Sitting of 5 February 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Courts of Common Law (Ireland); Police (Counties and Boroughs); Juries (Ireland); House of Commons' Offices; Church-Rates Abolition, &c.

OPENING OF MUSEUMS, &c., ON SUNDAY —QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to inquire of the hon. Member for the county of Cork, whether he would have any objection to postpone the notice of Motion, which he had given for Tuesday next, in reference to the opening of the Crystal Palace, the British Museum, &c., to the public on Sundays, in order that those interested in opposing it might be allowed a little longer time for the manifestation of their feelings on the subject by petitions?
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he attached very little importance to petitions, knowing the manner in which they were got up. He had received a letter upon this subject, stating that there were upwards of 20,000 teachers of schools, having the care of about 2,000,000 children, and it was their intention, if the Motion were postponed, to make use of them as a machinery for petitioning. If that were done, it ought to be brought under the consideration of the House, as it was monstrous that the opinion of men of mature age should be thus outweighed by the signatures of children. If, therefore, it rested on that ground alone, he should not think it necessary to postpone his Motion; but inasmuch as another hon. Gentleman had given notice of a similar character, if that hon. Member would bring forward his Motion on the earliest available day he (Mr. V. Scully) would postpone his for the present; and he now gave notice, that should the Motion to which he had alluded be rejected, he should move that the same
220
principle be applied to the rich and the poor, and that it was expedient to introduce a Bill closing the club houses on Sundays.
At a later period of the evening,
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYgave notice that he should, upon an early day, move a Resolution to the effect—
"That in the opinion of this House it will promote the moral, intellectual, and social improvement of the working classes of the community, if collections of national interest were thrown open to public inspection after the hours of Divine service on Sundays."

MORTALITY IN THE CRIMEAN ARMY— QUESTION.
SIR DE LACY EVANS: Sir, I gave the noble Lord at the head of the Government notice yesterday that I would ask him a question this evening with respect to the mortality in the army of the Crimea. I will put the question now, in order to save the necessity of obtaining an order of the House. It has reference to a passage at page 35 in the Report of the Commissioners respecting supplies to the army in the Crimea, and it is, whether any information that may have been obtained by the Commissioners through the returns from the medical officers, or otherwise, will be laid upon the table of this House, as it is important to ascertain the cause of so frightful a mortality as 35 per cent, which cannot be done without knowing the particular diseases and the cause of death. If the noble Lord will lay those papers on the table of the House, I hope it may be done without delay, so that we may have the advantage of them in any discussion which may take place upon the subject.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for having given me notice of this question. The fact is, that the Commissioners had no instructions whatever to collect the statistical information to which he has referred. Colonel Tulloch, one of the Commissioners, who is a great man for statistics, did collect this information, but it did not form any part of the Report. It was transmitted separately, and as a confidential communication, to the War Department, and by them communicated to the Medical Department of the army for their guidance, in order that such casualties might for the future be avoided; but it does not appear to me that it would be advisable to have that information laid before the public. It will be acted upon by the Medical Department, and I trust the

221
House will be satisfied by knowing that the statistical information thus collected will receive due attention in the proper quarters.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES—QUESTION.
MR. COBDENsaid, he wished to inquire whether it was the intention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to lay upon the table of the House any correspondence which had taken place with reference to the state of our relations with the United States of America? The correspondence with regard to Central America had been laid before the American Senate by the President, on the occasion of making his annual Message, and it was, therefore, to be supposed that it was complete; but he (Mr. Cobden) was not aware whether the correspondence with respect to the enlistment of American subjects for the British service was complete or not. He wished to know the intentions of the Government on the subject.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I apprehend that in neither case can the correspondence be said to be completed. When it is completed, of course it will be laid before the House, in order that it may be in possession of the full and entire facts.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ENGLAND AND IRELAND—QUESTION.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he begged to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there had been any contract or correspondence with the Treasury, or any Treasury Minute, with the view to improve the postal and passenger communication between England and Ireland, under the Act of last Session authorising arrangements for that purpose; and whether there was any objection to produce such documents?
MR. WILSONsaid, the House would probably recollect that towards the end of the last Session a private Bill had been passed to enable the Chester and Holyhead Steam Packet Company and the North Western and Chester and Holyhead Railway Companies to be incorporated, and to make one service from London to Dublin. That Bill was not, however, to take effect until a satisfactory arrangement had been come to with the Post Office in respect to the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails. The measure had been considered during the recess, and in the mouth of October
222
last it was arranged that for the future there should be one day mail and one night mail, instead of the two existing night mails, between London and Dublin, and that the service should be performed in eleven hours at the least, so that the mails and passengers arriving from London in Dublin, and from Dublin in London, could be forwarded, without delay, to the provinces. What had been done was this—the memorial to the Government had been referred to the Irish Government and to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, in order to ascertain whether the proposed changes would suit the convenience of the trade and passenger traffic of Ireland. A deputation from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce waited upon the Government in London last week, and all the particulars had been arranged so far as the Government and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce were concerned. The Government were now ready to accept tenders for the carrying of the mail in conformity with the plan arranged with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would move for a copy of the Treasury Minute on the subject.

BANK CHARTER ACT—QUESTION.
MR. GLYNsaid, he begged to inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps had been taken for giving statutory notice, under the provisions of the Act 7 & 8 Vict., c. 32, to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, preparatory to the revision of their charter; and whether it was the intention of Government to institute any inquiry before a Committee of that House, or otherwise, into the working and effect of the said Act?
THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that the exclusive privileges of the Bank of England were given to it by the Act of 1844, and by other Acts, subject to redemption upon two conditions. One of these was, that a notice of not less than twelve months should be given to the Bank at some time subsequent to the month of August, 1855; and the other was, that the sum of £11,150,000, representing the debt due by the nation to the Bank, with some arrears of interest, amounting to about £100,000, together with all Exchequer bills and other Government securities which the Bank might then hold, should be repaid by Parliament. Those were the

223
two conditions which must be fulfilled in order to extinguish the exclusive privileges of the Bank of England. It was also provided that a Vote or Resolution of the House of Commons, signified under the hand of the Speaker in writing, and delivered at the Bank of England, should be deemed a good and sufficient notice. It was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government for the present to take any steps for putting' an end to the exclusive privileges of the Bank of England. With respect to the second question, if there should appear to be a general wish on the part of that House that there should be at present, or early in the Session, a Parliamentary inquiry into the position of the Bank of England, and into the operation of the existing Bank Act, Her Majesty's Government would not feel themselves justified in opposing such general wish. At the same time, it was their decided opinion, that in the present state of the country, in the peculiar relations of the Bank of England and of the currency, which were created by a state of war, and by the necessity of making large remittances of bullion to foreign countries, and the extraordinary and exceptional state of things so created, the present would not be a favourable moment for an examination of the affairs of the Bank. It was, therefore, the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the present period of the Session was unsuited to a Parliamentary inquiry, and it was not their intention to propose to the House any Motion for the appointment of such a Committee.

WAR WITH RUSSIA—THE ARMISTICE QUESTION.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was true—as stated in a French paper—that an armistice had been agreed on between the Allied Powers and Russia; and, further, whether such armistice extended to operations by sea, or to those carried on in Asia?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, one of the arrangements at Vienna was, that after all the preliminaries should be negotiated and signed, an armistice should be arranged between the parties. The preliminaries have not yet been signed, although a protocol has been signed. The preliminaries are to be discussed and signed by the Plenipotentiaries when they meet at Paris, and it will not be until such preliminaries have been signed that the
224
question of an armistice can be taken into consideration.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to know whether the armistice that had been alluded to would prevent Russia from transporting troops or stores by sea?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Armistices are of various kinds, and involve such conditions as the particular case on which they have been concluded require. I stated just now that though it had been agreed that an armistice should follow the signing of the preliminary treaty, as the question of armistice had not yet arisen, it is impossible for me to say what its nature will be.

VOTE OF THANKS TO MR. W. LEY.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to propose to the House that which I am sure hon. Members will feel to be not less gratifying to themselves than due to the gentleman to whom I am about to refer. We have just lost the services of an officer of this House, who has fulfilled his duties to this House during the long period of forty-two years,—I mean Mr.William Ley. Mr. Ley belongs to a family well known to this House for the services they have performed. Mr. Ley's uncle was at the table of this House for the space of twenty-five years, viz. from the year 1795 to 1820. His brother was forty-nine years in the service of this House. Mr. William Ley himself has performed similar services for the period, as I have just mentioned, of forty-two years; and he retires from infirmity and age which, in his opinion, no longer qualify him for the performance of his duty. The youngest Member of this House cannot have gone through a single Session without knowing how much Members of this House depend for their information and guidance in the discharge of their duties upon the assistance they derive from the clerks at the table. I am sure that all who are present will agree with me when I state that we have received from those gentlemen the most useful suggestions and the most accurate information. With regard to Mr. William Ley, every one will acknowledge that, throughout the long course of time during which he sat at that table, no one ever put a question to him without receiving a full and complete answer from his varied store of Parliamentary knowledge, or without obtaining from him the most courteous assistance, without any regard to his personal trouble or to the interruption of any occupation in

225
which he happened at the time to be engaged. I am sure the House would feel that there was something wanting on their part if they permitted an officer who had so long and so faithfully performed the duties of his office to retire without marking, by a Resolution, their sense of the services he had rendered to the House, and through the House, to the country. I, therefore, trust, Sir, that the House will unanimously agree to the Motion I am about to place in your hands, and which is—
"That this House entertains a just and high sense of the distinguished and exemplary manner in which William Ley, Esq., late Clerk-Assistant of this House, uniformly discharged the duties of his situation during his long attendance at the Table of this House."
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise, on the part of the Gentlemen sitting upon this side of the House, to express the great respect they have for Mr. William Ley and the sense they entertain of his character and services, as Clerk Assistant of this House, and their hope that, in his retirement, he will enjoy that leisure which he has so worthily earned.
Resolution agreed to, nemine contradicente.

PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he rose in pursuance of notice to move for an account of the gross public income and expenditure of the United Kingdom in each quarter of the year 1855. During many years, it had been the practice to lay on the table of the House the net amount of the public revenue only after deducting the cost of collection and some other items. The subject had been brought before the House over and over again, and Motions made for the purposes of bringing the gross revenue into the accounts as well as the net revenue. At last the right hon. gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), who, during his tenure of office as Chancellor of the Exchequer, manifested the strongest desire to improve the system of public accounts, brought in a Bill, which he passed through Parliament, requiring that the gross amount of revenue should be brought into the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, when in office, also promised him that the gross amount of public revenue should be furnished to the House in the Quarterly Returns. When the right hon. Gentleman left office, his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), who subscribed
226
to the propriety of furnishing the House with the gross amount, promised that he would give it, but he had never done so. Last year, however, in consequence of a request from him, a quarterly Return had been furnished, but it was the most confused account he had ever seen, especially with regard to the expenditure of the Crown lands. The Return, however, proved that the gross annual amount of revenue derived from the Crown lands in 1854 was £383,700, while the amount brought into the revenue was only £272,000, thus showing that £111,700 was expended in that department, without any authority and without any knowledge on the part of that House. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford been in office, he was sure he would have accounted for every farthing of the expenditure of the Crown lands by Votes of that House. What right had any one to expend £111,700 a year of the Crown lands, which were as much public property as the income tax. In exchange of the Crown estates, the Crown received an income of £385,000 from the Civil List, and if they had been well managed they would produce nearly the amount of that Civil List; but in consequence of irresponsible squandering they had not produced one-half the amount, and if he said one-third he believed he should be nearer to the truth. He found, also, that the revenues of the Duchy of Lancashire amounted in 1854 to £42,000. Only £18,000 of that sum was paid to Her Majesty, leaving £24,000 to be squandered away in expenditure, which amounted to about 60 per cent for management. In the same year the receipts from the Duchy of Cornwall, which was the estate of the Prince of Wales, and ought to be looked after as public property, were £63,000, and only £39,000 were paid in, leaving a balance for expenditure and squandering of £24,000, which amounted to about 40 per cent for the management of that property. The amount paid to the trustees was laid out in the funds as property belonging to the Prince, which he would enjoy when he came of age, and the larger the amount of that property, the less would, of course, be required for his Civil List. The House, therefore, had a great interest in seeing that this property was correctly managed. Upwards of £16,000 were paid out of the public taxes for the Duchy of Cornwall, in consideration of a certain tax on tin which had been paid by

227
the producers of that metal having been given up. These were considerations which made it imperative on the House to require such accounts as he now called for; and £111,700 ought not to be expended out of the Crown estates without any knowledge or sanction on the part of Parliament. He dared to say that he should be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these items were to be found somewhere or other in some book. He did not deny that, or that the money was expended, for he did not suppose it was pocketed; but his complaint was that any part of the money should be expended without the sanction of the House of Commons. The measure of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, showing the cost of collection of the revenue, was a most important financial measure; yet it was nullified and rendered nugatory because the gentlemen of the Treasury were afraid of the country knowing how much was taken from it.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That there be laid before this House, an Account of the gross Public Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom in each quarter of the year 1855; stating the cost of collection in each of the Revenue Departments, including the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of the Crown (made out in the same form as the Account of the net Income and Expenditure in the quarterly Returns presented to this House)."
MR. WILSONsaid, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman through his numerous topics, but would confine himself to the subject to which the Motion referred. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the measure introduced by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, two years ago, was a measure of the very greatest importance, but its importance was not of that kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman, because the whole of the information respecting the collection of the revenue of each department had been for some time past stated in the finance accounts for the year. The great object of the Bill of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford was to bring that expenditure annually under the review of the House in detail, in order that the House might know of what items it was composed, and impose such check as it might deem necessary. This had been done for the last two years, and he should in the present year lay similar estimates on the table. In its passage through the House of Lords the Bill was denuded of one of its important elements, for the supervision of the super-annuations
228
of the Customs was struck out of the schedule, and if the hon. Member would move for the rectification of that defect he would receive ample support from the Government. He might remark that when, in the course of last year, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) asked for an account in the gross, and not in the way he had asked for it now, the account was immediately furnished by the Treasury. He (Mr. Wilson) held in his hand an account for each of the quarters of the last year, and in the annual accounts, which would be published on the 30th April in the newspapers, every quarter's account would show the gross and net account of each branch of the revenue. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion now, because he must see that his views were being carried out. He believed he might safely say, in point of truth, that the whole advantage which the hon. Member expected to derive from the Bill introduced two years ago had been derived—that was, that Parliament had the Estimates regularly brought before it, and had an opportunity of discussing each item, and rejecting any it might think improper. With regard to the Woods and Forests, he was not able to answer the hon. Gentleman's observations without notice. That department was considered to be exceptional, inasmuch as the Government only held that branch of the revenue in trust for the Crown, and it had never been dealt with in the same manner as other branches.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he observed that in the Department of the Woods and Forests there was a heavy expenditure of about £100,000 a year without any control whatever, and the accounts of the country could not be considered complete unless the same Estimates were framed with regard to the Woods and Forests as in respect to every other financial branch of the country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the two questions raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) were of a totally different nature—one relating to the mode of keeping the public accounts, the other to the check which Parliament ought to exercise over the public expenditure. With regard to the first question, as his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had already correctly stated to the House, the whole amount of the revenue received, including the expenses

229
of collection, had, for many years past, been annually laid before the House. As the collection of the revenue was thought to be part of the prerogative of the Crown, the Executive did not feel bound to propose an annual Vote to cover the charges thereby incurred; but the practice was to deduct them from the gross revenue, and to pay the net amount only into the Exchequer. Two years ago, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford introduced a measure by which it was provided that the expenses of collecting a certain portion of the revenue, including the Customs, the Post-office charges, and the Inland Revenue, were to be voted annually by the House of Commons, and the gross revenue derived from those sources was to be paid into the Exchequer; but this principle, however sound in the case of departments in which all the officers were paid by regularly fixed salaries, could not be made applicable to the revenue of the Crown lands, the expenses in the management of which varied of course very much, and could not be calculated beforehand with any certainty. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, did not extend the provisions of his measure to that department. He would not fail to consider the question suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham, but at present, he felt bound to say, that he did not think it probable that he should be able to submit any measure on the subject to the House this Session.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought there was no more difficulty in framing an estimate of the cost of the Woods and Forests than there was with regard to any other branch of the revenue. However, under the circumstances, he begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn,

POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I rise, Sir, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render more efficient the police in counties and boroughs in England and Wales. In the course of the last Session I stated, in answer to a question addressed to me by one of the hon. Members for South Devonshire, that, although it was not the intention of the Government to propose any measure that year for the purpose of establishing a general system of police throughout the country, yet that my attention would be directed to the subject during the recess, with the view to the introduction of some
230
measure during this Session on the subject. At a later period the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Deedes) withdrew a Parish Constables Bill which had passed a second reading, after a similar intimation from me. In fulfilment of that pledge I now propose to ask leave from the House to lay upon the table a Bill which is the result of the best consideration and attention I have been able to give to the subject. This Bill is not prepared with a view to establish one uniform system of police throughout the country under one central head, similar to that recommended by the Commission of 1839, which, though it might theoretically be the best system, would not, I am afraid, meet with much support in the country, from its interfering so largely with the different local authorities in counties and boroughs, in whose hands the management of the police is now vested. My object is to provide as efficient a police force, both for counties and boroughs, as is possible under the existing system of local management. I do not propose now to take up the time of the House by entering into statistics to prove the necessity of a police force, or to show the results which have followed in those counties and boroughs where such a force has been established. All those facts have been collected by the Committee who sat in 1853, and may be found in their Report. That Committee agreed to a string of Resolutions, some unanimously, and others by a large majority, which I think are deserving of the attention of the House. They resolved that the failure of the existing Rural Police Act to provide a general constabulary force for the prevention of crime and security of property is owing to the permissive character of those enactments, and they reported their opinion of the advantages, moral, social, and economical, in those districts, which had adopted a rural police; and in another Resolution they stated that, while admitting the usefulness of superintending constables, appointed under the 5 & 6 Vict., they regarded them as quite inadequate to fulfil the duties of a police force. They recommended the consolidation of smaller boroughs for police purposes, and the assimilation of the police in large boroughs to the county police; and in the seventh Resolution they express their opinion that some aid should be afforded by the Government towards defraying the cost of an improved and extended system of police, without essentially interfering with its

