Sitting of 9 June 1854

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For the City of London, v. Lord John Russell, Lord President of the Council.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Convict Prisons (Ireland).
2° Common Law Procedure; Bills of Exchange (No. 2).

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
The following Votes were then agreed to—

(1.) 2,700 l., Lord Privy Seal.

(2.) 23,850 l., Paymaster General's Office.

(3.) 7,295 l., Comptroller General of the Exchequer.

(4.) 20,124 l., Office of Works and Buildings.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished for some explanation with respect to the appointment of two additional secretaries—an assistant secretary and an architectural secretary—at 200 l. and 400 l. a year.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the appointments had been made in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission, who found that the increase of business warranted the additional assistance.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should be glad to know what this increased business might be.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the Commission, consisting of Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan, had considered the question of the amount of business transacted in the Board of Works, and reported that it could not be properly performed without additional assistance.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked an explanation with reference to the assistant architect.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHreplied, that the architectural assistant had been for some time employed by the Board of Works to carry on the works at the Embassy at Constantinople. On his return to this country he continued in office in connection with the Board, and was at this moment employed in their service.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not quite understand the appointment of the Commission to which the right hon. Baronet had referred. He was sure that, if the right hon. Baronet had come to that House and said he required more assistance in his department, no one would have refused it. Why was application not made to that House?
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHrepeated that the Commission had been named in consequence of an application made to the Treasury; and when their Report was laid before the House the additional secretary was appointed.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished for some explanation as to the sum of 401 l. inserted as the salary of the architectural assistant from November, 1853, to March, 1855, and would really like to know for what purpose such an office had been created?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the office referred to was not in any way a new office, but had existed for some time. None of the public money was wasted by having such an officer to assist them, because if Government did not employ him, they must employ strangers, and that probably at a much increased rate.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's answer, and he thought Government ought to have a competent person in this department whom they could consult when necessary.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 22,846 l., Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
MR. VANCEsaid, he must call attention to the large sum subscribed by Ireland to this Estimate, and at the same time he must complain that the sister country should obtain such a few corresponding advantages in the shape of city improvements, &c. The city of Dublin was, perhaps, the chief sufferer, and, as compared with the English metropolis, met with the most niggardly treatment. A street was very much required from the Dublin Four Courts to one of the great railway termini, but the improvement was not carried out.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the salaries of two Commissioners were charged in this account. He understood Mr. Kennedy had been induced to resign his office. Was that office about to be filled up?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the office of Mr. Kennedy was virtually vacant. It was a serious question, and the Government had not yet come to any decision on the subject.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the large sum of 1,500 l., which was set down as the probable amount of the hills of the solicitors of the department in Scotland, although a very small portion of the Crown revenues in Scotland came into the public purse. He believed that those revenues were taken very good care of in Scotland, and applied to public objects in that country. The same observation applied to the sum of 300 l., which was set down for the solicitors in Ireland.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, in referring back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), he wished to observe that that hon. Gentleman was under a mistake with regard to the sources from which public improvements were made in London, and that no such improvements were made out of the income from the land revenues. It was true, that in the first instance the necessary payments were paid from that source; but ultimately the whole expense was borne by the inhabitants, who had suffered themselves to be taxed by an additional duty on coals for that purpose. The expense, therefore, of those improve-
1324
ments, although paid in the first instance by the public, ultimately fell on the inhabitants of the metropolis itself. The proposal which was made to the Government with reference to the city of Dublin, although he admitted it had the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was at variance, as far as he (Mr. Wilson) was aware, with every precedent for the expenditure of public money in this country. With respect to the Crown revenues in Ireland, they were not so productive as some Gentlemen appeared to imagine. The amount of the legal expenses was to be explained by the fact that a great many sales of outlying properties had been effected, and other properties purchased in their stead, the object being to concentrate the property of the Crown as much as possible.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he must complain of the conduct of the Treasury in refusing to sanction the necessary outlay for the creation of the new street in Dublin, alluded to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Vance), and referred to the answer given last night on the subject of erecting a new building for the purposes of the Encumbered Estates Court. He was not surprised at the answer given to his hon. Friend on the subject of the new street after witnessing the ineffectual efforts of the Lord Chancellor, the entire bar of Ireland, and the whole body of the solicitors, who had petitioned the House of Commons for redress, to erect a proper place for the transaction of business where property amounting to millions was disposed of. He maintained that from wherever the funds came money ought to be found for so very essential a purpose. With regard to the large sum to be paid to the solicitor for Scotland, finding it entered under the head of "probable amount of the bills" of the solicitor for Scotland, he could not help stating that that was rather a loose way of asking for a Vote. He had no doubt, however, but that the amount of the bills would be made up to 1,500 l. if the Committee voted that sum.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to observe that the Crown property was notoriously the worst managed property in Ireland, and that it was positively a source of nuisance to gentlemen whose property adjoined it. He thought the Government ought to take the very earliest steps to dispose of the whole of it.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wanted to know, seeing that a suns of 2,843 l. was paid to

1325
the ranger of Richmond Park—and that ranger a lady of high rank—why it was that the public interests were not better looked after? He must say he altogether objected to individuals of Royal rank, who were otherwise amply provided for, being placed in situations where public money was misapplied or misappropriated. The House of Commons had long since declared that no situations were to be filled by deputy; and why, then, was it to be suffered that in this instance duties of importance were performed through a deputy. He believed that the time had come when all such appointments must be done away with.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped the Government would not yield to the pressure which was attempted to be put upon them in reference to providing a place for the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland. He objected to the application of public money to benefiting individuals in the disposal of their private property.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he believed that when Government undertook the important duty of reforming the administration of the law, it was bound to provide for the efficient carrying out of its own project. However, to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), he would say at once that he had no objection to see a small percentage charged upon the suitors to the Court, to create the necessary funds for the erection of a new building. What he desired to see was the perfect and satisfactory administration of justice in a Court which he believed, notwithstanding what had been said last night, was still destined to last from ten to fifteen years longer.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that the whole question was still in abeyance, in consequence of its not yet being definitely settled whether the operations of the Court were to be conducted for the future through a reformed Court of Chancery, in which case it was obvious that any outlay upon an Encumbered Estates Court would be thrown away.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he must beg to remind the Committee that the right hon. Baronet and Gentlemen opposite had opposed a Bill of his for the reform of die Irish Court of Chancery, which in the course of time would have saved the country some 750,000 l. on account of the Encumbered Estates Court; and this he did morely, as he believed, because the mea-
1326
sure emanated from that, the opposite, side of the House.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he must protent against the insinuation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(6.) 2,791 l., State Paper Office.
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 3,463 l. be granted to Her Majesty to defray a portion of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1855.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was his intention to divide the Committee on this Vote. It was impossible that the public could derive any advantage from the property which this Commission managed. He admitted that the property had been improved; and, as a churchman, he approved of the application which had been made of the augmented income which had been obtained, but thought it most unjust that the expense of the Commission should be thrown upon the public.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he also should oppose the Vote, upon the ground that the expenses of managing a trust estate ought to be paid out of the estate itself, before the parties beneficially interested took any advantage from it.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the Commission was appointed in accordance with an Act of Parliament, and that the objection ought to have been raised against the appointment of the Commission in the first instance, and not against this Vote now that it had been appointed.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he should reserve some observations which he had intended to make in reference to the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the exercise of those powers, until the House should be called upon to give a second reading to a Bill, which he understood was about to be introduced, in reference to the Church Estates Committee. With respect to this immediate Vote, he believed there was an agreement between the Government and the heads of the Church, that this small payment should be made to defray the expenses of the Commission, and he also thought there was an advantage in bringing the consideration of this subject annually before Parliament. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Lambeth should press his Amendment to a division, he should not be able to support it.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought the time was come when the Church—improved as

1327
she was in her prospects and in her property—ought to pay her own expenses. He must vindicate the right of the House to deal with this Vote, notwithstanding the existence of the Act to which the Secretary of the Treasury had referred, and he wished for some information as to the deficiency of 7,000 l. or 8,000 l., which had been discovered some time ago.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he thought it high time for the Government to reconsider this Vote. He did not see that it involved any great principle, but it was a Vote which ought not to appear on the Estimates, and he should certainly vote against it. If the matter were brought under the consideration of the Bishops, he did not think they could object to paying the amount out of the revenues of the Church.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it was important that the funds to be applied to the Ecclesiastical Commission in Ireland should appear in the same Vote. That Commission was most expensive and badly managed. It was desirable that there should be some control for the better arrangement and execution of the office. He hoped that the matter would be brought forward in such a way as would give some control over the Commission.
MR. J. WILSONreplied that the Commissioners were paid out of the funds of the Commission.
MR. HUMEsaid, he should like to know what had become of the 7,000 l. to which he had alluded.
Question put, the Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 56: Majority 35.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 210,902 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the amount allowed for the administration of the Irish Poor Law. The sums were monstrous and should be reduced. He considered that there was no necessity for two Commissioners for Ireland. The number of Assistant Commissioners ought also to be reduced; also the number of architects and assistant architects. Those were now totally useless. They had been building and rebuilding workhouses at an enormous expense, and to an unnecessary extent. As pauperism had diminished it was mon-
1328
strous to have this enormous staff of architects to carry on buildings which were not required. He hoped that the Secretary for Ireland would give them some assurance of a prospect of a reduction in this Vote. He thought he (Colonel Dunne) could observe, on reading the Report of the Commissioners of the Poor Laws, great anxiety on their part to grasp other business than that which they had. They evidently saw that the country would not stand this expense much longer, and they were desirous of extending their duties. Before he sat down he must call the attention of the Committee to another item in the Vote, which he considered most unfair as regards Ireland. In the English Poor Law expenditure there were grants for the auditors and schoolmasters, but there were none for Ireland. There was also an item for the medical attendance for the unions in England, which was not granted to Ireland. He could see no reason why these sums should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund in England. He should be glad to know how any reformer could point out the difference between the two countries which would entitle the people of England to those grants and not the people of Ireland. He asked for a Committee to inquire into this matter, in order to prove the injustice with which Ireland was treated. As the Votes proceeded, he would point out how Ireland was exempted from other benefits in the expenditure of the public money.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he saw in the Vote for the Poor Law Board in England that there were no less than four secretaries who received salaries of 1,500 l., 1,000 l., 1,200 l. and 800 l. a year. A Lord of the Treasury was only paid 1,000 l. a year; a Lord of the Admiralty received a similar sum; Sir Baldwin Walker, the Surveyor to the Navy, only received 1,000 l. a year; the secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commission, 883 l.; the secretary to the Woods and Forests, 1,200 l.; and he could not understand the propriety of paying such large salaries as those which appeared in the Vote to the four secretaries of the Poor Law Board. He thought some oversight had been committed; and, for the purpose of making a deduction of 500 l. a year, he would propose that the vote be reduced to 210,402 l.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 210,402 l., be granted to her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the administration of the Laws

