Sitting of 11 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.— 1° Representative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment; Public Health Act (1848) Amendment; Distressed Unions (Ireland).
2° Metropolitan Sewers.
3° Turnpike Acts Continuance.

THE REPAIRS OF MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having a bearing upon the College of Maynooth, though not at all connected with the discussion which had recently occupied that House. In 1845, when the Act of Parliament was passed for the permanent endowment of the College, the late Sir Robert Peel stated that it would not make provision for the annual expense of the repairs, but that item would be the subject of an annual Estimate to be laid before Parliament. He believed, in every year since that Act was passed, a Vote had been taken, to the amount of 800 l. or 900 l., for the purpose of defraying the expense of keeping the buildings of the College in repair. This year he did not see any proposition for continuing that annual Vote; and he would be glad to know whether that omission was an accident, or whether the Board of Works considered no sum was this year required for the purpose. He was quite sure the Government ought not to anticipate any decision of the House, and before any inquiry had been made to place the College in a different position than in other years.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government had no wish to anticipate the decision of the House. The reason why there was no Vote this year for the repairs of Maynooth College was, that the late Government did not consider there were any circumstances which required such a Vote being asked for, and therefore omitted to place it in the Estimates which the present Government had adopted. The House would recollect that last year, when the annual Vote was proposed, it was carried by a very narrow majority of only one or two; and in the present state of parties the Government would have had little chance of passing that Vote, unless they could have shown a very strong case of the necessity of repairs.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he understood
510
there was imminent necessity for repairs of the buildings of Maynooth.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he thought the Government had exercised a very wise discretion in omitting that Vote from the Estimates. It was his duty to oppose it last year, as he believed no sufficient grounds had been shown for the former grant. He wished the Government had exercised the same sound discretion with respect to other Votes of a similar nature.
Subject dropped.

CONDITION OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
Order for Committee of Supply read; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. SLANEYsaid, he should move as an Amendment on the Question, the Resolution of which he had given notice. He had attended to the subject of the condition of the working classes very anxiously ever since he had been in Parliament. The question had nothing whatever to do with party; but it interested deeply the welfare of the community, and that was the reason it had engaged his attention so constantly. He would refer to Reports laid before that House from time to time to prove his case. A great difference had occurred during the last forty years in our social system; the comforts of all classes and the wealth of all classes had materially augmented, not, however, in equal proportion. But it was the working men—the labouring classes—by whose agency all these blessings and all this wealth had been mainly produced; and the question was, had the condition of the labouring classes improved in proportion to the benefits conferred by them upon other classes? He believed the reverse was the fact— that, instead of improving, their condition had retrograded; and it could be traced to the indifference or neglect of those whose duty it was to look after their interests. The working classes were divided into two great bodies—the agricultural and the manufacturing classes. The agricultural labourers had deteriorated in consequence of want of due attention to their condition. If there had been a department to take this important matter into consideration, the evils he now deplored would not have existed. Committees had been from time to time appointed to inquire, among other things, into the mode of payment of wages, and strong condemnation had been passed on the abuse of paying wages out of the

511
poor-rates. He had drawn attention subsequently to the fact of the practice still continuing, and that no sufficient remedy had been provided by the Legislature. In 1834 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject, and they reported that the practice was subversive of the morals and independence of labourers, and destructive to the best interests of the working classes. Had there been a special department, such as he suggested, could these evils, proved to exist as they had been in twenty-six counties, have been permitted to continue unredressed for twenty-five years? The result of the system was to generate discontent and outrage on the part of the labouring classes, and this would continue if the evils were still permitted to exist. After thirty years, a correction was attempted to be applied to the mischief by the establishment of the new Poor Law. But had that law cured the evils? He contended that the evils which the new Poor Law was intended to correct, would exist for at least the next two generations. He considered that the only safe remedy was to have a department to look into these matters, and to make reports from time to time to the Government, with respect to the sanitary condition of the labouring classes. If the dwellings of the poor were inspected, in many counties they would be found disgraceful to us as a nation. He admitted that a good deal had been done and was doing to mitigate this evil, but he regretted to say much remained yet to be done. The report of the Sanitary Commission would bear out his assertion, and would prove the neglected condition of the agricultural labourers. But what was the case of the town districts? Was it better? He feared not. The rate of mortality was about two per cent for the country, but it was four and four and a half per cent, and in some instances five per cent, in town districts, where working men were congregated immasses. In 1840 a Committee sat on the question of the labouring classes in towns, and they reported that as far as the dwellings of the labouring poor were concerned, great evils were to be found, which, however, could be removed by adopting proper sanitary precautions and regulations. The Report of 1842 confirmed all the statement of the previous Committees relative to the young population in towns finding premature graves, and the adult population being diseased and ill-lodged. These facts showed that a very large body of the
512
people in towns were neglected by Government. In 1845 there was an inquiry into fifty towns, and this was the general statement, that the prevalence of the evils was general. Since that period an Act had been passed to improve the health of those districts, but this did not take place until after forty years of neglect. The evils would not have existed at all had there been a Commission to look after the health and general condition of the working population. The Factory Commission in 1843 stated that in reference to juvenile labour, the young people employed by the factory workmen were subjected to great hardships and ill usage, little or nothing being done to afford factory children proper recreation or instruction. The result was that the children were sickly, stunted, and short-lived. Nothing had been done, and he asked the House whether such a state of things ought to be allowed to continue? The Report also spoke of the condition of the mining population. It was stated that the children of miners and in mines had not sufficient moral or religious training in the mining districts. He was referring to the condition of the defenceless children of a defenceless class. It was impossible to read the Report of the Commissioners without feeling pain at finding that nothing had been done to elevate and improve the material and moral condition of the working people. Having shown that the condition of our agricultural and town-working population was full of evils, he asked the House to consent to the establishment of a Commission for the common benefit of the working classes. The handloom weavers to the number of 600,000 were in a state of the greatest distress, and to these were to be added the railway labourers, whose numbers also amounted to 600,000. And what was the cause of the depression of these classes of our fellow-men? It was owing to the great changes in the social and commercial condition of the world, without any corresponding change being made as regarded the labouring population of the country. The vast increase of the population of the towns called for a corresponding alteration of the laws. While in the rural districts the increase of population from the year 1801 to 1851 had only been at the rate of 5 per cent, the increase in the towns had been at the rate of 100 per cent. All these facts proved the necessity of a Governmental department to take cognisance of the condition

513
of the people. Hitherto these things had been left to individual Members of Parliament. The first thing necessary to be done was to provide for the education of the people. It might be said that the Government had already looked to that subject; but, with what effect? Before the Education Committee of 1838 it was shown that provision for the education of the people was required for one-eighth, and yet, on the average, provision was only made for the education of one-eighteenth, or of one-twentieth, of the population. Since that period, two Governments had endeavoured to bring in measures for extending education; but both schemes exhibited a lamentable deficiency. The effect of all this neglect of the people had been discontent among many, and suffering and disease. Illness was in proportion to deprivation; and it was shown that, on the one hand, where prosperity existed, death was 2 per cent, while, where poverty prevailed, it was 5 per cent. The average of the life of the three classes into which society was divided was this:—The average of life of the first class was 37 years; of the middle class, 27 years; and of the humble classes, 20 years. This disparity arose in a great degree from the neglect shown by the higher classes to the condition of the lower. As a matter of economy, this subject ought to engage the attention of Parliament. The poor-rates were considerably increased by the non-employment of the people, while crime advanced in a very rapid progression. The number of criminal commitments in England and Wales was in the first year of the present century 4,700; in 1815, 7,800; in 1821, 16,500; in 1831, 19,600; in 1841, 27,000; in 1847, 28,000; and in 1848, 50,000. It was true that since 1848 the number had, owing to various causes, diminished; but from 1800 to 1848 the number of criminals increased three times as fast as the population. What had been the increase in the consumption of spirits? In 1817, the consumption was 9,200,000 gallons; in 1827, 18,200,000; in 1845, 27,000,000; in 1852, 28,000,000; show-that the consumption of spirits also increased three times as fast as the population—another evidence of the unsatisfactory condition of the people. It was in vain that they erected gaols and penitentiaries in order to reclaim men. It was beginning at the wrong end. They should educate the young, and teach the working man to improve his own condition. But
514
to all this there were impediments arising from laws and customs which a consultative board would entirely remedy. He was aware that some looked at this question as a matter of cost only. Well, as a matter of cost, what was it that crime alone cost the country? Not less than 11,000,000 l. sterling per annum. The poor-rates were 5,400,000 l. for England and Wales; hospitals, dispensaries, and alms, the necessity of which arose in great measure from neglect of the poor, amounted to the same sum of 5,400,000 l. The direct cost of the police, gaols, &c, amounted to 1,500,000 l. But to this was to be added the loss which society sustained from the illness of men whose labour was of necessity abstracted from society, and which by proper regulations might be prevented. That he estimated at 2,000,000 l.; so that the whole amount of deduction to be made from the productive powers of labour, including some other items that he would not take up the time of the House by enumerating, was not less than 27,500,000 l. a year. But this was only for England and Wales; if they added to it half as much more for Ireland and Scotland, which would be 13,750,000 l., it would make a total of 41,250,000 l., to which might be added 10,000,000 l. for consumption of spirits by these neglected persons; thus making a grand total of 51,000,000 l. expended annually on account of neglect, poverty, and crime in this country. He believed that one-half of this sum might be saved to the country by improving the condition of the people. What, then, was it that he proposed as a remedy for the evils he had thus pointed out? He did not wish to hold out false hopes; but hitherto Government had done nothing. There were three things which it was essential to accomplish: first, the instruction of the children; second, the protection of the health of both parents and children; and, thirdly, fair play and equal encouragement to their industry. They must change their views from the gaols and the penitentiaries, to the industrial schools. Instead of education being given to one in 18 of the population, it must be given to one in 8. All these points had been greatly neglected; and the effect had been shown in the increase of crime, and in the immense cost to the country to which he had just adverted. A Committee or Commission, free from the bias of party, might be nominated by the Government of the day, and would constitute a council which might be

515
made a centre for the suggestions of benevolent men on whatever tended to the improvement of the working classes. The cost would not exceed 2.000 l.; and if that paltry sum were grudged, half of it might be found to try the experiment. The causes of existing evils would be dealt with, instead of the effects being removed, as at present; those "coming events" which "cast their shadows before" might, by measures of anticipation, have their pressure mitigated.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENOR,in seconding the Motion, said, he had intended to trespass on the attention of the House for some time, but considering the time already occupied, and having reference to the able speech which they had just heard, he should content himself with a single observation. He had regretted to observe the impatience manifested during his hon. Friend's address, because he was aware that an idea prevailed in the country, not only amongst the working but even the highest classes, that that House was not disposed to entertain such grievances when they were brought before them, but rather to pass to more exciting and agreeable topics. He knew that there was some cause for impatience when they were all anxious that the business of the Session should be speedily terminated. He had not mentioned the subject with the view of casting reflection on that House, with which he had so long had the honour of being connected; but when he found a resolution, "That this meeting were very anxious to make provision for the education of ragged children, a class which rarely attracted the attention of statesmen or legislators," adopted by a meeting, not of Chartists, but of the middle classes, at which he attended, for the education of ragged children, he could not but say that he trusted, when the present Motion was brought forward, the endeavour would be made to put an end to the idea that this House did not take an interest in those persons to whom the Motion related. The House would regret to learn that this was the final and farewell address of his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury; and it was the more desirable that the Government should take up this question, because the House had not the advantage they had once derived from the presence of his noble Friend, formerly a Member of that House, now Lord Shaftesbury, who had been so long and so usefully engaged in bringing forward important measures
516
for the benefit of the working classes; and, now that they were about also to lose the services of his hon. Friend (Mr. Slaney), who had devoted so much time and attention to those subjects, he did not know who would now undertake to deal with them. He thought the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had fully made out his case, and hoped to hear from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department some sentiments which would give encouragement as to the future.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'it is expedient that a Department, Standing Committee, or Unpaid Commission, be appointed, to consider, suggest, and report from time to time, preventive and remedial measures, to benefit the social condition of the Working Classes, and for removing social and other obstacles to their improvement,' instead thereof."
MR. WALPOLEsaid, everybody must admit that the sincere zeal and benevolence which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion had always manifested towards the working classes, deserved the warmest encouragement; and, if he (Mr. Walpole) thought the Motion would tend to advance the social condition of those classes, he certainly should have desired, on the part of the Government, to give it his assent. He regretted extremely the retirement of the hon. Gentleman from that House, and was certain the country would feel that the hon. Gentleman was ending as he began—that he was exerting his intellect and energy in behalf of those who had no opportunity of being heard for themselves. The present proposition of the hon. Gentleman, however, appeared to him to be not only useless, but detrimental to the interests of those for whom he proposed it. One of the objects of the hon. Gentleman was to obtain the appointment of an unpaid Commission—
"To consider, suggest, and report from time to time preventive and remedial measures, to benefit the social condition of the Working Classes, and for removing social and other obstacles to their improvement."
A second object was to obtain information on which legislative remedies might be carried out. Another object was, that such remedies should be effected through the medium of such a Commission. With respect to the proposed Commission, he (Mr. Walpole) doubted whether more information would be obtained by that means than by means of a Select Committee,

517
such as might now be appointed in either House of Parliament to inquire into particular subjects relating to the working classes; and the constitution of the Commission itself would not be such as would render it likely to afford any valuable or complete information. The Commission or Standing Committee would consist of two or three persons, who would take up particular views and opinions, and who, generally speaking, would follow up those views or opinions with great pertinacity, without considering others which might be pressed on their attention. When a Committee was appointed by either House of Parliament, it was composed of Members entertaining different views, who pressed those views on the attention of the Committee; and therefore a better report was obtained than would be obtained from a Standing Committee or Commission. The whole tenour of the hon. Gentleman's statement showed how information was obtained through Committees of both Houses of Parliament. On that account he (Mr. Walpole) did not think the proposal, if carried into effect, would be attended with the advantages which had been anticipated. Then, with respect to the remedial measures to be introduced, he regretted to hear one observation of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor). His noble Friend said there was a prevalent opinion that that House was not disposed to attend to the grievances of the working classes. The sooner that opinion was set right in the country the better. If there was one thing which, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, had struck him more than another, it was that the improvement of the condition of the working classes, the means of their education, and similar subjects, had been more uniformly and zealously urged than questions affecting even those who were actually represented within those walls. He did not believe a specific measure for the benefit of the working classes could be proposed which would not procure more support than measures for the benefit of those who wore peculiarly represented there; and he hoped the noble Lord would take the opportunity, when it offered, of explaining that the classes of whom he had spoken laboured under a misapprehension, when they supposed that their interests were not attended to. A Bill had been brought in on the subject of Industrial and Provident Partnerships, which had been passed through that House
518
entirely through the energy and ability of the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the Motion. Then there were measures of education: others relating to factories; others, again, which had given rise more to party discussions; he might take for example the repeal of the Corn Laws, which, doing away with a great part of the revenue, was done with a view to the relief of the working classes. Measures of that description showed that they had their interests properly submitted to the consideration of Parliament. A Standing Committee of the kind proposed would in some respects be detrimental. The idea ought not to be encouraged among the working classes that they must look to the Government or to Parliament, instead of relying on their own exertions and industry. There was a great chance that the appointment of a Standing Committee or Commission proposed would give rise to such an idea, and diminish the sense of the necessity for self-reliance. Believing that, for the purposes of legislation, there existed, by means of Committees of both Houses of Parliament, a much greater probability of obtaining attention for the objects the hon. Gentleman himself had in view, than by means of an unpaid Commission or Standing Committee, and seeing the appointment of such a Commission or Committee might lead to the consequences to which he had briefly adverted, he (Mr. Walpole) regretted to say that he was under the reluctant necessity of giving a negative to the Motion. which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press to a division.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he was sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to negative this Motion; because, though a Standing Committee might do no good, it certainly would do no harm. He was quite aware that the House was anxious to go into Supply; but this Motion was the best kind of supply, for it would supply contentment and progress, and assist in promoting union between the rich and the poor. He was quite sure that a Standing Committee would prove most useful; it would digest the information it received much better, and in a more practical manner, than that taken by Committees of that House. With regard to the self-reliance which the poor ought to be taught, the poor had as great a claim upon that House, as the rich; and, as they suffered under grievous injuries inflicted by legislation, they had a right to ask the House to remove, or at least to alleviate,

