Sitting of 26 June 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Stock in Trade; Loan Societies; Highway Rates; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Registration of Assurances; School Sites Acts Amendment.
2° Ecclesiastical Property Valuation (Ireland).
3° Landlord and Tenant.

ST. ALBANS BRIBERY COMMISSION BILL.
Order for Third Reading read,
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
MR. FREWENsaid, he had complain-
1254
ed, on Tuesday last, of the order in which the business originally stood upon the paper having been altered, by, he believed, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that a Bill of his which had stood second upon the list had been transferred to the bottom. He had asked if Government business was allowed precedence at the early sittings on Tuesdays, and, if such wore the case, if the right hon. Gentleman had also the power of so regulating the orders as to alter the position of the Bills of private Members. His objections had been overruled by Mr. Speaker, who decided that special business had precedence at the early sittings that were specially appointed for it; but what he had still to complain of was, that the Bill of the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. E. Ellice), which was not a Government measure, had been placed before his. Now, as he understood the explanation he had received, those twelve o'clock sittings were merely granted for the purpose of forwarding particular Government business; but here was the case of the Bill of an independent Member being fixed for twelve o'clock. It was very inconvenient generally to Members of that House to come down at twelve o'clock to look after a measure they might object to. He had nothing to say as to the merits or demerits of the St. Albans Bribery Commission Bill; but it was at least an extraordinary circumstance that the only Order on the paper of the day for the twelve o'clock sitting should be the Bill of an independent Member, when, he considered, he (Mr. Frewen) had a just claim to precedence; he thought, therefore, this unusual course of proceeding justified him in moving the adjournment of the debate on the St. Albans Bribery Commission Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the practice of the House—for no rule existed on the subject—had always been, since he had had the honour of sitting in that chair, that at the morning sittings the Government Bills took precedence over other Bills; but other hon. Members were not precluded from putting down their own Bills for the morning sittings; and if they were put down, they would come on in the regular order, after the Government Bills, if there were any.
MR. FREWENexplained that he had not complained of the precedence of any

1255
Government Bill, but of the Bill of the hon. Member for St. Andrews having been placed befor his own.
MR. JOHN STUARTsaid, he did not complain that Government should have the power to prefer any measures which they thought of importance; but he thought that the House was entitled to know what Bills were or were not considered Government Bills. For his part, he did not understand the present to be a Government Bill. He made no complaint of inconvenience in being obliged to attend on this occasion to discuss the Bill. He was not so presumptuous as to expect that his individual wishes should be consulted in the matter; and, now that he was there, he confessed it would be more inconvenient for him that the discussion should be postponed than that it should go on. His hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frowen) had reason to complain that his convenience had been disregarded.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Bill was not a Government Bill; but at the same time, he did not think it could be considered as a Bill emanating from a private Member of the House. It had been introduced on the recommendation—the unanimous recommendation, he believed—of the Select Committee. It might, therefore, be considered as a Bill specially belonging to the House, the object of which was to promote purity of election; and, although it was not a Government Bill, the Government felt that they ought to facilitate, as far as possible, the progress of the Bill, and not allow it by any means to be postponed to so late a period as that it could not fairly be considered by the other House of Parliament. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen), he thought that he was the last man in that House who ought to have complained. The hon. Member was aware that Wednesday was an open day for independent Members, and that his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had stated that no Government business would be allowed to interfere with other business on that day. If the hon. Member, therefore, had placed his Bill on the paper yesterday (Wednesday), it might have easily been brought on before three o'clock; because it was not until all the Bills of other Members had been gone through, that the Government brought on the Medical Charities Bill. He hoped they would now proceed to the consideration of the Bill before the House.
MR. BANKESwas quite ready to go on with the Bill, so far as he was concerned; but knowing that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. J. Stuart) entertained strong objections to the Bill, and wished to take part in the discussion, his hon. and learned Friend had stated so much in the House, and yet the Bill had been appointed for a time when his hon. and learned Friend was engaged in the Court of Chancery. There were at this moment sitting on the Government side of the House, just twelve Members, and no more; and they were the persons who were to decide upon this important measure. He had no hesitation in declaring that it was not decent that a Bill of this kind should have been discussed in the way it had. There were not twenty Members of the House who knew its contents. Why, it gave to three barristers, who might or might not be gentlemen of great ability, power which no Judge—not even the Lord Chancellor—had ever possessed. That power had been inserted by the hon. and learned Attorney General, who had admitted that no Judge had ever been invested with it. Power was given to call for the most intimate and confidential communications between the parties. He was willing to trust such a power to the House, but certainly would not consent to give it to three barristers. Moreover, the court would not be an open court. He would divide with his hon. Friend for the adjournment of the debate.
SIR, GEORGE GREYconsidered it unnecessary to follow the hon. Gentleman through the details he had repeated. As to the Bill not having received due consideration and discussion, he could not avoid saying that it was somewhat strange if the contents of the Bill were so little known to hon. Members, seeing that it had been twice in a Committee of the whole House; that there had been some half-dozen of divisions upon it; and that the hon. Member had himself made at least a dozen speeches upon it.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman, on a previous occasion, could only get seventeen Members to vote with him, against forty-five or forty-six against him; he, therefore, considered that there were no grounds for his complaints.
CAPTAIN HARRISsaid, that in his opinion the hon. Gentleman who now sat for the borough, ought never to have taken his seat after the Report of the Committee.

1257
It appeared to the Committee that extensive bribery had boon committed during the last election; and his opinion was, that where cases of bribery had been made out, they should be submitted to the consideration of a court of law, in order that the offenders might be punished. He believed that such a course alone would prove efficient and satisfactory. At present, bribery at elections was considered and treated altogether as a joke.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
MR. BANKESsaid, that undoubtedly the legal number of Members to form a House were then present. Indeed, he believed that there were no less than twenty-five hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House. He did not pretend to say that the Government had not the power to pass the Bill, or any other Bill they liked; but that should not prevent him from giving his opposition to what he considered to be a bad measure. What were the circumstances? The Committee seated a Gentleman whom they suspected strongly to have been guilty of bribery, and they recommended an inquiry into the conduct of those whom they suspected of having been corrupted by him. He would submit to the inquiry, but it would be for him to consider whether the mode of inquiry proposed was fit and proper, and adapted to the case. In so doing he would first advert to the Clause giving power to these three Commissioners which should be given to no men, unless those of 'the highest judicial character, and who sat on a public tribunal, with the public eye upon them But these inquiries might be carried on in secret, behind the backs of the parties most concerned in them—those very persons whoso conduct was the subject of inquiry, and who had no right or opportunity of being present. To such a proposition he felt bound to say, No. When he found that in this case acts of such gross insolence towards this House had been done, that witnesses summoned by the authority of that House had been carried away with the full intention that they should be kept away until the power of the House expired with the end of the Session, then he must admit that some stringent and cogent remedy must be applied to such a case. But he had to inqure whether the remedy proposed was proper, sufficient, and safe. He might, as he had said already, consent to give this
1258
power to the House; and his reason was, that Members of the House of Commons would sit as an open and public judicature, and as the parties implicated were Members of the House also, the judges and the accused would meet face to face. As an instance of the tremendous powers proposed to be given to the Commissioners, he would state that every Gentleman who had over sat for St. Albans might have his affairs dragged before that body, the words of the Bill being "that the said Commissioners shall, by all such lawful means as to them shall appear best with the view to the discovery of the truth, and for such a period, retrospectively, as they shall think proper, inquire," &c. There was thus no limitation as to time, and no rule of conduct laid down, or even suggested to them. Was it safe to pass a Bill investing any Commissioners with such powers? Wishing, as he did, for a full and fair inquiry into the circumstances attending the elections for this borough, one of his objections to the proposal now made was, that this House would, in sanctioning this Bill, sanction a measure that could not by possibility pass in another place, if it met there with the slightest consideration. It was for these reasons that he opposed this Bill, and not from any private motive or interest, for he knew nothing about St. Albans. All the discussions upon the Bill had been taken when the benches of the House were occupied as they were now—by the supporters of the Government; and that was just the reason why Bills of importance did pass, which it afterwards happened that they were obliged to repeal in haste because they had made laws without due deliberation. It was a strong measure to send to the House of Lords the names of three gentlemen selected as Judges. On a former occasion the noble Lord at the head of the Government had left the nomination of Commissioners to the Judges of Assize, and he thought that was the most decorous course. These three Commissioners might turn out to be very proper persons for the appointment; but it did happen sometimes that gentlemen appointed by Parliament as Commissioners were not peculiarly happy in the execution of their duties. He might instance the case of the Commissioners who had acted under the Municipal Reform Act, and even those who had acted under the great Reform Act. The latter had disfranchised two boroughs in the county he represented upon grounds notoriously

1259
wrong, and their Report was acknowledged to he inaccurate, and founded upon imperfect information. Under all the circumstances he must oppose the third reading of the Bill. It would defeat the very object of its promoters, to ask the other House of Parliament to agree to such a measure. The other House was no doubt as anxious as this to put down bribery and corruption; but they would say even that must not be done by hasty and unwise legislation. He had before proposed another mode of procedure, which he considered better, and he would repeat it, namely, to appoint a Commission composed of Members of Parliament. The labours of the House would end with the Session; but a Commission of Members might go on while the functions of the House were suspended. But if not, then the witnesses who had been withdrawn would return when the power and authority of the House were lapsed for a time, and return with impunity. It was the duty of the House to maintain the jurisdiction they held with honour to themselves, and respect towards the public, he had proposed a course which he thought the most consistent with the dignity of the House, with public justice, and with justice towards all the parties; but he must give his decided negative to the Bill as it now stood.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day three months."
MR. HENLEYsaid, that before the division was taken, he wished to put a few questions, although he hardly knew to whom, respecting the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. E. Ellice) would inform him whether some provisions of this Bill were fit to become law, or whether they had not inadvertently crept in by some accident or chance medley, and without that duo consideration which was so requisite. The 7th Clause conferred a general power to compel parties to give evidence and produce documents; but he would ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary of State if all the provisions of the clause were necessary? By the 8th Clause, as it originally stood, power was given to indemnify parties who wore engaged in any act of bribery connected with the St. Albans election; and it went on to give power to compel those parties to give evidence even if it tended to criminate themselves; but they were to be preserved from penal consequences for any acts which
1260
were so detailed. But then came a rider, which had since been tacked on to the clause, the effect of which would be to leave all other parties, except those so specified, without any indemnity or exemption. He had never seen a precedent for this, and he thought it could hardly have been intended there ever should be one. The case could not have received proper consideration. His objection was also very strong to the bearing down professional privilege and confidence, especially as the inquiry was not to be conducted in public. Another objection was, that no provision was made to guard parties who might be injured by the enforced breaking through of professional confidence. The framers of the Bill had taken good care that the evidence given by professional men should not be used against them; but their evidence might be used against their clients, whose confidence they had been compelled to break. He had always understood that the privilege of the attorney was not his own privilege, but the privilege of his client, and that it was to guard him that the privilege was given; and if the privilege belonged to the client rather than to the attorney, it behoved the House to guard the client who might be injured by the disclosures of his attorney quite as much as to guard the professional man himself who had been compelled to disclose them. He hoped that the object of the Bill was not to oppress individuals, but to discover truth. He had no hesitation in saying that to compel a professional man to violate the confidence of his client, and to make no provision for the defence of that client, was a great and serious injustice. The measure would be a better one if the 8th Clause and the rider were struck out together.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, that those Amendments had been most carefully considered by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and they had been introduced in consequence of the Sudbury Commission having proved abortive for the want of such powers. He was quite willing, however, to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) by the insertion of such words as would make the exemption co-extensive with the power to compel evidence.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that it would not be candid to the hon. Gentleman, if he did not point out to him that such an alteration as he proposed would override the whole object of the clause, and prevent

