Commons Sitting of 25 February 1870

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Salmon Fisheries, nominated.
First Report—Committee of Selection [No. 81].
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—War Office [Salaries]*; Clerical Disabilities.
Ordered—First Reading—Clerical Disabilities [49]; Summary Convictions* [50].
Second Reading—Coinage [13]; Evidence Further Amendment Act (1869) Amendment* [20].
Committee—War Office [30]—R.P.

IRELAND—IRISH PAUPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in accordance with the repeated recommendations of the Poor Law Commissioners for Ireland, to introduce, during the present Session, a measure to repeal or amend the Laws by which persons born in that country, and others receiving relief in English and Scotch workhouses, are liable to be transported to Ireland?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he felt very strongly in-

  797
  terested in the subject of the hon. Member's Question, both as Chief Secretary for Ireland and as an Irish Poor Law Commissioner, and he desired strongly to see the law relating to it improved. With that view he was at present in communication with the President of the Poor Law Board of England and with the Lord Advocate of Scotland. More than that he was unable to say at that moment.

SCOTLAND—FAGGOT VOTES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the systematic way in which Faggot Votes are being created in some of the Scotch Counties; and, whether he is prepared to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to put an end to the practice.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, my attention has been called to the practice to which the Question of the hon. and learned Member refers, and I have no hesitation in saying that I concur in what I believe to be his opinion, as the Question implies. At the same time the only answer which I can give is that the state of the law, under which the judgments of the Registration Courts are given, that this practice is permissible, and the possibility of altering that law in such a manner as to put an end to the abuse, without at the same time unduly interfering with other electoral qualifications, are matters which merit and will receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

THE CONVICT, GEORGE WHITEHEAD.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of George Whitehead, who was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude on his own confession for arson at Hayes, near Uxbridge, in the month of October last, another man named Holden having been previously convicted and sentenced for that offence; whether at the trial of Whitehead evidence was not adduced to prove that he was of unsound mind, and could not have been present at the time
  798
  in the locality in question; and, whether any inquiry has been made into the sanity of the said George Whitehead since his conviction?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the question had been and was still under consideration. The case was a very remarkable and extremely perplexing one. Whitehead accused himself of having set fire to a rick-yard; he was taken into custody, and committed for trial, and pleaded guilty upon being arrraigned at the Central Criminal Court. At the same assizes another man was charged with the same offence; he pleaded not guilty, but he was convicted, and sentenced to ten years' penal servitude. The learned Judge thereupon caused inquiries to be made as to Whitehead, and satisfied himself that he was perfectly sane. It was proved that he had been branded as a deserter, and that he himself had stated that he had never been near the spot where the fire occurred, and that he had acted as he had because he wanted to be sent abroad. The learned Judge, after consulting his Colleague, was of opinion that he should pass upon the second man a similar sentence of ten years' penal servitude. When the matter was brought to his (Mr. Bruce's) attention he consulted the learned Judge, who stated his belief that the man Whitehead had falsely accused himself in order that he might be transported. He added that he feared that if the man were discharged he would commit some great crime in order to get what he wanted, unless before he were discharged some change were wrought in him. If the man could be let out with safety to the public it would be his duty to see that he should be discharged.

ARMY—EXAMINATIONS FOR WOOLWICH.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Examinations for Woolwich after next July will be discontinued; and, if so, for what period; and, if not discontinued, will they be conducted on the system recommended in the Report of the Military Commission, and when will the first such examination take place?
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, that the examinations would take place at Woolwich in July, and they would be conducted

  799
  by the Civil Service Commissioners, and under the old regulations. Subsequent examinations would take place every six months, the number of candidates to be regulated from time to time. The future examinations would be conducted under regulations framed upon the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners. These regulations had been framed, and would be circulated immediately.

IRELAND—GRAND JURY LAWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill in the present Session to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee of
  1868, to amend the Irish Grand Jury Laws?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied, that he was sorry he could not speak with any confidence of being able to bring in a Bill that Session on that important subject with a fair prospect of carrying it. There were several Bills on Irish matters of no little importance, which he hoped would be passed. But that particular question, although it called for legislation, was one of a very complicated nature, and would require a great amount of discussion. It would, therefore, be a great mistake to take up the time of the House in discussing it without that prospect of carrying it which he did not think existed at present.

IRELAND—LOCAL TAXATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he also wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he has any objection to extend the order for a Select Committee on Local Taxation to Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, in reply, that, in the opinion of the Government, it was not desirable to extend the order for a Select Committee on Local Taxation to Ireland.

LICENSE FOR PARISH HEARSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exche-
  800
  quer, Whether it is intended that churchwardens of small parishes should be called upon to take out and pay for a License costing two guineas for Parish Hearses, such Hearses being kept solely for the accommodation of the poor?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, it was not the practice to require churchwardens of small parishes to take out and pay for a license of this nature. At the same time there was nothing in the Act which gave them exemption. If licenses were required in the future, the credit of the matter would rest entirely with the hon. Gentleman.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS.—QUESTION.
MR. DIMSDALEsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure during the present Session for the prevention of the Pollution of Rivers by Sewage?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that a Report on a portion of that subject had just been presented, but there remained a considerable portion that had not yet been inquired into; and it would be extremely inconvenient to legislate on the question until it could be treated as a whole. It was not, therefore, the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill that Session.

ARMY—RIFLES FOR VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILMOTsaid he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When Rifles will be re-issued to Volunteer Corps in Districts 8, 10, and 6; and, whether, in accordance with Volunteer Circular No. 51, only those Rifles will be issued "the grooves of which may be unimpaired?"
  CAPTAIN VIVIAN, in reply said, that rifles would be immediately re-issued to Volunteer Corps in Districts 8, 10, and 6. Those rifles, the grooves of which were found to be impaired would be withdrawn, and their places supplied by weapons of perfect construction.

ARMY—CADETS AT WOOLWICH.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR GAVINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the new regulations as to

  801
  admission of Cadets in Woolwich after the examination in July will come into force absolutely, or whether any allowance will be made as to limit of age in favour of those who have already been up for examination under the existing regulations?
  CAPTAIN VIVIAN, in reply, said, that the new regulations as to the admission of cadets to Woolwich, after the examinations of July, would not come absolutely into force, inasmuch as it had been decided that the old limit of ago would remain in force till after the Christmas examinations. The new regulations as to age would only come into force at the examinations of Midsummer, 1871.

BEVERLEY ELECTION.—QUESTION.
Mr. EYKYNsaid, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether the William Henry Cook, scheduled as a briber in the Report made to the House of Commons by the Commissioners to inquire into corrupt practices at Beverley, is the same person as William Henry Cook, Esquire, Q.C., now one of the Judges of the County Court for the county of Norfolk; and, if so, whether he is not, under Section 45 of 31 and 32 Vic. c. 125, rendered incapable, as being found guilty of bribery, of holding any judicial office; and if, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government the statutable incapacity does not attach without further proceedings, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute such proceedings as may be necessary, in the present state of the Law, to subject the person so scheduled to the disqualification imposed in the said Act?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, as the evidence on that subject was delivered only that morning, the Government had not had an opportunity of considering the matter in order to see how far the description given in the hon. Gentleman's Question was accurate in its reference to Mr. Cook. But with respect to the application of the Act it appeared extremely doubtful whether the section in question had the force the hon. Member supposed.

EDUCATION—INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whe-
802
ther the words in the Elementary Education Bill "The school shall be open at all times to the inspection of any of Her Majesty's Inspectors," are intended to apply to the ispection of those schools only which may hereafter be built under the Act, and not to schools which now exist and are secured by Trust Deeds which have been framed in accordance with Articles 13 and 30 of the Revised Code; or, on the other hand, whether it is intended to obtain powers to send any one of the inspectors (of whatever religious denomination he may be) to inspect the schools of a different religious denomination; and, if the latter is the intention, to ask whether it will not be necessary to override by Act of Parliament the School Trust Deeds which restrict the inspection to those inspectors who have been appointed for the purpose in the way prescribed by the Revised Code and various Orders in Council?
MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that the 82nd section of the Education Bill provided that after the 31st of March, 1872, no grant either for building purposes or for an annual allowance could be given to any school that was not a public elementary school. In another clause there was provision made for the acceptance of any inspector of whatever denomination sent down by the Privy Council. He did not believe it was necessary to make any special provision to meet the case assumed by the noble Lord in his last Question. The Committee of Council were advised that there were no school trust deeds which would restrict managers from accepting any inspector; but if there were, the 87th clause would meet the case. If the noble Lord was of a different opinion, he would have an opportunity of stating his reasons for it.

VISITATION FEES.—QUESTION.
MR. LOPESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any provision for the payment of the "Visitation Fees," hitherto legally chargeable on Church Rates?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the Government had not yet discovered the fund upon which they could charge visitation fees; which, at present, could be recovered from the churchwardens, who had lost the power of making a rate.

BRIDGWATER ELECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, inasmuch as no prosecution is intended to be commenced by the Attorney General against the hon. Member for Wednesbury, with reference to the Bridgwater Election, 1866, it is the intention of the Government to move any Resolution respecting that hon. Member, who appears by the Report of the Bridgwater Commissioners to have been personally guilty of bribery at that Election, and of whom the Chief Commissioner is reported to have said—
  "That it was for this House to consider whether a Member holding his opinion, and having conducted himself as the hon. Member did, was any longer a fit Member of this House?"
  MR. F. WALPOLEsaid, he would also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the hon. Member for Wednesbury was the same Alexander Brogden who was reported as having been guilty of corrupt practices and bribery at the Election of Great Yarmouth in 1865?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect, Sir, to the question of identity, I have no means beyond those which the hon. Member himself possesses, and have no opportunity of furnishing any reply to it. With respect to the Question put by the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), I must observe that in any answer I make to it I must distinctly waive the consideration how far it is becoming or desirable to raise a question of this kind simply by interrogatory, addressed by an independent Member, and which brings before the House matter of this character, without any opportunity being given by the rules of the House to the person principally concerned to take notice of it or urge anything he might think fit in answer. With regard to the Question itself I need only say that it was only brought under my notice this morning. I have no doubt the hon. Member considers it a simple and straightforward matter or he would not have put his Question at so short a notice. Further, the Question appears to imply that it was in the power of the Government to institute a prosecution against the hon. Member for Wednesbury, assuming the identity, under the Corrupt Practices Act. Now, that is not the case. The case that is here spoken of is not under the Corrupt
  804
  Practices Act, and the passage in the Report of the Bridgwater Commission which refers to Mr. Brogden sets forth distinctly in the 28th page that it is not under the Act. The words are—"As to Mr. Brogden, the lapse of time renders him safe from any prosecution under the Corrupt Practices Act." I am desirous that the hon. Member and the House should understand that this is not one of those cases where it is simply for the Government or the Attorney General to consider whether they shall institute a prosecution under powers existing by statute. Then the Question of the hon. Member amounts to this, whether, independently of the Corrupt Practices Act, from which this case is distinctly excluded, it is the intention of the Government to move any Resolution respecting that hon. Member. With regard to that inquiry I must request the hon. Member to be good enough to give me and the Government a somewhat longer time for consideration than has been afforded us within the few hours since his Question appeared upon the Notice Paper. The evidence in this Commission has only been distributed to-day, and it would be desirable that hon. Members should have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with it. And, further, the case as it appears to stand before us, is not one, so far as I am aware, that is governed by any direct or absolute precedent immediately applicable to it. It is evidently a matter of very delicate, and at the same time of a very grave and serious character, and the Government would be extremely loth to arrive at any conclusion in respect to it, except after the opportunity of full consideration amongst themselves, and full consultation with those authorities to whose judgment they would be bound to look in such a matter. One of the first questions that would have to be examined, assuming that there is no doubt at all about the statement of the Commissioners as it affects Mr. Brogden in 1866, would be whether there are any other Gentlemen, Members of this House, who stand either in an identical or in an analogous position. The next question would be, what would be the steps most proper to be taken? and the third would be, with whom the initiative in these stops would properly rest? I am sure the hon. Member, though I have ventured to comment on the shortness of

  805
  the notice given, will not suppose I intend for one moment to suggest that these are matters unsuited for the attention of the House. On the contrary, they require the gravest and most careful attention; but I wish to indicate that there is a good deal to be considered, and the House will feel with me that we should do well to inform ourselves thoroughly and supply ourselves with all the best means of arriving at a right conclusion before we announce any positive decision to the House.
  MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he desired to say a word in explanation. The right hon. Gentleman had commented on the shortness of his notice. He should not have put the Question, at all events yesterday, if he had not heard the notice given by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn), and inasmuch as it appeared to him (Mr. Pemberton) on a reference to the Act of Parliament, that the Gentleman referred to—["Order," "Chair!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering into a reply.
  MR. PEMBERTON: Then I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House. With reference to the observation that the hon. Member for Wednesbury had been afforded no opportunity of speaking on the subject, it might be supposed that the question was one for the hon. Gentleman and not for the Prime Minister to determine. I certainly should have given the hon. Gentleman every opportunity of replying. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not make a Motion, having spoken to it.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he wished to give notice of his intention to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the reason why, in the Report of the Bridgwater Commissioners, the usual practice had been departed from of giving references in the margin to the evidence after every important finding, whether this omission was accidental, and whether he will state what was the first Report of the said Commissioners, and why it has not been laid before the House?

ELEMENTARY EDUATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education,
  806
  Whether the word "with," in Clause 22, page 8, line 2, of the Elementary Education Bill is not a misprint?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member would see that the clause carried out the intention to give power to the school Board to assist all public elementary schools, provided they did so on equal terms.

  EQUALIZATION OF POOR RATES IN THE METROPOLIS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WINGFIELD BAKERsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, If he will inform the House by how much the Poor Rates have been reduced in each of the twenty-four parishes in the Metropolis in each half-year since the receipt of the contribution of the fifteen parishes to the twenty-four receiving parishes; and what is the money value per week per head of the Lunatics in each parish in the Metropolis?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, he had caused a Return to be prepared, and he would take care that in it the statements required by the hon. Member should be given.

CASE OF THE CONVICT ATKINS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a prisoner named Atkins, confined in Warwick Gaol on conviction of a serious offence, had been recently liberated?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he was not aware of the fact. He knew that the sentence of imprisonment had been commuted to one year, and he was not able to say whether that period had elapsed or not.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which he had given him private notice—namely, Whether he is accurately reported in that morning's papers to have said that he was not in favour of Commercial Treaties, and that he was not in favour of the negotiation of such Treaties?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the first instance, Sir, I have to complain that the hon. Member

  807
  has not given me notice—at least I have not received it. On the whole I do not think that it is an inaccurate representation of what I said.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT: Sir, I beg leave to give notice, that as the right hon. Gentleman has not received the question of which I have given private notice, I will take the earliest opportunity of asking the First Lord of the Treasury whether he approves of the policy enunciated by his Chancellor of the Exchequer.