1329
relating to the Poor, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to state, in answer to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) that before the establishment of the present Poor Law Board there were three Commissioners, each of whom received a salary of 2,000 l. a year, making altogether a sum of 6,000 l. a year. In the place of these three Commissioners, a president and two secretaries were now appointed, and a considerable saving in the expenditure had been thereby effected, for, whereas the expense of the three Commissioners was formerly 6,000 l. a year, the expense of the President of the Poor Law Board and two secretaries was only 4,500 l., making an annual saving of no less than 1,500 l. He might remind the Committee that it had been intended by the Government of Lord Derby to institute an inquiry into the whole subject of the Poor Law Board, and that, indeed, some steps were taken to effect that object. When he succeeded his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. Trollope) in the office of President of the Poor Law Board, he found matters in such a state that it was desirable to proceed with the inquiry. In the course of last year a careful and scrutinising inquiry was made, and the result was the Report presented on the 25th of February last, of "Committee of Inquiry into Public Offices and Papers connected therewith." In that volume a very full Report appeared upon the subject of the Poor Law Board, and the present Estimate was framed strictly in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. The Committee inquired into every branch of the establishment, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton would look over their Report he would find proper reasons given for any increase which might appear in the Estimate. No doubt, there were two points upon which an increase had been made, and one was with regard to the clerks. On looking into the subject, it was found that the clerks were much less paid, according to their merits and the amount of their work, than the clerks of any other Government department. Notwithstanding that the official duties of any one of these gentlemen might have extended over a period of twenty years, he had no claims to any superannuation allowance whatever, and in that respect the office was distinguished from those of other departments. The Committee found on inquiry that the
1330
increase recommended in the salary of the clerks was not more than was well warranted by the circumstances of the case. The only other head upon which there was any increase were the travelling and incidental expenses of the inspectors. He thought if the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton carefully read the Report of the Committee, he would not feel inclined to proceed with the Motion he had made.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he trusted he might be permitted to add a few words to those just uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board. He thought it his duty, when he held the same office as the right hon. Gentleman, to call attention to the condition of the clerks, and the low scale of their salaries. The diminution in the Vote which the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton proposed was exactly the reduction of that increase which had been made in the salaries of those clerks. He found, upon the representation of the clerks that they were paid much lower and on a much worse scale than the clerks of any of the other public offices. He did not think that it was just or right that they should be placed upon an inferior footing to that of other public offices, and he called the attention of the Treasury of the Government with which he had been connected to the fact. The Treasury, thinking that there was some foundation for those complaints made on behalf of those clerks, appointed a Commission of Inquiry, which was headed by Sir Charles Trevelyan. The Report of that Commission was in favour of a small increase to their salaries, and this increase, amounting to a few hundreds in the year, was made in favour of the junior clerks of the department. As the Irish department had been alluded to, he thought it might be fairly contrasted with the English Board. The income for the English poor amounted to about 6,000,000 l., and the expenditure of the department was only 35,728 l., whereas in Ireland the income did not exceed 800,000 l., and yet the expenditure of the department was 40,794 l. The Irish Poor Law Department appeared to be placed on a still larger footing than that of England. He must say he concurred in the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) in reference to the propriety of cutting down the Irish Poor Law Board. He had no connection with the department, nor was it likely that he would ever again

1331
be called into the office he had formerly held, but nevertheless he must say that in his opinion that portion of the public service was conducted in as efficient and economical a manner as it was possible to conduct it. He could suggest no alteration for the better, and he found upon looking at the Report of the Commission that a number of persons who had been employed temporarily as copyists were recommended to be placed upon the permanent staff, so as to carry on the business more efficiently than could be done with the present limited staff of public servants. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over this department was equal to any officer of the State in the zeal and fidelity with which he discharged his duties, as well as in the excellent and economical arrangements he had introduced.
MR. FRENCHsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman condemned the wasteful and enormous expenditure of the Irish Poor Law establishment. It was his belief that a considerable reduction could be made. He did not see any necessity for two additional Commissioners, and thought a saving of 1,200 l. a year in respect to them might be easily effected.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to bear his testimony to the efficient manner in which the department of the English Poor Law Board was managed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines). Until he came to that department, the New Poor Law had got into bad repute, and was believed to be badly managed, but his right hon. Friend had reformed it throughout, and since he accepted the office of President of the Poor Law Board, he believed there had not been one single complaint as to the manner in which the affairs of the department were conducted. The expenses of the English Poor Law Commission were 35,728 l., of the Scottish Board 3,880 l., and of the Irish Board not less than 40,794 l., for the management of funds which amounted to only one-eighth of time rates administered by the English Board. Such a state of things was perfectly monstrous.
MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to explain that the Commission had never recommended a reduction in the salary of the permanent secretary to the English Poor Law Board. The salary of the Parliamentary secretary had been reduced from 1,500 l. to 1,000 l. per annum, but the salary of the permanent secretary remained at 1,500 l. He wished to take this opportunity of ex-
1332
pressing his confident conviction that there never was a public servant who discharged his duties with more ability, more diligence, and more efficiency than his noble Friend Lord Courtenay.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the necessity which existed for reducing the expenses of administering the Poor Law in Ireland. These expenses amounted to no less than 40,794 l. a year, as compared to 3,880 l. in Scotland, and 35,728 l. in England. At the present moment there were numerous workhouses in Ireland which were all but emptied of their inmates, and the table of the House of Commons was covered with petitions from Irish Unions, in favour of reducing the staff in such establishments, and removing the few inmates that remained to the workhouses of neighbouring Unions. These petitions also generally prayed for an inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland—a measure which had been repeatedly called for since the occurrence of the famine in 1846, but hitherto without avail. Now, a Commission of Inquiry had been appointed in the case of England, the result of which had been to diminish the cost of the effective staff to 35,728 l.; and he claimed for Ireland that the House of Commons and the Government should sanction a similar Commission to inquire into the working of the Poor Law there, with the view of making it more subservient to the wants of the country, and at the same time less burdensome to the owners and occupiers of property. He would not now propose to reduce the various items in the Vote, from a desire not to inconvenience the public service; but he certainly thought that one Commissioner, one assistant secretary, six inspectors, one architect, and several officers of that kind, might be dispensed with with great propriety.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that there were some points of difference between the English and Irish Boards which ought to be borne in mind. The expenses of the auditors in England amounted to 15,000 l. This item was not included in the Estimates, but the Irish Vote included the salaries of the auditors (3,300 l.). It must be recollected that the system of Poor Laws, which had been long established in England, was in Ireland a perfectly new system, and the local authorities were not acquainted with the management and details of a Poor Law. It was necessary to appoint Commissioners to administer the law,

1333
and many duties and responsibilities fell upon them which did not fall upon the English Poor Law Board. That was one reason why more than one Commissioner was appointed in Ireland. The Vote for the Irish Board showed a decrease this year, the Vote of last year having been 48,131 l., and of the present year 40,794 l. The Vote of last year was also a reduction upon the two previous years. He would promise that inquiry should be made, and that every possible reduction that could be made without lessening the efficiency of the establishment should be carried out. The medical commissioner and the five medical inspectors were only appointed the year before last, in compliance with an Act of Parliament. The attention of the Poor Law Commission for Ireland and of the Treasury had for some time been closely directed to this question of the reduction of expenditure, and he would promise that in future continued attention should be paid to it, and that, where possible, further reductions should be made. It must be borne in mind, that the Act which created a medical commissioner and five medical inspectors only came into operation the year before last. Very lately a Commission had inquired into the remuneration of the clerks in the office in Dublin, and had recommended that the number of clerks should be reduced. That recommendation was about to be carried out. The expenses of the architect had arisen from the large number of workhouses which had recently been erected. A few years ago the number of workhouses in Ireland was but 131, now it was 161. The item of 3,000 l. for contingencies which appeared in this Estimate would in future years be discontinued.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a universal feeling in Ireland that the whole expenditure of the Irish Poor Law Board was unreasonable. There was a large staff of inspectors, but in many places there was no one to inspect. In one Union the guardians had applied for leave to shut up their workhouse, stating that the staff cost four times as much as the few paupers who were left in it. Great changes had taken place in Ireland. In many workhouses there were no paupers, yet the staff continued upon a monstrous scale. The labouring population were leaving their native shores, and were sending for their friends to follow them across the
1334
Atlantic. What they wanted was a pledge for a Commission of Inquiry into these expenses.
MR. KIRKsaid, he thought that a poor country like Ireland ought to be put on the same footing as England. He did not wish to offer a factious opposition to the Vote, but he certainly considered that a searching inquiry was necessary.
MR. HUMEsaid, he gave the hon. Members for Ireland great credit for the candid manner in which they had treated this question. As an inquiry had been made in England, the same kind of inquiry should take place in Ireland, and Her Majesty's Government ought to give a pledge to that effect. No distinction should be made between the two countries, but, if any were allowed, it ought to be in favour of the latter.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, that they ought not to forget the differences in the circumstances of the two countries with respect to the relief of the poor. In England the system of administration of that relief was ancient in its character, and had fallen, by lapse of time, into abuse, which had been corrected by the Poor Law Amendment Act; but in Ireland the evil arose from the total absence of any organised system whatever until the recent enactment. When that system was first introduced it met with much resistance, but by the fostering care of the Government it had been ultimately received and attended with many advantages. He would, however, admit that all the appliances necessary to bring that system into effective operation in the first instance were not now required, and within the last five years the expenses had been greatly reduced; indeed, he understood, that within the last year the expenditure had been reduced from 48,131 l. to 40,794 l. The Government had been asked for a pledge for a Commission of Inquiry, but he was sure the Executive Government were more competent than any new Commission that could be appointed to inquire into the matter, and ascertain where the expense might be reduced, and he understood his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland to give a distinct assurance that a strict inquiry on the part of the Irish Government should be made. Another subject had been adverted to, that of the desirability of closing workhouses in certain Unions in Ireland, but he thought, although the

