Sitting of 10 July 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Captain PECHELL, from Petworth, Midhurst, and Steyning, for a Speedy Commutation of Tithes.

THAMES TUNNEL COMPANY.
Mr. Waltersaid, that the subject to which he would now beg leave to call the attention of the House, and that of the Speaker particularly, involved the most essential privilege of that House. It might perhaps be recollected, that he mentioned some time ago, the rumour, that an advance of money to a certain Company, called the Thames Tunnel Company, had been made by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) then suspended his further proceeding, by promising to show him any document existing in his department that might explain the matter. The right hon. Gentleman had obligingly fulfilled his engagement; and the result had been, that the suspicions which he (Mr. Walter) originally entertained had been fully verified, and that money had been obtained under the authority of the House, but absolutely without its knowledge. His first impression was, to ask for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the affair; but finding that this mode of proceeding would certainly be opposed—why, he could not tell, though it added to his surprise—he now felt it his duty to bring the subject before the House; and he trusted he might not improperly do so on a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply. He would briefly read a statement of this transaction, which had ended in a Bill empowering the Treasury to lend to this Company the sum of 270,000 l. The first application made to the Treasury was in the year 1828. The Directors stated, that they had then completed nearly one-half of the work under the bed of the river, but that the work was stopped for want of funds, and they prayed for such aid as to their Lordships' wisdom might seem meet. The minute of the Treasury replied to this, that their Lordships did not feel that they would be justified in proposing to Parliament to afford assistance to enable the Directors to complete the work. The next step

401
taken to which he had to refer was a series of Resolutions passed at a public meeting in July, 1829. One of those Resolutions stated that the sum of 170,000 l. was the total of the expenditure to that time; and that the sum of 200,000 l. more, which the Directors, under the authority of a second Act of Parliament, had been permitted to raise, did appear to the meeting to promise to be more than equal to all the future probable exigences of the work. He would here mention that the Company, in their first Act, had considered 160,000 l. as the probable amount of making the said tunnel, and other works and conveniences necessary thereto. This further sum of 200,000 l. it was proposed to raise by donations, and debentures of 20 l. and upwards. The Duke of Wellington very liberally subscribed 500 l., and right hon. Gentlemen then in office with his Grace also subscribed largely. Soon afterwards the Secretary of the Company wrote to the Treasury, begging them to remit the Stamp-duty of 1l. 15 s., to which the debentures were liable. With this request also their Lordships very properly refused compliance. The public did not respond to the call made upon them for donations or debentures, and this plan failed.
Mr. Francis Baringrose to order. He confessed he was rather taken by surprise by the course which had been pursued by the hon. Member. There was no notice on the Orders of the Day on the subject of his Motion; and his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was altogether unaware that such a discussion as the present would come on this evening.
Mr. Waltersaid, it was no fault of his that the notice he had given on this subject did not appear on the Orders of the Day. He inquired of the Clerk, several days ago, why it had not been repeated; and was told, that it should appear in time for the Committee of Supply. He had also been informed this morning by a gentleman connected (as we understood) with the Government whose name he would not mention, that he would have an opportunity this evening of bringing forward his Motion. Under these circumstances he should persevere. The next application to the Treasury for aid was in March 1831. The Company stated, that they had completed 600 feet of the tunnel, leaving only 700 yet to be constructed; that they had then, expended 182,000 l.;
402
and that the cost of completing the remainder of the undertaking, according to the most liberal estimate, would not exceed 300,000 l. They then, in order to raise this sum, offered to mortgage to the Government their future tolls, which they estimated at 15,000 l. a-year. They referred to an interview they had had with the Duke of Wellington and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in March, 1829. The answer which was returned to them by the Treasury, on the 20th of May, 1829, stated that there were no funds, nor did the Government intend to place any, at the disposal of the Commissioners for making advances for public works—nor did the Government consider it would be proper to depart from that intention in favour of this particular work. It appeared, however, that the Duke of Wellington, notwithstanding his previous refusal, had been further pressed upon the subject; for his Grace was stated to have replied in a letter of the 27th of May, 1829, to some application, that on considering the matter with his colleagues, they had thought it best not to bring the matter before Parliament that year, either in the way of aid direct from the Treasury, or by lottery (of which a plan had been suggested to his Grace for this purpose); but his Grace added, that he thought it probable they should be enabled to bring the subject forward in the next Session. His Grace, however, though he remained in office during the next Session, did not bring forward the subject, but subscribed his own money in the manner mentioned. The reply of the Treasury, on the 19th of April, 1831, was highly proper: the parties were informed, that the Lords were not disposed to recommend or sanction any application to Parliament for pecuniary assistance. In October of the same year, 1831, the Directors again memorialized the Treasury; they again said, that nearly half the work was completed; that only 255,000 l. was wanted to finish it; that they were authorized by the proprietors to apply to the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer-bills in aid of public works for that sum, and to give such securities as might be required, on the property, estate, effects, tolls, and revenue of the Company—on condition, however, that the proprietors should not be made personally liable to any further advance for completing the undertaking, in case the expense of the same should exceed the

403
aforesaid estimate for such completion. The Lords of the Treasury directed that the parties should be informed, that it would be premature on the part of the Lords to express an opinion till the object came recommended by the Commissioners for the loan of Exchequer bills.—In November, 1832, the Directors transmitted a new memorial to the Treasury, enclosing a Bill prepared by their solicitor, to be presented, next Session, to extend the period of their powers, and introducing a clause giving sufficient authority to the Exchequer-bill Commissioners to make such advances as the nature of the undertaking might require. This memorial was endorsed "Thames Tunnel Company, for the sanction of the Crown to a Clause in the Bill authorizing the loan of Exchequer-Bills without requiring personal security for the same." The answer to this last memorial was, that the Company were at liberty to introduce the Clause, but that it must be so framed as not to commit the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, or the Treasury, in their final determination.—The Bill introduced into Parliament, to which he referred at the outset, passed the House in August 1833, but nothing was done upon it till July, 1834, when a new memorial was sent in, praying the Treasury to send a warrant to the Exchequer-bill Commissioners, authorizing them to issue Exchequer-bills, or advance money, to the memorialists, to the extent of 246.000 l., upon the security mentioned in the said Act, to be repaid with interest, commencing when tolls should begin to be taken, out of the annual profits. The Lords of the Treasury hereupon requested the opinion of the Commissioners for the loan of Exchequer-bills as to the arrangements which should be thought necessary, in case their Lordships should be disposed to exercise the discretion vested in them. The Commissioners in reply, advised that the advances should be first applied in completing the most hazardous part of the undertaking: they recommended that the money should be given by instalments, and the progress of the works watched as they consumed the instalments; but the Commissioners were wholly silent as to any investigation into the nature of the securities offered, feeling themselves, no doubt, precluded by the wording of the Act from instituting such an inquiry. He was justified in forming this conjecture, because he knew that in September, 1831,
404
they refused the application of the Company for 250,000 l., and also a second application in September, 1833,for 270,000 l. The final minute of the Treasury is dated October 10th, 1834, wherein the Lords did at last authorize the issue of 30,000 l. Such were the proceedings of the Treasury. He now came to show the manner in which the positive refusals and protracted reluctance of the Treasury and the Exchequer-bill Commissioners to part with any money upon such a scheme had been baffled and overcome by the unfortunate, and what he might call the unconscious intervention of Parliament. A very few days after the meeting of the first Reformed Parliament, viz., on the 19th of February, 1833, the first step was taken; and he (Mr. Walter) should read the history from the Journals, for he had no information except from that source; —1833, February 19th, Petition of the Thames Tunnel Company, praying leave to bring in a Bill to amend, extend, and enlarge the powers and provisions of the former Acts, and to enable the Company to raise a further sum of money. To be referred to a Committee, Mr. Gillon, &c., and to have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—March 22. Mr. Hawes presented a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Thames Tunnel Company, and to extend the powers thereby given for raising money for the completion of the said Tunnel. And the same was read the first time.—April 1. A Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Thames Tunnel Company, and to extend the powers thereby given for the completion of the said Tunnel, was read a second time and committed to Mr. Hawes, &c.—May 17. The Bill, with several amendments, was reported, and the Report ordered to lie on the Table. After this the Bill appeared to have been, what was called, "hung up" till August, with what view he (Mr. Walter) would leave the House to judge: in August, however, and amidst the hurry and confusion of a closing Session, the Bill was got through. He must now recur to that date when the second reading took place—viz., the 1st of April; and he would read an extract from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates:— "Monday, April 1, 1833. The Thames Tunnel.—Sir E. Codrington presented a Petition from the proprietors of the Thames Tunnel, praying for aid to enable them to complete that work. The petitioners said they