1261
any attorney from being examined. If this measure had received so much consideration from the hon. and learned Attorney General, he was really the more sorry to see the Bill in such a state as it was.
MR. JOHN STUARTsaid, he should regret to see the Bill defeat its own purpose, by reason of the inattention which had been manifested, not only to the drawing up of the provisions of the measure, hut to the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's subjects. He had already pointed out to the Government, who so ostentatiously talked of being the guardians of the rights and privileges of Englishmen, the propriety of proceeding with this matter in a constitutional way. With great respect, hut with great earnestness, he would request the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney and Solicitor Generals to the provisions of the Bill. Why was the House called upon to legislate? Because a petition had been presented from St. Albans, complaining of bribery at the last election; because the Committee to which that petition had been referred—a judicial tribunal, with the parties before it—had entirely failed to accomplish the purpose for which they had been appointed. Then, the parties before this judicial tribunal had failed to make out their ease, and after that came a Report from the Committee, stating their belief that gross bribery had been practised at the last election; that their endeavours to ascertain the truth had been defeated by improper moans; but still, notwithstanding all this, that the Member had been duly elected. Then came a recommendation of further proceedings to do that which the Committee themselves had failed to accomplish. He should really have thought that common sense would have been used in framing the Bill so as to form a proper tribunal. Other means could have been found to ascertain the state of the borough of St. Albans as regarded the allegations, and more than suspicions, of bribery, not only at the last, but at preceding elections; but, instead of taking a constitutional course, the Government chose to appoint Commissioners with inquisitorial powers that would violate the rights of any of the people of England who should he so unfortunate as to come within the scope of this Commission. Did the Bill provide either for eliciting the truth from those who complained of bribery, and showed that they had the means of proving it, or
1262
for the defence of those who could disprove charges of bribery made against them? There was no provision for cither case. The Commissioners had the discretion of calling before them whomsoever they pleased, but nobody else. He appealed to his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and the Solicitor General whether, as constitutional lawyers, they would pledge their reputation to such a brood of Commissioners armed with such unwonted powers, and without the right of accusers and defenders appearing before them? He asked those hon. and learned Gentlemen if that was a constitutional tribunal. He had himself suggested a clause to permit complainants and defendants to appear; but he had been met by utter silence only, and no reason whatever had been brought against his proposal. He did not complain of this as personal disrespect to himself; but he thought that an objection of the kind made by an independent Member, ought at least to have been answered, and some reason given why a great constitutional principle was to be violated. It was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. E. Ellice), that this Bill was in accordance with the Sudbury case. [Mr. E. ELLICE: No, no!] He was glad to hear the denial. But if the hon. Gentleman said that they had not followed the Sudbury case, upon what precedent had they proceeded? They must surely have resorted for one to the times when all the liberties of Englishmen were violated under the Usurpation. He would call the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to a petition that had boon presented on the 17th of the present month from Mr. W. Gresham, of St. Albans, a member of the Society of Gray's Inn, and a respectable solicitor, well known in the profession of the law, and also a voter in the borough, and therefore a man interested in the question which it had boon confessed had not yet been tried by the Committee. Mr. Gresham said in his petition, that, as he had been informed and believed, Henry Edwards had been for years past actively concerned in bribing electors, and in purchasing votes for money in the borough. That petitioner believed that a full investigation could not be had without the examination of the said Henry Edwards, and that the disgrace and ignominy attached to the electors of the borough could never be obliterated or removed, until the said Henry Edwards was placed under exami-

1263
nation. Let the House consider the position of Mr. Gresham, as an elector of the borough, stigmatised with others by the report of the Committee. Surely Mr. Gresham felt this ignominy, and that he, with the other honest electors of the borough, was disgraced; and surely it could not be denied that he and those others ought to have the opportunity of being examined before the Commissioners, and stating what they knew of this Mr. Henry Edwards and his coadjutors. But it would be purely in the discretion of the Commissioners whether or not Mr. Gresham would be allowed to utter a syllable before them. Would any man say it was decent or consistent with the rights of the honest part of the electors of St. Albans that a Commission with such powers should be constituted? He said fearlessly that it was unconstitutional and unprecedented. Mr. Gresham had stated that he was of whig politics, and he did not wish to take an open part against this Bill, or in opposing the Government; but if the House wished to guard the liberties of the people, they would not invest any set of Commissioners with the power of proceeding ex parte and with no proper judicial functions to perform; because no judicial functions could be exercised unless the accuser and defender were before the tribunal. The hon. Chairman of the Committee (Mr. E. Ellice) had avowed that he was not a lawyer, but that he had framed the Bill under the advice of the law officers of the Crown. That being so, it was a pity those hon. and learned Gentlemen were not present to explain their part in the drawing of the Bill. The measure annulled not only the professional privilege, but every other privilege, and put the Commissioners beyond all the rules by which such proceedings had always been regulated he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Bankes) would divide the House. The people of England ought to know how many Members were present, and who they were who voted for such a measure as this.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 16: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Anderson, A.

Duncan, G.

Bellew, R. M.

Duncuft, J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Brown, W.

Ellice, E.

Dalrymple, J.

Evans, W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Freestun, Col.

1264

Grenfell, C. W.

Pigott, F.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pilkington, J.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Pusey, P.

Hervey, Lord A.

Tancred, H. W.

Heyworth, L.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hughes, W. B.

Thompson, Col.

Matheson, Col.

Watkins, Col. L.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Mowatt, F.

Williams, W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Wrightson, W. B.

Paget, Lord C.

Young, Sir J.

Patten, J. W.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Hayter, W. G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Goddard, A. L.

Barrow, W. H.

Hodgson, W. N.

Buller, Sir J. W.

Pugh, D.

Bunbury, W. M.

Seaham, Visct.

Colvile, C. R.

Somerset, Capt.

Floyer, J.

Tyler, Sir G.

Forbes, W.

Frewen, C. H.

TELLERS.

Fuller, A. E.

Bankes, G.

Gallwey, Visct.

Stuart, J.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
MR. HUMEbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether any arrangements had been made, or were making, for carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to the future management of the British Museum by a small executive board?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that no measures had been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission as to the management of the Museum in future by a small executive board. He could, however, assure his hon. Friend that the strongest desire existed to place the management on the most satisfactory footing, and with that view certain alterations had been made. The Museum was managed by trustees, and two vacancies which had lately occurred had been filled up by the appointment of two of the Royal Commissioners.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the management had not been satisfactory, but very far from it, and that complaints had arisen even against the Royal Commissioners. He felt himself called upon to protest against the way in which such institutions were managed, and particularly when the public money was regularly voted for their support.

DANISH CLAIMS.
Order for Committee of Supply read.
Motion made, and Question, proposed,

1265
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. ROEBUCKrose to move a Resolution, of which he had given notice, on the subject of the Danish claims. He wished in the first instance to ascertain from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer the grounds on which he objected to these claims. By Danish claims he did not mean foreign claims, but the claims on the part of British merchants for the loss they had sustained in 1807, in consequence of the conduct of the British Government. Napoleon having struck down Austria, Prussia, and Russia, and the Treaty of Tilsit having been entered into, England was desirous of striking a blow which should in some way cripple his power; and in order the more effectually to manage that point, every means had been taken to prevent English merchants from understanding what the Government were about to do. The merchants had been solicited to go to the Baltic. They had asked if they would be safe in going there, and they had received assurances that they were perfectly safe. A large number of them proceeded to the Baltic under that impression, and a considerable amount of property had been sent to the Baltic and to Denmark. Very soon afterwards the English fleet was sent to the Baltic. In consequence an embargo was placed on all British property, even to the book debts of the merchants. Copenhagen was then bombarded, and a capitulation took place; but what happened? All the property on which an embargo had been laid had been confiscated by the Danish Government; and, although compensation had since been granted for the book debts and the property on shore, no compensation had been given for the other property afloat. An embargo had been previously laid on all Danish vessels, and no Danish vessel was allowed to depart from an English port. In the month of November of the same year, England chose to confiscate all the property on which the embargo had been laid. This property, which had amounted to about 3,000,000 l., had been taken by the Crown, and had not been distributed as prize money, as would have been the case had there been at this time a regular declaration of war. Ships floating on the waters appeared to be peculiarly matters of prey; and England had, it appeared, considered she was not bound on any principle of international law or common justice to pay her own subjects for
1266
the loss they had in this matter sustained. He held that from the circumstance of the English Government having deceived their own merchants, they were bound to make good the loss. He knew the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would oppose him, on the ground that he was the steward of the public purse, and was only acting for the public interests; but he (Mr. Roebuck) knew better than that. At the bottom of every opposition of this sort, there was personal vanity. He admitted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the most self-denying of all Chancellors of the Exchequer; but there was, in fact, nothing so pernicious to the reputation of a Chancellor of the Exchequer as a surplus. The right hon. Gentleman would say he could not apply that surplus to the proceedings of his predecessors; but he would ask whether it was for the interests of this country to deal with her merchants after that fashion? Was there anything in this case to prevent them doing what ought to be done? And what ought to be done? Why, that they should do with the ships afloat the same justice that they did with property on shore. The only answer that could be given to him was, that it was against international law. His reply to that was, that the English Government misled the merchants. Now, he wanted that to be answered. Could they say that the merchants of Great Britain, in 1807, before the time that Lord Cathcart and Admiral Gambier went out to the Baltic, were not told that there was no danger of a rupture; and was there not at the time of the seizure of their property by Denmark an understanding on the part of England that she was not going to war with Denmark? The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Card-well), on a former occasion, said the case of goods afloat was distinguished from the case of goods ashore; and he further said that there were reprisals. Now, a reprisal could only be made in time of peace; the very form of the expression meant that there was no war; and the nation that was supposed to be injured, took that means of forcing the nation so at peace with it to render it justice. When afterwards it happened that the nation against which reprisals had been made, did not do that justice that the other nation desired, the reprisals were reduced into possession, they became a prize of war, and then were applied to remedy the mischief for which the reprisals were made. Now, England had

1267
at that time in her hands something approximating to 3,00O,000 l. of Danish property, seized before Denmark made any confiscation of the property of English merchants. What had occurred since? After many applications made to that House, at length the book debts and the value of the property on shore were paid. Year after year application had been made to Parliament for the payment of these claims, and Mr. Cresswell succeeded in carrying his Motion on the subject five or six times; and the last time the claim was brought before the House, it was submitted by the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes), whose vote he trusted he should receive on the present occasion. When the House addressed Her Majesty On the subject, in June, 1841, a Message was brought to the House in the following words:—
"V. R. It must at all times be my most oar-nest desire to attend to the wishes of the House of Commons, and I shall be ready to give effect to thorn in this instance whenever the means shall be provided by the House."
From that time to this nothing had been done. These claims had been adjudicated upon, and they amounted to 225,000 l. He now asked the House simply to adhere to their former decision, and say that the merchants who lost their property ought even at this late hour to be paid.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the Report, bearing date the 12th day of May, 1840, made by the Commissioners to whom it was referred to examine and adjudicate upon the Claims of certain British subjects, for losses sustained by the seizure and confiscation of their ships and cargoes by the Government of Denmark in the year 1807; and that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to such claimants the amount of their respective losses, as ascertained by the said Commissioners; and assuring Her Majesty, that this House will make good the same,' instead thereof."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should imitate his hon. and learned Friend in the conciseness with which he should address the House, be-cause he thought the case was in a very small compass; and, after the speech made five years ago by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell), which was so decisive an answer to the question, he was surprised that it should have been again brought forward. He could assure his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roe-
1268
buck) that no personal vanity actuated him in the matter; but bethought it incumbent on him to show that there was no good ground why these claims should now be paid by the people of Great Britain, to make good claims for which, he believed, there was no foundation. In 1807, war took place between Great Britain and Denmark, and, of course, the usual consequences followed that war. He entirely put aside the question which his hon. and learned Friend only incidentally touched upon—namely, that of a declaration of war. The House was perfectly aware that, in these days, the formal mode of sending a herald from one country to another to declare war had long been discontinued. His hon. and learned Friend said, there were three classes of claims: the book debts, the goods ashore, and the ships and cargoes afloat. Those who had before advocated the Danish claims, had always drawn a wide distinction between the two first of these classes and the latter; and Parliament had recognised that distinction, and had paid the two first, and had not paid the latter. And why this distinction? Because no civilised nation in a state of war justified confiscation of hook debts or property ashore; but, by the practice of civilised nations in a state of war, ships afloat were seized. He should not enter into the question as to whether that was a right practice or not. The question was, what was the custom in 1807. Whether any alteration might he made since 1807, was perfectly irrelevant. Well, war occurred with its ordinary consequences; and the question was, whether at the time those seizures were made, war existed or not. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the merchants were not warned in time. He fully admitted that before the sailing of Admiral Gambler's fleet, the merchants were not warned; but he thought it was attributing but little sagacity to the English merchants to suppose that when they saw the fleet anchored off Copenhagen, they did not judge that hostilities would take place. Let him remind the House of a few dates:—On the 1st of August, 1807, Admiral Gambier's fleet anchored before Copenhagen. On the 16th of August a Danish proclamation declared, that "war between England and Denmark may be considered as actually broken out." On the 23rd of August the first English ship was seized. On the 2nd of September the bombardment of Copenhagen took place. On the 7th of the same month

1269
there was the capitulation, which had been so much referred to in this subject; but that capitulation merely declared—"Hostilities shall cease throughout the island of Zealand;" but this did not apply to Don-mark, where the war continued, as was shown by the Danish proclamation of the 9th of September, setting forth "Orders respecting the conduct to be observed during the present war;" and by the British declaration of the 28th of September, which said, "It remains for Denmark to determine whether war shall continue between the two countries." The entire evidence on the subject proved, in a word, that at the time these vessels were seized, there was war between the country to which they belonged, and the country by which they were seized, and that therefore, by the clear law of all civilised nations, they were liable to seizure without the smallest claim to indemnity. It was really preposterous to ask that House to give to a certain number of individuals 225,000 l. of the public money, which the public were not in the least degree, or upon any principle, bound to pay.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he would never shrink from his duty, whether the performance of it pleased or displeased any Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Government. The shipowners in that case had been led to believe they might safely send their vessels to Denmark; and that was a strong reason why their claims should be allowed, however late in the day it was proposed to do them justice. He would, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Roebuck). He wished to know whore then was the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Hawes), who had formerly voted for those claims? He was at the Crystal Palace, perhaps, patronising the industry of all nations, when he ought to he in his place in Parliament. As to Chancellors of the Exchequer, of course they backed one another in all these matters. "Scratch me, and I'll scratch you," was the word with these gentry.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 49: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Alcock, T

Bass, M. T.

