to resume their lives of industry; they were sick of Fenianism, and the Government might allow them to go out of prison on getting a pledge that they would not take part in illegal objects again. The Government might thus diminish their responsibility. He asked the Government to inquire into the statement he had made respecting the condition of the political prisoners in Belfast Gaol.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)promised that inquiry should be made with reference to Belfast Goal, and said that the circular which bad been read by the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been sent to the autho-

  499
  rities of every gaol in Ireland. In expressing a wish that the prisoners should not be treated with more than necessary severity, the Government had almost exceeded their legal power. It was the most anxious desire of the Government that no prisoners should be detained a single hour longer than was absolutely necessary for the safety of the community.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN,who was gratified by the statement that had been made, thought that the Governor of Limerick Gaol could be indicted for misdemeanor for having refused to allow prisoners to be seen by their professional advisers, said that solitary confinement was unknown to the law except for convicted prisoners, and complained that prisoners who had been removed to Mountjoy Prison, which was a convict gaol, and, therefore, was subject to the regulation of convict prisoners, could not be Been by anyone without a special order from the Castle, which was given only to a legal adviser or to an immediate relative.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he was satisfied with the explanation of the Chief Secretary, and would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he purposes to introduce into the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1862 such modifications as will enable Limited Liability Companies prospectively to reduce their nominal capital, and proportionally the denomination of their shares, reserving all the rights and securities of existing creditors?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONdid not understand whether his hon. Friend intended his question to apply prospectively?
  MR. OTWAY: Yes, prospectively.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had formerly introduced a Bill, enabling companies, without diminishing their capital, to divide that capital into a greater number of shares. It was thought that creditors would not be prejudiced by such subdivision, and that it would enable companies to have a larger proprietary without any diminution of their registered capital, in respect of which they were properly
  500
  responsible to creditors for any liabilities incurred. Unfortunately, that Bill was thrown out in the other House of Parliament. At some future time he hoped to be able to re-introduce it in perhaps rather an improved form. Indeed, some Amendments would have been proposed in the other House, if the Bill had gone on. One of these Amendments would have provided that notice should be given to the creditors of an intention to divide the shares, because it was contended that, though creditors would be nominally in the same position as to the fund available for meeting their claims, they might be put to additional expense in obtaining payment from a larger number of contributories than before existed. While a certain notice would thus have been provided for in the case of existing companies, it was thought desirable that in the case of future companies the memorandum of association should contain the words "with power to reduce the amount of their shares." His hon. Friend now said, "Allow companies by special resolution to alter their registered capital." Now, if provisions could be adopted which would be practically effective in giving to creditors the same security as they had when the liabilities of the company were incurred, one could see no objection to this proposal. But the question depended mainly on the possibility of thus practically protecting creditors, and as he confessed that, acting under the most competent advice, he did not see his way to the framing of such provisions, he must decline to go to the extent proposed by his hon. Friend, and allow companies to reduce their capital. When the Joint Stock Companies' Act was passed it was distinctly laid down that, although companies might make such arrangements as they thought fit at the outset, two things especially must be declared in their memorandum of association—first, the amount of their requisite capital; and next, the division of this capital into a certain number of shares of a fixed amount. It was said that companies might re-constitute themselves, and divide their capital and shares as they thought fit. No doubt companies were in this way put to great inconvenience, and he should be quite ready to support any Bill which would enable them to do in a most expeditious manner what the law said they might do. As at present advised, however, he could not support any proposal for enabling companies to alter their original memorandum of association so as to reduce the capital regis-

  501
  tered, though he would allow them to divide that capital into a larger number of shares.

CAPE TOWN RAILWAY.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSsaid, he rose to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to withhold Her Royal Assent from the Act of the Colonial Legislature of the Cape of Good Hope, No. 34, of 1869, whereby the Wynberg Railway Company obtained running powers over the Cape Town and Wellington Railway, in violation of the contract between the Cape Town Railway and Dock Company and the Government of the Colony.
  An hon. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, but as thirty-nine Members were found to be present, and the Speaker making up the required forty—
  MR. THOMAS CHAMBERSresumed, and said, that in 1855 the Colonial Government granted to the Cape Town Railway Company the exclusive right of a railway between Cape Town and Wellington, and on the strength of this grant £600,000 of capital was raised, most of it being advanced by English proprietors, and was expended upon the line. The powers obtained by the Wynberg Railway Company were really a breach of the contract entered into by the Colonial Government. The Governor, however, took no notice of a memorial sent to him by the Cape Town Railway Company; and the Colonial Secretary in England had declined to receive a deputation, but asked the representatives of the Company to reply to a Report from the Governor, no copy of which had been furnished to them. The Secretary of State for the Colonies seemed to be of opinion that the Colonial Legislature was the proper judge of the terms of the contract, and that he could not interfere. They were clearly, however, not an impartial tribunal. Believing the Act referred to to be inexpedient, contrary to the general policy of legislation, and a breach of contract, he asked the House to address Her Majesty with a view to the Royal assent being withheld.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Monday next.