519
them. He hoped the Government would withdraw their opposition, and allow the proposal of his hon. Friend to be carried.
MR. S. CARTERsaid, that, agreeing in much that had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, he dissented from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to a Committee or Commission of the kind proposed. It would form the nucleus of a system for obtaining and digesting information, and, being a permanent body to which the poor might complain, hon. Members could on special occasions move the appointment of a Select Committee. The two methods of proceeding might co-exist.
MR. PACKEsaid, he should most deeply regret the absence of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury from amongst them, although they sat at different sides of the House, and were politically opposed to each other. When the commercial policy of 1846 was adopted, there was nothing more strenuously insisted upon than that it would materially tend to the elevation of the condition of the working classes. However, this result, so ardently anticipated, had not followed. The House was now informed that crime had increased threefold to what it was in former years; and also that sickness and poverty had increased. Those facts certainly showed that the working classes were not at present placed in a perfectly satisfactory condition. He felt, however, that at the present period of the Session, they could not properly consider the Motion of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury; and he could not, therefore, support that Motion.
MR. P. HOWARDsaid, that there were already two Commissions in existence devoted to the consideration of the physical and mental condition of the working classes. There was the Education Commission and the Sanitary Commission, and there was a third Commission, namely, the Emigration Commission, which was appointed to give information and assistance to those who were anxious to cast their fortunes in another land. It would be much better to give those Commissions more extensive powers, than to appoint another. The statement respecting the increase of crime ought to be received with some abatement. The greater number of commitments arose from the increased vigilance of the police; but there was no proof that the more serious crimes had increased in proportion to the population.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONtrusted the
520
hon. Member for Shrewsbury would not press his Amendment. He (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) wished to remark, however, that the question to be put would be, that the House shall go into Committee of Supply, and not a negative to the Motion of the hon. Member.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the first Vote in Committee of Supply related to the Chapel of the Embassy at Constantinople, on which yesterday there was a discussion. He had considered that case; his attention had been drawn to it by the conversation which took place; and it appeared to the Government to be one that required considerable inquiry. The enormous expenditure which had taken place on the residence of the Ambassador at Constantinople, appeared, on the surface, indefensible. They did not wish to make any censure on the conduct of those who preceded them. He was aware that, with respect to many items of expenditure in distant places, a very injurious habit had grown up, and had not been sufficiently disturbed, which allowed the expenditure of large sums, without the inspection which in the present day was indispensable; and when an expenditure of 85,000 l had taken place on the Ambassador's residence within ten years, it appeared to him that that House ought not to pass the present Vote without inquiry. The Vote now on the Paper was for an expenditure not yet incurred; had it been incurred, he should have appealed to the generosity of the Committee. It was the feeling of himself and his Colleagues that they could not but express their sense of dissatisfaction; and, under these circumstances, he should not press that Vote. He might state generally that such items, if the opportunity were afforded to the Government, would be subjected to very severe examination.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he was glad to hear the opinions which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. Having presided as Chairman of the Committee on Official Salaries, he remembered that the subject of the expenses of the Embassy at Constantinople had strongly pressed itself on the notice of the Committee, though he

521
was not quite sure whether it had been mentioned in their Report.
Vote struck out.
(1.) 783 l., British Ambassador's House at Madrid,
(2.) 1,595 l!., late Earl of Shaftesbury.
(3.) 4.000 l., Navigation of the Menai Straits.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 100,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he rose to object to the following items in this Vote: The expense incurred by the Bishop of Barbadoes in his visitation to the islands of St. Vincent and St. Lucia, 32 l. 5s. 10 d.; the expense incurred by the Bishop of Antigua, for passages on his visitation to several islands within his diocese, 42 l. 8s. 4d.; the expense incurred by the Bishop of Newfoundland on account of a passage from Newfoundland to Bermuda, on visiting that part of his diocese, 60 l.; the expense incurred by the Rev. H. M. Blakiston, on account of his passage to Constantinople, on his appointment as chaplain to Her Majesty's Embassy at that place, 50 l.; for the entertainment of the Bishop of Victoria, on several occasions, while visiting the consular cities in China, on board Her Majesty's steam ship Reynard, 92 l. 10 s. The rapacity of ecclesiastics was beyond all description. The Church of England, the Church of Ireland, and the Church of Scotland, all had their pull at the Exchequer. They reminded him of the three daughters of the horseleech, who continually cried out, "Give, give, give!" nor would they desist,
"Non mssura cutem, nisi plena cruoris hirudo."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not agree in any of the views which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken. The word "bishop" appeared on all occasions to raise some objection in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But this was no new question. It came under the consideration of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), in 1840, when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he had to decide whether it was fair to call on the Bishop of Newfoundland, out of the limited income for his professional exertions, to pay the expenses of visiting other parts of his diocese at a distance of 1,200 miles. It was
522
then thought that no objection could be taken, and therefore the noble Lord decided to grant 60 l. as compensation for those expenses. It was upon the principle so established that this Vote was asked, and he (Sir J. Pakington) thought these heavy expenses ought not to fall upon the bishops, and that it was not desirable those right rev. Prelates should have the temptation. from pecuniary considerations, to abstain from visits to their dioceses. He trusted the Committee would not object to the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, these charges had been objected to every year for the last twenty years. He thought the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had answered his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. C. Anstey), was not becoming the situation he held. He had made use of remarks little calculated to produce that good understanding and good feeling which they wished to see prevail in that House. The right hon. Gentleman, as a Member of a Government advocating economy, said it was most unjust for this or that bishop to be called on to pay these expenses out of his own pocket, He (Mr. Hume) thought it more unjust for the people of England to be called on to pay them. No bishopric had been established abroad without the assurance that the expense would be borne by the Colonies; and when the Government had attempted to pay the passage out, it had never passed without remark. He really thought the time was come when the whole expenses of the Colonial Office should be revised, and the principle laid down, whether ecclesiastical charges were to be borne by this country, or those they were intended to benefit. The Government could not help seeing that the general feeling of the country was against these partial charges. If these were defensible, let them be made general. He could not sit still and allow his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Anstey) to be taunted and treated as he had been by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was what induced him to rise and express his approbation of his hon. and learned Friend's proceedings. He hoped be would persevere. He (Mr. Hume) used to do his duty. He was not able to do it now; but he hoped other Members would not allow any Minister whatever to taunt any hon. Gentleman who thought it his duty to object to these Votes.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he should move to reduce the Vote by 300 l.

523
The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) had not told them why a selection from the members of the Established Church was made; why the Rev. Mr. Blakiston, the rich chaplain at Constantinople, and the Bishop of Victoria, had this gratification; and why all the bishops, all the clergymen, and all the chaplains of the favoured Church were not similarly gratified.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,said, the question about Mr. Blackiston was not in his department. The case of the Bishop of Victoria came within the principle he had explained.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, an attack had been directed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal against the Established Church. [Mr. C. ANSTEY: No!] He was for supporting the Established Church, though he entertained liberal opinions towards the Church of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He must condemn the pettifogging and mean spirit which dictated objections to paltry votes; and he called upon these hon. Members, if they were true economists, to support his Amendment, namely, "to omit the sum of 1,505 l. 7s. 6d. for salaries of secretaries and clerks, and messengers for the Commission for the Promotion of the Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had objections to several other items. He objected to 600 l. 13 s. 8d. for the Commission for inquiring into the Episcopal and Capitular Revenues; to 360 l. for triennial and other allowances to the serjeant-trum-peter, and to the household trumpeters and kettle-drummers; to 220 l. for clothing for household drummers; to 109 l. 9s. 4d. for marshal of the ceremonies; to 76 l. 5s. for robes, collars, badges, &c, for knights of the several orders; to 2l. 2s. for the attendance of watermen at the House of Lords; to 20 l. for the furniture for Whitehall chapel; and the 282 l. 14 s. for entertainments on board the Sphynx and the Nemesis, of Sir James Brooke—that fortunate individual—who received 1,500 l. a year as Governor of Labuan, and 500 l. a year as Consul at Sarawak, and yet contrived to spend the greater part of his time in this country. He should move their disallowance.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he was quite willing to add to the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth the 300 l. he objected to.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he
524
would beg to suggest that they would save valuable time by being more methodical in their proceedings. They had begun with the expenses of bishops. In speaking on that, the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had been carried away in spite of himself to the Crystal Palace; and now, with a flourish of drums and trumpets, the hon. Member for Lambeth had come back to the Rajah of Sarawak. He really believed half the Members did not know the question before them.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLhoped this would be the last time the expenses of the bishops would appear in the Estimates. If no other plan could be devised to save them from the pain of these discussions, he would suggest that the expenses should be paid out of the secret service money. But seriously he considered that any expenses incurred by the bishops going to and fro from island to island ought to be defrayed from the Colonial Fund.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he felt obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Youghal for having brought this question before the notice of the Committee. He really thought the country ought not to be saddled with the payment of these sums. One of the complaints of his hon. and learned Friend was, that the Government did not go methodically to work, because he, with great justice said, if they paid the bishops for one visit, why not pay them for all? Many visits were paid for, and many visits under exactly similar circumstances were not paid for. He thought the Government ought to give some explanation.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, these payments were only made by the Treasury on the authority of a Secretary of State, who regulated them. For instance, the 50 l. paid to Mr. Blakiston, was paid upon the authority of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston). He thought hon. Members were taking advantage of the Vote to call attention to the expenditure during the past year comprised in upwards of one hundred items. He was anxious to give explanations, but it was impossible to follow when explanations were asked upon half-a-dozen or more items at the same time.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was an item of 819 l. 3s. for the funeral of his Royal Highness the late Duke of Cambridge. The charge for this funeral was last year objected to, and he had hoped it

525
would not have appeared. The allowance to his Royal Highness was amply sufficient, and provision had been made for the whole of his family.
MR. HUMEsaid, as they voted a round sum for these purposes, the only opportunity of finding fault was when the account was rendered. The best mode for preserving the funds of the Established Church was to take care they were applied properly, and not to call on the country to pay charges with which they had nothing to do. The late Duke of Cambridge left upwards of 5,000 l. a year real property. His daughter had been pensioned off with 3,000 l. a year; and his son had been pensioned off with 30,000 l. a year; and now the country were called upon to pay the expenses of the funeral. He believed it would turn out the claims of the canons of Windsor swelled the charge. He did not throw the blame on the present Government, but upon the party who sanctioned such a charge. There was one circumstance connected with this subject which he was always glad to mention. William IV. did not draw upon the public public purse, but left sufficient to pay the expenses of his funeral. He was the only sovereign within the memory of man for whose funeral the public wore not put to any expense. He could admit the charge for the funeral of the Sovereign, but the Government ought to withdraw this item for the funeral of the late Duke of Cambridge.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum not exceeding 97,410 l. be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
The Committee divided;—Ayes 40; Noes 97: Majority 57.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

MR. SMITH O'BRIEN.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYstated that he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland a question of which he had given him notice. In order that the House might understand the question he was about to put, he should remind it of what was called the Irish rebellion of 1848. In consequence of being concerned in that affair, Mr. Smith O'Brien and some other persons were sentenced to transportation, and had been undergoing that punishment up to the present time. Their friends in Ireland had considered it quite
526
useless to appeal to the clemency of the late Government; hut after the advent of the present Government into power, it was supposed by them that there might, perhaps, be some chance of obtaining some remission of a punishment, which many considered had been of sufficient duration, and which all knew was inflicted not for the sake of vindictiveness, but to deter similar transgressions in future. Accordingly, a memorial was prepared, praying for a mitigation of the sentence. Whilst that memorial was in the course of being circulated and signed, it was very generally stated that it had been prepared at the suggestion of several Members of the present Government, including the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland, as well as the Chief Secretary, and the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton). It was also stated and believed that each of those Members of the Government had, by their conversations, encouraged the preparation and presentation of that memorial, and it was even asserted that the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had himself revised and altered the draft of the memorial, and had stated that he would give it his support. It was asserted that the memorial had been signed by many distinguished persons upon the faith of statements made to them, that it would not embarrass the present Government, but would have the contrary effect. It was also signed by many friends of the prisoners, who could not but be seriously injured by any direct refusal to grant their prayer. Under those circumstances the memorial in question was stated to have been signed, and it was lately presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by a most respectable deputation, headed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin city. To that deputation the Lord Lieutenant gave a very peremptory and almost contemptuous reply, stating that "he had a duty to perform towards his Sovereign and his country; and that he did not consider himself justified in recommending the prayer of the memorial to Her Majesty's favourable consideration "He (Mr. Scully) did not mean to enter into any discussion in regard to that memorial, or the propriety or impropriety of rejecting its prayer. He wished simply, both in order to satisfy the public and for the sake of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland himself, to ask him a plain and simple question, to which he should hope to re-

527
ceive a straightforward and frank reply. The question was this—Did the Attorney General for Ireland himself prepare the memorial referred to; or did he, or any person on his part, or with his knowledge and sanction, suggest its preparation, or its presentation, or revise and correct any copy or draft of it, or encourage its preparation, signature, and presentation, and intimate that he would give it his support?
MR. NAPIER: Sir, I will state all the facts of which I have any cognisance with respect to the memorial to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) and myself were counsel for Mr. Smith O'Brien. Mr. Whiteside defended him at his trial, and I at the House of Lords. I also presented a petition in his behalf on occasion of his transportation. I have the pleasure to be on terms of intimacy with his two brothers, the Rev. Mr. O'Brien, who is one of my constituents, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ennis (Sir L. O'Brien), and several other relatives of Mr. Smith O'Brien, are amongst my most esteemed friends. Immediately after the accession to office of the present Government, I received a letter from the Rev. Mr. O'Brien, who subsequently waited upon me entirely as a private friend. He and I talked to-together about the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, and had some conversation as to the prospect of procuring any mitigation of that unfortunate gentleman's punishment. We conversed as intimate friends; and I am sure that the House will not expect that I should detail anything that may have passed between us at an interview which was strictly private and confidential. I told Mr. Smith O'Brien's friends and relatives most distinctly that, in my official capacity, I could not in any way connect myself with their proceedings, and I even expressed to them my conviction that the Government could not take any move in the matter, as their doing so would be imputed to a political and electioneering purpose. I did not, however, take upon myself to indicate, either directly or indirectly, what the Government would do in the matter; and from first to last I disconnected myself, from my official capacity, while speaking on the subject with Mr. Smith O'Brien's friends. I will not, however, hesitate to admit, that I had, and still have, a very strong feeling of sympathy for Mr. Smith O'Brien. The next communication that I received on the sub-
528
ject was a letter from the secretary of the committee in Dublin from whom the memorial emanated. I did not myself write the memorial. I did not procure it to be written. I did not revise it when written. I was not in any way concerned in its preparation. I did not even sign it. I declined to have anything to do with it, apprehensive lest my name might be confounded with my official character. I did not hold out, nor did any one on the part of the Government, that I am aware of, hold out any expectation that the Government would take any particular course in the matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland may have expressed his feelings on the subject as a private individual, just as I have done; but I am confident that he never gave an intimation of what the Government would do with reference to it, and that he had no part whatever in the getting up of the memorial. It is unnecessary for me to say what my own feelings or expectations may have been; but from the first I dissevered myself from any official interference in the affair. I trust, therefore, that this explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member for the County of Cork, and to the House.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
MR. EWARTbegged to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any measures had been adopted for the examination of candidates for appointment and promotion in the Diplomatic service of the country; and whether there would be any objection to lay before the House a return explanatory of such measures, as had been done in the case of the different revenue boards, the Navy, the marines, and more lately (by the Duke of Wellington) in the case of examinations of candidates for the Army?
LORD STANLEYsaid, he could not produce such a return as the hon. Member asked for, because no such return existed. The subject of education for the Diplomatic service had for some time past engaged the attention of Government; but, as yet, no definite scheme of examination for entrance on that service had been framed. They had, however, done what they could: their Ministers and Diplomatic agents at foreign Courts had been instructed to report upon the nature of the qualifications required from persons entering on the service in question in other countries; by these means a large body of evidence was being brought

