Sitting of 27 June 1845

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For Dartmouth, v. Joseph Somes, Esq., deceased.
BILLS. Public—1°. Small Debts (No. 3); Constables, Public Works (Ireland); Turnpike Trusts (South Wales).
Reported.—Dog Stealing.
3°. and passed:—Assessed Taxes Composition; Timber Ships; Arrestment of Wages (Scotland) (No. 2).
Private.—1°. Earl of Onslow's (Ellerker's) Estate; Heaviside's Divorce; Lord Monson's Estate.
2°. Rochdale Vicarage (Molesworth's) Estate; Hawkins's Estate.
Reported.—Irish Great Western Railway (Dublin to Galway).
3°. and passed:—Belfast Improvement; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway; Great Western Railway (Ireland) (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone); Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Gloucester Extensions, Stoke Branch, and Midland Railways Junction); Great North of England (Clarence and Hartlepool Junction) Railway; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Newry and Enniskillen Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Colquhoun, from Brechin, against Universities (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Butler, Mr. Dawnay, and Viscount Ebrington, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories.—By Viscount Ebrington, from Members of Chamber of Commerce, Plymouth, against Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill.—By Mr. Dawnay, from several places, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Viscount Duncan, from Bath, in favour of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Mr. Blackburn, from several places, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.

RAILWAYS — THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.
Captain Berkeley, pursuant to the Notice he had given, begged to call the attention of the House to the great hardship and injustice to which parties opposing railways which were to cross or interfere with any tidal rivers, arms of the sea, or creeks, over which the Board of Admiralty had control, were exposed in appearing before Committees of the House on Private Bills, without the Bills having first obtained the sanction of that Board, according to the provisions of the Act 8th of Victoria, cap. 20. An instance of this kind occurred in the case of the South Wales Railway, the opponents of which had been put to great expense by not knowing in the early stage of the Bill, that the Admiralty had refused its assent to carrying a line of railway across a bridge to be built over the Severn. Had the parties been informed of this intention of the Admiralty at an earlier stage, it would, he repeated, have put a stop to much needless expenditure. He hoped that the House would take some steps to remedy the evil; and with that view he would now move that the question be referred to the Committee Orders.
Mr. Hume, in seconding the Motion, said, that the question was one of great importance to all who had embarked capital in railways. In the case to which his hon. Friend had called the attention of the House, certain parties had not come up to defend their interests, for they had no idea that a refusal would be given by the Admiralty to erect a bridge over the Severn. Now, as no bridge could be erected after this refusal, the only way of carrying the line across, would be by a tunnel under the river; but here a new difficulty presented itself, for it was well known that the navigation of the Severn could be much improved by cutting the bed of the river twenty feet below low watermark; but if this were done, it would require to go to a depth of fifty feet to make a tunnel; and this would cause a total change in the plans, sections, and levels.
Sir G. Greyconcurred in thinking that it would be very desirable that as early a notice as possible should be given by the Admiralty Board of any objections which it had to make to lines crossing rivers or arms of the sea over which they had control.
Mr. Fitzroysaid, that the changes of
1316
levels and sections made in consequence of the refusal of the Admiralty to allow the erection of a bridge over the Severn, had brought the question within the cognizance of the Committee on Standing Orders, and it was they who retarded the Bill, and not the Admiralty.
Mr. H. F. Berkeleysaid, the case was one of great hardship on the parties, and he hoped that some means would be taken to remove the evil.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that in proportion as the power of the Admiralty was great in stopping great undertakings, so ought to be its prudence and caution in the use of it. Due notice should be given of every objection made by it.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that no doubt the Admiralty possessed the power of pulling down any erections made without their permission; but the parties connected with any railway or other undertaking should apply to the Admiralty in the first instance, and then they would be made acquainted with the alterations to be proposed, and would thus be saved much time and expense. But the Standing Orders' Committee had nothing to do with the case, if the parties neglected what was an obvious duty.
Captain Berkeleysaid, that he would withdraw his Motion, and give notice of another Motion on the subject on Monday next.
Motion withdrawn.

STATISTICS OF IRELAND.
Mr. J. O'Connellput the following question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—Whether the Government will take into consideration the propriety of adding to the statement of the Expenditure of the United Kingdom, given in the Finance Acccounts of each year, a special statement of the local expenditure of Ireland; that is, of all disbursements out of the revenue of Ireland, of whatever nature they may be, and a statement of the balance remitted to England? Also, whether the Government will take into consideration the propriety of establishing some means of registry, for statistical purposes, of the nature, quantity, official and real values of all articles of traffic passing between Great Britain and Ireland; and thus supply a deficiency much complained of by the Irish Railway Commissioners of 1838; by Mr. Porter, in his Progress of the Nation; and by others employed officially, or otherwise, in inquiries

1317
relative to the statistics of the United Kingdom?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. Gentleman was probably aware that the form of the annual financial accounts as rendered to the House was that which was settled after the union of the Exchequers of Great Britain and Ireland, and continued up to the present period. The greater portion of the information desired by the hon. Gentleman in a separate form was contained in those accounts. To alter their form he thought would be attended with great inconvenience, as it was a great advantage to have the opportunity of making a comparison of one year with another. If any additional details were desired by the hon. Gentleman, he should be happy to grant them. Respecting the second question, he was not at all disposed to deny that for some statistical purpose such an account as the hon. Gentleman wished for might be advantageous; but, in order to make it so, it should be accurate, and, in order to make it accurate, it should be taken at the Custom-house, a step which would at once deprive Ireland of the benefit of having her trade with this country upon the footing of a coasting trade. It did not appear to him that the statistical advantage would compensate for the real evil that would result.

SCHOOL OF DESIGN.
Mr. Ewart, referring to the dispute which occurred in the School of Design, and which had resulted, he said, in the dismissal of the second master, and the withdrawal of the pupils almost without exception, wished to know whether the discord still continued, or whether there was any hope of its being settled?
Sir G. Clerksaid, a difference of opinion unfortunately arose in the early part of this year between the director of the school and some of the masters, regarding the principles upon which the education of the pupils should be conducted. Several of the students joined warmly on the side of the master, and expressed themselves disrespectfully of the character and attainments of the director. The council, considering this to be a gross act of insubordination, felt it to be their painful duty to interfere, by suspending the pupils who had so erred until they made an apology. The disagreement still continuing, the council felt themselves under the necessity of changing the second master;
1318
who had accordingly been, he would not say dismissed, but removed.

KENTISH RAILWAYS—THE BOARD OF ORDNANCE.
Mr. Hawes: As Her Majesty's Government have consented to the appointment of the Committee of which I gave notice, viz., "A Select Committee to inquire into the allegations of the Petition of the South Eastern Railway Company, under their common seal, presented on the 26th of June," and as the hon. and gallant Captain the Clerk of the Board of Ordnance is present, I think I shall best discharge my duty by simply moving for that Committee, unaccompanying the Motion by any further statement. The hon. Member accordingly made the Motion.
Captain Boldero: I think, Sir, that I shall, in rising to second the Motion, best perform my duty by following the example of the hon. Gentleman. At the same time, I cannot forbear stating that both Mr. Bonham and myself are extremely anxious that the investigation shall be of the most searching character.
Mr. Hawes: I am glad to hear the expressions which have fallen from the hon. and gallant Member. I trust that neither will there be any opposition to the order of reference for which I also mean to move. My object is to extend the inquiry to the circumstances connected with the progress of this Bill through the House in 1836. If there be any objection, I shall probably be in a condition to present a petition on the subject. I should rather have the order of reference, if not objected to; but if it is, I shall take futher steps on a subsequent day.
Sir R. Peel: I think there should be some foundation for a Motion of this sort. I think it would be better if the hon. Member had a foundation for the extension of his Motion.
Mr. Hawes: I meant to proceed on well-founded information; but I can present the petition.
Sir R. Peel: I beg it may be clearly understood, that I did not make the suggestion for the purpose of throwing any impediments in the way of inquiry. I know nothing whatever of the facts of the case.
Motion agreed to. Committee to be nominated.