1335
number of paupers had decreased, the adoption of such a course would be totally inconsistent with the maintenance of the system. He was quite sure, if any reduction could be made which would not be inconsistent with the efficiency of the system, that it was the duty of the Government to make such reduction, and he understood his right hon. Friend to give that assurance.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, one important fact elicited by this discussion was that which had been recognised by the country at large—namely, the increasing prosperity of Ireland. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Admiralty, that it would be extremely unwise to shut up the workhouses, for they had great effect upon Irish pauperism, and he was apprehensive, if they were closed, they would have a repetition of the scenes of vagrancy and pauperism which that country exhibited some years ago. He also thought the suggestion which had been made by his right hon. Friend was a sound one, that they ought not to delegate authority to any Commission of Inquiry, but that, as the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had given an assurance that he would make the inquiry and ascertain where reductions could be properly made, the responsibility should rest upon him.
LORD NAASsaid, he considered the assurance given by the Government satisfactory. The fact was that reductions had taken place of late years in far greater amount and proportion than the reduction in the poor rates. Two years ago a reduction was made of one-third of the inspectors, a large number of clerks were dismissed, and the general expenses of the establishment reduced more than one-third. That was in the year 1852. Still there was room for doing a great deal more. The number of inspectors might, he thought, with great advantage, be yet further diminished, seeing that there were a great many Unions in Ireland where there was now so much less to do than a few months ago only. As to the closing of Union houses, although there was at present a great increase of prosperity in Ireland, he thought they should not go too fast in that direction. At all events the workhouses should be kept in an efficient state, so that they might be available when required. He could not, however, see any great danger where the inmates of a workhouse did not
1336
exceed thirty or forty, in allowing them to be transferred to the workhouse of a neighbouring Union, at the same time taking care to keep the house from which they were removed, and necessary appurtenances, in a state of efficiency and good repair.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that after the assurance which had been given on the part of the Government, he had no objection to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he must complain that the pledge given by Sir Robert Peel in 1846, that certain charges which were borne partly by the county rate and partly by the Consolidated Fund in England and Ireland, should, in consideration of the altered system he introduced in the commercial policy of the country and the abolition of the Corn Laws, be thereafter transferred to the Consolidated Fund, had not been fulfilled to the same extent in the case of Ireland as in that of England. One expense was the removal of convicts. Then came the medical officers; half the expense of which, namely, 80,000 l. a year, was borne by the Consolidated Fund in this country. Sir Robert Peel had said that Ireland was obliged to be exempted on the occasion in question, because the medical charities were not on the same footing as those of England. But they had since then been placed on an identical footing, and yet his promise was left unperformed by his successors. The right hon. Baronet opposite had said that Ireland got a moiety of the expense of the constabulary force in lieu of those advantages. But, though that was a great deal, he (Mr. Macartney) begged to remind the Committee, that this force was first established for the purpose of relieving the large military force previously kept up in Ireland; and that it had done so to the extent of 7,000 men in the space of three years. He (Mr. Macartney) had last year proposed a supplementary Vote for Ireland to meet this case. On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was not aware of the promise of Sir Robert Peel, though the question as regarded expediency and policy was one that deserved consideration; but, at the same time, he stated he was not prepared to agree to the supplementary Vote. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland on that occasion, too, said the whole subject was worthy of consideration; but still nothing had been done to remedy the wrong.

1337
He (Mr. Macartney) had urged the question more than once upon the House and upon the Government; and he should continue to do so as long as the evil he complained of remained unredressed. All he asked for was inquiry into the subject. He rested on the promise of Sir Robert Peel and upon the admissions of the Government; and he hoped, therefore, that the matter would be taken into consideration.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought the large sum spent yearly in the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses for our Poor Law Unions was not so much money thrown away as absolutely applied to the detriment of the country, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would concur in that opinion. The pauper schools existing throughout the country had the effect of raising up an hereditary race of pauper boys and girls, who became a burden upon the public. These schools were under the control of the guardians, who were generally a class of men who could not see very far before them, and who were seldom willing to make any outlay for any purpose, however important to the public, or however small the sum it required to be put down at the time, with the certain prospect of ultimate benefit and permanent saving to the country. Taking the number of pauper children in England at 25,000, they might be divided into groups of 500 each, and sent to district schools unconnected with the workhouses; and this sum of 22,000 l. now voted for schoolmasters and mistresses would not only provide teachers, but would leave a surplus to be applied in aid of the voluntary subscriptions now being raised to establish district schools throughout the kingdom for this class of children. Three schools of this character had already been established in London, one in Hampshire, and another in Shropshire; and experience showed that they were a great improvement upon the existing pauper schools. The system of making loans from the Treasury for providing these district schools in different localities had been recommended, but that plan was clogged with the condition that the loans must receive the assent of the poor law guardians. If, instead of loans to a small amount, grants of larger extent were made, great advantage would accrue to the public, by removing these children from the workhouses and placing them in proper schools, where they would receive
1338
an education that would fit them to become useful members of society. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board whether he could not hold out some encouragement to his (Mr. Adderley's) own county, Warwickshire, and other districts where a desire was felt to set on foot schools of the character he had stated.
MR. BAINESsaid, that he had done his best to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) in the object he had in view, the attainment of which throughout the country generally, he agreed with him, was likely to be attended with the most beneficial results, judging from the experience they had acquired in the working of these district schools in six instances where they had been already established. He (Mr. Baines) had therefore taken every opportunity of advising boards of guardians to adopt this system, which he believed would be a wise one even in point of economy; because nothing, in his opinion, would tend more to check hereditary pauperism, as the hon. Gentleman very properly termed it, than the general introduction of schools of the kind suggested, unconnected with the workhouses. At the same time, it was only right to state that at present there were many schools connected with large parishes in the metropolis, and one in Manchester, and another in Liverpool, and others in various parts of the country, where there could be no question that a great amount of good was done, and much evil averted, by the efforts that were made for the education of poor children. Nevertheless, he freely admitted, as he had said, that it would be preferable that the schools should form no part of the workhouse system. Do what they could, evils must arise from mixing the children with the adult paupers; and yet he feared that it was impossible to do away with those evils altogether. To mitigate them, however, the Government had applied themselves, and he trusted not without effect; and he hoped that when the guardians saw the success of the experiments that had been made in this direction, they would be induced to lay aside the prejudices that had hitherto prevented them from encouraging the institution of these schools. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had devoted themselves earnestly to furthering this desirable object; and the Government, who

1339
were fully impressed with its importance, would be wanting in no endeavour hereafter to advance it.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he concurred with the representation of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Adderley). He was clearly of opinion that grants in aid of local rates would be the best for the purpose in view. He agreed with the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) that the subject required revision, as regarded schoolmasters; and he hoped it would receive consideration. He (Mr. Ball) denied that the Poor Law in Ireland was more expensive than the Board in England, because it was a most efficient machine for the conduct of the public business. He was opposed to any small economy in the shape of reducing the salaries of clerks, and he hoped that no ill-judged change in that respect would take place.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to caution the Committee against doing more for the education of pauper children, either in workhouse schools or in district schools, than was done—in the absence of any general system of education—for the instruction of the children of independent labourers. If they were not careful, they would hold out a bonus to persons to send their children through the workhouse to the district schools.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was not anxious to propose any sudden or extreme change. The Irish people had paid over and over, in the income tax, the difference claimed. As to Sir Robert Peel's promises, they had all been violated. The Irish were like the Greeks in Turkey, they were allowed to pay taxes, but they were not permitted to defend their country by forming any part of the militia. The Poor Law had driven 2,000,000 of people from Ireland.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought the time was come to reduce the cost of the Poor Law in Ireland. The expenses of poor law inspectors were 17,336 l., and he had no doubt that in many parts of the country the Poor Law would work without any inspector. He therefore hoped that a reduction in the number of these inspectors would be taken into consideration by the Government. There never was a time in the south of England when the agricultural labourers were better employed than at present; and he hoped, therefore, the subject of reduction in the expense of the Poor Law would be brought under consideration.
1340
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) 82,504 l., Mint.
In reply to Mr. APSLEY PELLATT,
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the Mint had been practically under the control of the moneyers, but it was now under the control of the Government; and there was no expense as regarded these persons but their retiring pensions, which were included in the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must complain that the expense of the Mint had increased, since 1849, from 43,000 l. to 61,000 l. He wished some explanation on the subject.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the additional sum on last year's expenses arose from the large increased establishment, working night and day for several. months. There were 12,000,000 l. of gold and from 2,500,000 l. to 3,000,000 l. of silver coined on that occasion. The Mint now undertook to forward silver and copper coinage to the Colonies, which were entirely supplied at present from this country.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought there ought to be particular statements on the subject—as to the cost of coining, the amount stated, and other items. He hoped a more detailed account would be presented next year, especially what quantity of silver money was called in and what quantity was coined; and if the Colonies paid the expense of their own coinage.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished to know whether any profit had resulted by the adoption of the new system of contract. He wanted to know whether a debtor and creditor account could not be rendered for the information of the country? He also wanted to know on what fund the retiring pension of 500 l. a year given to one gentleman had been charged? He also wanted to know whether a new mode of compensation in lieu of retiring pensions could not be devised?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, five years ago Estimates relative to the changes then adopted in this department had been laid on the table of the House, and they showed that the saving was about 25,000 l. a year.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was glad to hear this statement. He only wanted all proper information on the subject.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(10.) 12,691 l., Public Records.
(11.) 15,115 l., Inspectors, Factories, Mines, &c.