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

COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move a Resolution in favour of applying the principle of open competition to the Civil and Diplomatic Services, said, that the success of the principle which had been adopted of open competition in the East India Civil Service was a conclusive argument in favour of his Motion. If it were necessary a host of quotations might be adduced to prove, beyond doubt or cavil, that since the system of open competition had been established for India the general average efficiency of the Indian Civil Service had been raised. It might be said that if this system were adopted for the Diplomatic and Civil Service at home too great a number of young men would be attracted to it; but why in such a matter could not men be trusted to look after their own interests? The experience of the system in connection with the Indian Civil Service was against any such view. At the Universities it was not men who took the highest degrees who competed for these appointments, but the best men of the second class. Men of the highest class looked for Fellowships. It was also said that the Indian Civil Service was different from the Civil Service at home, where a part of the work was merely mechanical and might be equally well done by copying clerks. This argument, however, merely pointed to a glaring defect in the organization of the Government offices, which was admitted last Session from the Treasury Benches. It was then said that the work should be so arranged that
  808
  what was merely mechanical should be separated from that which required ability and intellect of a higher order. It might also be objected that his Motion only asserted a principle, and did not enter into details. Short as had been his experience in that House, however, it had shown him that it would be extremely unwise for a private Member to sketch out a scheme of administrative reform. All he had to do was to lay down the principle and let the House affirm it, and then leave it for the Government to carry it out. The work that required intellect and mental culture ought to be well remunerated, and then the best men would be attracted to it. The humbler situations might then serve as rewards and prizes for boys of the class who succeeded in the University local examinations, or even for boys who had used to the utmost the advantages offered to them in the national schools. One of the evils of the present system was that it got rid of the personal responsibility of the Minister. If under the old system a Minister made a flagrantly bad appointment, hon. Members could come down to that House and blame the Minister. Now, however, when a bad appointment was made, the Minister could turn round and say—"See what the system of competition has brought us to!" He knew it was said that a test examination was a sufficient security against an incompetent person being admitted to compete, but they had the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for saying that a test examination had a constant tendency to degrade itself, whereas the examination in a system of open competition had a tendency to maintain itself by a purely natural process. The present system was based on political patronage, and it was peculiarly the duty of those who wished to maintain the independence of the House to restrict and narrow political patronage within the smallest possible limits. How did the present system work? A Member received a letter from an influential constituent asking him to apply to the Patronage Secretary for an appointment for a son, or a nephew, or a cousin. In such a case he had two alternatives. On the one hand, he might ask for the appointment for a person of whose qualifications he knew absolutely nothing, or, on the other hand, he might offend a constituent whose support was essential to him at the next election.

  809
  Perhaps the Member had devoted a great amount of time and money to obtain that which was the great object of his life, and it was not wonderful if the first of these alternatives was that which he adopted. The appointment is obtained, and the Member who obtains it knows little of the qualifications of the person to whom it is given, and of course the Patronage Secretary or the Minister who gives it knows still less respecting them. But the mischief did not stop there. What was its effect upon the constituencies? The intelligence was carried down to a certain country borough that a well known electioneering politician had obtained a good appointment for his son, brother, or cousin, and what was more natural than that an artizan or small tradesman struggling with poverty should think that if Mr. A., who was very influential and very respectable, regarded it as being only fair that he should obtain an equivalent for his electioneering influence, at the next election he, who required assistance in a far greater degree, should obtain same pecuniary recognition of his vote. Thus it was that a feeling gradually spread over the constituency that an election was an occasion of which a person ought to avail himself for his own pecuniary advantage. Yet Mr. A. is a very respectable person, who moves in high society, and moralizes over the bribery that prevails in the borough; and the hon. Member who has obtained the appointment for him declares in that House, with indignant enthusiasm, that it is necessary to pass laws to repress electoral corruption. As long as this system of patronage for services rendered at elections was continued it was useless to pass laws against bribery and corruption, which, moreover, could scarcely be expected to bear the marks of earnestness and sincerity. Another objection to the system was the inequality with which it operated. During the last twenty-five years the Conservative party had only been in Office for three years, and the result was that the Government patronage had been most unequally distributed between the adherents of the two parties. Again, in some constituencies there were men who, prompted by a laudable spirit of independence, declined to ask for appointments, and therefore had no chance of participating in the Government patronage; while, in other cases, constituencies
  810
  were represented in that House by men who objected to pledge themselves to any party, and who, therefore, would not go to the Patronage Secretary, because they were aware that if they accepted a favour from him they should have to make an equivalent return on some subsequent occasion; and the result was that the constituencies represented by them obtained no share of the Government patronage. It was an admitted fact that the amount of Government patronage obtained by a constituency was in an inverse ratio to its consequence, its purity, and its independence. It was upon small constituencies that the Government patronage was showered with the greatest abundance, because the Patronage Secretary knew that in such places a Government appointment acted with greater effect than in large places like Liverpool or Manchester. Looking at the subject from every point of view, and remembering the events that had recently occurred, he thought that it could hardly be disputed that political patronage tended to foster political corruption and to destroy the independence of that House, and for these reasons they should endeavour, as far as possible, to put a stop to and restrict it. Hon. Members had told him that he would have been wiser had he omitted the Diplomatic Service from his Motion. He was aware that there were arguments in favour of that view; but, on the other hand, there were also reasons wiry the system of open competition should be applied to that service as well as to the Civil Service. In the Indian Civil Service it had been found that the persons selected by open competition were equally skilled to deal with matters requiring delicate handling with those who were selected by nomination. If any special qualification were required in the person of a diplomatist, such as the speaking of foreign languages, it was only fair that those who were candidates for the position should be tested as rigidly as possible, in order to ascertain whether they possessed that accomplishment. It was particularly notorious that under the present system young diplomatists, located in foreign capitals, did not speak the language of the country in which they were employed with either fluency or accuracy. There were those who thought that diplomatic ability was confined within a certain charmed family circle, and that

  811
  a man was born a diplomatist. But when he heard an argument of that kind the fact always forcibly recurred to his recollection that these aristocratic families, supposed to have a peculiar aptitude for diplomacy, were not always aristocratic—that they were once plebeian, that the founder of their line was himself a plebeian, and that it not unfrequently happened that the most distinguished man in such a family was one who had begun life as a plebeian, and had forced himself up into the ranks of the aristocracy. It, therefore, appeared to him that the qualities that made a diplomatist were not exclusively possessed by any one family in the country. The qualifications required for a diplomatist were intelligence and acuteness, combined with caution and that perception which enabled him to understand the feelings and opinions of others; and the best security that we could have for the possession of those qualities by those engaged in the Diplomatic Service was by giving them intellectual culture and a good mental training. When he raised this question last year he was told that his Motion was too sweeping, but he had now taken the exact words accepted by the Government last year, when they were asked to recognize the importance of dealing with the subject of national education. Of course he did not wish to force the Government to pledge themselves to deal with the question this Session; but if they gave him such a promise as they did last year with respect to education, he should be perfectly satisfied, and from that moment his connection with the question would cease. They might then hope to see the system which was based upon political patronage swept away, and one substituted for it which would be based upon the old maxim of a fair field and no favour. He begged to conclude by moving his Resolution.
  MR. WHITEseconded the Motion.
  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 Government should, with the least delay possible, introduce a measure, the effect of which would be to apply the principle of open competition to appointments in the Civil and Diplomatic Services,"—(Mr. Fawcett,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is not necessary for me, for the best possible reason, to criticize minutely the terms of the Motion of my hon. Friend; but I will point out to him—and he will probably hear the announcement with satisfaction—that it will not be necessary to introduce any measure into the House for the purpose of giving effect to the principle of open competition. So far as I am aware, there is nothing in the system of open competition which will require the application of legislative authority. The subject, as the hon. Member himself very clearly perceives, does involve a great deal of important administrative detail; and I should have been very glad if it had been of such a nature that we could have had that assistance from the House which we have upon ordinary Bills introduced to become Acts of Parliament—the assistance of criticism and observation—in order to help us on in the task we have undertaken. But, in point of fact, this is entirely a question of arrangements internal to the offices, and not one which touches upon legislative duties. The administrative changes, as my hon. Friend defines them, are very considerable, although the principle upon which he proposes we should act in making them at first sight looks simple enough. The general idea which Members conceive is, that first appointments in the Civil Service are to be regulated by open competition—the correlative principle having been long ago established—namely, that promotions in the Civil Service are regulated by the Chiefs of Departments, and are understood and believed to be given—and, I am bound to say, are given—under the influence of merit and service alone. But when we pass beyond these general statements there are very important matters of detail to consider. There is that which of itself amounts to a complete reorganization of the Civil Service—the division proposed to be introduced, and which I hope will be carried out as far as possible, and made as clear as possible, between duties which are mechanical and formal, and those duties which require high mental training. That is a question which cannot be decided by rule of thumb; it cannot be disposed of by laying down a strict and absolute principle for all the Departments, but it requires of necessity a careful examination into the circumstances of each Department; and the precise point at which the line is to be

  813
  drawn is a matter that cannot be settled except in detail and after minute scrutiny. There are other matters to be considered in establishing the principle of open competition. For example, it will be necessary that the responsible officers of the Government should reserve in a very strict and clear manner, so as to preclude all possibility of mistake, the power of defining and determining, from time to time, what are those superior offices which are to be considered as Staff appointments, and to which persons may be introduced and appointed irrespective of any prior services they may have rendered in the Civil Departments. That is a matter of the utmost consequence, and one on which, when once open competition is established, it is necessary the clearest understanding should prevail; because those who come into the Civil Service upon the basis of open competition, determined only by merit, may be disposed to rate highly, and perhaps justly so, their own claims to the fulfilment of what they may consider a covenant with respect to prospective advancement. We must, therefore, consider carefully the terms of that covenant, so as to reserve in the hands of the Government that discretion, with respect to the higher appointments which it is absolutely necessary for the public service they should retain. Both, therefore, with respect to the limit, upwards, of those offices the first appointments to which need not be, and could not be, the subject of open competition; and, again, with respect to the limit, downwards, of all that class of offices with regard to which a test examination applies, and a rate of pay governed by what the market requires, much has to be considered. I cannot at all complain of my hon. Friend's speech, either as regards the principle he has laid down, or with respect to his remarks on political patronage, or as to the allowance of time he is disposed to give the Government for the consideration of all these matters. For my own part—and I think it is a sentiment that prevails amongst us—I do not desire to retain the present system of limited competition as the ne plus ultra of arrangements. It often occurs to my mind that we inflict possibly very considerable hardship upon many meritorious men by the cast-iron, stereotyped rule we adopt that for every office exposed for competition there shall be three candidates—that is, in order that one may succeed we insist that two
  814
  shall fail. If the open market and the state of supply and demand should determine with respect to the public service that the proportion of defeated candidates to successful candidates should be as great as that, there is no ground for complaint—they must take their chance; but there is a great deal of hardship in laying down, upon what must be considered to a great extent an arbitrary assumption, the rule that now applies. I cannot dismiss from my mind the idea that it must be a considerable hardship, and that the number of persons defeated is possibly greater than it would be if the market were perfectly open and free. Exactly the same would, happen if we attempted to regulate the quantity of any kind of provisions to be brought into the market. If sonic executive authority were to determine the number of live animals or the quantity of dead meat that should be brought into London, it would be the duty of those who made the regulation to take care there was an ample supply; but then it would entail great hardship on those who would be called upon to bring in more than they might ultimately find necessary. Thus the mischief would be in attempting to interfere with what ought to be left free. I confess I have a great deal of faith in freedom as applied to this matter. Though, probably, when the system of open competition is introduced there will be a rush of candidates, and it will take time before matters find their level, I believe, on the whole, that by the adjustment and adaptation between the number of offices and the persons disposed to compete for them, the system will be more satisfactorily arranged on the basis of freedom than it can be by any regulation, however well intended or judiciously chosen. I do not wish to stand on promises alone in this matter—because we have felt the obligation of the engagement we entered into last year on the Motion of my hon. Friend. I should tell my hon. Friend that we have not waited for the appearance of his Motion on the Paper to spur us on to make progress towards the fulfilment of our engagement with him. I will not say that our plan is quite complete, but communications have been held between the Treasury and the other Departments of the State; and though I cannot at the present moment undertake to state whether it would be in our power within a short time to establish in

  815
  every public office a system of open competition, I can venture to say, unless our present expectations are very much disappointed, it will be within a limited period in our power to announce the establishment of a system of open competition upon an extended scale, a scale quite sufficient, even if there should be exceptions, to enable the public to test its principle on a perfect scale, and determine upon the propriety of applying it to any cases that may remain with greater advantage than we may be said to possess at this moment. Without longer detaining the House, I hope I have fulfilled the engagement with which I commenced these few remarks and have fully met the terms laid down by my hon. Friend in his speech. I do not undertake to define by the number of days or weeks the completion of a positive measure. It is very probable, although it will not require and would not admit being put in the form of an Act of Parliament to advantage, that it may require when drawn up in detail to become the subject of an Order in Council to be submitted to Parliament. I think no lengthened period will elapse before it will have assumed a practical shape; and my hon. Friend, I trust, will, in the course of the present Session, have an opportunity, not of recommending, as he has done, the adoption of the principle, but of judging of the good faith and prudence and wisdom with which the Government has applied itself to the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  ROYAL FORESTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the present extent and condition of the Royal Forests. He wished to call attention not only to forests, but to woodlands also—although many of the latter had been disafforested. There were now only two forests that came under the denomination of Royal Forests—namely, the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. These forests and certain wood-lands, which included about 150,000 acres, had been for a very long time almost, if not quite unproductive to the country. There had been a long course of legislation with regard to Royal Forests. By an Act passed in the 10th Geo. IV. all the Crown lands were put under the charge of the Commissioners
  816
  of Woods and Forests, but they (the Commissioners) were prevented from dealing in any way with forest land, because it was then considered necessary for the supply of timber to the navy. But that cause for maintaining them in their present state had become practically obsolete by the introduction of iron ships; and the result had been that for a great number of years the maintenance of these extensive lands had been a waste of public property. He would recommend that the Government, instead of going to law to insist upon Crown rights, which he believed were now almost, if not entirely, exploded, should consider whether it would not be possible to deal with these lands so as to obtain a large fund from them, and whether certain portions of these forest lands should not be sold instead of being kept in their present unproductive condition. Of the 89,000 acres forming the New Forest 5,000 or 6,000 were hold by the Crown in severalty, and over 63,000 acres the Crown had undisputed right to the soil and timber, subject only to certain common rights over portions of them; and the Crown had the right also of closing, and keeping enclosed, for the growth of timber, some 16,000 acres. The question of deer was no longer in the way, for, under under the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed in 1851, the maintenance of deer in the forest had been entirely given up. The Crown, however, still retained the right of planting this land, and of excluding the commoners from a large portion of it, and, in fact, from the whole between November and May, and from the middle of June to the middle of July. The exercise of this right gave rise to constant complaints and dissatisfaction among the persons interested, or claiming to be interested in certain feeding-rights. Last year a long Report on the subject was presented to the House of Lords by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and a Select Committee appointed by that House fully and carefully investigated this subject. He might remark that one of the Members of that Committee was the Duke of Somerset, who, when Lord Seymour, held for many years the office of First Commissioner of Works. Well, that Committee stated in their Report, in reference to the New Forest, that the interests of the Crown and of the com-