Anderson, A.

Bellew, R. M.

Anson, A.

Berkeley, Adm.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Bernal, R.

1270

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Bowles, Adm.

Locke, J.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Mackie, J.

Brotherton, J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Brown, W.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Bunbury, W. M.

Marshall, W.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Matheson, Col.

Cardwell, E.

Mcux, Sir H.

Carew, W. H, P.

Milnes, R. M.

Carter, J. B.

Morris, D.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Childers, J. W.

Mundy, W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Parker, J.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Patten, J. W.

Colvile, C. R.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Crowder, R. B.

Peel, Col.

Dalrymple, J.

Pinney, W.

Davie, Sir II. R. F.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Davies, D. A. S.

Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A.

Dawes, E.

Powlett, Lord W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Price, Sir R.

Denison, J. E.

Pusey, P.

Divett, E.

Ricardo, O.

Dodd, G.

Richards, R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Romilly, Col.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncuft, J.

Seaham, Visct.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Seymour, Lord

Ellis, J.

Shafto, R. D.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smyth, J. G.

Evans, W.

Somers, J. P.

Farnham, E. B.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W

Floyer, J.

Spearman, H. J.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Freestun, Col.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Freshfield, J. W.

Stanton, W. H.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tancred, H. W.

Grenfell, C. P.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Thompson, Col.

Grey, R. W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Grosvenor, Earl

Trevor, hon. T.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Tyler, Sir G.

Harris, R.

Vane, Lord H.

Hastie, A.

Vivian, J. H.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Wall, C. B.

Headlam, T. E.

Watkins, Col. L

Heald, J.

Whitmore, T. C

Heathcote, Sir G. J.

Willyams, H.

Hope, Sir J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Wilson, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Wilson, M.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Jones, Capt.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wrightson, W. B.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Lemon, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Lewis, G. C.

Hayter, W. G.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Cubitt, W.

Barrow, W. H.

Duff, G. S.

Blake, M. J.

Duff, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Duncan, G.

Boyd, J.

Dunne, Col.

Bremridge, R.

Ellice, E.

Bright, J.

Ewart, W.

Cobbold, J. C.

Farrer, J.

Cocks, T. S.

Forster, M.

Corbally, M. E.

Fox, W. J.

1271

Geach, C.

Rice, E. R.

Goold, W.

Rumbold, C. E.

Henry, A.

Rushout, Capt.

Hodgson, W. N.

Sibthorp, Col.

Kershaw, J.

Spooner, R.

Lushington, C.

Stanley, E.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Strickland, Sir G.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Sullivan, M.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Talbot, J. H.

Mangles, R. D.

Tollemache, J.

Martin, J.

Wakley, T.

Mullings, J. R.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Neeld, J.

Williams, W.

Neeld, J.

TELLERS.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Roebuck, J. A.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hume, J.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
(1.)71,000 l. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Vote agreed to.
(2.)53,600 l. Privy Council Office and Office of Trade.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had been anxious to bring before the House the conduct of the Colonial Department respecting Demerara, having been a Member of a Committee upstairs which recommended several reforms, and having presented a petition two months ago from that colony, complaining that Government did not extend to them the principles of self-government. It was a notorious fact that the Colonial Department was at variance with every one of our colonies. He wished to know whether anything had been done with regard to Demerara?
MR. HAWESsaid, he believed there had been a considerable extension of the suffrage in Demerara, and it was mainly to that point to which the Committee which the hon. Gentleman referred to directed its attention. He had always understood, and that House had recognised the distinction, that where there were two races, a coloured race and a white race, the former of which had long been subject to the latter, it was not expedient to give great political power to the coloured race. Besides the extension of the franchise, there had been a large reduction of expenditure, which was another of the points to which the Committee directed its attention. Both these important measures had been carried out with great ability by the present Governor. As the colony progressed in intelligence, it might be desirable to extend the franchise more to the coloured population; but in their present state he was not
1272
inclined to invest them with an overwhelming share of political power.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, the Government had some time ago announced their intention to appoint persons who had passed an examination under the system established by the Board of Education, but who were not sufficiently qualified to be appointed masters of schools, to subordinate offices in the public departments, and he wished to know whether that expressed intention had been carried into effect?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,said, that the intention of carrying the system into effect had not been abandoned.
MR. HUMEsaid, he objected to the amount included in this vote for the registration of merchant seamen. The system was established on the recommendation of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham); but he believed the registration tickets had been applied to most mischievous purposes.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought that the system of registration had been attended with the greatest advantage to merchant seamen. The same principle was carried out with regard to merchant seamen in the United States, and other countries. He had no doubt that experience and inquiry would suggest means of improving the present system of registration; but he thought the entire abolition of the system would be a most imprudent step.
MR. HUMEconsidered that the registration system had entirely failed to accomplish the objects with which it was established, and it had undoubtedly occasioned great discontent among the merchant seamen.
CAPTAIN HARRISdid not think that, in the event of a war, they would be able to man the Navy by impressment, and it was for the Committee to consider whether they would abandon the only means yet suggested with any chance of success for avoiding the impressment system. It must be remembered that only one portion of the plan proposed by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had yet been carried into effect. It was intended by the right hon. Baronet that, in the event of a war, merchant seamen should render compulsory service in the Navy, and that the register-tickets should be the moans of reaching the seamen. No occasion, however, had arisen for carrying into effect the compulsory powers of the Act, and therefore it was hardly fair

1273
to say that the measure would not he effective in its operation. The system of registration had been of great advantage to the respectable seamen in the merchant service.
MR. HUMEsaid, that it was well known that the same man frequently registered himself two or three times in different names, and therefore the registration afforded no means of ascertaining accurately the actual number of merchant seamen.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the Mercantile Marine Bill would render the system of registration much more complete and effective than it had hitherto been.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLconsidered that the most effectual means of inducing seamen to enter the Navy would be to increase the pay and promote the comforts of those employed in the service.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that there were several classes of men subject to impressment, as, for instance, watermen and fishermen, who were not affected by the ticket system.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, since he had been connected with the Mercantile Marine Board, he had had opportunities of consulting captains of ships and many other persons with reference to the registration system, and he had found that the result of that system had been to prevent desertion in a great degree. Many frauds and imperfections still continued under it; but he was satisfied that its workings had been most beneficial. It was said to have caused great dissatisfaction. Well that, no doubt, was the fact; and if it had not been so, the Act which the Legislature lately, at his recommendation, put itself to the trouble of passing, would have proved wholly inoperative. Of course all the lodging-house keepers and low attorneys of our seaports were very much dissatisfied with the Act, and they had done all in their power to induce the sailors to get up an opposition to it. The excitement, however, which they had created, had, he believed, calmed down, and the sailors now began to see the advantages which the Act would confer upon them. There could be no doubt that the Act had done an infinity of service to the merchant service. Upwards of 1,000 masters and mates had been examined under the Act, and about 250 had failed in their examination. Many of those that had been rejected applied themselves afresh to instruction in their profession, and several of
1274
them had since been re-examined and passed. From all parts of the country he received intelligence that schools for naval instruction had been established in our seaport towns. Great as was the good which had been already effected by the Mercantile Marine Act, he felt that that good would prove to be of a progressive and substantial character.
MR. HUMEsaid, it could not be denied that great dissatisfaction still prevailed with reference to this Act. He had received a communication that very day from the sailors of Sunderland, who desired to be informed when an opportunity was likely to be afforded to them to come up to London and prove the inconveniences to which the Act had subjected them. They complained particularly of that part of the Act which prevented them from making their own contracts. The Government had not proposed a similar system of registration with regard to stokers and engineers engaged in steam navigation; and yet, if it was useful for the one class, it was equally useful for the other. The sin of having proposed the registration system was upon the head of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, and he should like to hear what he had to say in its defence.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that it was with much reluctance that he rose to answer the appeal which had been made to him, for seventeen long years had elapsed since he first recommended the measure for the registration of seamen; and he regretted to say that his avocations since that time had withdrawn his attention from the subject, and he was not very well aware how the measure had really worked. The hon. and gallant Officer below him (Captain Harris) was quite correct in saying that he did not introduce this measure as one complete in itself, but as one that might be subsidiary to ulterior arrangements. He did not mean to say that, in case of a great naval war breaking out, impressment, as a last resort, could be dispensed with; but then it should be borne in mind that it could only be adopted as a last resource, and he thought that a system of registration would be available in promoting a system of compulsory service in a time of war for a limited period. Having ceased to hold any connection with the Admiralty, he had not matured any plan on the subject himself, hut he was still disposed to think that his right hon. Friend at the

1275
head of that department was right in holding that a well-organised system of registration was indispensable in any system of compulsory service for a limited period. It was true that the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley) had on one occasion intimated an opinion that registration was of no use to Her Majesty's service; but if he understood his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade correctly, the system, though not now perfect, was capable of improvement, and even in its present state had been of much use in the merchant service in preventing desertions. If the Committee, therefore, proceeded to a division on the subject, he should record his opinion in favour of the vote.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) 2,000 l. Lord Privy Seal.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know what duties the Lord Privy Seal had to perform?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he could not enumerate any particular duties attached to this office, but there were various matters which necessarily came from time to time before the Cabinet requiring the attention of some Member of the Government who was not so fully occupied with the regular business of his office as to be unable to give proper care to these matters as they arose.
MR. HUMEsuggested that the Lord Privy Seal might undertake the functions of Minister of Justice, an officer who was very much wanted. The late Lord Lang-dale was strongly in favour of the appointment of a department of that nature.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas of opinion that the important duties to which the hon. Member referred, could be more properly executed by a Lord Chancellor than by any other person. His experience and judicial position gave him greater authority than any one else with respect to any matters concerning the superior courts of justice. Hitherto the Lord Chancellor's judicial duties had been so exceedingly burdensome, that be had not been able to give the time which was desirable to the whole administration of justice in the country, whether in the common law or equity courts; but he (Lord John Russell) trusted that the Bill which he had lately brought in, and which seemed to be generally approved of, would enable the Lord Chancellor to give more time to the subject,
1276
and that thus the objects which the late Lord Langdale had in view would be attained.
MR. HUMEdid not think the Lord Chancellor ought to be called on to perform those duties. New courts were about to be created, and it would be most important that they should be properly superintended.
MR. BRIGHTbelieved there were no less than three Members of the Cabinet holding offices which were pretty nearly sinecures. There were the Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Paymaster of the Forces. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: No; the last is joined to the office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade.] Well, then, there was the holder of that office, able to give his attention to other matters, for he had this year rendered most important and efficient aid in regard to the Exhibition, and done more of the public service in the House of Lords than any other Minister. He must, however, protest against these votes after the evidence taken by the Committee on Official Salaries last year. That Committee could only obtain the evidence of the officials themselves, who, of course, thought their own offices of the greatest importance. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Lord Privy Seal had nothing in particular to do, but that he was necessary in the Cabinet to do anything that might be wanted. Now, the man who could do anything ought to be the very ablest in the Cabinet, but able men were never put into these offices. They were generally used as a means of paying off the supporters of a party, and were not at all necessary. The noble Lord had taken the course of disregarding six-sevenths of the Committee's recommendations, which had been made after a very careful inquiry. But, now that the pressure was in a degree withdrawn, the noble Lord declined to effect the reductions recommended. This held out no inducement to hon. Members to act on Select Committees.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwould beg to remind the hon. Member (Mr. Bright), that the Government had adopted many of the recommendations of the Committee. Indeed, he had gone as far as he possibly could—he would not say consistently with his own judgment, for his judgment was against several of the recommendations he had adopted in deference to that Committee. There had been great reductions