1341
(12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 1,700 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should move to reduce the amount by the sums of 98 l. 16 s. 6d., 98 l. 16 s. 6d., and 20 l., respectively required to pay for the Queen's Plate to be run at Edinburgh, the Queen's Plate to the Caledonian Hunt, and the Queen's Plate to the Royal Company of Scottish Archers, or Queen's Body Guard. He objected to these votes, not because of their amount, but on the principle that the national money ought not to be wasted on such objects.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 1,483 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges, formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. HUMEsaid, he had a much larger item than those of his hon. Friend to object to—that of 840 l. for the Queen's printer in Scotland. They had abolished the monopoly of Bible printing in Scotland, and they had thereby effected a saving of at least 100 per cent in its price; and he hoped this Session would not pass over before he had an opportunity of submitting a Motion to abolish the monopoly in England also. But while the monopoly was abolished in Scotland, they still retained an officer whose duty it was to examine all editions that were printed of the Bible, the Shorter Catechism, and the Scottish version of the Psalms, and they could only be issued with his sanction for their correctness. He thought the time was now come for the abolition of that office, and though he would not move the reduction of the salary now, he trusted the Government would consider whether the office might not be dispensed with next year. As to the Motion of his hon. Friend, if he pressed it to a division, he would vote with him.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Montrose on the success which had attended his efforts for the abolition of the Bible monopoly in Scotland, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would have been the last to grudge the sum for the office of inspector, by which the country was reconciled to the absence of all other control over the accurate printing of the Bible. He would inquire, how-
1342
ever, whether it would be consistent with the duty of the Government to propose any reduction in this Vote for another year. With regard to the sums objected to by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) they were very small in themselves. They had formerly been defrayed out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and since the Parliament had had control over those revenues, they had continued them. He did not think it would be right now to withdraw from the societies alluded to these marks of Royal favour.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 68: Majority 25.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
(13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 6,283 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there was an item of 1,574 l. 6s. 2d. for fifteen Queen's plates in Ireland, to which he entertained a similar objection to that he had stated with regard to the last Vote; but, having already taken the sense of the Committee upon the subject, he should not trouble them with a second division.
MR. PETOsaid, he wished to know what was the intention of the Government with regard to the continuance of the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? Two years ago, when this subject was mooted, the country was led to believe that the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was to be abolished.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the subject had been fully discussed two years ago, and the opinion then generally expressed in Ireland was certainly that the office ought to be continued. The Government of the day yielded to that expression of opinion, and he was not aware of any intention on the part of the present Government to come to any other conclusion.
MR. HUMEsaid, the question was whether the Lord Lieutenancy was conducive to the good government of Ireland? He was of opinion—an opinion shared in by men greatly interested in the well-being of Ireland—that if the office were removed altogether the way would be paved to a better and more responsible system of government in that country. The Ministry, two years ago, ought not to have been frightened by the Irish interest.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the question had been decided two years ago in accordance with what he believed to be the true interest of Ireland. At one time Irishmen might have thought no great good would be done by retaining the office, but since then they had seen the Lord Lieutenancy of the Earl of Eglinton, and he defied any person who knew of the good results which attended that nobleman's administration to be of opinion that the office should be abolished.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTobjected to the item of 184 l. 12 s. 8d. for chaplains to the Castle of Dublin, thinking that a chaplain was a luxury which, if the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland wanted it, he ought, like the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of London, to pay for himself. He should move that the Vote be reduced by this amount.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 6,058 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. VANCEsaid, he must defend the Vote, seeing no reason, as long as there was a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, and a regular establishment attending him, why there should not be a Chapel Royal upon the same principle as in this country. The salaries for all the officers of that chapel were extremely moderate.
MR. MIALLsaid, he objected to the grant of public money for religious purposes, but did not think that the present was the best item that could be selected for trying that question, and he suggested to his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark that he should withdraw his Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he bad just voted against horse-racing in Scotland, and he could not allow the present Vote, which contained an item of 1,574 l. for fifteen Queen's plates, to pass unchallenged. He objected to horse-racing being paid for out of the public money, and if at a commencement of a war they did not weed out expenses of this description, the very sound of which grated upon the public ear, they would not be wise. He moved, as an Amendment, that the vote be reduced by 1,574 l.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding 4,709 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household
1344
of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. HENCHY supported the Vote upon the ground that it was calculated to promote the breed of good horses.
COLONEL PEELsaid, he would beg to remind the Committee that the duty paid upon a racehorse was 3l. 17 s. 6d. per annum, while upon other horses it was only 1l. 1s. Let them place racehorses upon the same footing with others, and he, as one of the representatives of the racing community, would never ask for Queen's plates or anything of the kind. He was quite willing to enter into a compact to that effect.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 85: Majority 34.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
(14.) 16,744 l., Chief Secretary for Ireland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he must congratulate the Committee upon the great reduction which had taken place in this Vote. He observed a reduction of nearly one-half in the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland since he first remembered it, and at the same time he never knew a gentleman who had performed his duty more efficiently than the present Chief Secretary.
Vote agreed to, as was also the next Vote—
(15.) 6,704 l., Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland.
(16.) 24,218 l., Board of Public Works, Ireland.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that during three Sessions he had endeavoured to call the attention of the Government to this Board, and to the injury suffered by Irish proprietors from the way in which works had been carried on under this Board, and he wished to know if the Government intended to take any steps to redress the grievances and complaints which had been made to them?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he was sure that the way in which the Government had dealt with this subject showed a disposition on their part to do justice to those proprietors who had been aggrieved by the mode in which works had been carried out by the Board of Public Works. Measures were in progress for winding up such works as rapidly as possible; and the whole subject was still engaging the attention of the Treasury, because abuses had certainly prevailed, and the transac-

1345
tions alluded to had been attended with loss to the public.
Vote agreed to, as was also—
(17.) 32,000 l., Secret Services.
(18.) 255,560 l., Stationery and Printing.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask what local authorities they were to appeal to in case of overcharge of the income tax, and also what allowances would be made to collectors?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not see what connection existed between the income tax and the Vote now proposed, but he might state that, in consequence of the small number of appeals which took place in Ireland, it was considered unnecessary to maintain a Commission there, and, therefore, any appeals that were taken would be brought direct to the Commissioners in London.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought the account for stationery and printing should be so made out as to show the amount that belonged to the two Houses of Parliament respectively. The mode now adopted of stating the Estimate was a very decided improvement, but it would be better still if this suggestion was attended to; and he could not help reminding the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much less the charge tinder the head of stationery and printing would be if the duty on paper was taken off. He would also press on the Government a consolidation of the Edinburgh and Dublin Gazettes with the London Gazette, and a reduction of the charges, so that it might circulate freely over the country and in the Army.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the charges for the Gazette had been already considerably reduced, and further reductions would be greatly facilitated if it was the opinion of the House of Commons, as it was that of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that the three Gazettes should be consolidated. It was, however, only just to the Treasury to state that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had made a most vigorous effort last year to get the Scotch Gazette consolidated with the London Gazette, but was not strong enough to effect his object, and was forced to make a most ignominious retreat, in consequence of the local and national opposition that was made to his proposal. A great saving had been effected in the expenditure of the Government both for printing and sta-
1346
tionery, and the great credit of this was due to that most able and efficient public officer, Mr. M'Culloch, for the unwearied diligence and great ability with which he was ever applying his mind towards carrying out reductions in this department. He was sure that any information which might be called for with regard to the working of the office would be highly honourable to that officer, and would show the reductions that had been effected. The earlier part of the Vote was not so much within the control of the Government, but he had no doubt a detailed explanation of it could be supplied, and he certainly thought it desirable that a distinction should be made between the printing and expenditure of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons. He would suggest that his hon. Friend should call for a return of the terms upon which printing work was executed for the Government offices and the two Houses of Parliament, and he thought be would be rather surprised when he saw the figures of that return.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) 68,600 l., Privy Council Office and Office for Trade.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that before the Committee proceeded with the next Vote, he wished to make a statement respecting a Vote which had been deferred last night for want of sufficient information with regard to it. The Vote was that of 68,600 l. for the Privy Council Office and Board of Trade; and he found on inquiry that the statement he had made last night with respect to the item of 2,500 l. for the salary for the Clerk of the Privy Council being an increase of 500 l. upon last year was correct. A Clerk of the Council was appointed under a patent of 1801, the salary was regulated by a subsequent Order in Council, and in 1821 Mr. Greville succeeded to the office. Previously to its regulation by the Order in Council the salary of the office had been paid by fees which amounted to a large sum, but it was then fixed at 2,000 l. a year, to be increased to 2,500 l. when the office had been held for three years, but it was made a condition that the additional 500 l. should be subject to deduction if the individual holding the office should also fill any other place of profit under the Crown. When Mr. Greville acceded to the office in 1821, he received, according to the Order in Council, 2,000 l. a year until 1824, when, in compliance with the Order, it was raised

1347
to 25,00 l. He received 2.500 l. a year until 1829, when he succeeded to another patent office in Jamaica which yielded him more than 500 l. a year, and he, therefore, became subject, so long as he held that office, to a deduction of 500 l. from his salary as Clerk of the Council, which was thus reduced to 2,000 l. He held the office in Jamaica until last year, when, upon his resignation, he applied to the Treasury to have the full salary of 2,500 l. restored, as he had a perfect right to do. The application was made in March last, and inquiry having been made into all the circumstances of the case, which would be found fully detailed in the evidence before the Select Committee of 1839, they satisfied themselves that they could not resist the Order in Council, and it therefore became their duty to provide for the increased amount of salary. These were the circumstances of the case, and he might add that arrangements of this nature were constantly taking place in the public service. The office in Jamaica, he might state, had been abolished. It was a patent office, the duties of which were performed by deputy, with the consent of the Governor and the House of Assembly, and the deputy now performed the duties at the same salary as he had formerly received. Mr. Greville had certainly resigned the office voluntarily, although its emoluments were much larger than the amount of salary he received instead of them.
In answer to a question of Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR,
MR. J. WILSONadded that no compensation had been given for the abolition of the office.
MR. W. WILLIAMShoped that, as the duties of the Clerk of the Council had been performed for many years at a salary of 2,000 l. a year, the Committee would not consent to the proposed increase. No additional duties had been thrown upon Mr. Greville, and why, therefore, should he receive an increase of 500 l.? It had been said that the Treasury had no power to alter the Order in Council. He hoped the Committee would not pass a Vote for which no ground could be shown except a mere Minute of the Privy Council.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he felt quite sure the hon. Member for Lambeth had no desire to impute any improper or unworthy motives to the Treasury Board in reference to this transaction, and that the hon.
1348
Member would be one of the very last persons in that House to suggest or countenance any departure from a rigid and just observance of any bonâ fide engagement that had seriously been entered into. The hon. Gentleman did not, however, appear quite distinctly to understand the real position of the case, and that Mr. Greville had received his appointment on the understanding that the salary was at first to be 2,000 l. a year, and to be increased at a stated period to 2,500 l. Mr. Greville was appointed regularly by an Order in Council. The Order in Council might be objected to as an impolitic one, but there it was, and the only question that remained was, not whether such Order was politic or not, but whether it had given Mr. Greville a certain right? What, then, did. the Order in Council do? Why, it gave Mr. Greville for a certain time 2,000 l. a year, and after that time it gave him an increase of 500 l. to his salary, which increase was to abate during the time he held any other office; but upon giving up such office, it was to revert to him. In this way a positive title had been conferred upon Mr. Greville to receive the increased salary, and the title was of such a nature that it could have been recovered by judicial proceedings. If there were any grievance really to be complained of in the matter, any complaints relative to the same should have been directed against the island of Jamaica, which ought to bear the burden of its own sinecures. As far as Mr. Greville, was concerned, there was no doubt that his title was clear and indisputable, and could claim its origin even from so early a date as the year 1808.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he considered the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury as satisfactory on the subject, although he was sorry the matter stood as it did.
MR. HUMEsaid, that it was evidently one of those cases that, under the present careful system of scrutiny with regard to these kind of Estimates, would not occur again; and it was a question whether it was worth while, under the circumstances, to discuss the matter further?
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to have some explanation of the salary of the Registrar to the Board of Trade being increased from 700 l. a year to 1,000 l.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, in consequence