ABUSES IN THE POST OFFICE.
On the Motion for reading the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply,
Mr. T. Duncomberose to move, pursuant to notice—
"That the Returns, No. 72 and 248, made by the General Post Office, be referred to a Select Committee, with a view of inquiring into the accuracy of those Returns; also into the present mode of remunerating by fees and perquisites certain officers of the General Post Office, and how far the duties of that establishment may be rendered more satisfactory to the public, and less unequal and oppressive to the persons engaged therein."
This Motion, he said, had no reference to the opening of letters, but entirely to abuses in the management of the Office. The Returns were two, for which he had moved at the close of last Session; one of them being a Return of every person employed at the General Post Office, with the date of his appointment, the nature of the business performed, the amount of salary attached to such duty, and the fund from which the salary was paid, distinguishing what portion (if any) was derived from fees; and the other being a Return regarding the fund established by perquisites and fees. If a Committee should now be granted him, he (Mr. Duncombe) would prove gross inaccuracy, not—he was afraid—in some instances accidental, but intentional, and for the purpose of misleading the public. The remuneration of public servants by fees, gratuities, and perquisites was most improper, leading to corruption, favouritism, and dishonesty often, and was now tolerated only in the Post Office; every railway company repudiated it. One of the grossest impositions which the wit of man could devise, was the system of fees for the early delivery of letters in the city. There were certain walks, adjusted by the Postmaster General, for which the postmen paid various sums to the Post Office; and all letters arriving from the country, directed to any part of these walks, were sorted for an early and a late delivery; the early delivery being only to those who paid a quarterly sum to the postman, over and above the postage. Now, if the walks were readjusted, the present number of men could deliver all the letters as soon as the present "early delivery." A bookseller residing in Stamford-street, indeed, found that he received his letters at his private house there, from half to three-quarters of an hour earlier than at his shop in Fleet-street, though he paid for the "early delivery" at the latter. Another
1320
abuse was the window duty; merchants paying four, eight, or twelve guineas a year got their letters at a window at the Post Office. There ought to be no partiality of the sort. Another improper arrangement was, that the longer a letter carrier served in the Post Office, the less was his pay from the Crown. On entering, he had 20 s. a week, exclusive of Christmas boxes; but the 20 senior letter carriers, who had been on the establishment from 28 to 43 years, received only 14 s. a week; and those who had been there from 16 to 20 years were receiving only 18 s. The pay was gradually reduced, the favourite walks making up for it; and hence, where the salary was but 36 l. a year from the Crown, the man was receiving 100 l. or 120 l. from the public, plundering them. This system demoralized the men, and led to dishonesty. One man was said to have boasted that he had nearly doubled the number of quarterly houses on his walk. A gentleman in Eastcheap gave up paying for the early delivery, as he did not get to town till 10 o'clock: upon which, as he (Mr. Duncombe) was informed, the early letter-carrier passed the word on to the other, and this gentleman's letters were thenceforth delivered last of all. The Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry recommended the abolition of fees, and the substitution of salaries, graduated according to service. The men had also to perform a duly with respect to the Post Office Directory. It was a very able and accurate compilation; but the work was done by the letter carriers; who obtained little or none of the profits. It was edited by Mr. Kelly, the Inspector of the letter carriers, who used until this year (when Parliament had begun to turn attention to the Post Office) to boast in the preface of "his peculiar resources through the favour of the Postmaster General." Was it an official or a non-official work?—a public or a private speculation? If private, what right had Mr. Kelly to employ the servants of the Crown to carry on his private speculations? If public and official, the work belonged to the public, and ought not to be made the subject of private speculation and gain. By the return of Mr. Kelly, the total difference between the receipts and expenditure for that work amounted to 1,276 l. 4s. 7d.; and he stated—"This work is carried on by a large private capital, supported by official

1321
resources." What right had he to use official resources, and to persecute the letter carriers in order to make them serve his mercenary purposes? Mr. Kelly stated that he had purchased the copyright, but he did not say what he gave for it. But there was reason to believe that it was a mere trifle. Why should he have the services of 200 or 300 men paid out of the public money for his private profit? It was no part of their duty, and they were not told they were required to do it when they entered the service. Mr. Kelly did not say whether the 1,276 l. was profit or loss; but of course it was profit. If the House would grant him a Committee, he (Mr. Duncombe) would prove that Mr. Kelly's profits were nearly 8,000 l. a year. Was this to be considered as a perquisite, and ought such an officer as the Inspector General of letter carriers to have such a perquisite? The price of the large edition of the Post Office Directory was 30 s. A letter carrier, if he sold a copy, would be allowed 5s., and the book trade were allowed 6s. But any bookseller would tell the House that if he were allowed to use the same resources he could give the work to the public, not at 30 s., but at 15 s. The letter carriers were most insufficiently paid. He would suggest that they should be paid according to the following graduated scale:—For the first five years' service, 70 l. per annum; from five to ten years, 80 l.; from ten to fifteen years, 90 l.; from fifteen to twenty years, 100 l.; from twenty to thirty years 110 l. After thirty years service they should have the option of retiring on a pension of 50 l. a year. Did not these men deserve remuneration to that extent? In addition to his profits on the work, Mr. Kelly furnished a large number of copies, 200 or 300, to the Post Office, for which he was paid, no doubt, and which, when they were done with, were returned to him. In fact, he was using the stores of the establishment. The Revenue Commissioners of Inquiry recommended the discontinuance of the Post Office Shipping List, and it had been discontinued. But they had also recommended that the profits on the Packet List should be made available to the Revenue. Those profits would replace the loss occasioned by doing away with the fees he had mentioned, and enable the men to receive salaries according to his graduated scale. Mr. Kelly had recently posted up a notice in the letter
1322
carriers' department, reminding them that as the time had arrived for collecting information for the Directory for the year 1846, care should be taken to get persons to write their proper names and addresses in the printed forms for that purpose; and he trusted that he should not have to report any instance of neglect. What right had this Inspector to report men for not serving his private speculation? The same proclamation stated that 1,200 l. a year was given in the shape of commission to the letter carriers for selling the work. How did that statement accord with the other made by Mr. Kelly? This Directory was a complete monopoly. In reply to Mr. Kelly's proclamation, another notice was posted up, for the discovery of the author of which Mr. Kelly had offered a reward. It was to this effect—
"Fellow-men, read the order emanating from your superior, and wonder by what authority he has imposed such conditions on you! Who has sanctioned this monopoly? Will you submit to have this slavery fastened on you, to serve the private interests of an individual? Are we the servants of a bookseller or of the Queen? Too long have these interests been cultivated at our expense. Men, be firm! Strike the hand that would forge your fetters. Shall you be the slaves of monopoly? — slaves to interests which are fostered by official resources? Let the devil take all dishonesty, and be honest to yourselves. Redeem yourselves by forming a capital of 1,000 l. and snap the tyrannical chain which binds you. Recollect that postmen can sell any Directory they like. Let it be your own child, and not a bastard."
Now, it was most disgraceful to that establishment that such a notice as that should be posted up in it. But was it to be wondered at, seeing that the men were so badly paid, that they were made to do this extra work for nothing, and that they were reported and suspended often, if they happened to miscollect the name or address of a person? He believed that if those men were to throw Mr. Kelly's printed forms behind the fire, and tell him to collect the information himself, they would be perfectly justified in doing so. There were abuses in that establishment which, if they did not require inquiry, required correction; and he believed it was only necessary that they should be known in order to secure their correction. It would not do to contradict his statements, or to say that they were exaggerated or not true. Give him a Committee, and he would prove them all. Would the House

1323
suffer itself to be imposed upon by false returns? The case of the carriers should enlist the sympathies of the House. They were exposed to hardship and tyranny, and if they attempted to make any complaints to their superiors they were sure to be stopped halfway by Mr. Kelly. They had no power to protect themselves. He believed that Colonel Maberly and Lord Londsdale would be perfectly astonished at the disclosures which would be made, if he were granted that Committee of Inquiry for which he now moved.
Captain Pechell, in seconding the Motion, complained of the abuses in the mail-packet department of the Post Office in regard to irregularity and expense. The mails had been detained as long as six months together at the Scilly Islands; and as to expense, the Government had expended in employing two vessels to carry the mails from Penzance to Scilly 1,300 l. 19 s. 4d. in five years, which sum would have been more than sufficient to have paid a contract for the mail-packets for thirteen years.
Mr. Humewished to say a few words on the subject of the Motion before the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cardwell) commenced his reply. He was strongly of opinion that the Committee ought to be appointed, even from the consideration of saving the Government much trouble which the Post Office Department now gave them. No hon. Member could visit the city without being astonished at the number of complaints made in all quarters against the Post Office. In every department of the public Revenue the payment of fees formerly existed to a great extent, and a Committee was appointed on his Motion for the purpose of inquiring into them. From the difficulties, however, which were found to exist in the way of a proper inquiry before the Committee, the Government of the day consented to issue a Commission having the same object in view. The Report of the Commission was in favour of doing away with these fees altogether, and the consequence was, that the payment of fees was abolished in every department of the State with the exception of the Post Office alone. The efforts of a Committee, if appointed, to inquire into the state of that establishment, would, he was satisfied, be of considerable service to the Post Office itself, as well as of great use to the public at large. It was
1324
in vain for them to attempt correcting the evils of the Post Office system without having the facts before them. The injustice of the early delivery was especially one that might be put an end to. There was no reason why, because a trader happened not to be very extensively engaged in business, and not able to pay a fee for an early delivery of his letters, he should not enjoy the same facilities from a public department as a rich man, who would consent to pay the fee. A man's riches ought not to give him an advantage in a public department over his poorer fellow citizens; and he was sorry to be obliged to say that the Post Office was open to more complaints in that respect than any other branch of the public service. There was no country in the world ever derived a greater benefit from an Act of Parliament than this obtained by the adoption of the penny postage system; but the old establishment had not been adapted to the new arrangements, and consequently much of the advantage which the system was calculated to afford to the public was lost by a perseverance in the former state of things. He, therefore, trusted that the House would support the Motion for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.
Mr. Cardwellsaid, notwithstanding his great respect for the hon. Member for Montrose, he was afraid he could not consent to adopt his advice by granting the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. [Mr. Hume: You may not, but the House will.] He would, in the first place, observe, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member who had seconded the Motion, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had admitted one of the returns to be correct. When parties had refused to carry the mails on the terms which the state of the Revenue enabled them to offer, the Postmaster was necessarily obliged to take other measures for the transmission of letters. With regard to the question of fees, he thought he was justified, from the terms in which the hon. Member had concluded his Motion, in saying that the hon. Member did not think a Committee of that House was the most appropriate means of correcting the evils of which he complained. It was the easiest thing in the world for any person, having complaints to make, to send them to the Postmaster General, or the Secretary of the Post Office, when they would be promptly attended to. He believed there was no disposition, either on behalf of the