529
together; and when this had been done, and after full time had been taken for consideration, he (Lord Stanley) hoped that a plan would be struck out which they would be enabled to lay before the country. Meantime, all he could say was, that Government agreed with the hon. Member in considering the question as one of great importance: and that being the case, he felt sure that the hon. Member would not desire that any hasty or ill-considered measure should be brought forward, of which there could not but be some risk, if sufficient time to frame it were not allowed.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
MR. HORSMANsaid, it had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford that when he moved the appointment of the Committee in the case of the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, it would be proper to lay on the table the heads of his allegations; and the right hon. Gentleman added that he could show that this was according to precedent. At the moment he could not give the right hon. Gentleman an answer; but he had since considered the matter, and he was prepared now to say that if the right hon. Gentleman could satisfy the House that what he proposed was in conformity with precedent, he would bow to the wish of the House, and comply with his suggestion. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would allow him to nominate the Committee either in the morning sitting of Monday, or at the afternoon sitting, because otherwise it would not come on till after the other orders, when it was doubtful if it could be nominated; and at that late period of the Session it was desirable that no time should be lost?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould be extremely glad if he could facilitate the inquiry that had been ordered by the House; and if he could learn from the hon. Gentleman then, or in the course of the evening, that there was any prospect of proposing a Committee, the nomination of which would not lead to a protracted discussion, he would certainly do what he could to suit his wishes. At present he could not take upon himself the responsibility of allowing a question, which would apparently lead to a long discussion, to interfere with the progress of public business. Both the morning and evening sittings were at the present moment ap-
530
portioned to very important business; and although he was ready to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, provided he was assured that there would be no delay, still until there was some assurance or certainty of such a result, he could not take the responsibility of permitting the nomination of a Committee which would unduly retard the public business.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF EQUITY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYmoved that it be expunged. He believed that many persons conversant with the business of the Equity Courts, including the highest authority in them, were of opinion the course proposed would be inconvenient, that it would promote delay, and lead to expense in printing all bills and preliminary documents in the Court of Chancery.
The SOLICITOR GENERALopposed the omission of the clause, on the ground that the adoption of printing would both diminish inconvenience and save expense.
MR. BETHELLexpected that printing would put an end to that rambling form in which bills were too frequently now constructed, for every one knew that the appearance of matter in printing led to much greater accuracy of statement. The defendant, by the adoption of this provision, would be informed at the very first step in the suit of the charge which was made against him, and he would be informed of it in such a manner as would be apparent to a mind of the most ordinary capacity, without resorting to professional aid. Again, the Bill would be printed with probably greater celerity than a parchment copy could be prepared; and, instead of great expense, it would involve a less amount of cost. As to the probability of the exposure of private affairs by printing, he thought this was an idle objection. His only regret was, that this introduction of printing had not been carried throughout every stage of the clause. He trusted the Committee would be of opinion that the beneficial change proposed was one which would work well for all parties.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that ordinarily not more than three copies of the bill were required; and in this case the printing would be much dearer than the engrossing. He should be glad to hear whether he stood alone in the Committee

531
upon this question, because, in that case, he should not divide the House.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 2.
Clause 3 (providing that a defendant should be served with a printed bill in lieu of the writ of subpoena and summons),
MR. KEOGHasked whether every defendant in a suit was to be served with an entire copy of the bill?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that one of the great improvements in this measure was that every defendant would have in a convenient form such a statement of the suit as should be legible and easily understood by him.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 4.
Clause 5 postponed. Clauses 6 to 11 inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 12 (requiring that in the absence of a near relative or testamentary guardian, the consent of the Court be required to the filing of a bill on behalf of an infant),
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSmoved its omission, stating it was often necessary to file a bill at a few hours' notice.
MR. WALPOLEadmitted that delay might arise in some instances, but yet thought the provision would be useful. Some power was required to prevent an improper person from being put in as next friend.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that it might be sufficient to require the consent of the Court within some short time after the filing of the bill.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSconceived that this might in some measure meet the difficulty.
MR. BETHELLthought the clause would be at once nugatory and obstructive. It would entail the necessity for that most objectionable and onerous proceeding an exparte application, which was altogether alien from the proper province of a judicial tribunal.
MR. WALPOLEconcurred to a great degree in those observations, and promised to consider them before the Report.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsuggested the postponement of the clause.
The ATTORNEY GENERALobjected
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, this subject had been fully considered by the Commission, and there appeared to be between the retention and rejection of the clause a choice of difficulties. His own opinion, however, was in conformity with that of
532
the Commissioners, that it ought to be omitted.
MR. HENLEYobserved that the Judges in the Court of Chancery were of a different opinion, with the exception of the Master of the Rolls.
SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, as the father was usually dead, all the children infants, and the mother executrix and an accounting party in the suit, the application to the Court would be necessary in almost every case for the selection of a "next friend" to institute the suit.
MR. WALPOLEultimately, in deference to the opinion of the Commissioners, withdrew the clause.
Clause withdrawn. Clauses 13 to 1G agreed to.
Clause 17.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYmoved an Amendment, to the effect that Motions should be set down in a certain order, and should not be called on out of that order, that the parties might know when their cases would be called on.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would apply to the present clause. If his hon. Friend knew as much of the Court of Chancery as he did, he would see that his Amendment would not at all answer.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsaid, that the Amendment would fetter the discretion of the Judge. No matter how urgent the case might be, whether it was for an injunction to prevent the pulling down of a house, or any other case requiring speedy action, the Judge could not call it on if the Amendment were agreed to.
MR. S. CARTERthought that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was a valuable one, although the present might not be the proper clause on which it ought to be brought forward. Those who knew the Court of Chancery must be aware how difficult it was for the younger members of the bar to bring any Motion on.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 18 to 25 inclusive.
Clause 26.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsaid, the effect of this clause would be, that the mode of taking evidence in the Court of Chancery would be entirely altered, and heavy additional duties be thrown on the examiners. A Committee which sat in 1833, relating to the salaries of officers of the Court of Chancery, recommended the

533
reduction of the salaries of the examiners from 1,500 l. to 1,000 l. a year. That reduction took place; and if additional duties were now thrown on the examiners, a fair remuneration ought to be fixed.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, no such provision could be made without previous notice. He quite agreed that the new mode of taking evidence would throw on the examiners more arduous and responsible duties than they had hitherto discharged; and, that being the case, it seemed unreasonable that the remuneration should remain the same. As the Bill stood, the chief clerk would receive 200 l. a year more than the examiners.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 27 and 28.
Clause 29.
MR. C. P. VILLIERScalled the attention of the Committee to the situation of examiners under the clause. It appeared that the old practice of hearing evidence by paid commissioners was to be abolished, and that that duty was now to he discharged by the examiners, who were officers of the Court. That would be a very great reform, as it appeared that these commissioners were often paid in a way that induced them unnecessarily to protract their sittings. But this new arrangement would add much to the labour of the examiners, and therefore he thought some provision ought to be made for their remuneration.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that the examiners would not often be called upon to perform these duties; when they did they would, of course, be paid.
MR. BETHELLdiffered from the Solicitor General, as he believed that these duties would often require to be discharged. He concurred with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that this would be a most important reform, and would save many hundreds of pounds to the suitors, as compared with the present practice; but with regard to remuneration, he thought the Lord Chancellor would have power under the 60th Clause to settle that question; or if there was any doubt of his power, it might be made plain when they came to that clause.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMobserved that the proposed alteration, which he supported, would throw great additional labour on the examiners; and a question would arise whether the two present examiners would be able to discharge those additional du-
534
ties. It ought to be borne in mind, that, together with the additional labour which this measure would entail upon those functionaries, the nature of that labour being of a higher order, would require a greater exercise of the mind. He thought the question of the examiners' salary, under such circumstances, ought to receive a full and indulgent consideration whenever it was brought before the House. He confessed he was somewhat suprised when he heard it observed, with reference to the County Courts Bill, that the provision which gave to County Court Judges jurisdiction in matters of equity, was at variance with the provisions of this measure. He believed that, under these clauses, Bankruptcy Commissioners or County Court Judges might be employed in those examinations, and he could not conceive any refusal on their part to act as such. He thought the provision would be for the public benefit and convenience, as they were men conversant with the law, and acquainted with the mode of taking evidence. He looked forward to the time when, under the regulations of the Court of Chancery, county and local courts would be made auxiliary to inquiries of the nature proposed. He believed the clause a sound and useful one, and would give to it his support.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsuggested that the signature of a witness to his depositions should not be made imperative.
MR. BETHELLalso objected to the depositions being taken down in narrative form instead of in the usual way of question and answer. He thought at least the cross-examination ought to be taken down in that form.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought there was weight in the objection of the hon. Member for Southampton, as the process of writing down question and answer would greatly delay the cross-examination, the questions in which, everybody knew, ought to be followed up as rapidly as possible.
SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODsaid, that Mr. Walton, a master in one of the commons in law courts, had recommended, from experience, that evidence should be taken in the way suggested in the clause.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, it was not an easy thing to draw up a narrative of what a witness had stated. He suggested

535
that the evidence, when reduced to the form of a narrative by the examiner, should be signed by the witness, and that this should be done in case of cross-examination.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that this practice of reducing the evidence into the form of a narrative was uniformly adopted by the Judges of the common law courts.
The ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that in the common law courts the Judges had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witness, which was not the case in the Court of Chancery. Still the mode suggested by the Bill was a great improvement on the existing one.
MR. BETHELLrecommended that where a witness refused to sign his evidence, the examiner should be competent to certify the depositions, and the witness be personally examined, if required, before the Court. Otherwise, the witness, by refusing to sign, might hinder the cause ever coming to a hearing.
The SOLICITOR GENERALrather recommended that, in the case of a witness refusing to sign, the depositions might be signed by the examiner, who might report to the Court any special matter which he might think fit. Certainly the witness should not have the power of invalidating the proceedings.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSasked whether a witness alleging that the deposition as taken down was inaccurate, and on that ground refusing to sign, was to be indicted for perjury? He was of opinion that the matter, which was most important, should be maturely considered.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that he was afraid that the mode suggested for taking evidence in equity, under this Bill, would tend to perpetuate expense and delay. There would be an appeal to the Court on exceptions to evidence, and this would necessarily occasion expense and delay. He begged the Committee to consider the question of whether it would not be better to have a competent officer to decide on all such questions of evidence as might be raised, as had been recommended by the Lord Chancellor in his evidence before the Committee. This would save the suitor the expense of these disputed points of evidence. By so doing they would materially decrease the delay and expense, which would be increased by the plan proposed by this clause. The costs of the suit were the greatest hardship to the
536
suitor, and this would swell the costs considerably. Counsel on either side must be admitted, who would quarrel and waste the time of the Judge in deciding these questions of evidence. He should not now stop the progress of the Bill, but hoped this suggestion would meet with consideration.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 31.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, he thought there were grave objections to the latter part of the clause, as it might open the door to great delay and expense. The evil lay at the root of the system, and resulted from having the evidence taken by one Judge, and decided upon by another. He must say that they would not amend the procedure of the Court of Chancery until one and the same mind received the evidence and determined upon its effect. However, that was not intended to be done at present; and, therefore, he thought it would be better to direct the examiner to take down all the evidence, whatever the nature of it might be, and to transmit it to the Judge, who would strike out those portions of the evidence which he thought inadmissible.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause applied to cases where a demurrer was taken by the witness to questions that were put to him. Such case3 seldom occurred. He did not think it would be desirable for the examiner first to decide on such a question, and then have it taken to the Court by an appeal.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the same rule ought to be adopted in equity as in the case of an examination by a commission at common law. He thought the clause would work well.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that most mature consideration had been bestowed on this clause, but it was impossible to enact that there should be no appeal from the decision of the examiner as to the admissibility of evidence, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it would he useless to provide that the matter should be decided by the examiner in the first instance. Substantially, the clause would have the same effect as the alteration proposed, and he hoped it would pass without that alteration.
MR. BETHELLsuggested, that the practice of common law should be substituted for this form of demurrer, as great delay and expense would arise from it to the suitor. He thought that the party whose question a witness refused to an-

537
swer, should have power to move that the witness should be attached, as was done at common law, before an examiner.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid that, under this new system, all sorts of questions would be put and objected to, and there would be an opening for a large source of business to the profession, because the examiner could not decide at once as to the matters in dispute, but there was an appeal allowed. There was no appeal from such questions in the County Courts, and he thought it would be better to give the examiner the same power as the County Court Judges.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend had misapprehended the clause. The examiner was merely to put down the question and answer; but where a witness refused to answer a question that was put to him, on the ground that it might relate to a confidential communication, or tend to self-crimination, those were the only questions on which there was to be an appeal. If the examiner were to be allowed to decide conclusively on the admissibility of evidence, the costs would be greatly increased, for the whole case must then be gone into by him. This clause only referred to objections to questions in the nature of demurrers.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 32.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, there was a sworn clerk in the registrar's office, and his duties would no longer be required now this Bill was passed; but the examiner was to forward the evidence to the Record Office under this clause, and this officer might be used for that purpose, as otherwise he did not see how the evidence could get to the Record Office.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the evidence would be transmitted to the Record Office in the usual manner.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 33 to 58 inclusive.
Clause 59.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSobjected to the clause, as it appeared not to come at all within the scope of the Bill. The object of it was to enable the Courts of Common Law to send cases into the Equity Courts to have their decisions upon questions of equity. This increased the evil which the Commission had reported had arisen from sending cases from the Equity Courts to the Common Law Courts. He thought every Court ought to be able
538
to execute justice itself completely by those powers which it possessed.
The SOLICITOR GENERALagreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and would acquiesce at once in his suggestion that the clause should be struck out of the Bill.
MR. BETHELLstated that it had been his intention, but for the special circumstances of the present Session, to move the presentation of an Address, praying Her Majesty to issue a Commission directing the members of both the common law and the equity courts to consider expressly the propriety of consolidating and uniting the various jurisdictions, and also of consolidating the statute law.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERadmitted that the courts of law and equity wanted a mutual adjustment, and that there were many of the jurisdictions of the courts of equity which ought to go to courts of law, in order that the latter might have complete jurisdiction over the causes they had power to deal with; but he believed they would be acting contrary to the first principle of the division of labour—they would be abandoning the useful result of long experience, if they were to attempt to unite the whole of the business now done by the courts of law and equity in one and the same system. In point of fact, this had not been attempted to be done in America; there the real distinctions between law and equity were quite preserved. He hoped the question, when it was raised, would be considered, not only with the view of abolishing useless, but with the view of preserving useful, distinctions, and of maintaining a just division of labour.
Clause struck out. Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSmoved the addition of the following clauses, which were unanimously agreed to:—Clause to follow Clause 47—No suit in the said Court shall be open to objection on the ground that a merely declaratory decree or order is sought thereby, and it shall be lawful for the Court to make binding declarations of right without granting consequential relief. Clause to follow Clause 57—(Court of Chancery not to send cases to law). It shall not be lawful for the said Court of Chancery in any cause or matter depending in the same Court, to direct a case to be stated for the opinion of any Court of common law, but the said Court of Chancery shall have full power to determine any questions of law which in the judg-

539
ment of the said Court of Chancery shall be necessary to be decided previously to the decision of the equitable question at issue between the parties.
House resumed. Bill reported.