1349
of the increase of the duties attingent to, and the work connected with, the office of the Board of Trade, it had been thought just and expedient to increase the salary of the Registrar.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not consider this answer as satisfactory.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the increase of salary had been made upon the recommendation of the Judicial Committee, who, in their Report, had advised the cessation of the former clerkship that had existed, and the creation of the present office of Registrar.
Vote agreed to; as were also the three following Votes—
(20.) 17,079 l., Sheriffs' Expenses, Officers of the Court of Exchequer, &c.
(21.) 8,415 l., Insolvent Debtors' Court.
(22.) 92,455 l., Law Expenses, Scotland.
(23.) 55,470 l., Law Charges, Ireland.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would suggest that the expenses connected with the prosecution of assaults and other offences against the person in Ireland should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, as was the case with regard to that class of offences committed in England.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he must advert to the circumstance of the salary of the Attorney General for Ireland being only 1,158 l., and that of the Solicitor General for Ireland only 974 l., while that of the counsel employed to advise the Government in matters relating to the slave trade was 1,200 l. If the latter salary were not more than enough, the former must be less than sufficient.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know why Ireland did not receive as much from the Consolidated Fund for the expenses of prosecutions as England did? Now that Ireland was taxed to the full as much as England, or even more, in comparison with her resources, she had a right to receive the same help from the Consolidated Fund.
MR. M'MAHONhoped that these matters would be put in the same position in Ireland as they were in England.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) seemed very anxious that, in the money arrangements of the State, no injustice should be done to Ireland. Now, he very much doubted whether, if he succeeded in pushing the question which he had raised to any issue, he would be at all favouring the pecuniary
1350
interests of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that, inasmuch as the Government bore the whole expense of criminal prosecutions in England, they ought to do the same in Ireland. But it was quite impossible to accede to that proposition without acceding to the course proposed; for it must be admitted that the administration of justice could not be confined to the processes of the courts, and therefore they must look further, and he would ask who bore the expense of the police in England, and who bore it in Ireland? He found that a sum of 550,000 l. was annually paid out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charge of the Irish constabulary, and therefore if the same principle were to be acted on in the case of the three countries, the Scotch and English police ought also to be maintained from the same source. He frankly owned that if his wishes were carried into effect, it struck him that on a balance of account, Ireland would be considerably the loser by the labours of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that this allowance had already been made a set-off for twenty other things. He maintained, however, and he would undertake to prove before a Committee, that Ireland was overtaxed, and did not receive that aid from the Consolidated Fund to which she had a right.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the constabulary was forced upon Ireland for two reasons; first, to give a general system of police, by which a person could scarcely go from one part of the country to another; and, in the next place, to enable the Government to withdraw a very large military force from Ireland, amounting to no less than from 6,000 to 8,000 men, in two years after the establishment of the constabulary.
MR. LUCASsaid, he must contend that the issue raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between Ireland and the United Kingdom was not an answer to that raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) between the State and a poor man who undertook to prosecute a criminal indictment under the existing state of the law.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, that the argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a perfectly legitimate one.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, in England the expenses of prosecutions were allowed or disallowed by the Judge. Most generally they were allowed; but in Ireland

1351
nothing of the kind took place; and the consequence was, that the property of poor people was, to a great extent, unprotected, because they could not afford to prosecute. He was surprised that right hon. Gentlemen opposite representing the Government of the country had not risen half an hour ago to say that this great grievance should be put an end to.
VISCOUNT BERNARDsaid, it had been distinctly pledged by Sir Robert Peel that Ireland should be placed upon the same footing as England, and with respect to the cost of the police it had been taken on the Consolidated Fund in consideration of the loss which Ireland was likely to suffer from the repeal of the Corn Law.
MR. WHITESIDEread an extract from Sir Robert Peel's speech, which sustained this latter statement of the noble Lord, and which set out the advantages which were likely to result (in that right hon. Baronet's opinion) from the whole of the police force being entirely under the control of the Crown.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, the people of Ireland would be quite prepared to pay the expense of the police if they had the same control over them as the people of England had.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(24.) 37,000 l., Metropolitan Police, Dublin.
The House resumed.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALin moving the second reading of this Bill, said, as he believed there was no opposition to it, he trusted that the discussion would be reserved until a future stage.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he should spare the House the trouble of considering his Bill on this subject, as the present was a most excellent measure, and he suggested that there should be a transcript of the Bill applicable to Ireland, with only such alteration of words and phrases as circumstances might require. The measure deserved the cordial support of every one; and, if he might speak of his own thunder, he was gratified to find several of his clauses, struck out last year in the House of Lords, introduced into the present Bill. He was glad to see that the measure admitted parties by consent to try causes in the superior courts without a jury, and he would suggest that provision should be made to allow choses in action to be assignable.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he willingly joined in expressing approbation of the measure; and added that he but expressed the opinion of the English bar when he said that the Irish Common Law Procedure Bill, introduced last Session by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), obtained their cordial approval; and the Commissioners intrusted with the important office of considering this matter had been happy to borrow suggestions from him. He considered the Attorney General and Her Majesty's Ministers entitled to the thanks of the House for bringing forward this measure. No doubt in Committee there would be certain matters to be considered, but he anticipated that from both sides of the House Government would receive assistance to make the Bill as perfect as possible.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he believed that there was no disposition on the part of any one to oppose the second reading; but, as some serious questions were involved in the measure, which, on the whole, was a very valuable one, he trusted that ample notice would be given when the discussion would come on.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALpromised that there should be full opportunity allowed for discussing the measure at a future stage.
Bill read 2°.

BILLS OF EXCIIANGE (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved the second reading of this. He said, that it introduced into the English system of procedure what was known in Scotland as the process of "summary diligence." It enabled the holder of a dishonoured bill or note to register protest in the Court of Common Pleas against any of the parties to the bill or note, and at the same time it empowered the party who had been served with any order for the payment to apply to the Court to stay execution upon sufficient cause shown; and then the liability would be decided in the ordinary course of law. This practice had been in operation in Scotland for a century and a half; it had worked admirably there, and had met with the support of the mercantile community.
MR. GLYNsaid, that on the part of the mercantile community of this country, he begged to express his approbation of the general provisions of the measure. It was the commencement of the assimilation of

1353
the commercial law of the kingdom, but if that assimilation went on piecemeal, he feared considerable difficulty would be the result with respect to the law of the two countries.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, the object of the Bill was to assimilate the law of England respecting dishonoured bills of exchange to the law of Scotland, but it appeared to open a door to vexatious proceedings. It applied to all bills of exchange, whether accepted or made payable in England or elsewhere, and it gave power to the Court of Common Pleas to enforce payment of them beyond the jurisdiction of the English Courts. It would seem that the holder of such a bill might drag the parties interested into the English Courts by simply placing it in the hands of an attorney in England, although it was drawn, accepted, and made payable in Scotland, and although all the parties were domiciled in that part of the kingdom.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, the only objection he entertained to the Bill was, that, it did not go far enough, being only at present extended to England. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would accede to its extension to Ireland.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he did not oppose the second reading of the Bill, though he thought several of its provisions required consideration, and he hoped that full opportunity would be given for discussing its provisions, because there could be no doubt that it introduced great changes into the existing law, and that it was moreover to some extent at variance with its principles. At the same time he knew that its provisions had worked admirably in Scotland for a considerable time, and that the mercantile body highly approved of their operations being extended to England.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he trusted that some provision would be made to restrict the facilities which were at present afforded for the commission of fraud with regard to bills of exchange.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he concurred in the opinion expressed, that the Bill should be extended to Ireland, and that protection from fraud should be afforded.
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 1a Excise Duties; Exchequer Bonds (£6,000,000).
2a Income Tax (No. 2); Church Building Acts Amendment; Industrial and Provident Societies.
3a Consolidated Fund (£8,000,000), (No. 2).

THE NEW WAR DEPARTMENT—
THE AMBULANCE CORPS—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKErose to put a question to the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle). Their Lordships had no doubt heard that arrangements had lately been made in reference to the mode of dealing with wounded men upon the
1302
field of battle, and that the noble Duke had acceded to the advice of Mr. Guthrie, a gentleman of great ability, who had done everything in his power to carry out his judicious recommendations upon the subject. A corps had been established, and the necessary steps taken for attaching to that corps such implements as were necessary for the purpose of conveying wounded men from the field of battle in the manner that would afford the best chance of saving their lives, and he believed that everything had been done which the Government could do. He understood that the corps and its machinery were still at Woolwich; and as some anxiety had been felt in reference to the conveyance of that corps to the place where it ought to be stationed, the question he wished to put was, whether any such corps had been established, and whether any exertions were being made for the purpose of conveying that corps to its destination?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the corps of which his noble Friend had spoken had now been established for the first time, and he had every reason to believe that the example of its establishment would be found worthy of imitation by other nations, and that it would be advantageous to our own country. He was happy to say that he thought he should be able to give a satisfactory answer to his noble Friend's question. The corps, being of an entirely novel character, both as regarded its machinery and as regarded the men who were to act in it, had not been organised in a single day, but the arrangements with respect to it had now been completed for some time, and a screw-steamer had been chartered for its conveyance, with a large quantity of stores, to the East. He understood that this vessel would start from this country in the course of the day after to-morrow.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not know whether the noble Duke answers the question of my noble Friend in his capacity of Colonial Secretary or of Secretary of State for the War Department, and I think it is desirable that an explanation should be given to your Lordship's House at the earliest possible moment with respect to the important changes now supposed to be in the contemplation of the Government, in the creation of a new office of Secretary of State for the War Department, separate from those of the Secretary for the Colonies, and with respect to the arrangements which are to be adopted in consequence of those

1303
changes. I understand that an announcement was made last evening in the House of Commons on the part of Her Majesty's Government, of their intention of forming the new office. I am further informed—if it is not irregular now to refer to the fact—that a new writ has been moved for the City of London in the room of the noble Lord who lately held the office of leader of the House of Commons on his acceptance of the office of President of the Council. I wish, therefore, to ask the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether I am right in supposing that that noble Lord has accepted the office of President of the Council. It may not be improper to ask also, whether, if he has accepted it, he will still remain a Member of the House of Commons? and I wish further to ask Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the office of Secretary of State for the War Department, to explain to this House and to the country what are the precise functions and duties which it is proposed to devolve upon that office, how far they will interfere with or be superior to those of the departments now in existence, and whether the new Secretary of State will exercise a control over all matters connected with the administration of the military affairs of the country?
THE EARL of ABERDEEN: In answer to the noble Earl, I have first to inform him that my noble Friend the Member for the City of London has accepted the office of President of the Council, and that he will remain in the House of Commons. I have further to inform the noble Earl that it is intended that a division of the functions of the Secretary of State for War and for the Colonies shall take place, and will be carried into effect before the next meeting of the House. The functions of the Secretary of War will be those which are at present exercised by the Secretary of State for War and for the Colonies in the War Department. What further changes may hereafter take place in the administration of the Departments immediately concerned in the military service of the country I am not prepared to say; but the Secretary for the War Department will possess all those powers and exercise all those functions which are now exercised by my noble Friend near me, who is at present Secretary of State for War and for the Colonies.
THE EARL OF DERBYinquired whether the Secretary of State for the War Department was to have anything or nothing to
1304
do with the control of the financial department of the Army?
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: He will have nothing whatever to do with the control of the financial department, as we are at present advised.
LORD PANMURE: I was somewhat interested in the debate which took place in this House a short time ago with regard to the establishment of a Minister of War; and I am happy to find that Her Majesty's Government have at last, owing to the opinions which have been expressed in both Houses of Parliament, and also owing to public opinion as it has been expressed through the press, adopted that course which will eventually turn out to be the only one by which military affairs can be administered in this country. I am glad to hear from my noble Friend that it is not j intended to constitute a Minister of War as a mere decoy to deceive the public. I have no desire to see things done hastily; but if the office of Minister of War is to be established, the officer who fills it must have a department as well as a name. In my opinion, as soon as it can be conveniently done, the Minister of War should take charge of the administration of the finances of the Army; he should take charge of the Commissariat Department; and, in my opinion, he should also have transferred to him, as soon as possible, the management and direction of the militia force of this country. I do not at all wish to see the functions of the Commander in Chief interfered with as far as regards the executive government of the Army, nor do I wish to put into the hands of the Government the administration of what is called the patronage of the Army. For six years I had experience as to the manner in which that patronage was administered under the present system; and I believe that it was never more honourably or more efficiently administered than when it was in the hands of the late Duke of Wellington, and, under his orders, of Lord Raglan. I have every reason to believe that the same system of administration is pursued by the present Commander in Chief, and I have no desire that the Government should interfere in the matter at all; but if we are to have a Minister of War, he ought to know what is going on in every military department of the Government—whether at the Horse Guards, the Ordnance Office, or any other department—and he ought to act by his own authority, not under that either of the Colo-