1277
of late years in the number of salaried offices held by Members of Parliament. The salary of this office—the Lord Privy Seal—was formerly 4,000 l., but was now only 2,000 l. A few years ago there was a Paymaster of the Forces, an office which he (Lord John Russell) had himself held, and which, like this office of Lord Privy Seal, had no very great duties connected with it; and he, while holding it, as had been said of the holders of this office, attended to various matters, among others, that of the Reform Bill; but that office had now been joined with that of Vice-President of the Board of Trade. The Mastership of the Mint, too, was now held by Sir John Herschell, a gentleman totally unconnected with politics and with Parliament. What the public benefit really required was, that the public business should be well done; no doubt it might be done at a somewhat cheaper rate, but then there would be many subjects of great public importance which would be neglected. There were many such things requiring attention as had been alluded to; he could mention twenty. For instance, there was the Ecclesiastical Leases Bill; it did not belong to any department. Neither of the Secretaries of State could attend to it; the current business of their offices prevented it. But if these subjects, some dozen, at least, of great importance to the Government and the country, could not be attended to by some person not overburdened with the business of his office, the public would eventually suffer. The Ministers would have an answer if they were reproached, because each one, in the case supposed, would have his time occupied by his own duties by day, and in that House at night; but still the public would be losers. He believed they were going rather too far already, and that the 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. which they proposed to save would cause great loss to the public service.
MR. BRIGHTwas willing to admit that Earl Granville had taken a very active part in the conduct of public business in the other House of Parliament, besides the onerous duties he had discharged out of doors as one of the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition, which office he had filled in the most satisfactory manner. Still, he thought that one of the three offices he had named might be advantageously done away with. The arguments of the noble Lord in support of these offices had been used against himself
1278
years ago, when he was opposing useless offices, and would be so used to the end of time.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that in referring to the valuable services of Earl Granville as Vice-President of the Board of Trade, no appointment which he (Lord John Russell) had made had given greater satisfaction. The appointment had been ridiculed at the time, because the noble Earl had previously held the office of Master of the Buckhounds, and it was said he must be unfit to deal with subjects of trade; but it must be admitted by every one who had witnessed the able way in which the noble Earl discharged his duties, that the office could not have been more worthily bestowed.
MR. W. WILLIAMS,wished all our other functionaries were as efficient as Earl Granville; but he must insist that the Government were treating the Committee very ill in making reductions to the ox-tout of only 3,000 l. out of the 8,000 l. recommended to be taken off political offices.
MR. MACGREGORcordially admitted the laborious nature of the duties discharged by Earl Granville; and he could state that the clerks in the Board of Trade were absolutely slaves, especially during the Session of Parliament, when returns were continually being called for. Though anxious to economise in every way, he would not reduce any of the salaries in that office.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(4.) 24,700 l., Paymaster General.
(5.) 6,279 l., Comptroller General of the Exchequer.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that a more gross imposition never was practised than when a noble Lord in another place (Lord Monteagle) was "pitchforked" into this sinecure, for which he received 2,000 l. a year. There was not a more competent or laborious officer than the assistant comptroller (Mr. Eden); he was quite equal to discharge the duties without having a fashionable noble Lord above him. Petty reductions were made in the salaries of clerks and messengers; but a more gross fraud on the public was never committed than that of continuing the noble Lord in the situation of Comptroller General. His salary was unfortunately charged on the Consolidated Fund, and therefore was not included in the Vote, though he observed that a third clerk had been reduced, who was worth, he should say, ten comptrollers general.
MR. HUMEasked whether regulations had been made to prevent the recurrence of the fraud which had been formerly practised with respect to Exchcquer-bills?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that every precaution which skill, ingenuity, and experience could devise, had been taken.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) 2,700 l., State Paper Office.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the papers to which this vote referred had been in course of collection since the time of Henry VIII., and were very valuable. It was principally for their arrangement that this vote was required.
MR. HUMEwished to know what facilities of access were given to persons desirous of consulting the State papers?
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, he believed that all proper facilities were given. The usual hours of admission wore from ten to four, and the office was open every day except Saturdays. Calendars, or very full indexes of the contents of the State papers, down to the time of the Civil War, were in course of preparation, and orders had been given for printing them.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) 2,230 l., to defray a portion of the Expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought it most unjust that the people of this country should be taxed to pay officers for managing the affairs of the bishops, deans, and chapters, and other departments of the Church. Church property ought to be made to pay the salaries of those officers who managed it, and not to make them a charge upon the public funds. The revenues of the Church, which amounted to about 6,000,000 l., were quite enough, without saddling the public exchequer with these expenses of management. He should, therefore, take the sense of the Committee against this Vote.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, he had recently seen that it was the opinion of forty-five Members of Parliament, and many of the bishops, that if the property of the Church were properly managed, it might be made to yield an increase of another 500,000 l. to its present revenues, and he could not see why the public should be called upon to pay this Vote. Church rates must sooner or later be abolished, and it was important that economy should
1280
be observed in order to enable the Church to dispense with that source of income.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, this Vote was only a small portion of the expenses of the Commissioners, and it had always been paid ever since their appointment. It was less in amount this year than it had hitherto been, owing to a reduction in the establishment. This Vote came annually before Parliament, and gave the Committee an opportunity of obtaining information as to the proceedings of the Commissioners.
COLONEL SIBTHORPobjected to the Vote, suspecting that none of the benefit of it was allowed to go to the Church; besides he detested any proceedings that had Commissioners attached to them.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that two Commissioners, according to the Act of last year, were paid from the funds of the Church, and not from this Vote; and the effect of refusing a Vote of this kind would be, that the Commissioners would not be able to carry into effect, in many cases, the division of parishes, with the grant of allowances to clergymen for spiritual instruction. The only result, therefore, would be a diminution in the means of religious instruction provided for populous parishes. The relief of spiritual destitution was a public object, and he thought it only fair that Parliament should furnish part of the means for accomplishing it.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that if the Vote were raised to four times its present amount, he did not think the benefit would be derived by the Church. He had seen so little care shown for the interests of the Church by the noble Lord, that he would be pardoned for saying that he could not give credit to his representations.
MR. HUMEsaid, the noble Lord at the head of the Government wished the Committee to infer that if this vote wore taken away, it would diminish the funds now applicable for useful purposes connected with the State. Now, he (Mr. Hume) considered that the property of the Church was public property, and ought to be made applicable for any purpose connected with the religious welfare of the people. But there was another important circumstance to which he wished to call the noble Lord's attention. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) was one of the Commissioners, and, under the Act of last Session, the right hon. Gentleman received 1,000 l. a year for his services as such. Now, the

1281
right hon. Gentleman was in receipt of an annual pension of 2,000 l. for past public services; and the question he wished to raise, as a matter of public principle, was, whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to draw this extra 1,000 l. out of the property of the Church whilst he already had a pension of 2,000?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that by the Act of Parliament of last year, three Commissioners were to be appointed—two by the Crown, and one by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Earl of Chichester and Mr. Shaw Lefevre were appointed by the Crown, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) was nominated by the Archbishop of Cantor-bury. The pension which the right hon. Gentleman received was duo to him in consequence of having performed certain services for a certain period of time as one of the officers of the State; and the 1,000 l., which he received as Ecclesiastical Commissioner was given under an Act of Parliament for duties to be performed, which duties, he presumed, the right hon. Gentleman satisfactorily discharged.
MR. HUMEsaid, the Act prescribed that, if an officer drawing a pension for past services should receive subsequent employment, his pension should then be merged in the salary paid for that subsequent employment. As a matter of law and equity, he put it to the Committee whether the public ought not to be protected against this double payment? It was no answer to say that the extra 1,000 l. was paid out of the revenues of the Church, because the Archbishop of Canterbury had the right of nomination. As he had already contended, he repeated that the property of the Church was the property of the public, and ought to be saved from being squandered as much as the money of any other public department. For these reasons he should certainly join in the endeavour to reduce this vote.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was quite true that a person receiving a public pension, on being appointed again to a public office, would not receive both the pension and the salary; as, for instance, if Mr. Goulburn were appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer again, he would receive the salary of 5,000 l., but the pension of 2,000 l would cease. But the distinction in the present case was this, that Mr. Goulburn's office, for which he received 1,000 l. a year, was not a pub-
1282
lie appointment, and therefore he was entitled to continue his pension for past public services.
Mr. DRUMMONDsaid, that whoever had voted against the grant to Maynooth, and whoever meant to vote against the Regium Donum, was bound, in justice, to oppose the present vote. This was not a question of amount, but a question of principle, and the Committee ought to sot its face against all votes of that kind.
MR. W. J. FOXshould oppose this vote, on the ground that it was a tax upon Dissenters for the benefit of the Church. Whether it was church rates, or a vote applied to purposes for extending the influence of the Church, the principle was the same—it was that of taxing the people at large for the benefit of a particular class; and, therefore, Dissenters were justified in remonstrating against it.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the principle stated by the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), and by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, did not at all apply to this vote. It was totally a distinct question. This was a vote of money for carrying on a certain civil business, which civil business referred to ecclesiastical arrangements. It was intended to facilitate certain reforms in Church property, which reforms the State had thought it necessary to make; just as they might make a provision for a Commission to reform the Court of Chancery, or the Common Law Courts; and then it would be admitted that it was a matter of Government, the expense of which the State ought to pay, and not the suitors in the Court of Chancery. The vote had nothing to do with the functions of the Church, or with the spiritual duties of persons belonging to the Church; but was for an entirely civil office, to be carried on by civilians, who were to effect a reform in the general management of Church property.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he thought the noble Lord had completely failed in his argument. The vote was for effecting the improvement of Church property, and not for the building of any Dissenting schools or chapels. It was to enable the Church to get hold of its own funds by a better administration, and to apply them for strictly and exclusively Church purposes. It was very different from a reform in the Court of Chancery, or in the other law courts, because the law courts were not for a particular class like the Church, but for all classes in the country; and the courts had

