Sitting of 27 May 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Petty Sessions (Ireland): Court of Prerogative (Ireland).
Reported.—Conviet Prisons; Metropolitan Interments; Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Vestries and Vestry Clerks; Acts of Parliament Abbreviation.
3° Court of Chancery (Ireland).

BIRTH OF A PRINCE—HER MAJESTY'S REPLY TO THE ADDRESS.
MR. LASCELLESbrought up Her Majesty's gracious Answer to the Address presented by this House on the Birth of a Prince:—
"I thank you sincerely for your dutiful and affectionate Address; and I receive with much satisfaction your Congratulations on the Birth of another Prince, and the assurance of the interest you take in My domestic happiness."

CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAILWAY BILL.
Bill read 3°.
MR. O. GORE MR. O. GORE moved a clause which, he said, he felt it his duty to propose as chairman of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham line, and still more so as Member for Shropshire—a county which, without it, would be seriously prejudiced by being deprived of due means of communication with the north. Unless Parliament prevented railways from becoming monopolies, they would become the greatest curses to the country. The clause was proposed

385
only to prevent monopoly, and ought to have been acceded to on the part of the promoters of the Bill. If the Bill passed without the clause, the traffic of the Shrewsbury and Birmingham Company might be stopped at Chester, by the promoters of the present Bill, the leviathan of railway companies, the London and North Western Company, which exorcised a huge and unjust monopoly, and lived upon litigation, selfishly and constantly oppressing the smaller companies, as in the present instance. Irish Members were as much interested as he was in resisting such a system, and supporting the proposed clause, which had originally been inserted in the Bill, and had been omitted by mistake.
Clause brought up and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
MR. GLYNentered into a defence of the proceedings of the London and North Western Company. He wished the House to understand that the London and North Western Company were not the promoters of the present Bill. The Bill had originated with the Chester and Holyhead Company, in the full belief that unless the leasing to the London and North Western was sanctioned, or unless Government came forward with assistance, it would be impossible to complete that great undertaking. He could assure the House it was not his desire or wish to see the Bill pass in its present form, for he thought it would be more advantageous to the London and North Western Company to have existing arrangements between the two companies remain in their present state. He objected to the insertion of the clause, as it had been sanctioned by the Committee on ex parte evidence, and would operate injuriously.
MR. SLANEYsaid, that this clause had been recommended by the Committee. He hoped it would be adopted. As for the stopping of the express trains, he was authorised to say the opposers of the Bill were ready to give up that point.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsupported the clause. It had been unanimously inserted by the Committee, and had been expunged by an accident: if the House was not disposed to reinsert it, he thought they at least ought not to reject the proposition of the hon. Mover, and refer the question to the Railway Commissioners.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in such a case as this, where one railway ran into another,
386
which formed the continuance and the line of communication of both, there must be conflicting interests, and it was possible that the interests of the public might be prejudiced. The question was one of great difficulty, and which, in 1844, had been considered, and the conclusion arrived at had been that it was impossible to settle it by any general regulation. It was now proposed to leave it to the Railway Commissioners to adjust and regulate the traffic at the point of junction; but he warned the House against deciding, in the case of a particular Bill, what ought to be decided on general principles. The House had, indeed, already declined to sanction a general measure founded on the same principle—the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke—and he thought they would do well to reject this clause.
MR. SHEILwished Shrewsbury to be in close communication with Dublin, and apprehended that, if the clause were rejected, and the London and North Western Company were left to its own ideas of self-interest, the communication might be intercepted. The Committee had sanctioned the clause, and he should abide by it.
MR. C. VILLIERSsaid, the Shrewsbury line had authorised him to agree to a proviso referring to the Railway Commissioners, not, indeed, as erroneously stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, the regulation of the traffic, but the settlement of such points of difference as might arise between the two companies.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, he had before this had experience of the manner in which the larger companies were prone to oppress the smaller; and the London and North Western Company had actually made it a stipulation of their amalgamation with another company that all facilities should be withdrawn from the Shrewsbury and Birmingham line. The Earl of Dalhousie's scheme for giving the great companies the power of supplying the smaller lines had been rejected, on the ground of its interfering with competition; but if the House desired to retain a rag or shred of competition in this case, it must protect the Shrewsbury Company by inserting this clause.
SIR C. DOUGLASwished to know whether the Committee who had sanctioned the clause were aware that it was in contravention of other decisions of Committees.
CAPTAIN DUNCOMBEsaid, between conflicting decisions they had endeavoured

387
to take the course consistent with common sense and justice.
MR. ROCHEsaid, the right hon. Member for Dungarvon had supported the clause for the sake of communication between Shrewsbury and Dublin. He (Mr. Roche) opposed it for the sake of communication between London and Dublin. The Chester and Holyhead Company were unable to carry on their line without the advance of 500,000 l. from the London and North Western Company, who could not advance the money on the terms to be imposed by this clause.
MR. T. EGERTONsaid, he believed the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke had been brought in because the London and North Western Company would not make some fair concessions to the South Staffordshire Company (of which the hon. Member was chairman), and had been withdrawn because, under that compulsion, the London and North Western Company had conceded what they had before refused.
MR. G. H. CAVENDISHproposed, as a compromise, that the clause should be withdrawn, if the Chester and Holyhead Company would give up its leasing powers.
MR. JACKSONacceded to this proposition, and declared that, if the Bill was not passed and acted on (as it could not be if the clause were agreed to), there would be no chance of the Chester and Holyhead Company completing their line.
The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 137: Majority 19.
Bill passed.

RIVER LEE TRUST BILL—SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. MOWATTwould move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He did so for this reason—all the bonâ fide schemes for supplying the metropolis with water had been put off because the House was not in a condition to legislate, inasmuch as they were daily expecting some report from the Board of Health of some general scheme. This Bill did not propose to remedy the great defects of the existing systems of supply, but simply proposed to bolster up the existing companies, by diverting a large portion of the River Lee for the purpose of
388
supplying the New River Company. It was supported on the false grounds of remedying the navigation of the River Lee, it being notorious that the River Lee, so far from not being in the position of affording sufficient accommodation, already furnished accommodation for three times the amount of traffic it could ever possibly have.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MAJOR BERESFORDsaid, that only one out of the forty-seven clauses of the Bill related to the supply of water.
MR. MOWATTsaid, if that clause was struck out, he would withdraw his opposition.
MAJOR BERESFORDcontended that the objection to the one clause was the best reason for allowing the Bill to go before a Select Committee. He denied that it was a Bill for regulating the water supply; its great object was the improvement of the navigation.
MR. COWPERsaid, the lowering of the bed of the river, and other improvements, would create a great surplus of pure river water, which the clause in question would empower the company to sell. It was in no respect a Bill for supplying the metropolis with water, like the Henley Bill, or the Watford Bill, to which reference had been made. The money received for the sale of the water would be applied to the improvement of the navigation. No ground whatever had been shown for interfering with the regular course pursued with private Bills. Should this Bill be carried in its present form, it would not at all interfere with any measures which the Sanitary Commissioners might adopt for the water supply of the metropolis.
SIR W. MOLESWORTHsaw no valid reason for opposing the second reading of this Bill. While improving the navigation of the Lee, it would give a better supply of water to the metropolis.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the Bill appeared to have come before the House under false pretences. Only a majority of two in a meeting of fifty trustees had agreed to promote this Bill; and of those present fifteen were ex officio trustees, and a great number took no active part in the business of the trust. The owners of mill property on the Lee complained that they would be

389
seriously injured by the Bill in its present form. He should therefore second the Amendment.
SIR J. DUKE, as one of the trustees, said, he should support the Bill. He denied that so large a number of ex officio trustees had been present at the meeting referred to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed, and referred to the Committee of Selection.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION BY THE NEWRY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he rose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, of which he had already given notice. On the 6th of April, four pauper children applied for and obtained admission into the Newry workhouse. When asked by the board what religion they professed, they replied that they were Roman Catholics. But it was almost impossible to believe that, after that plain avowal, the board put the religion of those children to the vote, and decided that they were Presbyterians—and that they should be treated as Presbyterians in the workhouse. One of these children, whose conscience the guardians thus cruelly ignored, was sixteen years old, according to her own statement: the guardians, he believed, had decided her to be fourteen. She was at all events arrived at the age of discretion. She might be hanged or transported if she had committed a crime at that age; and if the law hold a person of that age to; be responsible for his acts, it must be taken for granted that she had some notion of religious matters. A few days after the extraordinary decision of the board, she brought a charge against the matron of the workhouse, for dragging her, against her earnest entreaties and protests, into a Presbyterian place of worship. The case was inquired into before the board of guardians, and they decided that they had already voted that the girl was a Presbyterian, and that the matron was perfectly justified in dragging her to a Presbyterian I place of worship. As these proceedings on the part of the board appeared to be of a most extraordinary character, he should wish to be informed whether the right hon. Gentleman had inquired into the matter?
SIR W. SOMERVILLEhad made some inquiry into the matter, and the only information of an official character which had
390
reached him was an extract from the proceedings of the board of guardians containing a resolution to the effect that, in their opinion, the charge brought against the matron was wholly unsubstantiated. But he was quite aware that that did not meet the charge against the board of guardians themselves, and he had already written for further information.

SUPPLY—HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
House in Committee of Supply.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 92,300 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and I Expenses of the two Houses of Parliament, and Allowances to Retired Officers of the two Houses, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
MR. HUMEsaid, he found there was a considerable increase in the amount proposed to be voted as salaries and expenses of the House of Lords. Last year it was 21,900 l; in the present estimate it was 32,400 l. The amount required in aid of the fee fund was last year 14,000 l.; in the present year 24,500 l.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the expenditure of the House of Lords was in process of progressive reduction. The cause of the increase in the vote this year was, that during the last few years there had been a balance of money received from fees, which was partly unexpended last year, and which was available for reducing this demand upon the Treasury. This balance having been expended last year, a greater proportion of the salaries and expenses of the House of Lords had to be met by the vote now before the House.
MR. V. SMITHsaid, that a very care-fid report bad been made by a Committee of the House of Lords upon the salaries of their officers. The Treasury ought to have put hon. Members in possession of this report, so that they might see how the money was voted.
MR. HUMEproposed to reduce the vote by 32,400 l., the amount of the salaries, &c, of the officers of the House of Lords, in order that the Government might have the opportunity of laying the report of their Lordships' Committee before the House.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 59,900 l., he granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the two Houses of Parliament, and Allowances to retired Officers of the two Houses, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates expressed a hope that the accounts and expenditure of the House of Lords would be submitted to a searching revision by a Committee of that House. This revision was going on, and he should therefore oppose the Motion.
MR. HUMEreplied, that the House had at present no proof of this searching investigation.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 110: Majority 62.
Original Question put.
Vote agreed to

SUPPLY—THE TREASURY.
On Vote (2.), 56,100 l for the salaries and expenses of the Treasury,
MR. FORBES MR. FORBES moved a reduction of 10 per cent upon the sums voted for salaries in this vote, which would reduce the entire vote to 50,490 l. He believed such a reduction would prove a benefit to the country, and at the same time add to the popularity of the Government; and he should be very glad to think that his constituents had not lost more than that by the alterations in the commercial policy of the country.
COLONEL THOMPSONwas in the receipt of information showing that his constituents, not by their own wrong, but by the occasion of a wrong inflicted on them, were 20 per cent better oft' now than they had been under protection. He considered himself, therefore, entitled to ask to be set off against the hon. Member.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire had very properly excepted the salaries of the First and junior Lords of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer from his Motion, because the salaries of those higher officers were now now under the consideration of a Select Committee. He thought, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to pledge himself to adopt the decision of that Committee, whatever it might be, and whatever reduction they might recommend in the salaries upon which the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had fattened.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould not enter into the question whether Her Majesty's Ministers had grown fat or lean since their accession to office. But if the Committee upstairs should recommend a reduction of the salaries paid to high political officers, those salaries would be reduced from that time.
MR. HUMEshould not be disposed to agree to a reduction of 10 per cent in the salaries of the forty-five junior and other clerks, who were now in the receipt of from 90 l to 200 l. or 400 l. per annum. He was favourable to a redaction of the number of the clerks, rather than of their salaries. He trusted that some examination would be instituted into their qualifications before clerks were admitted, because young men, very unfit to enter the Treasury, were sometimes appointed. Was there any necessity to have twenty messengers in the Treasury, at a cost per an num of 2,315 l.?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERagreed with his hon. Friend, that the true principle of reduction in the Treasury was rather a reduction of numbers than of salaries. A reduction of 5,800 l. in the salaries and expenditure of the Treasury had been made within the last few years. He did not think the number of messengers too great.
MR. M'GREGORbelieved that at the Treasury, as well as at the Board of Trade, there were too few messengers, instead of being a superabundance.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the hon. Member who introduced the Motion could see from the manner in which it was received what were its chances of success. There were two circumstances which made any proposition coming from his side of the House, on the subject of economy in the public expenditure, not likely to be very successful. One was the existence of the Committee which was sitting on the subject, and another was the existence of the Reform Financial Association. As long as those two bodies were at work, it was not probable any economical proposition from the Opposition side of the House would be successful. He should therefore recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion.
MR. FORBESsaid, that his hon. Friend had stated what he believed to be a melancholy truth, and as it was of no use to divide the House, he would withdraw the Motion.
COLONEL THOMPSONhoped that the financial reformers would never, without great consideration, agree to any Motion for a reduction in the expenditure coming from the Opposition side of the House, which was prefaced by the assertion that the proposition was founded on the sufferings of the country arising out of the recent changes in our commercial legislation. The financial reformers were always ready to contend that the people were a great

