Sitting of 6 August 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—l° Public Health (No. 2).
2° School Grants Security for Application.
3° Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Advances; Navigation Works (Ireland); Diseases Prevention; Criminal Justice.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. If he wanted a justification for the course he now took, he should find it in the fact that the Bill, though dealing with a great constitutional question, and effecting extensive changes in the criminal judicature of the country, had advanced to a third reading in that House without any discussion whatever on its principle, It came down from the Lords in February, and was rend a second time, without debate, on the 26th of March; it was then referred to a Select Committee on the 23rd of April; that Committee made their Report on the 24th of May; the Report was considered, after midnight, on the 25th of June; and now the Bill came on to be read a third time on the 6th of August. It was not within the scope of a Select Committee to decide upon the principle of a Bill; they had, however, in the measure now before the House, dealt rather largely, for they had cut it in half, retaining one half and rejecting the other. All previous reforms of

1867
the courts of law had had for their object the removal of inconveniences which had grown out of the practice of those courts during a long period of years, but care was taken to retain in all their integrity the tribunals themselves. The Bill, however, went actually to abolish the great constitutional tribunal for trying criminals in this country, and sought to set up an entirely new tribunal in its place. Now, he would ask, had there been any reason assigned for the introduction of such a measure? The Bill itself gave no information upon that point, for it had no preamble. There had, however, been only two reasons stated in favour of it—the one was that there was at present great delay in trying persons for light offences, and the other was that great expense attended those trials. He denied that these evils existed to any considerable extent. In almost every county in England there were quarter sessions and adjourned or intermediate sessions, so that there were courts held for the trial of persons for light offences about every six weeks. In large towns and cities the sessions were held even oftener than in the counties; upon the average, therefore, the delay that took place between the committal and the trial of any person for light offences would not exceed more than three weeks. Surely such a delay was not a sufficient reason for abolishing one of the highest judicial tribunals in the land. But it was said that men were often acquitted after having been imprisoned three weeks, and that that was a grievance which ought to be remedied. It should, however, be remembered that a verdict of "Not Guilty" was not equivalent to the establishing of a man's innocence. But even if it were true that every person who was acquitted was innocent, still there was a better remedy for the delay than the one proposed by the Bill now under consideration—namely, the giving greater facility for holding persons to bail. It was very desirable to educate the people up to a point when it should be felt that they were safely within the custody of the law by being bailed until the time for their trial. With regard to the saving of expense, which was obviously the great point with those who desired an alteration of the law (for in the three or four petitions, which were all that had been presented in favour of the Bill, that point was very much dwelt upon) he maintained that, although the argument of expense was not to be altogether disregarded, yet it was
1868
the most trivial and the most unworthy that could be urged. But, supposing these two arguments of delay and expense were entitled to much weight, would the Bill remove those evils? He denied that it would, for, even if there were only one remand by the magistrate, it would detain the prisoner in gaol as long as he would be kept there under the present system; and as to the expense, he contended that the Bill, so far from diminishing, would increase it very much indeed. There must be court houses and officers to attend them, by which great charges would be incurred by the counties. The prosecutors and witnesses must also be paid as now. What constituted the heavy cost of the administration of the law was the expensive fixed tribunals of the country at Westminster Hall, the assizes and quarter sessions, with all the apparatus of Judges, Recorders, Chairmen, Clerks of Indictment, and so on. No provision was contained in the Bill that would diminish any portion of that vast charge. But, apart from the questions of delay and expense, was not the present measure open to objection on other grounds? The first clause gave two or more magistrates in petty sessions a summary jurisdiction in cases where the property stolen was not above 5s. in value, unless the prisoner objected to it. Now, here by the very first clause was set up a fallacious test of the character of crime. It was assumed that the magnitude of the crime depended upon the pecuniary value of the property abstracted. Nothing so fallacious in principle had ever before been introduced into an Act of Parliament. He would give the following case: a man was charged with stealing a piece of paper value one halfpenny—a very small offence under the first clause of the Bill—but that piece of paper was a leaf torn out of a ledger, and stolen for the purpose of concealing frauds to an enormous extent. He was aware that power was given to the magistrates at petty sessions to decline exercising their jurisdiction. But that was very objectionable. It was bad in principle. So, again, the prisoner had an option given to him whether he would be tried by the magistrates summarily or by a jury at the sessions. But that was an equally false principle. In point of fact, however, though the Bill professed to give the prisoner an option, he never would be able to exercise it in the rural districts. The police would take care so to arrange the whole thing as effectually to deprive

1869
him of that option. But the proposed new tribunal would be unfair to the accused in another respect. At present, after the grand jury had found the Bill, the accused was tried before twelve men, who were all unknown to him; and he had a right of challenge; but the Bill would bring him before a new tribunal, consisting of two magistrates, who were living in his own neighbourhood and who probably had known him from his youth, and were acquainted with all his peccadilloes and infirmities of character. Again, he would be tried in a private court instead of a public one, and he would not be able to obtain the assistance either of counsel or attorney, although the Bill professed to give him the right to be so assisted. It was, however, well known that practically it could not be done. There was still another objection—the right of appeal had been taken away. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The writ of certiorari is not taken away.] He was aware of that, but the right of appeal was, and ought not to be in cases of that description. A further and a still more important objection to the Bill was that, if it were acted upon, it would have the effect of throwing the fate of every poor man in the rural districts helplessly into the hands of the police. He knew a great deal of the tyranny exercised by the police in those districts, and, if the Bill should pass, the whole administration of criminal justice in country places would be entirely in the hands of the police. Justice ought not to be made to flow through artificial channels but through the natural channels—namely, the parties whose property had been stolen. That those artificial channels might be corrupted he would not say, but it was a mode of administering criminal justice open to suspicion, and not at all calculated to invite public confidence. In a very extraordinary case—that of the Dagenham murder—three policemen and an inspector were guilty of wilful and deliberate perjury for the trivial purpose of avoiding being censured for neglect of duty by their superiors. Those cases proved how necessary it was to guard against the administration of justice being placed in the hands of the police. The present Bill was not only unfair to the accused, but also to the prosecutors. At present, when a prisoner was tried at sessions, and had been previously convicted, such previous conviction was given in evidence against him, and the prisoner consequently received an
1870
adequate punishment; but under the present Bill those previous convictions would not be made known, and the offender would escape the punishment he justly deserved on account of them. He objected to the Bill also because, under its provisions, all those aggravated circumstances which changed the character of simple larceny would be liable to be omitted, in order to bring cases under the jurisdiction of the magistrates. They ought also to be most careful how they tampered with trial by jury. They had already infringed upon that great principle, but in the former case they had proceeded on the more valid principle of the age of the offenders, while in the present instance the value of the property was the fallacious principle on which they based their exceptions. He thought that all would agree with him in considering that of late years the current of our legislation had been more in favour of order than of liberty, that they took more care of property than of character and persons, and that they were throwing down safeguards which, though apparently of little importance at present, might in a short time, from a change of circumstances, become of the highest possible moment. The Bill was most objectionable on social grounds, for it would by casting the most invidious duties on magistrates tend to widen the breach between classes, and he was surprised that the magistrates had not on that ground alone petitioned against the Bill. They ought to touch with most tender hands the tribunal of justice, but in the present instance it had been dealt with rashly and unsparingly, and he therefore trusted that the House would not agree to the third reading of the Bill.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he would second the Amendment, as he believed the Bill would be most mischievous and disastrous in its effect, and would give a very unjust impression as to the administration of law in the country.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that so far from concurring with the view of the hon. and learned Member that the Bill would be a mischievous and disastrous change in our legislation, he believed that it would be eminently beneficial. Everybody knew that there was a numerous class of cases in which the amount of property, the subject matter of offence,

1871
was so small, and in which the punishment inflicted was of such a character, that it was a matter of regret that the party accused should be confined for any length of time before being sent to trial, and that he could not be dealt summarily with by the magistrates. If it was merely a question of expense, and they were making the administration of justice less excellent, with a view of diminishing expense, then they would not be justified in proceeding on such a principle; but if, while they were lessening the expense, they were also achieving a great good, then the question of expense ought not to be overlooked. The present Bill would prevent the expense of taking witnesses to quarter sessions; and, as regarded the prevention of delay, would, not with standing what had been said by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. Chambers) on that subject, effect considerable improvement, as at present the period of punishment was frequently less than the period of imprisonment during which the person awaited his trial. Another great evil attendant on the existing state of the law was that prisoners were subjected before trial to the contamination of the company of the worst of criminals, it being impossible to classify them till after conviction, and the result was that many persons who entered a gaol innocent or only slightly criminal, left it hardened offenders. As regarded the constitutional objections which had been raised against the Bill, the greatest care had been taken to provide proper security for the prisoner, it being imperative on the magistrates to offer him, before his case was proceeded with the option of being tried by jury or of having his case summarily disposed of, He differed entirely from the hon. and learned Member as to what he had said respecting the police, for his (the Attorney General's) own experience led him to believe that the police would prefer the cases being sent to assizes and quarter sessions, and that they would endeavour to induce prisoners to submit to the jurisdiction of the magistrates. The action of the tribunal proposed under the Bill was not a question of public confidence; it was constituted only to dispose of a class of cases which should never be brought before the higher courts, while the magistrates had the option with respect to their jurisdiction in the case of old offenders, and the provision absolutely met the objection raised by the hon. and learned Member to that particular point. He believed that the
1872
Bill would be of the greatest benefit to the criminal, to the magistrate and to the country, and he should therefore greatly regret the adoption of the Amendment which had been proposed.
MR. BARROWsaid, he was anxious, where it could be avoided, that no persons should be made an inmate of a gaol before his conviction; but there were cases for which bail could not be taken; and his experience of prisons was such that he was anxious the Bill should pass. It was attempted to separate prisoners before trial from prisoners convicted by solitary confinement; but he could not think that that was just to the accused. Neither did he think that trials at quarter sessions, conducted as they were, much improved the prisoners. On those grounds, therefore, he supported the Bill, though he thought the subject was one which ought to have had a longer discussion in that House. The Bill, however, had been some time before Parliament, and the public were, therefore, aware that a change was contemplated in the law. The questions of expense and time lost to the prosecutors and the jury were, in his opinion, of considerable consequence in estimating the value of the Bill.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, it was deeply to be regretted that the Bill had not received a more extended discussion. He was of opinion that cases of petty larceny might be safely dealt with by summary jurisdiction; but he objected to that portion of the Bill, which made all stealing above the value of 5s. felony. The third clause of the Bill gave justices in petty sessions the power of dealing with offences punishable by death, transportation for life, or transportation for seven years, and punishing them at their option with from one day to three months' imprisonment. It was, therefore, in his opinion, wrong to pass a Bill of the kind; and the Government ought to postpone it until the next Session, when the whole subject of the criminal law alteration could be brought under consideration. He thought the Bill dealt with some of the nicest questions which came under the action of the law in a very inadequate manner. As regarded Ireland the Bill would be very injurious to the public, as it gave extraordinary discretion to two magistrates, who in many cases were not competent to decide the legal points that might be raised under its operation. The Bill also barred all actions for the recovery of stolen property, by em-