1283
no landed property, like the Church, which the noble Lord undertook to manage for them. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were the trustees of the property of the Church, and that property ought to bear the expense of its own management.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwanted to know why the Dissenters of this country should he taxed to support such a Commission? How was it that the public paid the clerks to the Commission, whilst the Commissioners were, at least partially, paid out of the Church funds?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, those clerks were paid by the public because the public had an interest in their labours, and in the proper management of Church property.
MR. HUMEwould like to know what advantage the public had, as not one farthing of the money ever came into the Exchequer?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that by the lion. Gentleman's own argument, that Church property was public property, the public must of course have an interest in it.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, that the ecclesiastical property in this country had been very badly managed by the Commissioners, who had allowed the Secretary to run away with 10,000 l.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 2,230 l., he granted to Her Majesty, to defray a portion of the Expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 25: Majority 32.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) 211,500 l. Poor Law Commissioners.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Vote, but he wished to know what was the cause of the increase in the Vote for Ireland this year beyond that of last year, seeing that the amount of destitution had diminished in the present year?
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, it was owing to the number of extra clerks who had been employed during the pressure of distress, and whose services they did not think it desirable to dispense with as yet.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, he must complain that the Poor Law Commissioners for Ireland had given no satisfactory account of the manner in which the rate in aid of last year had been disposed of. Nor had they given any precise information as to the disposal of the sum of 300,000 l. ad-
1284
vanced for distressed unions. They simply stated that a particular amount had been allocated to each union, but no explanation was given of the circumstances under which that allocation took place. It would have been more satisfactory also if the Commissioners had given some reason why so much delay had taken place in carrying out the works in certain unions.
MR. REYNOLDSthought the whole of this Vote should be postponed, in order to give the Government time to reconsider it. One of the items now proposed was a sum of 41,724 l. for the Poor Law Commission in Ireland. He had much to say about this Commission; but, in the meantime, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a disparity, as regarded two items, between the case of Ireland, and that of England and Scotland. In England a sum of 30,000 l. was given towards education in Poor Law Unions, while in Ireland the sum required for education in the workhouses was exacted from the overtaxed ratepayers. Then there was for the salaries of medical officers of the poor-law districts a sum of 80,000 l. in England, and of 10,000 l. in Scotland, while in Ireland the payment of the medical officers was thrown entirely upon the ratepayers. Why should the poor ratepayers of Ireland be compelled to pay these parties, while in England and Scotland a large sum was granted from the public purse? He had to complain, however, of the Irish Poor Law Commission generally, and he would rather see it abolished altogether than retained in its present incomplete state. It was very far from being efficient; and, in consequence of that inefficiency, the guardians of the poor, both paid and unpaid, had been permitted to neglect their duty, so that there had been an incredible sacrifice of human life in Ireland, from a want of the necessaries of life among the poor. He had from time to time called the attention of the Irish Secretary to the slaughter which had been committed, especially in the counties of Galvvay and Kerry, and had moved for returns relative to the workhouses of Kilrush and Ennistymon, which, however, had not been obtained, the right hon. Secretary for Ireland always giving some flimsy excuse for their non-appearance, though he (Mr. Reynolds) believed they might have been prepared in forty-eight hours. The Poor Law Commission in Ireland had served no good purpose. There was one efficient Commissioner, Mr. Power, who received 2,000 l. a year, and an Assistant Commis-

1285
sioner, who got 1,500 l.; and the other Commissioners were the Secretary and Under Secretary for Ireland, who had more than enough to do with their own duties, without being incumbered with poor-law business. The Commission had not diminished pauperism, nor saved a human life; and while it had ground the ratepayers of Ireland to the dust by the exaction of heavy rates, it had not fed, clothed, or lodged the poor, nor secured the efficient discharge of their duties by the guardians, paid or unpaid; it was one of the greatest abominations that ever was established in any country; and, great as would be the evil of razing the workhouses to the ground, he believed it would be better than that they should continue in their present state. He thought, considering all these circumstances, he was justified in moving that the whole of the Vote should be postponed.
The CHAIRMANsaid, it was not competent to the hon. Member to move that the Vote be postponed; but he might, if he pleased, propose to negative it.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he was ready to defend the Irish Poor Law Commission when the proper time for doing so arrived, and he had no doubt he should be able to vindicate them in the 'estimation of the House, if not of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds). As to the returns which had been referred to by the hon. Member, no unnecessary delay had taken place in laying them on the table. There had been a great pressure upon the clerks; and besides, in consequence of discrepancies in the returns from the unions, they had to be sent back for correction. The papers had that day been laid on the table, and if the hon. Member thought they could have been prepared in forty-eight hours, he would only ask him to look at their great bulk.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, if it were not competent to him to move the postponement of this Vote, he should not divide the Committee, because he was not prepared to negative the entire Vote. He was not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation with respect to the returns. The preparation of them was only scriveners' work, and his statement that they might have been presented within forty-eight hours was made on the authority of an hon. Gentleman who was formerly connected with the Poor Law Commission.
Mr. HUMEthought that as regarded
1286
the payment of medical officers, Ireland ought to be placed on the same footing as England. Again, he found in the Vote a charge of 20,000 l. for schoolmasters and schoolmistresses for England; but he believed there was no such charge on account of Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the same question had been asked in a former Session, and had been answered in the same manner in which he was now about to answer it. These charges were imposed on the public revenue in consequence of the change made in the Corn Laws in 1846, and were then considered as a compensation to the agricultural interest for any loss it might sustain by reason of that change. The charges made upon the public revenue for the expenses of the constabulary of Ireland were much greater in proportion than any charges that were defrayed by the public on account of the Poor Law Unions in England. The expense of the constabulary in Ireland amounted to 580,000 l.; one-half of that sum was made a charge upon the public revenue. The Education Vote this year for England was 150,000 l., and for Ireland 134,000 l. Considering the population of the two countries, he did not think Ireland had any reason to complain. With regard to the loan of 300,000 l. mentioned by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Clements), that was to enable certain Unions in Ireland to pay off debts for which they were liable to contractors. In the Appendix to the Report would be found a list of the Unions to which those advances had been made.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, it was these appendices he complained of, as they afforded no information of the way in which the advances had been allocated and expended.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, if the hon. Member would point out any Union regarding which he wished for a return of the nature alluded to, he should do his best to obtain it.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONwished that the same system of payment of the items included in this Vote for England should be extended to Ireland.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that he found that the sum to be voted for education in workhouses was to be reduced, as compared with last year, from 35,000 l. to 20,000 l.; it being at the same time stated that "these charges were overstated in the past year, and are now reduced to

1287
what is considered a sufficient sum." Now, there were between 600 and 700 Unions in the country, and as the sum of 20,000 l. only gave something like 30 l. in round numbers for each Union, he thought (even considering that the schoolmasters and mistresses received lodgings and rations in addition) that that was not sufficient to secure a very good quality of education. He believed, that if there was one point in which our poor-law system failed, it was in the quality of the education which was given to the children in the workhouses. Many of these children were orphans who were bereft of all friends, and they often, especially the boys, came out of the workhouse without any means of getting a livelihood. It was of the greatest importance that in these schools there should be masters well qualified not only to teach the elementary matters of learning, but also to train up the children in such a way that they should be capable of getting their living when they left the workhouses. On these grounds he saw with regret the reduction in the amount proposed to be voted under this head.
MR. BAINESsaid, that no one could be more sensible than he was of the great importance of directing the attention of the Poor Law Board steadily towards the improvement of the education given in workhouses. He believed that considerable improvements in that education had been made lately, and were still going on, and he looked forward with confident hope to still further improvements being made. Although the vote under this head would be reduced from 35,000 l. to 20,000 l. a year, there would be no reduction in the sum actually expended; for although the Treasury had in past years estimated the head of expenditure at 35,000 l., the Poor Law Board had never actually called for more than 20,000 l. He could assure the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that the Poor Law Board would not consent to any reduction in the salaries of this class of officers, whom they believed to be a very useful and by no means overpaid class. Within the last two years he had had repeated applications, particularly from Unions in which agricultural distress had prevailed, to assent to a reduction of this class of salaries, but he had uniformly refused to accede to them. The hon. Member (Mr. Henley) was labouring under a misapprehension when he supposed that because there were between 600 and 700
1288
Unions in the country, there must be an equal number of schoolmasters and mistresses. There was only a schoolmaster where there was a workhouse; and he was sorry to say that there were still a number of Unions in the country without workhouses, and the Poor Law Board were unable by law to compel them to have them. It appeared by a return made to the Poor Law Board in 1850, that there were 383 Union schoolmasters, and 501 schoolmistresses in the country; the excess of schoolmistresses arising from the fact that in many Unions where there were but a small number of young children in the workhouse, it was found by experience that a good schoolmistress was sufficient. Besides their salaries, the masters and mistresses had rations and lodgings—an arrangement had been made with the Privy Council, by which they would also have the allowances granted by that body to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses who possessed high attainments. The more he saw of workhouse education, the more he saw the necessity of advancing it by every means in their power.
MR. HENLEYwas much gratified at the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. EWARTwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board how far the recommendation of the inspectors of workhouses with reference to the education of children in schools, separate from the workhouse, had been carried into effect?
MR. BAINESsaid, that the powers of the Poor Law Commissioners with respect to district schools were very limited. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1844 gave power to Boards of Guardians to combine several Parishes and Unions into school districts, and to erect schools in some convenient central place, apart from the workhouses, for the common purpose of better educating the pauper children; but the Act merely enabled them, and did not make it compulsory upon them, to do so. It was left to the discretion of Boards of Guardians to say whether they would avail themselves of the powers given them by the Act or not; but if they did avail themselves of those powers, the Poor Law Board had power to direct all further proceedings. He was happy to say that in many important places, and especially in the metropolis and neighbourhood, the Boards of Guardians had had what he would call the wisdom to see the importance of prevent-

1289
ing pauperism, and had therefore united for the purpose of establishing district schools, which it was believed would tend to promote that important object. In some few places in the country the Boards of Guardians had also availed themselves of the powers of the Act; but he regretted to say that the number of places in the rural districts in which this had been done was by no means large. This, however, should not be considered as the fault of the Poor Law Commissioners, who had done all in their power to promote the establishment of these schools.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONcould not help remarking that, while the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board for England was satisfactory, the Report on the table was not satisfactory, as far as Ireland was concerned. He wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to the fact that, of 249,000 inmates of the poorhouses in Ireland, 103,000 were children under fifteen years of ago. Under such a state of things, the education of the children in the workhouses became a matter of primary importance. He knew that in two or three places the Boards of Guardians had paid great attention to the subject; but the Poor Law Board had not encouraged them, and therefore their intentions were not carried out.
MR. BOOKERhad no desire to cast imputations upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, or the officers under him; but he begged to say that he had had the honour of presenting several petitions, very numerously signed, from the county which he represented (Herefordshire), complaining that the Boards of Guardians were too much controlled by the Poor Law Inspectors, and stating that, in the opinion of the petitioners, the Boards of Guardians were perfectly competent to conduct their own affairs, and that a considerable amount might well be saved by reducing the number of Inspectors. It appeared that the Inspectors were twelve in number, that their salaries amounted to 7,800 l. a year, and their travelling and incidental expenses to 8,712 l. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, from the length of time the Boards of Guardians had been organised, they might not now be safely left to conduct their own affairs without so many Inspectors. With regard to industrial education, he begged to say that in the city of the county he represented, there
1290
was an industrial school, which was fitted to be a model for the whole kingdom, and he hoped to see the system extended. He might mention, however, that all the Poor Law Inspectors with whom he had come into contact had made it a great point to press upon the minds of the Boards of Guardians at large the benefit that was likely to result from industrial education.
MR. MORE O'FERRALLwished an explanation in reference to the Poor Law accounts. It appeared that 1,430,000 l. was the Poor Law expenditure of Ireland. Of this sum 831,000 l. was spent for the maintenance of the paupers, and the balance was paid for wages and other expenses. These "other expenses" amounted to 447,000 l., and he wished to know what these other expenses were.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEwas not able to state of what these particular expenses consisted; but if the hon. Member wished for information on any points, and moved for it, he would take care that it should be furnished.
MR. MORE O'FERRALsaid, that the present was the only opportunity hon. Members possessed of gaining information of this kind, and these returns ought to be made intelligible.
SIR HENRY BARRONsaid, that when the Corn Laws were abolished it was stated that a portion of the expenses for the maintenance of the constabulary in Ireland would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, as an equivalent to Ireland; but that he considered no equivalent at all; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asserted that it was an equivalent, he would say that it was a most inadequate equivalent. They gave to England and Scotland 90,000 l. for medical attendance in the workhouses, and yet they did not give a farthing to Ireland, the poorest portion of the United Kingdom. The explanation of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was most unsatisfactory. The grant for the constabulary was a petty grant, and could not be considered as an equivalent for the injury done to Ireland by the repeal of the Corn Laws. Another injustice was now sought to be perpetrated as regarded the medical expense, and the school system in workhouses.
MR. REYNOLDSwould take that opportunity of stating that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, having relieved the agriculturists of England and