393
deal more able to meet any expense than they were before; though that would form no reason for needless expenditure.
MR. HUMEprotested against the doctrine of the hon. and gallant Colonel. He (Mr. Hume) would support a proposal for economy coming from any side of the House. The only question at present before them was, whether the salaries given were more than was necessary, considering the amount of business done.
MR. COBDENsaid, he was anxious that the country should exactly understand the difference between the financial reformers and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and those who followed him. He was anxious that no mistake should exist on the point. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire was this, that the country ought no longer to continue to pay the same salaries to those who were in its service as formerly, because they no longer enjoyed the blessings of the corn law. That was the proposition; and the proposition of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire—for it all originated with him—was this, that they should reduce the wages of all their public servants, whatever was their yearly salary or weekly wages, and that they should not stop till they came down to the postmen who delivered them their letters at 10 s. a week. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in thus discussing that question, founded their arguments on the assertion that the country was now less able to pay the same salaries in consequence of the recent change in their commercial policy. There he (Mr. Cobden) parted company with the financial reformers on the other side, and he was willing to join issue on the subject before the country. It was proposed to reduce the wages of all the servants employed under the Government, which was by far the largest employer of labour of all kinds in the country. They employed 8,000 or 9,000 men—shipbuilders, carpenters, and labourers in the dockyards, and tens of thousands were employed in the Post Office, and it was proposed to give the signal to the entire country of a universal reduction of wages. He called that a war upon wages. Unless hon. Gentlemen were prepared to carry the same principle into all the private establishments in the country, how in common justice could they propose to cut down the salaries and wages of the Government servants? Did they mean to deal with the servants of the Government in a different manner from
394
those who were employed in private establishments? And if they meant that there should be a universal reduction of wages throughout the country, he would not be a party to any such reduction. It was not necessary, it was not just, and he doubted if it was practicable. So far from the late commercial policy of the country cheapening labour and diminishing the resources of the country, he believed the contrary to be the truth. With respect to the West Riding of Yorkshire, where a large amount of labour was employed, he could positively affirm, that never within his knowledge of that part of the country were the people so well employed, never had they such ample remuneration when measured by the command which their wages gave them over the necessaries and comforts of life. So far from there being a tendency to reduce wages now, the tendency had been during the last twelvemonths in the other direction. They were not, then, warranted in the assumption that the people were suffering from their late commercial policy. The facts were against them. If the agricultural labourers were in a different condition, why not get employment for them? There was plenty of scope for it. Let them be employed in increasing production. Let hon. Gentlemen find the means of bringing more capital upon the soil. If they did not choose to do these things, let them not come to that House and proclaim that wages were reduced, and free trade a failure, when the fact was, that with regard to employment and the general circumstances of the country, it was signally successful. He would join hon. Gentlemen opposite in reducing inordinate salaries, or any salaries where the services rendered were not sufficient for the payment made, but he would not join them in a cry for universal reduction of wages; he would never join in any sweeping and unreasonable proposition of this kind; he would never join them in a spiteful and malicious vote, designed in a miserable spirit of retaliation, in order to make the system of free trade unfavourable in the country.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, there appeared more excitement on the side of the House of the hon. Member for the West Riding who had just sat down, than on the Opposition side. The hon. Member had assured the House of the prosperity of the country, and the great success of the commercial changes which had lately taken place. Now, although the present discussion was

395
not called up by the matter then under consideration, he was sure the House would be glad to hear that, although, as was admitted, there were some districts—particularly the agricultural districts—which were not in so flourishing a state as was imagined, there were others which were not in a similar condition. But if the hon. Member for the West Riding appealed so triumphantly to the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes, he would refer the hon. Member to the hon. Member for Manchester for information on that point, and would recommend the hon. Member for the West Riding to ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether or not his mills were at that moment closed? That was not a circumstance, however, of an isolated character. The hon. Member for Manchester was not a man of that want of enterprise or capital who would unnecessarily resort to such a proceeding as the closing of his mills. Now, that was a fact which was not exactly consistent with the general prosperity in the manufacturing districts which the hon. Member for the West Riding described. He thought the hon. Member for the West Riding was entirely mistaken in the line which he supposed hon. Gentlemen at the Opposition side of the House were taking on the subject of retrenchment. They did not call themselves financial reformers, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding and his friends did. They did nothing of the kind. What were the circumstances of the case? They found great distress prevalent amongst those classes—the middle classes he meant—which the hon. Member for the West Riding told them were the most important classes of the community. The hon. Gentleman could not deny that. The agricultural middle class were in a state of distress, and they were told that the middle class connected with trade and commerce were equally so. An hon. Member had lately told the House that no less than a hundred millions sterling had been lost in the large towns which the hon. Member for the West Riding described as in such a state of prosperity. It being the fact, then, that the great body of the middle classes was in a condition of great distress, they who represented the middle classes, and, for his own part, he could say he represented about 60,000 of that body, felt it to be their duty on every occasion to support such measures of just and rational retrenchment
396
as might be brought forward, founded, not upon statements merely hypothetical, like some propositions brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but upon arguments based upon a full know-lodge of the ease. They had never introduced these propositions for retrenchment upon the allegation of the condition of one particular class, but upon the consideration of the general state of the country. What, then, had they done? The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had proposed a measure for the reduction of all fixed salaries to a certain extent. The hon. Member for the West Riding had come forward upon that and every similar occasion, confounding the question of wages with fixed salaries. On the present occasion, also, the hon. Member had risen and said, they at his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the House were attacking wages. He could assert that they were not attacking wages. What they said was this, that seeing the altered position of the country, and the paying power of those classes which the hon. Member for the West Riding had described as important, having been reduced—that class having been sunk to great distress—all fixed payments of public salaries and expenditure ought to undergo rational, effective, and just revision. But no one had said a word about salaries; and the hon. Gentleman on that as on every other occasion, had confounded wages with fixed salaries. He (Mr. Disraeli) had said that the middle classes were suffering, and he supposed no hon. Gentleman would deny that statement. Would the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford deny it? Had not his constituents lost a good deal during the last few years?
COLONEL THOMPSON: On the contrary, they have gained a great deal, and they are in a better condition than they ever were in their lives.
MR. DISRAELI: The hon. and gallant Member has made a sally not quite Parliamentary; but he would ask whether the constituents of the hon. and gallant Colonel had not lost by railroads? Had it not been stated the other night on the other side of the House that there was not one great town in the north of England which had not been half ruined by these railroads? And if that were not so, the House ought certainly to view with suspicion the statements made by those financial reformers. He hoped he had clearly explained the motives which had induced

397
hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to support reasonable measures of retrenchment. They were in favour of such measures, because they believed that the paying power of the country was reduced, and that it was reduced because the middle classes were not at present in a condition in which they could maintain those expensive establishments which they had maintained at a preceding period and under other circumstances.
MR. V. SMITHsaid, he thought it would be a great misfortune if on every subject of public economy they were to recur to the questions of free trade and protection. The real point which the House had then to consider was, whether a certain sum would be an adequate payment for certain services. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that the paying power of the country had of late years become reduced; on the contrary, he thought the state of the revenue showed that it had increased. He was quite ready, however, to admit that it would be just and reasonable that the House should from time to time diminish public salaries if it should be found that a reduction had taken place in the prices of commodities. But it appeared to him that the House had not yet had sufficient experience of the effects of free trade to justify its adoption of the proposal to effect a reduction of public salaries. In his opinion, a percentage reduction of salaries would be an unfair mode of proceeding, and he had therefore voted against the proposal of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire upon that subject. But he certainly thought that there were anomalies in the salaries paid to some public officers, which required revision. He found, for instance, that the salaries of the Secretaries of the Treasury amounted to 2,500 l. a year, while all the heads of departments recently appointed were in the receipt of only 2,000 l. a year; that latter sum being the amount of the salaries of the President of the Council, of the President of the Poor Law Board, and of other officers discharging duties of the highest importance. But he could not help thinking that there was a conclusive reason why the House should not adopt the proposal then under their consideration; and that was, that as they had at that moment a Select Committee inquiring into the question of public salaries, it would not be advisable that they should
398
adopt any particular measure of retrenchment until they should have received the report of that Committee.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had entirely misrepresented the grounds on which his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had proposed the reduction he had submitted to the House. That proposal had been supported distinctly on this ground, that as a great and permanent reduction had taken place in the cost of all consumable articles in this country, it was just and reasonable that a proportionate reduction should take place in the salaries of public officers. The amount of these salaries had been raised in the years 1801, 1810, 1812, and 1816, in consequence of increased prices; and he thought it but fair, that as a fall in prices had recently taken place, the House should accommodate salaries to the altered circumstances of the recipients, and of the country generally. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had said that his (Mr. Newdegate's) hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had proposed a percentage reduction, without reference to the anomalies which existed in the amount of the different salaries, computed according to analogous cases of employment, and the labour performed. But his hon. Friend had done no such thing, He had merely proposed that there should be a reduction of salaries such as the altered circumstances of the recipients and of the country would justify, and that the cases should be taken singularly, one by one, into consideration according to their respective merits. He (Mr. Newdegate) should like to know on what principle the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding based his proposals for financial reform and retrenchment. The hon. Gentleman seemed to discard the principle that the public officers should receive remuneration accommodated to the circumstances in which those officers were placed, and to the nature of the duties they had to perform. Was this the fact? The hon. Gentleman was silent; but if he rejected that principle, then he (Mr. Newdegate) should ask, on what other principle he based his proposals for retrenchment? Those proposals, it should be observed, were almost exclusively confined to our military and naval defensive establishments; and no sooner did any hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House propose a reduction in the civil service, than the

399
hon. Member shrank from the proposal, and declared that it was a malicious clap-trap got up by a discontented faction. Why was the hon. Member so tender to the civil service, and so severe to the military service? Was it possible that, speculating upon future contingencies, he thought the time might come when he should have reason to lament a reduction in the salaries of the civil servants of the country? Or was it that the hon. Member was animated solely by a desire to reduce our defensive establishments? Did the hon. Member wish to see our trade unprotected? The other night the hon. Member had certainly shown himself the advocate of pirates; but he had only been supported by a small minority of about twenty Members. Did the hon. Member wish to see our China trade unprotected? Or was he so jealous of the greatness of this country among the nations of the world that he was endeavouring, by destroying our defensive establishments, to verify his own saying in that House, that "it was time for us to leave off singing 'Rule Britannia?'" If the hon. Gentleman merely wished to adapt the salaries of public servants to the circumstances of the country, and of those servants themselves, why was he so hostile to any proposal for retrenchment that emanated from that (the Opposition) side of the House, and reject the co-operation which was spontaneously tendered to him in the cause of economy. One thing was clear, namely, that they should never look for the cordial co-operation of the hon. Member in any attempt to reduce the salaries of those who had reaped the full advantages of the reduction in prices consequent on the adoption of free trade—that was to say, of those public officers whose position, as residents in this country had been materially altered by the measures which the hon. Gentleman had promoted.
Vote agreed to, as was also a Vote (3.) for 26,000 l. for the salaries and expenses of the office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department.