405
had already expended 170,000 l. in prosecuting it, and had surmounted difficulties which were never contemplated. They had already shown the practicability of the undertaking, and the only difficulty now was the want of funds. If Government would purchase the property, or allow it to be sold by lottery, the petitioners would be happy to meet such a proposition.— The Speaker inquired the prayer of the petition, and on being informed what it prayed for, he decided that, before it could be received, the sanction of the Government must be given. Petition withdrawn." * Having always had a very great suspicion of this undertaking, he (Mr. Walter) watched to see whether a new petition would be brought forward; but hearing nothing further, his vigilance was disarmed; for he could not have the least idea that a private Bill to effect the same object had been already read a second time. Early in March this year he first heard of the advance of 30,000 l. of the public money. For some time he did not believe it possible, but then took the steps he had already mentioned. The money which had been advanced, and which he had no doubt was lost, was not of so much consequence as the deviation from the established law of Parliament. He believed it to be the rule of the House that money should not be granted without the leave of the House; and this Bill, authorizing the payment of 270,000 l., had been got through totally without the knowledge of the House, under the disguise of a private Bill. To talk about security was ridiculous. The parties were screened from liability themselves, and the country was told it might have the works, which would be totally unproductive. A tunnel might be made, no doubt, in various ways, but at what expense? Nearly 200,000 l. had been already wasted; 270,000 l. more were asked for by the Act in question; and when that was spent he would venture to say that another 270,000 l. would then be found necessary for its completion. He stated this on no light authority. The money already given was totally thrown away, unless the House were content to vote at least half a million more for this project, which was carrying on, in more senses than one, in the dark; respecting which the Government had no information whatever, except such as it
* Hansard, (third series) vol. xvi, p. 133.
406
derived from the parties receiving the money, and who had been misleading the public from the very commencement of the undertaking. He could not conceive that the House would knowingly make such an improvident grant of the public money while so much general distress was diffused over the agricultural interest of the country. He thought that a considerable part of the money already advanced might yet be recovered, if the right hon. Gentleman would act with promptitude, and grant a Committee. That would be the most effectual mode of proceeding. He at least trusted that the discussion which might take place would put an end to any other draughts on the public purse. Before he sat down he would read a communication which he had received from a gentleman who took a great interest in the building London-bridge, and who firmly believed the proposed tunnel would never be completed. "They had not yet got," he said, "to the worst part of the river. Experience obtained in building the new London and Southwark-bridges had proved that the soil on the northern side of the river is springy, liable to quicksand, and in every respect more dangerous and difficult to work than the southern or Surrey side, on which the work has been commenced. To insure a reasonable prospect of success the tunnel ought to have been made several feet deeper. The work never could be accomplished without coffer-dams, and there is no timber long enough to make the piles in that part of the river. Timber from fifty-five to sixty feet long might be obtained fit for that purpose, but not longer, and it was with the greatest difficulty that timber of a sufficient length was obtained for the coffer-dams at new London-bridge. A Committee to examine practical engineers would be very desirable. The coffer-dams would cost all the money at present advanced, and would interrupt the passage of the river, if not wholly stop it." Another individual had informed him, that when the water broke in, there were only about seven feet of soil between the tunnel and the wash of the river. The most difficult part remained to be done. The channel of the river was on the Middlesex side. The tunnel was therefore about to approach a part of the river deeper than that under which it was at present, and therefore with less soil to cover the tunnel. The hon. Member concluded by moving