  817
  moners were constantly at variance, and that, in the opinion of the Committee, a Commission ought to be appointed to allot to the Crown a certain part of the Forest, free from all common rights, and to leave the remainder to the commoners. That course had already been pursued with regard To several other woods and forests. He did not believe that during the last twenty-five years the Department of Woods and Forests had practically benefited to the extent of a single farthing from the possession of the 150,000 acres of forest and woodland held by them. It was true that, on the face of the accounts annually submitted to the House, there was a balance in favour of the office amounting to some £11,000 or £12,000, the average receipts being about £45,000 or £46,000, and the average expenditure about £35,000 or £36,000. The Office of Woods and Forests still kept up the old machinery that had been laughed at, and would continue to be laughed at so long as it was kept up; they employed a large number of rangers, deputy-rangers, verderers, woodmen, bailiffs, sub-bailiffs, and other salaried officials, all of whom were necessary to be maintained under the Forest Laws, but who were now practically of no use either to the public or the Crown, and these salaries and the departmental expenses disposed of the small balance. A general impression had got abroad that the officials in the Department of Woods and Forests not only deemed it their duty but that they were bound to maintain in its integrity all the property of the Crown, and to deal with it solely with the view of improving its monetary value for the benefit to the successor to the Crown, notwithstanding the fact that these lands had been practically vested in the State for upwards of 170 years; but he considered that the State had a right to deal with some of those lands in such a manner as to benefit the people, irrespectively of the question of pounds, shillings, and pence. In the case of Victoria and Battersea Parks, Acts of Parliament were passed authorizing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to appropriate part of the monies arising from the sale or exchange of Crown lands, and to apply such monies to the purchase of the parks, limiting the amount in the latter case to some £200,000 or £300,000. People were daily becoming more and more convinced of the neces-
  818
  sity for securing open spaces in the vicinity of London and other large towns for the enjoyment and recreation of the people. Now, with, regard to these 150,000 acres—and he was not alluding to the parks, forests, and lands necessary for the personal enjoyment of the Sovereign, such as Windsor Park and Parkhurst, in the Isle of Wight—there would, he believed, be allotted to the Crown, after compensation had been given to the various parties interested, some 75,000 or 80,000 acres. Now, if half that property were sold, it would, in the opinion of persons well qualified to judge, produce nearly £2,000,000. With that sum a large quantity of the remaining land, now lying waste, might be brought into profitable cultivation, and a large number of persons employed who were now out of work, while at same time great satisfaction would be given to those who lived on the borders of the forests. In addition, there would be a fund in existence which would obviate the necessity of imposing further burdens on the already over-taxed population for the establishment and maintenance of recreation grounds in the vicinity of large towns. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the desirability of removing by statute the restrictions by which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were at present bound as regarded these woodlands. They had often been taunted for the course they pursued, but, in point of fact, they could not act otherwise, as the law allowed them no discretion, but defined the rules by which their conduct must be guided. Their simple duty was to manage the lands so as to make them produce as much money as possible. If they were empowered to utilize these woods by the sale of some, and the appropriation of others for the benefit of the public, without reference to more pecuniary considerations, a great benefit would be conferred on the community.
  MR. C. READdesired to supplement his hon. Friend's remarks with reference to the New Forest, by a few observations. He considered this a very important question when they remembered the number of people who had to leave the country from want of employment, and the quantity of foreign food we imported, that so many thousands of acres should be allowed to continue unproductive. It was no use as a Royal

  819
  domain, and last year it only produced a paltry net rent of £1,768, for growing timber that was not required for the Navy. It certainly employed a goodly number of officials, and it allowed the commoners to starve a few cattle and ponies, and it also encouraged a predatory population. Some of the waste lands of this country were miserably poor and barren, and must always remain in a state of nature; some were rocky and full of stones, and must be regarded simply as mountain pasture; and other parts would not pay for the engineering skill and other labour required for their improvement, but in the New Forest no such difficulty existed, and there was no necessity for any great amount of arterial drainage. It was simply necessary to clear out the present streams, and there would be plenty of fall for the water. Then there was an abundance of gravel for making good roads, a fair amount of clay for making bricks. The climate was excellent, while the locality was good and skirted by railways. Some of the soil ranged from a hungry gravel to a rich vegetable loam, and a great portion of it would produce immense quantities of corn, roots, and artificial grasses. It might be thought, perhaps, that he was over-estimating the quality of the land in the forest, but he would merely state certain facts which had been brought under his notice. There was a farm there called New Park, which was held by Mr. Dickinson, a gentleman well-known in agricultural circles as a zealous experimental farmer, and still more widely known to the general public as the most successful cultivator of Italian rye grass in the world. Mr. Dickinson having had a twenty-one years' lease, forthwith spent £1,000 in improving and enlarging the house. The farm consisted of 430 acres, and the rent was £816 a year, so that for about a hundred and fortieth part of the area he paid nearly one-half of the net revenue that came to the Crown. The ground was well adapted for the growth of corn and roots, for Mr. Dickinson, in competing at shows open to all England, had always been successful with his wheat and barley, and last year he won second prizes with all the kinds of mangold wurzel he exhibited. A great portion of the New Forest was quite as good land as that on Mr. Dickinson's farm. It was now largely planted with Scotch fir, which
  820
  was the most valueless fir that could be grown, and which ought only to be planted on a shaky morass or a blowing sand. Swine were actually allowed to root up the fine grasses, the fern, sedge, and coarse grass were cut off and sold, and commoners were permitted to take away turf and burn it. No doubt a large portion of the forest ought to be sold. This would bring a considerable sum of money into Her Majesty's Exchequer, and there would be an excellent opportunity, if his view were adopted, for the creation of small freeholders, which would be free from all questions arising between landlord and tenant. There were admirable sites for private residences and good farms over the entire forest. The beauty of the country, however, ought to be preserved, and with this object in view it would be desirable to sell the ornamental timber with the land. He thought that a few patches of corn, and of bright green turnips, would really not be unacceptable in those dreary wastes; and a sufficient portion should be reserved for the recreation of persons resident in the neighbourhood, and allotments, also, might be made for cottage gardens. There were, however, some very serious drawbacks towards investment in property of this description. Supposing a person should sell out from the funds and invest in forest land, he might possibly give £25 for it per acre, and spend another £25 for it in erecting farm buildings, and cottages, and making roads, as well as enclosing and draining the land; he might also be called upon to furnish a site for a school, and contribute towards its maintenance; and perhaps he might have to help to build a new church, and of course to contribute to all the parochial charities of the neighbourhood. After doing all these things, he would find probably a net income equal to about 3 per cent on his investment, and that his income was taxed 10 per cent or more for local charges, and the maintenance of the poor of the district. It would be a poor consolation to such a person to know that when he died his executors would escape 1 or 2 per cent in respect of probate duty.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the question before the House was one of considerable interest and importance. The hon. Gentleman who had brought it forward had directed his remarks particu-

  821
  larly to the administration of the New Forest, the largest of our forests; and it might be well that he should point out that his (Mr. Goldney's) remarks and those of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read) had no practical application except to the case of that property. The Forest of Dean was a forest beneath whose soil there were mineral treasures, and the tenure was subject to mineral rights both above and below the ground. It would not be profitable, as they were advised, to sell the interests of the Crown in that property. As to a considerable number of small forests winch belonged to the Crown, his hon. Friend opposite must be aware that the plantations on them were young, and he need not remind him or the hon. Member for South Norfolk that nothing could be more improvident than to sell on a large scale what he might call "green crops;" for, although those plantations were of great growing value, it would not be easy to go into the market and find purchasers for them at a profitable rate. In some instances profit could not be realized for a quarter of a century. He came, in the next place, to the New Forest, and here he wished to say a word as to what had been stated about the farm of Mr. Dickinson. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Read) in referring to it had argued that a large portion of the New Forest might be made to produce considerable crops, though where these portions were he had omitted to define. Almost in his next sentence, however, the hon. Gentleman informed the House that a great part of the forest consisted of plantations of Scotch firs, which was a wood of little value. But did it never occur to the hon. Gentleman that those Scotch firs had been planted in such abundance because the soil was not fitted to grow timber of a more valuable description, and that such a soil was not likely to produce prize crops? The farm which had been alluded to was, he might add, one which had probably been selected by its occupier for the expenditure of a large capital, and could not be compared with the rest of the land in the forest; but he was not by any means prepared to say that no change for the better could be made in the administration of the New Forest. The subject had been brought under the consideration of the Government during the Recess, and he and one of his Colleagues wont down
  822
  and spent one or two pleasant days in exploring the beautiful scenery in that quarter. They had come to the conclusion that it would be very important to ascertain, on as reliable data as they could procure, the financial pros and cons as to the two systems—of managing the forest as a forest, exercising the full planting powers of the Crown, or, on the other hand, asking Parliament to disafforest it and deal with the lands as the lauds of other forests had been dealt with on former occasions. They felt, however, that sufficient data were as yet wanting to enable them to come to a sound decision in the matter, and it would not do to deal with so important a property, in which not only the reigning Sovereign, but the Royal House itself, was interested, without further information. The Treasury had accordingly instructed the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to obtain such a business-like financial statement as might be expected from a land agent by a Lord of the Manor or the owner of an estate as to the probable value to the Crown and the public of adopting the one or the other of the systems which he had just mentioned. The Report in answer to these instructions would, he had no doubt, be received in the course of the Session, and if the result were such as to convince the Government that it would be more for the interest of the Crown, as well as of the public, to deal with the forest in some such way as had been indicated, there would be plenty of time for a Bill next Session, before which the forms of the House would not allow it to be introduced. Before he sat down he wished to say a word on what had fallen from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) as to the right and expediency of dealing with this property without relation to pounds, shillings, and pence. His hon. Friend, with reference to Victoria Park, seemed to be under the impression that the property of the Crown had been given away for the benefit of the public. If his recollection served him aright that was not the case; for a fair equivalent, it was felt, was received for what was given up. His hon. Friend could not fail to remember that one of the first acts of the Sovereign on ascending the throne was one by which the Sovereign surrendered the hereditary revenues in return for the Civil list. That act was regarded as a contract or bargain between the occupant of the Throne and the

  823
  Parliament of this country, and they could not fail to recognize the fact that not only the Commissioners of Woods, but that House and Parliament, were bound to preserve the inheritance and capital of those Crown estates intact. Dr. Broom, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, took this view of the question, and observed—
  "The capital of the land revenue is the reversion of the Crown; the income belongs for the time to the public. The Commissioners of Woods are, therefore, bound to take care that the one is not sacrificed to the other. On behalf of the public they have to obtain as large an income as possible, and it is their duty on behalf of the Crown to see that no part of the capital is sacrificed in order to increase the immediate income."
  That he believed to be a sound statement of the law and of Parliamentary obligation. With regard to that part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks which related to Epping Forest, it would be remembered that an Address had been presented by that House to Her Majesty, and that the subject had been referred by Her Majesty's Answer to the consideration of the Government, and he had no doubt that, without in any way infringing upon the rights of the Crown or the estate and reversion which attached to these forests, some available means would be found to secure the object which the hon. Gentleman desired.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he did not desire to enter into the main question, but rose for the purpose of defending those whom the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. C. Read) had described as a "poaching and predatory population." Residing, as he did, in that district, he could assure the House that that description was entirely inapplicable, and he regretted that the hon. Member should, upon what was probably mere hearsay, have used such a harsh expression towards those who, though they might be poor, were as honest as the population of any county in the kingdom. In many instances efforts had been made to procure for them employment in other parts of the world, but the assistance had been refused, those to whom it had been offered preferring to remain at home and earn a livelihood which, if precarious, was at all events honest. He trusted that in any arrangements made their rights would not be disregarded. Incidentally, he might express his regret that when changes were made in the administration
  824
  of certain offices, arrangements were not made to secure for the Crown lands more direct representation in that House.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, in answer to the wish expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that some data could be found on which to deal with this question, he would observe that the data which the right hon. Gentleman required were furnished in a Return for which he himself (Sir John Trelawny) had moved as far back as 1847. The facts brought to light by that Return were so strong that Lord Duncan made use of them in 1848 to show that, while money was wanted for public purposes, and was to be obtained, it was only right that these national resources should be turned to account, rather than that the people should be unnecessarily taxed, and induced the House to appoint a Committee, on which he (Sir John Trelawny) had the honour to serve, to inquire into the whole subject of Woods and Forests; and their investigations were of the most complete and detailed character. The Return which was furnished showed the mode in which the property was managed, and afforded exact information of the income and expenditure during a long series of years. It appeared from the Return that the profits of management were almost nil, and in it the right hon. Gentleman would probably find what he required.
  MR. BONHAM CARTERsaid, he took a deep interest in this subject, because he had always felt that in the county to which he belonged (Hampshire), there existed a very large tract of land from which neither the county nor the country derived its due share of benefit. It was at one time urged that the object of the New Forest was to supply the dockyard at Portsmouth with Navy timber. A Return for which he, however, moved two years ago, showed that the quantity of oak timber sold in 1866 was nil, and he believed the same answer would be equally applicable for many preceding years. In fact, the supply of Navy timber obtained from that forest had never in any one year been so much as would be required in the construction of a frigate, and while this was held out to be its use, immense sales of ship timber had taken place at Portsmouth Dockyard, in consequence of the almost exclusive use of iron. By

  825
  the Act of 14 & 15 Vict. the New Forest was disafforested as regarded deer, and a bargain was made, which was not a bad one for the country if it had been properly carried out. A very large number of fir trees were then planted, and in the recent fanning of the land, as he might term it, 3,000,000 fir trees had been planted to 2,000.000 of oak. There was no doubt that the character of the land varied exceedingly, and that fir could be planted upon land that would not grow oak, and no doubt in this respect the forest was under able management; but part of the object of the Department being to show good returns, they had cut not only oak but beech, a process which was inimical to the beauty of the sylvan scenery, as the forest contained some of the finest beech in England. It might be supposed that those beech trees when cut were very profitable, but that was not the fact. There were hardly any roads in the district, so that the beech which was cut did not fetch more than half the price which any hon. Member could obtain for such timber cut on his own woodlands, the average of the late sales having been no more than 3¾d. per cubic foot. The Department had not felt themselves authorized to expend money on the making of roads, and as they paid no rates or taxes the neighbourhood did not, of course, feel disposed to come to their assistance, while railroad communication had unfortunately received no encouragement. The South Western Railway had been obliged to take a wide circuit for the very purpose of avoiding a large district of the forest, in which it would have doubled or trebled the value of the soil. He did not speak on this subject entirely without knowledge, for he happened to reside near a small forest belonging to the Government, Woolmer Forest—retained as subsidiary to Aldershot, and very efficient for that purpose. It consisted of 6,000 or 7,000 acres of pure sand, and had been valued by Mr. Clutton at the time of which the hon. Baronet (Sir John Trelawny) had spoken at an annual value of 4s. an acre, or about £6 an acre for the freehold. The Government disposed by Act of Parliament of the rights of the parochial commoners, and gave up to the commoners a large margin of exactly the same quality of land, in extent from 1,500 to 2,000 acres. This land was subsequently allotted under
  826
  the Enclosure Acts, and was now selling in large quantities at £15 an acre, and in small quantities at from £30 to £40 an acre. And the purchasers of the smaller plots, although the land was of the poor character he had described, were able to turn them to good advantage on account of the facilities afforded by the proximity of the railway. He did not see why a somewhat similar course should not be pursued by the Government. He was not one of those who wished to enter upon the line of action deprecated by his hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench—that of suddenly selling a large estate; but he was quite certain that, under judicious management by the Department which controlled these large districts of Crown property, and by an increase of their powers, it would be possible gradually to effect sales at prices very much higher than the lands would fetch as mere timber land. By that means not only would the value of the parts still remaining in the hands of the Crown be increased year by year, but persons with capital, who were desirous of residences of a picturesque character, would be induced to lay out money in improving the land; and the districts themselves would gradually become populated and filled with a resident gentry, employing labour and laying out capital. He was glad to hear; that the attention of the Government was directed to this subject. It was one that would well repay attention; and he was quite sure that, if investigation of the subject were undertaken and vigorously carried out by the Department, not only would the districts themselves very greatly benefit, but the Treasury would have reason to feel well satisfied with the results.