SUPPLY—FOREIGN OFFICE—THE PASSPORT SYSTEM.
(4.) 71,000 l. for the salaries and expenses of the office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, there was a matter in connexion with this vote which seemed to him anomalous and defective, namely, the passports granted to Her Majesty's subjects about to visit foreign States.
400
He made no charge against the Foreign Secretary, nor did he attach any blame whatever to him, for the fault lay in a system which was of old standing, and the predecessor of the noble Lord had taken the same course as himself. But for that very reason, the question being free from any party considerations, he (Viscount Mahon) asked the noble Lord and the House to consider whether the present mode of granting passports was not susceptible of great improvement. Happily and wisely, we required no passports from our fellow-subjects travelling from one part of the kingdom to another, nor from foreigners who landed upon our shores; but in all continental States a different system prevailed. They required a passport from British subjects. We, then, might take one of two courses: either say that the system was foreign to our habits and feelings, and that, therefore, we would take no part in granting passports; or else take such measures that, though not for ourselves nor for our own objects, our own authorities should grant them. We should either not grant passports at all, or, if we did grant them, let us do so under a proper and intelligible principle. The present mode was most inconvenient. We approved of foreign Ministers residing in England granting passports to British subjects, and we at the same time issued passports at the Foreign Office; but the passport was given gratuitously by the Foreign Minister, whilst by our own Minister a large premium was exacted. When he (Viscount Mahon) was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under the Duke of Wellington, he had an opportunity of seeing how the system worked; and it now remained the same. A fee of two guineas and a half on each passport was demanded at the Foreign Office. The result was that of the thousands or tens of thousands of British subjects proceeding yearly to the Continent, only an insignificant number obtained passports from the Foreign Office, being deterred by the expense. There were some, indeed, who thought it desirable to travel under the passport of the British authorities; but even these persons might easily evade the charge which the Foreign Office made. Suppose, for instance, that a person was desirous of travelling to Madrid or Vienna, and applied at the Foreign Office at home for a passport, the charge was two guineas and a half; but if he obtained a passport from the French Ambassador in London, so far as Paris, he might

401
when once at Paris, obtain from the British Ambassador a passport to Madrid or to Vienna for nothing. Whilst 2l. 12 s. was charged at homo, the British Legation abroad gave the passport free of charge. So that the present system was not only defective and anomalous, but led to evasion. He thought it would be much better to reduce the charge to 4s. or 5s., and then the passports of the Foreign Office here would be eagerly sought after, for British subjects would prefer travelling directly under the passport of the Foreign Office. The present high charge of two guineas and a half defeated itself; it was neither a source of emolument, nor a guarantee of security. It was also to be observed that Austria alone, of continental States, refused to receive a passport not regularly viséd by Her own Ministers and functionaries. One might travel from Munich to Berlin under the passport of the British Minister without any visé from any Prussian functionary, but could not proceed to Vienna without a visé by the Austrian Ambassador. The time which the granting of passports occasioned occupied a great portion of the time of our foreign legations, and it would be more cheaply, more efficiently, and more satisfactorily done at home. He had the authority of our late lamented Minister in Sweden, Sir Thomas Cartwright—whom he might be allowed to name as a most upright and most intelligent servant of the State—that while he was stationed at Frankfort as Minister, Frankfort being a central point where thousands of English passed continually, almost the whole time of one of the gentlemen in his legation was consumed in granting passports and visés. As regarded the system of passports generally, he would be very glad to see them entirely done away with by foreign Powers—for experience had proved that they gave no protection or security to the State which required them, and that they only led to inconvenience, annoyance, and delay to individuals. There was a disposition in France some time ago, he believed, to abolish the system; and the distinguished Personage who presided over France was anxious to get rid of it; he only regretted that his wishes were not accomplished. He was quite sure the noble Lord would give the subject his best attention, and in another Session of Parliament the question might, he thought, be not unworthy the inquiry and consideration of a Committee of the House, for which he (Viscount
402
Mahon) might, perhaps, be inclined to move.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was quite true, as his noble Friend had remarked, that there was an anomaly in the present system of arrangement regarding passports, and that the sum paid to the Foreign Office was higher than that required by any Foreign Minister residing here, if, indeed, the latter charged any fee at all. But his noble Friend must know that the sum charged for passports at the Foreign Office consisted partly of the stamp duty and partly of the fee which was paid into the aggregate fee fund, out of which the expenses of the offices of the three Secretaries of State were paid. If the charge at the Foreign Office was smaller, it would probably happen that a larger number of persons would seek passports there; but the consequence would be, that a greater number of clerks would be required there; indeed, a considerable addition would be needed to the present staff there, which was already inadequate to the performance of the duties at present imposed on it. Thus the adoption of the plan would interfere materially with the transaction of other more important business, and would increase the expense of the establishment. And even as to the convenience of individuals, he was not sure that it would be productive of any very material advantage. No British subject who at present went abroad was in want of a passport. He could obtain them from the Belgian, French, or Spanish Embassies when travelling to those countries, and exchange them abroad for British passports upon easy terms. A British passport might be easily obtained in Paris, and, considering the great number of British subjects who travelled only short distances on the Continent, he could not see any great improvement in the change proposed. Seeing, therefore, that the plan suggested by his noble Friend would occasion considerable additional expense in the establishment over which he presided; that there was not room there for more than the present number of clerks; and that no practical inconvenience existed—he did not think it would be desirable to alter the present system.
MR. HUMEdid not think it was consistent with the dignity of England that her subjects should travel under foreign passports. He remembered travelling on the Continent some years ago, and he was the only person out of a party of twenty-

403
two who carried the passport signed by the British Minister at homo. Englishmen ought always to travel under their own, and not under foreign, colours. As to the expense, he thought a charge of two or three shillings on each passport would defray the whole of it. He knew no man in that House more anxious to maintain the dignity and honour of England than the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office; yet this was an anomaly which he thought the noble Lord had not given sufficient reasons for not removing. He wished to know from the noble Lord how many passports had last year been issued by the Foreign Office?
MR. ROEBUCKhoped the noble Lord would not answer that question. The person who travelled with a British passport travelled under the protection of the British flag, which guaranteed him a character. Now, he wished to ask, was that protection and that character to be obtained for half-a-crown, or a crown, or even two guineas? He advised the noble Secretary opposite not to place the British passport in the hands of every man who had money to command it. He (Mr. Roebuck) wished to see the system abolished altogether, and that the English nation would set the example to the rest of Europe, by declaring she would grant no more passports. England should proclaim the non-necessity of them, and declare that every man who travelled did so under the safeguard of the law, and that wherever he went, as a subject of England, the power of the law protected him, so that he consequently required no passport. They were not necessary, for the rogue and the evil-designed could ever have one. Throughout the thirty republics of America there was no passport; and he thought the same system should be adopted in England. Therefore, in his opinion, the noble Lord ought not to answer the question of the hon. Member for Montrose, because the fewer passports he gave the better.
MR. COBDENsaid, his experience of the Foreign Office passports showed him that they were not superior or better in any way to the passports given by the Consuls. He had tried both, and, whilst having to pay 2l. 2s. for the Foreign Office passport, he had nothing to pay for the passport of the Consul.
MR. V. SMITHsaid, that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield were acted on, it might lead to great inconvenience to British subjects,
404
and therefore the consideration should be, whether a better system of granting passports could not he adopted. As there appeared to be a general wish for the abolition of passports altogether, and as he understood there had been some negotiation on the subject with France, he would ask the noble Lord whether he had had any communication with any other Power of Europe, and whether there was any probability of that most absurd system of passports being abolished?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he certainly had a very good reason for not answering the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, as he was not able to do so; but he could say that a very small number of passports had been granted at the Foreign Office. As to the question of his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, there had been no communication made by Her Majesty's Government to any foreign Government in regard to this matter, which peculiarly belonged to their own internal regulations. He did not know of any ground upon which we should be justified in asking any foreign Government to dispense with regulations which they adopted for their own internal purposes; but certainly, some time ago, there was reason to think that the French Government was going to reconsider these arrangements. He had not heard that they had carried that intention into effect, nor had he heard that any other Government had any intention of abolishing the system of passports.
MR. ROEBUCKwished to know whether there was any passport between this country and Belgium?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbelieved that passports continued to be given.
VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, the system to which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield referred still existed, but was leniently administered. Passports were required, but were not often asked for. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, however, had not met the objection of the facility of evading the expense of obtaining British passports at the Foreign Office under the present system.
MR. HUMEbegged to call the attention of the noble Lord to the charge of 22,000 l. for Queen's messengers and extra couriers. He thought, since the facilities of travelling by railway had been afforded, that expense might be considerably reduced; though certainly, his desire would be to reduce the number of despatches.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that both at home and abroad considerable reductions had been recently made in the amount of travelling charges for messsengers and couriers.
MR. ROEBUCKunderstood that English messengers travelled much more slowly than foreign messengers; and that they generally arrived two days later than any other. The cause of that was, that the English messenger was paid a certain mileage, and instead of travelling like other couriers, on horseback, he travelled in a carrriage. Instead of going, like a Spanish or French messenger, to Madrid or Athens on horseback, be went in a carriage, and travelled like a gentleman, instead of travelling as a courier. If that could be done away with it would be a good thing.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was misinformed when he said that the British messengers were at all less expeditious than the messengers of other countries. They always went by railway when that mode of travelling was available, otherwise they travelled in carriages. It was impossible they could carry their bags containing despatches on horseback. As a proof of the zeal with which these messengers rendered their services to the Government of this country, he would mention an instance in which a gentleman (for they were gentlemen) performed his duty on an occasion when it was required that he should make an extraordinary effort. One of the Queen's messengers, Colonel Townley, in order to carry a despatch of very considerable importance from the Foreign Office to Constantinople at the time when a question was pending between Russia and Turkey, was three days and three nights in the saddle without quitting it, and performed that journey in the worst weather and under the greatest possible difficulties. This showed that these servants of the public were willing to perform, and capable of performing duties, when required of them, which one would think it was almost impossible that any human being would be able to go through. He was glad at having this opportunity of doing justice to that excellent courier whose great exertions he had mentioned, and whose zeal had not been surpassed by any person employed in that department of the public service.
MR. ROEBUCKhad no doubt of the truth of the noble Lord's statement; still
406
he understood that while the distance between Paris and Madrid was performed by foreign couriers in five days, an English messenger always took seven days to accomplish the journey. He was informed also that an English messenger always took some person with him, who paid the expenses of the journey to the messenger, although that messenger was paid by the British Government. This was a sort of stigma upon the public service of England; and, at the same time, made it appear that our messenger system was used to sub-serve the private interest of individuals, to the detriment of the public service.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it very often happened that it was of great advantage to the public service that the messenger should have someone with him. The messenger never allowed the bags containing the despatches to be out of his possession, and yet his presence was necessary at different places in order to show his passports, to hire horses, and so forth. It would be very difficult for him to do this and to carry his bags with him. It was therefore very convenient and useful to have some person with him. He did not believe that the British messengers were slower travellers than the messengers of other countries. They were required to state the time of their arrival at, and of their departure from, every place; and his impression was that the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not founded upon a true state of facts.
MR. HUMEasked how it was that 1,345 l. were charged for two librarians at the Foreign Office? He did not know that the extent of the library there required two librarians at such an expense to the country.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied that these gentlemen, besides their duties as librarians, were employed to arrange and index the despatches and records of the office; and that the present staff, so far from being excessive, was inadequate to the duties to be performed.
Vote agreed to, as were the following votes:—
(5.) 37,400 l. for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Secretary of State for the Colonies.
(6). 2,000 l to pay the salary of the Lord Privy Seal.
(7.) 24,100 l. for the salaries and contingent expenses of the Postmaster General.

SUPPLY—COMPTROLLERS OF THE EXCHEQUER.
(8.) 6,576 l. for paying salaries and expenses of the Department of Comptroller General of the Exchequer.
COLONEL SIBTHORPconsidered that this was one of the most gross jobs that ever was practised by any Government. By Lord Monteagle's appointment to the office of Comptroller General, the noble Lord got what he (Col. Sibthorp) called something comfortable to pop into. When the noble Lord was appointed, a notorious defalcation took place with regard to the Exchequer bills; and he (Col. Sibthorp) moved for the number of days the noble Lord was in his office, and where he was when he was not in his office. He thought he had done some good; for since he had moved for those annual returns the noble Lord was to be found more in his office, and they should have more returns, they might depend upon it. He had made the noble Lord work for his pay. They had there a sum of 6,576 l. put down, but the salary of the Comptroller General was charged upon the Consolidated Fund. He wished it was charged in that vote, for if it were he would take the sense of the House on a Motion that it be struck off forthwith. The expense of that office was, in fact, 8,576 l., and the whole of the business might be performed by the Bank of England much more satisfactorily, and with more security, than at the present board. He would not object to give 500 l. a year to the assistant comptroller if he could knock off the salary of the Comptroller General.
MR. HUMEthought the hon. and gallant Member might with great propriety have struck off the assistant comptroller. [Colonel SIBTHORP: Oh, no, he is the better man of the two.] They could not remove the Comptroller, for the appointment was under Act of Parliament; but he considered that evils arose from the appointment of the assistant comptroller. By that means it had been made a sinecure office, and there should be no office now where duties were not done. There was a chief clerk at 900 l. a year, and an accountant at 550 l., and a considerable number of others. There were also the officers of weights and measures, and he did not see what duties they had to perform. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that considerable alterations and improve-
408
ments might be made with respect to them.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say the subject was under consideration.
Vote agreed to; as was also Vote (9.), for 2,700 l. for salaries and expenses in the State Paper Office.