1325
superior or subordinate officers of the Post Office, to continue unnecessarily a system of fees. That fact had been already stated before a Committee by the Secretary of the Post Office. In many instances these fees had been removed; but they were still retained in the case of the early delivery. Now, what was that delivery? There was a large class of persons within the general post delivery to whom an early receipt of letters was of the utmost importance; and while, by the early delivery, these parties were benefited, the public at large also obtained some advantage; because the early delivery being completed before the first general delivery commenced, the letter carriers went out with a much less number of letters than they would have, if there were no early delivery, and the public generally thus received their letters much quicker than if the men had a greater number of letters to convey. Besides, the greater number of letters sent out by the early delivery were, he understood, received at the steps of the Post Office by persons specially sent for the purpose of receiving them, and thus the time of the letter carriers was not so much occupied in this matter as might at first sight be supposed. Another advantage arising from the early delivery was, that a great proportion of the foreign letters on which postage was payable were sent out by it, and thus as credit was given to them in the Post Office, the convenience of the parties was thus very considerably promoted. But the hon. Member had stated that it appeared to be very hard, that the salary of the subordinates in the Post Office diminished as their period of service increased. The reason of this was that the older officers, who became more trustworthy, were selected in proportion to their seniority for other situations to which fees were attached; and these fees, therefore, could not be abolished without giving the parties a claim to compensation. This accounted for the salaries apparently decreasing, when the amount actually received by the men in reality increased. He did not think it would be justifiable to abolish these fees, because such a course would, necessarily, impose a large increase of expense on the revenue, while it would inconvenience parties who were now materially benefited by the early delivery. With respect to the Post Office Directory, he did not think it was open to the description of being an exceedingly gross job. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a system of insubordination
1326
caused by the manner in which the Directory was compiled; and certainly the document which the hon. Member had been so good as to read to the House was as insubordinate a production as could well be conceived. But that only showed that there was some insubordinate person connected with the Post Office, and not that the system pursued there was calculated to cause such irregularity. It was, he believed, found necessary for the proper management of the Post Office, that the information contained in the Directory should be collected; and a part of the duty of the letter carriers accordingly was to obtain correct answers to the inquiries sent forth. That being so, it was clearly a great advantage to the public that the information thus obtained should be published. The work was commenced in 1779, by a Mr. Sparks, who was then connected with the Post Office, and it was afterwards conducted by a Mr. Pritchard, who purchased it from the former proprietor. About ten years ago, when Mr. Kelly succeeded to the office, it was proposed that he should make an arrangement with the widow of Pritchard for the purchase of her interest in it. He also advanced some amount of capital for the purpose of improving the work, and he was satisfied that the return of 1,200 l. a year profit was a correct return, and that it comprised not only the actual profit, but also the interest on the capital expended. He also believed that the letter-carriers received a considerable profit from the work; and, under these circumstances, he did not think it was justifiable to designate the proceeding as a gross job. The hon. Member concluded by repeating his conviction that the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office Department would be found ready and willing to correct any evils or improprieties that might be pointed out to him.
Dr. Bowringsaid, the Post Office was a public establishment, paid for by equal contributions from the community at large; but, he would ask, did it contribute equal benefits to all parties? Fees had been destroyed in other departments of the public service; but they were unjustly retained in this, and thus he who could go with a fee in his hand to the Post Office was enabled to obtain benefits which were denied to the poor man. It was often as necessary for the less opulent merchant to receive early intelligence from the Continent or elsewhere as for the wealthy man; but by the present

1327
system it was denied him. The Post Office was the most important of all to the public; and he thought, on every priciple of justice, that its advantages should be extended to every individual in the community,
Mr. Williamssaid, after the three charges which were brought against the Post Office Department, he thought the Government were bound to grant the Committee of Inquiry. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had not denied these charges, he had merely endeavoured to palliate them; but he (Mr. Williams) would ask seriously were such grave accusations to be dismissed in such a manner? The heads of public departments made it a rule, on all occasions, to defend the acts of their subordinates; but in this, the most important branch of the public service committed to the care of the Government, he trusted such a course would not be persevered in without an inquiry being instituted.
Mr. Baringwould not trouble the House with more than two or three words. Though he was not prepared to go the full length of assenting to the appointment of the Committee, he still thought the subject one which the Government ought to take under their consideration. He did not agree in terming the Post Office Directory a job; but he would not at the same time say that a better arrangement than the present system might not be adopted.
Sir Charles Lemonsaid, the Papers before the House furnished a satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell). It was plain that the Post Office authorities had been deceived by their subordinate officer in Cornwall, as that was the only manner in which he could account for their seeing the question in a different light from every other person who knew anything whatever about it.
Mr. Curteisthought it was a very great hardship that he should receive his letters an hour and a half later than other persons, merely because he would not submit to pay an illegal fee. If his constituents received answers to their letters from him later than they might wish, he hoped they would know that the blame rested not with him, but with the Post Office.
The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 106; Noes 30: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. Dyke

Holmes, hn. W. A'C

A'Court, Capt.

Hope, hon. C.

Adare, Visct.

Hope, G. W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hussey, A.

Arkwright, G.

Hussey, T.

Baillie, Col.

Ingestre, Visct.

Baillie, H. J.

Jermyn, Earl

Baird, W.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Baldwin, B.

Jones, Capt.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Kemble, H.

Baring, T.

Knightley, Sir C.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Beresford, Major

Lowther, Sir J. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Borthwick, P.

Mackenzie, T.

Bolfield, B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bowles, Adm.

M'Neill, D.

Broadley, H.

Masterman, J.

Broadwood, H.

Meynell, Capt.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Mundy, E. M.

Cardwell, E.

Neville, R.

Carew, W. H. P.

Newdegate, C. N.

Clerk, rt. hn. Sir G.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Copeland, Aid.

Pakington, J. S.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Patten, J. W.

Cripps, W.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Damer, hon. Col.

Peel, J.

Darby, G.

Polhill, F.

Davies, D. A. S.

Pringle, A.

Dickinson, F. H.

Richards, R.

Douglas, Sir H.

Scott, hon. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Drummond, H. H.

Sheridan, R. B.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Egerton, W. T.

Spooner, R.

Egerton, Sir P.

Stewart, J.

Entwisle, W.

Stuart, H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Forman, T. S.

Tennent, J. E.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Tollemache, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Verner, Col.

Gore, M.

Vernon, G. H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Granby, Marq. of

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Greene, T.

Halford, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Baring, H.

Herbert, rt. hn. S.

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Barnard, E. G.

Forster, M.

Barrington, Visct.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Busfeild, W.

Langston, J. H.

Collett, J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Crain, W. G.

Marsland, H.

Curteis, H. B.

Martin, J,

Dennistoun, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

1329

Muntz, G. F.

Wakley, T.

Murray, A.

Warburton, H.

O'Conor Don

Wawn, J. T.

Paget, Col.

Williams, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Wyse, T.

Plumridge, Capt.

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Duncombe, T.

Villiers, hon. C.

Bowring, Dr.

Order of the Day read, on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.