231
local management. They concluded their Report by recommending the early introduction of a Bill for providing a more efficient police force throughout Great Britain. I will now shortly state to the House what is the law at the present moment with regard to the police of counties and boroughs. And, first, as to counties. As a result of the Commission of 1839, two Bills were passed—the 2 Vict., c. 93, and the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 88—founded on the evidence collected by that Commission, and partly on its recommendations, though in some respects it fell far short of them, by which it was made optional with the justices of any county to adopt a county constabulary or not. It is left to the justices to determine how many constables are to be appointed, subject, however, to a proviso that the number shall not exceed one in every 1,000 of the inhabitants. The Secretary of State by it has power to make rules for their government pay, clothing, and accoutrements. A chief constable is appointed by the justices, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and each chief constable has the power of appointing and dismissing ordinary constables. The result has been that a county police force has been established in twenty-four counties and in the Isle of Ely; and under a particular clause, which enables portions of counties to avail themselves of the Act, a similar force has been established in certain districts of seven other counties. There are twenty counties, including two Ridings of Yorkshire, which have not adopted the Act. There is a great variation in the proportion which the police bears to the population in different counties—the highest proportion is, I believe, one in 1,128 in the county of Southampton, the lowest is one in 5,333 in the county of Cumberland. I come now to the state of the law with regard to boroughs, and in the case of these the law makes that imperative which is optional in counties. By the Municipal Act, 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 76, the town-councils of corporate boroughs are required to appoint watch committees, and these watch committees are required to appoint a sufficient number of fit constables to keep the peace by day and night within the borough, and to protect the persons and property of the inhabitants. In many of the larger boroughs, such as Liverpool and Birmingham, a most efficient police force has been established and maintained; but in other cases the result, I am sorry to say, has
232
been very different, and that notwithstanding that the attention of the authorities has been repeatedly called to the inadequacy of the force, when, owing to disturbances in the borough or the immediate neighbourhood, they have applied for troops to perform a duty which ought primarily to be discharged by the police. I will mention a few boroughs in which the police force is inadequate to the wants of the place. In Stockport, with a population of 54,000 persons, there were, until a short time ago, only fifteen constables. In consequence of a circular which I addressed to the authorities of various boroughs that number has been increased to twenty-four. In Wigan there are eleven constables to a population of 32,000; in Ashton-under-Line, seventeen constables to a population of about 30,000. It is impossible to say that these are efficient police forces. There is no direct means of enforcing the performance of the duty, imposed upon the councils of boroughs; and, while obeying the letter of the Act, the corporations have, in some instances, altogether disregarded its spirit. There is, besides, a large class of boroughs in which, from the smallness of their population, it is impossible that a really efficient police force can be maintained. There are no less than sixty-four boroughs, each having a population of less than 5,000, which are within the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, and have a jurisdiction independent of the county in which they are situated. While the powers of borough constables appointed under that Act extend to the county, county constables have no corresponding power within the limits of boroughs. In the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 88, which was the second Constabulary Act, there was a provision that for police purposes boroughs might, by voluntary agreement, be united with the county; and of this provision thirteen boroughs, having a population of about 62,000 persons, have availed themselves. Such being the law, and such having been its results, I will now state to the House the plan which I shall submit to it for the improvement of the police, both in counties and boroughs. It is impossible to deny that, after the experience of the present Constabulary Acts, which have been in force sixteen years, twenty counties still remaining without a constabulary, and after the testimony which has been borne to the beneficial results of their operation wherever they have been adopted, the time has come when the existing

233
option ought to be abolished, and there ought to be imposed upon justices of the peace an obligation to adopt the provisions of these Acts within their respective counties. The first provision of the Bill, therefore, will be to substitute for the present option that compulsory obligation. I do not, however, propose to interfere with any of the provisions of the existing Acts with regard to fixing the number of constables, the appointment of chief constable, or the control which the magistrates exercise over the county constabulary. Acting, however, upon the fifth Resolution of the Committee of 1853, I propose to give power to the Queen in Council—to compel magistrates, in certain cases where it is expedient, to divide counties for police purposes into districts. The Resolution of the Committee was as follows—
Resolved—
"That where the population of separate districts within the same county differs in amount and in the character of its employments, and consequently in its requirements for a police force, an equitable adjustment of the police rate to meet those cases should be provided for by enactment, and that such an arrangement would tend to remove the objections now partially entertained against the adoption of the Rural Police Act."
I next propose to give to county constables the same authority within boroughs situated in the county for which they act as the constables of boroughs now exercise within the counties in which the boroughs are situated, and likewise to extend their authority, like that of existing borough constables, to a certain portion of the adjoining counties. With regard to boroughs, I do not wish to take the management of the police out of the hands of the watch committees; but I propose to give to the Secretary of State the same power of making rules for the government, pay, and clothing of borough constables, as he now possesses with respect to those of the county. Gentlemen who represent or reside in counties in which the county police is established well know that a series of regulations was, soon after the passing of the Bills to which I have referred, prepared by the Government for the adoption of the justices. Those regulations are, I believe, generally acquiesced in as promoting the efficiency of the county constabulary force, and I think it would be desirable to give to the Secretary of State power to make similar regulations in regard to the police forces of boroughs. County constables
234
are at present disqualified from voting at or taking part in county elections; and that disqualification I propose to extend to borough constables. [An hon. Member: Parliamentary elections?] As the Bill stands, it refers only to Parliamentary elections. I propose to require both county and borough constables to perform all duties required of them by justices in quarter sessions, or watch committees of boroughs, or by regulations made by the Secretary of State. A good deal of evidence was given before the Committee of 1853, and may be found in the Appendix to the Report of that Committee, showing that a considerable saving may be effected by imposing upon the police the performance of certain functions which do not interfere with their primary duties as police-constables, and which may be most efficiently performed by them. Another provision of the Bill will give to the Crown power to appoint inspectors to inquire periodically into the state and efficiency of county and borough police, such inspectors to report to the Secretary of State, and their Reports to be subsequently laid before Parliament. I now come to the seventh Resolution of the Committee, which recommends that some assistance should be given by the Government to the establishment of a system of police throughout the country. That Resolution is in these terms—
Resolved—
"That, taking into consideration the aid afforded—hitherto partially and gratuitously—by the rural police for the protection of the revenue, the valuable services it has rendered for the maintenance of order, and in promoting the observance of the laws, in reducing the cost of prosecutions, and the effectual protection it gives to life and property of every description, by which the holders of a large amount of property not contributing to the police rate are greatly benefited, it is the opinion of your Committee that it is a matter worthy the consideration of the House whether some aid should not be afforded by the Government towards defraying the cost of an improved and extended system of police, without essentially interfering with the local management of that force."
The Commission of 1839 also recommended that, in the event of their system being adopted, one-fourth of the expense should be defrayed from the Consolidated Fund, while the other three-fourths should be derived from county rates and other local sources. In addition to the arguments urged by the Committee in favour of this suggestion, circumstances have since occurred which give to it additional weight