SUPPLY—ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 3,640 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray a portion of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners."
MR. V. SMITHsaid, this vote ought not, in his opinion, to appear in the miscellaneous estimates. The Committee which sat on those estimates in 1848 had declared that the expenses might fairly be defrayed out of the funds at the disposal of the Commission. On the 15th of March, 1844, the Commission, in a reply addressed to a communication from the Treasury, agreed to throw on the property entrusted to them such portion of the salary and expenses as might be considered to be immediately connected with its possession and management; and as all the proceedings connected with the Commission had to do cither with the possession or the management of the property, that was virtually a consent to defray the entire cost of management. Since the report of the Committee of 1848 was made, the Ecclesiastical Commission had not been exhibited in such a light before the public as to justify the present demand. The time was come when they might very fairly ask the Commissioners to take this expense upon themselves. His only reason for not opposing the vote was, that there was a Bill pending with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and that it was not desirable to raise the question involved ill that Bill on that occasion. It was desirable, however, that the House should have some information with respect to the Bill to which he referred.
SIR B. HALLagreed with his right hon. Friend that the House should be informed when the Bill would be proceeded with. They should have as little to do with the Commissioners as the Commissioners desired to have to do with them. Three years had elapsed since the Commissioners had made any report. From the moment that the hon. Member for Cockermouth, in 1847, made any observations on the mode in which the Commission was managed, the Commissioners had declined making,

409
as they were bound to do, their report to the House. On the first of that month orders for returns were agreed to by the House; within a few days after those orders were issued to the episcopal body from the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but as yet there was no result. Similar delay occurred last year. His hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield having moved for certain returns with regard to Welch bishoprics, nine months (not a very uncommon period of gestation) elapsed before those returns were obtained from the Bishop of St. David's. It was understood that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would bring forward the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission on Monday next, and this vote ought to be postponed until the Bill had been discussed. The episcopal body had expended 143,014 l. in building their own palaces in eight dioceses, and during the period which had been thus occupied, they had applied only the miserable sum of 8,000 l to the augmentation of the smaller livings.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that with regard to the Bill which had been referred to, he could assure the House that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government not to proceed with it. Whether they should do so or not on Monday next, must depend on the state of public business. As the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission had arisen, he was quite willing that the vote should be postponed until after the Bill had been discussed. With respect to the returns referred to by the hon. Member for Marylebone, he must say they were returns with which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as such, had nothing whatever to do; they were to be obtained by the bishops from the clergy of their respective dioceses.
Motion withdrawn.

SUPPLY—POOR LAW.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 227,500 l, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1851,"
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, the office of the Poor Law Commission had now been established about twenty years, and he would like to know what good it had ever done. Instead of nine assistant commissioners, there were now thirteen inspectors; but, though the names differed, the nuisance remained. When the poor fell under
410
misfortune, they were still incarcerated in bastilles, and subjected to the most revolting treatment, and it was time that some check were put to the system. On the first establishment of the New Poor Law system, he had predicted that it would confer no benefit on the poor, but quite the contrary; and experience had proved the truth of his prediction. The time had come when some check should be put to the expenditure under this head; and if he did not despair of success, he would divide the Committee. The Treasury bench had, however, not only the aid of its own Members, but of those financial reformers who were great economists on the hustings at least, and said they would insist on a reduction in the expenditure of 10,000,000 l He would content himself, therefore, with protesting against the vote.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to call the attention of the House, and of the Irish Members particularly, to the fact, that in England the amount of the salaries of the medical officers and schoolmasters and schoolmistresses attached to the poor-law were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Such was not the case in Ireland, where the taxes pressed so grievously. No assistance of that kind was given in that country, and he would ask the House to consider whether it was not highly unjust that such should continue to be the case.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he would rather have those charges withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund. He agreed, however, with the hon. and gallant Colonel that not a shilling should be charged on the Consolidated Fund in England, without a corresponding charge as far as Ireland was concerned. With regard to Scotland, he was sorry to say that such an establishment had been introduced into that country. It demoralised the people, and removed that care and prudence which were the peculiar characteristics of the Scotch character.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that he wished for a moment to make an allusion to the salaries paid to the secretaries of the Poor Law Commission. Looking at the estimates he found that the president of the Poor Law Board had 2,000 l a year, while the two secretaries had 1,500 l. a year each. He was sure that it would be no disparagement to the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth, who was one of the secretaries, and had a seat in that House, if he were to say that it was absurd that he, as secretary, received the salary of 1,500 l a year, while the president had only 2,000 l a year.

411
The president should be a man of higher standing, and having a greater degree of responsibility. If the secretaries were to have 1,000 l a year, and the president's salary to remain where it was, they would be abundantly paid. He was quite satisfied that the salaries of the secretaries were far too high, and he wished to bring the matter under the consideration of the Committee.
MR. DRUMMONDwished to impress on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose the necessity of having some central board of authority. There would be very much neglect if such were not the case. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say, that he regretted that the establishment of the poor-law in Scotland was injurious to that country. He hoped that there were persons in that House who had read the reports which had been made on the working of the poor-law in that country, and heard the statement made by the learned Lord Advocate on the subject last year. They would, no doubt, hold a different impression.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYremarked that, independent of salaries, the thirteen inspectors were allowed 700 l a year each for travelling expenses. If they travelled 300 days out of the 365, this charge for travelling expenses was very much beyond what it should be.
MR. BAINESsaid, the present secretaries, with the president, were to be considered as representing the hoard of commissioners which formerly existed. The former board consisted of three commissioners at 2,000 l. a year each, that was 6,000 l; whereas the expense of the present board was but 5,000 l., making a saving of 1,000 l per annum. With respect to the inspectors, the whole of the duties of the original commissioners had been thrown upon them; and to the exertions of that valuable body of men were to be attributed the degree of success which had attended the working of the poor-law. He was perfectly certain that those gentlemen who, in the capacity of guardians, had rendered most valuable and at the same time gratuitous services, would, from their being brought so frequently into contact with the inspectors, be exactly that class which would be best able to appreciate the value of the duties rendered by those gentlemen. The inspectors were, in fact, the eyes and ears of the central department in each of those districts to which they were appointed.
412
They were constantly applied to by the boards of guardians for advice and information upon the most difficult and delicate subjects connected with the working of the poor-law. They were bound to investigate the conduct of the union officers, and the treatment of the paupers; and were, in fact, always on the spot ready to discharge their duties whenever any grievance existed of which it was necessary for the central hoard in London to inform itself accurately. In addition to these services, their time was fully occupied in looking after the general affairs of the union, giving advice to the guardians, in inspecting the unions to see that all things were properly conducted, and, in fact, in making the poor-law work as harmoniously and effectually in their districts as possible. His belief was, that at this moment there was not in England a body of more valuable and intelligent public servants than those employed as inspectors under the Poor Law Board; and those hon. Members who had had opportunities of personally witnessing their exertions, would know that he was not employing the language of undue eulogy when he applied that character to them. The number of assistant commissioners under the former Act was 9; under the present it was unlimited, and his predecessor had made the number 13. With respect to the travelling expenses, the rate of allowance, in addition to the salaries, was a guinea per day for travelling and incidental expenses, and the expenses of actual locomotion.
MR. K. SEYMERsaid, that the only complaint which he had to make of the inspectors was, that he did not see them often enough in the country.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Poor Law Commissioner had given a satisfactory answer to either the observation made by himself or by the hon. Member for Stafford. He stated, that at present there were two secretaries and a president, who were to be considered in the place of the board; that the board formerly cost 6,000 l a year, while they now paid the president and the two secretaries only 5,000 l a year. Why should they be satisfied to pay 5,000 l a year because they once paid 6,000 l. a year. These secretaries stood in the same position to the right hon. Gentleman as the Under Secretary of State did to his principal. It was absurd, then, that be should only have 2,000 l., and he (Mr. Bright) did not propose

413
to increase it, while they had 1,500 l. He would not comment on the capabilities of these gentlemen. They might be as good as any they knew; but their salaries were too high. He intended, therefore, to move that their salaries be diminished by the sum necessary to bring them down to 1,000 l a year each. With regard to the inspectors, he would ask whether the guinea a day was not an addition to their salaries, and whether they had not their expenses allowed besides—that was, whether they had not a guinea a day whether they travelled or not? If such were the case, it would be better to have it all charged as salary. With regard to the secretaries, he would ask the Government whether they I would not consent to the reduction he proposed?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there were two secretaries, one in Parliament, the other not. The latter used to receive 2,000 l. as a commissioner, had served thirteen years, and now discharged duties as important for 1,500 l. It would be exceedingly hard to deprive him of that amount; a piece of more false economy could not be proposed. The salary of the secretary who held a seat in that House would come for consideration before the Committee on official salaries recently appointed, and pending the inquiry of the Committee, it would not be dealing fairly with the office for the House of Commons to interfere. The Government were prepared to act on the recommendations of that Committee when they were made.
MR. BRIGHTadmitted that there was some force in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the salary in the second case being under consideration of the Committee on Official Salaries. All gentlemen were declared efficient when their salaries were made the subject of discussion. He should not divide the House on his proposition.
MR. J. E. DENISONsaid, that the principle of allowing the poor-law inspectors a guinea a day whether they travelled or not was a bad one.
MR. BAINESsaid, that he had no difficulty in stating that it was his opinion that the guinea a day should be considered as part of the inspectors' salary.
MR. MONSELLreminded the House of the observation which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, referring to the payment of certain
414
poor-law officials in England out of the Consolidated Fund, when such was not allowed in Ireland.
SIR G. PECHELLsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had insisted, in connexion with the Bill for extending the jurisdiction of the county court, that the judges should not have more than 1,000 l. a year, nor more than 15 s. a day for their travelling expenses. Now, he (Sir G. Pechell) did not see why the poor-law inspectors should have a guinea a day for their expenses, if the judges of the county court were only to have 15 s. He was gratified in being able to express his satisfaction at the manner in which the President of the Poor Law Board discharged his duties.
COLONEL RAWDONcomplained of so much money being paid to poor-law officers out of the Consolidated Fund, while no such assistance was given to Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in 1846 it had been arranged to pay certain charges for medical officers, &c., out of the Consolidated Fund in England and Scotland, where the county police were not paid by the Government. But the cost of the constabulary in Ireland was paid out of the public Exchequer; for the year ending February last it amounted to 574,000 l., having increased upwards of 90,000 l. within the last two years.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the police in Ireland ought to be reckoned as a military force. The expense of the poor-law in Ireland had much increased since the arrangement made in 1846.
SIR R. FERGUSONreminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a portion of the constabulary expenses had always been borne by the Consolidated Fund. The portion borne by local taxation had never exceeded 160,000 l, or 180,000 l
MR. BRIGHTdid not think that Ireland was so badly used in this matter, after all, seeing that last year 62,800 l. was voted for the poor-law establishment of Ireland, and only 35,000 l. for that of England. With respect to general local taxation, he begged to say that a thorough reform of the grand-jury system would enable Ireland to obtain a reduction of that without coming to that House.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that supposing the grand jury system were reformed, the only saving that could be effected by that means was upon the 1,100,000 l. of grand-jury