NATIONAL ANTIQUITIES.
Mr. Wyse, pursuant to notice, rose to move
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Commission for the purpose of considering the best means for establishing and maintaining a Museum of National Antiquities in conjunction with a Commission for the conservation of National Monuments."
He did not complain either of the application or results of the expenditure dedicated to the purchase of Grecian or Roman works of art; what he wanted was, the foundation and maintenance of a gallery for the preservation of those monuments and specimens, either of skill or feeling, which characterized the arts and history of this country. It was only by a juxtaposition of the monuments of art connected with the different epochs, from the earliest to the latest, that they could either duly estimate the past or produce for the future. It was a cardinal mistake to call on artists to produce historical works, without the means of cultivating their powers, and ascertaining the spirit of the age they had to represent. These means ought to be afforded in a liberal and ample manner, worthy of so great a nation. Hitherto our artists had but small means; although their enthusiasm had been great, their education had been limited. Much labour had, therefore, been misapplied, and a large expenditure of time and money forced upon them; and thus not only individuals but the nation had been deprived of opportunities of excellence which a little previous arrangement might have secured. There was no place provided for the reception of British antiquities. Throughout the country a gradual dilapidation of public monuments was going on. In their architecture alone many of the finest old buildings were injured by neglect or injudicious repairs; many specimens of their best artists no longer existed; and, where they had been repaired, they had too often witnessed the destructive results of the "beautifying"
1330
of churchwardens and others who had no knowledge or feeling of art, and whose labours exhibited a spirit of Vandalism existing in the midst of a Christian and civilized community. He mentioned the neglect with which many specimens of old church architecture had been treated, among them St. Saviour's, Southwark, and the Cathedral of Durham; and in Ireland, Glendalough and Cashel. He quoted an extract from the Essay of Mr. Petrie, on the Round Towers of Ireland, in which that gentleman states, that he was induced to undertake his researches solely from an ardent desire to rescue the antiquities of his native country from unmerited oblivion; and from a hope that, by making them generally known, some stop might be put to the wanton destruction of those remains, which threatened to lead to their total annihilation. The same efforts should be made to preserve the ecclesiastical and historical monuments of the kingdom; and he was sure there was no one who would not co-operate with the Government for the purpose, if the Government was disposed to assist them. He adverted to the destruction that fell on the monuments and antiquities of France during the tempest of the Revolution; but the nation had at last become conscious of the misfortune. Like ourselves, the people could complain of seeing their old buildings dilapidated, or injudiciously repaired. Many of the monuments of the country were disappearing from the soil, and remains of great value, in the precious metals or in painted glass, were being transferred to the stranger. In a memoir of the Committee of Arts and Monuments, it was stated that the cathedral of Notre Dame, at Paris, was sadly shattered; that in very recent times some of its beautiful imagery and carvings had been broken or taken away; even the ancient inscription which recorded the date of its erection was almost effaced; and that it was made the place where the children of the neighbourhood assembled to amuse themselves, to the great injury of the fabric. To remedy these evils a provisionary school was instituted for the purpose of awakening attention to the subject of ancient art; the plan became more developed, and, to the honour of France, it was not long before the Government exerted themselves in the matter. The present Minister of that country took up the question zeal-

1331
ously, and the Committee of Historical Monuments and Arts was appointed. The church of St. Martin des Champs, one of the oldest in Paris, was selected as a repository for monuments and specimens of ancient art. In consequence of the exertions of this Committee, a new spirit had been aroused in France for the illustration of every period of the progress of Christianity both in that country and throughout Europe; and there was a general desire among the people to give the fullest effect to the intentions of the Government. He hoped that not only would the historical remains of France be preserved from further injury by this Committee, but that all Europe would be benefited by the liberality with which their museum was thrown open to every class of strangers. These exertions were not confined to France alone; similar efforts were making in Belgium and Germany. He reminded the House that for the decoration of the New Houses of Parliament they were going to resort to Christian art, dealing with the poetry and history, not of the pagans, but of a Christian people. Was he not justified, then, in calling on them to imitate the example of France, and to found a Museum of National Art, combined with a Commission for preventing the further decay and destruction of national monuments? He was confident the public would assist them, nay, that public liberality would outstrip their own. He knew more than one gentleman who would willingly present their collections to the public, if the Government would make them accessible, by providing a place in which they might be deposited. These collections were of great value, as they were not acquired at auctions, but by a long life of research and labour. Such were the collections of Mr. Britton, and those in the studios of many other artists and antiquaries. He believed that in founding such a museum, they would be supported by a general feeling out of doors that it would not be a lavish expenditure of public money, but one in harmony with their past and present efforts; one they were called on to make by the present position of the arts in this country; one to which they were invited by the general voice of Europe. The hon. Gentleman then moved an Address to Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the best means of preserving the national monuments and antiquities.
Mr. Bernalsaid, the inquiry called for by the hon. Member was absolutely necessary. There was, unfortunately, too great an apathy in this country, with regard to such subjects as these, because they had not the interest of personality and strong political feeling. If the state of the Treasury did not allow the right hon. Baronet to give the public money for the promotion of these objects, a public subscription ought to be opened for the purpose. We were the only country in the world which left these matters to private enterprise and taste. At the Louvre there was a large collection of middle-age relies; but we had no such public collection. He thought that the Motion of his hon. Friend was somewhat too confined—that it ought to extend to antiquities generally, which were analogous to and coeval with the antiquities of this country—for instance, those which were to be found in Brittany. There ought to be an institution where the student could see the dresses, weapons, costumes, and antiquities of past ages. It was true that there was the Geological Museum, but it was confined in its objects. And at the British Museum there were vast collections of most interesting objects, which, however, either from want of room, or want of good will on the part of the conductors of the institution, were not properly accessible. He was satisfied that if a national museum were once established, private individuals would at once contribute to it. Such an institution would have the best effect on the manners and morals of the people.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer(who was most indistinctly heard), said that the hon. Gentlemen who had brought forward and seconded this Motion, did not appear to have taken into consideration that the works of foreign countries were under the influence of the Crown or the Government, whereas a great deal had been left in England to the exertions of private individuals, or companies of persons associated together for the promotion of art. It was quite true that our national galleries and public collections would not compare with many foreign galleries; but, at the same time, it should not be forgotten that there were very valuable collections in the possession of many members of the nobility and gentry of this couuntry; and he was persuaded that, could it ever happen that, by any extraordinary circumstances, those works should be accumulated into one gallery,

1333
it would be found that England actually possessed a larger quantity of beautiful works of art than any single country in Europe. He might state, too, in respect to the owners of these works, that they were remarkable for their great liberality as regarded the arts of this country, and that their conduct gave to our native artists advantages equal to, if not greater, than those they might derive from the accumulation of these works into one spot. With respect to the architecture of this country, the hon. Gentleman would admit, he thought, with him, that there had been, in recent times, a very remarkable amendment in that department of art. With respect to the appointment of a Commission, however, for the purposes to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) apprehended to be the evil of similar Commissions was this, that they got into the hands of individuals who, having themselves peculiar tastes of their own on the subject of art, and being succeeded again by others, perhaps, whose tastes differed from theirs, produced this result—should bad taste prevail—that bad taste was perpetuated by such Commissions. He was rather disposed, therefore, to leave subjects of this sort to the general improving taste of the people, which necessarily operated upon the minds of individuals who had the means of applying themselves to such subjects. Commissions, in his opinion, could do very little good in reference to the points of which the hon. Gentleman complained. He would not, however, enter at length into this subject on that occasion. It involved a great question of expenditure, if carried to the extent which those who were anxious for its promotion desired to see it carried; but this he felt he might say, that there never had been, on the part of the Government of this country, any niggardly disposition which restrained them from the purchase of works of art which were for sale, and the possession of which, by the nation, might be of service to the advancement and encouragement of native art. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he was not prepared to accede to the proposition before the House.
Mr. Borthwickthought it extremely desirable that increased care should be bestowed upon the preservation of the religious and ecclesiastical monuments of this country, even to the comparative
1334
neglect of those of pagan and profane antiquity. The state of our ecclesiastical architecture was such as to call for much greater attention, though greater expense should thus be incurred than had hitherto been devoted to it. The hon. Gentleman adverted at some length to the exaction of fees from persons visiting cathedral structures, and strongly expressed his disapproval of the practice.
Mr. Ewartsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyse) wished to have existing monuments dispoiled; he only desired to have them concentrated in one establishment, instead of mouldering in various public edifices. He entirely concurred in the view which had just been taken in reference to cathedrals. Forming, as cathedrals did, part of the history and religion of the country, it was the duty of the Government to do all in its power to secure their being open to the public without any charge whatever.
Mr. Wysehaving replied,
Motion negatived.