235
and authority. I allude to the important alteration that was made in the same year by the abolition, in the majority of criminal cases, of the punishment of transportation, and the substitution of a system of penal servitude, by which a large number of offenders formerly sent abroad, and who never returned to this country, are retained here, cither on the expiration of their sentences, or with revocable licences entitling the persons holding them to regain their liberty after they had served an allotted period of their sentence. Under the former system a very large expenditure was incurred by this country in Australia under the heads of police and gaols. Since the abolition of transportation that charge has been in process of diminution, and it is to be hoped will eventually disappear. A portion of it, however, has been transferred to this country, and there is, therefore, the greater reason why a portion of the cost of maintaining the police should be borne by the general revenue of the nation. I do not propose to fix any particular sum to be paid out of the public Revenue on account of the police establishment in every county and borough; but what I propose is in effect this—that upon a certificate of the Secretary of State, founded on the report of the inspectors, attesting the efficiency in numbers and discipline during the preceding year of the police of any county or borough, it shall be competent for the Treasury to pay out of moneys to be provided by Parliament a sum not exceeding one-fourth of the expense incurred for the pay and clothing of such police. The money thus granted will not constitute a fixed charge upon the Consolidated Fund, but will be voted annually, so that it will be every year in the power of Parliament to satisfy itself that the Government has exercised the authority confided to it in a judicious and impartial manner. If this discretionary power be given to the Government it will relieve me from the necessity of doing what at one time I had thought might be necessary—namely, to propose that, with a view to prevent the spirit of the law being evaded, while the letter was complied with, there should be reserved the power of compelling the county and borough authorities by an Order in Council to increase the number of police to an efficient standard. On mature consideration, however, I felt that serious objections might be urged against the adoption of such a course. I have no
236
doubt that those in whose hands is vested the management of the police would be disposed to treat the Order in Council with all becoming respect; but still there might be an inclination to dispute the grounds on which that Order had been issued, and it might be no easy matter to compel a reluctant body of magistrates to do what might be necessary in order to place the police establishment upon a satisfactory footing. On the whole, I therefore thought it better not to ask Parliament to place any such power in the hands of the Government; and another reason which has influenced me is, that if it were granted it would be necessary to establish a maximum of sufficiency universal in its application—a matter of extreme difficulty, since what would be a sufficient maximum for one part of the country might be altogether inadequate to the requirements of another district differently circumstanced, while the maximum fixed in the Act might probably be taken as the general standard, though a very insufficient one. A discretionary power in the Treasury to issue a grant will stimulate magistrates and watch committees to keep up their police in a state of efficiency. The next topic to which I would advert is the recommendation of the Commissioners with respect to the consolidation of small boroughs. It cannot be denied that in the case of many small boroughs the object we have in view would be materially promoted by such a proceeding; but, on the other hand, there are serious practical difficulties in the way of a compulsory consolidation, and we have thought it better, at least for the present, not to insist on such a measure. We do not, therefore, intend to propose the compulsory consolidation of boroughs, but it is to be understood that the sixty-four boroughs to which I have already alluded as not having populations amounting to 5,000, will not be included in the arrangement for defraying a portion of the expense from the Treasury. As it is obvious that in places so circumstanced there can be no efficient police, without consolidation, I propose that there shall be no assistance from the Treasury to any borough whose population did not at the last census exceed 5,000, and which is not so consolidated. Thus there will be no inducement to the small boroughs to keep aloof from the surrounding community, but rather the strongest inducement to become consolidated with the county. With a view,

237
however, to facilitate consolidation and to prevent a borough being excluded from its benefits by the refusal of a county, the Bill provides that upon the representation of the town council of any borough, of whatever population, that they have applied to the magistrates of the county for consolidation, and that either through indisposition on the part of the justices, or because of some dispute as to the terms, their application was not granted, the Queen shall have power to define by an Order in Council the terms on which the consolidation shall be effected, so that no borough shall have to complain that it was excluded from the benefits of the Act against its own will. The question of cost now remains, and, without attempting to estimate accurately the whole expense of the project, I should be disposed to say that £200,000 would more than cover the burden on the public revenue. Owing to the peculiar nature of the laws respecting the police in Scotland, it has not been found practicable to extend the Bill to that part of the United Kingdom, but a special measure is in preparation by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and the estimated cost for both countries will, probably, not exceed £220,000 or £230,000. The Bill which I now ask the permission of the House to introduce may not meet the views of those who desire a strictly uniform system of police; but I had no ambition to frame a Bill which, however perfect in theory, had little chance of being adopted by Parliament. My object was rather to prepare a measure which, while it respects the present system of local management and corporate control, will tend to increase in a most material degree the efficiency of the county and borough police throughout the country.
SIR JOHN PAKLNGTON: I have heard, Sir, with very great pleasure, the statement of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary relative to one of the most important subjects connected with his department; and I must also express my satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government have at length determined to meet the general wish entertained by this House and the country that this question should no longer be left in the uncertain state in which it has stood for many years, but should be definitively dealt with by the Legislature. It is gratifying, likewise, to find that the Government have wisely resolved to comply with the recommendation
238
made by the Commission which sat as long ago as the year 1839, and of which you, Sir, were a distinguished Member—namely, that the cost of maintaining an efficient police should be at least partially borne by the general revenues of the country; and my only apprehension is, that the impression produced on the public mind by this measure will be that the terms which it offers can hardly operate as a sufficient inducement to counties and boroughs to introduce in their respective districts the new arrangements. For myself, I could have wished that the Government had shown a disposition to contribute more liberally towards the expenses of the country police, and then the system of inspectorship which the right hon. Gentleman very judiciously proposes, coupled with the power of withdrawing the pecuniary assistance of the State in eases where the reports as to the efficiency of the force were unfavourable, would have been likely to prove more satisfactory. I will not now, however, express too decided an opinion on these points; I merely throw out this suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman's future consideration. The next, and, perhaps, the most important feature of his plan is the provision rendering it compulsory on all counties to establish a rural police, a proposal to which I give my unqualified adhesion, as I believe that anything short of it must necessarily fail to meet the requirements of the case; and I concur with the right hon. Baronet in thinking it very improbable that any county will hereafter have reason to regret the constraint that this Bill will impose upon it. As to the county with which I am connected—Worcester—I can speak with confidence in this matter. In the year 1839 it became my duty, as soon as the Rural Police Act passed, to propose its adoption in that county. The proposal was assented to, and, although some dissatisfaction was felt for a time on account of its expense, yet since then the general feeling of the county has been that of contentment on the subject; and last autumn, indeed, the number of the police in Worcestershire was considerably increased. The right hon. Baronet also touched upon one of the most difficult parts of the question in alluding to the sentiments of the boroughs regarding their non-amalgamation with the counties. It is well known that one of the chief and almost the only obstacle encountered in those counties which have adopted the rural police has sprung from an unwise

239
and unworthy jealousy between boroughs and counties on the question of police. The right hon. Gentleman certainly proposes a remedy for this evil, which is a good one as far as it goes—namely, that as the borough police have now power to act within the counties, so the police of each county shall have power to act within the boroughs. But I wish that he had gone further, and proposed, with regard to the small boroughs—taking, if he pleases, his limit of 5,000 inhabitants—to make it compulsory on them to amalgamate their force with that of the counties. In my own county two small boroughs have availed themselves of the power of effecting this junction, and the result has been most beneficial, the boroughs never having had cause to repent the step which they took. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but there seems to me to be this defect in his scheme—that, while he renders it compulsory on the counties to introduce the Police Act, he does not, apparently to me, define the extent to which the compulsion is to go. I quite agree with him that it would be unwise to attempt to assimilate the police force in every county to one common standard, so as to produce a uniform amount of force throughout the entire country; but it strikes me that, following out his own principle, it would be prudent to prescribe some minimum, as compared with the population, below which they should not be allowed to descend; otherwise I am afraid he will find, as he has told us to-night is already the case in certain boroughs, that some of the counties adopting his measure will have it in their power, while complying with the letter, to evade the spirit and intention of the law. I will not detain the House with any further comments on this Bill, which will be shortly before us; but I must express my hope that this question, which is wholly removed from the sphere of party politics, will be calmly and impartially considered on all sides. The general outlines of the measure seem to me to be founded on sound and safe principles; and, so far as my humble influence goes, I shall be most ready to lend my assistance to the Government in carrying it through this House.
MR. HAMILTON-NISBETsaid, he thought the measure was conceived in a spirit of moderation, which ought to bespeak for it the fair consideration of every county member. The enforcement of a minimum number of police for each
240
county, as suggested by his right hon. Friend who spoke last, would be very undesirable. The large county which he represented (Lincolnshire) was already sufficiently provided, or nearly so, with a constabulary force, without the introduction of any compulsory measure to increase it. He would give the Bill his support, because, although coercive in some of its provisions, it made the State liable for a, portion of the expense that would attend its adoption. A few years ago an inquiry was instituted as to what addition would be necessary to the county rates in order to raise the rural police of Lincolnshire to the standard of two of the adjoining counties; and it was found that they would require to be doubled. Now, he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) to propose that the amount of the State's contribution towards the expense of the county police should be fixed at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
SIR GEORGE GREY: The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake. Practically, the contribution of the State will not exceed one-fourth of the entire expense; but whenever the inspector reports that the police of any county are deficient in number or in discipline, and the Secretary of State thinks he would not be justified in granting the certificate upon the presentation of which alone the amount can be issued by the Treasury, no portion whatever of the cost of maintaining the police of that particular county shall be defrayed from the general revenue of the country.
MR. HAMILTON-NISBETsaid, he understood, then, that the county the police of which was reported to be efficient would receive one-fourth of the expense and no more. [SIR G. GREY assented.] In that case he could only say that he was entirely in favour of the inspection proposed to be instituted by the Bill; but he had hoped that the proportion of the cost to be paid from the Consolidated Fund would be more liberal. The inhabitants of the county he represented were desirous that an efficient police force should be established, and he, therefore, would be ready to give the Bill his most careful consideration.
MR. DEEDESsaid that, in the first place he felt bound to thank the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary for having thus redeemed the pledge he had given. He (Mr. Deedes) had, on former occasions, submitted to the House measures on this subject, and in doing so he