415
cess; and of that sum the hon. Member would perhaps he surprised to learn the grand juries had the control over cue-fourth only, the rest being compulsory. Since the period when the right hon. Member for Tamworth made the arrangements which were alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the poor-rates in Ireland bad increased from 13,000 l. to 14,000 l. a year, which surely ought to be taken into account by the House; and it should be recollected that the local taxation in Ireland amounted to rather more than 5s., whilst the whole amount of local taxation in England, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, amounted to 2s. 4½d. in the pound.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYwas anxious that the President of the Poor Law Board should give the House some distinct assurance as to the emoluments of inspectors. A great number of gentlemen gave their time to the administration of the poor-law, and rendered great services without remuneration. He wished to know whether, of the thirteen inspectors, each inspector was to have a clerk allowed to him? There were other inspectors who had no clerks allowed to them. There were the inspectors of factories, and there was scarcely a union in England where they were not obliged to employ clerks for Parliamentary returns. He did not know what was the duty of inspectors, which should require them to keep a clerk. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the fixed amount of salary which he would in future recommend, and whether he intended to discontinue all allowance for travelling expenses? There was one inspector for every four counties, and therefore the expenses of travelling were quite unnecessary.
MR. V. SMITHsaid, that the poor-law was admirably managed in Scotland, and Sir M. O'Neile received only 1,200 l. a year. He begged to ask why the Irish board should keep an architect?
SIR W. SOMERVILLE: In addition to the general duties of visiting and inspecting buildings, there were now a number of workhouses in the course of erection, and his duties became very much increased. The building of workhouses was undertaken in this country by the board of guardians, who employed their own architect; In Ireland it was undertaken by a person in the employment of the commission.
MR. ARKWRIGHT MR. ARKWRIGHT moved, as an Amendment upon the Vote then under
416
consideration, that instead of thirteen inspectors—eight at 700 l. a year, and five at 500 l. a year—the number should be reduced to eight—namely, three at 700 l. a year each, and five at 500 l.—making a total reduction of 3,500 l.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 224,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsupported the Motion. It was quite impossible that taxation could go on on the present system, and the Government ought to apply their minds to the question whether the property of the country should pay the taxation.
SIR R. PRICEsaid, that the question was whether the board was too large for the purposes for which it was intended. In his opinion, the poor-law would be of little use if they in any degree diminished the power of the board in London. They should have a hoard of supervision to keep every part of the country under control until one general system was adopted. He bore his testimony in favour of the present law, and in favour of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the establishment, believing that he was doing his duty beneficially to the country, and with honour to himself. Although he did not say that it might not be possible to reduce the number of inspectors, he said that the House was not thoroughly conversant with the subject, and the board in London would be weakened if they took away a large part of its establishment.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the increase of the number of inspectors was founded on the recommendation of the Committee, which went fully into the whole administration of the poor-law. They reported that the number of inspectors was insufficient to enable the central board to exercise that supervision which was indispensable to the due administration of the law. Government had proposed the limit at twelve, but the hon. Member for Somersetshire had said that it was indiscreet to fix the limit at twelve, thinking that a larger number might be necessary for the due administration of the law.
MR. BRIGHTwould not consent to vote for the proposition unless they had some more information on the subject. He thought that it was quite within the bounds of probability that thirteen inspectors

417
were too many, but it did not appear that eight would be a sufficient number. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board would give his opinion that they could be reduced, he would vote for such reduction.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, he had been assured that in the borough which he had the honour to represent, for every shilling spent in the maintenance of the poor, another shilling was spent in maintaining the executive.
MR. BAINESsaid, that with regard to the number of inspectors all he could say was, that when the question came under discussion in 1847—there having been nine up to that time—Parliament came to the conclusion that that number was insufficient. The next proposition went to increasing the number to twelve, and a clause was introduced making that the limit; but it was the opinion of the House that the limit of twelve should be struck out, lest circumstances might at a future day require a greater number. When his predecessor (Mr. Buller) came into office, he considered maturely the question of the number of inspectors, and when examined before the Committee, gave it as his deliberate opinion that less than thirteen would not be sufficient. On his responsibility he made the number thirteen; and everything that had occurred to him (Mr. Baines) during the year and a half he had been in office, had led him to believe that thirteen was the proper number. But he confessed he was not surprised that this Motion should come from the hon. Member, because a short time since a petition had come up from Leominster for the reduction of the expenditure at Somerset House; and about a week after, the board was obliged to consider a plan, emanating from the guardians of that union, by which the salaries of all its officers were to be reduced 20 per cent, in consequence of the reduction in the prices of agricultural produce. The board, although anxious at all times to treat the recommendations of boards of guardians with respect, had declined to agree to that proposal, alleging that the salaries had not been raised with the rise in provisions, and that until the present state of things had become permanent, it would not be expedient to do anything calculated to interfere with the efficient working of the poor-law. They had given that opinion, and hence the present Motion.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEwas not disposed
418
to support the Amendment, considering it necessary to have that efficient inspection, the want of which had been a complaint especially prominent in the Andover Union inquiry. There were, however, many items in this enormous estimate, which he thought objectionable. For example, he wanted to know how many auditors there were, and in what proportions the large item of 13,500 l. was distributed among them.
MR. BAINEScould not exactly say at the moment how many auditors there were, but the salaries varied from 250 l. to 500 l. per annum, according to the districts. The increase in the charge under this head, from 13,000 l. to 13,500 l., was occasioned by the expense of advertising the various audits.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 157: Majority 121.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYobjected to the number and expense of the auditors. The expense of railway audit, which was so intricate, was only about one-fourth that of the poor-law. He moved that the sum be reduced by 8,000?., which would leave sufficient to pay ten auditors 500 l. a year each.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 219,500 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
MR. BAINESsaid, that recently a great deal of additional duty had been imposed upon the auditors, who were not at all overpaid. The salaries of some were only 250 l., while none were above 500 l. He was of opinion that there was no room for retrenchment.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDhoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee, but still thought that the subject required investigation.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, that the number of auditors had been the same ever since he had been on the Poor Law Board. [Mr. Alderman SIDNEY: How many are there?] Could not say exactly how many.
MR. BAINESwould undertake to let the hon. Member know by note to-morrow morning the exact number.
MR. W. MILESsuggested that in future the estimates should be accompanied by a statement of the number of auditors, their salaries, and services. He must say, however, that they were a most useful and

419
efficient class of servants in the working of the poor-law.
MR. HUMEwould support the Motion, on the understanding that the payment of the auditors should be thrown on the unions, and that each union should pay for its own auditors.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDfelt assured that, in that case, the accounts of each union would be audited for 50 l. He knew it could be done in the union of Stoke-upon-Trent. Some of his constituents waited upon him last week, and stated that in that borough for every shilling applied to the relief of the poor the executive cost another shilling.
MR. SLANEYwould oppose the Motion on the ground of economy, to which he considered the auditors contributed in a large degree. He believed that the executive only cost 20 per cent on the outlay for the poor,
MR. BAINESsaid, that the hon. Alderman would find in the appendix to the estimates all the information he required respecting the districts, the salaries, and the number of auditors. The whole number of auditors was fifty, their salaries varied from 90 l. to 450 l., the average of salaries being 270 l. The number of unions was upwards of 600.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that he should nevertheless divide, because, with only six auditors in Ireland, he did not see what was wanted in England with fifty.
MR. BRIGHTthought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner satisfactory. The hon. Alderman had said he would undertake to audit each union for 50 l.; but as the unions were 600, it would appear by an easy calculation that the sum at present paid was only about 22 l. There would, therefore, be no economy in adopting the hon. Alderman's offer.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, hon. Members opposite gave a very singular support to Her Majesty's Ministers in that House on these questions, which contrasted very oddly with their reform and retrenchment speeches on the hustings. But wherever there was honey there would be found bees—or rather drones. The conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite showed them to be, as far as the principles of economy were concerned, mere shams and shadows. Every day he passed through the streets of the metropolis he met persons who cautioned him to beware of the traps of the free-traders, who would, he hoped, some
420
fine morning he caught in their own traps.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 181: Majority 125.
MR. W. MILESsaid, with regard to the item of 35,000 l. for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in unions, that ever since the new system of the Government paying the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, came into operation in 1846, though alterations might have taken place in the salaries, this item had always remained the same.
MR. BAINESregretted that not having had notice of the question, he was not in a position to answer it; and he was not aware that exactly the same sum had been voted since 1846. The right hon. Baronet who introduced the change in 1846 did it with a view of improving the character of the schools, and it was then proposed that the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The highest salary given was 60 l. a year with rations, and he believed they ranged from 10 l. to 60 l. The greatest care had been taken to increase the efficiency of the schoolmasters; there had been communications between the Commission and the Committee of Privy Council on the subject, and he believed that upon the whole the character of the schools had been greatly improved.
MR. W. MILESsaid, it really did seem to him that on such a vote as this they should have the fullest information. When the salaries were adjusted, those schoolmasters and schoolmistresses who were inefficient, he presumed would be discharged. He wished to know whether that had been done, and whether the education of the poor was conducted in an efficient and proper manner? It was only with this view that he put the question.
MR. BAINEScould answer that that had been the case within the last two years. Of course these improvements were gradual. There was a constant course of improvement now proceeding.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDthought that in the absence of information it was his duty to move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. LAWhoped his hon. Friend would not take the sense of the House upon that question, because, though it might be the furthest from his intention, it might seem to amount to a censure on the right hon. President of the Poor Law Commission, of whose labours the House had the highest

421
appreciation. It was to be lamented that his right hon. Friend had not had notice of the question.
MR. W. MILESagreed entirely with what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was not his intention to object to this vote, but he wished to get some information. As the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give it, but still said improvements were going on in the character of the schools, that to him (Mr. Miles) was perfectly satisfactory, and he could only say that the sum of 35,000 l. to educate the 60,000 children who were in union workhouses could not be better spent.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDwithdrew his Amendment.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—MINT.
(11.) 35,000 l to defray the expenditure for the several branches of the Mint.
MR. THORNELYasked the Master of the Mint whether he had made arrangements for an increased issue of florins, and also whether it was intended to issue more of the small coin called threepenny pieces, a coin which he understood had been found to be exceedingly convenient?
MR. SHEILreplied, that with respect to the florin he had already upon a former occasion stated the reason why the issue of that coin was suspended. It was intended to issue the florin in another shape, with those additions which public opinion seemed to demand. With respect to the smaller coin to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, in consequence of communications he had had from the hon. Gentleman, and also from the hon. Member for Westminster, he had given directions that a large quantity be coined.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDcomplained that magistrates had day by day persons brought before them for passing base coin, and they found that the Solicitor to the Mint alone was the arbitrator as to whether a prosecution should take place or not. Generally speaking it was not respectable tradesmen who were the sufferers, but the poor. Nine times out of ten the sellers of fruit in the streets of the metropolis were the sufferers by this base coin. Last week a case occurred before a Colleague of his, in which the Solicitor to the Mint refused, under any circumstances, to prosecute a party for passing base coin. In many eases where the Solicitor to the Mint had refused, the City had prosecuted, and to conviction. This was not a power which
422
ought to be delegated to the Solicitor to the Mint. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General would attend to this matter, for it was a growing evil. It was a painful thing for him to sit as a magistrate, and find a poor woman not alone deprived of her goods—only a pennyworth of apples, perhaps—but also of 2s. 5d. in money. Sometimes, finding the deception practised upon her, she took the law into her own hands, and maltreated the man so much that he was kept to his bed for two or three weeks.
MR. HUMEwished to know when the changes recommended by the Mint Commission, now a twelvemonth ago, would take effect? The public expected some fruit to arise from that inquiry.
MR. SHEILsaid, that in consequence of the report made by the Mint Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had directed their attention to the subject; and the result was that a representation had been made to the moneyers and assayers, intimating that their relation to the Mint was to undergo a very speedy and considerable change. The Committee would not expect him to go into the details of the change, but no time would be lost in carrying it into effect.
MR. HUMEasked if this change could be made without an Act of Parliament. If not, the sooner it was introduced the better.
MR. SHEILsaid, the Government had decided on the nature of the changes, and one was that the body called the moneyers were to be deprived of what they called their privileges; and, therefore, whether the business was in future conducted by open contract or otherwise, there would be a great saving of the public expenditure.
MR. LAWsaid, the subject of the Mint prosecutions was well deserving the attention of the Government officers. The Mint stood in a different position, in some respects, from other bodies. If the magistrates recommended prosecutions, the officers of the Mint, on their own responsibility, either took that course or abstained from it. If they came into court without sufficient evidence, the court had no means of disallowing the expenses, as in ordinary cases; for as the costs of the prosecutions were defrayed by Government, the court had nothing to do with it. Thus, the Mint was in a position to refrain from prosecuting with impunity in cases where they ought to prosecute, and they might prosecute in cases where they ought not, and still be sure of their expenses.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he believed it was the universal practice for no Mint prosecution for felony to be instituted without his sanction. All the cases were laid before him, the circumstances deposed to, together with the character and description of the witnesses by whom they were supported. And inasmuch as it was of the utmost importance, in cases of this kind, to carry public opinion with them, as well as to punish the offenders, all the circumstances underwent a very careful consideration.
MR. LAWsaid, his observations did not apply to the prosecutions for felony; in none of the cases under the superintendence of the hon. and learned Gentleman had there been anything approaching to irregularly. He spoke of the ordinary cases of misdemeanour, uttering counterfeit coins—though the same offence became felony on its second commission. He had had upwards of twenty years' experience of these cases—he had been one of the counsel to the Mint some years ago, and though these cases had been better conducted of late years, he must say he had seen a great deal which he did not like. He spoke of the discretion which was ordinarily reposed, not in the Solicitor to the Mint, but in a person who was no solicitor at all, or even his clerk, the third party being the person who usually exercised this discretion.
MR. SHEILsaid, the course which was pursued in all prosecutions was this: The evidence was laid before the Solicitor to the Mint. He roughly investigated that evidence, and he then appeared before the board to obtain their sanction to the prosecutions. No criminal was ever brought to trial without the sanction of the board. It would be found, upon inquiry, that there was hardly any instance—he believed not one—of a prosecution having failed. A change had been recently effected, by which the Solicitor to the Mint had been got rid of, and the whole of the business transferred to the Solicitor to the Treasury, whose salary was 800 l. a year. The business referred to was now confided to Mr. Powell, a gentleman of great experience, in whom the Government had the fullest confidence. The Commissioners had recommended a great change in these prosecutions—amongst other things, that the first offence of uttering should be dealt with summarily.
MR. LAWsaid, that unless the practice had been totally altered within the last
424
few years, many of the prosecutions had failed.
MR. SHEILsaid, that unless he was very much mistaken indeed, there had been no instance of failure.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, the complaint was, not that there were too many, but too few prosecutions. In the papers that morning a ease had appeared of a notorious smasher being placed before the magistrates on Saturday; and immediately on his being arraigned at the bar, it was intimated by the clerk of the Solicitor to the Mint that no prosecution would take place. The magistrates had, however, determined to hear the case, and had found sufficient evidence on which to commit him for trial. This was no uncommon occurrence in the city of London. At several recent sessions, when the Mint refused to prosecute, the magistrate committed the prisoners, who bad afterwards received sentence of transportation. The complaint was that the Government should by their officers connive at these cases.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Government did not connive at there being no prosecution. It had been the practice so long as he had been in office not to throw the weight of the Government prosecution into cases of a doubtful character; still, if the parties who had suffered, chose to prosecute, it was competent for them to do so. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government, or any other person, had withdrawn the witnesses in the case referred to by the last speaker. During the time he had been in office there had not been a single acquittal on a charge for felony; and he believed the case was the same with the misdemeanours. It was of the utmost importance for the public to know that the Government did not lightly undertake these prosecutions. Other people might do as they pleased; if a prosecutor thought he had a good ease, there was nothing to prevent him bringing it before the court in the usual way.
MR. ALDERMAS COPELANDsaid, his complaint was not of the Attorney General, but of the Solicitor to the Mint exercising his own discretion whether to prosecute or not. These cases occurred to the extent of a thousand in a year.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—PUBLIC RECORDS.
(12.) 12,678 l. for expenses connected with the Record Office.
MR. A. HOPEprotested against the