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE AND MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply.
On the proposal of a grant of 299,333 l. for defraying the expenses of the Commissariat and Barrack supplies, &c, for the Army,
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that the only vote which had been taken on these Estimates on a former occasion had been voted at a late hour of the night, and at a time when he had not an opportunity of making the few observations he was desirous of offering to the House upon them. He was sorry to see that there was so great an increase in this department of the public service in the present year. The Estimates consisted of nine votes, and in seven of those nine votes there was an increase of 284,000 l., whilst there was also a considerable increase in regard to the other two, over the sums voted last year. The Ordnance Estimates for the present year amounted to 2,287,000 l. In the year 1835 they were one million less than that amount; so that the Estimates of the present year were, without anything in the circumstances of the country to justify any such increase, very nearly double those which were considered necessary in 1835. He objected to the number of officers attached to the Royal Horse Bri-

1335
gade, which was kept at home, and performed no service abroad, as the other regiments did. He admitted that the Artillery corps of the country ought to be kept in an efficient state; but this regiment called the Royal Horse Brigade, composed of 570 men, had three colonels, six lieutenant colonels, and forty officers in all, giving an officer to every eighteen men. Moreover, nineteen of those forty-six officers received extra pay for brevet rank. He thought that this corps ought to be placed on the same footing as the other Artillery regiments.
Captain Bolderosaid, the present was the first time since he had a seat in that House that he had heard anything in disparagement of this splendid corps. If they did not keep up the number of the Horse Artillery, they would weaken their cavalry, because it covered the movements of the cavalry. A great advantage in maintaining this corps in a state of efficiency was, that if they found it necessary to double their Horse Artillery force, they could do so by merely providing horses. It was a poor economy to disband this fine corps for a saving of 1,700 l., for that was all that would be saved.
Sir H. Douglasentreated the Committee not to be led away by the hon. Member's regard for pecuniary economy, to interfere with this splendid and efficient corps—the Horse Artillery. The hon. Member said it might be dispensed with in peace, and speedily reconstituted for war. This was not so. No corps of this description and scientific character could be suddenly formed. Nothing in our military system had contributed more to the success and renown of our arms, than that power of concentration, celerity of movement, and active combination of artillery with the other arms, which attended the introduction of horse artillery. The efficiency of the horse artillery was the result of many years of improvement and experience. He (Sir H. Douglas) would not attempt to take up the time of the Committee to trace this. For this, it would be necessary to go back to the time of Frederick the Great, who introduced horse artillery in that war, in which, by celerity of movement, he defeated, with the same army, enemies on every frontier of his States. He might show the prodigious advantages reaped in all the armies of Europe from the adoption of this arm—the important uses made of it by Dumourier, Pichegrue, and
1336
Napoleon; and in our own service, the brilliant services of that corps in the Peninsular war. He (Sir H. Douglas) would not attempt to specify the many brilliant proofs, exhibited in that war, of the peculiar advantages of that description of artillery to which the hon. Member's observations related; but, with the permission of the Committee, would refer only to the battle of the Nivelle on the 10th of November, 1813. Clauzel was strongly posted on a ridge, having the village of Sarre in front, covered by two formidable redoubts, San Barbe and Grenada. He thought the country in front was so difficult and impracticable for artillery, that he was astonished when eighteen British guns opened upon those redoubts at daylight in the morning. Under the powerful effect of a shower of shot poured upon S. Barbe, the infantry of the fourth division stormed and carried that redoubt. Ross (the present Sir Hew) then galloped—he (Sir H. Douglas) begged the Committee to mark the term — galloped to a rising ground in rear of the other redoubt, Grenada, drove the enemy from it, when the British infantry carried it, and the village of Sarre, and advanced to the attack of Clauzel's main position. Part of it was carried; but Clauzel stood firm, covered by another redoubt and a powerful battery. These were speedily silenced by Ross's troop of horse artillery, the only battery that had been able to surmount the difficulties of the ground after passing Sarre. The British infantry then carried the redoubt, drove Clauzel from his position, forced the French to retire, and the rout was complete. Sir, that operation was worth all the money the horse artillery has ever cost the country. He (Sir H. Douglas) cordially concured in the vote for increasing the number of men of the foot artillery; far from thinking it unnecessary, it was indispensable; but it was totally inadequate to the wants of the service. He rejoiced to find in these Estimates, votes for improving the coast defences, for ordnance stores, and for armament; but (he continued) "I beg the Committee to remember that, however liberally the material of the coast defences may be provided for, however promptly these may be completed, you will have done little towards the security of the country, unless you are prepared to man those defences with a sufficient number of well-trained and efficient artillerymen, ready, at any time, for any sudden emergency. To be prepared for, is not to pro-

*1333
voke, but to prevent war. The most perilous part of a war to this country, would be the commencement, before you get your strength together, and can put forth your force for meeting menace, with active defence, as Britons ought, to keep war from the shores of England. But you have not at present one artilleryman per gun for existing defences; you have not a sufficient number of artillerymen to keep up the foreign reliefs properly with well-trained men. You have not a piece of ordnance, nor an artilleryman in all the Colonies of the Pacific. Such are the demands on the head quarter establishment, the practical school of artillery, that artillerymen, and even non-commissioned officers are frequently sent away imperfectly trained, and often without any instruction in the gun practice. Remember that it is not only necessary to retain practical proficiency in the management of the arms which triumphed in the late war, but to become as proficient and as superior in acquiring a perfect knowledge, an expert and effectual management, of the new arms which will be generally used, together with a gigantic power, in future wars. Improvements in naval and military ordnance keep peace with the gigantic progress making in other departments of mechanical and practical science. The arms of the late war have been superseded—more powerful engines—more ponderous bolts are forged. Such now is the state of naval artillery and gunnery, and the means of aggression, that coast defences require additional strength, corresponding armament, and, above all, efficient management, to prevent the approach of forces which, if permitted to close, are now, as has been shown in a recent instance, more formidable than ever to coast batteries. I would repeat, then, in the strongest possible terms, that whatever else we may do, we do nothing, effectually, towards the security of the country, against any sudden attack, if we provide not in time the means to man our batteries with a sufficient number of well-instructed efficient artillery-men."
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 213,246 l. for Ordnance Stores for the Land and Sea Service,
Sir H. Douglas: With reference to what had been said by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty, on a former occasion, respecting the insufficiency of space on the breakwater at Plymouth, for the erection of a battery, he (Sir H. Douglas) thought it indispensable to the defence of
*1334
the Port and Arsenal, that a powerful battery should be established on the southwest elbow of the breakwater, to cross fire with the defences on the Mount Edgecombe shore; and consequently that the breakwater should be sufficiently enlarged and heightened at that part for the erection of such a work.
Vote agreed to.
On the Question that 208,573 l. for Salaries and Contingencies of Officers in the Barrack Establishments of the United Kingdom and the Colonies be granted,
Sir H. Douglaswished to ask his hon. and gallant Friend whether any, and what, measures were adopted to provide for the building of a church at Corfu, consequent upon the demolition of that which, standing in the way of improvements in the military defences, had been taken down?
Captain Bolderowas understood to say, that there had been some difficulty in deciding upon a proper site; but that, this being supplied, a new church would speedily be commenced.
Sir H. Douglaswould take that opportunity of asking whether any, and what, measures were adopted in the erection or enlargement of barracks, at home and abroad, to provide chapels for Divine service, and which might likewise be used as school rooms; and which he (Sir H. Douglas) thought should be provided wherever barrack accommodation for the head quarters, or for any considerable detachment of a regiment, might be permanently provided for.
Captain Bolderowas understood to say, that in the works now under execution for barrack accommodation, provision had been made for those important purposes.
Vote agreed to.
On the Question that 62,743 l. for Scientific purposes in the Ordnance Department be granted,
Sir H. Douglaswished to know whether any, and what, measures were adopted for the purpose of prosecuting the Ordnance Survey of Scotland—the elementary and secondary triangulation of which had been so long contemplated?
Captain Bolderowas understood to say, that measures had been adopted for the actual prosecution of that important work.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 6,500 l. for part of the expense of erecting the farmhouse and premises in the Botanical Gardens at Kew,
The Earl of Lincolnobserved, in answer