WORKHOUSE RELIEF.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FIELDENsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the follow-passage, contained in an "Instructional Letter to various Boards of Guardians on their formation," sent from the Poor Law Commissioners' Office, dated the 31st day of January, 1837, and signed "Edwin Chadwick, Secretary," (that is to say)—
  "Where the pauper is the head of a family, and he declares that he has no work, and proves satisfactorily that he can obtain none, either in his own or in any of the parishes within a reasonable distance, he may be offered temporary relief within

  827
  the workhouse, until he can get some kind of work; relief, wholly or chiefly in kind, being given in the interval to the family, to prevent the necessity of immediately selling off their goods and breaking up the cottage establishment. The pauper should be distinctly told that such an arrangement can only be temporary, in order that his wife and family may seek work for him, and that the strict workhouse principle requires that all the members of a family claiming relief should enter the house, and give up their property for the benefit of the parish."
  This question was a very important one. He should probably be told, as many hon. Members had told him since he had placed his Notice on the Paper, that this Letter was not one which was ever acted upon. If so, there could be no objection on the part of the President of the Poor Law Board to issue a Minute to rescind it. But there was a strong feeling in the country that the Letter was acted upon in the present day. In the north of England, certainly, the general belief among the poor was that unless they sold their furniture they would not be entitled to relief. This belief had been alluded to in the House by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten) at the beginning of the cotton famine, and he was told by Mr. Villiers, then the President of the Poor Law Board, that no Order justifying that belief was in existence. But, though there might be no such Order, yet there was this Instructional Letter, which had never yet been repudiated or contradicted. He would read an extract from the speech of Mr. Leppock, the Chairman of the Manchester Board of Guardians, in December last, to show that this was the belief entertained by the poor in the neighbourhood of Manchester—
  "Many of this class—labourers thrown out of employment, although willing to work—had been obliged to emigrate; others had become paupers, while some had disposed of every scrap of furniture they possessed, and there were hundreds of cottages in this city where scarcely any furniture or even a blanket was to be found. It would be the duty of the Guardians to inquire minutely into the cases which came before them; and it would be well for the relieving officers to advise the poor not to postpone coming to the Board till they had disposed of everything they possessed. There seemed to be a mistaken opinion among the poor that they could not get relief if they had a decent house and some furniture. It was of the greatest importance that the poor should be assured that this was an error, and that the Board was willing to relieve them, and would be glad it they would keep their furniture."
  The sentiments of Mr. Leppock did him
  828
  honour, though he believed that it was that gentleman who, unfortunately, was in error, and not the poor. He might allude also to an important document as proving that this was the condition on which relief to the poor was to be administered. The President of the Poor Law Board had said on the Minute lately issued and dated November 20, 1869—
  "One of the most recognized principles in our Poor Law is that relief should be given to the actually destitute, and not in aid of wages."
  And surely a destitute family was a family who had sold their furniture. This confirmed the opinion that prevailed amongst the poor—that they could not obtain relief while they retained their furniture. Let him now call attention to this Instructional Letter. They were told that, "where a pauper is the head of a family, and he declares that he has no work, and proves satisfactorily"—that was, he (Mr. Fielden) supposed to the satisfaction of the Guardians—"that he can obtain none, either in his own or in any of the parishes within a reasonable distance" what was to be done? The natural answer was, that he might have relief; he had done all that an honest man could do; he had gone through his own parish and through the adjoining parishes to obtain employment; and he had satisfied the Board of Guardians that he had done so. What was he to have then? He was told that "he may be offered temporary relief within the workhouse until he can get some kind of work." The man was to be admitted into what he regarded as to all intents and purposes a prison, where he was separated from his wife and children, locked up at night, stripped of the clothes in which he entered, and clothed in the dress in which we put those in our jails who are awaiting trial. But this was not all. While the man, who was willing to work, and had done all that he could to obtain work, was separated from his family and kept within the walls of this prison, he was to be "distinctly told that such an arrangement can only be temporary, in order that his wife and family may seek work for him." Could anything be conceived more unjust, more cruel? The man who had honestly tried to get work—for he was bound to satisfy the Guardians of that in the first instance—was shut up, in order that his wife, with, probably, two or three little children, and one, perhaps, on her back,

  829
  might go seeking about for the employment which her husband had been unable to find. The creature that could conceive the idea of this refined cruelty was not a man, he was a demon in; human form. The Letter went on to say that "the strict workhouse principle requires that all the members of a family claiming relief should enter the house, and give up their property for the benefit of the parish." Enter the workhouse or starve was the choice thus put before them. Surely it could be no wonder that such a system had practically failed. It had created the army of vagrants which the Guardians and the Poor Law Board were now trying in vain to control. It was not the idle vagabond alone who was thus dealt with, but the honest and deserving man—the man who was willing to work. Such a man would not go into the Union workhouse to be separated from his wife and children. He and his wife would not submit to this. After parting with their all they went to the road; they slept under hedges and in barns; they went to the nearest town, and often found their way to London. Dr. Southwood Smith confirmed this state of things in his Report to the London Fever Hospital in 1844. At page 44 he said—
  "A large proportion of the subjects of fever, received into the Hospital daring the past year, were agricultural labourers and provincial mechanics, who had been induced to leave their native counties in search of work, and who, either on their road to the metropolis, or soon after their arrival in it, were seized with the disease. The causes assigned for their illness, by these poor creatures themselves, were various, some stating that it was owing to sleeping by the side of hedges, others to want of clothing—many being without stockings, shirts, shoes, or any apparel capable of defending them from the inclemency of the weather; while others—and these constituted a very large proportion of the number—attributed it to want of food, being driven by their intense hunger to eat raw vegetables, turnips, and rotten apples; and certainly their appearance, in many instances, fully corroborated the truth of their representations."
  He (Mr. Fielden) told the House that if they persevered with this system, attempting to drive the honest, hard-working poor into the workhouse, the necessary result would be that the vagrant and criminal classes would go on increasing to such an extent that it would be an utter impossibility to put them down. In fact the state of affairs would become so fearful that it would end in a
  830
  revolution. In order, therefore, to know whether the Government intended to persevere in this course, he had to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether this is still the principle by which the Board directs the administration of relief; and, if not, whether he is prepared to issue a Minute rescinding this objectionable Instruction?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the Instructional Letter to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and which he properly mentioned was dated in the year 1837, had long since been superseded by the General Orders of the Board; and, therefore, so far as the Poor Law Board was concerned, and so far, he believed, as regarded the public, the Letter was exactly in the same position as if it had been withdrawn. Indeed, so obsolete had it become that it was very difficult now to obtain a copy of the Letter. There were three points raised by the hon. Member. One was the suggestion in the Letter that the head of the family should be taken into the workhouse temporarily, while his wife and family were to seek work for him. That practice, which the hon. Gentleman had justly condemned as cruel and foolish, had entirely ceased; it was not enforced either by the out-door relief Prohibitory or Regulation Orders, but, on the other hand, he freely admitted that the workhouse test had been made more efficient since 1837. The Letter was used temporarily; but when the Act of 1834 came into full force, and Union workhouses were built, it ceased to have any operation, and out-door relief was altogether prohibited in agricultural districts. The hon. Member asked whether the Government considered it right to remain on the same line, as regarded the workhouse as a test, on on which they had hitherto been progressing. He confessed, so far as he was concerned in the administration of poor relief, he should be sorry to do anything to smooth the way for more paupers to be on the rates, or in any degree to relax the workhouse test. The hon. Member had pointed to the increased number of vagrants, which they all deplored; but he must remind the hon. Member that it was a great question whether the whole system of outdoor relief was not responsible for that increase. When the Act of 1834 was first vigorously applied there was a decrease of paupers; but when it became

  831
  impossible in large towns to find work-house accommodation there was an increase; and any relaxation in the shape; of out-door relief would be followed immediately by an increase in the number of paupers. It stood to reason—it was so easy to receive money from the rates—that there was a great temptation to paupers who placed themselves in that condition to continue in it. This was too large a question to argue on the present occasion; but he believed they had now to deplore the evils of increased pauperism because the administration had been too lax, not because it had been too severe. The hon. Member said it was hard that an able-bodied person should be put to the workhouse test. But was there any other country that gave relief, compulsorily, to the able-bodied labourer at all? In Scotland the able-bodied were entitled to no relief whatever. In England that class was entitled to relief in the Union; but nothing could be more unwise than to relax the Order relating to out-door relief. The increase of paupers was greatest, not where the in-door test was enforced, but in large towns, where it was impossible to apply that test thoroughly. There was another and somewhat difficult point to which the hon. Member alluded as regarded the furniture of the applicants for relief. He believed the hon. Member had stated the law correctly. The law said the man must be destitute, and he was glad to hear the hon. Member state that such was the opinion of the labouring classes, and that they were prepared rather to sell their furniture than apply for relief. That was consistent with what one heard on every side—that rather than become paupers and a burden to the community they would make real sacrifices and endure many hardships. It was, of course, impossible to apply the rule absolutely, as if it were of iron; it could not be done; but, as a general rule, certainly it ought to be laid down that, in the case of the able-bodied, so long as he had means he ought not to receive parish support. He was aware that in Manchester they had resorted to a plan in cases of great pressure—namely, taking care of the furniture of the pauper while he was in the workhouse—and such cases might occur, but they must be exceptional. He had now, he believed, answered all the points stated by the hon. Member, and he
  832
  could only add that he should be sorry to issue any Minute that might lead to the opinion that it would be wise or in the interest of the working class to relax the system of in-door relief.

  STAMPS UPON LEASES.—OBSERVATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to an alteration that has been made in the administration of the Law in respect of Stamps upon Leases, and to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose any remedy for the hardships and anomalies of the existing Law? He had received communications from Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and other large towns relative to the present condition of the Stamp Laws, and he did not think the Government, if they intended to introduce a Bill on the subject, could object to his bringing forward a matter which really showed the strong necessity for amendment and consolidation. About fifteen years ago, in the year 1854, an Act was passed imposing a stamp upon leases. The practice under that Act, taken in connection with other Acts, was this—An ad valorem stamp calculated on the rent was imposed on every document called a building lease. The practice was perfectly well known and uniform, and it was sanctioned over and over again by the authorities of Somerset House in the most formal manner. To use the expression of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the customary interpretation applied to these documents was that ad valorem stamps, and ad valorem stamps alone, were imposed. The authorities at Somerset House not only applied this customary interpretation to those documents, but they formally adjudicated on the subject. In 1850 an Act was passed which enabled anyone who had a doubt as to the stamp to be placed on any document to take that document to Somerset House and obtain the opinion of the law officers of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to what additional stamp was necessary. This was called the adjudication stamp. Last December however, a new light seemed to have broken upon the authorities of Somerset House, and they gave notice that they would require, for the future, any document of the character he had described to bear an additional stamp of

  833
  35 s., besides the ad valorem stamp. A gentleman who had occasion to get a lease stamped demurred to this new practice, and appealed against it to the Court of Exchequer, which Court, however decided that the customary interpretation of the Act had been an erroneous one, and that the new interpretetion of the Board of Inland Revenue was correct. What was the result? Briefly stated, it was this—that from data on which he could rely it appeared that not less than 1,000,000 documents in the United Kingdom were at that moment erroneously stamped, and were consequently useless as legal instruments in a court of law, and invalid for giving a good title to land. He need not enlarge upon the dismay that this decision had occasioned over all the country, or upon the trouble and expense that must be incurred if a remedy were not applied. A hundred instances might be furnished, but he would content himself with one, as an illustration of the effect of the decision. A gentleman of his acquaintance wished to assign fifty-eight leases, and he discovered that under the new interpretation of the law fifty-four were improperly stamped. The intending purchaser declared that he could not accept them, because they were invalid documents, and the result was that the gentleman would have to go to an outlay of at least £100 in order to give a good title. Now, he might be told that it was the duty of every subject to be acquainted with the law, however hard or harsh it might be; that ignorantia juris not excusat. But, in this case, the ignorance was on the part, not of the public who suffer, but of the Department who counsel the suffering: and it would therefore be extremely unfair if the public were to be mulcted for laches that were not their own. He therefore hoped that the Government would invoke the power of Parliament to prevent a retrospective effect being given to the decision he had referred to, and that they would introduce a Bill declaring that all documents that were now stamped with proper ad valorem stamps should be considered valid, although they did not bear the 35 s. stamp. As to the future, he thought that this now stamp—for it really was a now one—would fall with peculiar hardship upon leases of small properties and upon the whole of the building trade, which was already in a
  834
  state of great depression. If, therefore, the Government thought that leases of this description ought to bear a stamp at all, he hoped they would not propose a uniform one of 35 s., because it was obviously unjust that a man should be called upon to pay a £1 15 s. stamp whose ground-rent was perhaps £5 a year, when the person who had a house in Belgrave Square, with a ground-rent of£300 or £400 a year paid no more. He must also express his belief that there were many leases, not building leases, but which contained covenants to repair; and rebuild, which would come under the new rate if the decision of the Court of Exchequer was to be carried out; and in fairness to the general public he thought that the Government ought to bring in a measure dealing retrospectively with leases, and also dealing with building leases for the future, and with other leases which contained covenants constituting a "valuable consideration." He appealed with confidence to the justice of the Government in this matter, and had therefore abstained from putting any Motion on the Paper; and he hoped that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman would relieve him from the necessity of introducing a Bill himself on the subject, because he was convinced that a question involving such large items of taxation could be much more effectively handled by the Government.
  MR. DOWNINGsaid, he thought the hon. Member was entitled to the thanks of the House for introducing this subject. He entirely concurred in all that the hon. Gentleman had said as to the injustice and harshness of the recent decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. He held in his hand a paper that had been drawn up by a number of gentlemen in Cork, who, in 1860, acquired some land in the neighbourhood of that city, and lot it out in building plots on leases for 400 years. Fifty leases were granted, and fifty small houses were built, at an average cost of 11 s. for the legal documents. But if the recent decision were to be acted upon, each of the tenants would have to pay 35 s., and was also liable for a penalty of £10. He could not believe that the Government intended to sanction such injustice, and its decision was awaited with the greatest interest. He knew a gentleman in Ireland who had been concerned in 200 leases since the Act, all of which