1305
nial or of the Home Secretary. If the troops are to be moved they should be moved by his authority—that is, by his authority to the Commander in Chief to move them. All my observations aim at making this Ministry of War a department that will exist in time of peace as well as in time of war, and that will, at all times, have control over everything connected with the military administration of the country.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I think it is desirable that the noble Earl should state more in detail the duties that are to be performed by the new Secretary of State; as it appears to me that, if he is not to have control over the financial department of the Army, and is to have nothing to do with the patronage of the Army, the new Secretary will have something very nearly approaching to a sinecure in time of peace. I wish to ask whether the new Secretary of State is to be deprived of the control over the finances and the patronage of the Army; and, if so, whether it is intended to appoint that officer only during time of war?
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: The Secretary of State will not be deprived of the control over the finances or the patronage of the Army, as he now possesses neither the one nor the other; but he will have the control over the whole administration of the Army, and that will be found quite sufficient to employ his utmost exertions, certainly during war. As for what may happen in time of peace, the noble Earl will, perhaps, have the goodness to wait until time of peace before asking us to settle what will then be the functions of the new Secretary of State; and if that time happily should ever come, we shall then be able to say more satisfactorily what his functions shall be. At present it is quite sufficient that he has ample duties to perform, and I have no doubt the division which has taken place of the functions of the War and Colonial Departments will be such as to add to the efficiency of the public service.

THE MILITARY KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEin moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the funds of the charities connected with the Military Order of St. George and the Garter, and more especially with the Royal grant of King Edward III., commonly called the "Old Dotation," and that of Queen Elizabeth, commonly called the
1306
"New Dotation," said, that the issue which had to be tried was, how much of those funds belonged of right to the Dean and Canons of Windsor, and for how much of the funds the Dean and Canons were trustees for the Military Knights of Windsor. He brought the question forward upon four distinct grounds. He asked for an inquiry, in the first place, on behalf of the prerogative of the Crown, which he considered had been violated by a diversion of the funds of the Sovereign of the Order of the Garter from their legitimate objects; and, in the second place, on behalf of the taxpayers of England, who had been assessed for a series of years for the expenses of the buildings connected with this charity, while there had been ample funds belonging to the charity itself and especially intended for that purpose. He asked for it, thirdly, on behalf of the British Army, because he believed that, after the full satisfaction of all demands, a fund would be placed at the disposal of the Crown, as he hoped, sufficiently large to restore the twenty-six knights, whose appointments had not been filled up, but who had been appointed under the Statute of Edward III. He moved, lastly, on behalf of the present Military Knights of Windsor, a body of gentlemen who had performed the greatest and most important services to this country, but which he would not now detain their Lordships by alluding to. He was compelled to call the attention of their Lordships to a period of five centuries ago, when an event took place which had been made the subject of one of the frescoes which decorated the chamber in which they were sitting, namely, the investiture of the first Knight of the Garter. He had no observation to offer with respect to the charming romantic legend concerning the Order, nor with the quaint badge, and the equally quaint device which decorated the knee of the Black Prince. It sufficed him (the Earl of Albemarle) to say that the Royal father of that Prince, three years after the battle of Cressy, instituted the Order of the Garter, to which two descriptions of knights were to belong, the one being the Knights Companions of the Order, and the other the Poor, or, as they are now called, the Military Knights of Windsor. The object of the institution of the Order was twofold. In the first place it was the creation of "Knights Companions, to afford encouragement and reward to persons descended from a series

1307
of ancestry of noble blood." In the second place, to establish "a perpetual charity for the subsistence of veteran knights who had been reduced to poverty in the wars." Edward III. assigned lands for that purpose, and grants had also been made for its support, not only by the Crown, but by some of the most illustrious members of the Order. In the letters patent of Edward III. the institution was said to have been founded for—
"Fifteen other canons and twenty-four poor knights, impotent of themselves, or inclining to poverty, to be perpetually maintained of the goods or possessions of the said chapel, perpetually serving Christ under the command of the said custos or warden, and their cause to be received, as well as the canons and knights as other ministers of the said chapel, as was promised; and that his said Majesty thereby decreed, ordained, and by his Royal authority, as much as in him lay, established for ever."
It was necessary to observe here that the canons and the knights were placed upon an equality, and their pay, their privileges, and their perquisites were intended to be as nearly equal as possible; their dress was the same, the duties were the same, the same attendance in the chapel was required from them, and the oaths administered to them was not the one administered to the inferior officers, minor canons, and other persons of a lower description. Such appeared to have been the intentions of the Royal founder; but a very short time afterwards those intentions seem to have been frustrated, and a war to have been, in consequence, carried on, even longer than the war with which we were now threatened. For instance, there were a certain number of perquisites especially belonging to the Poor Knights and others, which they shared with the dean and chapter. Among them were such things as the banners, swords, mantlets, and helmets of the deceased Knight Companions, but the dean and canons had sold all this armour, &c., and put the money into their pockets. The interference of some right reverend or most reverend visitors of the charity had been sought, and all the Chancellors of England who had acted as visitors had given their awards in favour of the Poor Knights against the dean and chapter. Another perquisite to which the knights were entitled was a certain number of herrings. The town of Yarmouth was then, as now, celebrated for its herrings, and the corporation was required by Statute to supply the chapel of Windsor with a last of herrings annually in the season of
1308
Lent. The dean and canons, however, deprived their military brethren of their share of even this Lenten entertainment, and ate up all the herrings themselves. Complaint was made to Adam, Bishop of St. David's, as Visitor of the Chapel, in the second year of Richard the Second, and in perpetual memory of this act of gluttony on the part of the dean and canons of that day, their successors of the present day are compelled to pay to each knight 6s. 8d. a year in lieu of a herring a day. By the 19th of the College Statutes it was provided that, after certain payments to the alms knights and others, a third part of the overplus or remainder of the revenues of the chapel and college should be set aside every year for extraordinary cases, as fire, murrain, the onera capella incumbentia, &c., or in defence of the rights of the college and chapel, or for increasing their revenues. It was desirable to know what had become of that surplus, and how far it was chargeable for the repairs of the houses of the knights, which formed a part of the chapel, and which repairs are now made at the expense of the taxpayers of England. He (the Earl of Albemarle) wished now to show that, notwithstanding the disincorporating Act of Edward the Fourth, the Knights of Windsor always had an existence. Henry VIII. appointed a man called Peter Narbonne to be one of the alms knights, and requested the dean and canons to give him a maintenance, and they gave him a pension of 20 marks per annum, on condition that he should relinquish it when the King should grant or settle lands on the college and chapel for the provision of the knights, as he had promised them to do, or given them to understand he would do; and thereupon King Henry VIII. wrote and sent to the dean and canons a letter, dated on or about the 18th day of July, 1511, giving them thanks for having conferred the pension on Peter Narbonne, and promising them not to burden them with any more requests of that sort, but to grant and settle lands for the maintenance of the said alms knights. Now, it was evident that at this time Henry VIII. did not contemplate making the dean and canons even the trustees of the lands with which he had promised to endow the Poor Knights. In the year 1546 the dean and canons, by an indenture, surrendered and conveyed the manor and rectory of Ivor, in the county of Bucks, and other hereditaments, to the