*1335
to a complaint of Mr. Williams, that the Gardens were open to the public every day from an early hour.
On the Vote of 85,395 l., for providing temporary accommodation for the Houses of Parliament, Committee-rooms, residence for the Speaker, &c.,
Mr. Huttcomplained of the state of the Committee-rooms, and said that the Members who attended day after day to their duties, ought to have some protection from the dangerous state in which imperfect ventilation left the Committee-rooms.
Sir R. Peeladmitted the justice of the hon. Member's claim on the Government to provide adequate accommodation for Members whilst engaged in close attention to their duties.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 13,400 l. being proposed for the salaries and expenses of the persons employed in the care and arrangement of the Public Records,
Mr. Protheroeasked if any plan had been adopted for the more perfect custody and preservation of the records?
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, the proposal for depositing them in the New Houses of Parliament had been abandoned, and the matter had been referred to Sir F. Palgrave.
After a short conversation,
Mr. Hawesremarked, the question had been so long under consideration, that, before it was settled, in all probability the records would be burnt.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—
14,000 l. to defray the cost for pulling down and rebuilding the Home Office, and enlarging the Board of Trade Offices; 3,336 l. to defray the cost of maintaining Holyhead Harbour; 50,000 l. to defray the expense of repairing and enlarging the Caledonian Canal; 9,000 l. to defray the expenses of the works and repairs of Kingston Harbour; 39,320 l. for salaries of Officers, and the expenses of both Houses of Parliament; 25,900 l. for the expenses of the Treasury Office; 17,420 l. for the Home Department; 24,000 l. for the Foreign Office; 21,000 l, for the Colonial Office; 39,000 l. for the Privy Council and the Board of Trade; 2,000 l. for the Privy Seal; 34,026 l. for the Paymaster General of the Forces; 15,919 l. for the Controller and Officers of the Exchequer; 2,612 l. for the expenses of the Jewel Office in the Tower; 10,967 l. for salaries
*1336
and expenses of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Factories; 22,471 l. to pay the salaries and expenses of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in Dublin and London, and the Privy Council Office in Ireland; 5,018 l. to defray the charge for salaries, &c., of the office of the Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland; 3,157 l. to pay the salaries and expenses of the Board of Public Works in Ireland; 221,588 l. for providing stationery, printing, and binding for the several departments of Government in England, Scotland, Ireland, and the Colonies, and for providing stationery, &c., for the two Houses of Parliament; 4,950 l. for the expense of printing, &c., to be executed by the Queen's printers in Ireland.
Sir C. Napierinquired if a Supplementary Vote was intended to be brought forward for the retired Navy list this year?
Sir G. Cockburnthought he might venture to promise as much.
Mr. Hawes,
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that in October or November, it was likely that a library and reading room would be ready, in which the public might consult the State Papers, an index to which had been completed.
On the Vote of 112,317 l., for Repairs and other Expenses connected with Public Buildings,
Mr. Bernalcalled the attention of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to the fact of a picture having been purchased for the National Gallery for 600 l., which proved to be not worth 40 l. He alluded to a soi-disant picture of Holbein which was exhibited for a short time in the National Gallery. He had not seen it, but believed it was now vegetating in an inglorious obscurity, having been considered unworthy of a place in the national depository of paintings. He had, therefore, to complain that such large sums of money should be paid for paintings of illegitimate or doubtful origin.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that as one of the Trustees of the National Gallery, he would be happy to give the hon. Member every information. He thought that, speaking generally, the pictures bought by the Trustees were of very high repute. They had procured some of the very finest paintings. He admitted, however, that there were in the National Gallery pictures of an inferior character; but these were not

1337
purchases. They were the gifts of private individuals. The Trustees were, however, now adopting a rule with respect to gifts of this nature, which it would be ungracious altogether to refuse; but the Trustees intended to attach to their acceptance a condition that they should be at liberty to present them to provincial galleries. He admitted that many of the pictures presented by private individuals were of an inferior character. He would take that opportunity of saying, that if the House would consent to have a good National Gallery for the reception of paintings, it would be the cheapest expenditure in the end, as many persons would be induced to give their pictures to it, in order to have their names recorded there, which they would prefer to the money the picture would bring. With respect to the purchase alluded to by the hon. Member, he begged to say that the National Gallery, being deficient in works of the old German school, a report reached the Trustees that a picture of Holbein was for sale. It is difficult to say, in the case of a picture of the age of two or three hundred years, whether it can be justly attributed to the master or not. The picture in question was bought as a Holbein; and though there is no doubt that it is a contemporary painting, yet, as there had arisen a doubt as to its being a Holbein, it was withdrawn. They were at present in communication with the party from whom it was bought; and the Trustees, who had met twice on the subject, were to meet again in reference to it on Monday next. No guarantee had been received as to the authenticity of the picture; but, indeed, in such cases, it was difficult to obtain a guarantee. In cases of doubt, he should recommend that eminent artists and dealers be consulted—a course which he thought preferable to the appointment of a permanent commission. The purchases made by the Trustees of the National Gallery were rare and infrequent, and confined to valuable pictures. It was, however, difficult to get valuable pictures, so great was the price given for them. Indeed, the rapid increase in the price of works of art was really astonishing.
Dr. Bowringwished to know if there were any hope of improving the external appearance of the National Gallery. If any proposition were made for that purpose, he was sure that all parties would cordially concur in supporting it.
Mr. Warburtontrusted that the right hon. Baronet would be prepared, in the
1338
course of next year, as the cheapest mode of obtaining a good collection of pictures, to recommend the erection of a suitable building to contain the great national collection.
Sir R. Peelsaid, when the grant for the present National Gallery was made, there were so many claims on the public purse, that Parliament was not disposed to vote a large sum for the purpose. The result, from whatever cause, was, that they had thrown away a most magnificent site. It was impossible to stand on the steps of the present building, and not be convinced of that fact. Very little good, however, would be done by laying out money on the external improvements, such, for instance, as the enlargement of the turrets. In fact, the interior of the building required great alteration before it could be effective for the purpose for which it was designed. For example, a great deal depended on the way in which the light was thrown on the pictures. If the angle of incidence, and the angle of reflection, were not duly attended to, great injustice might be done to a picture of great merit. The erection of a new National Gallery would be much better and cheaper than any attempt to modify or improve the exterior of the present building. This subject was under the consideration of the Government of the country; and he thought, before many years elapsed, we should have a National Gallery worthy the reception of works of art, and calculated to encourage their possessors to bequeath them to the public.
Mr. Haweswished to put in one word for the modern school of painting by our own countrymen. Their works, he believed, if wisely selected, might form a collection which would compare with any gallery that had ever existed.
Viscount Mahonsuggested the propriety of procuring a collection of portraits of eminent men distinguished in the history of this country. Such a collection might exercise a most beneficial influence upon the rising generation, whilst it could be procured probably at little expense.
The Vote was agreed to.
On the Question that 3,340 l. be granted for the Ecclesiastical Commission of England and Wales.
Mr. Williamsopposed the Vote; for he thought it unjust to tax for any such purpose those who did not conform to the doctrines of the Established Church.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the Commission was appointed for the

1339
purpose of distributing the funds that came into its possession in a manner that might provide for the better religious instruction of the community. As the object was a public one, the State paid the expenses of the Commission.
Dr. Bowringexpressed his concurrence in the objection taken by the hon. Member for Coventry.
Mr. Liddellobserved, that it was just that the State should defray the expenses of the Commission, as the whole community benefited by its labours.
Mr. Redingtonthought that the expenses of the Commission should be paid out of the funds in the hands of the Commissioners, before they applied any money to the increase of endowments.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 61 Noes 19: Majority 42.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hamilton, W. J.

Acton, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Barrington, Visct.

Hotham, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Houldsworth, T.

Bowles, Adm.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Boyd, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Broadwood, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Cardwell, E.

McNeill, D.

Clayton, R. R.

Martin, C. W.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Masterman, J.

Clifton, J. T.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Parker, J.

Copeland, Ald.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Peel, J.

Cripps, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Davies, D. A. S.

Protheroe, E.

Deedes, W.

Scott, hon. F.

Denison, E. B.

Sheridan, R. B.

Dickinson, F. H.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Egerton, Sir P.

Spooner, R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Flower, Sir J.

Stuart, H.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gaskell, J. M.

Tollemache, J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Godson, R.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Goulburn, rt. Hon. H.

TELLERS.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baring, H.

Grogan, E.

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Anson, hon. Col.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Hindley, C.

Collett, J.

Martin, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Morris, D.

Duncan, G.

Muntz, G. F.

Duncannon, Visct.

Redington, T. N.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Ricardo, J. L.

Gibson, T. M.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

1340

Villiers, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Warburton, H.

Williams, W.

Wawn, J. T.

Bowring, Dr.