425
vote, on the ground that their condition was not satisfactory. Some of them were kept in the Chapter House of Westminster, others in the Tower of London, others in the riding house at Carlton-ride, while the building erected for the purpose was wholly insufficient. There was a fire-proof chest in every parish church in England; but on the Carlton-ride a policeman was kept as the only preservative against fire. It was a disgrace to the country. He should not, however, divide the House on the subject.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad stated, at an early period of the Session, that it was his intention to ask a vote to erect a building for keeping the records on the Crown estate. He trusted, therefore, that the House would agree; to the vote then before it.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, the records were at present in a worse state than they were forty years since. Many of these estimates consisted of "miscellaneous and "contingencies," so that he was utterly at a loss to understand what such general terms meant.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—INSPECTORS OF FACTORIES.
(13.) 10,994 l. for the Inspectors of Factories.
MR. HUMEobjected to the vote, upon the ground that these inspectors unnecessarily interfered with the owners of factories.
MR. BRIGHThad a word to say with reference to these inspectors. He said it somehow happened that whenever a Home Secretary was appointed, a relative of his went down to inspect the factories of Lancashire. The inspectors were probably very respectable, but they knew little of factories, and though they might allow infringements of the law sometimes to go unpunished, yet, in other cases, their ignorance caused parties to be unnecessarily interfered with. He could furnish details of the blunders they had made, but he would forbear from troubling the Committee at that late hour. He thought men who understood their business should be appointed to the office, and that the relatives of Cabinet Ministers ought not to be selected.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that one vacancy had occurred since he had been Home Secretary, and that he had consolidated the offices rather than appoint a relative or any other person.
Vote agreed to, as were the following votes:
(14.) 1,610 l. for the payment of certain Officers in Scotland.
(15.) 6,464 l. for the expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland.

SUPPLY—CHIEF SECRETARY (IRELAND).
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 24,250 l., be grant ed to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and the Privy Council Office in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
SIR W. JOLLIFFEobjected to the amount charged in this vote for "contingencies." The charge under that head in the Chief Secretary's office alone was 2,701 l., and the total charge for contingencies in the vote was 3,321 l.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the item of "contingencies" covered a variety of miscellaneous expenses which it was impossible to state in detail. In the charges for the offices of the several Secretaries of State, and every other public department, a similar item occurred. Among the expenses defrayed under this head were the salaries of extra clerks, the payment for occasional assistance in the offices, and other charges.
COLONEL SIBTHORPproposed that the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be reduced from 5,500 l. to 5,000 l.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 23,760 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and the Privy Council Office in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 156: Majority 115.
Vote agreed to, as was also Vote (17.) for 5,646 l. for the expenses of the department of Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland.
House resumed. Committee to sit again on Friday.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sunday Fairs Prevention; Registration of Deeds (Ireland); Deanery of St. Burian Division.
3a Defects in Leases Act Amendment.

DEANERY OF ST. BURIAN DIVISION BILL.
LORD PORTMAN, as one of the Council of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, rose to present a Bill to divide the Deanery of St. Burian, and said: The Deanery of St. Burian appears, from ancient historical accounts, to have been founded by King Athelstan, who "having set his heart upon the conquest of Cornwall, thought it could not be completed unless he reduced the Scilly Islands, which he had a view of from the western promontories; he vows, therefore, a religious house in case he returned with victory; and being returned according to his wish, he acted according to his vow. He built a collegiate church in sight of those islands, and dedicated it to St. Burian, a holy woman of Ireland (who had at that time an oratory, and was buried here), placing a dean and three prebends in the college." The deanery is supposed to be exempt from all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that no appeal lies from the registry court, but immediately to the King in Council. And, as stated in a note in Oliver's Monasticon Diocesis Exoniensis, "It has lost all its lands. The prebends are merged in the deanery, and the deanery itself is in Substance only a rectory, including three parishes served by curates appointed by the dean." The three parishes are those of St. Burian, St. Levan, and Sennen. From the remote and exposed situation of the deanery in the most western promontory of England, the want of resident landowners, with the appropriation hitherto of the tithes by a non-resident dignitary of the Church, a state of things has arisen which cannot but be lamented, and affords strong grounds for the changes that are now proposed. The dilapidated and mutilated condition of St. Burian and the other two churches is a subject of great regret. It is melancholy to see the havoc that has been made of the rich carvings, gildings, and ornamental decorations. Sufficient, however, remains to give an idea of their pristine beauty, and to excite an anxious desire

367
for their restoration. The Honourable and Reverend Fitzroy Henry Richard Stanhope, the present incumbent, who is aged about sixty-three years, became dean of St. Burian upon the death of Dr. Jenkin in 1817. Mr. Stanhope has never resided in the deanery, nor is there now any residence or glebe lands either in St. Burian or in the parishes of Sennen or St. Levan. The deanery of St. Burian, consisting of the three parishes of St. Burian, St. Levan, and Sennen, forming together the western extremity of the county of Cornwall, and for the most part bounded by the sea, is a donative and peculiar, of which the patronage belongs to His Royal Highness. The population, extent, and ecclesiastical revenues of these three parishes, are as follows:—

Population.

Commutation Tithe Rents.

Acreage.

St. Burian

1,911

£570

6,964

St. Levan

531

250

2,230

Sennan

659

230

2,328

The deanery has its own spiritual court, and is, in fact, an extra-diocesan benefice, governed in ancient times by a dean and chapter. All the glebe and other church lands having been alienated long ago, and there being no parsonage-house in any part of the deanery, the deans, for 300 years and upwards, have been non-resident, while their chapter has become wholly extinct, and the spacious collegiate church of St. Burian, formerly highly ornamented, has been materially defaced and injured for want of proper ecclesiastical superintendence. Since the deanery lost its resident beneficed clergy, the ecclesiastical duties of the three parishes have been performed by two curates, of whom one officiates in St. Burian, the other having the conjoint charge of St. Levan and Sennen. The general objects contemplated by the Bill are, the abolition of the deanery upon the next avoidance, and the establishment of a distinct rectory in each of the three parishes of St. Burian, St. Sennen, and St. Levan; the appropriation to each rectory of the ecclesiastical revenues arising within the parish, and making the incumbent of each subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Exeter, and making provision for the acquisition of parsonage-houses and glebes; also the abolition, on the next avoidance of the deanery, or sooner, with the consent of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Bishop of Exeter,
368
and the present Dean of the present Registry Court, and the peculiar and exempt jurisdiction of the Dean, and placing the whole under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Archdeacon of Cornwall and the Bishop of Exeter, as in other parishes in the county of Cornwall; and the transfer of all registers, records, wills, &c. to the Registry of the Archdeaconry of Cornwall. If the ecclesiastical revenue arising within each parish is given to the incumbent, three livings, with what would appear to be sufficient endowments, may be provided. In this case, the incnmbent of St. Burian would have an income of 570 l., with a district of 6,964 acres, containing a population of 1,911; the incumbent of St. Levan, an income of 250 l., a district of 2,230 acres, and a population of 531; and of Sennen, an income of 230 l., a district of 2,328 acres, and a population of 659. The income of each of the incumbents would, of course, for a time be diminished in the event of a loan being obtained from Queen Anne's Bounty Fund towards the erection of parsonage-houses. It is considered probable that there would not be material difficulty in providing sites for suitable residences, and that the assistance which could be obtained from Queen Anne's Bounty would be sufficient for the erection of the buildings. The advantage likely to be derived from the proposed changes generally can scarcely he over-estimated, calculated, as they would be, most materially to improve the condition of the population, and at the same time remove a considerable public scandal, detrimental to the Church not only in the deanery itself, but in the surrounding vicinity. The abolition of the registry court would relieve the inhabitants from what is considered a great grievance and abuse.
Bill read 1a; and referred to the Standing Order Committee, on Thursday, 6th June.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The MARQUESS of WESTMINSTER, as Lord High Steward, intimated that he had laid before Her Majesty the Address which their Lordships voted on the Birth of another Prince, and that Her Majesty had condescended to receive it most graciously, and to return the following answer:—
"My Lords,
"I have received your loyal and affectionate Address with much satisfaction. I thank you most cordially for your Congratulations on the Birth of another Prince, and for the

369
assurances of the interest you take in My domestic happiness."
On the Motion of Lord CAMPBELL, the Answer to the Address was ordered to be entered on the Journals of the House.

THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
LORD BROUGHAMthen rose to move for certain returns connected with the state of business in the Court of Chancery. He did this, he said, in consequence of having heard it reported, and even seen it publicly stated, that there was an enormous arrear of business in the court which was presided over by his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), who, from indisposition, was not present on this occasion: he gave a positive denial to those statements. The arrears in this House consisted of little more than the causes that had been entered this Session; and the arrear in the appeal business had seldom been less than it was at present. He might add that it was not desirable to have the appeal business without arrear, as it frequently happened that a case which was at first appealed from the other courts was afterwards withdrawn on more calm and mature deliberation; and this of course would be prevented if the case were taken up as soon as it was entered. The business was not quite in the same state in the Court of Chancery, but still the arrears were much less than when he took the Great Seal in November, 1830. All this would be shown by the returns, and he thought it was only justice to his noble and learned Friend that they should be brought forward. He could not make this statement without expressing his deep sorrow that his noble and learned Friend was not likely soon to resume his useful and invaluable labours in the Court of Chancery. He deeply lamented that; and whatever arrangements of a temporary nature it might be necessary to make, he earnestly hoped that this fitting opportunity would be taken, which would greatly diminish the sorrow that all felt in the prospect of being deprived of the services of that able and learned and in all respects admirable Judge, of making, on good and sound principles, a permanent arrangement—in which the public and the profession, and the law, and the lawgiver were all alike interested—to remodel the duties of that high officer of State, who was also the head Minister of justice in this country.
Returns ordered.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYpresented a petition agreed to at public meeting of the county of Hertford, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a return to protection. The noble Lord said, that he had delayed presenting this petition, after the indifferent manner in which the subject was treated in the Speech from the Throne, and until he had made the fullest inquiry into the statements made by the noble Lord (Earl Grey) opposite on the subject in question, and also by certain Members of the Government elsewhere. The noble Marquess then read extracts from the second annual report of the Poor Law Board, 1849, and from other documents, to show that the general prosperity of the country was on the whole less now than in 1846. The first document showed that the return from 558 unions proved that the amount expended on relief to pauperism during the half year ending Michaelmas last was 1,653,061 l., being a reduction of only 97,098 l., or 5½ per cent as compared with 1848. The property tax returns (as well as could be gathered) were less; the number of paupers had increased from 829,533 in 1846, to 1,373,367 in the week ending 25th March, 1850—an increase mainly attributable to agricultural distress; while the cost of maintenance for the poor had risen from 2,000,000 l. or thereabouts in 1843, to 6,000,000 l in 1849. The noble Marquess said, that the boasted prosperity of the manufacturing districts was unreal, for that in Manchester and other towns of that character, the average among the working population was one-third employed in the whole year, two-thirds unemployed. The wages of labour likewise had fallen at least 10 per cent lower than they were in 1840, though he had always understood that the prosperity of a country depended upon the establishment of a high rate of wages to the working classes. In proof of this proposition the noble Marquess read the following return:—

The Labourer Had. 44 wks wages, 12s.