1309
yearly value of 160 l. 2s. 4d., to King Henry VIII. in exchange for other hereditaments, which were to be conveyed to them by His Majesty. On the 9th of June, 1853, the Dean and Canons of Windsor state, in their Report to the Cathedral and Capitular Commissioners, that "By the will of King Henry VIII. certain lands were devised to the Dean and Canons of Windsor." Now, the only paragraph in the will, which is dated 30th of December, 1546, referring to the chapel of Windsor, is as follows—
"Also, we wool that, with as convenient spede as may be doon ufter our departure out of this world, if it be not doon in our liefe, that the dean and chanons of our free chapele of St. George, within our castle of Windsor, shall have manoures, landes, tenements, and spiritual promotions, to the yearly value of six hundred poundes over all charges made sure to them and their successors for ever, upon these conditions hereafter ensuing. And for the due and full accomplishment and performance of all other things contained with the same, in the forme of an indenture signed with our own hand, which shall be passed by way of covenant for that purpose, between the said deane and canons and our executors, if it pass not between us and the said deane and canons in our liefe, that is to say, the deane and canons, and their successors for ever, shall find two prestos to say masses at the said aulter, to be made where we have before appointed our tomb to be made and stand: and also, after our deceasse kepe yearly four solem fine obites for us within the said college of Windsour, and at every of the same obite to cause a solempne sermon to be made, and also at several of the said obites to give to poor people in almez tenne pounds. And also to give for ever yearly to thirtene poor men, which shall be called 'Poor Knights,' to every of twelfpens every day, and once in the year yearly for ever a long gowne of white cloth, with the garter upon the breast embroidered with a shield and cross of Sainte George within the garter, and a mantle of red cloth; and to such one of the said thirtene poor knights as shall be appointed to be hod and governor of them 3l. 6s. 8d. yearly for ever, over and besides the said twelfpennies by the daye. And also to cause every Sunday in the yore, for ever, a sermon to be made for ever at Windsor aforesaid, as in the said indenture of covenant shall be more fully and particularly expressed, willing, charging, and requiring our son Prince Edwarde, all our executors and counsaillors which shall be named hereafter, all other heirs and successors, which shall be kings of this realme, as they will answer before Almighty God at the dreadful day of judgment, that they and every of them do see that the said indenture and assurance, to be made between us and the said deane and canons, or between them and our executors, and all things therein contained, may be duly put in execution and observed and kept for ever perpetually, according to our last will and testament."
King Henry VIII. died on the 23rd of January, 1547, without having altered or
1310
revoked his will. This point claimed particular attention, because as lately as June in last year the dean and canons of Windsor had claimed the lands under the devise of Henry VIII. If that claim could be substantiated, the labours of the Committee which he asked their Lordships to appoint would be brought to a speedy termimination. From all the information he had been able to collect, it did not appear that there had been anything like a conveyance in fee to the dean and canons as was pretended. Altogether he was justified in contending that, as far as related to the reign of Henry VIII., the dean and canons had no claim to any of "the New Dotation." On the 24th of February the executors of the late King and the Ministers of the young King Edward VI., together with the Judges and the law officers of the Crown, assembled to carry into effect the wishes of the deceased monarch with respect to the Poor Knights, among other things. In pursuance thereof, on the 2nd of August, 1547, Sir Edward North, then Chancellor of the Court of Augmentation of the King's revenues, issued instructions for preparing a conveyance, in pursuance of the will of Henry VIII., and, after stating the rental of certain hereditaments, mentioned at 812 l. 12 s. 9d., proceeded to declare that from that sum was to be deducted 160 l. 2s. 4d. for the manor of Ivor, and 600 l. for the gift in the will of Henry VIII. It was evident, therefore, that the executors of King Henry VIII. entertained no doubt as to the construction which ought to be put upon his will. The Poor Knights had always placed much reliance on an important deed—namely, an indenture of King Edward VI.; but the deed could not be found, and many persons supposed that if it existed at all it was unfavourable to the case of the knights. In 1845, however, owing to the exertions of Mr. Philip Hayward, the indefatigable agent of the Poor Knights, the indenture was discovered among a mass of mouldy parchments in the riding-house of Carlton Palace. The deed bore date the 4th of August, 1547, and in it reference was made, in the sense already stated, to the two sums of 600 l. and 160 l. 2s. 4d. Three months afterwards a letter patent of Edward VI., dated October 7, 1547, put the dean and canons in possession of rents producing at that period 600 l., in trust, for the uses assigned by King Henry VIII. That two

1311
dotations of the Poor Knights were in existence at that period was clear from the fact stated by Ashmole—that two treasurers, one of the old and the other of the new dotation, the Senescallus veteris and the Senescallus novœ donationis, were appointed. That, these funds were misapplied, was equally clear from the fact that for some years after the dean and canons had received these lands in trust there was a Committee of inquiry into the state of the Royal College of the Chapel of St. George. He would refer their Lordships to some extracts from the Register Book of the Council of King Edward VI.—
"1551, June 22.—Privy Council held at Greenwich, before King Edward VI. Present thereat—the Protector, the Duke of Somerset, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, Lord of Shrewsbury, Lord Admiral, Lord Chamberlain, Lord Cobham, Mr. Treasurer, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Vice Chamberlain, Mr. Secretary Cecil; when it was considered and ordered that 'a letter of Appearance to the Dean of Windsor (inter alia) to bring with him also a note of so much money of the Poor Knights as he has in his custody.'"
That appeared to be something like a trust, anyhow. Then, in 1552, there was the following extract—
"1552, August 7.—Privy Council held at Waltham, before King Edward VI. Present thereat—the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, the Duke of Suffolk, the Lord Chamberlain, Mr. Treasurer, Mr. Secretary Cecil, the Lord Great Chamberlain, and the Vice Chamberlain; when the subject of complaint to the Crown in the letter of the 1st of August, then instant, from Sir Philip Hoby to the Lord Treasurer was taken into the consideration of the Council, and it was thereupon ordered that 'a letter to the Commissioners (the Earl of Warwick, Sir Philip Hoby, and others) appointed for the inquiry at Windsor, to examine the prebendaries (meaning the dean and canons) there—particularly according to the instructions given them, and to get as much as they can of that hath been embezzled, or the value thereof, and to certify hither of their proceedings in their behalf.'"
Here was evidence of the Crown exercising supreme authority by virtue of its Royal prerogative as Sovereign of the Order of the Garter, and that authority was exercised through the Privy Council. It also afforded evidence that the dean and canons were trustees, and were not possessed of the property in fee. From the year 1553 down to 1558, during the reign of Queen Mary, the whole of the rents and profits were paid over to the Lord High Treasurer, the Marquess of Winchester, and such sums were expended in building
1312
some of the thirteen houses in Windsor Castle, and in fitting up and repairing others for the Poor Knights, and which houses the thirteen Poor Knights at present occupied. It appeared, therefore, very evident that such property was held by the dean and canons subject to the trust of keeping the houses in repair, and that such outlay was not to be looked upon in the light of a charity. At all events, that was the question which he wished to make the subject of inquiry before a Select Committee. From the accession of Edward VI. to the death of Queen Mary certain conditions of the will of Henry VIII. had been complied with. It was still requisite to make a declaration as to the uses to which the property in question should be applied, and accordingly, by an indenture dated the 30th of August, 1559, the first year of Queen Elizabeth, made between that sovereign and the dean and canons, it was declared that the property mentioned in the schedule annexed was given and assured unto the dean and canons and their successors "to and for the intent and purpose that the revenues and profits of the same should for ever be employed and bestowed for the maintenance of thirteen Poor Knights within the Castle of Windsor." Those words were so clear that it was quite evident what the intentions of Queen Elizabeth were. If there was any doubt as to her meaning, she stated in her letters patent of the same date that for the advancement of the noble Order of the Garter, and especially upon the knowledge given her of the late mind and will of her most dear father of noble memory to make a special foundation and continuance of thirteen poor men decayed in the wars and such like service of the realm, to be called Thirteen Knights of Windsor, to be kept there in succession, did, by those letters patent, not only set forth and express the foundation of the thirteen Poor Knights, but declared how and in what manner the revenues of the lands given to the dean and canons by her father Henry VIII., should be bestowed and employed for the maintenance of those
thirteen Knights. The property which was thus appropriated for the benefit of these Poor Knights produced, at that period, about 820 l. a year; it now yielded no less than 14,750 l. The sums stated in the patent as "The Queen's Majesty's Ordinance for the continual charges," consisted of twenty-nine items, amounting, in

1313
the whole, to 429 l. 13 s. 2d.;so that the difference, after deducting those charges, was, according to the indenture and the patent of the 30th of August, 1559, to be bestowed and employed for the maintenance of these Poor Knights. It appeared that the rents of the said lands of the new dotation exclusively of the rectories and prebends, were for several years, from 1558 to 1564, or later, applied according to such indenture and letters patent. He then came to King James I., who, on the 5th of October, 1603, confirmed the rights of, and granted an additional shilling a day to, the Poor Knights. Charles in 1623, also confirmed the ordinance of Queen Elizabeth. By an Act of what was commonly called the Long Parliament, passed in 1649, for abolishing deans, deans and chapters, canons, prebends, and other offices and titles of or belonging to cathedral or collegiate churches, and settling their property in certain trustees, the said deans and canons of Windsor were purported to be abolished, and the leases granted by them since the 1st of December, 1641, were made void; but it was provided that all rents and sums of money which before that date had been, or ought to have been paid towards any charitable use should be continued to be paid as they were before the 1st of December, 1641. But at the restoration of King Charles II. the dean and canons returned to their old place as trustees. Well, it appeared that, from the time of Charles II. to the reign of George II., the persons appointed to the places of the Poor Knights were generally of a lower grade or rank than were the persons who before or since that time had been appointed to such places, and, as well by reason of their poverty as of ignorance of their rights, were prevented from asserting, and they did not assert, their claim, to a share of the increased rents of the lands of the new dotation. But a great movement took place in the reign of George II. in reference to the position of these Poor Knights. Among those who interested themselves on their behalf was his (the Earl of Albemarle's) great-grandfather, who presented a petition on the subject in the year 1734, a counterpart of that which he himself had laid upon the table of the House a few days before. The case was referred to the law officers of the Crown, and the dean and canons were summoned to appear before them. The existence of the indenture of Queen Elizabeth was then denied, and as
1314
there were then no means of proving its existence, the matter went no further. The opinion of counsel was taken on one point, to which he wished to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. On a former occasion he asked his noble and learned Friend whether the Court of Chancery had any jurisdiction over the question relating to the claims of the Poor Knights of Windsor, and his noble and learned Friend declined giving any opinion. With great submission, he thought his noble and learned Friend was wise in so declining, because it was a question by no means clear, and one upon which another Member of Her Majesty's Government had expressed an opinion contrary to that which it might be presumed was the opinion of his noble and learned Friend. He was aware that it was very improper to allude to what took place in the other House of Parliament, but he thought he might do it as a matter of history. When an hon. Member asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question concerning the claims of the Military Knights of Windsor, Lord Palmerston said that "the natural course of bringing to a decision a question of the kind which was pending between the Military Knights and the dean and canons of Windsor would be a suit in Chancery; and he hoped he might be able to propose to the parties a method of bringing the question to an issue by a reference, which might save them from the expense and trouble of a Chancery suit, and he should endeavour to propose some such arrangement." Now, if he (the Earl of Albemarle) did not know his noble Friend to be one of the best-hearted men in all Christendom, he should say that that reply looked very like a threat of a suit in Chancery if the present expedient should not succeed. He would now refer to cases in support of his view of the case. The first authority he should bring forward was the opinion of William Fortescue, afterwards Sir William Fortescue, Master of the Rolls. In, or shortly before the year 1733, the Poor Knights of Windsor submitted a statement of their case to that gentleman, who gave his written opinion to this effect—
"I conceive, if this was a case wherein the Crown was not concerned, that a court of equity would decree the Poor Knights to have an equal share in proportion with the other of the said charities; but, in the present case, it seems to me that the King may himself direct in what manner, and to which of the said charities the said improvements shall be applied, or may name and