MASTERS IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 (declaring the office of Masters in Chancery abolished),
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsaid, that as the clause now stood, the Masters in Chancery were to continue to have all the powers conferred upon them by any Act of Parliament or otherwise vested in them, which they might be required by the Lord Chancellor still to execute. He proposed that the office of Master should be declared abolished entirely, except for the mere purpose of winding up the business of their offices.
MR. HEADLAMmoved the omission of the clause.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the whole Bill depended upon the fact that the office of Masters in Chancery was to be abolished.
MR. BETHELLregarded the Bill as effecting a great improvement in the English law.
MR. AGLIONBYagreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Headlam) that the first clause was unnecessary and unintelligible, and that it might be omitted without prejudice to the operation of the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the public would gain by it the advantage of cheap justice, speedily administered. These Masters, when appointed to their present office, were in the enjoyment of large professional incomes, and, if the country determined on removing them from office, it was but just to compensate them.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, the continual complaint hitherto, with respect to the Masters' Offices, had been, that they were so overcrowded with business that the Masters could not get through the business assigned to them. Now, if that complaint was well founded, surely the more Masters to perform the work the better for the public, as far as regarded the despatch of business in the Masters' Offices. He, therefore, suggested that the whole of the Masters should remain in office until the business already assigned to them had been disposed of. He would embrace that opportunity of tendering his thanks to the Gentlemen who had undertaken to be
540
Members of the Chancery Commission. He was instrumental in adding to it two right hon. but not learned Gentlemen (Sir J. Graham and Mr. Henley), and he felt quite sure that the public out of doors would now see the benefits resulting from the adding of laymen to the Commission.
MR. S. CARTERthought that the country would be entitled to the services of the youngest of the Masters in the intended new offices of chief clerks to the Chancery Judges. Men in the prime of life ought not to be handsomely paid for doing nothing.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 2.
Clause 3 (releasing four of the Masters in Ordinary from their duties),
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSmoved an Amendment to release two instead of four Masters from their duties.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL,on the part of the Government, would not oppose the Amendment, if it met with the general concurrence of the Committee.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, if these Masters were all to retire upon full salaries, the Bill would confer very little benefit upon the public.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the pounds, shillings, and pence was only a subordinate view of the question. The object of the Bill was to give the public a cheaper and more ready access to justice than they had at present. They could not propose to remove persons who had been taken out of a profession and placed in a quasi-judicial position like the Masters without compensating them.
MR. AGLIONBYadmitted that that was the case.
MR. E. ELLICEsaid, the great complaint hitherto had been the pressure of business in the Masters' Offices, and he did not see how that was to be remedied by allowing even two of them to retire before they had wound up the business in their respective offices.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, things had come to such a pass, that they must abolish either the Courts of Equity or the Masters, and they had determined to abolish the Masters. Every one knew how suits were bandied from the Court to the Master, and from the Master to the Court again, and to get rid of that system he was willing to pay a great deal.
MR. S. CARTERsaid, seeing that the Masters were to be paid for their dues the salaries they now enjoyed, he thought they ought to do some duty, and as chief clerks

541
were to be employed, he thought the junior Masters ought to fill these or some such offices.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, they could not place any of those gentlemen in inferior offices to that which they had already held: and it must be remembered that in the present case one of them was retiring after a service of twenty-eight and the other of twenty-two years.
MR. OSWALDsaid, it appeared that the first clause of the Bill abolished all the Masters in Chancery, and that the present clause reinstated them. He wished to see an end to the Masters' Office, and instanced a case in which he had been himself concerned to show the delay and expense which attended it.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Masters were all abolished by the first clause, and by the third so many of them only were retained as were necessary to conclude the business at present in the Masters' Offices.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 4 to 6 inclusive.
Clause 7, the object of which is to give power to the Masters to force the matters before them to a decision,
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSmoved a verbal amendment, and said he had been informed that day by one of the Masters that he had sent 300 letters to different parties to proceed with their suits, and out of 130 answers that he had received, 115 of them were to state that the causes were at an end. This proved that there was an appearance of arrears which did not actually exist.
Clause as amended agreed to; as were also Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive.
Clause 12 (which gives power to the Lord Chancellor to provide chambers in Lincoln's Inn for the Vice-Chancellors),
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSobserved that whilst this clause gave power to the Lord Chancellor to provide chambers for the Vice-Chancellors, it was proposed by-Clause 48 to dispose of the Masters' Offices in Southampton Buildings. Now he was of opinion that the chambers in Southampton Buildings would he more convenient for chambers than any others which they were likely to obtain in Lincoln's Inn, which would probably he some distance from each other. He therefore proposed to alter Clause 12 so as to carry out this view.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the present Vice-Chancellors' Courts in Lincoln's Inn were never intended to be more than tempo-
542
rary, and he knew they were inconvenient. It was the duty of the Government to provide proper courts, and the sale of the house in Southampton Buildings would enable them to effect so desirable an object. It was of the greatest importance that the chambers should be attached to the courts of the respective Judges, and that on this account the house in Southampton Buildings would be inconvenient. He thought this matter was one which would be better left in the hands of the Government.
MR. AGLIONBYdid not think the right hon. Gentleman had answered the objection of the Master of the Rolls.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSagreed with his right hon. Friend as to the importance of having the chambers attached to the Judges' courts, but the clause did not provide for this. It only provided that chambers should be taken somewhere in Lincoln's Inn.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that the choice of the site of these chambers should be left to the discretion of the Government, who would of course be anxious to consult the convenience of the Judges; and he proposed to omit all the words relating to the locality of the chambers.
MR. E. ELLICEdid not see why the Lord Chancellor should have the duty imposed on him of providing courts or chambers, any more than the Chief Justice or the Chief Baron.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the matter was fully discussed by the Chancery Commission, and the arrangement proposed by the Government was considered the most convenient one.
The SOLICITOR GENERALhoped his right hon. Friend the Master of the Rolls would leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 13 to 37, inclusive.
Clause 38.
MR. OSWALDasked who were, after the measure was passed, to convey messages to this House from the House of Lords? Who were to make the three bows on approaching the Speaker, in future?
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsaid, the existing Masters would do as long as they remained in office.
MR. OSWALD: And who afterwards?
The MASTER OF THE ROLLS: The

543
House of Lords will find their own messengers.
MR. OSWALD: Yes, the House of Lords will find the messengers; but we are to find the money. Were not the clerks who would be appointed under this Bill competent to make the three bows?
MR. WALPOLE: The House of Lords will find their own messengers.
MR. OSWALD: I have given a hint which I hope will not be forgotten, and that the three bows will not cost the country more than they do at present.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 42, inclusive, agreed to. Clauses 43 and 44 postponed.
The remaining Clauses were agreed to down to the supplemental clauses.
Clause 5 brought up, and read 1°, 2°.
MR. S. CARTER,on Clause 5, which was entirely new, being brought up, proposed an Amendment to the effect that the retiring pension of Masters should not exceed two-thirds of their salary.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the words "the full amount," in order to insert the words "an amount not exceeding two thirds."
MR. WALPOLEconsidered that they had no right to give gentlemen who had taken office on the understanding that they would hold their offices for life, less than the sum which they had received for the offices for which they had resigned lucrative business at the bar.
MR. S. CARTERdid not agree with the reasons urged for giving the full salary as pension. It was notorious that the country did not ask these gentlemen to abandon their practice, but that many others were willing to undertake the duties of the office in question.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERthought it would be contrary to the principle that House had always acted upon towards vested interests—namely, to secure the whole amount of salaries which otherwise would be secured to them for life—if they adopted the Amendment. He thought, however, that if full salaries were paid, parties receiving salaries ought to perform services for them either in their own office or in some other office.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYthought it would be unwise to part with those four Judges, and tol ose all control over them, as proposed by the clause. The effect of the clause was to give a boon to the gentlemen who were to retire—it was, in fact, to increase their retiring allowance. He
544
thought those gentlemen ought to he at the command of the Lord Chancellor, to be employed in any way which might assist in working out those reforms which were in progress.
SIR WILLIAM PAGE WOODobserved that none of the Masters wished to retire, and as they had been appointed during good behaviour, they had a life-interest in their offices. If, therefore, it was considered that the abolition of the office was for the public advantage, the holders ought to receive full compensation.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 90; Noes 10: Majority 80.
On Clause 43, which had been postponed,
MR. S. CARTERproposed as an Amendment to reduce the salary of the officers appointed under this clause from 3,000 l. to 1,000 l. per annum.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 44, which had been postponed,
MR. T. DUNCOMBEmoved to omit after the words "it shall be lawful" all the words to the end of the clause, and to substitute the following:—
"For every person who on the first day of Hilary Term, 1852, held the office of chief clerk to any of the Masters in ordinary of the said Court of Chancery, and who is not hereby appointed a chief clerk to the Master of the Rolls, or to one of the Vice-Chancellors, under the authority of this Act, upon the Master to whom he shall be such chief clerk being released from the duties as such Master, under the authority of this Act, to continue to be entitled to receive during his life, by way of retiring pension, the full amount of his salary as such chief clerk, such salary to be paid and payable out of such funds and in such manner as hereinafter in that behalf directed."
MR. WALPOLEopposed the Amendment. The office of the clerk was dependent on the life of the Master, and every clerk accepted his appointment on the express understanding that it was to lapse with the life of the Master. This being so, it was unreasonable to require that compensation should be given for this as for a permanent office.
MR. S. CARTERremarked that, according to this proposal, the clerk would receive for his own life, by way of compensation, what at best, and in his safest tenure of it, he was only entitled to hold till the death of the Master.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsaid,

545
as regarded what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), that each Master's successor brought in his own clerks, that there was not a single instance of a chief clerk being turned out by a Master.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would adopt the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEwas satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
Clause agreed to.
The MASTER or THE ROLLSproposed to insert the following clause after Clause 43: A. (Pensions to Chief Clerks and Junior Clerks in cases of permanent infirmity.)
"It shall be lawful for the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, by any order made on a petition presented to him for that purpose, to order (if he shall think fit) to be paid to any person executing the office of chief clerk or junior clerk to the Master of the Rolls, or any of the Vice-Chancellors, who shall he afflicted with some permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office, and shall be desirous of resigning the same, an annuity not exceeding two-third parts of the yearly salary which such person shall be entitled to at the time of presenting such petition, and be paid and payable at the same times, and out of the same funds, as compensations under this Act are directed to be paid."
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses were then agreed to.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that before the Bill was reported, he was anxious to express on the part of the Government, and particularly on the part of the Lord Chancellor, the profound appreciation which both entertained of the great learning, ability, and assiduity displayed by the learned Commissioners to whom the important duty was assigned of drawing up the Report on which were founded the two measures the details of which had occupied the House that evening—measures of which he would not hesitate to say that none had ever been introduced so well calculated to effect an improvement in the administration of the law in this country. He would only add, that it afforded him a personal pleasure to bear testimony to the high appreciation by the Government of the services rendered by the Lord Chancellor in carrying out the suggestions of the Report.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMentirely concurred in the propriety of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry that doubt should have been thrown from any quarter on the
546
intentions of the Lord Chancellor with respect to these important measures, for, from every communication he had had with the Lord Chancellor, he entertained the conviction that the noble and learned Lord, from the moment he accepted the seals of his high office, was resolved to give effect, as far as it lay in his power, to the recommendations of the Commissioners. His exertions in this respect had reflected the greatest honour on the noble and learned Lord, and were every way worthy of his distinguished character.
House resumed. Bill reported.
The House adjourned at half-after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Navy Pay; Poor Law Commission Continuance (Ireland); Trustees Act Extension.
3ª Public Works; Industrial and Provident Societies.

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION—THE MANAGEMENT CLAUSES.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) a question, on the subject of which I have given him notice, which is, whether any Minute has been agreed to by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, effecting or proposing to effect any alteration in the administration of the public grant voted by Parliament for educational purposes?
The EARL of DERBY: In answer to the question put to me by the noble Marquess, of which he was kind enough to give me notice, I beg to state that a Minute has been agreed to—that is to say, a Minute has been agreed to in substance, though not yet in exact words, which will make some alteration, and effect some relaxation in the stringency of some portions of what are called the management clauses affecting schools connected with the Church of England. It is not proposed to make any alteration with respect to the management clauses themselves; but it is proposed with respect to the grants to certain schools, that certain words should be introduced in the alternative in lieu of certain words in the management clauses, and to provide that parties who may avail themselves of this option should not be disqualified in consequence from receiving any portion of the funds appropriated by the Government to the purpose of education. As I said before, the precise form of words has not been definitely agreed upon; but as soon as they are, I shall have great pleasure in laying the Minute upon your Lordships' table.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I did not intend to raise any discussion upon the subject on this occasion, and I certainly do not wish to pronounce any opinion what-

469
ever on the subject of those alterations, because I am the last man to say that some alterations may not be very properly made from time to time in the regulations under which the grants are distributed. What has induced me to put the question to the noble Earl is, that that alteration, which has been described by high authority as an important one, has been made under very peculiar circumstances. Now, my Lords, it is only a very few days ago that a Vote was proposed in the other House of Parliament for applying a portion of the public money to this grant. It has been hitherto uniformly the custom, when any material alteration has been made in the condition of these grants, to lay that alteration forthwith before Parliament. I regret exceedingly that the present important alteration was not communicated to the House of Commons, nor any intention expressing of making such alteration at the moment when the other House was called upon to provide for this portion of the public service. This branch of the public service was so provided for no doubt upon the conviction that no such alterations was intended. I do not say whether the proposed alteration is a fitting one or not; but be it the very best of all alterations, which I assume it to be, the other House of Parliament had the right to be informed upon the subject before it voted the money. And I will take upon myself to say that while I was a Member of the Council on Education, in no one case did it ever occur that immediately subsequent to the voting of money for that branch of the public service, any alterations were made. On the contrary, the greatest care was always taken to communicate any such alteration from time to time; but, above all, to communicate it immediately before calling upon the other House to vote any portion of the public money for that purpose. I must say that the House of Commons have not, in the present case, had not that opportunity which they always have had, and which they have a right to have afforded them, namely, of obtaining the information for which the money is required, and the mode in which it is to be applied for the public service. It was not till after this Vote was obtained—it was agreed to on the 3rd of June, and reported on the 4th— that any intimation of the proposed alteration of the Minute was made. It was not till the money was secured from the other House that that intimation was made, and then, not even to the House of Commons,
470
but to another quarter, where it was probably supposed it would receive a more hearty reception.
The EARL of DERBY: I hope the noble Marquess does not intend to impute to Her Majesty's Government that they have been actuated in the course they have felt it their duty to pursue, by any unworthy desire of deluding or deceiving this or the other House of Parliament. We have had frequent representations made to us, similar representations were also made to the noble Marquess when he was at the head of the department on this subject. Complaints were presented, as we thought then, and as I think now, well-grounded, just complaints, upon the part of members of the Church of England, that with respect to the stringency of the regulations of the management clauses, they were not placed upon a footing of equality with other religious denominations to which aid was afforded from the grant. We have never concealed our opinion that in that respect the Church of England have cause to complain of the stringency of those clauses; and at the very earliest period at which it was possible for us to take those clauses into our consideration we entered into consultation with the Education Committee, with the view of seeing if whether—keeping in view the principle of perfect fairness and equality among the various denominations, and maintaining the principle of the management clauses—it was practicable to introduce such amendments and alterations as would meet well-founded objections, and remove what we considered to be a legitimate cause of complaint. We have not in the slightest degree altered the existing management clauses; but where liberty has been given to other denominations with respect to the religious and moral education of the people, we have not thought that the Church of England was making an extravagant or unreasonable demand if they required that the same liberty which was given to other denominations should be enjoyed by members of the Church of England also. My Lords, I quite agree with the declaration of the noble Marquess that is the duty of those who arc charged with the administration of those funds to give the earliest information to Parliament of any alteration which they may purpose to effect in the terms on which they are granted. At the same time I presume the noble Marquess does not go so far as to contend that, before the terms of a Minute are actually agreed upon by