241
had been actuated simply by a desire to improve the existing police system. He felt bound, therefore, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Bill he had proposed, the general provisions of which seemed to him to have been well considered. He thought, however, in common with other Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject, that the right hon. Baronet had made a mistake in limiting the terms upon which public money might be applied to the purposes contemplated by this measure, and he believed that if the sum granted by the Treasury were to depend upon the reports of the inspectors there would be constant disagreements between the officers who discharged such duties and those who had the immediate direction of the police in counties and boroughs. He did not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in those counties in which the present Rural Police Act had been adopted there had been a proportionate diminution of crime; but if occurrences which had recently happened rendered it necessary that a more efficient police force should be established, and if that was the general feeling of the country, he (Mr. Deedes) would readily afford any assistance in his power towards framing as good a measure as could be devised for carrying out such an object; but at the same time he must say he did not think that a necessity existed for the application of the same principle to every part of the country.
MR. RICEsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and he had also been much gratified to find that the principle of the Bill—which he hoped would receive the sanction of the House—seemed to be generally approved. He understood that the certificate for a grant was only to be given in cases in which the inspectors and the Government were satisfied that an efficient police had been established; he believed, however, that condition would be complied with by every county in England.
MR. BUCKsaid, he hoped that full opportunity would be afforded for maturely considering the various provisions of the Bill.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he believed that a measure of this kind was imperatively called for by the state of the country, but he thought some of the provisions of the Bill would require very close and careful consideration. It had been shown before a Committee of which he was a member,
242
that in some boroughs the watching and lighting committees, who had the control of the police force, had not acted with justice and impartiality, and, as he understood the Bill, it did not propose to interfere with the powers of such committees. It had been stated that in one town in England there were 600 beerhouses; that a majority of the persons who were members of the lighting and watching committee were holders of such property; and that in consequence of their influence over the police it was impossible to rely on the proper discharge of the duties of the force. As he understood this Bill, it would not impose any check upon such proceedings. He thought, therefore, that that state of things should not be permitted to continue. He saw with great satisfaction the determination of the Government to deal with the general question, and he begged to express a hope that the present measure would receive the careful consideration of the House.
MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, he had heard with considerable satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. He had been opposed to the adoption of the Rural Police Act in the county he represented, chiefly on account of the expense inevitably attending such an arrangement, and which he did not think would be compensated by equivalent advantages. That feeling was shared by the great body of the ratepayers, for at the last Midsummer sessions it was determined to adopt the Rural Police Act, and at a subsequent period a memorial was presented to the Court of Quarter Sessions, signed, he believed, by one-half the number of ratepayers in the county, representing nearly one-half of its rateable property, begging the magistrates to reconsider the question, and not to throw upon the ratepayers a burden which they conceived to be unnecessary. It was, however, determined, by a very considerable majority, after much discussion, that the provisions of the Act should be adopted. He was glad to find that this Bill proposed to throw some portion of the expense of the police force upon the Consolidated Fund, though he thought that proportion was scarcely large enough. Possibly before the Bill went into Committee, the right hon. Gentleman might come to the conclusion that a larger proportion of the expenditure might fairly be borne by the Consolidated

243
Fund. He (Mr. Palmer) had always been of opinion that if it was proper to establish a police force in a county, the establishment of such a force ought to be a Government measure, and the country ought to be responsible for its support. It was quite as much the duty of the Government to prevent crime as to punish it. The Government had, as he thought with great propriety, transferred to the Consolidated Fund the charge of prosecutions, and a portion of the cost of the maintenance of prisoners. One great argument for the establishment of a rural police force was, that it would tend to prevent crime. If that were the result, it was to be hoped that a considerable amount now paid for the punishment of crime would be saved, and the country at large would not be a loser if the charge for the police was thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman, it was intended that counties should be compulsorily divided into districts. [Sir G. GREY: Not in all cases.] He might state that in the county which he represented (Berkshire), one great objection to the establishment of a police force was, that it would be hard to charge the western part of the county, which was much less populous and further from the metropolis, and had therefore less crime than other portions of it, with the support of police, which would be chiefly required not by themselves but by others, He would not now enter into the details of the measure before them, but would simply express his general satisfaction at the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. HENRY STRACEYsaid, he believed that the state of the country demanded such a Bill as the present, and that in a short time it would be much more acceptable than it now was. From our late experience the natural presumption was, that on the return of our troops from the East they would be subjected to a system of centralisation. In such circumstances the troops would not be available as they formerly were as a police force, and we ought, therefore, to have all the advantages of a uniform and general police. He trusted the expenses would not be given by the Government with a niggardly hand. If the police force could be removed wherever it might be required, it was perfectly just that the public, which received the benefit, should contribute to the expense; and he hoped, therefore,
244
that certainly not less than the amount referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, one-fourth, would be given.
MR. PALKsaid, he was also very much obliged to the right hon. Baronet for his Bill. Such a measure had long been wanted, and would, he thought, deservedly claim the calm consideration of every one connected with county matters. There was, however, one portion of it which he did not quite understand. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of municipal towns or boroughs, and alluded to town councils making requisitions. Now, there were many towns with large growing populations that were subject neither to town councils nor municipal regulations, but which in many instances were under the general guidance of the Board of Health. He wished to know, therefore, whether such towns, having, say, populations exceeding 5,000, would be placed upon the same footing as the boroughs and towns alluded to by the right hon. Baronet? He also wished to observe, that it might be as well that, before making the enactment of the Bill compulsory upon any district, the opinion of the ratepayers should be first ascertained.
MR. BARROWsaid, he begged to offer his approval of the general principle of the measure, though he should have greatly preferred, instead of it, if such an arrangement had been possible, the extension of the parish constable system.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he begged to thank the House for the very favourable reception which had been given to the Bill, and at the same time would assure the Gentlemen who had spoken, that he would be most happy to give the fullest consideration to the various suggestions that had been made. With reference to that part of the Bill which related to the formation of police districts, it was not intended that a county should be divided into such districts as a matter of course. But simply that where the circumstances of a county required it, and the magistrates would not exercise the power given to them, the Secretary of State should have the power to compel them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had suggested that it would be better at once to pay the one-fourth of the expenses of the police of any borough or county, making the continuance of the payment contingent upon the certificate of the inspector. But that would be objectionable, as giving no adequate security

245
for the proper expenditure of the public money.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the grant might be withdrawn if the report of the inspector was unfavourable.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that still even in that case it might have been paid for a year to a borough or county, the police of which was thoroughly inefficient. The question as to fixing a minimum of proportion which the police should bear to the population was a question for discussion in Committee, but he was rather opposed to it, because he thought that if they did, the minimum fixed would be taken as the standard of an efficient force. In answer to another question asked by the hon. Member for South Devonshire (Mr. Palk), he might state that it was unnecessary to mention specially in the Act towns under the Government of Boards of Health. Not being corporations, they were now parts of counties, and as such would come under its operation. He proposed with the assent of the House to fix the second reading of the Bill for Monday next, and then to give any reasonable time before going into Committee, when he apprehended the real discussion would take place.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY, Viscount PALMERSTON, and Mr. MASSEY.
Bill read 1°.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he rose to bring forward the Resolution of which he had given notice, relative to the late sittings in that House—
"That, on those days on which the House shall sit in the evening, the debate on any business under discussion at Twelve o'clock (midnight) shall stand adjourned to the next day on which the House shall sit, after which no opposed business shall be proceeded with; and that, whenever the House shall be in Committee on any evening at midnight, the Chairman do report progress, and Mr. Speaker do resume the Chair."
Many words were not required to recommend his proposition to the favour of hon. Members, though, reasonable as he deemed it to be, it was at one time not his intention to obtrude the subject again on the attention of the House; but he had been assured that the long sittings of last Session made many converts, and that there was now a strong feeling in favour of his Motion, He was not surprised at that change of opinion, because, whenever the subject
246
was spoken of out of doors, there was always an expression of astonishment that the late sittings of the House should have continued so long. He might state as a fact, that during two months of last Session the House sat on an average two hours after midnight; for the whole Session the average was one hour. Most certainly that must have been very injurious to the health of Members. He had himself seen many of them exceedingly wearied, and he believed that those who might vote against him to-night would be very glad if his Motion should be carried. During the recess they had lost five Members by death; how many had died during the whole year he could not tell; but he thought that if they went on in the present way, the insurance companies would be justified in demanding a larger premium from Members of the House of Commons, on account of the excessive mortality among them in comparison with other persons. No argument could be adduced in favour of late sittings. In no other Legislature in Europe or America did they follow such a preposterous system. Other legislative assemblies had the good sense to do their business by daylight, and the only argument he ever heard against the adoption of the same system in the House of Commons was, that the House having more important measures to discuss than any other Legislature in the world, it was impossible they could curtail their debates, and that it was therefore absolutely necessary to sit occasionally after midnight. He held the contrary opinion, and believed that, if they would only economise their time in a rational way, they would have no difficulty in transacting all the business of an evening before twelve o'clock, Many improvements had recently been made in the mode of conducting private business, and the experience of the last two evenings showed how much time might be saved by the adoption of a few simple regulations. Half an hour had been saved each night by the mode of introducing Bills; less time was now consumed in the presentation of public petitions; the ceremony of communicating with the other House had been shortened, and many other changes which had been made were calculated to economise the time of the House. He thought, therefore, that if in addition to what had already been done, a few simple rules were adopted, there would be no necessity for their continuing such late sittings. If his Motion were carried, what

