Sitting of 18 July 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Stoke Poges Hospital; Dulwich College; Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland) (No. 2).
3° Income and Land Taxes; Stamp Duties; Racehorse Duty; Coast-guard Service; Corrupt Practices Prevention; General Board of Health Continuance; Militia Pay; Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer; Lunatic Asylums Act Amendment; Marriage Law (Scotland) Amending.

INCOME AND LAND TAXES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he would beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know what would be the effect of the Bill on the salaries of the collectors of the income tax? There was one officer in the City of London who received not less a sum than £6,700 a year; others received £500 and upwards. He understood the intention was to secure £500 a year to those persons. He apprehended the effect of the Bill would be greatly to increase the expenditure in the shape of salaries.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not understand the meaning of one of the clauses of the Bill. It appeared to him to guarantee to those who might not recive as much as £500 a year out of the poundage a sum which should make up that amount. But what he wished to ask was, whether the same amount would be so guaranteed when the reduction of the income tax should take place?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not with him a list of the salaries paid to the different collectors, but, according to the best of his recollection, the salary of the collector to whom reference had been made, at present amounted to between £6,000 and £7,000. The effect of the Bill would be to reduce his salary to about £3,000, out of which sum he would have to pay certain expenses. Although he must allow that that would be a considerable salary, yet he did not think it would be an excessive one. It was not intended by the Bill to increase the salary of any person now engaged in the collection of this branch of the revenue. The provision more particularly referred to was introduced in order to prevent a vast increase of salary; but if the effect of reducing the poundage to 1d. should be to lower the salaries below £500 of those who now received a higher sum, it was certainly intended that the amount of £500 at least should be secured to those parties. In point of fact, the object of the clause was rather to prevent a reduction of salary below a certain amount than to increase it beyond that amount. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) as to what would be the amount of the salaries of the collectors when a reduction of the income tax should take place, he confessed that his hon. Friend looked so far

1029
into futurity that he could hardly answer him. At the present moment the question was not one of any practical importance. But should the provision, as now drawn, not have the effect of placing the salaries of the officers on a proper scale, it would, of course, be his duty to consider whether it would not be necessary at some future time to introduce a provision to meet the exigency of the case, and prevent any undue increase of the salaries.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, that having paid some attention to the land-tax as an impost, he must say that, in his opinion, such a tax ought not to exist, as being levied by the Government, but that a considerable benefit would arise to the country and to private individuals if a general redemption of the land-tax were to take place under the authority of Parliament. It appeared that in April 1798, Mr. Pitt, when much straitened for money, proposed that the tax should be redeemed. The proposition was not sanctioned at the time by the House of Commons, but in the present day such a measure would, he thought, be both beneficial to the country and satisfactory to individuals. Now, he would ask what was the present state of the case? The land-tax produced a revenue of about £1,400,000 out of which £33,000 was deducted for collection. If sold, say at twenty-four years' purchase, the income tax, at 1s. 4d. in the pound, would be saved. If the proprietors were allowed the preference for the first six months, and after that period the public were allowed to purchase, many benefits would arise, and he could not see any loss or any inconvenience to either the Government or the public. A reduction of £24,000,000 might be made in the national debt if the tax was redeemed, and secure investment for trustees of settled property would be laid open to the public. At the present season of the year, and at the close of the Session, it was scarcely necessary to enter into the subject, but he hoped that early next Session the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the appointment of a Committee of the House to enter into a full consideration of it.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, it was his opinion that the Bill had been brought in for the purpose of giving relief to persons in Scotland who were at present charged with the payment of the land-tax; and he thought that similar relief ought to be extended to Ireland, especially as the poor
1030
rates were exclusively borne by the occupiers of land in that country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman laboured under a mistake. The effect of the Bill was not to impose a tax on the landlords, nor was the relief it afforded exclusively given to the landholders of Scotland, but the same privileges would be enjoyed by the landholders of Ireland.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

RACEHORSE DUTY BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in answer to a question by Mr. W. LOCKHART, said, that the present law imposed a duty of £3 17 s. upon all horses kept or used for races; and the Judges had expressly decided that the case of yeomanry horses, though only hunters, if used as racers, in yeomanry races for instance, did come strictly within the purview of the existing law. It was, however, the practice of the Revenue Department not to charge the duty on those horses, or on any horses which were not properly speaking racehorses.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

COAST-GUARD SERVICE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should be glad to know what would be the amount of increased expense incurred by the Bill?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had already stated that when the whole system contemplated by the Government should be brought into full operation a very considerable increase of expense would be incurred. The formation of a large naval reserve was a most important national object, and the country must be prepared to bear a great expense to accomplish that object. But during the present year he did not expect that any large expense would be incurred. In future the coast-guard service would be a purely maritime service, and the Vote for wages and other expeses would be taken by the Admiralty, but for the present year the sum which had already been voted for the Customs would be sufficient to pay as many men as he could expect to raise before next year.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

CURSITOR BARON OF THE EXCHEQUER BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill read 3°.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that considerable inconvenience would be experienced if one of the Barons of the Exchequer had to come up to town to be present when the sheriffs were sworn in, a duty till now discharged by the Cursitor Baron. He begged, therefore, to move an Amendment in order to enable the Barons to direct how that duty should be performed.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed.