  835
  had been registered, and it would be a thing totally without precedent if, after registration, their validity were to be called in question upon a point connected with the stamps.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that as he understood the case, it was simply this. In 1854 an Act was passed which certainly, read by the light of unassisted reason, imposed an ad valorem duty, and that only, on all leases, that duty being six times the amount of the one which previously existed. For fifteen years that construction of the Act was not only adopted by the public and the legal profession, but acquiesced in by the authorities of Somerset House. Building leases were all stamped with the ad valorem duty, under the positive authority of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Things wont on in that way until one day last November some gentlemen at Somerset House, endowed with a peculiar scent for that kind of game, ferreted out the 15th section of the Act, which seemed to provide that any instrument charged with an ad valorem duty should, if it contained any further valuable consideration, be chargeable on that account with an additional stamp. The matter was brought before the Court of Exchequer, which decided that the case in question came within the letter of the Act. Let the House consider the consequences of this. Of the 1,000,000 building leases insufficiently stamped a large proportion had been handed about the country, had got into the hands of all sorts of owners, had been mortgaged, had been assigned, and in every case purchasers and mortgagees had got a bad title and security. But the mischief did not stop there, for if they looked carefully to the language of the Act, the same reasoning which applied to building leases applied also to mining and to agricultural leases; because all such leases contained covenants to build, or paint, or do something of that kind. He believed that if this decision of the Court of Exchequer were pushed to an extreme it would invalidate every lease in the country. Who was to bear the expense of setting that right? It was very hard upon a man who bought leases fifteen years ago to find that he could not make them available unless he paid 35 s. on each. There were those to whom that sum was a serious consideration, and when you
  836
  came to multiply it by fifty or sixty, you made it a serious matter for another class, while a million times 35 s. was a very large sum indeed. He was aware that this was a two-edged argument, and that the grand total would be valuable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would, perhaps, enable him to take 1d. off the income tax. If that could be done by fair means he should not object; but he maintained that this was a case in which the Government and the Legislature were bound to take retrospective action, upon the simple ground that it was the duty of the Legislature to make these fiscal enactments reasonably plain, and not leave them to be pitfalls for the unwary. It was not right to allow an error committed per incuriam in an Act of Parliament to be made use of by the Executive, as it might be in a country attorney's office.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that he had that day received a letter from the agent of an estate, of which he was one of the trustees, telling him that the effect of the recent decision would be to stop any further building upon it, and the effect would be generally to discourage artizans from buying their own houses—an object which the House had done all in its power to promote. If the Government did not respond to the appeal now made to them he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Bourke) would himself bring in a Bill on the subject.
  MR. DODDSsaid, that in common with other Gentlemen he had received many communications from the country on the subject, and he was himself practically aware of the injurious results that must necessarily follow if the Government did not listen to the appeals that were now made to them. He believed he was warranted in saying that the judgment of the Court of Exchequer was not acquiesced in by the lawyers of the country generally, and there was a strong impression that, if the matter were carried to another court, a different decision would be arrived at. In 1845 a decision was given in "Nicholls v. Cross," which was similar to the Bolton case. A lease had been granted of a piece of land at a yearly rent of £8; there was a covenant to build a dwelling-house of the value of £150; the lease was stamped with the lease stamp; and the question arose whether, in consideration of the covenant, the lease was not

  837
  liable to additional duty. The Court of Exchequer held that the lease was sufficiently and properly stamped, and did not require an additional stamp. This remained the law down to the passing of the Act of 1854. It would be contended, of course, that the new Act was framed in terms different from those of the old one; but if it had been intended to make such a change as this the officials at Somerset House would have taken care that every lease which came before them was impressed with the additional stamp as well as the ad valorem lease stamp. This Act was somewhat of a penal character, and it ought to be construed strictly in favour of the subject. He hoped that the Government would remedy the evils that had been so clearly pointed out by the other hon. Gentlemen who had spoken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman who brought that question before the House (Mr. Bourke) had stated it so clearly and so fully that it was unnecessary for him to recapitulate the circumstances. He was quite content to take them on his statement with one single correction, and that was, that about four years ago, as he has informed, the Board of Inland Revenue discovered the mistake which they had made, and from that time they uniformly enforced the additional stamp of 35 s. ["No, no!"] The hon. Gentleman was perhaps better acquainted with the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue than he was; but he could only say that he made that statement on the authority of the officials of the Board. Now, the point to which every speech that had just been made was addressed was this—Hon. Gentlemen said, and said with considerable justice and force, that where a body which was appointed to collect, taxes was allowed in the first instance to adjudicate upon them, and had decided that only a certain stamp was required, and in that way misled the public, it would be hard and unfair to go back from such a decision as that and demand the affixing of an additional stamp. He did not see anything to quarrel with in that argument. People were, of course, all bound to obey the law; but it seemed to him that if those who were entrusted with the administration of the law misconstrued it, and so misled the subject, the public might reasonably be called
  838
  upon to bear the injury inflicted upon them by the mistake of their officers. Therefore, so far as regarded what had been done during the time that the Board of Inland Revenue misunderstood the law and acted upon an erroneous interpretation of it, he thought he might fairly say that the Government would not be disposed to enforce either the tax or the penalty. But a very different set of considerations came into force the moment the Board of Inland Revenue found out their error and enforced the law. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen who interrupted him must allow him to say that, while they represented a small class, he spoke on behalf of the whole community of this country. The Inland Revenue Board found out their error and enforced the law; and as regarded the period which had elapsed since, he confessed it seemed to him extremely difficult to pass a retrospective Bill for the remission of the additional duty. He could not imagine with what justice they could be at Somerset House enforcing this law, obliging persons to pay the duty, and deciding, as he was told had been repeatedly done for four years, that this 35 s. stamp must be affixed, and then in deference to the feelings of hon. Members, remitting to other persons that very tax they had been during that time enforcing. It would be an injustice and an unfair ness. What they ought to do was, he thought, very clear. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had questioned the decision of the learned Barons of the Exchequer. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not a Court of Appeal to sit in judgment upon them he took their decision as he found it. The learned Chief Baron laid it down that the point was entirely free from doubt, and Mr. Baron Martin, a Judge of great weight, experience, and learning, used these remarkable words—
  "I think this case falls directly within the words of the Act of Parliament, and I should not be at all surprised if the Act were intended to aim at this very case."
  That was the decision of the Judges in that case, and he could not himself see that there was any good reason why, from the time when the Government collected the tax on the principle laid down by the Court of Exchequer, they should bring in a measure to remit these taxes. Of course, as far as penalties

  839
  went, the matter being an honest mistake, it would be quite wrong to enforce them; but it seemed to him that it was their simple duty—his at least, and that of the Revenue Department, in the absence of any directions to the contrary, to obey the law when clearly declared, and to collect the tax, from the period when it had been collected on this principle by the Board of Inland Revenue. For the future, he thought, the subject was one well worthy of consideration. It would be his duty to call the attention of the House in the course of the Session to the whole subject of the Stamp Laws, and then the question of this duty of 35 s. and its application would definitely and legitimately come before the House, and possibly they might be of opinion that it was altogether of a larger amount than ought to be levied. He hoped the House would consider this statement satisfactory. Meanwhile, having for several years collected the tax on the principle now adopted the Government could not in fairness introduce a Bill to relieve persons from the payment of it without refunding the tax to those from whom it had been taken; though as persons had been misled into believing that they had not to pay it, they had a fair claim to indemnity from penalties, and the Government would be prepared to treat them on that footing.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he was glad to hear the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the subject was of extreme interest to his constituents. In Liverpool, under the corporation, hundreds of leases were held which would be liable to this additional duty, though very few required an ad valorem duty beyond £1. There were many kinds of leases on a small scale in large towns upon which the tax would press very heavily; and it was an anomaly that, while Parliament was pressing forward town improvements and better dwellings for the sake of the poorer population, the Government should enforce a very doubtful piece of law and more than double the costs of these transactions., He rejoiced to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to propose the consolidation of the Stamp Acts, and he hoped this increase of the burdens upon building leases would be taken into consideration, and that the right hon. Gentleman would be inclined to
  840
  relent as to the four years, for the decision of the Commissioners was not publicly announced, and thousands of persons entered into these engagements without the least idea of the burdens they were incurring.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he also hailed with pleasure the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to what he appeared to think was an error of the Inland Revenue. It seemed to him (Mr. Dillwyn) rather that the Inland Revenue Department had discovered an error which had crept into an Act of Parliament, and intended to take advantage of it, for the benefit of the public revenue. Looking at the debates which took place on the introduction of the Stamp Act of 1854, and the words which then fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—now the Prime Minister—that it was not intended to interfere with the laudable desire of working men to possess small plots of land for building purposes—it was clearly the intention of Parliament that the stamp duty should be imposed, not upon building leases, but upon conveyances of real property. He hoped the Government would rectify this error in the Act.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, with respect to the obvious intention of the House when the Act was passed. With the greatest respect for the learned Barons of the Exchequer, he must say that their decision was not generally acquiesced in by that branch of the legal profession to which he belonged. That was not a direct, but an inferential tax, and nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the mode in which it was carried out. He did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fulfil, before long, the pledge of legislation upon that subject, which the House had been so much gratified to hear.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he did not rise to discuss the decision of the Court of Exchequer. All that he would say was that it had taken the whole country and the legal profession by surprise, and solicitors in particular were completely paralyzed by it. Though the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfactory as regarded the future, and a certain period in the past, ending about four years ago, it was most un-

  841
  satisfactory as to the intermediate period, and would leave the practice very vague and uncertain. A lease could not be given in evidence, unless the Legislature made it admissible. Was a Judge to accept or reject a document which, according to this decision, bore an insufficient stamp? According to existing law he must reject it. The right hon. Gentleman said he would apply the test of whether people had notice that the law was to be enforced; but how could any Judge decide that a particular deed was stamped with or without notice? It would be impossible for him to enter into such an inquiry; but, on the other hand, it would be most unfair to make any man suffer unless you could bring home to him a knowledge of the decision of the Commissioners four years ago. They had not received any promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would deal with the period down to the four years. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: YES; I promised to do so.] He had not heard it. However, that was satisfactory so far; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could in fairness draw a distinction between the cases of leases before the four years and those stamped with the ad valorem stamp after that period.
  SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSONsaid, he wanted to know whether those who had taken out leases before the four years were to be let off altogether with their 10 s., and those who had taken out leases during the four years were to pay the 35 s., but without any penalty? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was only making a virtue of necessity in remitting the penalty, because it would be impossible to get it from nine-tenths of the people concerned.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be received with satisfaction as far as it went. But the subject must not be considered as a question of stamp duty merely—of the actual amount of money to be paid—but as a question whether it was right that faith in the securities of the country should be shaken. Until the matter was settled, dealings in those deeds would be brought to a perfect standstill. At present, as the deeds represented property, they were dealt in every day, and money was lent on them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not stated with sufficient
  842
  clearness that the promised Bill should be brought in immediately, in order that the cloud which was hanging over property should be cleared away at once. As things stood at present, insurance offices that had leases brought before them, in order to have money advanced on their security, would feel a difficulty in dealing with them. If the right hon. Gentleman reviewed the whole question he would see that it was of the utmost consequence to thousands of persons that he should not insist on treating leases taken out within the four years in an exceptional manner. He hoped, the right hon. Gentleman would feel that this question should not be left over until the general measure was to be brought in.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have no right to speak again; but, as it would not be desirable that there should be any doubt on the subject, perhaps the House will permit me to say a few words. In reply to the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Durham (Sir Hedworth Williamson), our intention is this—For the period during which we think that the law and the practice of the Revenue Department have been in unison we propose to collect the revenue just as if there had been no question at all about it—that is to say, the ad valorem duty and the 35 s. stamp, [Murmurs.] Hon. Gentlemen will please to remember this, that we have been collecting it during the four years, and if we make a law to exempt persons who have not paid we must refund the money to those who have paid. I beg to assure the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) that we will bring in a Bill of Indemnity without unnecessary delay.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he wished to know whether, after the strong expression of feeling from both sides of the House, it would not be well that leases up to the time when the decision in the Court of Exchequer was given should be relieved from the 35 s. stamp. That, in his opinion, would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen, and do away with the feeling of harsh treatment which prevailed in various parts of the country in connection with this question. People who had executed leases within the four years would not feel the justice of the distinction which the right hon. Gentle-

  843
  man had laid down. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did what he (Mr. Hibbert) suggested, it would hardly be necessary to refund the 35 s. stamp duty to those who had their leases properly stamped, because he believed such cases to be few in number.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he could not refrain from expressing the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would listen to the advice given to him from both sides of the House, and would extend the remedy up to the time at which the decision was given in the Court of Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said that if he did he should have to refund a certain amount. He should very much like to know what the amount would be. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman need be frightened at the idea of having to refund a very large sum, for he (Mr. Russell Gurney) had not been able to hear of a single person who had paid the duty of 35 s. It might be true that in some particular cases the Inland Revenue Department had insisted upon that payment; but it did not appear that they had ever made their determination public in any way. He happened to know that so late as 1865 there was a lease at that time brought to the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and they said nothing about that duty being required.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he hoped that however disagreeable the dose offered might be, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make one gulp of it and swallow it down. He was quite sure the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to draw was so nice that it would not be generally appreciated; and that it would be viewed as an ungracious act on the part of the Government if they attempted to impose this 35 s. duty, which he thought was a most excessive duty on small leases. There were in his immediate neighbourhood thousands and tens of thousands of leases the ground-rent of which did not exceed 25 s. a year, and to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated would be to impose a tax on the best system of savings banks that had ever been invented in this country. To say to those unfortunate people who happened to have built within the last four years that a sudden light had broken on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and that they were to pay 35 s. extra,
  844
  would be a most ungracious proceeding. In reality, the Act of Parliament was probably in itself an error.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I would suggest to the House that it would be an advantage if they would kindly postpone the further prosecution of this discussion until my right hon. Friend brings in his Bill. He has promised to make a proposal, and to make it at the earliest possible day. It will be observed that there are several important matters of fact upon which we are not yet quite clear. Some hon. Gentlemen are under the impression that very few persons have paid the duty in question during the interval since the change of new on the part of the Board of Inland Revenue, while others are under a different impression. Now, we shall have an opportunity of ascertaining how that is, and also what means the public and the profession have had of knowing the change of view. We shall, therefore, be able to approach the discussion hereafter with much greater advantage. I would, therefore, respectfully suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House not to proceed with this discussion at present.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he thought the I Chancellor of the Exchequer was under a misapprehension when he stated that the duty had been demanded during the last four years. He (Mr. Lopes) had that evening presented a petition from 110 solicitors of the city of Bristol stating that up to the time of the case of Bolton, about which the decision had been given in the Exchequer Court, this 35 s. had in no instance been demanded in Bristol.