1291
Scotland by a grant of 90,000 l, in consequence of the repeal of the Corn Laws, he ought, in justice to Ireland, to relieve that country of a greater sum in proportion. He could not understand bow the right hon. Gentleman could support the Vote when he took away so large a percentage annually from the Irish hospitals. It occurred to him that possibly if they did not vote for a grant for hospitals and schools in Ireland, they could not consistently do so for England and Scotland. They gave 100,000 l. a year to the national schools in Ireland, and yet they refused to support the hospitals and schools of the workhouses.
MR. HUMEthought, that it was no answer to the complaint of the Irish Members that the Government voted larger sums for other matters connected with that country. With respect to the constabulary, about which so much had been said, it bad been stated by an hon. Member connected with the north of Ireland, that there was no necessity whatever for keeping up the constabulary in that part of the country; and, in doing so, they were therefore voting away money uselessly which might be applied to useful purposes. If they granted money for hospitals and schools in England and Scotland, they ought to do so also for Ireland.
MR. COWANwished to avail himself of that opportunity of making another attempt to gain information with reference to the destitution which prevailed in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. They had been told that Sir John M'Neill, the President of the Poor Law Board for Scotland, had made a personal inspection of the districts in which the destitution prevailed, and yet no Report had been presented to them of that inspection. He bad seen in the public papers alarming accounts of the distress which prevailed in that portion of Her Majesty's dominions, and be had been informed by parties on whom be placed reliance, that those accounts were greatly exaggerated, and they ought therefore to be furnished with authentic information on the subject. He wished to know when they would be supplied with a report on the subject, even if it were only an interim report?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the report of Sir John M'Neill should be laid on the table as soon as possible.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, some of the figures in the Report of the Poor Law
1292
Commissioners were very unsatisfactory. The Commissioners had voted sums for the purposes of emigration, and also for additional workhouse accommodation in distressed Unions; but they did not give any idea of the amounts allocated, or the circumstances under which they had been allocated. If these things were not explained, he would be obliged to move that the Chairman report progress.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he could not give any information except what was on the paper; but if any particular items were moved for, he would endeavour to furnish them.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than this Report. Some of the items appeared of a very unaccountable character. Why bad they no statement as to what had been paid for building and emigration?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the amount for the purposes of emigration had been paid out of the rate in aid.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, he must beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pardon, but it bad been already spent.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, the Return was made out according to the Act; and any further information, as he had already said, might be obtained on being moved for.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, there was a statement in the Report presented to that House a few days ago, that the Commissioners had thought fit to allocate a sum of money for the purposes of emigration, and another sum for the building of additional workhouses in distressed Unions; but it did not give them the least idea of the amounts so allocated, or the circumstances under which the expenditure was incurred. Now a return could he called for of the annual expenditure of the different Unions, and that was what the right hon. Baronet promised if he moved for it; but how were they to get to know the state of circumstances under which the expenditure for emigration and building was made? They were not stated in the Report of the Commissioners, and when he asked the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he got no answer.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had since discovered he was wrong in stating that the grants for emigration were made out of the rate in aid. They were made subsequently to the time this account was made up, and

1293
they would be made out of the second rate. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clements) would move for a Return, he would get further information, and the mode of getting it would be to move for the correspondence between the Poor Law Commissioners and the Treasury, in which the circumstances were stated.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) 47,000 l., for defraying the Expenditure of the Mint.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to know on what ground the estimate for coining more gold was made? There was a great quantity of it in the Bank, and plenty in the country. He also wished to know when the new system was to be brought into operation?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that a certain quantity of light sovereigns were from time to time returned to the Mint, and it was necessary to replace them occasionally by the issuing of new sovereigns. The cost of the coinage was, as stated in the Estimate, one-third per cent. He believed that the now system would come into operation in the course of a few weeks.
MR. HUMEwished to know whether the Master of the Mint, Sir John Herschell, gave his attendance, as unless he did so, he did not think it a wise appointment; but if he did give his attendance, he should be happy to find that Government had been able to employ him.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was proud to be able to hear his testimony to the ability of Sir John Herschell, who was not only a good astronomer, but one of the best men of business he ever met with. He had taken a most active interest in the superintendence of the proceedings of the Mint from the time of his appointment.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) 8,062 l., Commisssioners of Railways.
MR. W. WILLIAMS said, that there was an increase this year to a small amount.
MR. LABOUCHERE,in reply, said, that the increase was explained in a note to the Estimates. He took this opportunity of making an explanation with respect to one item—the salary of the Commissioner of the Railway Department, the amount of which was 1,500 l. The Salaries Committee recommended the discontinuance of that paid office, and that the Railway Commission should be reunited to the Board of
1294
Trade. He had, on several occasions, expressed a strong opinion, that it was impossible for the President of the Board of Trade to discharge the duties of the Railway Department without the assistance, not only of a sound lawyer, but of an individual of that great weight and character which would inspire confidence in the public; and he was unwilling that the country should be deprived of the great services of Sir Edward Ryan. But upon this recommendation of the Committee, he found Sir Edward Ryan most unwilling and reluctant to continue to hold the office; and it was mainly on his unwillingness to hold an office of the utility of which a Committee of that House had expressed a doubt, that he (Mr. Labouchcre) was prepared to yield to the decision of the Committee, and reunite the Railway Commission with the Board of Trade. Accordingly before the end of the Session, it would be his duty to bring in a Bill for that purpose. Consistently with his duty to the country he could not have acquiesced in this arrangement if it had not happened that one of the Secretaries of the Board of Trade was a gentleman who, while connected with that House, had an opportunity of acquiring considerable knowledge with respect to railway business—he alluded to Mr. Booth. On consulting Mr. Booth, he found that that gentleman was willing to take upon himself the great additional labour which attention to the railway business of the department would throw on him, though his duties at present wore of a very onerous description. He (Mr. Labouchere) intended that the new system should come into operation at the end of September, up to which period he should have the valuable assistance of Sir Edward Ryan; and, in consideration of the additional amount of labour and responsibility imposed on Mr. Booth, he had felt it his duty to state to that gentleman that he should propose an addition to his salary of 500 l. in the next Estimate. By this arrangement the saving to the public would be 1,000 l. a year.
MR. HUMEbegged to ask whether it was any portion of the duty of this department to attend to what were called Parliamentary trains, the rate of travelling of which was very slow, and regarding which many complaints were made?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was one of the functions of the Railway Department to take care that there was no infraction of any Act of Parliament relating to

1295
railways, and it was especially their duty to take care that the requirements of the Act relating to the Parliamentary trains, which were for the accommodation of the humbler classes, should be strictly complied with. Whenever any complaints were made of railway companies, in this particular, they were always investigated. There was, he believed, a fair disposition on the part of the railway companies to carry the Act into effect.
MR. BOOKERhad heard with pain that a new arrangement was likely to deprive the public of the services of Sir Edward Ryan, than whom a more valuable public officer never existed. Considering the rapid development of the railway system, he did not think it would be for the public advantage that the Railway Department should be amalgamated with the already overburdened Board of Trade. The railway companies might be made to contribute a sum for the maintenance of the Railway Department, which would reduce the contribution from the public purse some trifling amount.
MR. PLUMPTREalso regretted the proposed arrangement. He should be sorry if the public lost the services of Sir Edward Ryan; and he thought the public would be glad to bear an addition of expense, rather than a diminution, to increase the efficiency of the Railway Department.
MR. HUMEhoped the Government would not alter their plan. Sir Edward Ryan could not have any peculiar knowledge of railways, from the circumstance, of his having been an Indian Judge for so long a period. He was sorry to hear such doleful lamentations at the proposed arrangement: it would appear as if Sir Edward Ryan had entirely managed the railways. All he did was to give legal advice, and probably the country would have the advantage of obtaining as good legal advice from the gentleman to whom it was now proposed to give an additional salary.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(11.) 11,960 l., Public Records.
(12.) 14,583 l., Inspectors of Factories.
(13.) 1,700 l., Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 1,700 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he objected to the items of this Vote. What did Her
1296
Majesty want with a "limner," a "clockmaker," or an "historiographer?" He particularly objected to the item "the Queen's plate to be run for at Edinburgh," "The Caledonian Hunt," and "The Royal Company of Scottish Archers." He moved that the sums for the three last be disallowed, which would reduce the vote by 217 l. 13 s. The amount was certainly small; hut the principle involved was of much importance.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that these offices and these grants were of very old date; and he thought it would be unfair to diminish the Vote now. The office of Queen's Limner was generally filled by some eminent Scottish painter. The Queen's plate, and the plate for the Caledonian Hunt, had been given by George III.
MR. HUMEthought that these absurdities had existed too long, and ought to be done away with. He put it to the public spirit of hon. Gentlemen from Scotlaud to divide against this paltry Vote. The "Scottish Archers" had a very fine uniform, and ought to think the privilege of wearing it well worth its cost. He, however, did not wish to do away with the office of Historiographer. This might be usefully filled by distinguished persons. He hoped the Government would at once promise that these other items would not appear in the estimates next year, and so save the Committee the trouble of dividing.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS: The office of "clockmaker" was no sinecure. The person filling that office had to attend to all the clocks at Holyrood.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the plates for England had long since been withdrawn from the Estimates, and that no distinction ought to be made in favour of Scotland. It was not the amount of the grant to which he objected, but the principle.
MR. W. EVANSwas of opinion that horseracing led to immorality. He was sure the public of Scotland would willingly forego those plates.
MR. DISRAELIwished the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Williams), who was about to divide the Committee, not upon the amount, but the principle, to explain what the principle was. The hon. Member said he believed that no Queen's plates were run for in England; but that was not the impression of hon. Gentlemen around him, one of whom had just told him that his

1297
horse had won a Queen's plate at Manchester, and that the money was paid out of the Estimates. The Committee would do well to remember the origin of these grants. The question was whether these sums were not originally the disposition of the patronage of the Crown, defrayed out of the Crown estates; and if Parliament chose to take away the hereditary property of the Crown, and to make an arrangement which he (Mr. Disraeli) thought injudicious alike for the Crown and the country, the Committee ought to hesitate before acceding to a proposition to strike off these grants, and to announce that the Crown should be deprived of all those acts of patronage and liberality which it had formerly bestowed. He apprehended, then, that these grants could not be said to he paid out of the public taxes, and further that there was nothing mean or ludicrous in the Sovereign giving a prize to be contested for by the archers of the Royal Body Guard. It appeared to him to be only an act of Royal courtesy, and he doubted whether the hon. Member would he able to lay down any principle applicable to this Vote. If the hon. Member divided the House, he certainly should not support his Amendment.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Queen enjoyed a civil list of 385,000 l. per annum, and her parks and palaces were maintained at the public expense. He did not believe that the Crown estates which had been exchanged for the civil list had produced more than 130,000 l. a year against the 385,000 l. of the civil list. He objected to the Vote on the ground that it was not right to tax the people for such purposes.
MR. MOOREcould inform the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth that between twenty and twenty-five Queen's plates were annually given in England, the sum thus expended being from 2,000 l. to 2,500 l. He did not believe there were more than four given in Scotland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that his intention was to disallow such Votes equally in England.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS: The hon. Member for Lambeth would pardon him for saying that he (Mr. W. Williams) did not say that if there were Queen's plates given in England he would oppose them; he said that no money was given for such purposes. The Crown had, in his opinion, made a bad bargain when it exchanged its hereditary revenues for the civil list
1298
granted by that House. The Crown had lost in the aggregate 116,000,000 l. by the difference between the hereditary revenues of the Crown generally, and not the landed property solely, and the amount voted by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the then Member for Cambridge (Lord Monteagle) who proposed this arrangement, did not calculate that for the sake of saying that no more than 380,000 l. was voted for the civil list, he had opened a door to interminable discussions in that House, in which the dignity of the Crown was at the mercy of any Gentleman who had the power of stringing together twenty sentences, and in which the most vulgar feelings and prejudices were appealed to.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I shall not condescend to notice the impertinent language of the hon. Baronet. ["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]
SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS: Sir, I appeal to you to say whether anything I have said now or at any other time in this House can justify any hon. Member in applying to me the language of the hon. Member for Lambeth. [Mr. W. Williams here rose.] If the hon. Member rises to apologise, I will sit down immediately. [The hon. Member for Lambeth here sat down.] But, if he does not, I must be permitted to tell him that he is not the man who is entitled to tell me that I have used impertinent language.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: If I have said one sentence inconsistent with the rules of this House, I will of course withdraw it at once. But for the hon. Baronet to say, as he did, that I am incapable of uttering twenty sentences. I listened attentively, and I am sure he used that expression to me. There are very few men I have a higher respect for than the hon. Baronet, and he is the last person I would utter one single word against to hurt his feelings.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISthanked the hon. Member for the kind manner in which he had referred to him, and would not prolong this discussion.
MR. HUMEthought it was a great pity that they should be quarrelling among one another. He hoped, however, they would look fairly at this Vote. The principle involved was a plain one. The Committee which settled the Civil List retained all that was required for the due maintenance of the dignity of the Crown. These Votes were not retained—simply because the