247
he would propose was, that Committees should meet at eleven o'clock and sit till three, at which hour the business of the House should commence, thus allowing nine hours for discussion before midnight. He hoped the House would try his plan for one Session at least. Some independent Members might say that they would have no opportunity of discussing their Bills, unless they were permitted to bring them in after twelve o'clock. He believed, on the other hand, that his proposal would tend rather to facilitate than to retard the business of the House, for, if adopted, he certainly did hope that it would induce hon. Members to shorten their speeches. If, when a Member had spoken the sentiments of others, those others would refrain from repeating over and over again what had already been said, much valuable time would be saved. In America, as he understood, no Member was allowed to speak longer than an hour; and, although he did not propose to introduce the same restriction here, he did entertain the hope that hon. Members would have the good sense not to trespass upon the attention of the House at too great length. He believed that if his proposition were adopted, it would have a good effect on the measures of the House, and would give general satisfaction to the country.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he seconded the Motion with great pleasure, believing that it would improve the character of the House and do good to the public. Arguments in its favour were to be found in every quarter of the House. If he turned to the Chair, he must say that it was too great a demand upon the health and strength of Mr. Speaker, whose interests they were bound to consider, to require him to sit up till three or four o'clock in the morning. There could be no doubt that, if permitted to retire somewhat earlier, their Chairman would be able to serve the public more efficiently than he could do under the present system. If he turned to the Treasury bench, he would ask whether it was just to Her Majesty's Ministers, who were worked all day at their public offices, to impose upon them additional duties at night? No wonder Ministers were prematurely growing old—no wonder they transmitted hereditary gout to their posterity. Surely, if they were spared the excessive nocturnal legislation of which he complained, they would be more able to attend to their important duties at the public offices. At present, it
248
was impossible for them to be at their offices before twelve or one o'clock in the day. They certainly managed these things better abroad. It was well known that when M. Guizot was First Minister of France he was up at six o'clock every morning. If he turned to hon. Members themselves, he would ask whether their habits were not rendered irregular by late sittings, and whether they did not think that they would discharge their duty to their constituents more efficiently under the system now proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, than under that which had unhappily existed for so long a period? He believed they would serve the public much better if they were less prodigal of their health and strength. The truth was that the House at certain times after midnight was a scene, not of activity, but of repose. Upon those occasions one could never see a number of Members extended on the benches without parodying the well-known lines of Cowper—
"Sweet sleep enjoys the Chairman in the chair,
Sweet the tired Members on the bench behind,
And sweet the clerks below."
He had himself counted no fewer than twenty-six Members asleep at one time, including the First Minister of the Crown, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, descending to the recesses of the Woods and Forests, the head of that department also. He could not think that in continuing such a system they were doing their duty as Members of Parliament. But they were also setting a bad example to society, for there could be no doubt that the late hours now in fashion owed their origin to the old war habits of Pitt and Fox, continued down to the present day. As to the Motion before the House, he admitted that it was something too trenchant, as the French phrased it, but in dealing with a sore it was as well to make a bold cut, and therefore, his hon. Friend proposed a limit. He gave his support to the Motion of his hon. Friend from a conviction that the House would never do better until it attempted to do less.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That, on those days on which the House shall sit in the Evening, the Debate on any business under discussion at Twelve o'clock (midnight) shall stand adjourned to the next day on which, the House shall sit; after which no opposed business shall be proceeded with:
"And that, whenever the House shall be in Committee on any Evening at midnight, the

249
Chairman do report progress, and Mr. Speaker do resume the Chair."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I should be the first person to do ample justice to the benevolent intentions of my hon. Friends who have proposed and seconded this Motion. To exempt Ministers from the effects of old age—to guard them against the gout—these are undoubtedly very great temptations held out to us to accede to the proposition of my hon. Friends. But, nevertheless, I feel it would not be consistent with our duty as servants of the Crown, charged with the conduct of the business of this country, to agree to their proposal. My hon. Friend (Mr. Brotherton) compares the business of this House with that transacted by the Congress of the United States, and other legislative assemblies; but that comparison really cannot hold good for a moment. Take the Congress of the United States. Can any man for an instant compare the business transacted by that Assembly with the business which devolves upon the Parliament of Great Britain? Why we know that all the details of legislation for the separate States of the Union are transacted by the Congresses of those separate States, and, therefore, the business of the general federal Congress is extremely limited as compared with the business of this House. My hon. Friend proposes to limit the time of sitting, and he founds his proposition on the maxim that abuse leads to restriction. But if that maxim be true, it is equally true that restriction leads to abuse. My hon. Friend also proposes to make a new law to limit our debates, and, undoubtedly, the limit which in the course of his speech he suggested is one that would be very desirable, but still it is one which must depend upon the discretion of individual Members in using their privilege of addressing the House. His suggestion is, that only a limited number of Gentlemen should speak on each side, and that no one should repeat arguments which had been used before, and that Gentlemen should not speak for more than a certain number of minutes. Undoubtedly, if we could arrive at a common agreement upon a point of this kind our debates would be very much shortened, but whether the public interests would be better served thereby I very much doubt. Although loquacity may sometimes be exuberant, yet I am not prepared to concur with my hon. Friend in saying that no Member of
250
this House shall repeat arguments which have already been used, because, if the arguments be good, I think the oftener they are repeated the more likelier they are to accomplish their purpose. I have heard that Mr. Fox, a pretty good judge of Parliamentary tactics, used to say the best debate was that in which ten or twelve men on one side would get up one after the other and repeat the same arguments over and over again in almost the same words, until the mind of the House was saturated with them, and brought to that conviction which it is the object of all debates to produce. My hon. Friend says we ought to finish our debates by a certain hour each night, and that such a Resolution would produce a good effect. Well, look at Wednesdays. On Wednesdays there is an hour at which necessarily the House adjourns. Let any Member carry back his recollection to some things which happened last Session upon Wednesdays. There were certain questions which excited great interest, but which were totally thrown over by the power which Members of the House had of continuing the debate every day until the fatal moment arrived when the House adjourned as a matter of course. Upon one of those questions, which excited very great interest on both sides of the House, I have heard that one hon. Gentleman, upon being asked when he meant to speak in opposition to the measure under debate, replied, "Oh, I have a speech of six hours to deliver, but my turn will not come for six weeks." That hon. Member felt perfectly certain that by exerting his privilege, and probably repeating several times over the arguments which others had previously used, he would succeed in defeating the measure which he intended to resist. And so it would be always if we laid down a rule that at a given hour of the night, whatever be the state of business, the House should adjourn. Depend upon it, instead of shortening the business we should very much lengthen the time winch the disposal of business would occupy. Then my hon. Friend proposes to go a, step further, and says that not only should we limit the number of hours over which our debates should extend, but that we should limit the number of weeks during which the House should sit. No doubt, it would be very convenient personally to Members to be relieved from their duties in this House at a fixed period, to know that at a certain time, whether the business of the House was completed

251
or not, the Session would terminate, and they would all be at liberty to retire into the country; but I think those are not the terms upon which our constituents send us here. We are sent here to do the business of the country, and that ought to be done, let it cost us any number of hours or any number of months of Session. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion says we should reform the habits of the country—that in other countries people keep much earlier hours than we do in England, and that we are spoiling society by the late hours we keep. Why, Sir, my hon. Friend should remember that it is not our habits, it is the habits of the country which must regulate, to a certain degree, the habits of Parliament. My hon. Friend says, official business does not commence early enough in England. I remember once hearing that a noble Lord was desirous of having an audience of the Duke of Wellington, then Commander in Chief, and the Duke, who we all know was an early riser, appointed seven o'clock in the morning for the interview, at the Horse Guards. A Friend of the noble Lord asked him, "How on earth will you manage to be with the Duke at seven o'clock?" "Oh!" replied the noble Lord, "nothing can be easier; I shall do it the last thing before going to bed." Depend upon it you cannot, by any rules of this House, alter the habits of men. Towards the close of the Session we sit day and night, and I assure you that is a proceeding extremely inconvenient to the departmental portions of the public service, as hon. Gentlemen who have official duties to discharge find it extremely difficult to attend the House at the hours of office business. I must further say, giving full credit to my hon. Friends for the motives which have induced them to bring forward this Motion, and being, with them, desirous by all possible means to shorten any forms which may oppose unnecessary obstacles to the transaction of business, I cannot think the Motion now proposed is one calculated to accomplish any good result to the public service. No doubt there are many forms which we have altered, and thereby accelerated the despatch of public business, and if there be still any unnecessary forms let us get rid of them. Accelerate as much as possible the transaction of business, but I would warn the House against any attempt to impose fetters upon the conduct of Members, because I am quite sure such a course would tend to the injury of the public service.
252
My hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) says, that after midnight this House exhibits a scene of perfect repose, and he pictured a number of Gentlemen in recumbent attitudes enjoying a refreshing slumber after the fatigues of the day. I must say my recollection does not concur with his, for, if in the course of a Session there are sometimes scenes of something like confusion—of violent irritation—of acrimonious debate—of something that calls for the interposition of the Speaker—it always happens about the small hours of the morning. If ever there happens any irregularity, or there be more animation than usual, it is always in those hours of repose my hon. Friend speaks of—after twelve o'clock at night. I have been often a witness to scenes of that description, and now and then I have endeavoured to soothe the irritation of the moment, but I have observed that these scenes occur always at that period of the night. Thus, my hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the physical strength or the animal spirits of Members are less vigorous after twelve o'clock than before. If that be the test by which my hon. Friend judges of the legislative capacity of this House after midnight, I cannot think he has established his case, and therefore I feel it my duty to oppose his Motion, and hope the House will agree with me in thinking it unadvisable to cramp the freedom of its debates.
MR. W. WILLIAMS MR. W. WILLIAMS rose amid cries of "Divide, divide!;" and said, he thought it was rather too important a question to dispose of so hastily. The speech of the noble Lord, however facetious, had failed to convince him that the Motion ought not to be supported. They had every Session a host of Bills brought in by the Government, which consumed a vast deal of their time unnecessarily, for the Government had no bonâ fide intention of carrying them. Towards the close of the Session those Bills underwent the operation of what was called "the murder of the innocents." During the last Session the House had sat for 110 hours after midnight. There was also a vast deal of time consumed in discussing a number of idle Motions on going into Committee of Supply. It was generally long after midnight when the greatest money Votes were taken—a time when it was impossible to consider them with proper attention. When the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) was at the head of