407
for—"a copy of any document under the authority of which the advance of the sum of 30,000 l. has been made to the Thames Tunnel Company; and for copies of the Reports, if any, of professional persons, made before the money was advanced, respecting the existing state of the tunnel, the estimated cost of completing the same, and the probability of future repayment."
Mr. Hawessaid, that as one of the Directors of that Company which had engaged in the undertaking with reference to which the speech of the hon. Member for Berkshire had just been made, he felt himself called upon to trouble the House with one or two observations, for the purpose of giving a direct answer to the extraordinary statement which had just been addressed to them, in the course of which allusion had been made to the question put a few days ago to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not having been in the House on that occasion, it was out of his power then to have said anything in the way of reply, but, had he been present, he certainly should have said that which he now felt bound to state—namely, that the hon. Member for Berkshire might, if he wished, have obtained the most full and accurate information from the books and papers of the Company, which were all open to him. He was told that every one of the books, that every document in the possession of the Company, was accessible, and that there was no information he could desire relating to their affairs that would not be cheerfully given. In reply to that offer they had not received the least communication from the hon. Member, and the only step which he thought proper to take in consequence of it, was to bring forward the present Motion, in a speech so full of details, or rather with the appearance of so much detail. He (Mr. Hawes) of course could not desire to address himself to that question otherwise than with the most perfect courtesy towards the hon. Member for Berkshire, but he felt bound by a sense of duty to affirm that the information upon which the speech of that hon. Member was made had not the slightest foundation. First, he thought it right to bring the matter forward on the ground of its being a breach of privilege, but having found it expedient not to rest entirely upon that ground, he complained of it as authorised by a Bill which had passed
408
through that House without his knowledge, which had escaped even his vigilance. Now, the hon. Member was altogether wrong if he supposed that the sums referred to had been advanced upon the authority of any individual Bill framed for that purpose. The circumstances of the case were these:—A sum of 1,000,000 l. had been placed at the disposal of Commissioners, to be applied to the carrying on, or in aid of public works. Of that 1,000,000 l. 30,000 l. had been advanced on the usual terms, and under the sanction of the Treasury; he was, therefore, warranted in saying, that there was not the slightest irregularity in any part of the transaction. A motion for papers was in such a case peculiarly unnecessary, for no document whatever had been withheld, or would be withheld, from any person whatever applying on public grounds. The hon. Member who introduced the subject had complained that no professional persons were consulted. Such a complaint could hardly have been anticipated in the present state of the works, for one-half of them was completed. Where was the necessity of consulting professional men on a matter which had already been sufficiently investigated, and respecting which no fresh information could reasonably be expected? How could it be considered that there was any further necessity for professional inquiry, when the main difficulties had been overcome? There had been two irruptions of the river, and nevertheless the work advanced, there was therefore nothing more to apprehend. The hon. Mover had referred to the circumstance that the original estimate was 160,000 l., that 270,000 l. had been expended, and that half a million more would be necessary. In reply to that he should say, it was to be recollected that original estimates of such works as that must of necessity be in a great degree conjectural; that conjecture had now been superseded by fact; and they could at length feel assured that the remaining half of the work would not cost more than that which had been already executed. Notwithstanding this, however, they had asked for the larger sum, considering that it was best to err upon the safe side. The hon. Member concluded by repeating, that in the present case there was no breach of privilege, and there was no Bill passed without the knowledge of Members generally.
Sir Robert Peeldid not understand the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Berkshire) as saying that any specific Bill had passed for the purpose of granting the sum mentioned to the Thames Tunnel Company.
Mr. Hawesbegged permission to interrupt the right hon. Baronet, and to appeal to the hon. Member for Berkshire himself as to the description he gave of the act under which it was alleged that the sum in question had been granted.
Mr. Waltersaid, he had the act in his pocket. It was the Thames Tunnel Act, and had received the Royal Assent on the 28th of August, 1833.
Mr. Hawessaid no money was advanced under that Act.
Sir Robert Peelobserved, that the hon. Member on the other side appeared to attach much more importance to the circumstance of the hon. Member for Berkshire not having gone to the office of the Company to inspect their books and papers than a matter of that sort appeared to deserve; it was surely no reflection on him that he had not done so, and it was perfectly natural that, as a Member of that House, he should now wish upon public grounds to obtain copies of public documents for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of money obtained, the terms upon which the advance was made, and the prospect which remained to the public of repayment, by the tolls or otherwise. As a Member of that House he had a right to call for that information, and to inquire the Parliamentary grounds of the whole proceeding. The hon. Member for Lambeth had attempted to answer the arguments on the subject of no engineers having been consulted in reference to the present grant, by saying that such a step had been rendered perfectly needless by reason of one-half of the work having been already completed, and that their knowledge of what that cost must necessarily enable them to know the probable cost of the remaining portion of the undertaking. Now, it was too much to assume that the cost of one portion of the work would not be greater than that of the other; surely such a mode of reasoning could not be expected to produce conviction in the minds of any hon. Member, and it was quite fitting that due inquiry should be made before a further advance of public money took place. Then, had not the House a right to obtain
410
some security, not only that the terms of the loan should be complied with, but that the undertaking itself would eventually be completed? For these reasons, he was quite of opinion that nothing could be more natural, more strictly Parliamentary, than the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that the speech of the hon. Mover had invited the discussion into which his hon. Friend behind him had entered; at the same time he fully acknowledged the right of inquiry. The House had every right to inquire how the money was to be applied, and what were the prospects as well of repayment as of the ultimate completion of the undertaking; and he, therefore, should not offer the slightest objection to the production of those documents for which the hon. Member for Berkshire moved; but he must be allowed to observe, that he thought the speech which the House had that night heard had much better been deferred until the requisition contained in the Motion was complied with. It would have been, in his opinion, much better to have put the House in possession of the documents first, and to have made the speech afterwards. Consenting to the Motion as he did without hesitation, he trusted he might be allowed to suggest, that its being moved as an Amendment to the question of going into a Committee of Supply was rather inconvenient; he trusted, therefore, that the hon. mover would consent to withdraw it for the present, with the understanding that, like all Motions made by consent, it might be brought on just before the rising of the house, when the hon. Gentleman would be allowed to make the Motion without opposition, or it would be made for him. He wished merely to add, that the grant to which the Motion referred was not made since he had received the appointment of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in the time of his noble Friend Lord Spencer. He felt, however, that the grant was in every respect defensible; it was surely expedient not to leave so great a public undertaking incomplete; it would in his opinion, be a kind of national reproach if it were not finished; still he was ready to admit that those considerations did not of themselves form sufficient grounds, and therefore reports had been made respecting the previous expenditure as well as the probable amount of the future cost.

411
As to the conversation which took place respecting a breach of privilege, or the passing of a Bill for the purpose, he had only to say that the money was granted in the regular way of performing an ordinary official act.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, there were many cases in which advances of money might be made with a view to an ultimate effect of public importance, and he did not say but there might frequently be presented to the executive Government objects likely to produce great public benefits; but in such cases there could not be a doubt that the opinion of Parliament ought to be taken, and the nature and the value of the undertaking, as well as the probabilities of repayment, should be submitted to the House. It was certainly his opinion, that when money was required for public purposes it would be dangerous to admit the practice of having it granted by orders from the Exchequer without giving Parliament any opportunity to judge of the prospects of repayment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I agree with the right hon. Baronet.
Mr. Waltersaid, the Commissioners appointed for the loan of Exchequer-bills on security of public works had twice refused any money to the Thames Tunnel Company—first in September, 1831, and next in September, 1833. The sum now granted, it appeared, had been obtained under the authority of an act of Parliament, of which he would venture to say that ninety-nine Members out of every hundred had no knowledge whatever. As to the offer that had been made to him, respecting an opportunity of inspecting books, papers, &c, he certainly had not availed himself of that offer by the hon. Member for Lambeth, for he preferred going to the fountain head, and he had taken all the pains in his power to verify the statements he had made, by reference to the most authentic sources of information; he, therefore, felt confident that they could not successfully be impugned; but it appeared to him best, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to adopt that right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He would, therefore, withdraw the Motion for the present, as its object would be attained at a more advanced hour of the evening.—Motion postponed.
On the Question, "that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,"

LAY PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Andrew Johnstonerose to bring forward, as an Amendment, the subject of which he had so long given notice, namely, Lay-patronage in Scotland. In doing so, he would endeavour to occupy as little of the time of the House as possible, by merely endeavouring to give a very brief and practical exposition of the present situation of the question, and then calling upon the House to grant the people of Scotland an indication of the manner in which the House was disposed to treat the subject. He was aware that the Scotch questions in general were not received with much cordiality by the House; but he thought he was peculiarly entitled to ask their attention, seeing how seldom such questions had been obtruded on them during the present Session.
Mr. Humehoped the hon. Member would excuse his interruption, but he put it to his own good sense, whether, as the inquiry into the whole subject had not terminated, the present was the time for bringing forward such a question, which could lead to no practical result.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonesaid the inquiry to which the hon. Member for Middlesex alluded was only on one part of the subject, namely, Church accommodation; the question of Church-patronage stood quite by itself. Besides, the hon. Member must be aware that a Committee of that House had inquired into the subject; their long Report was submitted last Summer, and the House certainly required no further information now. He (Mr. A. Johnstone) did therefore submit, that they could not at present require information, otherwise he assured the hon. Member he would be most happy to attend to his suggestion. He would then very briefly state those great evils which had pressed on the Church of Scotland from Lay-patronage, and had led him (Mr. A. Johnstone) and many others in Scotland, to come forward and ask for a remedy. It was that which he would press on his Motion. The evils had been most extensive, and had affected the Church in every one of her departments; they had affected the clergy, the candidates for the Ministry, and done infinite injury to the Church in general. He called the attention of the House to the petitions which laid on the Table in reference to the proposed grant to that Church. There were, indeed, 150,000 petitioners for, but there were also 120,000 against, the grant.