1873
powering the magistrates to grant a certificate upon confession of the party accused, which would have that effect. One of the results of the Bill would be to create a bidding on the part of petty sessions against assizes and quarter sessions. He thought a short Act of Parliament subjecting parties committing petty larcenies and offences to pecuniary costs and damages would be more effectual to check those offences than the maximum of imprisonment inflicted by the Bill under consideration. He believed that if all the cases of the kind in question were to be triable before petty sessions, at least four-fifths of the cases would be taken from the quarter sessions, the magistrates would get tired of the increased duties, stipendiary magistrates would have to be appointed as in Ireland, and the country gentlemen, who had hitherto done their duty satisfactorily and cheaply, would be completely superseded by a host of Government employés at 1,000 l. a year, which, moreover, the counties would have to pay for. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
MR. BAINESsaid, that the real principle of the Bill was contained in the first two clauses under which a certain summary jurisdiction was given to magistrates of dealing with small offences, instead of their being sent to quarter sessions or assizes. He might, as Chairman of the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, be permitted to state that every care was taken to surround the exercise of the new jurisdiction which was given under the Bill with every safeguard, so as to make it work in as unexceptionable a manner as possible. With regard to the constitutional propriety of the Bill, he would only state that Lord Brougham had expressed an opinion as to the great importance of the measure, and that the Lord Chief Justice Campbell had congratulated grand juries on the probability of a Bill of the nature of the one before them being passed during the present Session.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°.
Clause (Appeal, 7 and 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 72), brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read 2°.
Debate adjourned till Wednesday.

THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he wished to make a statement in reference to some remarks that had been made in another place as to the appropriation of a sum of money from the Special Service Fund to the purposes of the Royal Society. It had, he understood, been alleged that such an application of any portion of the fund in question was a misappropriation of a fund specially intended for charitable purposes. He could only state what was his own impression upon the subject, and that impression was that the fund was intended to be devoted to special services and the Royal Bounty, and the proposal he made was, that if sums of money were applied through the Royal Society to discoveries, inventions, and scientific purposes of that nature, it might fairly be considered as an appropriation for special services. Of course, after such application had gone on for three or four years it might be right for the House no longer to consider it in the light of an appropriation for special service, but then, as it appeared to him, it was still a special purpose for which the Government might propose, and Parliament very properly might vote a sum of money in the Estimates. What he wished to observe, therefore, was, that it was not a misappropriation of money intended for charitable purposes, but an appropriation for a special and useful purpose to which the fund might properly be applied, for it must not be forgotten that though science had an eye that never closed and a wing that never flagged, it had not a purse that was never empty. He did not consider the appropriation an improper one, and he hoped a sum of money, not exceeding the amount which had been granted, would continue to be allowed from that or some other source for the promotion of scientific objects.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that next Session he would move for a Select Committee to consider what public measures might be adopted for the advancement of science. The Royal Society did not consider the sum in question a charitable grant, but money given in aid and for the promotion of science. He thought it right to say that the grant was a spontaneous act of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was impossible to continue the grant out of the fund from which it had been hitherto de-

1875
rived; but he was sensible that the purposes to which the money had been applied were deserving of public encouragement, and he believed that the grant had been economically and judiciously expended. What he proposed to do was, for the present year, to issue the sum of l,000 l. out of the amount voted for unforeseen services, and next Session to include in the Miscellaneous Estimates a like sum for the Royal Society.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider the clauses, said, as the understanding was that the discussion should be taken at that stage, he would state shortly the leading principles and provisions of the measure. He regretted that a measure of such importance had been delayed to so late a period of the Session, but as far as he was concerned the delay was inevitable. It had been charged against him by the public press that he had been the cause of the delay, and that he had been influenced by sordid motives, being anxious to prevent the diminution of the fees and emoluments of his office, which would be affected by the Bill. Never had a more unfair or unjust charge been made. He had himself introduced a Bill based upon the same principle, and having the same object in view as the present measure of which the present Bill was an Amendment. That Act appointed a Commission, with powers almost as large as they would be under the present Bill. An extension of those powers in certain directions had, however, been found necessary, and not only was he extremely anxious that that extension should take place, but he had used every possible exertion to effect that object, by expediting the progress of the measure, which he was charged with having, from unworthy and sordid motives, impeded. The reason of the delay was that when the Bill came down from the Lords, about the end of June, the House of Commons were so engaged in pressing on the various measures still before them, in order to send them up to the other House before the 24th of July, after which that House had resolved not to read any Bill a second time, that there was not time to consider any measure sent down from the Lords to the Commons. It had been asserted, as he had just stated,
1876
that he, as Attorney General, regarded the extension of the powers of the Commission as an innovation of his rights, that he complained that the measure would interfere with his jurisdiction, and diminish the emoluments of his office. A more ungenerous or unjust charge had never been made. With regard to the loss of fees, the total amount of the fees arising from the fiats upon Commissions and other allowances with which the Bill would interfere, amounted only to 25 1. a year. The Act of 1853 established a Commission, the powers of which the experience of the last two years had proved to be too limited for the purpose for which they were intended. That Commission had large powers of inquiry—power to call for accounts, reports, and statements, and they had two inspectors whom they could send down to the country to inquire into the management of charitable trusts, the appropriation of the funds, and other matters connected with them; they had power to give advice to trustees when required, and trustees acting in accordance with the advice so given were to be deemed to have executed their trusts in conformity with law and equity. They had power also, under the existing Act, on the application of the trustees, to remove schoolmasters and schoolmistresses. They had, however, no administrative powers, and where administrative powers were required, it was still necessary to invoke the aid of the Court of Chancery. As he had said, the experience of the last two years had shown that the powers of the Commissioners were not sufficiently large, and to supply that defect was the chief object of the present Bill. In the first place, under the existing Act, the salary of one of the Commissioners would drop at the end of the present year; and as it was clear that the work of the Commission could not be carried on with a smaller staff, some provision in that respect was necessary. Then, at present the Commissioners could only examine witnesses on oath by means of the two inspectors, and it being requisite in many cases that they should be enabled to carry on such examination by themselves, it was proposed in the Bill to give to the Commissioners the same powers as they now exercised by their inspectors. Again, it having been found that the present number of the inspectors was too limited, it was proposed to take powers in the present Bill to add to them, and to enable the Commissioners to appoint other inspectors,