£26

8

0

The Labourer Has. 44 wks wages, 9s.

£19

16

0

4 wks hay, 16s

3

4

0

4 wks hay, 13s

2

12

0

4 wks harvest, 20s.

4

0

0

4 wks harvest, 20s.

4

0

0

£33

12

0

£26

8

0

Has

26

8

0

£7

4

0

21 per cent reduction in value.

371

Brt. forward,.

£7

4

0

21 per cent reduction in value.

Paid for flour, 26 bushels, at 10s. 1d.

£13

2

2

Pays for flour, 26 bushels, at 9s. 6d.

£12

7

0

0

15

2

£6

8

10

Deduct advantage in price of flour 2s. 5½d. per week, or 18 per cent loss.

The Labourer Had 44 wks wages, 11 s.

£24

4

0

The Labourer Has. 44 wks wages, 9s.

£19

16

0

4 wks hay, 15s.

3

0

0

4 wks hay, 12s. 3d.

2

9

0

4 wks harvest, 20s.

4

9

0

4 wks harvest, 16s. 4d.

3

5

4

£31

4

0

£25

10

4

25

10

4

£5

13

8

18¼ per cent reduction on value of labour.

Paid for 26 bush. 9s 4d

£12

2

8

Pays for 26 bush, 7s.

£9

2

0

3

0

8

£2

13

0

Deduct advantage in flour 1s. per week, or 9 per cent reduction.

This calculation is taking the average of a labourer's family to consist of five persons who would consume half a bushel of flour, (28 lbs.) weekly. He contended that a depreciation of manufacturing interests had occurred, as well as of the agricultural interest; in proof of which he read the following:—

COTTON MANUFACTURES—IMPORTS.

Three Months ending April 5.

1848.

1849.

1850.

Not made up.

£.

£.

£.

East India piece goods

23,302

10,769

12,212

Decr. on 1848 11,090 l.

Incr. on 1849 5,443 l.

Other articles

30,982

29,790

100,656

Incr. on 1848 69,674 l.

Incr. on 1849 70,860 l.

Wholly or in part made up.

cotton manufactures

6,427

12,521

14,618

Incr. on 1848 8,191 l.

Incr. on 1849 2,097 l.

Cotton yarn

5,320

8,944

13,646

Incr. on 1848 8,326 l.

Incr. on 1849 4,652 l.

Total

66,031

62,080

141,132

With respect to the general condition of the people the following document told its own tale, and indicated clearly enough a great depreciation:—
372

Jan. 1849, estimat, populat.

15,736,000

Jan. 1850, estimat, populat.

15,945,000

209,009

or 1 per ct.

QUANTITY OF TEA ENTERED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION.

lbs.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

12,066,744

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

12,245,121

Increase

178,377

or 1⅓ per ct.

SUGAR.

Cwts.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

1,469,672

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

1,413,054

Decrease

56,618

or 4 per ct.

COFFEE.

lbs.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

9,386,255

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

7,465,884

Decrease.

1,920,371

or 22 per ct.

COCOA.

lbs.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

922,665

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

724,240

Decrease

198,425

or 22 per ct.

CURRANTS.

Cwts.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

88,673

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850.

66,528

Decrease

22,145

or 25 per ct.

RAISINS.

Cwts.

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1849.

32,029

3 months endg. Apr. 5, 1850

21,598

Decrease

10,431

or 80 per ct.

The noble Marquess quoted extracts from the Letters on Labour and the Poor, which have appeared at various times in the Morning Chronicle, and concluded by asking the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) how long the experiment of free trade was to be continued?
EARL GREYreplied that he was not aware that the Act of 1846 contained any clause limiting the operation of that measure to any definite period, nor had he ever heard the remotest intention expressed in any quarter of making any alteration in that Act.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, his noble Friend had got just the same answer from the Government, as one with which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had been favoured on a similar occasion. He thought that if the noble Earl meant what he had just said—and he believed the noble Earl was a man who generally said what he meant, and meant what he said—he was a Minister better fitted for the ancient empire of the Medes and Persians, than for the con-

373
stitutional government of Great Britain. The noble Earl seemed to entertain a great dislike for these discussions; but so long as the different Parliamentary papers were delivered to their Lordships for their perusal, he must expect to have them thus incidentally discussed. The information contained in the papers recently delivered was at once important and most alarming. The return of all the indoor and outdoor paupers for each year, from the year 1846 to the year 1850, was most appalling. It proved the entire fallacy of the dictum of the noble Lord in that House, that pauperism had decreased in the last five years. On the contrary, its increase in England and Wales within that period had reached to the vast amount of 125,000 persons. The last year of protection was the year 1846—the last of free trade was the year 1850. In 1846 the price of wheat was 54 s.; in 1850 it was 38 s. a quarter; and yet, when the price of wheat was one-third less than it was formerly, the number of paupers was 125,000 more. The free-trade Government had made two promises to the people, when they deluded them into the repeal of the corn laws. They had given them a promise of reciprocity, and they had given them a promise of the prosperity of the lower classes. Reciprocity they had not got; the prosperity of the lower classes had not happened. He had expected at any rate, after all the promises they had received, to find something like prosperity in the agricultural districts; but in going through this list [holding out a paper in his hand] he found no signs of prosperity either in the agricultural or manufacturing districts. In Cheltenham, which was not exclusively either an agricultural or a manuturing place, there were, in 1846, the last year of protection, 909 paupers; in 1850, the last year of free trade, there were 1820. In Liverpool, in 1846, there were 12,200 paupers; in 1850, there were 17,800. In Manchester, in 1846, there were 13,900; 1850, 13,926. In Preston, in 1846, there were 3,021 paupers, and in 1850, 5,187. He would not enter into other details on this subject, for it was the same everywhere; but he would give their Lordships just one specimen from a district purely agricultural. In the Isle of Portsea, in 1846, there were 3,200 paupers; in 1850, there were 6,200, or nearly double. [ANOBLE LORD: Look to Newcastle.] He had been referred to Newcastle. Well, he would read the entry under the town of Newcastle. In 1846 the number of paupers was
374
4,946; and in 1850, there were 7,966. In Morpeth, in 1846, there were 882 paupers; in 1850, there were 1,056. The last two were places which the noble Earl was doubtless well acquainted with. With these facts before them, it was impossible for noble Lords opposite to argue that their policy had turned out beneficially. He then read to their Lordships various returns recently laid on their table, all of which, he insisted, conspired to establish the same point. For instance, in 1845, when the old corn laws were in force, the returns of corn sold in England and Wales were 5,700,000 odd quarters of wheat; in 1849, the last year for which the same returns had been received, they were only 4,500,000, so that the decrease of the corn sold in England and Wales between the years 1845 and 1849 was just 1,200,000 quarters. With these papers, showing that all their promises had failed—that they had not gained the advantages of reciprocity by their generous system towards the foreigner, that they had not diminished the amount of pauperism, and that their low prices had not checked the importation of foreign corn—he did not think that he was wasting the time of the House in calling its attention to the facts, or in declaring that the old corn laws must be restored, if their Lordships had any hope of seeing the country restored to its former prosperity.
EARL GREYreplied, that the noble Lords opposite must not be surprised if the Government refused to enter into these incidental debates on the corn laws until it was acquainted with the real object sought to be achieved by them. It had been stated on a former occasion, that when the corn laws were on the point of being repealed, the advocates for their repeal had perpetually discussed the policy of thorn with a view of influencing public opinion, and without submitting any regular Motion to the House. But, at that time, there was no doubt as to the object of such discussions—it was cither the qualified or the total repeal of the corn laws. At present, however, they stood in a different situation. He was ready, when-over the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) pleased, to debate the question whether the measure of 1846 ought to be changed or not; but when he entered upon such a debate he wished to know distinctly what were the views of noble Lords on the other side; for their Lordships were at present in a singular state of ignorance on the

375
subject. Not one of the noble Lords opposite had yet stated distinctly whether they wished to go back to the old sliding scale of 1828 or not. Did the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) wish simply to repeal the Act of 1846, and return to the law under which they had the agricultural distress of 1833, 1835, and 1836, or did he want something else? In another place it had been declared, upon very high authority, that what was desired was a fixed duty of 8s. upon wheat—the measure so scornfully rejected in 1841. Another Gentleman in that place had said what he wanted was an alteration of the various burdens upon land; but, on the other hand, that notion of relief, by altering taxation, had been denounced as altogether nugatory and delusive by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), in a very eloquent and remarkable speech which he made in reply to certain memorials that had been presented to him. What, then, did noble Lords opposite want? A fixed duty, a sliding scale, or a change of taxation? What alteration in the existing policy of the country did they mean to pro pose? He could only say that when the Government knew the specific measures which were to be proposed, he had no doubt they would be able to show good reasons against their adoption. His own opinion remained unshaken. He firmly believed that to the alteration of their commercial policy in 1846 they were, under Providence, indebted for the safety in which this country had passed through a period of unexampled difficulty. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had quoted returns with respect to the number of paupers relieved in England and Wales during the last five years; and he had endeavoured to show that the number of paupers now receiving relief was considerably greater than the number relieved in 1846, the last year of protection. But if the noble Earl looked at the return, he would find that, though there was now an increase in the number of paupers, as compared with 1846, yet that the year 1850 showed a reduction in the number as compared with 1847, 1848, and 1849. For instance, the total number of paupers relieved in England and Wales in 1847 was 908,000; in 1848, 993,000; in 1849, 943,000; and in 1850, 890,000. The noble Earl was, however, well aware that there were circumstances in the condition of the country, independently of the price of corn, which might account for the difference between the number of paupers relieved this year and in 1846. The year
376
1846 was the very height of the railway mania, and he believed that at that time the companies expended millions of money mainly in labour. Now, however, there were not as many hundred thousands of pounds expended in such labour as there were then millions. Since 1846 also they had had to encounter all the consequences of the famine in Ireland; and it was notorious that that famine had been the means of bringing into all our great manufacturing towns very large numbers of Irish paupers, for whose relief it was necessary to provide. He thought these circumstances would fully account for the increase of paupers this year as compared with 1846. When he found the revenue prospering to an unexampled extent, when he saw trade sound and active, notwithstanding all the difficulties arising from a short crop of cotton, and when he looked at the general state of the country, he did not think the returns to which the noble Lord had alluded gave the slightest reason to doubt the success of the policy of 1846. The noble Earl had referred to a return of the quantities of wheat that had been sold in different years, and had stated that the sales of 1849 showed a falling-off as compared with 1845 of some 1,200,000 quarters. He should have thought that his noble Friend must have seen how fallacious that comparison was; for the return for 1849 showed mainly the sales of the crop of 1848; and it was notorious that that crop in the south of England was one of the most defective that had been known. The crop of 1849 would not, of course, appear in the return until the latter part of the year; and he believed that the agricultural distress now so much and, he admitted, so justly complained of, had much more to do with the consequences of the very bad crop of 1848 than with the change in the law. If the noble Earl compared the quantity of corn sold in the last six months with the quantity sold in the corresponding six months of the year before perfect free trade was established, he would find that since the harvest of 1849 came into operation, there had been a very large increase in the amount of corn sold as compared with the latter period. He would only add, that he considered this a question far too important to be argued upon the imperfect data of the occurrences of a few months. He believed that those who would dispassionately and carefully examine into the practical effects of protection, as it had been tried under various