1299
Committee considered them to be superfluous.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLbelieved that on the settlement of the Civil List the grants of Queen's plates were fixed to be paid out of the amount set aside for the Master of the Horse; but certain amounts of this kind which had been defrayed out of the hereditary revenues of Scotland and Ireland were placed upon the Estimates. It had pleased Parliament to make provision for the Sovereign in lieu of the revenues of the Crown, and which, especially at the accession of William IV., had been given up. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) seemed to suppose that Parliament had made a bad bargain in the exchange. Whether the Crown had done wisely, he (Lord John Russell) would not say; but, in a matter affecting the dignity and liberality of the Crown, he thought that Parliament should not take away a grant that the Crown for a century had given.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the noble Lord had borne out his assertion. He (Mr. W. Williams) said he was not aware that in any of the miscellaneous estimates, any Queen's plates were given in England. It now appeared that these plates were paid out of the Civil List, and those for Ireland and Scotland ought to come from the same source.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 1,482 l. 7s., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 162: Majority 123.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) 6,464 l. Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 6,464 l., he granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. HUMEmoved to reduce the Vote by the sum of 1,574 l. for fifteen Queen's plates given for horseracing in Ireland.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 4,890 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished for an explanation of the item, "two gentlemen at
1300
large 150 l. a year each." It was right the public should know what were the duties of those gentlemen at large. He should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), not because he grudged a single farthing paid to the Crown, but because he thought the country ought not to be called on to support horseracing.
MR. MOOREasked whether hon. Gentlemen were willing to give back the revenue out of which these plates were formerly given?
MR. BRIGHTsaid, there was a large class in the country opposed to horseracing on moral and conscientious grounds, including many clergymen of the Church of England, and ministers of various denominations; and, on that ground alone, it might be doubted whether this was a fair appropriation of the public taxes. Any one who had this conscientious objection would have a right to complain of such a Vote. On the grounds of public service, and the necessity of economy, it would be impossible to justify the vote of this 1,574 l. It would be just as proper for that House to take Bell's Life, and look over the various amusements announced, and give a vote for killing rats. He hoped these votes would be resisted as long as they were brought forward.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the other night there had been a most audacious "pull at the Exchequer" for 2,700 l. for the benefit of the Manchester people. If they struck a balance between the sums remitted from the woods and forests in Ireland, and other sources, and the amount of the vote now proposed, to which those who spent the money felt no conscientious objection, it must be admitted to be fairly due.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester knew nothing of rational amusements. One of the greatest friends of the hon. Member was a keen sportsman, and he had furnished his table with more game than he ever had before. The hon. Member was a free trader, but he was not so rationally, for by the measures which he had supported, he had taken from the people of Ireland the means of improving their condition and of obtaining more food.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must appeal to the Committee. Time was valuable, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould also appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to divide the Committee again, when the principle of the vote had been carried by the last division.
MR. HUMEsaid, economy consisted in small sums, and, therefore, it was more important that he should divide.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEwould remind the Committee that the vote directly encouraged the breed of horses in Ireland, one of the most lucrative things that country possessed.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 165: Majority 125.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—
(15.) 24,152 l. Chief and Under Secretary's Office and Privy Council Office, Ireland.
(16.) 6,055 l. Paymaster of Civil Services, Ireland.
(17.) 34,834 l. Board of Public Works, Ireland.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYwished some explanation to be given respecting the item of 1,100 l. for the salaries and travelling and incidental expenses of the two Inspectors of Fisheries in Ireland. The Committee, which had sat upon the subject of Irish Fisheries, had suggested that the Fisheries Commissioners should not be connected with the Board of Works; that proper salaries should be assigned to them, and a small staff of inferior, but efficient, officers appointed to aid them in superintending the fisheries of Ireland. In the course of last Session, he endeavoured in vain, on two occasions, to separate the Irish fisheries from the department of Public Works. The two Commissioners who managed Irish fisheries wore members of the Board of Works, which consisted of five or six Commissioners. The other four Commissioners knew nothing whatever of the subject, and invariably the suggestions the two Commissioners gave, and the reports they made, were disapproved of. He hoped this statement, which had been graciously received by the Ear] of Clarendon, would receive on this occasion a little more notice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than he had hitherto deigned to bestow upon it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think it would be advisable to separate the Fishery Commissioners from the Commissioners of the Board of Works.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, only a very small sum was asked, and the Government might easily subtract it from the salaries of the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland, who were useless, and apply it to the more useful purpose of promoting Irish fisheries.
MR. SCULLYwished to remind the Committee that 14,000 l. a year was appropriated to Scotch fisheries, whereas no public money was applied to Irish fisheries except to the payment of the Commissioners.
MR. GROGANsaid, he must complain of the curt manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated a subject so intimately connected with the welfare of Ireland.
MR. HUMEsaid, the Scotch people were most anxious to get rid of their fishery boards.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, Parliament had taken the management of the Irish fisheries out of the hands of the Irish people. [Cries of "Question!"] This was the question. They were going to vote an insufficient sum, which would be useless. The Irish did not want a Fishery Board; but if Government maintained it, they wished to see it independent of the Board of Works. Let the right which the Irish people in the reign of Charles the First possessed be restored to them. [Cries of "Question!"] He said again this was the question. The Report of the Committee, which recommended the establishment of a separate board for that important supervision, had been treated with the most marked contempt by every Member of the Government, although the officers approved and confirmed the decision of the Committee. He opposed the sum proposed as utterly inadequate for the objects which were contemplated. Through the mismanagement of the Board of Works, some of the best fisheries had been wholly destroyed. The weirs, which were illegal in Scotland, were permitted in Ireland, and the consequence was ruinous and disastrous. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Scully) had taunted him with this not being the proper time to bring the question forward; but when he (Mr. Anstey) did bring the question before the House, the hon. Member for Tipperary did not give him the support of his vote.
MR. SCULLYsaid, that his conduct in that House had been always that of an independent Member, and upon the occasion referred to he had acted as such. For his part, he treated with the utmost contempt

1303
every thing which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
LORD NAASsaid, the Committee had been unanimous in thinking that the Board of Works and the Board of Fisheries could not be kept one and the same thing.
MR. GRATTANsaid, that the hon. Member for Montrose was blushing for the misconduct of his own countrymen, who had introduced their new laws to Ireland, and scoured the rivers with their weir nets. The Government of Ireland had ceased to exist. He did not know where it was to he found. Was it at the Castle, or at London, or at Rome?
MR. REYNOLDSobjected to the vote, on the ground that it was a mischievous and extravagant board. All the patronage, all the large salaries, he found, were given to Englishmen, instead of to natives of Ireland. Were the people of Scotland tired of the 14,000 l. a year for the encouragement of the fisheries in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Montrose stated? Would he vote for that sum being transferred to Ireland?
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Member for the city of Dublin as to the bad management, inefficiency, and over-payment of the Board of Works. It required the most thorough investigation.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed; ported To-morrow.
Words of HEAT.—MR. BERNAL acquainted the House, that during a discussion in Committee of Supply words of heat had taken place between Mr. Scully, Member for the county of Tipperary, and Mr. Anstey, Member for Youghal; and Mr. Anstey not being in his place;
Ordered—
"That Mr. Anstey do attend in his place forthwith."
Mr. Anstey having come into the House, Mr. Scully expressed his regret at having used words which were considered offensive by other Members, and retracted them; upon which Mr. Anstey expressed himself perfectly satisfied.
Subject dropped.

COURT OF CHANCERY AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. BROTHERTONgave notice that,
1304
as they had been sitting there since twelve o'clock that day, if any opposed Motion should come on, he should at once move the adjournment of the House.
MR. JOHN STUARTsaid, that it would be impossible to remedy the delay of business in the Court of Chancery by any new provisions, without accompanying them with an increase of the force in the Registrar's department.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the present proposition was only to vote for the provision of the money for the purpose proposed out of the Consolidated Fund.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALL: As I see the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) is waiting for orders, I move that the House do now adjourn. If the noble Lord refers to the conduct pursued by the hon. Member, he will know the reason why I do so.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Stuart) should take another opportunity of raising the question to which he had just referred, as it was not the proper time to discuss it when the House had before them a Motion for going into Committee, with a view to provide for a Judge's annuity.
SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, he rose to second the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Archdall) for the adjournment of the House. On Tuesday night last, the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) moved the adjournment of the House when there was a Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend's on the Paper (for correspondence between the Irish Government and Orange lodges), which was of great importance, and which he had had no earlier opportunity of making. His hon. and gallant Friend wished to defend himself from some imputations referred to himself personally, and he wished to defend himself also from the charges of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was interested in the question.
SIR GEORGE GREYbegged to assure the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Archdall) he was not aware he intended to make the Motion which had stood in his name for many weeks on Tuesday last, nor had the hon. and gallant Member stated he wished to do so. He (Sir G. Grey) had not the least objection to the Motion being made at any time as an unopposed

1305
Motion, with a slight variation in the words, to correspond with the documents.
MR. BROTHERTONhad no motive or reason for moving the adjournment the other night but this, that he was determined that when the House met at noon, he would prevent discussions going on after midnight, if he could.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLthought it was desirable that business which was not opposed should be disposed of, though it might be after twelve.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYhoped the hon. Member (Mr. Brotherton) would move adjournments impartially, and not merely when there were Motions to come on which might not be agreeable to the Government.
MR. JOHN STUARTwould suggest that independent Members were subjected to great hardships if adjournment were moved by supporters of the Government on business which the Government would not assist.
MR. FREWENsaid, he must complain of the conduct of the Government in getting the House adjourned when they pleased, and occupying all the hours which independent Members ought to have. An attempt had been made on Wednesday, at five minutes to six o'clock, to smuggle the second reading of a Bill which was not entered on the paper.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary he would not press his Motion for the adjournment of the House.
The Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved—
"That an Annuity, not exceeding 3,750 l., be granted to any Judge of the Court of Appeal in Chancery who shall resign his Office, the same to be payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
Order for Third Reading read. Bill read 3°.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYobjected to the Bill being extended to Ireland, as it took away from the Irish tenant the common-law right to protect his growing crops. It was argued that this injustice was to be committed in order to make the law uniform in England and in Ireland. The people of Ireland renounced the benefit which it was intended to confer on them,
1306
and therefore he would move the insertion of the following clause:—"That this Act shall not extend to Ireland."
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
MR. NAPIERthought that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal misunderstood the law in Ireland with regard to growing crops. He did not apprehend that this Bill would alter the law with respect to distraining crops.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, that if this Bill renewed the power to seize growing crops, he would vote in favour of the insertion of the clause.
MR. HATCHELLsaid, that the Bill did not interfere with the law of Ireland as it stood. By the existing law no one could seize and distrain a growing crop in Ireland, without paying the landlord a year's rent, if it were due.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, as there was only one other Irish Member in the House with himself, he would not divide the House.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," put, and negatived.
Bill passed.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Smithfield Market Removal.
2a Patent Law Amendment (No. 3); Bridges (Ireland); Fee Farm Rents (Ireland); Charitable Trusts.
Reported.—Stamp Duties (Ireland) Continuance.
3a Office of Messenger to the Great Seal Abolition; Marriages (India); Process and Practice (Ireland).