1877
more especially temporary local inspectors, to act in cases where it might not be worth while to send down the permanent inspectors. It was proposed also to extend the powers of the Commission in various other directions. For instance, where the trustees were disinclined to act, it was thought desirable to empower the Commissioners to put in motion the powers of the Act for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the trust, and to take steps for the removal of schoolmasters and mistresses. The Commissioners might on application by the trustees sanction improving leases, and even the alienation of property, and it was desirable to give them powers independent of the application of trustees to do all those things which they were now empowered to do on such application. The most important point in the Bill related to the increased jurisdiction of the Commissioners. They had now no administrative powers. In cases of charities below 30 1. a year the jurisdiction rested in the Judge of the County Court, or the district Commissioner of Bankruptcy, and above that amount it was necessary to resort to the Court of Chancery. It was thought that such cases should be put on a different footing. At present no scheme for charities under 30 l. a year could be carried out by the County Court Judge or the Commissioner of Bankrupts unless sanctioned by the Commissioners, and it was thought that the Commissioners should have power to do that without the intervention of the Judges of the County Courts or the Commissioners of Bankruptcy. As the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, that power was given not only in cases under 30 l. a year, but it was unlimited. That was objected to, and the power was limited to cases under 10 l. a year. Even with that limitation the power would work beneficially, for out of over 28,000 charities, there were under 5l. a year, 13,331; above 5l. and under 10 l., there were 4,641; making an aggregate of nearly 18,000 charities, with an income of 110,000 l. a year, which would come under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, even if it were so low as to reach only to cases of 10 l. a year. But, as they now exercised a controlling power over cases of 30 l.a year, it was thought desirable that the complicated machinery of the County Court and the district Court of Bankruptcy should be got rid of, and he proposed to extend the power of the Commissioners from cases of
1878
10 l. a year to those under 30 l. By that means, charities above 20 l. a year, and under 30 l., and producing 90,000 l. a year, would come under their jurisdiction. To that extent he proposed to limit their jurisdiction, although he was bound to say that, in his own opinion, it would have been better to have given the Commissioners unlimited jurisdiction; but as there was no chance of the House of Lords agreeing to that alteration, while there was no objection to limiting it to 30 l. a year, he should confine himself to that proposition. That was, as he had previously stated, the most important feature in the Bill, and its necessity was proved by the simple fact that it was impossible, looking to the procedure of the Court of Chancery, that any charity producing a sum under 30 l. a year could go into that Court without being seriously crippled by the expense. He was aware that the Commission was not an open Court, and so subjected to the control of public opinion; he fully felt the force of that objection, but he had only a choice of evils; either that small charities which could not bear the expense of the Court of Chancery should be sent there, or if that was not done, unless you resorted to some tribunal like that of the Commission, they would be left without any administration at all. The income3 of charities amounted to about 1,000,000 l. a year, and it was important that they should be under the control of some public body. Till recently, there had been no efficient control over them, and though the Attorney General's duty was, as far as he could, to see that they were properly administered, and if they were not, he could bring them into the Court of Chancery, he had no means or machinery for acting in all cases. Great abuses existed in the administration of charities, and Lord Brougham, many years ago, brought the matter before Parliament, and various Commissions had been appointed, and cases brought before the Attorney General by means of which a sum of about 1,000,000 l. had been recovered for public charities. The present Commissioners had power to inquire into and advise in cases of charities, but they had no controlling powers, and they were not able to settle any question without litigation; and it was to remedy that defect that the present Bill was introduced. He regretted to find that he was threatened with considerable opposition, and especially from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight), who

1879
threatened it in every stage. He hoped, not with standing, that it would receive the sanction of the House of Commons. The Commissioners had shown that they were deserving of confidence; they had heard 3,000 applications in charity cases in the course of last year, and they had given very great satisfaction on the whole. He could not help thinking that a great boon would be conferred on charities by placing them in the hands of disinterested and impartial men, who would do their duty; while the measure would act as a great relief to the smaller and weaker charities in the matter of expense.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WINN KNIGHTsaid, it was his intention to move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months. He did so from no feelings of animosity towards the charity Commission as at present constituted. He should be very willing to strengthen the existing powers of the Commissioners, very great as they were, but he objected to the absolute powers of control and administration which it was proposed to give them by the Bill. He admitted that the Commissioners had exercised their powers beneficially for the charities with which they had dealt; but he protested against a measure like the present being brought in at that late period of the Session, when, if it was passed, it would be done practically without consulting the House of Commons. The Bill would give power to upset the foundation of every charity, and put them wholly in the hands of the Commissioners. The powers proposed to be given to the Commissioners under the Bill, were, he contended, almost unconstitutionally extensive, the whole of the enormous funds of the charities were at the disposition of the trustees, and there was no security for their safety provided in the Bill. Now, he did object, at that late period of the Session, to a change which would give the Commissioners absolute authority over the whole of the charities of England. He looked upon the Bill as totally unconstitutional, both in its general principle and in many of its details. By its provisions the will of every founder of a charity was upset, and the whole power over and management of 35,000,000 l. worth of property were placed in the hands of the Commissioners. Nothing could be more monstrous than the powers which the Bill proposed
1880
to vest in the Commissioners and official trustees, and, instead of increasing the security of the charity funds, it would take away almost the only security that now existed. If the measure passed in its present shape no respectable man would become a trustee, and the result would be that the funds would be placed in the hands of agents to deal with as they thought fit. Indeed, so very imperfect was the Bill, that it would require the most careful consideration and amendment before it could pass into law. He found that, according to the Act of 1853, the Commissioners were bound to submit to Her Majesty, and to present to Parliament in the month of February in every year, all the schemes they had approved. The Commissioners had been in office for nearly a year and a half, but, although they had inspected some 800 charities, they bad only matured their schemes in two cases, and he could not help fancying that, when they were asking for such extensive additional powers, they did not wish the House to be acquainted with the enormous powers they already possessed. He might observe that, although their Report consisted only of four pages and a half, it contained no less than thirteen demands for more powers; and fifty clauses of the Bill—which contained altogether only fifty-six clauses. He thought that, before granting the Commissioners the enormous powers they demanded, Parliament ought to know how they had exercised the powers they already possessed. As the matter stood, the House was called upon to increase the power of the Charity Commissioners, and to establish such a central authority as never yet existed in England, without any evidence of the necessity of such a measure. He could not help thinking that an attempt was being made to smuggle the measure through the House, for many Members had left town who were unacquainted with its provisions, and who, he was satisfied, would have opposed its progress. The pretext that it was necessary to diminish the cost of applications to the Commissioners, and of informations laid at the suit of the Attorney General, would not bear investigation. Those expenses had been much reduced, and were no longer burthensome on the charities. He believed the real fact was, that the Attorney General had a barrister to look after that sort of business, who was called "his devil," and who had a solicitor employed under him. Formerly, the only mode of

1881
proceeding was to have a relator, some responsible person who would come forward and complain of the maladministration of any particular charity; upon his complaint the Attorney General was to institute a suit, and then if the complaint were dismissed as frivolous, the relator would have to pay the costs. But now the most frivolous and improper suits could be commenced at the instance of the solicitor to the Attorney General, Mr. Fearon, and all the costs would fall either upon the unfortunate charity or upon the public. He (Mr. Knight) was told by legal gentlemen that an enormous amount of business would accrue to Mr. Fearon if the Bill became law; the agents and inspectors appointed through the country would hunt up more cases, to the great profit of the solicitor, who happened to be a brother-in-law of the Chief Commissioner. The amount of the enormous bills which he made to be paid by the country was such as Parliament was not allowed to know; but they amounted to 77.000 l. at one time, to which reference had been made. The whole business ought now to be taken out of the Attorney General's hands, and the Commissioners should have a solicitor of their own, paid by a fixed salary, like the legal officer of the corporations of some of our large towns, so that he would have no interest in making suits for the sake of costs. Last year, several of those suits were dismissed by the Master of the Rolls, who expressed a strong opinion on the subject, and observed that in all such cases there ought to be a relator who should be responsible for the costs. He (Mr. Knight) did hope, therefore, that the Government would consent to forego the Bill, and bring in one to continue the functions of the Charitable Trusts Commissioners for another year, and to strengthen their hands for usefulness, if it were needed, so that next Session a Select Committee might be appointed to investigate the whole question. If the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), were to be Chairman of that Select Committee, and to conduct the inquiry in the same admirable manner in which his Select Committee that Session had been conducted, taking care to avoid undue centralisation whilst he insisted upon provisions for the effectual working of the machinery, then a Bill would probably be framed, not like the present, which would prove a Chadwickian thorn in the country's side, but one that would pass through
1882
Parliament with as general approbation, and with as great promise of a beneficial result, as the right hon. Baronet's Metropolitan Government Bill of the present Session.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he would second the Amendment. It was in his opinion impossible, at that period of the Session, to give to the measure that amount of consideration which the importance of the subject with which it dealt demanded at their hands. The operation of the Charity Commission had been, he must confess, in many instances very beneficial; but he objected to the granting of powers which would supersede the trustees of all the charities in England.
Amendment proposed to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. MICHELLsaid, the only fault he found with the Bill was, that its provisions were not large enough; and if the management of all the charities were vested in the Commissioners, he considered it would be a vast improvement. From what he had seen of them, he had no doubt the Commissioners would work them all satisfactorily, and they might well have a judicial power conferred upon them, to do that for which the Court of Chancery was now resorted to, at a cost ruinous to small charities.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he should support the Amendment. The Charity Commission had only been in existence for a few years, and at present it was impossible to tell how far its proceedings would prove beneficial. He could not consent to the establishment of a close court for the adjudication of charity disputes. The Bill ought to have been introduced three months ago, instead of which the time of the House was wasted upon Scotch Education Bills, and Tenant Right Bills, which it was never imagined would pass.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped the House would consent to go into Committee on the Bill, especially as he thought there had been an understanding that that course was to be taken—and that if the provisions of the Bill required more consideration than could be given to them, it should then be postponed till next Session. By the first part of the Bill it was proposed to continue the third Commissioner, the