1315
appoint any person or persons of the Order of the Garter so to do."
Under this advice the Poor Knights petitioned George II., praying for relief. The King handed the petition to Lord Harrington, the Secretary of State, who referred it to the law officers of the Crown, who summoned the dean and canons before them, and they attended and objected to the King's prerogative in the case. Further proceedings were afterwards had before Sir Dudley Ryder, Attorney General, who made a report to the King, in which, after setting forth all the facts that had been produced before him, he said, he was humbly of opinion that the Poor Knights had not made out a title to any share of the improvements of the property. This opinion evidently rested upon the alleged non-existence of the indenture of the 4th of August, 1547. But since the month of May, 1845, Mr. Philip Hayward had discovered that very indenture. In support of the argument that the Court of Chancery had no jurisdiction in this case, he would advert for a moment to what had been done in regard to the appointment of the Chancellor of the Order of the Garter. That office was created by King Edward 1V., who appointed Richard Beauchamp, the then Bishop of Salisbury, to the office. The chapel of St. George, Windsor, being then within the diocese of Salisbury, Edward IV. declared that the Bishops of Salisbury should be also Chancellors of the Order of the Garter. But Edward VI. set aside, by his sovereign will, that declaration, and for about 120 years laymen filled the office of Chancellor. He did not see the Prime Minister in his place, but he might observe that in the reign of Edward VI. the First Minister of the Crown was made Chancellor of the Order. One Bishop of Salisbury, it was true, succeeded in the next reign, because he happened to be the son of an attorney, and because he knew there was no jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery over the appointment. But, should he (the Earl of Albemarle) be driven from the argument he was then urging, he had others which he could bring forward, for he felt it his duty to do all that was in his power to protect his brother officers—the Poor Knights of Windsor—and save them from the painful alternative of being thrown into that "Slough of Despond," the Court of Chancery. Why, if that were to happen, they would spend their 1s. a day, and would be involved in a suit as interminable as the
1316
celebrated cause of "Jarndyce v. Jarndyce." He trusted, however, he had succeeded in showing to their Lordships that the dean and canons of Windsor were merely trustees of the property held by them, and that the Military Knights of Windsor were the cestuique trusts of that property. The noble Earl then referred to a document which had recently been discovered in the Ashmolean Museum, showing that payments had been made by the dean and canons of Windsor, under the will of Henry and also under the indentures of Edward VI. and of Queen Elizabeth, in their character of trustees only. He would only refer to one more fact in proof of the point he was endeavouring to establish. It appeared from the journals of their Lordships' House, that in 1597 a Bill was introduced to enable Arthur Hatch to hold a portion of the new dotation, certain lands belonging to the rectory and parsonage of South Moulton. On that occasion counsel were expressly directed to inquire and report whether the Bill contained anything to prejudice the Poor Knights of Windsor. They reported that it did not; and the Act which was subsequently passed—39 & 40 Eliz.—distinctly recited the fact that "His late Majesty King Edward VI. did, by letters patent under the Great Seal, grant this parsonage for the use of the Poor Knights of Windsor." He apologised for having detained their Lordships so long, but still they must remember that the time he thus occupied in urging the claims of these Poor Knights was not so long as the Chancery suit with which they were threatened would occupy. If ever those Poor Knights were frightened in their lives, it must have been when they read the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department. He would not trouble their Lordships with quoting any more cases. He trusted he had said enough, at least to induce their Lordships to grant him a Select Committee. He must say that since his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had forced upon an unwilling Parliament and an unwilling Government the Act relating to the abuses of charitable trusts, there had been a disposition shown on the part of the Legislature and of the Executive to grant an inquiry wherever a primâ facie case could be produced. But, somehow or other, it had happened that hitherto something had occurred to prevent these Poor Knights from having their case fully in-

1317
quired into by Parliament. In 1835, a Commission of Inquiry was instituted, but on that occasion, although the inquiry extended from the dean down to the sexton, yet the dean and canons actually ignored the existence of the Military Knights, a body with whom they had now been associated for 500 years—the existence of men, many of whom had obtained medals for gallant services in the field, unless, indeed, it was to be understood that those Knights were specified under the title of "servants" by the dean and canons. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLORconceived that the proposition made to their Lordships by the noble Earl was one which, if sanctioned, would make that House a universal court of inquiry in all cases where persons fancied they suffered a legal grievance and ought to be encouraged in pursuing their legal remedy. He felt sympathy for the veterans whose case had found so able an advocate as the noble Earl; but it was quite out of their Lordships' power to do anything in their behalf. But the case stated to the House was purely a question of legal right. The case laid before them by the noble Earl was, that for several centuries too great a portion of the revenues of the charity had been appropriated to the dean and chapter, and far too small a portion to the Poor Knights. This was entirely a question of legal right for a court of law to decide. Supposing the Committee granted, and that their Lordships came to the conclusion that, according to the true construction of these charters and deeds, the rights of the parties whose case the noble Earl advocated had for two centuries and a half been misunderstood, what could their Lordships do but leave the parties where they were before, letting them assert their own rights? The noble Earl had spoken with some horror of sending the Poor Knights to the Court of Chancery. Now, it might be a misfortune to be compelled to resort to the Court of Chancery at all, but he (the Lord Chancellor) believed that in respect to a question of this sort, where it was only to be established, aye or no, whether a right existed, the Court of Chancery proceeded with as great rapidity as any tribunal could safely act. But whether that were so or not, the Court of Chancery was nevertheless the proper tribunal to decide the case which the noble Earl had now brought before their Lordships. He
1318
could not help thinking that there were almost insuperable objections to the appointment of a Committee, and he asked their Lordships whether they were likely to be able to comprehend the merits of a complicated case, depending upon the consideration of ancient deeds of the time of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth; and whether they could come to a conclusion on this claim of rights? He apprehended that the proposed inquiry fell not within the legitimate duties of that House; and he saw insuperable difficulties in the way of granting the Committee—not the least being the impossibility of drawing a line between this and other cases, and of preventing, if the present Motion were sanctioned, the House from being made a general court of inquiry in favour of all persons believing themselves to suffer under a legal wrong. The noble Earl had imagined that the individuals whose cause he advocated would experience great difficulty in prosecuting their claim before a court of law; but it should be borne in mind that any parties not in a condition to bear law expenses might have their case, under certain circumstances, conducted without expense. There was likewise another course of proceeding which the noble Earl's clients might adopt; they might present a memorial to the Attorney General; and, if that functionary thought the case a fitting one for investigation, he could, ex officio, institute proceedings. When this matter was mentioned to him some three or four weeks ago, he yielded to the suggestion which some one then made, that it might be referred to the new Board of Charity Commission; but the learned persons composing that Board made an objection which was perfectly conclusive — namely, that they had no jurisdiction in the question, for the Charity Act excepted from the jurisdiction of that Board all collegiate and cathedral churches; and these Poor Knights, it seemed, were integral parts of the collegiate church of St. George, Windsor—a circumstance of which he was not at the time aware. Under these circumstances, all that he could suggest was, either that these parties should of their own authority institute legal proceedings, or present a memorial to the Attorney General, satisfying him that it was a case in which he ought to interfere. He (the Lord Chancellor) doubted whether that officer would come to such a decision, because, where, whether rightly or wrongly, a state of things had gone on for about

1319
two centuries, that might not be deemed a very reasonable case for any interference on the part of the Attorney General. Still, it was open for these parties to pursue that course, and, if they did not take it, they must then do as other persons did who believed themselves to be deprived of their rights—they must have recourse to the ordinary tribunals of the land. With respect to the proposed Committee, he conceived that the granting of it would be dangerous in itself, and might be a precedent for still more dangerous applications hereafter.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that having been alluded to, he would trespass for a few moments on their Lordships' attention. He had the greatest possible respect for the parties whose case had been brought before the House; but he must decline giving any opinion in that House on the case, even if his recollection enabled him to do so. But he remembered nothing at all of the merits of the case, which had been so fully pleaded by the noble Earl, from whose able advocacy it might be inferred, that if the noble Earl had devoted himself to the practice of the Court of Chancery he would by this time have been sitting on the woolsack. That House was not the tribunal to which, in the first instance, the parties ought to come, and he apprehended that the proper tribunal to take cognisance of such a case was the Court of Chancery. Let the clients of the noble Earl go into the Court of Chancery, and, with his assistance, their case would be most ably pleaded, and full justice would be done. He (Lord Campbell) would likewise repeat what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that the Attorney General, whatever might be his political opinions, would most eagerly and zealously attend to such a case if he thought it a fit one for interference.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid that, having been alluded to by the noble Earl, in consequence of having formerly taken a part in the great question relating to the abuses of charitable trusts, he wished to say that he could not approve of the present proposal for the appointment of a Committee. What such a Committee would have to inquire into would be whether the case of the Poor Knights or that of the dean and canons was the better in point of law. That was an entirely legal question; and, if argued before the proper tribunal, the Court of Chancery, it might afterwards come before their Lordships in their judi-
1320
cial capacity as a Court of Appeal. This showed the extreme inconvenience of the proposed course. At the same time, he could not help thinking that it was somewhat hard on these parties that they should, in consequence of being excluded, by an exception in the Charitable Trusts Act, from the cognisance of the Board appointed under that Act, be driven to another and more expensive and more tedious and anxious course of proceeding—namely, an application to the Court of Chancery. Considering, then, that these parties had a case as against the chapter and against the Government, in so far as the Government, listening to the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, had taken possession of part of the canonries, to the exclusion of the rights of these Poor Knights, and considering the hardship they suffered in being excluded from the easy, summary, and cheap remedy afforded by the Charitable Trusts Board, he could not help expressing his earnest hope that the law officers of the Crown would lend a favourable ear to the representations of these gallant and meritorious persons; and he should hope that the costs of the proceedings, regard being had to the hardship of the case, would be borne not by the Poor Knights, but by the Government.
EARL FITZWILLIAMconceived that the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack constituted a powerful argument in favour of the Motion, because the noble and learned Lord had pointed out that, by a singular exception in the Charitable Trusts Act, whatever injustice might be done by collegiate establishments, there was no remedy under that Act. He, therefore, thought it was a case for the interference of Parliament. True it was that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had said that the parties might go to the Court of Chancery; but surely it must be obvious that it would be rather hard for these Poor Knights to enter into litigation with the Dean and Chapter of St. George's, Windsor — and what had passed in the course of the present discussion led him to think that the dean and chapter would be supported by the Government. It had been said that the Attorney General would act ex officio, but still the Attorney General must be moved. One of the duties of the Government was to inquire into cases like the present, where the parties might have a difficulty in proceeding at law. He should be glad to hear that

1321
the Government would bear the costs of the suit, and then, indeed, much of the ground for the appointment of the Committee would be removed; but as he perceived no intention on the part of the Government to do that, he thought it expedient for Parliament to interfere, and he looked upon that House as being a more fitting branch of the Legislature for such interference than the other House. So far as he understood the case, it appeared to him that, unless there was some interference on the part of Parliament, it would be quite in vain for these parties to look for any remedy for the grievances of which they complained. It had been said that the House of Lords was not the place to pronounce, in the first instance, on a legal question, but still the House of Lords might be a very good body to inquire whether there was not a case proper to be brought before the legal tribunals.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEin reply, said that, as the noble and learned Lords who had spoken considered the case a very hard one, he would not divide the House on the Motion, if he received any intimation from them that they would support him in some future Motion for an Address to the Crown to instruct the Attorney General to institute proceedings on behalf of the parties whose case he had brought before the House.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned to Monday next.