413
Those petitioners must unquestionably shew the sense of the people of Scotland; and they exhibited to them such a large mass of that people, who had fallen away from the Church, and become Dissenters. It had been, undoubtedly, the practice of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to give the Crown presentations to individuals who had found favour with the majority of the Heritors—that might answer well so far; but then Gentlemen should observe that there was a number of the people, as well as the Heritors, in every parish. Take the case, for an example, of the parish of Kirk-Michael (one of the last presentations granted by the late Government); in that case the presentation was given to the nominee of the Heritors (there being only one resident Heritor in the parish). The parishioners themselves having heard seven or eight candidates, sent up a petition to the Crown-office, on behalf of the person who met with their approbation; but their recommendation was disregarded, and the nomination was given to the Heritors. It was necessary that something should be done. The Church of Scotland was in that situation that, if some measures were not taken to bring back the alienated affections of the people, they would soon see the fall of that excellent Institution. It seemed to be supposed that it was his intention to give no compensation to Lay-patrons; he assured the House that such was not his view. He unquestionably admitted that the Lay-patrons having existed for upwards of 100 years in Scotland, were entitled to some compensation. With regard to the other part of the question, he meant to repeal the Act of Queen Anne, regarding patronage, referring it to the Church itself and its own legislation to arrange respecting the induction of Clergymen, and to make presentations to the Church. That might be early provided for, by simply inserting a clause, that the Act should not come into operation till the Church had made its arrangements for the settlement of the question. With regard to the present situation of the Church, he was told, early in the Session, by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, (Sir George Clerk) that if the matter were postponed, the General Assembly intended to make a regulation upon the subject. The General Assembly had certainly taken the matter up, but so unsatisfactorily that the proceeding pleased neither party; and being only a half mea-
414
ure, it could not be a beneficial one. But he (Mr. A. Johnstone) submitted that the question should be dealt with by the Legislature; for, in fact, till the Church was so empowered to act, it could not take one step on the subject. He was aware that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the far-advanced period of the session, he could not do that justice to he subject which he desired to do; but he brought it forward from a deep impression of the necessity that the people of Scotland should know what were the feelings of the House on it. The House had granted the political franchise to the people of Scotland; why should they not also have the right of choosing their Ministers? He had no motive in urging the question on the House, but a desire to free the Church of Scotland from those corruptions which had so long existed in her. He would trespass no longer, but merely observe, that if they left this great question without coming to a conclusion on it, which he thought himself justly entitled o demand for it, they would inflict a great injury upon the Church of Scotland; and that if they did not interfere to preserve that Church, and prevent the people of that country from forsaking her, (for he assured the House there was a very strong feeling upon the subject of Lay-patronage there) they would run the risk of losing one of the strongest bulwarks of the Protestant faith. He begged leave to move, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will give his consent to introduce a Bill to abolish Lay-patronage in Scotland."
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the hon. Member for St. Andrew's seemed to think the measure which he proposed so expedient and necessary, that he could not even allow the House to go into a Committee of Supply, without first determining on the merits of a Bill for abolishing Lay-patronage in Scotland. So far, however, was he from looking at it as an urgent measure, that he thought it would be much better not to agitate it in the present Session. That, indeed, seemed to be a very general opinion; for among the many Members for Scotland who were present, the hon. Member for St. Andrew's could not find one to second his proposition; and it was seconded by a Gentleman from a part of the country in which, he understood, Lay-patronage was by no means regarded with an unfavourable eye. He

415
(the Lord Advocate) had every reason to believe that the great body of the people of Scotland thought that a fair opportunity ought to be afforded for ascertaining how far the Lay-patronage of the Church of Scotland might be advantageously carried on under the recent regulations of the General Assembly. If that were not the case, why had not petitions been presented to that House, expressing a different opinion? The course which he should recommend, certainly, was to allow a further time, in order to see how far the regulations of the General Assembly, to which he had alluded, would work beneficially. Of the Church of Scotland generally, he would confidently say that he believed no Church, in any country, possessed a stronger hold on the feelings and affections of people; and that no Church was more influenced by a sense of duty, or manifested greater zeal and integrity, or a stronger and more anxious desire to promote, in every possible manner, the interests of religion. All changes, therefore, which it was proposed to make in the constitution of such a Church, ought to be viewed with doubt, lest any rash measure might produce a diminution of the existing good, without effecting any commensurate advantage.
Mr. Fox Mauleentirely concurred with the hon. Member for St. Andrew's in the opinion which he had expressed on the subject of Lay-patronage in Scotland. He entirely concurred with that hon. Gentleman that the sooner Lay-patronage was abolished in Scotland the better. But on the present occasion he felt it his duty to oppose the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, on the ground that it stopped the House from going into a Committee of Supply. His motives might be misconstrued; and it might go down to Scotland that he had departed from the declarations which he had made on the subject. He cared not. He had given his public and honest reasons for his vote; and he should be as ready to state them elsewhere as he had shown himself to be in that House. Whenever the hon. Member for St. Andrew's might think proper to enter his notice regularly on the book, instead of bringing it forward as an amendment to a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply, he should have his warmest and most cordial support; but on the present occasion he could not support his proposition.
Mr. Stewart Mackenzieregretted that
416
the hon. Member should have introduced in that incidental manner a subject which, if advisable at present to discuss at all, surely demanded the most weighty and serious attention. Brought forward as it now was, it could only interfere with the declared business of the night. The people of Scotland had felt a great and just interest in the important question of Lay-patronage; and though that interest had nowise diminished, it had taken a new course. After the full and patient investigation of the subject last Session, and the recent proposal of the General Assembly respecting it, the people of Scotland felt the greatest confidence—in which he entirely joined—that no minister would henceforth be intruded on them not fully qualified by education, and not agreeable in doctrine to the majority of the communicants. He protested against the principle which regulated the right to the elective franchise being at all applicable to the election of ministers in the Church, whereby the highest interests of man, involving his eternal welfare, might be influenced, and was ready to peril the whole question upon the opinion of Lord Moncrieff, whose advice, as a great lawyer, and as one hereditarily and deeply attached to the Church of Scotland, both in letter and spirit, he thought was the safest guide the House could follow; and he had taken the view sketched out here, and declared he saw no ground for the interference of the Legislature, nor any substitute preferable to the existing system. The hon. Member deprecated any further discussion of the subject till the General Assembly's proposal as to the vote of the parishioners should have had a fair trial. He was persuaded it would work well; and, now that public opinion had been so fully awakened to the subject, he was confident that in future the patrons would not venture to intrude on any parish a minister whose doctrines and qualifications would not justify his appointment. On these grounds he trusted the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and allow the business of the night to proceed.
Mr. Cumming Bruce: I shall vote against the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's, on the ground stated by the learned Lord Advocate, namely, that the General Assembly has lately made an alteration in the laws of the Church. I think it extremely improper to interfere in the progress of those mea-