1883
payment of whose salary had been previously limited to two years; and it was further proposed to increase the powers of inquiry vested in the Commissioners, and to provide additional agency for the performance of the duties of the Commission. With regard to the administrative functions of the Bill he had heard great complaints that the hands of the Commissioners were so tied up by Parliament that they could not afford adequate relief. As the Bill stood the jurisdiction commenced at 10 l. a year; his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General proposed to extend it to 30 l. a year; and having known cases in which an incompetent schoolmaster had been continued from year to year, because there were no funds belonging to the charity to pay the expense of his removal, he trusted the House would see if it could not provide a remedy for such a state of things.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he must deny that it had been understood that there should be no discussion on the Order of the Day forgoing into Committee. [Sir G. GREY said, he must beg to explain; what he had intended to say was that the Bill should go into Committee for consideration.] It was a complete delusion to suppose, as the right hon. Baronet appeared to do, that the Bill would diminish the expenses of charity proceedings. His chief objection to the Bill, however, at that moment was, that the period was too late for considering a measure which affected no less than 24,000 out of the 28,000 charities of the kingdom. By one of its provisions it was proposed to give the Charity Commissioners power to appoint local inspectors, instead of sending down the London inspectors belonging to the Board, and all the expenses of those local inspectors during the time of their inquiries, were to be paid by the charity under inquiry. Charities which were at present under the control of the Court of Chancery would not by the present Bill be exempted from that control, and he wished to point out to the House that, whereas in that respect the measure offered no advantage, it would be productive of great inconvenience, because, while it gave to the Commissioners the power of exercising every possible function which appertained to a charitable trust, it in no way provided for the manner in which that power should be exercised. He wished to know if the administrative functions which the Bill would confer upon the Commissioners were to be exercised in
1884
public or in private? He was not prepared to say that the powers of the Commissioners should not be extended, but he hoped that the House would not consent to extend them except upon a well-matured plan, and one which had been considered by a Select Committee; and he might add that, in his opinion, a material element in any such plan ought to be an obligation upon the Commissioners to discharge their administrative functions in public. The hon. and learned Attorney General said that the Commission had given great satisfaction; but he (Mr. Cairns) entertained a different opinion, and the increase of the powers of the Commission, without a thorough change in its constitution, never would obtain for that body the goodwill of the country. If the Government earnestly desired to make the Board effective and to have the charities brought under better management than at present, they would withdraw the Bill at that late period of the Session, and bring in another next year, referring it for consideration to a Select Committee.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that one portion of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed them consisted in a criticism of some of the details of the Bill, and that criticism would have been more appropriately made in the Committee on the Bill. Another portion consisted in a personal attack on the competency of the Charity Commissioners, and a third portion was made up of the ordinary lamentation, that the Government should attempt at that late period to retrieve the Session and make the best use of the remaining time, by passing some measures with which the House of Commons might have just cause to be satisfied. It could not be contended that it was now too late to consider the Bill, seeing that the subject to which it referred had been before the attention of Parliament for more than twenty years, for there was not a provision in the Bill which might not be traced to a Report of a Committee of that House in 1835, though, with the ordinary delay which marked attempts at legal reform, they were now trying to carry into effect some of the best recommendations of that Report. With respect to the Commissioners, it was hardly necessary for him, in their vindication, to advert to their professional character, long experience, and to the care and attention they bestowed on the examination of the cases brought be-

1885
fore them. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected that the Commissioners did not sit in public; but it should be considered that the Commissioners constituted a Board for the performance of administrative duties; and it was essential to their right discharge that the business should be transacted without that opportunity for delay and expense which attended the performance of judicial functions. At any rate, if the hon. and learned Gentleman desired that the Commissioners should sit in open Court he could submit a proposition to that effect in Committee. With respect to the manner in which the Amendment had been introduced to the House by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight), he must confess that he could discern no sequence whatever in that hon. Member's remarks or ideas. He did not wonder at it. On the contrary, he felt considerable compassion for the hon. Gentleman, for it was perfectly plain that he had had his innocent mind imposed upon, and had been frightened by the stories told him by the body of practitioners he had been in communication with. The hon. Gentleman told the House that all the official trustees in England had run away with the funds in their possession; that the Commissioners had the power to commit whom they pleased to gaol; and he had found out that in the Commission there were thirteen members of one family. That, however, happened to be a larger number than all the Commissioners, Inspectors, and Clerks put together, and, unless the hon. Member went back as far as the time of the Flood, he could not show that they were related together. There was no provision in the Bill giving the Commissioners power to send any one they pleased to gaol, and, with regard to the official trustees, there was the same security for the money as existed in the Court of Chancery, and it was just as impossible for an official trustee under the Bill to run away with the money as for the Accountant General in Chancery to run away with the many millions nominally standing in his name. Let the House consider what the Bill really was. In 1820 a recommendation was made to that House by the Commissioners for the creation of a jurisdiction which would provide a summary remedy with regard to charities of small amount. That recommendation was repeated in the Report of 1835, which carefully pointed out what should be the ends and aims of any measure introduced
1886
into Parliament on the subject. It pointed out that there should be a Board armed with powers to continue the investigation into the condition of charities which had been begun in 1818. It then proposed that the Board should be armed with the most extensive administrative powers for the management of charities, and with summary jurisdiction respecting charities of small amount. Unhappily, those recommendations were not acted upon until Lord Lyndhurst, in 1844, attempted to give effect to them. The Bill brought in by that noble and learned Lord proposed to establish a Board of Commissioners with summary judicial powers extending over all charities possessing an income of 100 l. a year; and the administrative powers proposed to be given to the Board under that measure far exceeded those vested in the Commissioners by the Bill now before the House. The Bill of 1844, however, was not successful in the House of Lords, though proposed in the following year, and again by Lord Lyndhurst in 1846. Here, therefore, was the testimony of that most venerable and consummate judge in favour of provisions applicable to charities, which greatly exceeded in their stringency and extent anything to be found in the Act of 1853 or in the Bill as now proposed. There were repeated attempts to carry out Lord Lyndhurst's measure by Bills introduced into that House, one of which was brought forward by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary; others in 1850, 1851, and 1852. The subject, therefore, instead of being one which the House of Commons was not prepared to legislate upon, had received, repeatedly, the deliberate attention of the House. In 1853 a Bill was passed which established the present Board, and gave it certain powers and certain authority. That Act had now been a year in operation, and the Commissioners had made a Report detailing their experience during that time. They themselves complained that their administration had not been so satisfactory as they could wish. And why? Because their powers were not sufficient to enable them to exercise a proper control and regulation, and it was on that account that their powers were now sought to be extended. Many of the points touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cairns) were assuredly details for consideration in Committee, but he thought, according to the provisions of the Bill as they stood, that prudent checks had been placed upon the powers to be ex-

1887
cised by the Commissioners, and that the measure was not open to any great objection on that score. It had been said that under the Bill no respectable person would become a trustee. He denied that assertion, for he thought that the Bill was directly calculated to induce the most respectable persons to become trustees, because in a case of emergency they would now know that they were not liable to be dragged into the Court of Chancery, but that there existed a tribunal to which they might resort not only for advice, but to obtain, in a speedy and summary manner, an order sanctioning their proceeding. The Bill would, therefore, be a protection to trustees who desired honestly to administer the funds entrusted to their charge, and it would therefore hold out the greatest inducement to respectable persons to become trustees. The only respect in which it added to the powers conferred by the Act of 1853 was by giving to the Commissioners a judicial authority, and that was not a new principle, because the Act of 1853 established a summary jurisdiction for all charities not exceeding a certain amount. He thought that, with respect to charities, judicial and administrative powers ought always to be combined. The evil of the present system was, that the administrative powers were in the Commissioners, and the judicial powers in the County Court or Bankruptcy Court. If it was right to give summary jurisdiction to the County Court and Bankruptcy Court, it was equally right to give the same authority to the Commissioners, and a mistake was committed by the Act of 1853 in separating the judicial from the administrative authority. The great change that would be effected by the Bill would be the establishment of a tribunal for the more effectual correction of abuses and for conferring larger administrative powers. The measure was founded altogether, in principle, upon the Act of 1853; and, in point of fact, the House would negative the principle of that Act by acceding to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knight).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that it would have been more instructive if the hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of lecturing the House upon its great waste of time, had endeavoured to enlighten them upon some of those matters to which their attention had been called by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns). If the measure before the House were, as
1888
represented by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, a perfecting of the Act of 1853, he was certain not one in the House would offer it opposition. But in his opinion, it was far from being a supplement to the Act of 1853, as it provided new machinery altogether, and that in the most important provisions. A considerable portion of the first ten clauses of the Bill referred to the Board, and to the powers of the Board. The hon. and learned Solicitor General agreed that portions were open to objection, particularly those which referred to the extensive powers proposed to be given to the Commissioners. He (Mr. Henley) was therefore glad to find they should have the assistance of the hon. and learned Gentleman in remedying those defects. But to come to the most important part of the Bill. It was not unreasonable to argue the Bill with reference to charities of 30 l., instead of charities of 10 l. What they had to consider was, whether the new machinery, dealing with those charities of 30 l., was a better or worse machinery than that provided by the Bill of 1853. According to the old machinery, all matters of complaint first went before the Charity Commissioners, next to the County Courts—which were armed with great powers in such cases—and, in the event of the Charity Commissioners not being pleased with the order of the County Courts, they referred the matter back again to those Courts for reconsideration, or else removed it to Chancery, the parties urging the complaint being bound in bond to pay the costs of the Court of Chancery order. Therefore great care was taken to avoid expense. Now, by the new machinery, any person might make an information behind the backs of all concerned, and without any sort of notice whatever. Acting on that information, the Charity Commissioners would have power to make orders; and any trustee, though he might not have received the least intimation of a complaint against him, was liable to find his name posted on the church door or other public place as being dismissed from his trust, the cause of which dismissal he would be quite in ignorance about. That was one of the provisions of the present measure. The hon. and learned Solicitor General asserted there was nothing new in the measure, and that all its provisions were so well known during the last twenty years that the subject was before the House. If such were the case why were