Vote agreed to.
The next Vote was, that 52,770 l. be granted to defray the charge of Salaries and Expenses of the Poor Law Commissioners in England and Wales, and in Ireland.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, it was well worth while that the House should know how the Poor Laws had operated in Ireland. In many parts of that country they had not operated as had been anticipated. Inquiry into the operation of the law, and the manner in which the Assistant-Commissioners had performed their duties, was extremely desirable. He was not one of those who were entirely opposed to a Poor Law; but all the facts attending the working of the system should induce the Government to institute a proper investigation.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that considering the peculiar circumstances of society in Ireland, which at first rendered the application of a Poor Law to that country a doubtful experiment; and remembering that in many respects the law framed for Ireland differed from the English law; not conferring, for example, any right to relief, even in circumstances of extreme destitution, and exhibiting the absence of any law of settlement, he did not think that inquiry into the operation of the system hitherto would be altogether inexpedient. The ultimate success of the measure must mainly depend on the co-operation of the resident gentry of Ireland. There were great difficulties to be overcome, and there was much opposition to be met, both as regarded the payment of the rate, and the general administration of the law. In a future Session he should by no means be disposed to resist inquiry; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commissioners relied chiefly on the co-operation of the gentry for the success of the measure, and infinitely preferred such co-operation to the exercise of the powers with which they were invested.
Sir R. Fergusonsaid, the complaint was that the Commissioners did not perform their duties so as to give general satisfaction; and he hoped that in the next Session a thorough investigation into the whole matter would take place.
Mr. Redingtonthought the inquiry ought to originate with the Government.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the Government had sufficient information for the execution of its duty; this was the first time this

1341
Session he had heard any Irish Member express a wish for an inquiry; but if it should be made next Session, the Government would not have the least objection to it.
Mr. Redingtonsaid, the Government might have sufficient information; but it was from the very parties of whom they complained. They wished for the inquiry, that the House might be informed on what was the state and operation of the law. The Irish Members at present believed themselves to be better acquainted with the state of the question in that country than the Government; the Government having sufficient information for itself, had never made a reply to a request by an English Member for an inquiry into the English Poor Law: and if any inferences should be drawn by others from it, it was not the Irish Members who would be responsible for it.
Vote agreed to.
The House adjourned at half-past one o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS Public.—1a. Drainage by Tenants for Life.
2a. Sir Henry Pottinger's Annuity.
3a. and passed:—Infeftments (Scotland); Heritable Securities (Scotland).
Private.—1a. Belfast Improvement; Great Western Railway, Ireland (Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone); Great North of England, Clarence and Hartlepool Junction Railway; Newry and Enniskillen Railway; Richmond (Surrey) Railway; Liverpool and Manchester Railway; Birmingham and Gloucester Extension Railway (Stoke Branch); North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch Railway; Marquess of Donegal's Estate.
2a. Lyme Regis Improvement, Market, and Waterworks; Totnes Markets and Waterworks; Blackburn and Preston Railway; Trent Valley Railway; Whitehaven and Furness Railway; Eastern Union (Bury St. Edmund's) Railway; North Woolwich Railway; Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (Cumnock Branch).
Reported.—Wolverhampton Waterworks; Exeter and Crediton Railway; Sheffield and Rotherham Railway; Yoker Road; Ellison's Estate; Manchester Improvement; Gildart's (or Sherwen's) Estate.
3a. and passed:—White's Charity Estate; York and North Midland Railway (Harrogate Branch); Glasgow Bridges; Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland; Shaw's Waterworks; Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway; Crediton Small Debts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Duke of Richmond, from Magistrates and others of Dingwall, suggesting Alterations in Banking (Scotland) Bill.—From Poor Law Guardians of Kilrush, in favour of the Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill.—From John Final Cook, High Constable of Isleworth, for the Insertion of Clause giving Compensation to them for meritorious services, in the High Constables Bill.—From Attorneys of the Courts at Westminster, for the Substitution of Declarations in lieu of Oaths.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from Legislative Council of New South Wales, for Alteration of Law relating to the Disposal of Land.—By the Duke of Richmond, and Lord Brougham, from Merchants and others of Liverpool and Manchester, for the adoption of Measures to Enforce the Free Navigation of the River La Plata.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from Minister and others of Free Church of Garvald, and from a great number of other places, for the Better Observance of, and against the Running of Railway Trains on, the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of Breadalbane, from Minister and others of the Scotch Church, Saint Peter's Square, Manchester, for Preventing the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on the Sabbath.—From Worksop, against the Increase of Grant to Maynooth College.—From Rector and others of Parish of Little Bowden, and from several other persons in favour of the Charitable Trusts Bill.

ISLE OF MAN.
Lord Broughampresented a petition from John Waters Col-
1306
decott, a prisoner in the gaol of Castle Rushen, in the Isle of Man, complaining of being imprisoned without a hearing, and praying for relief.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had caused inquiry to be made into this case, and when he had done so, he found that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had also instituted a similar investigation. He understood that the petitioner had been kept in gaol for debt, and not for the cause alleged, an assault upon his wife. The result of the inquiries both of himself and his right hon. Friend had been, that the proceedings in the case had been in perfect consonance with the law, good or bad, of the Isle of Man. If the law were bad, it might be amended, which could only be done by the House of Keys, the Legislative Assembly of the island.
Lord Campbellthought that what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, showed this to be a case for their Lordships' interference; for there could be no doubt that the Imperial Legislature had the power to pass a law for the government of the island. If the proceedings had been contrary to law, the course for redress would have been an appeal to the proper legal authorities; but if it were the law in the Isle of Man that an individual could be imprisoned for seven or eight months without a hearing, the sooner it was altered the better.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RIVER LA PLATA.
The Duke of Richmondpresented a petition from Bankers, Merchants, and Traders, of Liverpool, praying for the adoption of measures to enforce the free navigation of said river.
Lord Broughamalso presented a petition to the same effect from Bankers, Merchants, and Traders of Manchester.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, he should be most happy to contribute, by any means in his power, to open the navigation of the Plata, or any other river, in any part of the world, to facilitate and extend the commerce of this country. But it was not so easy a matter as the petitioners supposed to open that which lawful authorities had declared should be closed. The petitioners had spoken of a Treaty with this country, by which they alleged they were entitled to the navigation of the River La Plata. Now, Buenos Ayres was the only organ of the

1307
combined States with which Foreign Powers could deal; some of the provinces had revolted, and war was now waging between them. That their Lordships might judge of the manner in which the petitioners had put forward their claims under the Treaty, he would compare their statement with the Treaty itself. The petitioners alleged that by this Treaty there should be reciprocal freedom of commerce between Great Britain and the United Provinces, and perfect freedom and security for British subjects there. Now the Article of the Treaty referred to was to this effect—that there should be between all the territories of His Britannic Majesty in Europe and the territories of the United Provinces in the Rio de la Plata reciprocal freedom of commerce; that the British should have liberty to come with their ships into all the ports of the territories aforesaid "into which other foreigners are or may be permitted to come." Therefore it appeared by the Article of the Treaty, that this country had only a right to claim that which was granted to other foreigners. The Article went on to say, that the inhabitants of the two countries should enjoy perfect security for their commerce, "subject to the laws and statutes of the two countries respectively." So that this country was at the mercy of a sovereign State, choosing to make laws restrictive of free commerce, provided they gave us all that was enjoyed by the most favoured nation. This country was now engaged in the endeavour to restore peace in Rio de la Plata; and he hoped that the result would be an improvement in the present state of things, and a great extension of our commerce in those regions. But we should lose more than we could possibly gain, if, in dealing with these States, we lost sight of the principles of justice. They might be unwise in their commercial policy, and they might be following out a system which we might think imprudent and injurious as regarded their own interests as well as ours; but we were bound to respect the rights of independent nations, be they weak or be they strong.
Lord Broughamagreed that the petitioners might have overstated their claims.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
Lord Brougham, in moving for
1308
the usual annual return of the state of business before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, took occasion to state that only one single case remained to be disposed of before that Court. It was the only tribunal in this country which stood in a similar position; nay, he believed there was not a second example of an equal absence of arrears in the history of the judicial establishments of the civilized world. Yet it was the only body of Judges, though having under its jurisdiction, not only the British Islands, but India, and the whole of our Colonial Empire, for which this great and opulent country refused to make a pecuniary provision; and for his part he felt almost ashamed of being obliged to have recourse to mendicancy in order to procure the judicial services of his noble and learned Friends. He regretted that the Bill introduced last year for the remedy of this evil should have been rejected by the other House, under the supposition that the new judicial office to be created was intended for himself, which was totally unfounded and untrue, as everybody who knew anything about the matter was aware that it was intended for somebody else.
Return ordered.