417
sures, which may enable us to legislate with greater advantage than we can at present. I think the time also injudicious, on account of the period of the Session, as well as on account of the great change that has lately taken place, which should induce us not to enter upon the subject at all.
Mr. Hardyobserved that as the objection to the proposition of his hon. Friend seemed, upon the whole, to be directed not so much against the principle of that proposition as against the form in which it had been brought forward, he advised his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and submit the subject to the House again as a substantive proposition.
Motion withdrawn.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY.—MARLBOROUGH HOUSE.— SPEAKER'S RESIDENCE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that before his hon. Friend brought forward the miscellaneous estimates, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would, with the leave of the Committee communicate to them the contents of a letter which he had received from his noble Friend who was at the head of the Woods and Forests. He was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of doing so, because the letter in question related to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Lord Duncannon had written to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) by command of his Majesty, on the best means of providing, until the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament, a convenient and suitable residence for the Speaker. The letter was to the following effect:— "Some difficulty having arisen on the subject, his Majesty has been graciously pleased to place at the disposal of the House of Commons Marlborough House; and I am commanded by the King to cause it to be immediately repaired, in order that it may be occupied by the Speaker until the new Houses of Parliament, and a fit and proper residence for that Officer shall be completed. I request that you will take the earliest opportunity of making this communication to the House of Commons." He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) trusted that this communication would be received in the spirit in which it had been made. It tended to prove that no effort on the part of his Majesty would be wanting to accommodate the House of Commons, or
418
the high Officer who presided over their proceedings; and showed that his Majesty was prepared to follow up the declaration which he made at the period of the burning of the two Houses, that he was perfectly ready to place his new palace at the disposal of the House.
Lord Granville Somersetwished to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. The first was, in what manner the arrangement which, when he (Lord Granville Somerset) was at the head of the Woods and Forests, he had made with Lord Warwick for a House for two years had been disposed of? The second question was (and he believed the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out in the fact) that, as his Majesty, two or three years ago, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament which authorized him to do so, executed a deed, by which Marlborough House was settled on her Majesty in the event of the King's death, how could his Majesty dispose of it in the meanwhile?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould endeavour to answer the question of the noble Lord—The first question was, how the arrangement made by the noble Lord between the Officer of Woods and Forests and Lord Warwick had been got rid of? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed that it was terminated by the act of Lord Warwick himself, who, on his return to England, considered the contract to be such as to give him the power to put an end to it, and he accordingly had given notice of his intention to do so. With respect to the second question, the House would bear in mind that the possession of Marlborough House, during the existence of the lease, belonged to the King of Belgium. That lease would expire in July, 1836 [An hon. Member said, 1835]. Well 1835, and the property would then revert to the Crown. It was true that the ultimate destination of Marlborough House was the Dower House for the use of her Majesty. But in the interval the House would remain a mere public building, to be supported without any use. He believed that it devolved on the King of Belgium to leave the House in good repair. Under these circumstances it was, that his Majesty, seeing this building unoccupied, and seeing also the necessity of providing a residence for the Speaker, had generously put Marlborough House at the disposal of Parliament for the occupation of the Speaker.
Mr. Charles Barclaysaid, that the House could not fail feeling obliged for his Majesty's offer, but it was obvious that a great increase of expense must accrue to the Speaker by residing in a House so unnecessarily large. It was also a very inconvenient situation for the residence of the Speaker.
Mr. Humesaid, that any offer for the public convenience that would be attended with economy, would be most acceptable, but he thought the present proposition was not an economical one. Having lately reduced the Speaker's salary, the House ought not to impose on him a more expensive residence than what former Speakers had been accustomed to occupy. If Lord Warwick wished to have possession of his House, let him have it; and Parliament would provide another for the Speaker. He would therefore submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a vote of thanks should be given to his Majesty, for his kind intention, but that under the arrangements which the House thought it proper to make for, and the views they entertained respect their Speaker, they would rather take upon themselves to provide a residence for him. When he proposed that Marlborough House should be given up for the use of Parliament, he was told that it could not be had, because it was settled upon her Majesty. Let it remain, then, with her Majesty. No doubt the Speaker would consider it better to live in a smaller House, and be able to enjoy the comforts of life, than to be placed in a palace and starved. The repairs of Marlborough House would cost 5,000 l.; he therefore hoped his right hon. Friend would not press this arrangement.
Sir Thomas Freemantlefelt grateful for his Majesty's kind proposal, but, at the same time, the House ought to take the situation of the Speaker into consideration and ought not to kill him with kindness. Another question was, as to the furniture: Was the Speaker to furnish so large a house, merely for a temporary residence of two or three years?
Mr. Robinsonapprehended that this was not the proper time to discuss the question; but he wished to observe that if the King of Belgium repaired Marlborough House, the public would receive so much the less out of the annuity which his Belgian Majesty had remitted to this nation. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the departure from the
420
arrangement with Lord Warwick had cost the public anything?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed that this was not the time to discuss the question; but he had done no more than obey the commands he had received, by making the communication to the House. Though Gentlemen had expressed a difference of opinion with respect to the appropriation of Marlborough House to the use of the Speaker, yet he conceived that there could be no difference of opinion as to the feeling which had dictated the offer made by his Majesty, or as to the gratitude that was due from the House for so generous an act. In answer to the hon. Member for Worcester, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged to say, that it was not the Government, but Lord Warwick, who had departed from the arrangement. That noble Lord had given notice to terminate the lease, and thus it became necessary to provide the Speaker with some other place of residence. If Marlborough House should be considered above the scale fitted for the residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons, it was not likely, under the contingency, that the Crown could obtain a tenant for it in the ordinary market; therefore it must remain unoccupied. Undoubtedly the convenience of the Speaker ought to be considered; and although that right hon. Gentleman was not the man to urge such an argument on the House yet his convenience would be taken into consideration by the House, and he would not be pressed to occupy a palace that he himself disliked. Having made the communication it would perhaps be better that the conversation should drop, and that before they adopted any resolution they should have in their possession all the details connected with the subject.
Lord Granville Somersetinformed the House that the present residence of the Speaker was taken by the late Government from certain agents of Lord Warwick. His Lordship, on returning from abroad, was discontented with the terms, and denied that the agents were authorised to let the house. But the Government considered on the one hand that the agents were authorised, and therefore the agreement was binding; and, on the other, that if the agents had assumed an authority with which they were not fully invested the fault was with them, and not with the Government. This determination was arrived at by the Go-

421
vernment, upon the grounds that the rent was moderate, and the agreement advantageous for the public.
The subject dropped.