1889
not all those important provisions inserted in the Bill of 1853, for surely the Law Officers of the Crown in 1853 were the identical Gentlemen filling the same positions at present? He wished to ask the House what the feelings of Gentlemen acting as trustees were likely to be on finding themselves posted and dismissed? Why, if the hon. and learned Solicitor General taxed his ingenuity to devise a scheme of general annoyance he could not better succeed than by setting up a tribunal which condemned and dismissed men behind their backs and afforded them no opportunity for explanation or defence. The Attorney General's powers were saved. It was possible he might not approve of what the Commissioners had dune. Then they went to the Court of Chancery; and the costs of the suit would come out of the funds of the Charity. That he thought was a very odd way of taking care of charities! That portion of the Bill would take a great deal of time to amend in Committee. So as to schoolmasters. If the schoolmaster enjoyed an endowment of 50 l. a year he was taken care of, but if a trustee subscribed 5s. a year in aid of the fund, the jurisdiction of the Commissioners was overruled—so far as he was concerned. But if, unfortunately, a schoolmaster had an endowment under 50 l,, or no endowment at all, the Commissioners might, without any notice to anybody, turn him out, and assign any reason they chose. That would hardly be very satisfactory. Most trustees would be disposed to destroy the schools rather than to submit to it. But it might be said the Commissioners would not exercise such extreme powers. Then why confer them? Such were some of the objections which applied to the Bill. There might be necessity for increased inspection, but not for an entire change of machinery—a change as likely to be mischievous as it certainly seemed to be capricious. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had urged that judicial and administrative functions should be conjoined. They were so in the County Courts, except that they could not vary the order of the Court of Chancery. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been unusually uncourteous in his tone towards the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns); nor, in his (Mr. Henley's) opinion, was his tone calculated to facilitate the passage of the Bill. The clauses
1890
of the Bill must receive considerable amendment in the Committee, and he should prefer that the portion referring to the County Courts should be deferred to next Session. The same Law Officers had in the space of two years brought forward entirely distinct and different measures, and had not shown that the measure they had first passed had failed, or how it had failed. Had they shown that it might have been possible to amend the former measure without resorting to a sort of Star Chamber tribunal—to judge before hearing or inquiry. It would be best to improve the present system, and let it work in public, which was the only security. There might be three angels sitting in Lincoln's Inn, but if they sat in private the public would not be satisfied. A great many of the Charity Trustees had been accused of applying the funds to political purposes: and things done in secret would be sure not to escape similar suspicions. What was done in secret conclave would assuredly be suspected. Let, then, that part of the Bill be discarded, and the rest amended. It would be most unsatisfactory if the measure passed in its present form. To have orders passed behind men's backs would be certain to cause them to litigate. That would tend to increase costs. Then let the inspecting powers of the Bill alone be regarded for the present; and let further legislation be postponed until it was ascertained whether those powers would work well. In its present form the measure would tend to swallow up Charities. Let the Commissioners work upon the existing machinery, and improve it, before anything further was attempted. If that course was taken, the rest of the Bill might pass.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he must beg to explain that by the 18th section trustees could not be removed without an opportunity being afforded to object to such a proceeding.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he thought if the measure was desirable for small charities, it was equally desirable for large ones. He would urge upon the Government the propriety of acceding to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he hoped that some Member of the Government would inform the House whether it was intended to adopt the suggestion which had been made to proceed only with

1891
those parts of the Bill for which there was a pressing necessity. With respect to the enlargement of the powers of the Commissioners, that was a matter more open to debate than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General appeared to consider.
MR. MALINSsaid, he should also support the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). The Solicitor General had complained of the inadequate powers of the Act of 1853, but when that Bill came under discussion there was no disinclination on the part of Parliament to grant all the powers which the Government thought were necessary. But even the Commissioners, in their Report, although some of them asked for greater powers, did not say their present powers were insufficient to carry into effect the main objects of the Act of 1853. The power of dismissing offending schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, which the Bill purported to confer, had been already exercised by the Commissioners under the existing Act. It was, however, proposed now for the first time to create new judicial powers. It might be expedient, perhaps, to create those powers; but if such a step was to be taken, it should only be on the most deliberate consideration. It should be remembered that the measure affected no less than 27,000 trusts, and property of a large annual value; it was, almost impossible the discussion could be too protracted; and if four hours had been occupied in debate upon the principle of the Bill, what prospect was there of getting through the fifty-six clauses, with Amendments on more than thirty of them, so as to close Parliament on Saturday? Was the House prepared to erect a new judicial tribunal, in which A would write a letter of complaint against B, the Commissioners would write to B, informing him of the complaint, but not of the party making it, B would send his answer to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners would come to a decision without bringing the parties face to face, or communicating the grounds upon which their decision rested? Such a secret tribunal as that could never give satisfaction, and should never receive his approval. Even with such men as the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice Chancellor, he preferred having judgment given in public, for when the eyes of the profession and of the public were withdrawn there was danger of the judge being sway-
1892
ed by whims and fancies, which had no effect when the decision was pronounced in open Court. He had made it a rule never to consent to have a case heard in private which could with any propriety be heard in public, and, that being his feeling, he considered the establishment of such a tribunal as the proposed one most objectionable. Undoubtedly there was an appeal, but they should look to the expenses of those appeals. The number of those appeals would be increased by having secret tribunals, and the better way was to have the case properly decided at once, and thus avoid the necessity for those appeals. The Bill came from the Lords on the 26th of June. If it had then been taken into consideration he would have given every assistance to the Government to make it perfect; but that was now impossible. For the delay which had taken place the noble Lord at the head of the Government was responsible, because he had wasted time in persevering with the Tenants' Compensation Bill after the rejection of the 14th clause, and in pressing the Scotch Education Bill, which was abandoned immediately it reached the House of Lords. It was unbecoming for the Government to reproach them with obstruction because within four days of the end of the Session they objected to pass without the fullest discussion a measure of such great importance as the present. He trusted that the noble Lord, and the law advisers of the Crown would not persist in pressing the more objectionable parts of the Bill, but would cut it down to the more pressing enactments, leaving the principles at issue to be dealt with next Session.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Bill was of so much importance, and would be so beneficial to the charities of England and Wales, that he felt unwilling to give up any portion of it until the feeling of the House should be expressed to that effect. The continuance of the third member of the Commission and of the number of inspectors were points absolutely necessary to be passed. With regard to what were called the judicial powers of the Commissioners, if hon. Members opposite were determined to fight that clause it would be necessary to make some concession in order to save such parts of the Bill as were absolutely necessary. The Bill had been submitted to the highest legal authorities, and had obtained the sanction not only of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, and Lord Brougham, but also,

1893
of Lord St. Leonards, and he was surprised that practitioners in the Court of Chancery should oppose a Bill supported by such high legal authority. Lord St. Leonards had assented to the 10 l. jurisdiction of the Commissioners. [Mr. MALINS: But that is a very different thing]. But hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite refused him that clause, which he would be willing to take as a compromise. The Bill had been before the House since the 26th of June, and he had been most anxious that it should be taken at the earliest possible period that was permitted by the state of public business. He was in the hands of the House, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite were determined that that particular portion of the Bill should not be carried he must take what he could get.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, there were three points which were specially objected to by hon. Gentlemen on his the Opposition side of the House—first, the appointment of local inspectors; next, the twelfth clause, which gave power to the Commissioners to proceed ex parte; and thirdly, the power which was given the Board to remove schoolmasters. Upon all those three points he (Mr. Wigram) should feel bound to divide against the Bill.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought it would be more convenient, when they had come to an agreement upon the point of principle, to discuss matters of detail in Committee on the Bill. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) said that the twelfth clause ought not to receive the sanction of Parliament, not with standing it had been approved of by the four great legal authorities referred to; and considering the few days remaining for discussion, his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) was willing to give up that portion of the Bill. That assertion of principle having been made, he should hope the House would now agree to go into Committee without further discussing the details.
MR. BARROWsaid, he felt serious objections to proceeding with a Bill of such importance in so small a House as they then had, and at a period of the Session when it was impossible to consider it with the attention which it demanded.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. BOWYERsaid, there was nothing in the circumstances of Ireland to justify such a measure, as, by the admission of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland himself, there was neither crime nor outrage in that country. The Irish soldiery were freely shedding their blood in the war in which we were now engaged, and surely it was a small boon to ask that their country should be placed on an equality with the other parts of the Empire. He should move that the Bill be committed that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, if the Bill was allowed to expire, they would have no restriction on the people of Ireland acquiring arms. Since the Union there had been only one year in which there had not been an Act to prevent the people acquiring arms. In 1846 an Arms Bill was introduced, containing some objectionable provisions. The argument was urged that Ireland was tranquil, and the Bill was withdrawn. The result was that persons went about selling arms, and the Government could not prevent it, and many disturbances followed. He did not think that that example would justify them in adopting a similar course. As long as tranquillity was preserved, the Bill was a dead letter, and he believed there was no inconvenience attending the Bill. He thought, instead of renewing the Bill, next year Government should bring in a permanent Bill to prevent the people of Ireland arming.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was glad to hear the real author of the Bill avow himself. If they applied the provisions of the Act to the Orange processions in the north of Ireland it would suppress those processions most effectually. Government had made no case at all for the Bill.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he hoped Government would yield to the appeal that had been made to them, and withdraw the Bill. There had been excuses made for the Bill on former occa-

1895
sions, but they had made none on the present occasion. But it was not the Bill of the Government at all, but the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) and the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney). The Bill had always been presented before in connection with a prospect at least of remedial measures; but there was nothing of that kind in the present instance, and on that ground, if on no other, it ought to be rejected.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought the House had had sufficient proof of late of the serious effects of hasty legislation, having had to retrace its own steps in consequence of the tumult which it excited.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he should support the Amendment, considering that the Bill was inapplicable to the present circumstances of Ireland. Its very preamble set forth a state of things which did not now exist; and he declined to endorse a falsehood.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 15: Majority 24.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
Notice being taken that Forty Members were not present, the Committee was told; and Forty Members not being present, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the chair; and having counted the House, and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Ordnance Board; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Advances; Public Health Act (1854) Continuance and Amendment; Diseases Prevention.
2a Militia Ballots Suspension; Island of Tobago Loan.
3a Metropolis Local Management; Excise Duties.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
Order of the Day for the Consideration of, and for the Lords to be Summoned, read: Message considered accordingly; and an humble Address being moved thereupon, the same was agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente: And the said Address to be presented to HER MAJESTY by the Lords with White Staves.