  NAVY—COASTGUARD.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to bring under the notice of the House the case of Mr. Godfrey Beatson, Civilian Chief Officer of the Coastguard, which appeared to him to be one of peculiar hardship. On the south-west coast of Scotland, including Argyleshire, Ayrshire, and Wigtonshire, the chief officers of the Coastguard were Mr. M'Kerlie and Mr. Beatson, both of whom had always distinguished themselves by their zeal and efficiency. Their duties, as those of other Coastguard officers, were under the Admiralty to train men for the Coastguard, for the Naval Reserve and for

  845
  other duties; under the Board of Trade to take charge of lifeboats, the rocket apparatus, and in other ways assist in saving life in cases of shipwreck; and under the Treasury to protect the Revenue. It had formerly been the practice to appoint naval officers to commands in the Coastguard; but when Lord Auckland was at the head of the Admiralty a system was commenced of appointing to those commands the officers of revenue fitters, officers of the East Indian naval service, and officers of the Mercantile Marine. He was not there to say that perhaps naval officers were not the best men to appoint. As being more competent to conduct the discipline of the coastguard and the Naval Reserve naval officers were probably the best; but, granting that, he still thought that when we had good officers who had performed the Coastguard duty well for a number of years, it was hard to supersede them before their full time. In England and Scotland there were sixteen, and in Ireland three, of those Coastguard officers who had not been in the Navy. Last June the Admiralty issued a Memorandum in which it was stated that in future all appointments in the Coastguard service would be for five years, and that no officer then in the service should retain his appointment after the 31st of March, 1874; but what was the astonishment of Mr. M'Kerlie and Mr. Beatson on getting, in January in the present year, a notification that they were not to retain their appointments after the 1st of April in the present year. He believed that other non-naval officers in England and Scotland received a similar notification; but he believed that in consequence of a remonstrance the difficulty was got over in Ireland by placing the three non-naval officers serving there on the books of a naval Coastguard ship, and thus making them naval officers. He did not know whether this was a fact. The salary received by each of the two gentlemen to whom he more particularly referred—Mr. M'Kerlie and Mr. Beatson—was £146 a year, with £9 for a house, £96 for travelling allowance, and £30 allowance for a horse, and each would receive about £100 pension. A commander in the Navy was to be appointed to do the duty of both. He was to receive £500 a year, or £350 a year more than his half-pay. The total pecuniary loss to the country by this so-called reduction,
  846
  so far as it regarded the station to which he alluded, would be £180 a year. The district to be traversed extended 100 miles as the crow flies; and he thought it utterly impossible that that duty could be performed by one man. It was right to say that Mr. M'Kerlie was fifty-eight years of age, so that he was within two years of the time when he would be entitled to retire on his pension; but Mr. Beatson was only forty-two years of age, and had eighteen years' good work in him. He had been brought up in the Revenue service, and from 1854 to the present time he had served in the Coastguard with a character unimpeached. In the course of his service he had been frequently instrumental in saving life, had been wounded, and had received the thanks of foreign Governments. Could not such an arrangement as had been made in Ireland be adopted in this country and Scotland? He had heard of several other cases of hardship—of men of forty-two or forty-three years of age who would be superseded under the recent Order. He hoped his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would reconsider the matter, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. D. DALRYMPLE, in seconding the Motion, said, he wished to call attention to a case similar to those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Baronet. An officer had held his appointment for nineteen or twenty years, and having received the Memorandum referred to, anticipated that be would not be disturbed for five years, but he also had received short notice to quit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take up these cases, and that he would examine them each on its own merits, and not as a matter of favour, but of justice.
  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, it is inexpedient to retire young, efficient, and meritorious officers, and to replace them by others at an increased charge to the public,"—(SIR John Hay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. F. A. STANLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the case of Mr. Fitz-

  847
  gerald, an officer of the Eastbourne district, who had served six years in the Navy, and then entered the Coastguard, with the distinct understanding that he was to serve there till he was superannuated, but whose appointment would come to an end under the new Order, although he was perfectly able and willing to continue in the service, and was only forty-one years of age. He (Mr. F. A. Stanley) thought a considerable injustice was caused where men were retired and charged on the Pension List at an age when they were still able to render valuable service to the country instead of being transferred to other Departments. The cases which had been mentioned deserved the consideration of the Admiralty
  MR. GUILDERSsaid, he had some reason to complain of the inconvenient course taken by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), in bringing on the question at that particular moment. His hon. and gallant Friend had joined with another member of the late Board of Admiralty in requesting him to postpone his statement on the Navy Estimates from Thursday to Monday next. After he had consented to do so, it was a little hard that his hon. and gallant Friend should interpose on Friday with a Question of this kind, which he could not answer without entering into a somewhat lengthened statement, and without going into some of the explanations which it would be his duty to give in moving the Navy Estimates. The following, however, were the facts:—The Coastguard force used to be under the Board of Customs, although a certain number of officers were selected by the Admiralty. In 1856 it was decided that the Coastguard should be no longer under the Customs, but should be transferred to the Admiralty, and from that day no civilian officer or man had been appointed to the force. The policy of the Government in making the change was that the Coastguard force, retaining its duties with respect to the protection of the Revenue and to wrecks, should be essentially our First Naval Reserve, and it had been since that time a purely naval force, except as to the Civilians whom he had described. There were in 1857 some 1,500 or 2,000 civilians in the Coastguard force and a large number of civilian officers. No civilians had since been appointed, and
  848
  therefore the suggestion that had been made that some civilians should be introduced from the East Indian and merchant services, so that it should not be a purely naval force, was contrary to the decision of Parliament. When the present Government came into Office last year it was their duty to look very narrowly at the state of the Coastguard force in connection with the efficiency of the Reserves; and it was found that it contained a considerable number of old men and officers, and that it still contained a considerable number of civilians. During the past year he had carefully expurgated the force from beginning to end, and at the present moment, or in the course of a few days, so far as the men were concerned, there would not be a civilian in the whole of the force. It would then consist wholly of ablebodied seamen ready for effective service at sea. Early in the year they had dealt with the duration of the appointment of the naval officers of the force, and the circular which had been alluded to was issued, in which was defined the time during which inspecting commanders should hold their offices, and stating that all the appointments were to determine at a certain date. That circular did not relate to civilian officers, who had held their offices for life, or until they were sixty years of age. Subsequently they found it necessary to deal with the civilian officers. These gentlemen were few in number, but now that there were no men of the civilian class it was considered impossible to retain them, as they had insufficient authority to carry out discipline as naval officers, and if any emergency arose they could not, like the others, go to sea with the men. The Admiralty considered the matter, and the only course that seemed desirable was to abolish altogether these offices, taking care that when they retired they should be fairly compensated. That was a perfectly legitimate and sound policy; out, unfortunately, it affected a few persons of good service and in the prime of life. He should be very sorry if the House took any step by which the great improvement in the Coastguard force should be reversed. On those grounds it was impossible for him to assent to the proposal that the Government should reverse the decision that had been come to; but he had no

  849
  objection to look into the cases of these gentlemen. With respect to Mr. Beatson, he had satisfied himself that he was a very efficient officer, and had done his duty, and that it would be a pity if he were lost to the public service. Mr. Beatson's case was a very remarkable one. He had been appointed, not being at the time eligible, on account of his father's services, and so anomalous was his case that it led to much correspondence and even a change in the rules. Mr. Beatson was still in the prime of life, and had shown considerable fitness for the public service. In the same way, although he had not had an opportunity of making as full inquiries, there were one or two other civilian officers whom it was proposed to retire, but whom it might be desirable to retain in the public service. He proposed to look into the case of all the officers whom it was proposed to retire at the end of the financial year, and place their names on the list of persons whom, having efficiently served, it would be desirable to re-employ when time and opportunity should serve. Any further engagement than this he declined to give.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he regretted that the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) had brought this question before the House with reference to one particular case. Such a course was more likely to injure than to benefit the persons concerned, because he admitted at the outset that the principle adopted by the Government, was a sound one. He was glad that the hon. and gallant Baronet had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that the cases of these gentlemen would be taken into consideration, and he hoped that he would be content with that assurance, and withdraw his Motion.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory. He could not accept the objurgations of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CASE OF MICHAEL ATKINS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of Michael Atkins, a prisoner in Warwick Gaol, said he wished to remind the House, that this was not the first occasion on which it had been his duty to represent to the House on the part of his constituency, their apprehension of a miscarriage of justice, owing to the reprieve of persons sentenced to death for murder. In 1867 he mentioned the case of James Scott, who shot his employer at Birmingham, and having been tried and convicted was sentenced to capital punishment; the sentence was unexpectedly commuted, and a Petition was presented signed by 3,000 persons, including ten magistrates, praying for an inquiry into the circumstances which had justified the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respiting the prisoner, and afterwards commuting his sentence. He could not say that the reply of the then Home Secretary the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), had given satisfaction to the midland counties. At the commencement of the following Session he again brought the subject before the House, and, referring to the opinion of Mr. Baron Bramwell, stated that he considered the manner in which the prerogative of mercy was exercised by the Home Secretary was most objectionable—that it constituted the Home Secretary a court of appeal in criminal cases—a court objectionable for these reasons—that it was private and secret, that only one side was heard, and that there was no power to examine on oath. His constituents felt that the case of Michael Atkins was almost identical with that of James Scott, and were dissatisfied with the course which had been taken. Michael Atkins was tried at the March Assizes, at Warwick, before Mr. Justice Hayres, and his case was fully gone into. The prisoner at first stated, that the death of his wife was the result of accident. Now it was a singular fact that a different plea was set up at the trial by a solicitor who had not seen the prisoner until just before the assizes. The impression in the court was that the Judge desired a verdict of manslaughter, but the jury returned a verdict

  851
  of wilful murder, and sentence of death was passed. The opinion of the whole district was that the verdict was a just one, but to the surprise of everyone the prisoner was respited. It had been his duty to wait on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, with a Petition from the inhabitants of Baddesley, which he would now read—
  "In the matter of Michael Atkins, a prisoner at present under sentence of death at Warwick Gaol.
  "To the Right Honourable Henry Austin Bruce, M.P., Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  "The Petition of the undersigned inhabitants of Baddesley Ensor, in the county of Warwick, and of the immediate neighbourhood, sheweth—

  "1. The said Michael Atkins was tried at the late Spring Assizes at Warwick for the murder of his wife, by shooting her with a gun, and was convicted and sentenced to death.

  "2. Your petitioners are informed that the defence set up by the prisoner's counsel in his behalf at the trial was that it was an accident; but the jury after a patient hearing of the case, decided to the contrary.

  "3. Your petitioners are further informed that after the trial the prisoner's solicitor forwarded a memorial on his behalf to the Home Secretary, but what were the contents of such memorial, or whether any one on behalf of the prisoner had an interview with the Home Secretary, your petitioners do not know; but the result has been that the sentence of death has not been carried out.

  "4. Your petitioners read with astonishment that on Thursday, the 22nd April, the Home Secretary stated, in his place in the House of Commons, that an examination of the evidence had satisfied himself and the Judge who tried the case, that the prisoner had been wrongly convicted, and that the whole affair was an accident.

  "5. Your petitioners, and the inhabitants of this neighbourhood generally, concur with the verdict of the jury; but they are now apprehensive that the Home Secretary will advise Her Majesty to grant the prisoner a free pardon, and they consider that if such were to be the case there would be a grievous failure of justice.

  "6. Your petitioners object strongly on principle to the verdict of a jury on a matter of fact being practically reversed on reconsideration of the same evidence which was laid before the jury, and in this case they are informed that the prisoner's defence was fully summed up and explained to the jury by the learned Judge, and they believe that a jury of twelve men who had heard and seen the witnesses are the best possible judges of the facts of a case.

  "7. If any new facts have been laid before the Home Secretary on behalf of the prisoner your petitioners think that they ought not to be accepted until an inquiry has been made as to their truth, and as to whether there are any new facts on the other side, and that a free pardon should not be granted on such ex parte statements.

  "Your petitioners, therefore, pray that Her Majesty may not be advised to deal with the prisoner otherwise than as persons found guilty of
  852
  murder, but not executed, are usually dealt with, and that the verdict of the jury be upheld."
  (Signed by S. M. HALLSWORTH, F.R.G.S., and many others.)
  On the 23rd of April, in reply to a Question by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) the Home Secretary made the following statement:—
  "The third case was that of Michael Atkins, at Warwick, for the murder of his wife, who was respited. An examination of the evidence, confirmed by the opinion of the learned Judge, satisfied him that this man had been wrongfully convicted. The Judge who tried the case stated that the verdict had taken him by surprise, and that the death of the woman was, in his opinion, caused by accident."
  Now, according to the best legal advice which he could obtain, if the woman had met her death by accident the prisoner, the mere innocent witness of that accident, should have been immediately liberated. He was, however, detained on the authority of the Secretary of State. At the Autumn Quarter Sessions the question was considered by the justices, and what was their astonishment to receive the following explanation in a letter from the Home Office:—
  "Whitehall, 13th August, 1869.
  "Gentlemen,—Her Majesty having been pleased to grant a pardon to the prisoner named on the margin (Michael Atkins), on condition that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the term of one year, to be computed from the date of his conviction, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Bruce to request that you will cause the prisoner to be warned at the expiration of his sentence of imprisonment that on account of the public feeling which exists in the place where the death of his wife occurred, it would be imprudent for him to return there.—I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, "A. F. O. LIDDELL.
  "The Visiting Justices of the County Prison, Warwick."
  It thus appeared that the original sentence had been commuted to one of hard labour. Murder was an offence of which a man must either be guilty or innocent, and if the man were innocent he should have been liberated at once. The sentence awarded by the Home Secretary would have been appropriate for the crime of manslaughter, but he did not know under what power or statute, or under what principle of law, the right hon. Gentleman could convert a verdict and sentence of murder into a verdict and sentence of manslaughter, and then inflict a penalty for the latter offence. He did not deny the almost unlimited power which the Home Secretary pos-