471
the Committee of Privy Council itself, any communication should necessarily be made, not of the Minute agreed upon, but of the Minute which may at some subsequent period be agreed upon. And although the noble Marquess has said that he knows of no instance in which any important alteration has been made at a short period subsequent to the grant of the money, I take the liberty of informing him that in the course of the last winter the noble Marquess himself did by a Minute, which has only recently been laid before the House, introduce a very important alteration in the principle upon which this grant of public money is made, namely, that he consented to an endowment for the establishment of a school for the instruction of Jewish children at the expense of the British public. That is a very important alteration—a more complete alteration of principle than any which is involved in the amendments which we propose to make in the management clause, and which, when the noble Marquess has seen, I shall be perfectly ready to vindicate—I say that the proposed alteration is one of importance; but it is important only in this respect—that I believe it will have the effect, and that I conceive a most desirable effect, of removing well-founded dissatisfaction upon the part of members of the Church of England —of healing dissensions in the body of that Church, and materially increasing the amount which members of that Church can conscientiously profit by—that aid which is afforded by the country to all denominations, and which I think ought to be afforded to all denominations, with at least equal liberty.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I regret that the noble Earl has so far departed from the strict answer to my question as to be led somewhat irregularly into a vindication of the proposed Amendments. I did not intend to argue this subject further than it relates to the immediate question which I took the liberty of asking; and that immediate topic the noble Earl has altogether avoided. This is not the House of Parliament to which the communication ought to be made. When the time comes that we shall be enabled to judge from the Minute itself how far the alteration is likely to affect the Church of England, I shall be fully prepared to go into that question; and I hope to be able to show that the Church of England was most advantageously situated under the existing management of this grant. With
472
respect to other sects, any alterations in what are called the "management clauses with reference to the Church of England, must undoubtedly be attended with the consequence—the unfortunate consequence —of making alterations equally in the conditions attached to this grant with respect to other denominations. I wish, however, most distinctly to explain that the sole ground of my complaint to-night is, that whereas meetings of the Committee of Privy Council have been repeatedly held upon a question which the noble Earl has said has been repeatedly the subject of consideration of himself and his Colleagues since the appointment of the new Committee of Council—a subject with reference to which the noble Earl has expressed a strong sense of the importance of making these proposed alterations, both before and since he came into office, yet that these meetings have been held, and the subject repeatedly considered, entirely unknown to Parliament and the public until some time after the Vote had been obtained. And I once more distinctly state that there was no material alteration agreed to by the Committee of Privy Council while I had the honour to be connected with it, which was not communicated to the House of Commons before any vote of public money was asked for. The noble Earl has not stated the date at which the Minute was agreed to; but I think he will see that the proceedings upon this occasion are in the highest degree open to the objections which he himself has taken before now to the proceedings of the Committee of Privy Council not being laid before the House in time for Parliament to know how it ought to act with regard to them. In this case the House of Commons has been called upon to act in perfect ignorance of the intentions of the Committee of Privy Council upon a subject which the noble Earl himself says is one of the utmost importance, and which has occupied a considerble share of his attention and that of his Colleagues since their accession to office.
EARL CREY: I should be glad to know whether it is intended that this new Minute, which is not yet quite complete in its wording, should take effect with respect to the grant of money which has just been voted by the House of Commons for the purposes of education; or whether it is intended to apply only to the vote of another year? I ask the question upon this ground: the House of Commons has been in the habit of giving a large discretion to the

473
Government with respect to the application of money voted for the purpose of education in England and Ireland. Upon the other hand, the Government for the time being have made it their duty to take care that when the House of Commons voted the money for this purpose, the House should he fully aware of the way in which the money was to be applied. The consequence has been, as the noble Marquess has informed you, that no change of importance was ever made in the regulations by which the money was applied, without its being done in such a manner as that the House should know of such alteration before the money was voted to which that alteration should apply. Now I perceive that the gentleman who has for many years served as Secretary to the Committee of Privy Council on Education, has, in a letter which appeared this day in the public newspapers, referred to these facts. He refers to one or two important alterations which have taken place in the regulations, and shows that great care was taken that those changes should be made at such times as that Parliament should understand them before any money was voted to which those alterations were to apply. In the present case the noble Earl opposite has informed us that the subject has been for some time under consideration; that it is an amendment of considerable importance; and that the substance of the proposed alteration was settled some time ago. Now, if the noble Earl had wished to adhere to what has hitherto been the practice in such cases, the course was perfectly clear. The House of Commons had not closed the Committee of Supply; there remained several votes of supply to agree to; and the natural and obvious course, if the noble Earl wished to keep the House informed, as in previous cases, of the means to which the money was to be applied, was to have deferred this vote until the other votes had passed, and in the meantime, having completed the wording of the Minute, to lay it upon the table of the House, and call attention to it before the vote passed. If the noble Earl intends that the altered Minute should take immediate effect, that was the straightforward, fair, and honest way of dealing with the other House of Parliament. I do not impute to the noble Earl any intention of that conduct which he seems to fancy has been imputed to him, but which it was not the intention of the noble Marquess to impute; but the noble Earl having omitted to take that
474
course which in my opinion was necessary, if it is intended that the amended clause should take immediate effect, I think he will be wanting in that respect towards the House of Commons, and in the straightforward conduct which it has a right to expect, if the alteration is made to take effect before another year shall have gone by, and another vote of money has been conceded. The question, therefore, which I wish to ask is this: does the noble Earl intend, or not, that the grant which has just been made by the House of Commons shall be applied according to those rules and regulations which the House of Commons, in voting that money, believed to be in force, and not likely to be altered; or, is it intended that any changes shall, or shall not, take effect with respect to this particular vote, which were not known to the House of Commons at the time of voting the money.
The EARL of DERBY: I did not anticipate that any discussion of this nature would have arisen upon the notice of the noble Marquess of his intention to put a question to me on this subject. I am, consequently, not at all able to enter upon a discussion of the particular times of the year, and seasons, at which important alterations have been made in the rules laid down by the Commissioners of National Education; but if I am not much mistaken, many of the most important alterations and decisions which have been made by the Committee of Education have been made during the recess of Parliament, and consequently at a time when the Vote had been agreed to. I have no desire that the House of Commons should, in the slightest degree, be deceived with respect to the purpose for which any vote has been granted; and I am quite ready at once to say that under the Minute which is about to be issued, but which has not yet been issued, no sum of money shall be applied until the House of Commons has had full and ample opportunity of pronouncing its judgment upon the expediency or inexpediency of such alteration.

POSTAL CONVENTION WITH FRANCE.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEput a question to his noble Friend the Postmaster General relative to the state of the negotiations with France on the postage question. Having explained the mode in which we were fettered by the treaty made with France on this subject in 1843, he proceeded to state that in 1850 he had

475
made a proposition to France, which would have improved the postal communications between the two countries very materially, but which had nevertheless been refused by the French Government. He wished to know whether the negotiations on that subject had been resumed, whether they were still going on, and, if so, what answer had been given to our proposals by France?
The EARL of HARDWICKEconsidered that it was not only necessary for the convenience, but that it would also be very much for the advantage of both countries, that a reduction should be made in the expense of transmitting letters between England and France. He considered the proposition made by the noble Marquess to France was a very advantageous proposition to that country, and he was astonished that the French Government was not disposed to carry it out at once. Since his noble Friend had left office, the French Government had notified to him (the Earl of Hardwicke) that it would take his proposition into consideration. He hoped, before long, that he should receive a communication from the French Government, stating their willingness to accede to it.

TRANSATLANTIC PACKET STATION.
EARL CAWDOR,in putting the question of which he had given notice to Her Majesty's Government, had first to call their attention to the following paragraph which had appeared in the daily papers:—
"THE NEW PACKET STATION COMMISSION.— Captain Charles Tyndal, of the Royal Navy arrived in Galway on Tuesday night, accompanied by his secretary, for the purpose of viewing and reporting on the capabilities of the port of Galway for a Transatlantic packet station. The gallant officer was out early the following morning making the necessary observations. Each of the three Commissioners appointed by Lord Derby's Government will separately visit the harbours of Limerick and Galway, and send in their respective reports."
He (Earl Cawdor) did not know whether there was any truth in this paragraph.
The EARL of DERBY: Not a word of it. We have sent out no Commissioner.
EARL CAWDOR: His noble Friend assured him that there was not a word of truth in the paragraph; and he was very willing to believe that Captain Charles Tyndal was not called upon to make any report on this subject. But "coming-events," it was said, "threw their shadows before;" and he was not quite clear that Captain C. Tyndal might not yet ap-
476
pear bodily in that city for the object assigned to him, or some other gallant captain in his stead. He had hopes that the late discussion in that House had settled this question; but owing to this paragraph, and the perseverance with which certain noble Lords connected with Ireland always pursued the objects which they had once had in view, and owing to other circumstances which had come to his knowledge, he had now more fears than hopes; and, therefore, he felt compelled to put a question or two to his noble Friends near him. The object of the late inquiry ought not to have been what port in Ireland is the best fitted for Transatlantic navigation, but what port on the western aide of the United Kingdom. Now, there had been no allusion made to anything of that sort by any other of the noble Lords opposite. The evidence and the report which had been founded upon it both showed clearly enough that no advantage would be gained by choosing an Irish port as a Transatlantic packet station, but that great evil and inconvenience would accrue to the commercial and travelling community from the adoption of such a proposal. Now they were threatened with a fresh inquiry, to decide whether Limerick or Galway would be the least inconvenient as a place of departure for America. He had already informed their Lordships that the Commissioners who conducted the last inquiry were precluded from inquiring into the practicability of selecting other harbours in other parts of the country; but it had somehow or other oozed out that Milford Haven was better suited for a Transatlantic packet station than either Limerick, Cork, or Galway. It had been shown that there was no harbour on the western coast of Ireland into which a vessel of any great tonnage could enter with safety in hazy weather. Now, the soundings in Milford Haven were so good that any vessel of any size might run into it either night or day. If we were to have another inquiry into this subject, he thought that the capabilities of Milford Haven ought to be included in that inquiry. He wished to ask the noble Duke near him (the Duke of Northumberland) whether he intended to proceed with this inquiry, and, if so, whether he would include Milford Haven in it?
The EARL of DERBYsaid, he could fully appreciate the desire of his noble Friend to have the merits of Milford Haven investigated, in the event of the Government instituting an inquiry as to the

477
most desirable port for a new transatlantic station. He could assure his noble Friend that the merits of Milford Haven should not be lost sight of; but he must leave his noble Friend to balance them against the merits of Limerick and Galway, which were as eloquently advocated on a former night by certain Irish friends of his, as those of Milford Haven had been advocated that evening. His noble Friend had misapprehended the intention of the Commission of Inquiry now about to issue. First, as regarded the paragraph which his noble Friend had cited from the Times. It might be very true that Captain Tyndal was surveying and examining Galway Bay; but, if so, it was on his own behalf, and not on that of the Government. When he said just now that Government had not despatched a commissioner to Galway, he bad said that which was perfectly true to the letter, for the appointment of the commissioners had not been signed till that morning by the noble Duke near him. Still it was intended that those commissioners should proceed to make forthwith a personal survey and examination of the western coast of Ireland. Their survey, however, was to be limited within very narrow bounds. Without in the slightest degree involving the Government in any pledge whatever as to the adoption of a packet station, they were desirous that one point should be cleared up by an examination on the spot, which appeared to be left in doubt by the late Commission of Inquiry on the subject. That commission reported that, among the places for a packet station on the west coast of Ireland, there were two to which they gave a decided preference over all others. They entered into a statement of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the ports of Limerick and Galway; and there was a request that a commission should be appointed for the purpose of filling up what appeared to be a void in the previous commission, and striking the balance between the comparative merits of those two harbours. It was, therefore, thought desirable that officers should be appointed for the purpose of personally inspecting the harbours of Limerick and Galway, investigating the comparative merits of the two, and reporting thereon to the Government. It was necessary that that examination should be undertaken by naval officers, in order to determine what facilities there were for the entrance to and departure from those harbours respectively,
478
for steamers of the largest class, at all times of the day and night, and at all times of the tide. The investigation of the commissioners was strictly limited to the comparative merits of the two harbours of Limerick and Galway; and that was owing to the late commissioners, in reporting upon the different harbours, giving a preference to those two, but without deciding in their own minds to which of the two the preference was due. He could assure his noble Friend that the Government would undertake no great work in reference to this subject without the fullest consideration of any claims which Milford Haven might put forth as to its means of communication with all parts of the United Kingdom.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, whatever might be the merits of Milford Haven, there would undoubtedly be a saving of time, which was a matter of great importance, by the adoption of an Irish port. He accepted the statement with respect to the present intentions of the Government, but he was satisfied that, in the end, they would have to go a step forward.

CASE OF THE BARON DE BODE.
LORD LYNDHURSTmoved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations of the Baron de Bode's Petition, and to report thereupon to the House. Their Lordships would probably be alarmed at the mere mention of the name of the Baron de Bode. But he could assure their Lordships there was no ground whatever for such a feeling on the present occasion. From recent circumstances the case had assumed a very simple form; it was circumscribed within very narrow limits; and he should be able, he trusted, in the very plain statement he meant to make to occupy no very considerable portion of their Lordships' time. If, however, it were otherwise, he had had so much experience of their desire on all occasions to do justice, that he was quite sure they would cheerfully afford the time and attention necessary for forming a correct opinion on a question of this nature and importance. The outline of the case might be stated in a few words, almost in a single sentence. It was this—The Baron de Bode was a British subject; he possessed a large property in France; that property was confiscated by the revolutionary Government of France. At the time of the Peace a treaty was entered

479
into between the King of France and the Government of this country, by which a large sum of money was paid over to the British Government for the purpose of giving an indemnity to British subjects whose property had been confiscated by the revolutionary Government of France. A considerable portion of that money remained still unapplied for the purpose for which it was given. The Baron de Bode, therefore, as a British subject, having had his property confiscated by the Government of France, claimed to be indemnified out of the remains of the money paid by the Government of France to the Government of this country for that very purpose. Simple as the case was, he had, by a series of misapprehensions and mistakes of the most extraordinary kind, been defeated in his attempt to obtain redress. Baffled in the attempts he had made to obtain redress by various applications he had made to the other House of Parliament, and at last worn out by his anxiety and exertions in reference to this case, he had sunk into the grave, transmitting his claims to the present petitioner, who was his son, his heir, and his personal representative. He (Lord Lyndhurst) hoped their Lordships would bear with him for a few moments while he said a word or two with respect to himself as connected with this case. He was present in their Lordships' House when, sitting judicially, they pronounced the late judgment on the case of the Baron de Bode. And he found no fault with that judgment—no other judgment could have been pronounced consistently with law, and he concurred in it. But in the course of those proceedings he felt so strongly the injustice which had been done to this gentleman, and the injuries he had sustained, that in a moment—rash perhaps so far as he (Lord Lyndhurst) was personally concerned—he undertook to bring the case before their Lordships. He did suppose at that time that he should have able to do it in the course of the last Session. His increasing infirmities, however, had prevented him carrying that wish into effect. But having once made the promise, he had felt himself bound under all circumstances to adhere to it, and to fulfil the duty he had undertaken. He had stated the plain and simple outline of the case. He would now fill up some of the details necessary for its more perfect comprehension. The father of the late claimant was a German by birth; he was in the military service of the King of France. He married a Brit-
480
ish lady—a Miss Kynnersley, the daughter of a Mr. Kynnersley, who resided on his own estate in the county of Stafford. He had a son—the late claimant—who was born in that county—he was, therefore, to all intents and purposes a natural-born subject of Great Britain; he was entitled to all the rights of a British subject, and subject to all the liabilities cast upon him by that name. The father and the son were entitled to an extensive and valuable estate situated in Lower Alsace. It consisted of the lordship, town, and castle of Suit, with an extensive demesne, and, connected with it, mines and other valuable property. This estate was held under the Archbishop of Cologne. By the treaty of Munster—which was confirmed by that of Nimeguen—Alsace was annexed to the Crown of France; but there was a proviso in that Act that all the property in that district of German tenure should remain inviolable. This property was a German male fief—it might be described as an estate tail; the estate tail in the remainderman being incapable of being defeated or barred. The claimant, therefore, had a vested estate in the remainder. In 1791 the father of the claimant, who was in the service of the King of France, foreseeing the events which were then pending, and apprehending they might lead to the loss of his interest in this estate by confiscation or otherwise, determined to give up that interest to his son. It was accordingly conveyed to the son with all the form and ceremony incident to the law of that country, without condition or reservation of any kind; so that by that act he became entitled to and was absolute master of the whole interest and property. In 1793, in consequence of the events which then occurred in France, both the father and son were compelled to leave France, and take refuge in Germany. They were treated therefore by France as emigrants, and their estate was confiscated. The conveyance of the estate from the father to the son had been made to secure the estate to the family—the son being a British subject; and it was supposed that under the circumstances he had mentioned the whole estate was secured. Notwithstanding that, by an unjust act the whole estate was confiscated by the French Government. Thus circumstances remained until the close of the war. At the close of the war, conventions were entered into between France and this country for the purpose of affording compensation to per-