SALE OF BEER, &c. BILL.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE rose to move to resolve—
"That the Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons having recommended an immediate Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act of 1854, the Circumstances which render Legislation essential on the Subject Matter of the Bill which has been passed by the House of Commons are of such Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
The noble Marquess said that this was a measure which affected the well-being of a large number of the people, and it was important that the Session should not terminate without the question being settled in some manner. The Act of last year was only passed at the end of the Session, and came into operation in August. Great discontent was at once excited, and the question was raised early in the present Session, but as the Government were unable from the pressure of public business to take the matter into their hands, a private Member of the other House was obliged to take the initiative and on the 26th of June a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the working of the Act. They made their Report on the 26th of July, and the present Bill, founded on their recommendation, was immediately introduced, and passed through all its stages in the other House with little or no opposition. Their Lordships would gee that it was impossible for any Bill to come before them with greater recommendations for urgency. This Bill came before them recommended by the Government and by the almost unanimous voice of the other House of Parliament, the two Commissioners of Police, and fourteen out of sixteen police magistrates of the metropolis had given evidence in favour of an alteration of the law, and during the present Session the petitions in favour of it presented to the other House of Parliament, had been signed by the enormous number of 442,536 persons. The consideration of this Bill was a measure essentially of urgency since

1851
its existence seriously affected the comforts of a very numerous class of persons. Let their Lordships consider the inconvenience suffered by persons who were in the habit of travelling by excursion trains. The returns showed that sometimes 12,000 persons arrived by these trains on Sunday evening too late to get any refreshment if the public-houses closed at ten o'clock. It might be said they ought to go home instead of to the public-houses. That might do very well for their Lordships, who had something better than water, at home, but the great majority of these people had nothing in their houses but water, and that such as he should not like to live upon. They ought to do everything in their power to promote the recreation and excursions of those people who had to labour hard for six days in the week, and an alteration in the law was now urgently required, as these excursions were most frequent in the months of August and September. The present law was a source of great hardship to the large class of persons in the metropolis who kept no liquor in their houses, but were accustomed to send to the public-house for what they required. The Act of last Session had not in the least decreased drunkenness. Even if it had, they had no right, in order to prevent a few persons from indulging in a reprehensible habit, to subject thousands and tens of thousands to an inconvenience which they felt most strongly, and with which they were most seriously discontented. There could be no doubt that the recent demonstrations in the metropolis had been greatly increased and strengthened in consequence of the grievances created by the present law. The closing of the public-houses at ten o'clock produced no practical good, as the evidence showed that drinking in improper and disreputable places had greatly increased, as well as in private houses; this was proved by communications from Rochdale, Stock-port, Manchester, Sheffield, and other places. They could not prevent Sunday intoxication altogether for many years to come; but a great improvement had been going on rapidly for many years, and it would proceed still further if the people were allowed to enjoy other modes of recreation, and to indulge in innocent amusements after the hours of Divine worship. There could be no more useful or beneficial amusements than those afforded by the excursion trains to which he had already re-
1852
ferred People went to Chepstow, Salisbury, and other places at a considerable distance from London, for recreation, and it was impossible to get back before ten o'clock. On these grounds he begged to move the suspension of their Lordships' Resolution in respect of this Bill.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, their Lordships had to decide whether this was a case of urgency, and he confidently asserted that no case of urgency had been established by the noble Marquess. The question was, had there been that extent of urgency felt by the House of Commons that should induce their Lordships to proceed without any inquiry? Certainly not. On the 26th of June, the House of Commons did not think the case so urgent that the Bill should be introduced, and they appointed a Committee to inquire into the state of the law, and see if any alteration should be made. That necessitated their Lordships to look to what had been done by that Committee—and what did they say? The Committee reported that they had not been able to prosecute their inquiry to an extent that would enable them to come to a conclusion; but they recommended a compromise, and the result was the introduction of the present measure. It was no light matter to set aside the Order of their Lordships' House without due cause, and they should not adopt it if they did not deem it fit to be maintained. It was agreed that the Order had worked well; and were it not for it, the public business would not then be in such an advanced state. There were about twenty-six witnesses examined before the Committee, and twenty-five of them were connected with the metropolis; so that the inquiry had as yet only reference to the measure as it affects London. But the chief constable of North Wiltshire, on being examined, was entirely in favour of the law. As regarded the excursion trains, the inconvenience would not be felt after next month; and, besides that, many of them did not arrive until between eleven and twelve o'clock, and, therefore, even if the present measure was agreed to, there would still be people as dissatisfied as ever. He appealed to the Government to support the Order of the House, because in fact no case of urgency had been brought forward.
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that the more important the measure, the more it required to be considered. The urgency

1853
should be indisputable to justify them in suspending the Order of the House. The measure was only recommended by a Committee of the House of Commons, and he apprehended their Lordships would not take that as a sufficient ground of urgency. They should have a reference to a Select Committee of their own House. He did not contest the Bill at all, but that was a different matter from the question now under consideration.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it appeared to him that the word "urgent" applied when there was a strong political or public reason why legislation on a particular point should not be delayed for another year, and he felt that there was a very strong degree of urgency for the passing of this Bill. He could not quite agree with what had fallen from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. He, understood the noble Lord to say, that the Report of the Committee was a compromise; but, if he had been rightly informed, that was not at all the state of the case, for the Report was almost unanimously agreed to, there being only one dissenting Member, and the opinion of the Committee was, that upon two points it was desirable to frame a law which should immediately take effect. These two points were, first, the excessive inconvenience suffered by the public; and, secondly, the doubtful state of the law, and the conflicting decisions given by different magistrates upon it. Could anything be more urgent than that a law bearing upon the humbler orders should not be differently interpreted in different places? The inconvenience caused to the public had been proved before the Committee quite as satisfactorily as it could have been, had witnesses been called from every part of the country. The evidence of the superintendents of police at Bristol, Southampton, and Portsmouth had been taken. ["No, no!"] Such, at least, had been his impression. With regard to the Standing Order now proposed to be waived, nothing should have led him to assent to it if he had supposed that it was meant to bear the absolute construction now sought to be put upon it. Urgency was altogether a matter of degree; and it was open to every Member of that House to exercise his judgment as to the amount of urgency which should induce him to vote for proceeding with a particular Bill, notwithstanding the order on this subject. For the reasons he had given he should
1854
support the Resolution moved by the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwould not say that the law might not be amended, but he considered that on the 6th of August their Lordships should stand by an Order of that House on the faith of which so many Peers had left town, in the belief that no measure of importance was to be brought under discussion. Granting that a certain amount of inconvenience might exist from the present state of the law, still it could not be contended that there was any urgent reason why the alteration of that law should not be deferred until the next Session of Parliament. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had totally failed to make out the shadow of a case of urgency in support of this Resolution, and the Select Committee of the other House had reported in the same spirit, declaring that, owing to the advanced period of the Session at which they were appointed, it was impossible to carry out their inquiry to its full extent. If they could have so carried out their inquiry, they would have found that there was no urgency whatever in the matter. In truth, there was no other urgency than this—that, unless the Act were repealed this Session, it would not be repealed at all. If the House of Commons deemed it necessary to have an inquiry into this very important measure—the opponents of which admitted it to have done a considerable amount of good, although the noble Marquess seemed to argue that it was an unmixed evil—why should not their Lordships regard an inquiry on their part as equally necessary? and, if so, how could this course be pursued within a very few days from the end of the Session? The advocates of the existing Act offered evidence to the Committee, but it was declined, and most important evidence tendered by friends of his own was also rejected; while, on the other hand, out of thirty witnesses summoned from the country only one was examined. How could it be maintained that this was a ease of urgency when the evidence was taken only on one side, when those who took that evidence themselves admitted that it was imperfect, and when evidence was refused which, if received, would have proved that there was no urgency in the matter, and that a very large proportion, if not an actual majority of the working classes of this country were in favour of