253
the Government, there was no disposition shown to force on the Supplies after midnight; but in the two last Sessions these Votes were persevered in. He would suggest to the noble Lord the giving up one day for the consideration of all the Motions before going into Supply, in order that they might proceed with the Votes on a special evening at five o'clock.
MR. BASSsaid, he thought the speech of the noble Lord calculated to mislead both the House and the country. When the noble Lord argued against the Motion by referring to the example of the Wednesday's proceedings, he (Mr. Bass) was prepared to contend that the House had always been able to get through more business, and in a shorter space of time, during the morning sitting than at any other time. The business done after midnight was generally done in a short, slovenly manner, and very often measures were passed which would not be permitted at a time when they could be fairly discussed.
The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 111: Majority 61.

CHURCH-RATES ABOLITION, &c. BILL.
MR. PACKEsaid, he rose according to notice, to move for leave to bring in a
"Bill to abolish Church Rates for other than the purposes therein mentioned; to make provision for the maintenance of the fabric and necessary fittings of Parish Churches in certain cases; and to enable persons to redeem their liability to Church Rates, and otherwise to amend the Law respecting the making, assessing, and collecting Church Rates in England and Wales."
He felt he had undertaken a task involving great responsibility, when he proposed to deal with so important a question as church rates, which was a charge upon the land for above ten centuries, considering also that the agitation against them had only been for the last quarter of a century. He felt this responsibility the more from the many unsuccessful attempts that had been made to settle the question. About twenty-two years ago a measure upon the subject had been entertained by the then Ministers of the Crown, and since then nothing effectual had been done. The subject had been so thoroughly discussed from time to time that he would not on the present occasion weary the House by any lengthened statement. He wished, however, shortly to remind the House of the different Motions that had been made on the subject, with a view of showing the wavering that had
254
taken place from one side or another of the question, in consequence of the Government not taking the matter into their own hands. In 1834 a Bill was introduced by Lord Althorp, in conjunction with the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), then Ministers of the Crown, in which that principle, was sanctioned which he was now about to advocate—namely, that the Church of England should be supported by the funds of England, and that the property of the country, without any exception, should be liable for the repairs of the fabric of the church. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) subsequently brought in a Bill in which he proposed to enact that every one declaring himself a Dissenter should be relieved from the payment of church rates. That was also the principle of the Bill introduced in 1853 by the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. J. Phillimore). That Bill was defeated by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Clay), who moved a Resolution that the church should be repaired by the pew rents, and by increasing the value of the property of the church. This Resolution was also defeated. In 1854 the hon. Baronet introduced a Bill simply for the abolition of church rates, which also failed. In 1855 the hon. Baronet seemed to have some qualms of conscience as to the funds being insufficient for the support of the Church, and introduced a measure in which he proposed that the Church should be supported by pew rents. On the same occasion the hon. Baronet stated that he had no fear but that the Church would be supported by the wealthy portion of the community attached to it, and instanced the many munificent donations and bequests for the building of churches in this country. Although there were a great many benefactors of the Church in the way of building new churches, he (Mr. Packe) did not think that they would be found so ready to advance funds for the repairs of old churches. The churches recently were getting greatly out of repair; and as to large village churches, there was no means, without a rate, to prevent them falling into ruin and decay. He would now explain the principle of his measure. In 1854 he brought in a Bill which proposed to divide the rate into two portions, one to be for the fabric of the church, and the other for the services. He proposed that the Dissenters, by making a declaration that they were Dissenters, should not pay

255
towards the maintenance of Divine service, but only towards the fabric. On asking a question at that time of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who was then at the head of the Government, he (Mr. Packe) was informed that after the Christmas recess the Government would be prepared to state their views upon the subject. In the meantime the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) came into office, and the church rate was forgotten and overlooked. He (Mr. Packe) did not bring in a Bill last year because he was given to understand that the Bishops in another place would be prepared with a measure, and he knew that the Church could not be in better hands. The Archbishop of Canterbury did introduce a Bill on the subject, but Mr. Speaker decided that a Bill having for its object the taxation of the people could not originate in the House of Lords. If, however, that Bill did come down to that House, he (Mr. Packe) confessed he could not have given it his support—believing, with all due deference to the most rev. Prelate, that it was a Bill which struck at the root of the integrity of the Established Church. With regard to his own Bill, he could assure all those who dissented from the doctrines of the Established Church that he had no feeling whatever of a party character in dealing with the question. While he desired to uphold the Established Church, he was most anxious to relieve the conscientious scruples of those who differed from it in this country. He was most desirous for the general peace of this question, and he was most willing to make such concessions as could be fairly made by a member of the Church. He, therefore, hoped that the compromise which he now proposed would be taken in good part, and that at all events he would be allowed to bring in the Bill. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department stated last night that he would wait to see his (Mr. Packe's) Bill with a view of considering whether the Government could adopt it, or frame a Bill from it. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that he would be most happy to hand him over his Bill if he would consent to take charge of it. The first part of his Bill empowers the abolition of church rates throughout the kingdom for the necessary performance of Divine service. With a view of meeting the scruples of the Dissenters to the doctrines of the Church, and to the ceremonies of the Establishment, he made this provision
256
in his Bill. He proposed another provision, which was completely new, and which, if carried, would have the effect of relieving from the payment of the rates nineteen-twentieths of the Dissenters. He proposed to relieve all occupiers of rateable property from the payment of church rates. He proposed that the rate should be paid by the occupiers in the same way as the income tax in Schedule A was at present paid, and that it should be deducted by them from the landlord's rent. That would relieve the occupier altogether from the payment of church rates. Another part of his measure was to allow the owners of rateable property to effect the redemption of the payment of church rates by the reasonable and adequate payment of one sum. He then proposed, according to the recommendation of the Commission, the Report of which was made in 1832, that the making, levying, and recovering of the rate should in all respects follow the poor-rate system. These were, he believed, the principal clauses of his Bill, which consisted of only fourteen. He hoped the House would comply with his Motion for leave to bring it in and have it printed, and when it was before the House he would be happy to hear any suggestion that any hon. Member might wish to make in respect to any of its provisions.
MR. WIGRAMseconded the Motion.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of speaking upon the general question of church rates, or upon the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, for he thought it would be more convenient to discuss the measure when it was in the form of a Bill before the House. The hon. Gentleman could not expect that he should express much satisfaction with his proposals, for there were points in his plans which were especially objectionable, and he thought that if it passed it would give rise to greater dissatisfaction on the subject of church rates than already existed. He was, however, so sincere in his wish to obtain a solution of this great question that he would not throw any obstacle in the way of any Member who thought he could throw any light whatever upon the subject. Reserving, therefore, a right to object to the Bill in its future stages, he would not now offer any opposition to it. He might take that opportunity of saying that he intended on an early day to introduce the measure which he had brought before the House in previous Sessions. The various measures