ALIEN OFFICE.
On the question that 1,461 l. for the salaries of the Clerks in the office for the Registration of Aliens be granted,
Mr. Humesaid, that this office was originally established against the good old custom of England. Ft should now be put an end to; there never was a fitter time, as the country was as peaceful and as quiet as its best friend could desire.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, there was no reason for continuing the office, the regulations of which were a source of needless vexation to respectable foreigners, who wished not to evade the laws of the country. He would undertake to prove this if a Committee were appointed, and till the conclusion of the inquiry the payment of the salaries of the clerks might, he thought, be suspended.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerappealed to the House whether the clerks ought to be inconvenienced by being at once deprived of their salaries. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was chiefly directed against the old law, but it should be recollected that that had been ameliorated by the exertions of those at present on the Ministerial Benches when they were embodied in the ranks of the Opposition.
Dr. Bowringobserved, that the United States had long since abolished the system of passports, and from that step had never yet suffered anything. He hoped that England would first set the same example among the great European nations.
Lord John Russellwas not thoroughly conversant with the subject, but he agreed that no reasons now existed for continuing the Alien Act. He was one of those who succeeded in obtaining a cessation of the old system, and the substitution of the present law. The present regulations were not, he believed, effectual; nothing was gained from their continuance, and he certainly thought it was fit matter of consideration whether any good purpose whatever was answered by keeping up the office.
Viscount Sandonhad always voted against the Alien Act, and hoped that England might soon be able to boast, as of old, that her doors were always open to
422
every one, no matter of what country, or whether for ingress or egress.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord, (Lord John Russell) he was willing to leave the matter in his hands.
Mr. Humetrusted, that one of the noble Lord's Friends would immediately bring in a Bill upon the subject. When so important a principle was recognised, he should not object to pay the pensions of the clerks.
Vote agreed to.

PENITENTIARY.
On the vote of 17,000 l. for the expenses of Milbank Penitentiary,
Dr. Bowringobjected to the vote, on account of the great expense of the prisoners. There were 600 of them, and the expense of keeping each was 10 s. per week, or nearly 1s. 6d. per day, which was four times as much as the average cost of each prisoner in other prisons.
Mr. Humecomplained of the great expense of the medical department. There were two surgeons, one of whom received a salary of 400 l. a-year, and the other upwards of 200 l. He also said, that the annual average expense of keeping each prisoner was 27 l., whilst a labourer, and a family of three children were often supported on the lesser sum of 20 l. a-year. He considered such an expense liable to very great objections. He was glad to see that the hulks would soon be got rid of, as they had proved hitherto to be the very hot-beds of crime. He had visited the establishment last month, and saw that it was in a very good condition; but a foreigner that accompanied him said, that the system was the very best contrivance to spend a large sum of money for a given object. He had voted for the establishment of the Penitentiary in 1811, but he had since been convinced that they had been the dupes of a system attended with great expense, and which was perfectly useless. The establishment ought to be got rid of altogether. It might make a good central prison for the confining soldiers, instead of having recourse to the disgraceful practice of flogging them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad frequently visited the establishment in question, and he agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last as to its being well managed. With respect to the expenses of it, they

423
might, and he understood they were to be reduced. But what was to be done, looking at the present state of crime in the country, if the establishment was got rid of altogether?
Sir Thomas Fremantlewas happy to find the hon. Member for Middlesex bearing testimony to the good management of the Penitentiary. The Committee, which sat two years ago on capital punishments, bore testimony to the good caused by this establishment. He confessed that it was an expensive establishment, but it was a very serious question to get rid of it altogether. He was of opinion that no additional prisoners should be sent to the hulks, but an end ought not to be put to the Penitentiary, which now contained 660 prisoners, and that it should not be done especially at this time, when they were about to legislate on the subject of abolishing capital punishments. He was an advocate for the Penitentiary system, and a great number of persons were sent out of the Penitentiary much better on account of the discipline they had undergone in it, and they left it with thanks and gratitude to the officers of the establishment, and especially for the religious benefits they had received while in it. When the expenses of the prison were mentioned, it should be borne in mind that it was never full. It was capable of holding 1,000 persons—only 660 were in it, and the officers, the governor, chaplain, and surgeons, were kept up at the same expense as they would cost if the prison was actually full. It was not fair to calculate what was the expense of each prisoner by dividing the gross expenses by the number of prisoners now in the establishment. He could see no objection to sending military prisoners to the Penitentiary.
Mr. Edward Bullersaid, that the gaols in Staffordshire averaged about 500 prisoners, and that the annual expense of the medical attendant was only 100 l.
Viscount Sandonhoped that the observations that had been made would remove the large expense for medical attendance at the Penitentiary, whether it was 400 l. or 700 l. a-year, as the hon. Member for Middlesex stated it was. He was in favour of the Penitentiary system; it ought not to be lightly done away with, as it was of great importance that young men should have an opportunity of reforming, and by means of the Penitentiary they
424
were frequently enabled to return reformed to their families.
Mr. Fox Maulebegged to state, that no one was discharged from the Penitentiary without having undergone a previous trial as to his or her good conduct. To show that the system was working well, he must inform the House that, in 1833, there were 83 males and 23 females discharged; in 1834 there were 118 males and a number of females in a similarly increased proportion discharged. The silent system had been lately adopted, and it was intended to carry it into more general effect, as good results had been derived from it.
Sir Thomas Fremantlehad one other observation to make with respect to the expenses of medical attendance. The hon. Member for Middlesex had stated it to be 700 l. a-year; but the hon. Member had laid on 100 l. too much, as the accounts of the establishment would prove. One of the medical attendants was constantly at the establishment, and the reason there were two was that cases might occur when the Committee would not be satisfied with the opinion of one medical man. The prison was now in a very healthy state, and perhaps one medical officer would be sufficient.
Lord John Russellagreed with the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, that the Penitentiary system was one that ought not to be lightly abandoned. With regard to establishments of this sort they must be necessarily expensive, but he thought that some reduction might be made in the salaries of the officers. With respect to diminishing the diet of the prisoners, or rendering its quality inferior, no saving would arise, as the consequence would be increased disease. The system had been tried in various prisons, and it appeared that the expenses consequent upon disease arising from poor diet were greater than if a more generous nourishment were made use of.
Vote agreed to.

COMMISSIONERS OF CRIMINAL LAW.
On the Question that 10,200 l. for the Commissioners appointed to make a digest of the Criminal Statutes and common laws of the land, be granted,
Mr. Humeasked if there was a prospect that this Commission would bring its labours to a close?
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the commissioners had presented one Report,

425
which had been very generally approved of, and he expected that another would very soon be in readiness.
Mr. Jervissaid, the Commissioners had been already two years employed on this business, and it appeared that there was another Report to be yet brought forward. There were five men employed on the Commission, each having a salary of 800 l. per annum. Many of those Commissioners were unfit for the task, for though of high attainments, they had such practice in Westminster Hall that they could devote no time to the task, and yet they received 800 l. a-year each for doing that which one man might have done in a month—namely, collecting all the Statutes of England and the Common Law, bearing on each subject, which might be furnished to him by any text book.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that this Commission originated rather with the House of Commons than with the Government. It was felt that there was a necessity of reducing the written and unwritten laws into one code. He was confident that more proper persons could not be intrusted with the task than those to whom it had been confided by the Government of Earl Grey.
Mr. Jervissaid, the object was not to make a code of laws, but to collect the Statutes already made, and class them according to the subject they related to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the great object of the Commission was, not to collect the whole of the Statutes, but to reduce them into one, as the hon. Member might see by the first page of their Report, in which they stated their objects to be—first, that of digesting all the Criminal-laws into one code; secondly, condensing into one Statute all the provisions of the common and unwritten law which related to one subject
Mr. Blackburnethought that it was not to be expected that professional gentlemen who were engaged on this business should give up the whole of their time exclusively for the remuneration which they received. An hon. and learned Gentleman had complained that these gentlemen were men of very extensive practice; if so, so much the better were they calculated for the duty reposed in them.
Mr. Roebuckhad before stated with reference to this Question that it would be much more advisable to employ only one competent person who should devote his
426
whole time to the matter rather than those five persons. If the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Jervis) had ever attempted to make a digest, he would have satisfied himself that there was infinitely greater difficulty in making up a digest than in heaping up the dicta of various Judges. There was a great difference between these two things, of making a book of law, and in forming a digest of a number of important Statutes.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamwould refer simply to the vote then under discussion. With reference to the grant to these Commissioners, he thought they received a great deal for doing very little more than what others had done without being put into office, or without being paid.
The vote agreed to.