1855
the present law? Therefore, without asserting that the Act might not admit of amendment or relaxation, their Lordships, nevertheless, had a perfect right to inquire into this subject for themselves—a proceeding quite impracticable at that season of the year; and if, in cases of this kind their rule was to be suspended, the functions of that House would be reduced to the mere registration of the decrees of the House of Commons, without any power of independent action. He should, therefore, certainly take the sense of their Lordships on this Motion.
EARL GRANVILLEexplained that the Committee had rejected evidence tendered upon both sides of the question, and not on one side alone. No Committee could ever get through its duties if it were bound to accept all the evidence offered to it, whether material to elucidate its inquiry or otherwise.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he felt some difficulty in making up his mind upon the subject. He was desirous of supporting the Orders of the House; but, at the same time, he thought that there were some parts of the present law objectionable. He, therefore, thought that under the circumstances it would he a proper thing to relax the law, and for that reason he would support the Resolution of the noble Marquess. He never was one of those who thought that they should adopt any very stringent measures in regard to public-houses; believing that they would, by such a course, be interfering with the ordinary comforts of the people. It was, no doubt, most advantageous that public-houses should be closed during Divine service, and, perhaps, at such a period of the night when all classes, particularly the working classes, ought for their own interests to have retired to rest. In other respects, he thought that the law ought to be relaxed. He would, therefore, support the Resolution of the noble Marquess.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he thought this was considered as a case of urgency by a Committee of the House of Commons; but their Lordships could exercise their own discretion, after looking at the evidence, whether this was a Bill that should be supported or not. Reserving his opinion on that point, he should support the Resolution.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY, after full consideration, was prepared to support the Motion for a relaxation of the Resolution their Lordships had lately passed. The Committee of the House of Commons had
1856
reported that this was a matter of pressing importance.
LORD CONGLETONsaid, that the public had now five hours and a half to buy their Beer on the Sunday—that was to say they took five hours and a half from the publican's Sunday. It was now asked to take away eight hours of his Sunday. The real question then was one of the public versus the publicans. The present law was founded on the Report of a Committee which sat for two Sessions, examined fifty witnesses, and reported in favour of closing the public-houses an hour earlier than was now the case. He was opposed to the Sunday Trading Bill, but this measure had nothing in common with the Sunday Trading Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, a very large number of the publicans had petitioned in favour of this Bill.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Content 25; Not Content 16: Majority 9.
Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MILITIA BALLOTS SUSPENSION BILL.
Moved to resolve—
"That the Introduction of the Militia Ballots Suspension Bill has been delayed in consequence of the War rendering it desirable that the Power to resort to the Ballot should not be suspended in the usual Manner until the latest possible Period of the Session, in case the Exercise of the same should become expedient; and inasmuch as the Exercise of the said Power is not at present required, the Circumstances which render Legislation on the Subject Matter of the said Bill expedient are of such Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
Agreed to; Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ISLAND OF TOBAGO LOAN BILL.
Moved to resolve—
"That the Island of Tobago Loan Bill was necessarily introduced at a late Period, inasmuch as the Bill from the Colonial Legislature, on which the same is founded, was only received Three Weeks ago, and the said Bill, though the Provisions of the same are required by the Condition of the Island, cannot receive the Royal Assent unless this Bill be passed; and consequently the Circumstances which render Legislation on the Subject Matter of the said Bill expedient are of such Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
Agreed to; Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

TURKISH LOAN BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill,
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he would take that opportunity of saying a few words. There could be no doubt that if the war on our part was just and necessary, it was right and proper to afford to our ally, Turkey, any assistance which she might require and we could bestow. Before, however, assenting to a measure of that description, their Lordships should be satisfied that it had not been in the power of the Government to obtain a satisfactory and honourable peace. Without going into a complete discussion of the proceedings at the Vienna Conferences, he wished to draw their attention to some things that had taken place there, in order to show to their Lordships—what he was strongly convinced of—that Russia never was sincere in entering upon those conferences, nor was she sincere in carrying them on, except for the purpose of carrying her own objects, and had never any intention to abide by anything she might admit in discussion. At the end of 1854, or the beginning of the present year, the Four Points were agreed to, the third point being that the treaty of 1841 should be reconsidered, for the double object of admitting Turkey into the European family, and for putting an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. Russia admitted her preponderance, and that it should be put an end to. When the first conference was held those terms were very judiciously stated, and Prince Gortchakoff thanked Count Buol for having placed them so fairly. The main question for the conference was in what way the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea should be put an end to. Upon that occasion Prince Gortchakoff took care to put in a salvo, a sort of proviso which did not sound alarmingly at the time, but which had produced some extraordinary consequences—namely, that Russia would agree to nothing that would compromise her honour. The allies, of course, had no desire to inflict any dishonour upon Russia, but were only desirous of arriving at some means of putting an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea. When the conferences began the first point was settled, and the second point was also settled, except as to one matter. It was proposed that England and France should be at liberty to have
1858
one or two small vessels of war to watch the mouth of the Danube, and see that the navigation was unimpeded, according to treaty. Prince Gortchakoff, however, would not enter upon any proposition to admit foreign flags into the Black Sea until the third point bad been considered. Then came the third point—the first part of which regarded the admission of Turkey into the European family. That was agreed to, and it was considered by the three Powers, that Russia had agreed to guarantee the integrity of the Turkish territory; but Prince Gortchakoff entered a protest reserving to Russia the right of considering whether she would go to war to defend Turkey or not. Then came the question of how the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea was to be terminated. It was proposed that Russia should take the initiative; but Prince Gortchakoff refused, and after some discussion Turkey was desired to take the initiative. Turkey, however, very properly replied that she was bound by treaty to do what her allies did. The Russian Plenipotentiaries desired time to refer to St. Petersburg, which was allowed, and a delay of some three weeks followed. He (Lord St. Leonards) would ask the House to consider the effect of that delay upon the army before Sebastopol. Nothing was so calculated to damp the ardour of soldiers when besieging a town or operating in the field as to know that peace was being treated for and would probably be concluded by negotiation. The delay, however, answered the purpose of Russia, and he could not consider that the demand for that delay was, on her part, a fair demand. It took upon that occasion some three weeks to communicate with St. Petersburg; but soon after, upon another occasion, Prince Gortchakoff was able to communicate from Vienna to St. Petersburg and receive a reply from St. Petersburg in a very short space of time. In point of fact, Prince Gortschakoff had, when invited to do so, the power to take the initiative, because Count Nesselrode, in a summary of the proceedings of the conferences shortly after they were closed, stated that the Emperor Nicholas, admitting the rights of Turkey over the Straits, was prepared to agree to admit the fleets of all nations into the Black Sea, provided that the Russian fleet was permitted to pass into the Mediterranean, and that the Emperor Alexander had declared that the determination of the Emperor Nicholas should be strictly adhered to. Could any

1859
one, then, believe that the knowledge of that resolution was not taken by Prince Gortchakoff to Vienna? But after the delay had been gained, Prince Gortchakoff announced on the 21st of March that he was ready to resume the negotiations, and then stated that Russia would not take the initiative. He however, made two important declarations—first, that Russia would not assent to any stipulation which should infringe her rights of sovereignty within her own territory; and next, that she would not submit by treaty or other means, to any limitation of the number of her vessels in the Black Sea. Now, it appeared to him (Lord St. Leonards) that the moment had then come for putting an end to the conferences; for the object being to terminate the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea, that Power refused to consent to any arrangement affecting her territory or the number of her ships in the Black Sea. Russia would not agree to any limitation of her forces in the Black Sea, and said that it was necessary for the balance of power in Europe that Russia should have a considerable force in that sea. She made two counter propositions, one for opening and the other for closing the Black Sea. He would not discuss whether it was wise or not to reject those propositions; but when the conferences were closed Prince Gortchakoff made the important declaration, that in the eyes of the Russian Government, a formidable fleet of Russian vessels in the Black Sea was necessary to the support of the Ottoman Empire. In the conference the Russian Minister said a "considerable force," but he wound up his declaration afterwards by saying a formidable naval force in the Black Sea was essential to the protection of the Porte. No doubt it was essential to the carrying out of the views of Russia, but how it should be essential to the liberties of Europe or the safety of Turkey exceeded anything which the ingenuity or sagacity of man could discover. He had not been unobservant of the proceedings at Vienna, and the conduct of the Government in reference to those negotiations. He knew it had been said that in the face of Germany we had appeared to have thrown away the opportunity of making peace. But while he regretted Lord John Russell should have expressed his concurrence in the Austrian proposition, he was of opinion that the Government acted rightly in rejecting it. With respect too to the subsequent suggestion made by Austria
1860
that Russia and Turkey should meet and agree to a limitation of their naval forces in the Black Sea, and then communicate the proposed arrangement to the conference, he conceived the Government had acted wisely in the course they had taken, for the propositions were in reality nothing more than those which the Russian Government had rejected in the strongest terms at the conferences. It was forcibly expressed by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, when he said the Russian Government not only refused to guarantee the territory of Turkey, but refused, in the most peremptory manner, to submit to any sort of limitation of her naval forces, even in the form of a treaty between her and Turkey. But even if Russia had accepted the suggestion, it was utterly impossible this country could be deluded into a second conference upon a point which, when it had served the purpose of delay, would undoubtedly have come to nothing. As regarded the general question, he had himself arrived at the most satisfactory conclusion that the war was just and necessary, and that they were bound to prosecute it to a successful issue; and he could not understand any man who had concurred in entering upon the war wishing to put an end to it at a moment like the present, when the Russian fleet could not show a single flag in the Baltic or the Black Sea, when successes had been achieved in the Sea of Azoff, which might be repeated in other quarters, and when the gallantry of our own countrymen and of our allies in the attack of Sevastopol was more conspicuous than the gallantry of the Russians who defended it—gallant as unquestionably that defence had been. With respect to the Bill before the House, he regarded it as no longer a guarantee, but a loan. He could not but regard it as impolitic to take a special pledge from Turkey of the Egyptian tribute and the Customs of Smyrna. By the Convention we became, with France, assignees of that tribute, and if the interest upon the loan were not paid it would be our duty to enforce the payment. But supposing we went to Egypt and insisted upon the payment to us of the tribute. Would not the Pacha of Egypt ask us why we put ourselves in the place of his Sultan, and demanded property that never belonged to us? The security of the Customs of Smyrna was open to the same objection. What were we to do supposing the interest were not paid? Were we to take possession of the Custom House of