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill said, that he was sure he need not occupy the time of their Lordships by impressing upon them the importance of this measure. The subject had been under the consideration of Parliament for the last seventy years—from 1786, when Parliament authorised certain returns regarding those Charities to be laid upon the table of the House, down to the present period. In the interval five separate Commissions had been appointed to inquire into the subject, four of them were under the authority of Parliament, and the last under the sign-manual of Her Majesty. These Commissions had presented thirty-two Reports, giving full information on the subject. The result of these inquiries showed that there were 28,840 charities in England and Wales, of which there were 13,000 and upwards whose annual incomes, by endowment, were less than the value of 5l. There were 5,000 more whoso incomes were under 10 l. a year, and there were
1246
from 4,000 to 5,000 others whose incomes were under 100 l. From this statement, it was obvious that the smaller charities could ill afford the expenses of litigation; for any inquiry into the administration of a charity with an income of 5l. a year, or perhaps less, would swallow up many years' income of that charity. The Commission acting under the last sign-manual presented two Reports, which were extremely valuable from the nature of the information which they contained. That Commission consisted of three noble Lords Members of that House, three Members of the House of Commons, a Master in Chancery, and a Barrister, who acted as honorary Secretary. Its labours were indefatigable, and in the course of his communication with it, he could not too highly praise the zeal of its highly-gifted secretary (Mr. Tierney); what was a very unusual circumstance with Commissions in general, its expenses were extremely light, and were little more than the price of the stationery which they consumed. The Reports to which he alluded, naturally called the attention of Parliament to the fact, that since 1840 various Bills, which had for their object the remedy of the grievances arising out of the disposition of charitable trusts, had been introduced, all of which had unfortunately failed to receive the approbation of the House. In 1845, his noble and learned Friend, Lord Lyndhurst, brought in a Bill upon this subject, which passed through their Lordships' House unanimously, and was sent down to the House of Commons; but matters of very great importance then occupied the attention of that House, and the then Government declined to press it forward that Session. Again, in 1846, a Bill to effect the same object was introduced; that Bill was strongly opposed by several noble and learned Lords, and it failed to receive the sanction of the House by a majority of two. In the present measure he had endeavoured to avoid the objections urged against the Bill of 1846, without impairing its general efficiency. The labours of the last Commission had induced the Government to prepare the present Bill; and he was afraid that should it fail, after the attention which had been bestowed upon it, as well as upon previous Bills, there would be little chance of successfully dealing with a subject which was universally admitted to require legislative interference. Before giving an outline of the measure for which he asked their Lordships' support, he would call attention

1247
to what appeared to the late Commission, as well as the previous Commissions, the principal cause of the abuses which had crept into the administration of the charities of this country. Although the gentlemen who were the administrators of these establishments were, he doubted not, most honourable men, yet, through inadvertence or carelessness, the records of the Court of Chancery showed so many cases of inadvertence, negligence, or misapprehension of their duties, as would warrant the House in the assumption that they would be more efficiently performed if a superintending guardianship were extended over them. As to what exemptions from the operation of the Bill there might be, or whether there should be any, would be matter for grave consideration when the Bill went before a Select Committee. One of the great causes of abuses in the administration of these charities was a want of publicity—a want of some check and audit to the accounts. There had been no one charged with the particular duty of investigating these accounts, and one charity had lost 30,000 l. from that cause. In another case a renewal rent of 2l. per annum had been taken for a property which had now been let for 1,500 l.; and in many cases rentcharges had come to be considered the permanent value of the charity. It had also happened that, upon the death of a trustee, no successor was appointed to him, and that the money invested was allowed to come into the hands of a single trustee, who died or failed, and then it was discovered that he had failed to discharge his trust. Various other evils would be found recorded in the report presented by the last Commission, which, although brief, was most satisfactory. It was considered by most competent authorities, that the very existence of such a body as he proposed to form under this Bill, would prevent more than one-half the evils complained of. The importance of this question could not be over-estimated. It had been shown, by sworn testimony, that the annual income of the charities in the United Kingdom amounted to the sum of 1,200,000 l. By the present Bill it was proposed to establish a board of five Commissioners, to be called "The Charity Commissioners," two of whom should be paid, and that they should form a corporation, with power to make the inquiries referred to in Clauses 8, 10, and 11 of the Bill. The Commissioners should also be invested with the power of issuing precepts
1248
for the production of accounts and documents, and examining parties, under certain circumstances. They would have the power of giving advice when asked for by the trustees, and the trustees should be indemnified for any act they might commit while acting under any advice so given. Thus the trustees hereafter would be acting under protection, and would not be exposed to such grievous inconvenience and expense. They had also the power of certifying to the Attorney General such cases as they might think fitting for his interference; and on that certificate legal proceedings for the recovery of sums due to these charities might be instituted. Many cases were even now instituted by the Attorney General, and others by private relators; but these informations led to expensive Chancery suits, and it was too often found that when the attorney's costs were satisfied, the suits dropped. Although there had been many cases of fraud brought to light, through the instrumentality of private relators, it was not considered right I that power of proceeding by information against trustees should be allowed, without the sanction of the Commissioners.; By another clause the Judges of the County Courts were to have jurisdiction in cases of charities, the incomes of which did not exceed 30 l. Should, however, the Commissioners or other parties be dissatisfied with the order of the County Court Judge, they might remit the case to him for reconsideration, or transfer the matter to a Master, or the Court of Chancery. In the case of charities exceeding 30 l., and not exceeding 100 l., application must be made directly to a Master in Chancery, who was authorised to proceed on a state of facts laid before him, and to make such orders as might now be made by the Court itself. Provision was made that the accounts of the disbursements and receipts of the trustees of charities should be annually delivered to the clerks of the County Courts for the districts in which the charities may be situated. The accounts were to be registered in the County Courts, and open to inspection at all seasonable hours on payment of the fee of 1s. The Commissioners were called upon annually to lay their accounts and a report of their proceedings before both Houses of Parliament. It was proposed that the expenses of the Board and of the working of the law, should be defrayed by a tax of 2d. in the pound imposed upon the in-comes of all charities exceeding 10 l. It

1249
was estimated that this tax would produce 8,500 l. Provision was made for the union of small charities. With regard to the questions of leasing, building, management of mines, repairs, &c., instead of referring such subjects to the Lord Chancellor, the Commissioners would have the power of dealing with them. There was also a power to compromise disputed claims, and a provision for the union of small charities. The Bill dealt with permanently endowed charities only, and none of its provisions would extend to charities supported by voluntary subscriptions. Several petitions had been presented praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill; but surely their Lordships knew all that could be advanced for or against the measure, and might dispense with the speeches of counsel.
Moved—That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD BROUGHAMgreatly rejoiced that this Bill had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government. A measure of this nature had been long wanted, and its absence had worked grievous injustice and oppression. The noble and learned Lord had understated the evils of which he complained, and he had also understated the efficient powers of the Bill to remedy those evils. The noble and learned Lord might have stated that not only in cases of charities with incomes of 5l., but even in those of incomes of 100 l., parties interested were prevented by law expenses from appealing to a court of justice to prevent malversation with respect to charitable funds; for what charity with an income of even 100 l. or more could afford the expenses and the grievous delay of a Chancery suit? There had been many instances in which individuals had wrongfully possessed themselves of messuages belonging to charities, and had openly avowed their misdeeds, safely relying on the dread of legal expense to deter any one from calling them to account. That such a state of things should have been allowed to continue for so many years in a country professing to be civilised and governed by law, was no less astonishing than humiliating. The powers of inquiry given by the Bill were most necessary. That the mere inquiry would be beneficial, he knew, from the experience of the well-known Committee of 1818, and the Acts passed in consequence. It was a most pleasing thing to those who had taken part in that inquiry, that when they traversed the country they could in so many places see
1250
the inscription of almshouses, or schools, erected since the year 1818. He did therefore most heartily rejoice at the introduction of the Bill before their Lordships; but as it was going before a Select Committee, he would abstain from making any further observations upon it. With respect, however, to the principle of the Bill, he hoped no doubt whatever would be entertained by their Lordships, though the question as to the limits might certainly give rise to some discussion. He did not know why 30 l. and 100 l. had been fixed upon as limits to found the jurisdiction of the County Court Judge and the Master in Chancery respectively. With regard to the jurisdiction intended to be conferred on the County Courts, he would ask how long and how often were they to load those County Courts with new business? Would it be fair to throw this additional labour on the County Court Judges without giving them increased remuneration? He would venture to recommend to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack the great propriety of considering that topic in the further progress of the measure. He rejoiced to see his noble Friend's conversion to the belief in County Courts, as testified by this Bill. He was not a postulant, but a convert. With those observations he most heartily concurred in the second reading of the Bill, and would express his confident hope that it would be allowed to pass without any unnecessary delay.
LORD STANLEYsaid, no one, he believed, had the slightest inclination to offer any opposition to this Bill; for the abuses which it was intended to remedy had existed for a long series of years. If there could be any doubt as to the propriety of adopting this measure, there could be none whatever with regard to any transactions of the Commissioners who had investigated this subject. His only apprehension was, as on a former occasion to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, that a vast pressure of important business in the other House of Parliament in the present Session might render it possible for a Bill which only went before the other House on the last day of June, or the 1st day of July, to run some risk of not passing through all its stages there before the close of the Session. If that should prove to be the case, it would be to him a matter for great regret, for he did think the legislation contemplated by this Bill was of the most useful and practical character. He

1251
might be permitted to call their Lordships' attention to the principle on which it appeared control was necessary. The grounds on which it was thought to be necessary, as stated by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, appeared to be the possible ignorance or corruption of the party administering the charity, the absence of a visitor, the absence of an effective audit, and the absence of any sufficient motive on the part of the governing body to exercise due vigilance over the objects of the charity. He must, therefore, for a moment call their Lordships' attention to the case as it was put forward by the great London companies. They were not exempted from the operation of this Bill. It could not be contended, with regard to the governing bodies of any one of those charities, that they were likely to be ignorant of the estates that were devised to them. [The LORD CHANCELLOR: They may be ignorant of the objects for which the estates were devised.] It certainly did appear singular that public bodies who had been in possession of estates for hundreds of years, should be so very ignorant of the purposes to which the trusts that had been reposed in them were applicable. But the fact was that those companies were composed of a body of men of perpetual succession; and upon that ground there was no danger of their trusts lapsing. There was, moreover, a regular annual audit of their accounts by persons who were elected by the great body intended to be benefited by the application of the trusts, and the charities were for the most part founded by deeds of gift of former members of the Corporation. It was true that the body which was appointed by the existing members of the Corporation, administered not only the funds derived from its existing members, but the funds derived under the wills of their predecessors; but, certainly, if the audit was regular, he could scarcely conceive it possible, if there was any ignorance on the part of the governing body, as to the objects and purposes of their property, that that ignorance should not soon be discovered and corrected; and it certainly did appear to him that there was not the slightest danger of any of the trusts lapsing by the failure of individual members, though these charities did stand on a footing different from the ordinary charitable trusts in the country. The noble Lord concluded by stating, that as the governing bodies of those charities would have an opportunity of stating their case
1252
before the Select Committee, he would not further occupy their Lordships' time.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had alluded, in terms of praise, to the labours of the Commission of which he (the Earl of Chichester) had the honour to be a Member, and from whom this measure had originated. He could claim no share in that praise, for the part he had borne in those labours had been a very humble one. With regard to the Bill itself, their Lordships would recollect that the measure introduced in 1845 was, in many respects, similar to the present Bill. In the Bill before their Lordships, though a very important control over charities would be given to the new Commissioners, their functions would be rather those of inquiry, supervision, and advice, than of jurisdiction. They were to exercise a controlling authority over the County Courts, but not exactly in the nature of an appeal. He apprehended there would be some objection taken to the narrowness of the clause which exempted a certain class of charities. In 1845, Lord Lyndhurst's Bill was referred to a Select Committee, containing, he believed, among its members all the law Lords attending their Lordships' House, and several right reverend Prelates, who formed a most effective and satisfactory Committee for the investigation and discussion of such a subject. When that Bill was first introduced, it contained a clause which he believed only exempted three charities; but on its leaving the Committee they were unanimous in doing away with all exemptions. The Bill introduced in 1846 did contain an exemption, but that exemption only extended to the Universities. With regard to the great London charities, some of the very best of them had been proved to be charities which did require some occasional inquiry into their modes of management, and that it would be of great advantage to them if their accounts were made out and registered in the way proposed by the Bill, and if they were afforded some more satisfactory means of correcting any faults of their own management. He had always looked at those charities as deriving a very great advantage in connexion with this Bill, seeing that they would receive a considerable boon in the way of protection against vexations litigation. There were certain charities, as their Lordships well knew, which were mainly supported by annual and voluntary contributions. It was the inten-

1253
tion of the clause, as it originally stood, to exempt those charities, if they were entirely so supported, and if their accounts were regularly laid before the subscribers once a year. Some of those charities, however, were endowed to a very small amount; but still, being endowed, they would come under the provisions of this Bill. He thought that would be an advantage to those charities; but by necessity those charities could not be exempted without exempting almost all the charities which this Bill was intended to reach and control.
LORD STANLEYthought it would be difficult, in the case of charities partly endowed and partly supported by annual voluntary subscriptions, to separate the money derived from interest on sums invested in the funds from the ordinary annual subscriptions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in reply, said, that cases had been known in the law courts where even public companies of the highest respectability had run into abuses for want of a suitable audit, and instanced a case which had come under his notice when practising at the Bar, in which a public charity had been involved in a lawsuit, and seriously prejudiced, by the ignorance of the governing body as to the nature and limits of the trusts reposed in them. It was for the purpose of obviating this want that the present Bill had been introduced, and he trusted its provisions would be found available for the purpose.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly; and referred to a Select Committee.
House adjourned till To-morrow.