481
sons for the losses sustained by confiscations under the authority of the revolutionary Government as he had stated. A mixed commission was appointed for the purpose of investigating the claims, partly composed of four French, and partly of four English commissioners, and money was appropriated to satisfy those claims. In one of those treaties, namely, one dated 20th November, 1815, it was a stipulation that persons presenting their claims should present them within three months from that date, and those three months expired on the 20th February, 1816. The claimant presented a memorial to the Due do Richelieu, who was then Prime Minister of France, setting forth his claim, on the 9th January. The reason why he presented his claim to the French Minister was, that the English Commissioners had not then arrived, and no meeting had been held by the Commission. The Due de Richelieu said the claim was inadmissible; and the reason he assigned for it was this, "Your father (said he to the claimant) was a German; how can you claim to be a British subject?" The claimant was staggered at that statement, and went immediately to Sir Charles Stuart, the British Ambassador, to state the case to him. Sir Charles Stuart said he would see Mr. Mackenzie, the head of the English Commissioners, and represent the case properly to him, and he accordingly did so, and satisfied Mr. Mackenzie that there was not the slightest ground for the objection. Mr. Mackenzie, in consequence of that, said he would put the name of the claimant on his list. He begged their Lordships' attention to that list. He had stated that at the end of three months no further claims should be received. At the expiration of three months, accordingly, the Commissioners made out a list of claims actually presented. But the Due de Richelieu having decided against the claimant, Mr. Mackenzie stated it would be proper, be-fore he mentioned the case to the French Commissioners, that the claimant should present proof of his birth, and any other circumstances on which his claim was founded. The petitioner then obtained certificates of the marriage of his father and mother, of his own birth in the county of Stafford, and other documents that were necessary. In addition to that he took the precaution to make an accurate statement of his ease, and to present it to Sir Samuel Romilly for his opinion on the subject. Sir Samuel stated there was no
482
doubt whatever that the petitioner was a British subject, that he had all the rights of a British subject, and was subject to all the liabilities incident to that character; and that, in fact, he could not put off his allegiance to the British Crown, and stating that opinion in terms the most distinct and decisive. That evidence was presented to the Commissioners, and Mr. Mackenzie said he would take care that the claimant's name should be put upon the list. But afterwards Mr. Mackenzie stated he had doubts whether the petitioner's property was situated within the limits of the French territory. It was stated, in reply, that Lower Alsace was ceded to the Crown of France by the treaty of Munster, and confirmed by subsequent treaties; and every map of France that their Lordships might look at would show that that district was situated in the midst of the French territory. Mr. Mackenzie was satisfied he had made a mistake. Such were the various difficulties which this gentleman had to contend with in making good his claim. From time to time he applied to know when his case would be heard, and what documents would be required as evidence in support of it. At length he was told that the Commissioners were employed in considering another class of eases. Thus time went on until 1818. In that year there was another shifting of the scene. A new convention was entered into with France and the Government of this country. The Mixed Commission was abolished, and a large sum of money—60,000,000 francs, was paid over to the British Treasury; this country taking on itself to liquidate the various claims, and undertaking to indemnify France against all such claims as might be made upon that country by British subjects. In the following year, 1819, an Act of Parliament was passed for the purpose of carrying that convention into effect; and in that Act of Parliament the Commissioners, who had acted on the part of England in the Mixed Commission, were named as Commissioners under the new convention. The petitioner's name was included in the list of the claimants of the new Commission. He applied to be heard, and after a considerable interval he was heard; and he received from the Commissioners a statement of the kind of evidence which they would require in support of his claim. This gentleman, as might naturally be supposed, after that long delay, was reduced to great pecuniary difficulties. He stated his case frankly to the Commis-

483
sioners, and asked them to afford him time to obtain the requisite evidence, which, of itself, would cost him a great deal of money; during the Revolution, his castle had been sacked and his muniments destroyed, and he stated he should be obliged to resort to secondary evidence of a complicated description; and his poverty then rendered it impossible for him to procure it without time. They allowed him time. He obtained money, and he employed agents to collect documents. One part of the evidence related to the cession of the property to the son by the father; and he was collecting that evidence on the Continent, when the Commissioners sent to him to ask if he was prepared to prove that the property confiscated, being the property of a British subject, was confiscated as such, and under the decrees against British subjects. His agents at once replied, "No; it was confiscated in consequence of emigration." The Commissioners replied that in that case it was no use going on with the evidence, and that unless he could prove that the property had been confiscated under the decrees against British subjects, he was not entitled to come in under the Convention. That was a most extraordinary decision, and there was nothing to justify it in the terms of the Convention. The Article No. 7 of the Convention referred to, and all the evidence required was, that the party was a British subject, that he was entitled to the property, and that the property had been confiscated. The question at a subsequent period—a few years afterwards—was decided by the appellate tribunal—namely, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They decided against that judgment of the Commissioners, following various cases reported in the transactions of that Committee; and many persons had since received compensation for their losses—their property having been confiscated, not as the property of British subjects, but as the property of emigrants, and on account of emigration. An end was put at once to the inquiries of the petitioner, and the Commissioners proceeded to make their award almost immediately after. That award was a rejection of the claim. Now, on the face of the award, the grounds of the rejection were stated, and the first ground was that which he (Lord Lyndhurst) had just mentioned. The second ground was, that there was no sufficient proof of the cession—of the giving up of this estate by the father to the claimant. That was a most extra-
484
ordinary ground, for the Commissioners had themselves by their erroneous act prevented the completion of the evidence, and therefore the second ground resolved itself into the first. There was another question which was very important-—what did the cession apply to? It applied only from the father to the son; the son held a vested estate in remainder, more valuable perhaps than the life estate of the father, for he died four years afterwards. They never entered into an investigation of that part of the case, or inquired whether they should give compensation for an undeniable interest vested in him, and incapable of being disputed. Now as to the third ground, on which he did not insist, but on which he should shortly dwell, as very material for the purpose of showing the manner in which the Commissioners had transacted their proceedings. This claim for compensation on the part of the Baron de Bode was wrongly described by them as biens caducs. They applied to it the definition that was given in the Dictionnaire de l' Academie, of a lapsed legacy or of property altogether abandoned and belonging to no one; and they asked "how can you claim compensation for property which belongs to no one?" But if the Commissioners had consulted a French lawyer, or any lawyer, they would have learnt that the term which they applied to it was used to describe property which had escheated to the lord for want of an heir, and which had become absolutely vested in the lord. Then, again, the Commissioners, not being acquainted with the law of France, consulted a learned work with reference to that part of the claim which related to the property in mines, and they extracted a passage from it with the view of showing that the claimant could have no property in mines—mines being of no value, as they could not be worked without the permission and under the surveillance of the Government; whereas any person who read the passage with attention would find that the author quoted had come to a conclusion directly the reverse, and that he was answering an argument against the opinion which he himself had expressed. Thus ended the proceedings of the Commissioners. But this gentleman, having a right to appeal from their decision to the Committee of Privy Council, accordingly appealed to that body. The decision of the Privy Council was given in a few words; it was grounded solely upon the assertion that the cession must

485
be taken to have been made for the purpose of deluding the revolutionary Government, subject therefore to the same observations that had been made upon the original decree. That being the last tribunal to which the claimant could apply, he was then left without redress. The ground of the Privy Council's affirmance not affecting the vested remainder to which he had referred, the claimant was advised to apply for a rehearing of the case. But no sooner was it known that he intended to apply for a rehearing than application was made to have the decision of the Privy Council confirmed by the Crown. Now, everybody acquainted with the course of proceedings in such cases knew full well that this was usually a mere matter of form; but, on this occasion, it turned out to be a matter of substance; for, when the gentleman applied for a rehearing, the Privy Council decided that they had no authority to rehear the case, in consequence of the Crown having ratified the previous affirmance. At that time there was about 500,000 l. of the money received from France in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury which had not been applied in discharge of the claims; and a gentleman who was then a Member of the House of Commons, but who was now a Member of the House of Lords, applied to Mr. Canning, then Prime Minister, and stated the case to him. Mr. Canning was strongly impressed with the injustice which had been done to the gentleman, and said he would order the case to be inquired into, and endeavour to do him justice. Unfortunately, however, the death of that distinguished statesman prevented any further step being taken in that direction. An application having been made to the noble Lord now at the head of Her Majesty's Government, he took up the case and brought it before the House of Commons, and supported the claims of this gentleman with all the fervour, and zeal, and perspicacity, and eloquence which were so familiar to their Lordships. Put how was he mot? The first argument used against him was, that the property had not been confiscated as the property of a British subject, under the decree to which he had adverted:—he (Lord Lyndnurst) had already disposed of that objection. Another objection was, that the cession was not made by deed; but it was not necessary that the surrender of the property should have been made by deed, the law on that subject being peculiar to
486
this country. The surrender was made according to the law of the country where it took place, and that was sufficient. Another and more singular objection was, that if the House of Commons granted the Motion for an Inquiry, they would cast a slur upon the credit of the Commissioners and of the Privy Council; and the House of Commons was asked to refuse to set the matter right, through courtesy to the parties out of whoso mistakes the injustice had arisen. These arguments, assisted by others at the nature of which he would not hint, prevailed; the consequence was, that the Motion of his noble Friend was lost, though his noble Friend was supported on the occasion by all the vigorous and manly eloquence of Sir James Graham. The case was then taken up by his noble and learned Friend opposite, who lately held the Great Seal (Lord Truro), and he undertook to bring the case before the House of Commons. He gave notice for that purpose in the year 1832; but though he had named several days for the Motion, he was unable to bring it on, and was obliged to postpone it to the next Session. Parliament having been dissolved, his noble and learned Friend had not a seat in the House of Commons in the ensuing Session, and therefore was not in a position to fulfil his engagement. The case was then taken up by Mr. Hill, the Member for Hull, who brought forward a Motion on the subject. He had made some progress in his statement; but soon perceived that one Member after another was leaving the House on the side of the Government; and when the benches were nearly deserted, an hon. Member moved that the House should be counted out—and it was counted out. So much for those dispensers of justice—so much for the honour of that House and its integrity when money was concerned, that money being in the hands of the Government, and unapplied to the purpose for which it was originally given. In the following Session Mr. Hill renewed his Motion, and not only obtained a hearing in a House of nearly 200 Members, but a Select Committee was appointed, as he understood, with acclamation. The Committee having met, some parties applied for liberty to oppose the claim, and were permitted to do so. Counsel were ranged at both sides, the case was argued day after day for some time, and the inquiry was nearly brought to a conclusion, when an objection was made, on the part of the opponents of the claimant, that his docu-

487
ments, although authenticated by the authorities abroad, were not authenticated by any British Minister or agent. The Session being then nearly at a close, the objection put a stop to the inquiry; but the Committee, in their report to the House, strongly urged the necessity of reappointing the Committee in the next Session. Unfortunately there was again a dissolution; and Mr. Hill not having been again returned to the House, it became necessary to find some other Member to move for the reappointment of the Committee; hut such was the general alarm at the nature and complexity of the case, that it was necessary to go about knocking from door to door to find some Member to undertake it. At last Mr. Warburton moved for the reappointment of the Committee; and, singular to say, was met by the argument, on the part of a Member of the House and an officer of the Crown, that the Baron de Bode, who, for twenty years, had been persevering and active in every possible way to have his case heard and decided, had slept upon his case, and that vigilantibus non dormientibus succurrit lex —an argument which, he maintained, was, under all the circumstances, nothing less than a piece of cruel mockery and insult. Mr. Warburton's Motion having been lost, the Baron next applied for a mandamus, calling upon the Treasury to apply the money for the purpose for which it had been received. The mandamus was refused, on the ground that the Lords of the Treasury held the money as the servants of the Crown; and it was asked how could a mandamus, which was an order of the Crown, command the Crown to apply the money in any particular way? The counsel for the claimant then applied for a petition of right, supplicating Her Majesty to do justice; and—-would their Lordships believe it—this application was resisted on the ground that the money was not in the hands of the Crown, but in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury. At length, however, Lord Cottenham, then Lord Chancellor, appointed four members of the Bar, and highly qualified for the duty, to examine into the matter. These gentlemen summoned a jury of fourteen, twelve being necessary for a verdict, and that jury pronounced a unanimous verdict, finding all the facts which were asserted in the petition of right to be true. The Attorney General had notice to attend this inquiry, and might have attended it if he had
488
thought proper; but he did not do so. Although, however, he did not choose to attend the inquiry, he did that which by law he was of course perfectly entitled to do—he traversed the finding, and pleaded the Statute of Limitations, which was fatal to the claim. The next step was a trial at bar, where the four Judges presided with a special jury, and the result was, to confirm the former finding in every particular. All the facts which he had stated, then, had been proved by the concurrent verdict of two juries. Advantage was then taken by the opponents of this gentleman of a clause in the Act of Parliament which was passed for the purpose of carrying the Convention into effect, by which it was provided that the money should only be applied to discharge the claims of the parties in whose favour an adjudication had been made by the Commissioners. It was urged that this claim had not been established by an adjudication of the Commissioners, and accordingly it was decided that judgment could not be given in favour of the claimant. An appeal against that decision was brought before their Lordships' House, but their Lordships felt they were bound to confirm that decision. If he were to be asked where the money was to come from to satisfy these claims, his answer was, that it was either in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury, or that it had been applied to some public service. If the latter were the case, the public, having reaped the benefit of it, were bound to restore the money. But he did not go so far as that. He asked simply for a Committee to inquire into this case; and if the Committee should confirm the statement which he had made, he should appeal to Her Majesty's Government to afford redress. He pressed this case in common honesty and common fairness, not for the sake of the claimant alone, but for the character, honour, and dignity of this country.
Moved —"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allegations of the Baron de Bode's Petition, and to report thereon to the House."
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I am quite sure that you have seldom listened with greater admiration to my noble and learned Friend, even in the days of his greatest vigour. My noble and learned Friend has entered into a detail involving matters of great complication and importance, delivered with a complete command of all the minutest circumstances, and unassisted, as you have perceived, by