NEW POOR LAWS.
On the Question that a sum not exceeding 42,841 l. to defray the charge of salaries and expenses of the Commissioners appointed to carry into execution the Acts 4 and 5 William 4th, for the better administration of the laws relating to the poor in England and Wales,
Sir Samuel Whalleydeeply regretted that the country had not received any thing in the shape of an adequate compensation for this vote. The Measure under which this Commission was in operation had justified all his predictions. In the country the attempt to introduce it had almost all failed, and it had caused the greatest excitement. Amongst the agricultural population of Sussex it had acted like a fire band — it had distracted the labourers from their work —it had alienated them from all comfort, and the peasantry feared that they were to be reduced to a state much worse than that of the emancipated negro. He was quite sure that the Legislature had no such intention when they passed the Bill, but such were its effects, and the peasantry must be disabused of the impression which had seized their minds as to the intention of the measure. He must repeat that the Commission had been an unnecessary expense, for which the country would never receive any adequate return.
Mr. Peasehad the most sanguine expectation that this measure would answer well, and that though great disgust had been evinced at it at first, yet that within six months he was satisfied that the Bill

427
would be acknowledged to be one calculated to raise the pauper to his proper standing as a constituent part of social society.
Mr. Humecould not help expressing his regret at what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone, because his statement was one inconsistent with fact. Again it was extremely unfair, at a moment when the Government and these Commissioners were labouring to bring the poorest classes of the community into the state in which they ought to be, that hon. Gentlemen should give utterance to assertions which could only be productive of great evil out of doors. He (Mr. Hume) was not aware that this subject would have come on that night, or he should have been prepared to prove to the House that of which he was perfectly satisfied—namely, that this measure had been successful, where fairly tried, beyond his most sanguine expectations. If there had ever been a question nearer his heart than that of Reform, it was to bring the great mass of the people from the degraded condition into which they had fallen. But would his hon. Friend state what had been done in London in consequence of the adoption of the principle contained in this Bill? There had been a great reduction even in that hon. Gentleman's own parish, though they had pertinaciously opposed the law in the first instance. Yet, acting upon the principles of the Poor-law Bill, the result had been highly beneficial and had operated much to the credit of the Gentlemen by whom it was carried into effect. He should be very sorry indeed in any way to strengthen, and much less to give any confirmation to, the opinion that this measure was intended to oppress the poor man. He believed that if ever there was a measure calculated to bring men to their proper condition or state, aye, and to raise their wages—and to make a man depend upon his own industry, instead of the eleemosynary assistance afforded by the old Poor-law system, it was this same Bill. The expenditure incurred was large, but in carrying into effect so important a plan he would ask what was the charge if the object desired were accomplished? It was clear it would be impossible to render the plan effective with inadequate means. He questioned whether in the parishes of St. George and Marylebone alone the saving did not
428
amount to more than this sum. He rose, however, to express a hope that as the system worked on, it would not be necessary to have so large an establishment of Commissioners, and therefore that the Government would dispense with a great portion of the expense. He objected to the salary of 2,000 l. to the three first Commissioners; at the same time he should be sorry to starve the efficiency of the Commission by any niggardly economy.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that as one of those who had objected to this Bill, he wished it to be understood that he had never opposed it as a measure wholly. But he called upon the House not to believe, too hastily, that a sufficient time had been allowed to enable them to see how the Bill had operated. It had been put into action under peculiarly favourable circumstances—there had been a vast deal of employment in the country in the manufacturing districts during the last year, and food had been very cheap, therefore, the Poor-law Bill had not hitherto been worked under any trying circumstances of the country. Let the House look to what might occur at a time of scarcity of employ, and dearness of provisions. Again hon. Gentlemen must not attribute all the savings which had been made in various parishes solely to the operation of the Poor Law Bill. With reference to the Bastardy Clause, that, he was convinced, must be revised at some time or other.
Lord John Russellwould not follow the example of the hon. Gentleman by entering into the details of the Poor Law Amendment Bill; but he would state that the Commissioners would shortly make a Report as to the manner in which they had enforced the law, and his opinion was, that the tenor of that Report would surpass the expectations of the warmest advocates of the Bill. But with reference to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex, as to the amount of remuneration to the Commissioners, he must say that a less sum than that proposed could not be given to these Gentlemen. When the Question was first brought before Parliament Lord Althorp named a less sum; but the first object of the Government was to select those persons who were best calculated for the trust, and he considered it essentially necessary that those persons only should be employed

429
who were well qualified for the duty, and therefore they should not make the salaries too low. If these Gentlemen had neglected the provisions of the Bill, or had endeavoured to carry it into effect too abruptly, the law would have become unpopular, and they would never have been able to restore it to that influence which it ought to have, and to remedy the evil. The Government conceived that with a view to carry the measure into effect, the salaries now proposed to be given were not too much for the eminent services to be performed. They were of opinion that at any moment a change could be effected in this case, and he should be sorry to expose the plan to damage for the sake of a few hundred pounds.
Mr. Claydid not think the expense, considering the great services performed, too much. All the information was now concentrated in one focus, as to the state of the poor over the whole kingdom: it applied to every parish. Now, if the cost of the Commission were for one year 30,000 l., in a pecuniary point of view the measure was desirable; but they were to look at the fact, that the Commission was calculated to raise the moral condition of our peasantry, and the advantage could not be calculated by considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence.
Mr. Law Hodgessaid, he did not rise to oppose the grant, but having, when this Bill was before the House, declared his hostility to it, he could only say that his opinions had undergone no change whatever. He hoped, however, that the experiment might turn out well.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyobserved, that the question was not whether the poor were less contented or not, nor was it necessary that they should enter into the merits of the measure; but the question simply was, whether the Committee should agree to the grant proposed. Now, whatever might be said to be the merits of the Commissioners, he believed them to be great; but it was impossible that their efforts could be attended with beneficial effects, if hon. Members of that House took every opportunity of lowering the Bill in the opinion of the public, by entering into a discussion upon it. It was a Bill which had been introduced under the sanction of the Legislature, and deserved and must have a considerable trial before an opinion could be fairly formed of its value.
Mr. George F. Youngbegged to call the attention of the Committee to the fact, that what had been said by those hon. Members who opposed the Bill was provoked by the observations of the supporters of it, because they had gone much farther than was necessary: therefore those who had expressed their dissent ought not to be taunted with an attempt to influence the public mind. For his own part, he would only say that he had never ceased to proclaim himself, throughout all the proceedings on that Bill, as one of its opponents; and he, as well as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Robinson) entertained great doubts as to the practical operation of the measure, in other less fortunate circumstances, than those in which it had commenced.
Lord Granville Somersetcould not admit that the Bill had operated so successfully as had been represented; but, as other opportunities would be afforded for considering its merits, he would not say one word more on that point. His hon. Friend had severely reprehended those hon. Members who had expressed their opinion that the measure was not working well. Now he (Lord G. Somerset) could bring forward many instances where the practical working of the Bill was by no means such as it had been attempted to be shown to be.
Vote agreed to.
36,800 l. was proposed for Secret Service money.
Mr. Humehoped that the time would arrive when they would be able to do away with Secret Service money, as they were now able to carry on a Government without patronage. He should enter his protest against the vote, but should not divide the House upon it. Vote agreed to.