  853
  sessed in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, but it had certainly astonished all with whom he had conversed upon the subject, that after having respited the man for months, the Home Secretary should have suddenly declared that he was guilty of an offence for which he had never been convicted, and for which, he had never been sentenced. Early that evening he (Mr. Newdegate) had received information that the prisoner had been liberated—he supposed, at the expiration of the term of one year dated from the conviction—but of that he was not certain. Up to that morning the information he possessed led him to suppose that the man would not be liberated until the end of this or the beginning of next month. The officials of the gaol had used every attention to prevent the man from going back to Baddesley—the parish where the poor woman met her death, but all their efforts had been unavailing. The man was of a peculiar character, and not easily controlled, and though he had been offered money and an outfit to emigrate, he had refused them. If his information were correct, the man was within two miles of Baddesley yesterday morning, and it was said that he was going on to that place. He (Mr. Newdegate) was sorry to say, however, that the inhabitants of Baddesley, and the immediate neighbours of Atkins, felt strongly that the verdict of the jury ought to have been upheld, and it was apprehended he would meet with violence if he attempted to return to that place. This was altogether a remarkable case. The right hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity of stating what new facts had been submitted to him, but he (Mr. Newdegate) had not heard of any new fact whatever that had come out since the trial. He held in his hand the assurance of his brother justices with whom he had acted for years—some of whom had held judicial offices abroad, and who were thoroughly competent magistrates—that the allegation that the affair was the result of accident was fully brought our before the Court, and that the late Mr. Justice Hayes, the Judge who tried the case, took particular pains to elicit that phase of it, and yet the jury came deliberately to the opinion that the poor woman met her death by a wilful act of violence. He had stated these facts plainly and strongly because this was not the first time that the in-
  854
  habitants of the midland counties had felt themselves aggrieved by the manner in which the verdicts of juries and the sentences of Judges in capital cases had been dealt with by the Home Secretary. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state what new facts had come under his notice, and what it had been that had determined the Judge to recommend the reversal of the sentence he had pronounced, and what had induced the right hon. Gentleman himself to exercise the prerogative of the Crown, not in the ordinary way by a free pardon, but by a tardy commutation from one punishment to another.
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, considering how strongly the hon. Gentleman views the impropriety of my conduct in remitting this sentence, it seems rather strange that he should have allowed his indignation and dissatisfaction to slumber for so long a time as a twelvemonth, but I trust the explanation I shall give will allay his misgivings altogether. The case is a very simple and a very clear one. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned another case which he says excited great local dissatisfaction, where a right hon. Gentleman—a predecessor of mine—extended the mercy of the Crown to a man convicted of murder. But that was a case where the murder had been committed in open day, and where there was no question of fact in dispute at all, the only question being whether mercy should so far be extended to the criminal as to prevent the sentence of death being carried out. In this case, however, the only question was a question of fact—had a murder really been committed or not? The trial took place on the 1st of March; and it was on the 6th of March, before any petition had reached me, or before any person whatever had seen me with regard to it—indeed, I believe I saw nobody on the subject but the I learned Judge himself—that a letter came to me from the learned Judge, in which he expressed his surprise at the verdict given by the jury, and his strong hope that the sentence of death would not be carried out. As the hon. Gentleman has suggested, the belief expressed by the learned Judge in his letter, and, indeed, my own personal opinion after consideration of the evidence, was that this lamentable event was the result of an accident. Now, what were the facts of the case? This

  855
  man Atkins had been married about two years. During the earlier portion of that time there had been constant misunderstandings and quarrels between him and his wife, but for the last six months of their married life the evidence showed that they had lived happily together. She was expecting her confinement every day when this event took place. On the day of her death, it was proved in evidence, he came to her with his week's wages; and it was also proved—or rather, I think, it came to my knowledge subsequently, and was not given in evidence—that he had been endeavouring to purchase for her a little dog which he thought she would like to have. Between ten and cloven o'clock at night a shot was hoard, and the neighbours in the next house, the walls being very thin, heard Atkins exclaim, "Oh, Harriet, Harriet—let no man say that I killed you." He went out into the street and met a man, to whom he said—and this really constitutes the only evidence in the case against him—that his wife had shot herself. He took no steps whatever to support that statement, inasmuch as the gun from which the shot had been fired was found hanging upon the peg where it usually rested. The learned Judge summed up, as he said in his letter, not for a conviction for murder, but rather for a verdict of manslaughter. He told the jury that if they were not satisfied of the evidence of murder, there were circumstances which would justify a verdict of manslaughter, inasmuch as culpable negligence had been proved against the prisoner. The man had been in the habit of going out poaching at night. He had a gun which had been recently mended, and the man who mended it had warned them both to be very careful with it, because the lock was so weak that the gun might very easily go off. The statement of the man, which was believed to be true by the learned Judge, was, that his wife, being near her confinement, was nervous, and had endeavoured to prevent him from going out poaching; that there had been a struggle for the possession of the gun, and that the gun had gone off accidentally, when the man, horrified at what had happened, rushed into the street, and fearing that suspicion might be thrown upon himself, he then and there attributed his wife's death, not to accident,
  856
  but to her own act. The learned Judge having stated his opinion to me, I appeal to the experience of those who have filled this office before me, and to the experience of those who have observed these cases, to say whether it would have been possible for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to have permitted the sentence of death to be carried out. The learned Judge displayed the utmost anxiety that it should not be carried out, and I do not believe that a case has ever occurred, since the power of dealing with sentences was placed in the hands of the Secretary of State, in which a sentence of death has been put in force against the opinion of the Judge who tried the case. Now, for the latter part of the case. The hon. Gentleman says that if the man was not guilty his position was one greatly to be pitied, and he should have received a free pardon. Such, indeed, was my own view at first, and that was embodied in the first Minute which I wrote of the case. But when I consulted the learned Judge, he said that in his opinion there had been an amount of culpable negligence on the part of the man that justified the infliction of some punishment upon him. He said he had told the jury that they might find a verdict of manslaughter, inasmuch as there had been that culpable negligence; and upon my asking him what sentence he would have passed upon the prisoner if a verdict of manslaughter had been returned by the jury, he said he would have imposed a sentence of either twelve or eighteen months' imprisonment. I appeal to the House to say what anyone invested with the responsibility of the office I hold could have done under these circumstances. The position of a Home Secretary is a very difficult one. He is often accused of acting in secret and upon his own more opinion. No doubt secresy is imposed upon him; but it is his duty, and I know it has been the practice of all who have held the office, to obtain the best advice, and above all the advice of the Judge, as to what should be done in such a case. I think the House will be of opinion that I could not do otherwise than act upon the opinion of the learned Judge. Such is a simple statement of the case. With respect to the letter written to the visitors of Warwick Gaol, I think the hon. Gentleman has not been alto-

  857
  gether candid. He must know very well that that letter was written inconsequence of a letter addressed to me by the rector of the parish. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: I was not aware of that.] The rector wrote to tell me that the state of feeling in the parish was strongly against the man, and that it was of great importance that he should not return while that state of feeling existed, and I therefore felt it to be my duty to write to the visitors of the gaol, expressing a hope that when his sentence expired he should be warned of the existence of that feeling, in order that he might go elsewhere. I rejoice to hear that efforts were made to provide him with the means of going elsewhere. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Made by our own body.] I have now only to explain how it was that I was unable to give a precise answer to the hon. Gentleman when he asked me whether the prisoner had or had not been released. The fact was that it was impossible for me to contradict the statement that he had been released, or to assert that he had. The sentence was passed on the 1st of March, but as the conviction dates back to the first day of the assizes, and as I did not know how long the assizes might have been sitting when the trial took place, it was impossible for me to say whether or not the man had been already liberated. My first impression was that he was still in gaol; but it is possible that the hon. Gentleman's information may be correct, and that he had been seen in his native parish. It is very possible there may be a strong fooling against the man in his native parish; but I trust that when the report of the present discussion has been published, and the reasons for the revision of the sentence become known to the inhabitants, that state of public feeling which has been described by the hon. Gentleman as dangerous to this man's safety will be greatly mitigated, and eventually pass away. In conclusion, I can only repeat that, under the circumstances, it was impossible for me to act otherwise than I have done.
  Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

WAR OFFICE BILL— [BILL 30.]
(Mr. Cardwell, Captain Vivian.)
WAR OFFICE BILL— [BILL 30.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Appointment of Financial Secretary of War Office.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was desirous of further information concerning the precise duties to be imposed on the Financial Secretary. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say yesterday evening that the Clerk of the Ordnance would prepare and be responsible to the Secretary of State for the Estimates. Now, he desired to know whether the duties of the Financial Secretary would clash in any way with those of the Under Secretary of State; also what distinction the right hon. Gentleman drew between the responsibility of the Clerk of the Ordnance and of the Financial Secretary? Then how could the Under Secretary of State have any position at all unless he were in some way connected with the Estimates, and, in the event of his sitting in the House of Commons, how would his functions be distinguished from those of the Financial Secretary? The House ought also to be informed why it was considered necessary that this new financial officer should have a seat in Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he required assistance in conducting the business of his Department in the House; but nevertheless it had not been explained why the right hon. Gentleman deemed it expedient that the Financial Secretary should go out of office with the Government. It appeared to him that it would be a very serious and important change to make so many of the principal officers in the War Office removable with the Government. A parallel had on the previous evening been drawn between the War Department and the Admiralty; but it ought to be borne in mind that although the Secretary of State for War must, in order to save time, have assistance in conducting business in the House, yet he was a great officer in himself, and was not at all in the same position as the First Commissioner of the Treasury or the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he should be extremely happy to give the desired explanation, though he feared it would be a mere repetition of what he stated last night. It was, in his opinion, desirable that the Financial Secretary should have a seat in the House, because it was highly important that the control and superintendence of the House of Commons over the finances should be immediate and direct. Everyone who was acquainted with the weight of the financial business transacted at the War Office must acknowledge the necessity of having an officer particularly charged with information to assist the Secretary of State and make explanations in that House. The Office, he feared, might break down, even in time of peace, and he was convinced it must do so in time of war, unless increased assistance were provided. The proposed new officer would not have sufficient authority unless he occupied a seat in that House, and was in direct communication with it. With regard to the distinction between the two officers, he would remark that he did not state yesterday evening that the Clerk of the Ordnance would be responsible for the whole of the Estimates. On the contrary, he said that he would only be responsible for the Estimates for the Control Department, or rather for their first preparation, and that for the final review of the Estimates the Secretary of State would be responsible, he having previously received the report of the Financial Secretary. That appeared to him to be a very clear distinction, and one which it was very important for many reasons to maintain. Then with regard to the Parliamentary Under Secretary, he had before stated that in all probability the Secretary of State would usually sit in this House inconsequence of the great expenditure of the War Department; but whichever House the Secretary of State sat in, the Parliamentary Under Secretary would be the principal representative of the Department in the other House. With regard to the number of Parliamentary representatives of the War Department, they were much more numerous a few years ago; and it had been frequently stated in the course of these discussions that much greater economy would have been effected in the Department if so much diminution of Parliamentary power had not occurred. He thought there
  860
  was some truth in that remark, and believed that if the changes proposed by the Bill were adopted, great economy would be the result, to say nothing of other advantages.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that when he was at Downing Street an investigation was going on with regard to the War Office, and he twisted, therefore, that he might be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. One of the great points formerly raised had reference to the relations which ought to subsist between the Controller-in-Chief and the gentleman who undertook the financial arrangements under the Secretary of State. After some discussion between the Treasury and the War Office, it was agreed that there should be an officer at the War Office to look after the financial arrangements, and that he should be equal in authority to the Controller-in-Chief. It was also laid down that he must be a civilian. Mr. Douglas Galton, who held that office before the Control system was established, had quitted the War Office, and been appointed to a situation in the Office of Works. He wished, therefore, to know whether the office which that gentleman had held had been abolished, and whether one of the new officers was to be considered as occupying his position? He wished also to learn from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Financial Secretary would have co-ordinate authority with the Clerk of the War Office; whether all matters of expenditure would be submitted to his observation before they were reviewed by the Secretary of State; and, finally, whether he would always be a civilian?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the office previously held by Mr. Douglas Galton would not be filled up, and the Financial Secretary would discharge the duties. It was intended to define the precise nature of the duties of the several officers by Orders in Council, which would be laid upon the table. He could not recollect how far the duties precisely answered to the Treasury Letter to which his right hon. Friend referred; but he was certain that the intention was to make the officers of equal authority and rank, and the final financial form of the Estimates would come under the notice of the Financial Secretary. He must, however, guard himself against being supposed to say that any

  861
  of the business would be done twice over, and that what was done by one officer would be done over again by another. But he did intend that the financial control should be complete, and that the Secretary of State should be the person to decide in case any question for decision should arise.
  MR. HUNTsaid, his right hon. Friend had not distinctly answered the question whether the Financial Secretary was always to be a civilian, as proposed in the Treasury Minute, and accepted by the War Office?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was not aware that it was intended to appoint any one but a civilian. At any rate, whoever was appointed would be a Member of that House, and would, he trusted, enjoy the confidence of Parliament.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to ask whether there had been any correspondence between the War Office and the Treasury upon this subject; and, if so, whether it would be laid upon the table before the discussion on the Bill was resumed?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the principal official correspondence related to the formation of a Committee, of which Lord Northbrook was the Chairman, and his light hon. Friend (Mr. Stansfeld) was a member. When their Report had been considered by the Government, it would be laid upon the table—certainly before the third reading of the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COINAGE BILL— [BILL 13.]
(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stansfeld.)
COINAGE BILL— [BILL 13.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. HUNTsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, but to make one or two remarks with regard to some of the clauses with a view to their amendment before the next stage. For the chief part, it was a Consolidation Bill; but the principal portion in which
  862
  there was any change was that in which the office of the Master of the Mint was conferred upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being. He was not aware that there was any objection to that proposal; but he did not suppose it was intended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be the "Worker" as well as the Master and Warden of the Mint. He did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman himself intended to "work" the Mint. It would therefore be better if that expression were taken out of the Bill. In the patents under which the Master of the Mint was appointed there had hitherto been a condition inserted providing that he should give a security of £2,000 for the discharge of his duties. He did not see that the right hon. Gentleman had provided that any security was in future to be exacted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the right hon. Gentleman possibly might have thought that, as no salary would be attached to the office, no security ought to be insisted upon. Again, by the 9th clause, it was provided—
  "Where, after the date in that behalf fixed by a proclamation under this Act, any person or body brings to the Mint any silver bullion, such bullion shall be assayed and coined, and delivered out to such person, at the rate of 62 s. for every 5,760 grains Imperial weight, or 373·24195 grams metric weight, of silver bullion of standard fineness so brought, in whatever denomination the same is coined."
  By the law as it at present stood the bullion was to be assayed and coined at the rate of 66 s. for every pound troy, a seigniorage of 4s. being exacted by the Mint. He presumed that the present rate was to be continued, and, if so, there was some obscurity in the wording of the clause. The fifth paragraph of the 12th clause provided that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, with the advice of Her Privy Council, from time to time proclamation—
  "To direct that any coin of mixed metal shall be current and be of a legal tender for the payment of any amount not exceeding the amount specified in the proclamation, and not exceeding £2."
  The amount of £2 rather tended to point at silver coinage, for that was the amount for which silver coinage was a legal tender; but by "mixed metal," silver coinage could hardly be meant, and it would be well to define the term in the interpretation clause so as to make it exclude silver coinage. With regard to the sixth paragraph, which provided—