1861
Smyrna? If we did not, the money would go into the Exchequer of Turkey, and would be lost to us. Turkey might pay the interest for the next year or two, but it was impossible to suppose that Turkey could answer the obligations of this Convention in the time to come. He strongly recommended the Government to get rid of these pledges of the Egyptian tribute and the Customs of Smyrna. He regretted also that the translation of the Convention, as given in the Bill, had been so inaccurately made. As soon as there appeared to be some doubt as to the meaning of the French words "solidaire" and "solidairement," he had referred to a dictionary compiled 150 years ago, by Richelet, an avocat, where he found the words thus translated—
"Solidaire.—Terme de pratique. Il se dit des obligations que passent plusieurs personnes ensemble, lorsque chacune promet de payer la somme totale. In solidum.
"Solidairement.—Terme de pratique. D'une maniére solidaire. L'un pour l'autre. In universum. In solidum."
But by the translation of the Convention the obligation had been made a joint obligation, and not a joint and several obligation. Thus in the first article of the Convention Her Majesty bound Herself "jointly with the Emperor of the French and severally," but the words "with the Emperor of the French" were not repeated after "severally." So that, in plain language, the Queen gave a guarantee for the whole loan jointly with the Emperor of the French, and severally by herself, while the Emperor of the French only bound himself jointly with the Queen. The words ought to have been that the Queen bound herself jointly and severally with the Emperor of the French, and that the Emperor of the French bound himself jointly and severally with the Queen. [The LORD CHANCELLOR remarked that the Convention could not now be altered.] The form of the Convention itself was correct enough—what he complained of was that it was a mistranslation. Let one of the young gentlemen of the Foreign Office translate it properly and all would be right. As the Convention stood, it allowed the creditor in the case of nonpayment by France, to compel this country to pay the entire sum. Since this Bill had been before the Lower House, the noble Earl and the French Ambassador had signed a declaration which he thought would surprise many Members of that House. The Convention contained
1862
a great deal to lead to the inference that England meant to provide the whole amount in the first instance, in case Turkey failed to make good her payments, but she was not bound by any obligation to that effect. Since, however, the time when this Bill was first introduced an agreement, amounting in its nature to a contract, had been entered into between the English and French Governments, to the effect that, in the event of Turkey not remitting the sum for the dividends, England would provide the whole, and upon an account being furnished, France would immediately remit her portion of the sum. Now, according to his experience, there were no debts which were so unwillingly paid as those for which any person had become surety, and this was particularly the case when the surety was a joint one, and one of the sureties had paid his moiety, and claimed from his co-surety the payment of his portion of the liability. While, however, he said this, he wished to guard himself from entertaining for a single moment the idea that he entertained the slightest doubt as to the loyalty and good faith of the French Government in this matter—his remarks were solely directed to the nature of the contract. There was another point to which he wished to call the noble Earl's attention. Turkey was to remit to this country the half-yearly interest of the loan upon two given days, and he would suggest that the money should be made payable in England on subsequent days, or else a fund would have to be provided in the first instance for its payment before the arrival of the remittance from Turkey. He would have preferred a subsidy to Turkey, and would certainly not have been a party either to a loan or a guarantee. It would, in his opinion, have been much better to have received the money, and disposed of it under the control of the Government of this country, solely in relieving the military difficulties of the army, obtaining some efficient control over the Turkish army, in equipping the soldiers, providing them with proper rations, and in taking care that they were properly officered, and so directed as that the Turkish army should have been able to set at defiance any attack of the Russians on Kars or Erzeroum.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Although, perhaps, a considerable portion of my noble and learned Friend's speech would have been more correctly delivered upon the Motion for the second reading of

1863
the Bill, I certainly think he need make no apology for his address to your Lordships. My noble and learned Friend has, with great clearness, gone through the protocols and proceedings of the Conference at Vienna; he has summed up those proceedings, and has pronounced on them a judgment which will, I am sure, have a great effect on the public mind. But there is one point of his speech upon which I think it necessary to make a few remarks. This point had reference to the ill effect which one portion of the proceedings of the Conferences of Vienna had upon the army in the Crimea. My noble and learned Friend said that one of the propositions with respect to the third point and the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea had been sent to St. Petersburg, and that a delay of eighteen days had taken place in the proceedings, by which delay, as my noble and learned Friend thinks, a prejudicial effect was produced upon the military operations before Sebastopol, as it was impossible for the generals there to act with ardour and vigour when they knew that negotiations for peace were going on. But that observation would apply equally to any part of the conferences. The object of those conferences was to lead to peace; but foreseeing that the knowledge of these negotiations might have some effect upon—that they might to a certain extent paralyse—the exertions of our armies, the English and French Governments stated to Lord Raglan and General Canrobert that the conferences were held at the especial invitation of Austria, because they thought it was their duty to omit no chance of arriving at a peaceful solution, but that they had no reliance that the negotiations would end in peace, and they urged both the generals, not only not to relax, but to increase their efforts, because they believed nothing would more tend to a successful and peaceful solution of the question than successful operations of the army in the Crimea. Therefore, although this delay may have taken place, I have not the least idea or belief that it had any such effect as my noble and learned Friend supposes. My noble and learned Friend, also, expressed his regret that my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) should have so far lent himself at Vienna to certain propositions which he laid before Her Majesty's Government that an opinion was created in Europe, particularly in Germany, that we had rejected terms which we ought to have accepted. Now, there
1864
has been a good deal of misrepresentation with regard to my noble Friend's conduct. He certainly went to Vienna, and his conduct throughout the negotiations proved that he was heartily desirous of a safe and honourable peace. As he was leaving Vienna these propositions were made to him, and it would have been unjust on his part if he had refused to bring them under the notice of Her Majesty's Government. He thought that Her Majesty's Government ought to have the opportunity of fairly considering something that was different from what they had themselves proposed, and from what he had been instructed to propose; and as there was stated to be some chance of Russia acceding to the terms, it was the duty of the noble Lord to let his Government have the opportunity of deciding upon the merits of the propositions. My noble Friend accordingly laid the propositions before Her Majesty's Government, and, after a communication with the French Government, Her Majesty's Government and the French Government concurred in reasons which induced them to consider that those propositions ought not to be accepted. I cannot, therefore, conceive how the conduct of the noble Lord can have given rise to the unfair imputations which have been cast upon it in this matter. I am glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord considers the war just and necessary, and that, consequently, it must be carried on with vigour, and I quite agree with him that it would be a very short-sighted policy not to do what we can to enable the Turkish army to be turned to the best account. Unless the Turkish army is properly equipped, fed, and paid, it cannot render us the assistance we require. The noble and learned Lord appears to think a subsidy would have been a better mode of affording pecuniary aid to Turkey, and I am far from dissenting from what fell from him and from the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) the other night on this subject. I think the principle of a subsidy may be defended, and I am not prepared to say that if this war last long we may not feel ourselves compelled to have recourse to it, however repugnant it may seem to the people of this country. But we were not in a position to adopt that principle in this instance. The Turkish Government came to us, and said—
"We have the means and the intentions of paying both the principal and the interest of the loan we are compelled to raise for the common cause; but if England and France will go sureties

1865
for us, we shall obtain the money we want upon easier and better terms, and to that extent shall be more able to aid in conducting the war with energy."
With such assurances from Turkey, could we have said, "We do not believe in your; alleged means of paying the debt, and we shall, therefore, insist on your accepting the money as a present," thereby imposing a burden on the people of this country? Obviously we could not. As to the noble and learned Lord's legal objections to the details of this guarantee, the obligations it constitutes no doubt might possibly be evaded; but then there never was a treaty or other engagement entered into between different nations that did not depend for its fulfilment upon the honour and good faith of those who were bound by it; and certainly, looking at the terms and objects of this Convention, it seems to me to be about as plain and straightforward an arrangement as could well be devised. True, it was considered at the Foreign Office that the use of the word solidairement was nothing more than a repetition of the meaning of conjointement—the two phrases being thought equivalent to "jointly and conjointly;" but it should be remembered that it is neither the Convention nor this Bill, but the bond entered into, that will give the creditor his claim; and that the same instrument will define the extent of the responsibility of the debtor and the remedy against him.
LORD ST.
LEONARDSexplained that he had not said that he was in favour of a subsidy, but that he preferred a direct subsidy to a guarantee that would end in a subsidy. No doubt the bond would give the creditor his security.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwas sorry, after the very candid and open speech of the noble and learned Lord, to be obliged to express an opinion somewhat different from his on a merely technical point. No doubt the translation of this Convention had been incorrect; but in a contract of this nature, whether the two nations engage themselves jointly, or jointly and severally, is a matter absolutely unimportant. In the case of a contract between private individuals, it was an advantage to the creditor to be able to sue the persons indebted to him either jointly, or any one of them severally; but the analogy between that case and the case of two States was not perfect, but only partial. No suit could really take place against nations jointly or severally; and the rights
1866
of two nations depended entirely on what was the engagement between them. In the case of a default, the bondholder could only apply to one of the two Governments, and, after liquidating his claim, that Government would have a right to apply to the other for a moiety of the money.
LORD ST. LEONARDShad not been in the habit of dealing with contracts of this kind between nations; but he knew that the French Government, in drawing this treaty, had drawn it according to the strict forms of law, and in this instance our Government had mistranslated the Convention.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a To-morrow.