STATIONERY, &c
191,756 l. was proposed for stationery for public departments, printing Acts of Parliament, &c.
Mr. Humeremarked, that though this was a large vote, it was the lowest that had been taken for the last ten years. The House would be surprised to hear, and of which they would be put in possession within forty-eight hours, that nearly a million sterling had within the last ten years been expended in the stationery and printing of the public department. This was the first attempt made by Government to reduce this expense, and for that they were entitled to great credit. He could

431
tell the House, that in Parliamentary papers and printing of 1833 and 1834, no less a sum than 31,000 l. had been saved in comparison of former years.
Mr. Kearsley: I beg, Sir, to say a few words. I always said, and I thought that the hon. Member for Middlesex was a very salutary check upon the expenses; but, Sir, after carrying the vote that has been just now agreed to, I put it to you, Sir—and I say it, Sir—that the hon. Member's conduct is that of perfect humbug—[loud laughter and cheers.—I mean no unkindness, Sir, I assure you, to the hon. Member for Middlesex, for I always thought him very vigilant; but when the vote was put to the House for Secret Service money, to the amount of—I do not now exactly recollect the amount—but when that vote was put, whatever was the amount, I saw an hon. Member come forward, and check the hon. Member for Middlesex for his forwardness. I saw it, Sir!.—[laughter and cheers.]
Mr. Hume: I am afraid the hon. Member's optics are a little out of order, and that he sees double. I can only tell the hon. Member, that when I see the allowance for Secret Service money reduced to 36.000 l., and when I know that it amounted to 60,000 l., and if I know that upon that fund are pensions which could not well be dispensed with at present, and when I see Government reducing that fund every year, probably my confining myself to a protest against the vote may appear a humbug to the hon. Member, but it does not so seem to me. As to any person speaking to me on the subject, I beg to tell the hon. Member I would not allow any one to interfere with me. Neither the hon. Member, nor any other person can or shall dictate to me if I choose to make any observations in this House.
Mr. Kearsley: And I beg to tell the hon. Member for Middlesex, that no one can interfere with me, if I choose to make as many observations as I like. And, Sir, if there is an infirmity in my sight, and I cannot see, I am not to be ridiculed; and, Sir, if my sight is not so good, perhaps his head is not so cool. I do not wish to make personal observations, but I will not be put down by the hon. Member for Middlesex, whether he stands by the side of his right hand, or any body else. We are all, Sir, accountable—["Hear!" and loud laughter.]—Yes, Sir, we are all accountable, and the eyes of the country
432
are open, and will see whether his conduct or mine is the most advantageous.
Mr. Hume: I did not accuse the hon. Member of having bad sight, but of seeing too much.
Mr. Kearsley: I tell the hon. Member for Middlesex he is out of his reckoning.
Vote agreed to.
Several other votes were agreed to.
The House resumed, the Committee to sit again.

ELECTION EXPENSES AND QUALIFICATION.
Mr. Humemoved that the Election Qualification Expenses' Bill should be read a second time.
Colonel Sibthorpeopposed the Motion. The Bill was a bud Bill, and the hour was late. He proposed it be read a second time upon Thursday next. He had strong objections to urge to the Qualification Clause.
Mr. Ridley Colburnhad the same strong objections to the Qualification Clause as others, but would not object to the second reading of the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed in the principle, and recommended the proceeding with the Bill.
The House divided on the original Question: Ayes 59; Noes 6; Majority 53.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, A.

Mackenzie, S.

Attwood, T.

Maxwell, —

Baines, E.

Murray, J. A.

Baring, T.

Nagle, Sir R.

Baring, F.

O'Connell, M.

Bernal, R.

O'Ferrall, More

Blake, M. J.

Oliphant, L.

Boldero, Captain

Oswald, J.

Bowring, J.

Pease, J.

Brotherton, J.

Phillips, M.

Bruce, C.

Potter, R.

Buckingham, J. S.

Pringle, A.

Callaghan, D.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Carter, B.

Ronayne, D.

Chalmers, P.

Russell, Lord John

Chichester, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Collier, John

Sheil, R. L.

Colborne, R.

Smith, V.

Crawford, S.

Speirs, A. G.

Curteis, H.

Thompson, Colonel

Donkin, R.

Thorneley, T.

Dykes, F. L. B.

Tooke, W.

Finn, W. F.

Wakley, T.

Finch, George

Wallace, R.

Grey, Sir George

Warburton, H.

Halse, James

Wyse, T.

Hindley, C.

Young, G. F.

Jackson, Sergeant

TELLERS;

Jervis, J.

Ord, W. H.

Labouchere, H.

Hume, Joseph

433

List of the NOES.

Blackstone, W. S.

Kearsley, J. H.

Forbes, W.

Lefroy, A.

Foster, C. S.

Lowther, Hon. Col.

Mr. Arthur Trevormoved that the Bill, which was too important to be smuggled through the House after one o'clock, should be read a second time this day six months. He entertained strong objections to it, which he wished to be discussed in a fuller House.
The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 58—Noes 5—Majority 53.
Bill read a second time.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—London Small Debt Loan Societies.

POST-OFFICE.
The Duke of Richmondgave notice, that on Monday next he should move for certain Returns connected with the Post-Office. He should do this with a view to show that there were certain Gentlemen who spoke about matters which they did not understand. He found it stated, that during the time he held the office of Postmaster-General, there was a sum of 1,970,000 l. unaccounted for. If these hon. Gentlemen knew anything of the matters they talked about, they would know that that sum included the Dead-Letter money, which could not be recovered; and also the sums of money for the Conway and Menai bridges, which were paid by Act of Parliament. He did not mean to say, that these hon. Gentlemen said what they did not believe, but he did think that they should make some inquiries before they made such statements. It had been also stated, that during the time he held the office of Postmaster-General he had appointed 300 individuals to situations. He only wished that he had had so much good fortune. If that had been the case, perhaps some of those who were now so eager in making complaints would have been silent.
Lord Broughamsaid, whether his noble Friend had or had not accounted for upwards of 1,000,000 l. of the public money, was a point to which he could not speak; but this he knew, that his noble Friend had promised him, for four years, to appoint a Postmaster, but during those four years he had not succeeded in procuring that appointment. His noble Friend might, at that time, have made him 300
400
promises for aught he knew—but certainly the appointment was still wanting.