  863
  "That coins coined in any foreign country shall be current, and be a legal tender, at such rates, up to such amounts, and in such portion of Her Majesty's dominions as may be specified in the proclamation,—"
  It might occasionally be necessary to make foreign coins a legal tender in some of our colonies, but such a course had never yet been deemed requisite in this country, and if anything of the kind were done it should be done not by proclamation, but by Act of Parliament. He would ask whether it was intended under this clause to make foreign coins at an early date legal tender in this country, and, if not, he would suggest the substitution of "British dominions" for "Her Majesty's dominions," as the former term was explained in the interpretation clause to relate to the colonies.
  MR. HERMONsaid, that the 8th clause, in stating that silver coins would be received, and an equal amount given in exchange, could scarcely intend to imply that the same number of new silver coins would be exchanged for old ones irrespective of weight. He would therefore suggest the employment of the words "equal in weight," instead of "equal in amount." The word "shall" in the second section of Clause 7, which would render it compulsory upon every person taking coins not of the legal weight to break them, might, he thought, with advantage be altered to "may."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is the law at present.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that Clause 7, no doubt, was in perfect conformity with the law as it now stood, but it would be desirable that the law should be more clearly defined. Under the clause in the Bill, if a person were to give a light sovereign at a railway station the clerk would be bound to cut and deface it, or if he himself were to lose a bet to his right hon. Friend, and were to pay him with a light sovereign—which he certainly should do if he could—his right hon. Friend would be bound to deface it, or failing to do so, would be liable to be indicted for a misdemeanour, and possibly brought before two justices to be dealt with at their discretion. The law upon this point affected bankers, and others who were in the habit of receiving large sums of money, very seriously. There could be no doubt that the state of the gold coinage was most unsatisfactory, and it was perfectly well
  864
  known that in large banking establishments, where it was impossible to guard against the taking of light coins over the counter, serious losses were yearly experienced. In the case of the Bank of England alone the loss suffered from this cause was between £4,000 and £5,000 a year. They, perhaps, were exceptionally placed in this matter; but the way in which other banking establishments were, to some extent, enabled to protect themselves was that they were fortunate in possessing customers who had to pay large sums in wages every week, and by this means it happened that much of the light coin was passed again into circulation. There could be no doubt that this clause in the Bill raised the whole question of light coin. It was a serious question, and he remembered that in 1843, when it was last under consideration, great discontent was occasioned. But it was one which, sooner or later, his right hon. Friend would be compelled to face. The point in the Bill, however, which would chiefly need consideration was the 12th clause, referring to the regulations by proclamation. The third head in that clause would enable Her Majesty, with the advice of the Privy Council, to determine the current weight of any coin, not being less than the weight (if any) specified in the first Schedule to the Act; whereas the 3rd clause provided that all coins made at the Mint of the denominations mentioned in the first Schedule should be of the weight and fineness specified in that Schedule, and that the standard pieces of coin should be made accordingly. There was hero a contradiction in the terms of the Bill which, if not removed, would lead to considerable misapprehension. Again, the terms used in the 6th head of Clause 12, in reference to coins coined in any foreign country, gave rise to the impression that it was intended to legalize the introduction of particular coins into this country. At least, the necessary power for that purpose was reserved. If any such intention was entertained, it ought to be stated frankly to the House; and he begged, therefore, to ask his right hon. Friend directly whether it was intended to introduce the new 25-franc piece? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Certainly not.] He was glad to receive that assurance. But the suggestion that foreign coins might be put in circulation in this country was not

  865
  a mere surmise, for in 1797, when, during the war, there was a great scarcity of silver coin in this country, between 2,300,000 and 2,400,000 Spanish dollar coins were rendered current after receiving the stamp of the Mint, which consisted in having the head of the Sovereign imprinted on the neck of the Spanish Sovereign. Those dollars were made current at the rate of 4s. 9d., and supplied a great want at the time. He concurred fully in the object of the Bill, so far as it referred to not filling up the vacancy caused by the death of Mr. Graham, and to the consolidation of the laws on the coinage. On the whole, the Bill seemed to realize the object which the right hon. Gentleman had announced his wish to attain when he obtained leave for its introduction.
  MR. BARNETTsaid, that those who, like himself, were engaged in the transmission of coin from one hand to another, looked with some anxiety upon the terms of the 7th clause. It was most desirable that bankers and the public should know exactly to what penalties the Bill would render them liable. It was a thing to be lamented that so much light coin was in circulation; but in the ordinary mercantile and business transactions of life it was impossible to subject coins to such an exact scrutiny as the Bill seemed to contemplate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, if the object of this Bill were to draw up a new code of regulations for the Mint, there are many things in it which I should desire to alter. The object, however, was simply to gather together and to present to Parliament in a single Act the whole of the law, as it stands with relation to coinage, a thing which has never been done before. This Bill has been compiled from a variety of sources—Orders in Council, Mint Indentures, and Proclamations as well as Acts of Parliament—and embodies a great amount of financial lore which previously was simply inaccessible. The object I had in view was to gather all these together, so that the House and the public might have, for the first time, a view of what the law relating to the Mint really is. The 7th section, at which hon. Gentlemen have expressed alarm, I do not press at all; I should not have made it a misdemeanour not to deface light coin. It appears in the Bill because it is the law; but I have never heard of any one
  866
  being so charged. We may do one of two things with regard to it; we may either leave it out altogether, or we may retain the clause, and insert in it some small penalty to be recovered before justices that shall be a reality. As to light coin, I have no wish to prejudge that question at all. I very much doubt, at the same time, whether any law that may be enacted will induce people to refuse money which they think they can pass again, or to disoblige customers by breaking up their money before their faces. I am very much, obliged to hon. Gentlemen for the care with which they have read this Bill, and for the valuable criticisms which they have offered. Of these I shall endeavour to avail myself as far as possible, and with that object I propose to commit the Bill on Monday—not for the purpose of going on with it then, but of introducing such Amendments as I hope will enable it to pass with the least amount of trouble. As to the word "worker," the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in his criticism; it is the old style of the office, but there is no reason why it should longer be retained. That officer was really one who worked as a contractor for the Government. Then, as to the security, I left that out, partly for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman suggests—in the spirit of the Latin proverb, qui non sentit commodum non debet sentire et onus—but chiefly because the transactions are upon such a scale that if any defalcation at all were to take place it would probably be upon so enormous a scale that any security which could with reason be asked—I do not say from myself merely, but from any public officer—must be altogether insignificant by comparison. I therefore did not think it worth while to put in a clause upon the subject. Clause 8 was very properly included by the draftsman; but, practically. I believe the coin is brought to us by the Bank of England, who get new shillings for old ones. That clause, however, is also one which may be included in the reconsideration which we shall give to the clauses generally. It is quite necessary that the standard of value being gold, coin should be protected by the strictest safeguards, and there has been a disposition to apply the same rule to silver; but silver is not a standard, it is only a token. The reason, therefore, for regulating the right to obtain a certain num-

  867
  ber of sovereigns according to the exact amount of gold delivered does not apply to silver. For that reason I should propose to leave out that part of the clause relating to the coinage of silver bullion—"It shall be assayed and coined at the rate of 62 s.," that is, we give 62 s. and keep 4s. for ourselves. The clause has always been a dead letter, and it had better be omitted. It is better to leave the Mint free in regard to silver, to act without any clause in the Act of Parliament. Then with regard to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Governor of the Bank (Mr. Crawford), as to increasing the current weight of the coin, all these powers seem very large, but they are powers which Her Majesty already possesses. She has very large prerogatives in the matter of money, and if they were not recited in the Bill it might be supposed that we were anxious to impose restrictions upon them. But the object of this particular clause is, as was proposed by the International Congress which recently sat at Paris, that the amount of alloy should be altered in the coin from 11–12ths to 9–10ths, the amount of gold remaining exactly the same. That would increase the bulk of the coin, and if in future it should be thought necessary to alter our coin in that respect—as the International Congress thought would be very desirable—we should then have power to alter the size though not the value of the coin. That is the explanation I have to offer of that part of the Bill. Then, as to another point, the Queen has now, I apprehend by prerogative, a power to introduce into any of her dominions any coin she pleases. That right has frequently been acted upon in the Colonies. There is nothing more curious than the history of the colonial coinage. In New South Wales it consisted of a dollar and a dump, or a piece of silver punched out of the dollar. The dollar circulated for so much, and the dump for so much less. That was at first the whole coinage of New South Wales. The House need not be jealous of this power. It could only be exercised by proclamation of the Privy Council. These provisions were put ill the Bill, not from any value attached to them, but because they were part of the existing law, and I felt I should not have beer justified in announcing a Bill for consolidating the Law relating to the Coinage
  868
  had I excluded these matters. I am not aware that I have omitted anything calling for explanation; if any hon. Member wishes further explanation, I shall be happy to give it. One thing I have myself observed in the Bill which I wish to alter. The Treasury has certain powers of controlling the Mint and the Pyx, and the Master of the Mint being represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, that would seem as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to act as a check upon I himself. I therefore propose to transfer the powers under Clause 14 to the Privy Council, to act by Orders in Council. There are several minor alterations which I intend to make in the Bill which I need not now explain. I propose, if the House will permit me, to go into Committee on Monday pro formâ, when I shall name a day as soon as possible to go on with the Bill, as considerable; inconvenience may arise from keeping-matters as they at present are. Only the other day an application was made to have a quantity of gold bullion coined. I stated that this could not legally be done while the question as to the Master of the Mint remained unsettled, and the reply I received was a threat that an action should be commenced against me
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

CLERICAL DISABILITIES BILL.—LEAVE.

  FIRST READING.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. HIBBERT, in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the relief of persons admitted to the office of Priest or Deacon in the Church, of England, and desiring to relinquish the same, said, that by the 70th canon it was provided that no deacon or priest who had been admitted to Holy Orders should henceforth voluntarily relinquish the same and use himself as a layman. In addition to that, Horne Tooke's Act, passed in 1801, disabled persons in Holy Orders belonging to the Church of England from sitting in that House. And later, by the Municipal Corporations Act persons in in Holy Orders were excluded from

  869
  holding municipal offices. Those were the three great disabilities under which clergymen laboured, and from which he wished to relieve them. He was anxious, by some formal and legal method, to allow those who had taken Orders, either as deacons or priests, to relinquish their offices in the Church, and thenceforward to become laymen. Of the number of 20,000 clergymen in this country who at the early ago of twenty-three had taken deacon's orders there were, no doubt, a considerable number who wished to retire from the ministry. Some had applied for admission to the Inns of Court. A few years ago they could not be admitted; but since then the whole of the Inns of Court had passed resolutions enabling clergymen to be called to the Bar, of course laying down certain rules for their government while at the Bar. There were others who, having entered the Church, had, in the course of time, become possessed of considerable property owing to the death of elder brothers. They had relinquished, as it were, their position in the Church and become landowners. These two bodies of persons, whom this Bill would relieve, would resume the position of laymen. At present a clergyman might be called to the Bar; but however distinguished he might become he could not be admitted to a seat in that House. Then there were numbers of gentlemen who from conscientious motives wished to leave the Church—or, rather, to relinquish their active duties in the Church and become laymen, and the Bill would enable them to do so. In the interest of the Church it was not desirable to retain as ministers men who no longer desired to perform the duties of the office. The Bill would, therefore, provide that a person wishing to relinquish the position of a clergyman of the Church might execute a deed of relinquishment of his office, which should be enrolled in Chancery, an official copy being delivered to the Bishop of the diocese whore the clergyman last held preferment. After the expiration of sis months from the reception of the deed the Bishop would cause the deed to be registered in his diocese, and then the person who executed the deed would cease to enjoy the rights, privileges, and exemptions attached to the office of minister of the Church, and would also be freed from the operation of the two Acts of Parliament he mentioned. To
  870
  meet the views of a certain portion of the Church the Bill contained a clause to enable the persons who had so relinquished the office of clergyman to execute a deed of revocation of the former deed, supposing that they desired to act again as ministers; and if the Archbishop and Bishop of the diocese consented to their again returning they would be able; to do so, but they would not be enabled to hold any preferment for two years after the reception by the Bishop of the deed of revocation. He believed that the Bill, or, at any rate, its introduction, would not be objected to by the Government, and he trusted that the same feeling which had actuated the House in I doing away with grievances affecting various classes would also animate it to remove the grievances of those gentlemen who, having once joined the Church as ministers, wished to retire from the office.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Motion for the introduction of the Bill, because he was well aware that there were some disabilities, as pointed out by the hon. Gentleman, under which ministers of the Established Church are said to labour, and from which they might, with proper cheeks and guards, be relieved. But there were many considerations that would have carefully to be taken into account before such a Bill as this was passed. The hon. Member said that the Government had no objection to the measure. He (Mr. Walpole) did not see any Cabinet Minister present; but he should like to hear an authoritative statement upon this matter, since this was a subject upon which the House would naturally look for their direction and guidance. Perhaps the secretary to the Board of Trade would direct the attention of the Government to the subject. One point which he thought ought to be borne in mind was—namely, that it was not either for the interest of the church or of those who undertook the office of minister of religion that too great facilities should be given them for relinquishing their office without just cause. The hon. Gentleman had pointed out that clergymen were bound by a solemn vow, and that as the law at present stood they could not release themselves from that vow during the whole of their lives. Now, what the hon. Member proposed to do was to introduce a serious change in this respect. But it appeared to him

  871
  (Mr. Walpole) that if gentlemen were to be allowed to enter the Church, and then to retire from their sacred office without adequate reasons, or even without assigning any reason whatever, it would be most objectionable that they should play fast and loose with so sacred a profession. In his opinion, no one ought to enter into Holy Orders unless he was deliberately determined to follow that profession; but this would hardly prove to be the case if the Bill were passed. As he had said, that was not all. The hon. Gentleman's Bill proposed to allow ministers of religion not only to retire from their profession without assigning any adequate reason, but it gave them leave to return to it. He feared that if such a proposal were sanctioned, there would be considerable risk of clergymen retiring from the Church, and adopting another profession by way of experiment, and then if the experiment failed going back again to their former profession. He had no wish to place difficulties in the way of legitimately relieving persons from disabilities; but he objected to playing fast and loose with so sacred a matter as the holy office in question. He would give the Bill his best consideration; but he could not pledge himself to support it unless restrictions which it did not appear to contain should be introduced.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not intend to discuss the merits of the proposed Bill at present; but, as the absence of the Cabinet Ministers had been alluded to, he thought it right to state that the Notice of Motion for the introduction of the Bill had not escaped the attention of the Prime Minister, who thought it desirable that the measure should be laid on the table, so that the House might have the opportunity to form a better opinion as to its provisions than it could do at the present moment. There was no doubt that, on the proper occasion, the weighty remarks of the right hon. Gentleman would receive due attention.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to I move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the relief of persons admitted to the office of Priest or Deacon in the Church of England, and desiring to relinquish the same.
  Resolution reported;—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. JOHN LEWIS, and Mr. BIDDULPH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 49.]

  SUMMARY CONVICTIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DENMAN, Bill to amend the Law relating to first Convictions for certain Offences, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DENMAN, Mr. CROSS, and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 50.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.