TURNPIKE ROADS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Amendment moved after the third reading of this Bill.
The Earl of Roseberysuggested that the operation of the measure might be postponed for two years, which would save the interests of those who had advanced money on the toll houses under the present system.
Lord Campbellopposed the postponement, the evils resulting from the present condition of the toll houses being so great as to require an immediate remedy. There was not a single toll house in the south of Scotland that was not employed as a public house.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, so long as the practice continued, it was evident the toll keepers would care much more about the quantity of whiskey drank, than the amount of toll collected. In some places where the license had been withdrawn, it was found that the amount of toll had not decreased.
Amendment, by leave of the House,

1309
withdrawn. A further Amendment moved and negatived. Bill passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
On the Report being brought up with Amendments,
The Bishop of London, as one of the five bishops on the Select Committee to which this Bill had been referred by their Lordships, said, that they had done all in their power to improve the Bill, but he hoped it would not be considered that they were pledged either to the principle or the details of the Bill, which would deprive the bishops of the assistance of important officers, because it would deprive them of the means of remunerating them. He did not see how it would be possible to have efficient registrars or active apparitors, without whose assistance the process of the Courts could not be carried on. The scope of the measure would be to weaken considerably the efficiency of that jurisdiction still left to the bishops. The Bill, moreover, provided no compensation for the displaced officers, against the injustice of which he felt himself bound to protest.
Lord Cottenham: If the interests of the public were promoted by the consolidation proposed by this Bill, such an object ought not to be set aside because of the inconvenience which might be suffered by certain officers. This was not the House in which compensation could be awarded. With regard to the object of the Bill, it was neither more nor less than that approved of by both Houses of Parliament, by Select Committees of both Houses, and by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and by two Law Commissions. The result had been an uniformity of opinion rarely found on a subject of such importance. All had concurred, without any difference of opinion, in approving the scheme now proposed to be carried into effect. As to the question of matrimonial jurisdiction, it had not been transferred without having been much considered and discussed in Committee. He understood the right rev. Prelate's objection to be urged against the transfer to a purely lay tribunal of the power of declaring a divorce in certain cases, that marriage being of a spiritual nature, it ought to be dissolved only by a spiritual court. Without adverting to the alteration of the law which made a marriage good though celebrated by a purely lay
1310
officer, the principle suggested by the right rev. Prelate had never been strictly acted upon. Many lay peculiars had this jurisdiction, who derived their power from no spiritual authority whatever. But what put the question beyond all doubt was, that there was at all times an ultimate appeal in matrimonial causes to the Sovereign, who, previous to a late alteration, delegated the inquiry to the High Court of Delegates, consisting of Common Law Judges and Advocates of the Civil Law, who were not spiritual persons. The duty was now delegated to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, with the holder of the Great Seal at its head—a perfectly lay tribunal. That tribunal had no power of its own, and reported to the Crown what ought to be done, though the act of pronouncing divorce was that of the Queen in Council. At present, if the ecclesiastical courts refuse a divorce, and on an appeal to the Judicial Committee the Privy Council report that the spiritual court was wrong, and ought to have granted it, the result would be that the divorce would be granted by the Queen in Council. Where, then, in such a case was the spiritual jurisdiction? But it might be said that both the spiritual and temporal authority was vested in the Sovereign as head of the Church, and that the Crown communicated to the tribunal she appointed the ecclesiastical character which belonged to it. The result would be the same under this Bill. The power of directing divorce rested always ultimately with the Crown, and this Bill no more in this respect trenched upon spiritual jurisdiction than the existing law. He ventured to say that no Bill passed this Session would communicate greater benefits to the public than the present.
The Bishop of Salisburyadmitted there were evils in the present system which it was desirable to remove. He could not object to the transfer of the testamentary jurisdiction for instance; but what he did complain of was, that this Bill destroyed the means by which ecclesiastical jurisdiction could be enforced. Now, that jurisdiction formed part of the institutions of the country, and ought not to be touched except on adequate grounds. The question of compensation which had been raised, at once showed that a measure of this nature ought not to be introduced except on the responsibility of the advisers

1311
of the Crown, particularly as it affected the efficiency of the Church, one of those institutions which they were sworn to maintain, and which they were bound not to touch, except after communication with those who were considered competent to give advice and information on the subject. The Bishops had every reason to believe that no measure would have been passed this year on the question. As a Bill of this description materially affected his jurisdiction, he had waited on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, at an early period of the Session, to inquire whether it was probable such a measure would be submitted to Parliament, and he received an assurance there was no chance of it. It was only on his return from London from his visitation, that he saw in the papers an account of the discussion on this Bill, in which the Ministers expressed their cordial concurrence in the object of the measure, and they had since pressed it on with a degree of zeal fully equal to that of its proposers. It surprised him that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cottenham) should have quoted the Peculiars as an instance of a lay tribunal. They were certainly now in no sense of an ecclesiastical character, and they formed one of those abuses which it was desirable to remove; but they were unquestionably of ecclesiastical origin, and derived their power from the Papacy.
Lord Brougham: The right rev. Prelate seemed to think this Bill was the effect of a collusion between its authors and the Government. Now, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) had introduced it in a speech of a somewhat hostile character to the Government; and when it was submitted there was not the least conception of the course which the Government would take.
The Bishop of Londonfully concurred with the observations of the right rev. Prelate, that a measure of such great importance to the Established Church, which was an essential part of the institutions of the country, ought not to have been introduced, except on the responsibility of Government. Such a step had never been taken for upwards of 200 years. It was certainly an understanding with the late Government, that no Bill affecting the Church should be introduced without consultation with the Bishops.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in consequence
1312
of what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, he begged to state the position in which he stood as to this Bill. During the last Session he had brought forward a measure of a much more modified character; but he had stated as a reason why it was so restricted that he despaired of carrying a more extensive measure through the other House. He had said this Session it was not his intention to bring in a Bill on the subject; and this resolution had been come to after consultation with his colleagues. But when the Bill of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) was brought in, he, without any communication with his noble and learned Friend, rose in his place, and said that as it corresponded in all its main features with a Bill submitted by one of his Colleagues in 1842, he could not do otherwise than support it. How could he act otherwise as to any Bill moved by one of their Lordships, which had been previously brought in by Government, but unsuccessfully prosecuted by them?
The Bishop of Salisburysaid, the Lord Chancellor had referred to the Bills of 1842 and 1843. It was not convenient to speak of that Bill now without having it to refer to; but, if he did not mistake, there was an important distinction between that Bill and this, inasmuch as the former contained the clause respecting spiritual discipline, which was struck out by the Select Committee. He remembered distinctly that it was in 1842 he first had any intimation that the present Government meant to introduce a Bill on this subject. On Ash Wednesday in that year he attended a meeting at Lambeth Palace, specially summoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to confer respecting a Bill on this subject which the Government had laid before the Bench for their consideration; and it was the unanimous opinion of the Bench on that occasion that the clause relating to spiritual discipline ought not to be included. Soon afterwards he met the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and in the course of conversation that right hon. Gentleman said to him, "I have been endeavouring to meet the wishes of the Bishops on that subject," and a few days afterwards an amended Bill was sent to all the bishops for their approval. That Bill, however, did not propose to abolish altogether spiritual discipline, but it pro

1313
posed a clause to carry it into effect which he thought was inadequate, and accordingly he wrote a letter to the Primate on the subject, with a request that he would lay it before the Government. That Bill was not brought in in 1842; but the Bill his noble and learned Friend alluded to was brought in in 1843, and he believed it did not contain the clause relative to spiritual discipline which was contained in the Bill when the noble and learned Lord expressed his approval of it. Being accused of inconsistency, he thought it his duty to point out that in this respect the Bills were materially different.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the difference was that this clause was contained in the Bill, but was now struck out to please the right rev. Prelates. The right rev. Prelate was complaining that he had had his own way in the Select Committee. His noble and learned Friend had only said that he would give his general support to the Bill, without pledging himself to every clause. The right rev. Prelate complained that a great surprise had been practised upon him; but, because the Government had no intention of bringing in the Bill themselves, were they necessarily to oppose it because it was brought in by his noble and learned Friend? Less ground for surprise he never heard. It amounted to this—that the right rev. Prelate thought, when a Peer would not bring in a Bill himself, he did not mean to allow another Peer to do so.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, his complaint was not that the Government did not bring in this Bill, but that they did not make up their minds whether such a Bill should be brought in or not; and if they determined that it should, that they did not bring it in themselves. He maintained that a Bill of so much importance to the Church ought not to have been brought in except by the Government, and not by them until alter due consultation.
Lord Campbellbegged to remind the right rev. Prelates who had spoken, that the Bill originated with the Commission of which they and four or five other Prelates were members, and that they were unanimous in recommending it in all its main features. It was he who asked his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack whether he meant to bring in the Bill, and his noble and learned Friend's reply was, "You bring in the
1314
Bill, and we will consider the course to be adopted."
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it was quite true he was one of the Commissioners in 1832, and signed the Report, the recommendations of which tallied to a great extent with the provisions of the present Bill. He had, however, yet to learn that, in the course of thirteen years, additional experience might not properly tend to modify his opinions on a measure like the present. In fact his opinions respecting it were modified to a certain extent, though he did not now object to the whole Bill, but only to some of its provisions. As to his signature being attached to the Commission, if it were worth while he could tell a story on that subject which would effectually refute the charge of inconsistency.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had a little mis-stated what he said, in reply to his question. His words were, "I have no intention to bring in a Bill, but if you bring one in, I will tell you what we will do with it."
Report agreed to. Further Amendments made.
House adjourned.