257
which were brought forward on different sides of the House showed the great anxiety there was for a solution of this question amongst all classes, and he thought that the feeling of the House would be that the Bills should be printed, so that Members might have a full opportunity of considering their relative merits, and of contrasting the various schemes that were brought forward.
MR. E. BALLsaid, he begged to ex-press his approval of the manner in which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire had brought forward his Motion. The tone of the hon. Gentleman's observations was worthy of all commendation, There could be no subject more important than that of which the proposed Bill treated, and both sides of the House—those for the continuance and those for the abolition of church rates—should endeavour to attain that spirit of forbearance which might make it possible that an agreement could be come to as regarded the settlement of the question. He believed that the great majority of the Dissenters did not differ with the Protestants of the Established Church on any material matters of doctrine. If this was the case, how much the more ready should they be to unite on matters which none of them held to be essential? So long as the present system of church rates continued, one great source of discontent to Dissenters would remain; and without going at large into the question, he might be permitted to ask, had not the Dissenters very strong claims to the favourable consideration of the House of Commons? Might he not with confidence ask, had they not been a most useful class of people in the work of disseminating education, and spreading and maintaining throughout the country the pure doctrines of Christianity? Dissent could not be crushed. Dissent had increased, was increasing, and would continue to increase. He presumed that no hon. Member in that House was of opinion that dissent would ever find its grave. Therefore, it was desirable that the members of the Church of England should assist in removing all that could impede the union of all Protestants in the endeavour to advance the welfare of the country, and bring home to all classes the blessings of religion. Religion was now being attacked in various ways—inroads upon it were being made in various forms. One of these was an effort to violate one of the most solemn commands
258
of their Divine Master, by making encroachments on the Sanctity of the Sabbath. Now, he did think that they should all unite for the maintenance of principles which he considered essential to Christianity itself. He would again beseech of them to join in arresting that attempt to demoralise the community—one calculated to bring down upon the country the judgment of the Almighty.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PACKE and the Marquess of BLANDFORD.
Bill read 1°.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he had put a notice on the paper for that evening, to obtain leave to bring in a Bill to relieve Dissenters from the payment of church rates. Feeling that that was a subject which ought to be dealt with by a Bill emanating from the Government, he had put himself in communication with the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but the reply that he had received told him that there was no intention on the part of the Government to bring forward a measure to exempt the Dissenters from that which was contrary to their religious scruples. It was under these circumstances that he had put his notice on the paper, for otherwise he would have considered it presumptuous in him to do so. The Bill he held in his hand was a short one. It consisted of only two clauses; and was intended to relieve every Dissenter from the payment of church rates, on his signing a declaration that he was not a member of the Church of England, and that he contributed to the congregation of which he was a member. However, as he now found that other Bills on the subject were about to be laid before the House he would withdraw his; but he would warn the House against the consequences to the Established Church of continued opposition to a settlement of the question.

HOUSE OF COMMONS' OFFICES BILL.
MR. WILSONsaid, he would now move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate certain offices of the House of Commons. The object of the proposed Bill was—first, to vest in the Crown for the future the appointment of the Assistant and second Assistant Clerk at the table, instead of having the appointment of those officers vested in the First Clerk, as at present; and secondly, to repeal that clause of the Act which provided that the salary of the second Assistant Clerk should be charged

259
on the Consolidated Fund. It was intended to appoint the Assistant Clerks on the statement of the Speaker as to their being fit persons for the office. An appointment of Assistant Clerk had already been made in that way; and he (Mr. Wilson) was sure the House would agree with him that there could not have been a better selection. They proposed to include the salary of the second Assistant Clerk in the annual Votes—an arrangement to which that officer had no objection.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILSON and Viscount PALMERSTON.
Bill read 1°.

SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply on
Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution agreed to; to be reported to-morrow.
The House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Trial of Offences. 2a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates.

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it would not be necessary to detain their Lordships with more than a very few observations, for the measure was nearly identical with one that had obtained their sanction in the year previous. When, however, that Bill went down to the other House some alterations were made in it, and the consequence was that the Bill did not pass into a law. Now, as he (the Lord Chancellor) thought the measure was better without those alterations than with them, he had simply re-introduced the Bill in the shape in which it had left their Lordships' hands. The first and principal of the alterations made by the other House was the insertion of a provision by which the Court of Chancery was precluded from the power to grant leases wherever application had already been made to either House of Parliament, and had been refused. The objection to that alteration lay in the difficulty of defining in what an application to either House of Parliament should consist. It was well known that the clause was intended to apply to a particular case, namely, to certain lands in the neighbourhood of Hampstead; but he would remind their Lordships that by the Bill, the Court of Chancery would be restrained from acting in opposition to the presumed intention of the parties; and the same reasons which had induced Parliament to reject the private Bill referred to, would
216
prevent also the Court of Chancery from interfering, He had consequently brought forward the Bill in its original shape, leaving the Parliament to deal with it as they pleased.
LORD CAMPBELLthought the House should take care not to give the Court of Chancery power to do that which they had refused to do themselves. By the Bill they would, in point of fact, entrust the Lord Chancellor with legislative powers; but they ought surely not to permit the noble and learned Lord to reverse the decisions of Parliament itself. With respect to Sir Thomas Marion Wilson's will, the Judges, to whom it had two or three times been referred, had decided that the enclosure of Hampstead Heath would be contrary to the provisions of that document.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he approved of the Bill, and also of the motives which had dictated the clause in question; but he thought that the clause itself was most inartificially drawn.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that the Gentlemen who had applied for the private Bill which had been referred to had never had the least wish to enclose any part of Hampstead Heath whatever. The Bill referred to entirely different property, and would not deprive the public of any enjoyment they derived from that favourite place of resort.
THE EARL OF DERBYregretted that any mention of a private Bill should have been introduced into a discussion upon a general question like the present; but he must confess that he did not think it unreasonable to say that, when questions of this kind relating to settled estates had been adjudicated upon by Parliament, the Court of Chancery should not have the power of reversing that decision. If this were the object of the clause introduced by the House of Commons, he did not think it an unreasonable one, and he looked upon it as one to which their Lordships might fairly and properly assent. He thought it would be entirely unreasonable, however, if, when a question of this sort had been simply under the consideration of Parliament, and had not been adjudicated upon by them, it was hold that the Court of Chancery could exercise no power with respect to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORagain urged the difficulty of defining what should constitute an application to Parliament. A party might apply for a Bill with regard to certain fields, and that might be

217
refused. But if he afterwards applied to the Court of Chancery with respect to other fields adjoining, would that be considered a matter which had been adjudicated upon? He would, however, yield to the wish of their Lordships, whether they desired a clause to be inserted in the Bill in compliance with the decision of the other House, or whether they would send the Bill down as it was, and afterwards agree to any clause that might be inserted by the Commons themselves. He considered the measure to be of far too great importance to be risked upon a point like that which had been raised.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL OF PAUPERS.
LORD BERNERSinquired if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any measure for the abolition of law of settlement and removal of the poor in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or to make any alteration in the system of local taxation? The law of settlement had been frequently under consideration, and had been universally admitted to be oppressive to the poor. The subject was referred to in the Speech from the Throne in 1854; and in 1852 the President of the Poor Law Board stated, that the result of his experience was, that the law was detrimental to the poor, however it might be advantageous to the rich. The subject had since been referred to a Select Committee, which Committee had reported upon it. He believed that it was the intention of Government to introduce some alteration in the law of removal; hut it would be a simpler plan to found a Bill upon the report of the Committee. With regard to local taxation, it was admitted on all hands that the system could not be defended upon any principle. The Select Committee had endeavoured to amend it by reducing the period of residence from five to three years. If each board maintained its legitimate poor, the evils would be mitigated; but the efforts made to obtain a particular distribution of the poor made the taxation still more unequal. He begged, at the same time, to inquire why, contrary to all precedent, the Treasury had refused to repay the counties their expenses in criminal prosecutions?
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that it was not the intention of Government to introduce any general measure either on the subject of the law of settlement
218
or the removal of paupers, but it was intended to bring in a Bill, founded on the recommendation of the Committee, to regulate the removal of Irish and Scotch paupers. With regard to the refusal of the Treasury to pay the county expenses in cases of prosecution, the refusal was simply to repay the expenses of the apprehension of the prisoner, and not of the prosecution. Such refusal was justified by the constant practice of the Treasury.
LORD BERNERSsaid, that these expenses had been invariably allowed up to 1842.
After a few words from the Marquess of SALISBURY,
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the difficulty arose from the establishment of a rural police in some counties and not in others. In the first case, the expenses of apprehension involved little addition to the ordinary expenses.

TRIAL OF OFFENCES BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had to present a Bill of an important character, which it was desirable should be sanctioned with as little delay as possible, to enable the Court of Queen's Bench to order certain offences to be tried at the Central Criminal Court. When a person was charged in the country with any serious offence which was likely to prejudice him in the eyes of the neighbourhood, it was competent for the Court of Queen's Bench to remove the proceedings into that Court. The case would then be tried in ordinary course in the Court of Queen's Bench by a trial at bar—a process which was not only attended with considerable expense, but occupied a great amount of time, and was not a convenient mode of trial for felony. It was therefore desirable that, at the discretion of the Court, such cases should be sent for trial to a more convenient tribunal, the Central Criminal Court. It was doubtful, under the existing state of the law, whether the Court of Queen's Bench had the power to send such a case to the Central Criminal Court, which was certainly the most competent tribunal for the trial of criminal offences. There were old authorities which seemed to imply that the Queen's Bench had that power, but many distinguished modern authorities entertained no doubt that it had not. Under these circumstances, and as it would be highly impolitic in a question of this nature, which might involve life or death, to leave any doubt upon the subject,

219
he proposed the present Bill, and he would only add that it had the entire sanction of the Lord Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Court.
THE EARL OF DERBYinquired whether the Bill was proposed as an enacting or as a declaratory measure?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, said, that it had been prepared simply as an enacting Bill.
Bill read 1a
House adjourned to Thursday next.