489
a reference to a single note. And seldom, I am quite sure, has the cause of humanity —I will not say the cause of justice, for that would, perhaps, he thought prejudging the case—seldom, I say, has the cause of humanity and national honour been placed before you in language more eloquent— conveyed by arguments more forcible, and in a manner more calculated to attract the attention and admiration of your Lordships, than the manner in which this case has been presented by my noble and learned Friend; and I am quite sure that to every one of your Lordships, on whatever side of the House you sit, it will be a subject of equal gratification, as it is to me, to perceive by this evidence that my noble and learned Friend's mental powers are wholly unimpaired, after the many years which he has passed—and I hope not at the close of his long and valuable life;—that not only his mental faculties are unimpaired, but also his high sense of what is due to justice and to the honour of the country, is retained with as much warmth and sincerity as ever they were in his youngest days. I am far from wishing to enter into a discussion of the merits of this painful case, with which at one time —as my noble and learned Friend has stated—I was myself individually familiar. I believe it is now about twenty-four years since I undertook to bring the question of the wrongs, as I certainly then conceived them to be, of the father of the present petitioner before the consideration of Parliament. I see a noble Friend of mine on the cross bench who undertook the charge of the case a few years before I did. Many of the circumstances have since faded from my recollection, until they were recalled to it by the able speech of my noble and learned Friend. I am quite sure that it would be a waste of your Lordships' time to enter upon a discussion of any portion of this claim, even if I were fitted by my recollection of the do-tails to do so. But I think that there will be but one feeling in the minds of all your Lordships—that such a statement as you have heard, proceeding from such high authority as that of my noble and learned Friend, evincing such a thorough conviction upon his own mind of the substantial justice of the case which he brings before you—that justice being vouched by so eminent an authority, and not answered or objected to by any of your Lordships, not controverted—and I believe as regards a great part of the statement not contro-
490
vertible—I feel, my Lords, that it would be impossible that you could listen to such a statement and refuse to submit to the test of a searching inquiry the alleged facts, which, perhaps, you may receive with too much favour, graced as they have been by the eloquence of my noble and learned Friend. Undoubtedly there must be great difficulty attending this inquiry, which will probably extend to a period when it will be doubtful whether any Committee which you can appoint can bring its labours to a close in the course of the present Session. At the same time, if my noble and learned Friend thinks fit to press this Motion for a Committee in the present Session, I, for one, shall offer no opposition to it, although I think that not only will the Committee require a considerable time for their inquiry, but after they have reported I am afraid that in another place there will not be evinced a disposition to regard with peculiar favour any demand that may be made on them in consequence of the report of such Committee. At the same time if the report of the Committee should substantiate the justice and equity of the claim, neither lapse of time, nor technicalities, nor any inconvenience of being called upon to pay a sum of money, however large, ought to prevent the discharge of such claim on the part of this country. Therefore, however large may be the sum which can by possibility be awarded—however unpleasing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be the prospects of this claim, I will venture to entertain a hope that if, and only if, you should come to a clear and undoubted conclusion, upon clear and incontrovertible evidence of facts brought before you, that this gentleman, in honour, in equity, and in morality, has a claim upon the country, the House of Commons will not refuse to acknowledge the liability or justice of the claim. I beg your Lordships not to prejudge the case; but after the statement you have heard, I think it impossible that you should say that such a question does not require to be calmly and deliberately investigated.
EARL GREYsaid that, without expressing any opinion on the claims of the Baron do Bode, with the merits of which he was unacquainted, he agreed with the noble Earl that if there was a valid claim on the equity and justice of the nation, however large the sum at stake might be, it was the duty of Parliament, and especially of the other House of Parliament, to provide

491
the means of meeting it. But he could not help entertaining more than doubts whether the appointment of a Committee of that House was the proper mode of arriving at a decision upon the subject; for he thought that Parliamentary Committees were, of all tribunals, the least to be trusted to adjudicate upon a claim upon the public purse; especially when it was one which involved such nice considerations of law, and arose from a long series of transactions of so complicated a nature. He believed that if this subject was to be brought under the consideration of the other House of Parliament, and a vote was to be asked to make good an equitable demand upon the nation, that claim ought to be recommended by the responsible advisers of the Crown, after they had, by due inquiry, satisfied themselves of its justice. They knew that the present advisers of the Crown were not indisposed to consider the subject attentively, for the noble Earl opposite was himself the person who brought the subject before the House twenty-four years ago. And in the investigation of the claim they could not only command the assistance of the law officers of the Crown, but might advise the Crown to appoint a commission of inquiry upon the subject. He believed that if by such an inquiry they were satisfied that the claim was a good one, their recommendation of it would have much more weight and authority with a Committee of Supply, than the decision of a Committee of that House. The noble and learned Lord had, indeed, laid no grounds whatever for the particular course which he called upon the House to adopt; for, assuming the facts which he had stated to be correct, they certainly led to the conclusion, not that the House should appoint a Committee, but that they should address Her Majesty, praying her to recommend a vote, in order to meet the justice of the case. The speech of the noble and learned Lord did indeed appear to make out so strong a case that he could not help feeling that there must be something more behind, of which their Lordships were not quite accurately informed, and which made it expedient that an investigation should be conducted by a more competent tribunal than a Committee of that House—by Commissioners learned in the law. This subject had now been twenty-four years before the House; when it was first brought forward by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby): the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), who
492
had that evening brought the matter forward was at that time the Keeper of the King's conscience; and he supposed, therefore, that it was upon his advice, and with his concurrence, that the Government of that day, of which he was the legal adviser, opposed a decided resistance to these claims, or even to the Committee which was moved for by the noble Earl. There had been several successive Governments since that time (the noble and learned Lord having himself held the Great Seal three times), and yet no one of them had thought it expedient to recommend this case to the liberality of Parliament. Now, without pretending to know anything whatever of the merits of the case, he must say that that one fact did inspire him with considerable doubt whether there were not some reasons against the claim of which he was not aware, but which, as he had already said, should be investigated by a more competent tribunal than a Committee of their Lordships. For these reasons, although he should not put the House to the trouble of dividing, he should feel it his duty to say "Not-Content" to the Motion.
LORD LYNDHURSTbegged to remind the noble Earl that the case had assumed quite a new shape since he (Lord Lyndhurst) had held the Great Seal, in consequence of two successive verdicts of juries, which had found the facts in the manner which he had stated.
EARL FITZWILLIAMwas surprised to hear his noble Friend object to the nomination of a Committee for the consideration of a question which involved nothing more nor less than the honour and honesty of the country. The noble Earl said that he thought there must be something behind which had not yet come before the House; but if that was so, it was the very reason why a Committee should be appointed. And when he talked of successive Governments having in every instance opposed these claims, he did not consider what various complications of interests might have influenced them in such a course. Two facts, which had come to light in the course of this conversation— that the case of the Baron de Bode now rested upon the verdicts of two successive juries, and that a large portion of the sum given by the French Government still remained unappropriated — would of themselves furnish a sufficient reason for calling upon that or the other House to institute an inquiry into the case. The Committee,

493
if it answered no other use, would be beneficial in eliciting the precise mode in which the surplus had been disposed of. The report of the Committee might indeed be that it would be desirable to address Her Majesty, praying Her to recommend the case to the consideration of the other House of Parliament; such an Address, however, could hardly follow with effect upon the mere statement of an individual, however distinguished; and if, therefore, such a course was to be taken, nothing could be so appropriate a preliminary as the appointment of such a Committee.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that it was now many years since he had looked into the papers connected with this claim; but undoubtedly, from the best recollection which he now had of the matter, it was absolutely necessary to remove the impression which the vigour and eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, and what had fallen from the noble Earl on the cross benches, was likely to produce. There was no doubt that a largo sum of money had been given by France; but this money was strictly appropriated according to the Act of Parliament, which provided a special tribunal for the adjudication of the claims. As the noble and learned Lord had stated with perfect accuracy, that money was to be distributed to certain claimants, and any surplus which might remain was to be at the disposal of the Lords of the Treasury. Under the treaties of 1815, powers were given by Act of Parliament to Commissioners to decide on claims presented within a certain time. The claims put in within the time allowed, did not, however, exhaust the whole fund, and, therefore, the time for sending in claims was extended. It was alleged that the portion of this sum which should have been given to the Baron de Bode had been appropriated by the Government for selfish purposes, so that the Baron had been defrauded of his just rights. In the first instance, a term had been assigned within which all persons purporting to have claims were to put in those claims; and a vast number of claims had been excluded, not on their merits, but for want of compliance with the terms and conditions which had been imposed upon their claims. It was quite true that in the time of Lord Liverpool, there being a portion of the amount unexhausted by the satisfaction of the just claims put in within the stipulated period, that surplus was applied to the building and decoration of Buckingham
494
Palace. That was matter of history, and well understood. It did not, however, appear to be equally well understood, though it was equally matter of fact, that under the Government of Earl Grey, that surplus, so applied to the building and decoration of Buckingham Palace, was required to be returned, and it was accordingly returned in full to the Treasury; and a further investigation having been instituted, the money so repaid was applied in payment of a second list of claims which were allowed to be put in by persons who had been excluded from the former distribution by the limitation of time originally assigned: every single farthing, he believed, had been so appropriated, and nothing now remained. He would, in the course of the evening, move for Treasury accounts which would clearly show this state of facts, and which would thus disprove, at the same time, the allegation that the money designed for the Baron do Bode had been used by the British Government for selfish purposes, and the proposition that there was money available for the purpose of the Baron's claim.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that the Baron de Bode had preferred his claim on the 9th February, within the time fixed for their reception. As regarded the question of money, the jury had found that 450,000 l. still remained in the hands of the Treasury. Out of that, 200,000 l. had been paid to those who had not made their claim within the three months, and there remained a balance still unapplied of upwards of 200,000 l. He did not care about the accounts. This was the finding of the jury upon the evidence before them; the case of the claimant being opposed at every step by the law officers of the Crown.
LORD TRUROsaid, that notwithstanding the difficulty in which the Government might be placed by this Motion, he had fully expected the result which had been attained; for it was impossible to read the powerful and eloquent and convincing speech in which the noble Earl opposite introduced this subject to the House of Commons in 1828, when he advocated the even then manifest claim of the Baron de Bode without feeling that he would not do otherwise than adopt the course of assenting to the appointment of this Committee, however inconvenient in its immediate effect on the Exchequer its result might be. The case now came before the House in a very different position from that in which

495
it had ever stood before; and the only conceivable objection to the appointment of a Committee was that there was not now in reason, sense, or justice, a single feature of the Baron's claim in rational dispute. The facts which were necessary to support it had all been found under circumstances which precluded the most suspicious person from entertaining a doubt with respect to them. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) said that the case was so plain that he could not help thinking that there was something behind antagonistic to the claim, since there was no patent reason why the claim should not long since have been admitted and acted upon. His noble Friend might rest assured that that was not likely to he the case, after a contest of twenty-four years with the Crown, during which the claimant had been opposed at every step by the most intelligent counsel at the bar, at inquiries which took place at long intervals of time, and many of which were judicial. There never was a case which there was such reason to believe had been investigated to the dregs, and in which every fact had been established by the most indisputable evidence. The Crown having received many millions of money to administer justice to its own subjects, nevertheless met the claim of the Baron de Bode with what he almost dignified by calling a technical quibble: the opponents who could condescend to resort to so miserable an evasion as an appeal to the Statute of Limitations must indeed have been at their wits end for a case. Upon that plea the case went to trial; not before a Judge at Nisi Prius, but to a trial at bar before the Judges of the Court of King's Bench and a special jury. The plea had said that the inquisition was not proved, nor any part of it; but the verdict of the jury was that every part of it was proved. There was no Motion for a new trial, no suggestion on the part of the Crown that there was anything unsatisfactory in the verdict, and the Act of Parliament was the only ground upon which the Court of Queen's Bench refused to give judgment upon the case. It was said that the Act had placed this money in the hands of the Lords of the Treasury, not as servants of the Crown, but as a mere mode of describing them as public officers to whom a statutable authority was given. As to the statement that there were no funds out of which this claim could be satisfied, even in part, the finding of the jury completely rebutted it. It
496
appeared that certain claimants had been too late in presenting their claims; but he would read to the House exactly what was proved on the trial. The jury found "that, after the payment of all the claims of duly registered claimants which had been established, the surplus of 482,752 l. remained in the hands of the said Commissioners, of which surplus a sum of 200,000 l. and upwards was applied to satisfy claims which had been tendered after the time limited by the Convention of 1815, and not admitted until the authority given by the Lords of the Treasury in 1826; and the residue, after satisfying these claims, which had been presented duly and afterwards allowed, amounting to 200,000 l. was paid into the Bank of England on Government account by the Lords of the Treasury, into pursuance of the Act 59 Geo. III." That was said to he disposed of; hut was that any answer to the Baron de Bode? Already 200,000 l. had been disposed of to his wrong; for as he had put in his claim before the expiration of the term originally fixed, he was clearly entitled to payment out of this 482,752 l. before those who had, in the first instance, failed from not having put in their claims in time. How monstrous, then, was the proposition, that even the residue now existing should be withheld from him. That 200,000 l. might, and perhaps had, been disposed of, but not in the sense which belonged to this case. It remained hound by this judgment to the satisfaction of his rights. When France paid the money it was the duty of this country to see that it was honestly applied for those in whose behalf the claims had been preferred. It appeared, after the claims were in, a communication took place between the two Governments as to the proper sum to be set apart to answer future claims. The Baron de Bode's claim was in at that time; and, upon the footing of the claims then in, a computation was made as to the sum to be set apart. It appeared to him that, according to the statements, the case was almost incredible in point of strength and truth; and if their Lordships should find the claim to be just, he apprehended there would be no difficulty in adopting some course to redeem the honour of the country. He rejoiced to see that the noble and learned Lord who brought forward this case with so much ability and perspicuity enjoyed at his time of life so much vigour of mind, and, he was happy to add, so much vigour of body; and, in

497
conclusion, he hoped that the Government would do itself honour by assenting to the appointment of a Committee, whose labours, he believed, would not prove so protracted or so tedious as was supposed.
LORD HATHERTONsaid, that having been the individual who first brought forward this case in the House of Commons in 1826, he could not allow the present occasion to pass without offering his acknowledgments to the noble and learned Lord, for the spirited course he had taken, and the powerful statement he had made in introducing this Motion. He confidently believed, after the verdict of the jury, that the sum of 200,000 l. remained unappropriated, that the inquiry now proposed would result in placing the representative of the Baron de Bode in the position which he ought to occupy. At any rate, after the verdict of the jury, it was impossible for their Lordships to ignore the claims of the Baron de Bode, or, at least, to give him a fair opportunity of satisfying their Lordships of the merits of his case.
On Question, agreed to.

SCHOOL SITES ACTS EXTENSION BILL.
House in Committee (according to order).
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, this Bill did not attempt to introduce any new principle of legislation; its object was merely to carry one step further the legislation which had been going on for several years, namely, to promote the erection of school houses for the education of different classes of the community. Originally these enabling Acts extended to parochial schools and diocesan training schools; and it was proposed by this Bill to extend these enabling provisions to two other classes of schools, one class being schools for the training of the sons of yeomen and of shopkeepers, partly supported by charitable aid and partly self-supporting. There was no class worse provided with regard to schools than that class. Practically speaking, the great improvement effected in the schools of the labouring class had a tendency to leave the class above the labouring class in need of considerable improvement in the schools suitable for them. He had proposed to enable parties to grant sites for these schools; but in consequence of objections which had been pointed out to him, he proposed to allow parties to sell, for a valuable consideration, two acres of land, and to enable ecclesiastical corporations to grant, with the consent of the dio-
498
cesan, two acres of land, for the second class of schools, which were for persons who had passed through the University, and were preparing for holy orders, to spend a year in pursuing theological study.
Amendments made; Bill to be reported on Monday next.

SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, that when the Bill was in Committee, he hoped to have the assistance of noble and learned Lords in making such a Convention and Act of Parliament as the requirements of the case demanded. A variety of opinions had been offered the other evening with reference to the securities which ought to be required to prevent the liberty of subjects of foreign Powers who had received the protection of this country from being invaded. So much difference of opinion prevailed on this point, that he thought it advisable to propose some alterations of the Bill in Committee. One main objection to the clause which had been discussed the other evening was, that if any alteration were attempted in the Convention by the Act of Parliament, it would put an end to the whole thing sought to be attained. But this was not the case. If their Lordships pleased to give him such powers as he required, he would undertake to get a new Convention drawn up in twenty-four hours. As far as the proposed Amendments went, the French Government was satisfied with them. With respect to the principal points of the Bill, it was objected that the Act would have a retrospective effect, and would extend to now crimes not named in the old Convention. He begged to say, that in the former Bill, there was a paragraph omitted by the printer in mistake from the clause, which contained a recital of crimes, and that paragraph declared that no person charged with an offence should be given up unless the offence charged against him was one which was contained in the recitals of the respective Conventions. The most important Amendment he had to propose to their Lordships was one which, he hoped, if adopted, would meet the jealous fear of noble Lords as to the liberty of the subject. It was at first proposed to surrender criminals on a magistrate being satisfied with their identity. Instead of this

499
he proposed that the Secretary of State should not issue his warrant for the apprehension of the accused until documentary proof of the accusation was produced. On no account was the accused to he surrendered to the French Government until something had been received from the Juge d'Instruction in the shape of proof positive of crime. He considered that this Amendment would give a security to the Secretary of State when called upon to transfer criminals to another country. He would beg to remind their Lordships that the Juge d'Instruction was not an executive judge, or connected with the Government; he was an independent judge, and did not issue his mandat d'arret till he had gone through the whole case. Having said so much in explanation of his proposed Amendments, he would say he proposed nothing more, except with reference to the seventh article of the Convention, which related to protection afforded to refugees on account of political offences. He was promised by the French Ambassador that a law exactly analogous to the law he proposed to establish should be passed in France. The noble Earl opposite smiled; but if the noble Earl did not believe in the honesty and good faith of Governments, what was the use of making conventions at all? At all events, there was this hold upon the French authorities, that this Convention could not be put in motion until both parties agreed that it should operate. The object, therefore, of the Convention could not he frustrated, because it would not be put into operation until the provisions and stipulations of the French Government had been fulfilled. In the Committee he should move the Amendments of which he had given notice.
Moved —"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he felt confident that their Lordships would assist cordially in carrying this measure out. In the shape in which it was originally introduced it was inadmissible; but by the Amendment proposed it was certainly rendered less objectionable. The original terms of the Bill would have placed every Frenchman in this country at the mercy of the French Government; but the alteration now proposed certainly made the arrangement less objectionable, because it was now intended by the noble Earl that the party accused should not be delivered up until a certificate from the Juge d'In-
500
struction arrived. Still, he would have considerable hesitation in giving implicit credence to such a certificate; and although he could not require evidence against the party accused, strictly and technically equivalent to what would be sufficient in our law to justify his commitment, still, unless the Secretary of State took care to exact satisfactory evidence that the party was one who ought to be surrendered, England would lose its distinctive character as affording a safe asylum for the political refugees of all nations. Why, if the proposed Convention was agreed to, and a change of Government hereafter took place in France, the Prince President, if he took refuge in England, might himself be given up upon a mere mandat d'arret, and the certificate of a Juge d'Instruction. He (Lord Campbell) thought the Bill should be withdrawn, and a fresh Convention framed, to be afterwards ratified by an act of Parliament.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, the noble Earl the Secretary of State had proposed several very material improvements in his Bill, but how far they would be sufficient would depend on what the real spirit of the French law was. If the warrant of the Juge d'Instruction was a document, was really something in the nature of a bill of indictment found by a grant jury, it might be sufficient to justify the Secretary of State in giving up the accused. But he would not exclude any other means of giving proof— it would be enough if prima facie evidence of some other kind was furnished to satisfy the Secretary of State that the party ought to be delivered up to his Government; on the other hand, if all that the Juge d'Instruction did was to examine the pieces d'accusation laid before him, without taking any evidence at all, that would be a most unsatisfactory ground for ordering that a party in this country should be surrendered. He (Lord Brougham) would suggest that the noble Earl should print all his amendments, and allow the Bill to stand over for a few days. Then, if the alterations were considered by their Lordships to afford proper securities, there would be no difficulty in having another Convention, or in making such additions to the present Convention as would enable them to legislate with effect upon the subject.
The EARL of MALMESBURYexplained that the mise en accusation was the result of a judicial inquiry, not before a Juge d'Instruction, but before a court of judges of a much higher order. A mandat

501
d'arrêt was a warrant issued by the Juge d'Instruction himself; but it was the result of a judicial inquiry. He had no objection to reprint the Bill, if the Bill was allowed to go through Committee, and the further discussion deferred to the bringing up of the report.
The EARL of ABERDEENasked what it was that prevented the French Government from furnishing proof of the guilt of the party whose extradition they demanded? The noble Earl said that, under the present existing Convention, persons were demanded by the French Government whom the British Government were not able to surrender. Why could they not surrender them? Because the French Government did not comply with the terms of the Convention, and produce that amount of proof of the guilt of the accused which would warrant his arrest and commitment in this country if the offence had been committed against our laws. That was the principle which had been uniformly laid down; it was incorporated in the 20th Article of the Treaty of Amiens, and also in the treaty with America, and likewise in the treaty with France. Now, however, it was sought to introduce an entirely new condition of surrender—the law of this country having hitherto given to the foreigner the same protection as was enjoyed by the Englishman. He confessed, therefore, that he thought it a very serious matter to depart from the old established rule which always had existed for the protection of foreigners, and which was recognised in each of the treatises to which he had referred. At the same time, if the mise en accusation was really sufficient to meet the requirements of the principle long laid down, and to furnish evidence such as would justify the arrest and commitment of the party if he had transgressed the laws of this country, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) would not offer any objection to the proposition of the noble Earl opposite.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that the noble Earl who had just spoken appeared to have forgotten what took place in the year 1846; for among the papers on this subject in that year, he found a communication from the noble Earl to Count St. Aulaire, in which it was stated that the note of the French Ambassador had been referred to the Home Department, and to the law officers of the Government, and that all these authorities were of opinion, in which Lord Aberdeen entirely concurred, that to obviate the difficulty complained of by the French Government, a
502
new Convention and a new Act of Parliament were necessary; and that in such new Convention the clause requiring that French subjects should not be delivered up, unless the evidence of their guilt was such as to warrant their commitment for trial by the law of the country in which they had taken refuge, ought to be altogether omitted, as being contrary to the real intention of the contracting Powers, and productive of many causes of insuperable difficulty in carrying out the object of the Convention.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the late Government had approved of the stipulations which had been embodied in the Convention. The proposition of the Government was to allow a party to be taken into custody upon a mandat d'arrêt, but not to be given up to his Government until much more solemn stops had been taken that would establish his guilt. They had no wish or intention to abandon the right of affording hospitality to all persons of every nation who came to seek refuge on our shores; but, the Convention of 1843 not having worked at all for France, although it had worked well for England, nothing was more reasonable than that the French Government should desire an arrangement the benefits of which should be reciprocal, and not all on one side. Her Majesty's Government had therefore found it to be its duty to enter into a new convention with France, and that being so, he was sure their Lordships would not, upon any light considerations, wish to disturb what had thus been agreed upon. Some weight, he thought, ought to be attached to the decision of the Government, acting upon its responsibility; and if every clause of the Convention was to be spelt out, and difficulties raised upon every item of its provisions, it would be almost impossible to frame a convention by which every one of their Lordships present would be willing to be bound, and which would also in every respect satisfy those Members of their Lordships' House who were absent— to say nothing of the discussions and alterations that might be required to meet the wishes of the other House when they saw the example that had been set them by their Lordships. Why, half-a- dozen experimental conventions might he necessary before they decided upon a final one, and the Government of this country would be lowered in the estimation of the world, and would not stand in the position they ought to occupy in their intercourse with foreign Governments. Her Majesty's Go-

503
vernment had every desire to accord full protection to political refugees within proper conditions; and he therefore hoped their Lordships would see no sufficient grounds for preventing the Bill from proceeding in its present shape.
EARL GRANVILLEdescribed the course taken by the Government of which he was a member in reference to a new convention with France; and said that he felt that there was great weight in some of the objections which had been urged against the proposed arrangement. But as the noble Earl had agreed to provide that no person should be surrendered until sufficient information had been given to show the nature of the offence charged against him, Parliament ought certainly to agree to some new arrangement with France, to relieve that country from the anomalous position in which it now stood in reference to the extradition of French criminals by this country, for unless some such arrangement were adopted, the French Government, which had derived no benefit whatever from the existing Convention, would, it was quite certain, resolve on terminating it altogether. It was certainly most desirable that precautions should be taken against allowing refugees to be sacrificed, but these precautions were, he believed, taken in the Convention. Certain other securities had, however, been suggested; and he thought that the object which they all had in view might be obtained, if they adopted some such arrangement as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord behind him—namely, that the Bill should be printed for the purpose of enabling them further to consider the subject.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he was glad to hear that the Convention had been entered into by the late Government, because in finding fault with it he could not, in that case, be supposed to be influenced by any party feeling. The stipulation of the Convention of 1843, that no Frenchmen accused of crime should be delivered up, unless his criminality should be established by such evidence as would have warranted his committal if the crime had been committed in this country, was a provision obviously calculated to render the Convention inoperative for the surrender of French criminals by this country, because, before a French criminal could be surrendered, that provision assumed that witnesses must be brought over from France, perhaps from places as distant as the Pyrenees, and that they should then make depositions which would warrant a magis-
504
trate in committing the person accused if the offence had been done in Middlesex. Of course such a proceeding had never taken place, and never would take place, on account of the great delay, vexation, and expense which it would involve. How was that evil to be remedied? It would seem that the obvious remedy was that the Secretary of State should be empowered to give up a refugee on the receipt of proofs that proceedings had taken place in France analogous to those which took place previously to a commitment in this country. He thought, that upon the faith of such proceedings, a criminal might be given up. That was the purport of the arrangement which they all wished to see adopted. But it was then proposed that they should be content with the mise en accusation, and he had to state that he could not say "Ay" or "No" to that proposal until he should become better informed than he was at present of the nature and effect of a mise en accusation. If he could be satisfied that that proceeding was analogous to an indictment in this country —that it afforded prima facie evidence of guilt—he could see no objection to the proposal. But he thought that, under any circumstances, some discretion ought to be given to the Secretary of State, and that he should not be absolutely compelled to give up refugees in all cases. There was a clause stating that political refugees should not he surrendered; but who was to determine what parties were to be considered as political refugees? A political leader might, in a time of revolution, stop the mails; and he might afterwards be regarded either as a political offender or as a person guilty of a robbery. In that and similar cases it would, he thought, be necessary that they should leave discretionary powers in the hands of the Secretary of State. In his opinion they ought to keep two objects in view—first, that they ought not to make any stipulation which would be absolutely imperative on either country; and, secondly, they ought not to stipulate for the surrender of any person without receiving such depositions as would afford a reasonable prima facie evidence of his guilt.
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved that by one of the sections of the Act, power was expressly reserved to the Secretary of State to snpersede the proceedings if he should think there was a case for doing so; and therefore there was a discretionary power such as had been recommended by the noble and learned Lord.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, that in point of fact we trusted the President of the French himself, for it was a condition that the Keeper of the Seals, after an examination of all the documents in respect to a person charged with crime, should address a report to the President of the Republic, who, if due cause were shown, should issue a Presidential decree for the surrender of the alleged criminal. He, therefore, thought it should be required that the magistrate acting in reference to a similar case in this country, should make a report to the Secretary of State, who, if due cause were shown, should order the surrender of the party charged with crime. There was nothing in the Convention which gave this discretionary power. He denied that the magistrate had a discretion, for he made no report of the circumstances, and nothing was referred to the Secretary of State, who had no power to stop the proceedings, or to prevent the party charged with crime from being delivered up.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: That has been altered.
LORD BEAUMONT: The noble Earl said that had been altered. He would therefore ask the noble Earl, if this were the Convention which he had signed?—for if it were, he (Lord Beaumont) was correct; if not, he was surprised that the noble Earl should lay a Convention which was not the true one on the table of their Lordships' House. If the clauses of the Bill which they were discussing were not in accordance with the Convention, then the preamble had not been proved. He hoped their Lordships would not proceed with this Bill, but that the noble Earl would prepare another Convention in accordance with the suggestions which had been offered to him, and would then bring forward a Bill founded on that Convention. He considered that a provision should be made, that when a person was given up who was not entitled to he given up, he should be returned to the place in which he had been arrested. He considered, also, that the mise en accusation would not be sufficient to justify a magistrate of this country in giving up the person against whom it had been made.
LORD BROUGHAM: It would justify a magistrate in issuing his warrant.
LORD BEAUMONT: If on the face of the mise en accusation there be sufficient to justify the magistrate in issuing his warrant, that is all I require.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, the Bill,
506
according to its terms, did not appear to enable the Secretary of State to exercise a discretionary power. Whilst the French Government retained in its own hands the power of judging of all the circumstances of the case, the English Government were charged with the duty of issuing the warrant, on proof given of the identity of the party. The Bill professed to enable the Secretary of State to do that which the Convention did not enable him to do. Unless we were to receive evidence in England, he hardly saw how we were to judge of the criminality of a prisoner. He thought the security they were all anxious to obtain with reference to political offenders, could be had, to a certain extent, if the Secretary of State was entrusted with a discretionary power. It was a matter of primary importance that the Secretary of State should have that discretionary power, and the more especially as there were now to be twenty specified offences instead of three as at present.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the discretion which the noble and learned Lord found in the Bill only applied to one article in it—namely, Article 10. But it was quite fit the discretion should be extended. Nobody could be more sensible than he (the Earl of Aberdeen) was of the necessity of some alteration in the present law; for he had had too many complaints of the impossibility of executing it not to be perfectly aware of its defects. He was willing to assent to the proposal of the noble Earl, if the mise en accusation did furnish a reasonable presumption that there was a ground for trial.
LORD MALMESBURYsaid, the mise en accusation was not the best, though it was the nearest proof they could possibly obtain.
LOUD BROUGHAMsaid, if the mise en accusation was tantamount to an indictment they would require the Act, for without that it would not come within the purview of his noble Friend's Bill.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was stated we were forced to deliver up on a mere warrant, and that the French were not so forced to deliver up without they saw due cause. And then something was said about the Prince President. Why, the Prince President happened to be his own Minister, and therefore he reserved to himself a power which he would have given

507
to a chief officer of his Government if there had been any such corresponding to our Secretary of State.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not think it proper that the Secretary of State of England should be restricted as was done by the Convention, which gave a discretionary power on the French side, but none on the English. This power could not be introduced into the Bill unless it was in the Convention. He suggested that the same power should be given on both sides of the water, and the same obligations. Lord Aberdeen's Convention had proved ineffectual, because it required the same evidence as was necessary to commit a man under the English law. It was now proposed to dispense with this; but a discretionary power ought to be retained.
The EARL of MINTOconsidered that the Bill could not be proceeded with to the end, unless they had another Convention.
The EARL of MALMESBURYexpressed his desire that a discretionary power should be vested in the Secretary of State. He would suggest that their Lordships should now go into Committee on the Bill, when the Amendments he had to propose might be introduced and afterwards printed, and they could then be considered on Monday.
After a few words from Lord CAMPBELL, the LORD CHANCELLOR, and the Earl of MINTO,
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative: House in Committee accordingly.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, the Convention was recited in the preamble of the Bill. Now he begged to know whether the Amendments which the noble Earl proposed to print related to the existing Convention between France and this country, or to a new Convention?
The EARL of DERBYreplied, that one of the Amendments to be proposed would provide that any further convention or stipulation which might be entered into between Her Majesty and the French Republic for making the terms of the present Convention consonant with the provisions of the Act, should be deemed and taken to be part of the said Convention.
LORD BEAUMONTthought it was desirable that before their Lordships assented to such a provision, they should understand what the nature of the Convention really was.
The EARL of DERBYstated, that the Convention as it stood had received the consideration of two successive Govern-
508
ments of this country; the French Government had shown every disposition to enter into the most amicable arrangements; the Convention had been framed by the most able lawyers, and it had received the most careful attention of the most eminent men both in England and France. He doubted, however, whether if half-a-dozen Conventions were framed, objections would not be made to every one of them.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that what Parliament was now called upon to do was, to give effect, by this Bill, to a new Convention which had been entered into between the French and the English Governments. He would venture to say that the existing Convention, which they were now called upon to alter, had been prepared by men as learned, as able, and as willing to effect the purpose in view, as any of the persons to whom the noble Earl had referred; and yet it had been found that that Convention had failed, and the present might do the same. He said, therefore, that their Lordships were bound to see that this Convention was likely to carry out the intentions of the Governments by whom it was made. With respect to the Amendments which the noble Earl said be intended to introduce, their Lordships must see them before they could judge of them. It was quite a new thing in legislation to point out what had no existence, and to say that their Lordships must either approve or disapprove of that with respect to which they had no means of judging.
The LORD CHANCELLORwas afraid that some misapprehension existed with respect to the effect of the proposed proviso. Their Lordships were not called upon to give effect to a treaty which had not yet been entered into by Her Majesty. They were at present deciding as a branch of the Legislature to what extent they would give effect to a treaty which had actually been made by Her Majesty by the advice of Her servants; and what was proposed by the proviso was, that if a supplementary treaty should be agreed to in order to bring the principal treaty within the limits to which their Lordships had agreed upon, it should be taken to be part and portion of the said treaty. It would be perfectly optional both with Her Majesty and the French Government to concur or not in the proposed supplementary treaty.
Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.