377
modifications during a period of thirty years, and would look to the melancholy consequences which had resulted from raising expectations on the part of the farmers which were constantly disappointed, would admit that—judging even at this early period of their experience of the new policy—it was impossible to say that the interests of agriculture had been disadvantageously affected. He believed there never was a time when greater exertions were made to improve the system of cultivation, and to diminish the cost of obtaining agricultural produce, and he was satisfied that those efforts would meet the success they deserved.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I am not surprised to hear the noble Lord express an opinion that, notwithstanding all that is passed, he remains entirely convinced of the merits of the system of free trade; that he sees nothing in the state of the country which causes him the smallest apprehension or alarm; that he believes the interests of all classes are prospering greatly; that although the agriculturists may be suffering a little, yet in general there is great prosperity; and I am not surprised that he says, if we will only tell him what it is we propose, and without knowing what we propose, for the relief of agriculture, he is quite satisfied that he could give us a good reason against the proposition. The noble Earl says, that previous to the repeal of the corn laws, incidental discussions took place in Parliament, and that the object of those discussions was clear and intelligible; that it was to prepare the public mind for an alteration of the then existing state of the law. I take the liberty of saying, that, even agreeing with the noble Earl that this question is not to be decided upon the incomplete information which we possess, and that we should not call upon your Lordships to come to a decision or make any alteration in the present state of the law upon that information, I will tell the noble Earl that our intention is by these discussions, as the intention was by the discussions previous to the repeal of the corn laws, to impress upon the public mind, week by week, and day by day, if need be, the practical operation and working of the system which you have introduced—entirely remitting all import duties upon agricultural produce. My Lords, I will not answer the noble Earl's question, of what form of duty or what amount of duty we may propose when we shall think it right to introduce the question; but this
378
I will say, that I am satisfied that a change is coming over the public mind. I do not expect it to come over the mind of the noble Earl: far be it from me to entertain any such exaggerated expectations! But the public are watching the progress of events, and that portion of the public who suffer under these events, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble Earl, are beginning to open their eyes to the real effects of the system of so-called free trade. They are watching the progress of that experiment—a most dangerous and fearful experiment—and are gradually arriving at the conviction, that in some shape or another, and in some mode or another, an alteration must he made in that experiment, and that we must revert to the system which shall afford moderate protection to British industry. The noble Earl quarrels with my noble Friend behind me. What we say is, "You promised us great results—you promised us universal employment—you promised us high wages—you promised us increased consumption—you promised us universal prosperity; and we find, and we prove from your own papers and figures, that these promises have not been fulfilled, and that you are compelled now, not to point triumphantly to the successful issue of your predictions, but to apologise, and to assign reasons, picked up here and there, why your predictions have not been verified, and why, in spite of free trade, you have not the prosperity which you expected to have." Will the people of England—at least will those whose eyes are not already opened by suffering, continue blind? My noble Friend has called the attention of your Lordships to the difference between the pauperism of this country in the year 1850 and in the year 1846. What is the noble Earl's answer? The answer of the noble Earl is—"True, pauperism in the year 1850 is greater than it was in 1846; but then it is less than in the year 1849; 1849 was less than 1848; and 1848 was less than 1847." Well, but it is quite true that in the year 1850 we had an abundant harvest at home. In 1847, 1848, and 1849, in addition to the blessing of free trade, we had the blessings of famine also; and, consequently, it is not very extraordinary that, with the cessation of famine, and with an abundant harvest in 1850, pauperism should be less now than in the years 1849, 1848, and 1847. But 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850, were all of them years of free trade. They were all of them years

379
of free importation of corn, and the last three of them years of very low prices for corn. My noble Friend took the amount of pauperism in the year 1846—the last year of import duties, and the last year, comparatively speaking, of high prices for corn, and contrasted it with the amount of pauperism in the year 1850, the year of free trade and low prices, and, upon comparison, showed that the amount of pauperism in the year of import duties and high prices was less than the amount of pauperism in the year of free trade and low prices. And then my noble Friend says—"But I am happy to congratulate my noble Friend—let him look to his own immediate district, and he will see a diminution of pauperism." We have shown an increase of from 4,000 to 7,000 in one place, and from 3,000 to 6,000 in another—and we have shown this even by the papers upon your Lordships' table, which exhibit by far too low an estimate, for they only give the number of paupers actually receiving relief in 1850, as compared with statements made of the number of paupers, with their families, who received relief in previous years. So that the real increase of pauperism is greater than appears by these returns. But, setting that aside, the noble Earl opposite says that my noble Friend will find a diminution of pauperism even in his own immediate district; and, on referring to the papers, and comparing the amount for the year 1846 with that for the year 1850, it appears that the glorious result to which the noble Earl points so triumphantly is a diminution of pauperism in the agricultural district of Christchurch to the extent of one single individual! But we point to other circumstances, independent of the amount of pauperism, and we say—if these things do not arise from free trade—if they do not arise from diminished means—if they do not arise from the poverty of the home market, and the inability to consume, the results of free trade, we are entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government from what it is they do proceed? Accounts are, I know, sometimes deceptive, and, among others, I would call your attention to the accounts of the exports. Great credit has been taken for an increase in the declared value of the exports between 1845, and 1849, apparently of above five millions; and of ten millions, or more, between 1848 and 1849. But, when we come to sift these papers, we find that, for the first time, in the year 1849, there are introduced into
380
the papers from which the comparison purports to be made, a number of additional articles, amounting to no less than two millions and a half sterling, which articles did not exist at all in the accounts from which these papers were prepared; consequently, the increase from 53,000,000 l. in the year 1845 to 58,000,000 l. in the year 1849 must have a reduction made from it to the amount of 2,500,000 l or 3,000,000 l.; and to that extent the papers, which show the state of the export trade, afford, in my mind, a most fallacious view of the case. But it is not alone to the export trade that I look. I admit that your export trade may have increased, and has increased; but I say, and those who act with me say, that, important as your export trade undoubtedly is per se, it is unimportant as compared with the amount of your home trade; and, unfortunately, though you have the statistical means of ascertaining the amount of your export trade, you have not the corresponding means of obtaining the amount of consumption in the home market; and it is my firm belief that whatever advantage the manufacturing and commercial interests may have derived from an increase of exports, these advantages have been far more than counterbalanced by a diminution—the amount of which we are unable to guess, but the effects of which we see in every part of the country, and practically feel in every direction—of the power of the home consumer to take up manufactured articles. Take the case of cotton, for example. I hold in my hand an account of the imports of cotton, and find that, whilst in the first three months of 1849 the imports of cotton were 547,000 bales, in the corresponding period of 1850 they had fallen to 468,000 bales. The consumption of cotton in the home market from the 1st of January to the 12th of April, 1849, was 432,500 bales; but for the same period in 1850 the consumption had fallen from 432,500 to 338,000 hales, being a decrease of 94,500 bales, or of twenty-one per cent upon the whole consumption of the first three months of 1850, as compared with the corresponding period of 1849. With regard to the exports of cotton goods, it is true that in the year 1848 there were 22,000,000 l., and in 1849, 26,000,000 l., the increased exportation amounting to 4,000,000 l. Now, of that increased exportation there was to foreign countries 1,735,000 l.—we presume exclusive of exports to slave-trading

381
countries—and I pray you to observe, as one of the principal effects of the free-trade system, that the increased exports to the three slave-trading points alone exceeded 2,000,000 l. I know how wearisome your Lordships must be with figures; but remember it is upon figures that this question mainly turns, and by figures alone we can show the effects of the present system of free trade upon the country. Our object is to show that under free trade the consuming power is diminishing, and if the consuming power is diminishing, and you contend that it is not in consequence of free trade, on you rests the onus of showing to what that diminished consumption is to be attributed, you having promised us a large increase of consumption as the consequence of free trade. With regard to the sale of wheat, barley, and oats in England, I tell the noble Marquess, who moved for them to show that the decrease in price is owing to the goodness of the harvest, that they will not answer his purpose. Why, my Lords, this paper which has been laid upon the table of your Lordships' House, so far as it is good for anything, is valuable as proving the very opposite of that which the noble Marquess wished to demonstrate when he called for its production. It may be true that the amount of corn sold in 1849 exceeded that sold in 1848; but let the noble Marquess opposite refer to the year 1850, the first four months of which he justly describes as the produce of the harvest of 1849, and he will find that, with the exception of the first four months of 1849—which is the produce of the defective harvest of 1848—this boasted consumption of corn in the British markets is, in 1850—with that single exception of 1849—lower week by week, and lower on the whole, than it was in any other year mentioned in the paper moved for by the noble Marquess. This document, therefore, if I have read it aright, is fatal to the very purpose for which it was produced. It goes to prove the very reverse of the argument which it is the object of the noble Marquess to maintain. Free trade has impaired the condition and straitened the circumstances of the labouring classes of this empire. Such is the position which I am prepared to take up, and I trust that your Lordships will not deem it irrelevant if I should take leave to justify myself in that position by referring to the diminished consumption of some few articles of domestic use amongst those
382
classes of our population who have heretofore been placed beyond want. The articles to which I allude are not absolute necessaries—they are luxuries of an humble description—perhaps it would be more correct to describe them as comforts—but they are articles the diminished consumption of which is an evidence as melancholy as it is incontestable of the petty shifts to which our people are obliged to have recourse, and of the small economies they are compelled to exercise in order to make both ends meet under the system of universal prosperity which has been established amongst us under the designation of "free trade." The five articles in question do not furnish, I admit, an infallible testimony as to the general working of the free-trade system; but I do think that they are precisely those articles the increase or diminution in the consumption of which supplies a fair criterion of the extent to which our poor people are enabled to enjoy the small and homely comforts of life. They are cocoa, coffee, dried fruits, including currants, figs, and raisins, unrefined sugar, and tallow. Now, let us see how the consumption of these articles has varied during stated periods in each of the last three years. The consumption of coffee during the first three months of 1848 was 877,000 lbs.; during the corresponding period of 1849 it was 922,000 lbs., and during the corresponding period of 1850 it was 734,000 lbs. The consumption of coffee has fallen from 9,900,000 lbs. in the first three months of 1848 to 9,368,000 lbs., in 1849, and to 7,460,000 lbs. in 1850. Currants have fallen in the following proportion: In the first three months of 1848 the consumption was 73,000 cwt.; in 1849 it was 88,000 cwt.; and in 1850 it had sunk to 66,000 cwt. Of figs there were consumed, in 1848, 47,046 lbs.; in 1849, 53,004 lbs.; in 1850, only 39,011 lbs. Of raisins there were consumed only 21,000 cwt. in 1850, against 32,000 cwt. in 1849, and 37,000 cwt. in 1848. The decline in the consumption of sugar is also remarkable. There were consumed, in the first three months of 1848, 1,494,000 cwt.; in 1849, 1,469,000 cwt.; and in 1850, 1,413,000 cwt. The returns under the head of tallow give a result not less disheartening. There were imported for home consumption, in the first three months of 1848, 292,000 cwt.; and in the three first months of 1849, 313,000 cwt.; while in 1850 the importation did not exceed 194,000 cwt. Moreover it is worthy

383
of remark that the diminution in quantity taken into home consumption was co-existent with a large exportation in the shape of candles and soap. Now, my Lords, these facts may possibly he coincident with a state of great prosperity—I do not say they are conclusive evidence of the failure of your free-trade system, but they are evidence, and particularly when taken in conjunction with increased pauperism and diminished employment—for the noble Earl will not venture to deny, though he spoke of the prosperity of the manufacturing districts, that an increased and increasing number of mills are working short time, that wages in the manufacturing districts have fallen, and that in the agricultural districts they have fallen, and must and will fall still further—I say, when we have these facts before us, indicating a diminished power of consumption in the home market, we cannot agree to congratulate the noble Earl on the success of that which I will still call "an experiment;" and we will continue to point the attention of the Government and the country to the practical working of that experiment, and leave it to Her Majesty's Ministers to justify their perseverance in that policy to its full extent, notwithstanding the failure which it manifests in its effects—not with standing the diminished consumption of the country—notwithstanding the increased distress and ruin which have been brought by that system upon a large portion of the community. We do not bring forward a specific measure; but if it will be any satisfaction to the noble Earl to hear again the declaration to which he has referred, and which I had the honour of making to a numerous and important deputation which waited upon me a short time since—I will repeat to him my confidence that this country will not be restored to a state of prosperity until it does not only deal with the unjust taxation under which certain interests of the country are labouring, but also until it shall return to a just, and moderate, and equitable system of import duties for the protection of British industry of all descriptions. I am satisfied that that policy will prevail in the long run; and as confidently as the noble Earl speaks of the success of the experiment, so confidently do I feel that its failure is becoming day by day more manifest, and that in some shape or another—I will not gratify the noble Earl by telling him in what precise shape—he will have, or, in defiance of him, Parliament
384
will have to retrace the steps they have taken, and revert to a sounder and a wiser policy.
EARL GREY: I cannot help expressing the satisfaction with which I have listened to the concluding observations of the noble Lord. It is clear from what he has said, that he is desirous of returning to a system of moderate import duties for the protection of British interests, that the noble Lord himself has given up the sliding scale of 1842, and that that Act is abandoned by noble Lords opposite.
LORD STANLEY: I am glad that the noble Earl is satisfied at hearing my statement; but allow me to say that I hope I may not he judged by the inferences which the noble Earl has drawn from my observations.
EARL GREY: Oh, I am quite satisfied.
House adjourned till To-morrow.