GOOD-CONDUCT PAY OF SERGEANTS— QUESTION.
MR. PELLATTsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether it was the intention of the Government to grant to the sergeants of the army, while serving, the good-conduct pay which they were in possession of at the time of their promotion to the rank of sergeant?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the War Department were disposed to allow sergeants to receive, while serving, the good-conduct pay which they had previously earned, and a correspondence had taken place on the subject between the War Department and the Horse Guards. There were difficulties in the way, but the matter was under consideration.

SITE OF SMITHFIELD MARKET— QUESTION.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of the Government to give effect to the first recommendation of the Smithfield Site Committee, namely—
"That the best appropriation, for the general benefit, of so much of the site of Smithfield as reverts to the Crown, would be to adopt it for the enjoyment and recreation of the public"?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that at present no final decision had been come to by the Government with respect to the recommendation referred to. The Government was certainly disposed to give effect to the recommendation; but before coming to a final decision with respect to it they would have to confer with the Corporation of the City on the subject; for though the Government believed that the site formerly used as a cattle-market at Smithfield, to a certain extent, became re-vested in the Crown on the abolition of the market, yet it would be necessary to communicate with the Corporation of London before coming to a final decision.

THE REVIEW AT ALDERSHOT— QUESTION.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether he would have any objection to furnish a Return of the expense incurred in conveying Members of both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday last by railway to Farnborough station, and providing refreshment for them at Aldershot; and also a Return of the number of tickets issued for that occasion by the War Department, so that by an easy arithmetical calculation any Member who wished to pay his own expenses might ascertain what they were?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, there would be no objection to grant the Return. The whole expense had been very small, not, he believed, exceeding £260.

THE LAND TRANSPORT CORPS— QUESTION.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether the same gratuity awarded to the men of the Army Works Corps, on their discharge from the service, would be given to the artificers of the Land Transport Corps?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the two corps stood on a different footing. The Army Works Corps had been engaged under a special arrangement, with a promise that they should receive this gratuity, but the Land Transport Corps were enlisted like all other ranks in the army, were attested, and received a bounty.

THE BRAZILIAN SLAVE TRADE— QUESTION.
MR. BRAMLEY-MOOREsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he had any objection to lay on the table of the House copies of the recent correspondence on the subject of the slave trade, between Her Majesty's Minister, Mr. Jerningham, and the Government of Brazil; and also copies of any correspondence on the same subject between the Brazilian Minister and the British Government?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, there would be no objection to lay the papers on the table. That part of the correspondence which had taken place before March would be given in the ordinary course in the papers relating to the slave trade for the present year, and the remainder in the papers for next year; but there would be

1033
no objection to give it complete form as far as it present gone, according to the hon. Member's desire.

SOUTH WALES HIGHWAY ACT— QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in consequence of the several memorials presented to him from highway districts in Glamorganshire, pointing out various difficulties those boards had to contend with in carrying out the provisions of the South Wales Highway Act, and praying the same might be amended, it was the intention of the Government, either in this Session or the commencement of the next, to introduce any measure for the purpose of rendering the South Wales Highway Act more just and efficient?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Act affected several counties, but, as only one had complained of its operation, the Government had not thought it necessary to consider the expediency of introducing a measure to amend it,

THE DULWICH COLLEGE BILL— QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government intended to proceed with this Bill, which had only that morning come down from the Lords. He believed that it would meet with considerable opposition in that House, and it was too late to refer it to a Select Committee. The Bill stood for second reading on Monday next. Now, there was a strong objection to the Bill, and it would be strenuously opposed; therefore, considering the uncertain position in which it stood, he thought it would be better for the Government to withdraw it at once, and so remove the suspense of those who were opposed to it.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not aware that any serious objection was intended to the Bill, but if there were any such intention it would, perhaps, be better not to proceed with the Bill during the present Session. He would communicate on the subject with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who had charge of the Bill as one of the Charity Commissioners. The present Bill was one of a number which had been laid before Parliament for the purpose of carrying into effect a scheme provisionally approved of
1034
by the Charity Commissioners. He thought that there was no serious objection to the principle of the Bill, although there might be some matters of detail open to opposition. It had passed through the Lords, where it had been considered in a Select Committee. However, if any serious opposition should arise, the Bill, partaking somewhat of a private nature, would have to go to n Select Committee, and, of course, under those circumstances, there would be no time to get it through Parliament this Session.

MERCHANT SEAMEN—QUESTION.
MR. RIDLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, whether it was contemplated to introduce next Session any measure for establishing, under proper organisation, a new fund for the relief of aged and disabled seamen of the merchant service who were not entitled to relief from the fund to which the Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 102, applies?
MR. LOWEreplied, that the Board of Trade had no intention to introduce any such measure.

THE GERMAN LEGION—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that it had been reported that a serious affray had taken place at Aldershot, between the soldiers of the German Legion and some British regiments, and he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether this had been the case, and whether the disturbance had been attended with loss of life; and, also, whether the regiments of the German Legion were intended to remain much longer quartered with British troops?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that he had received no intelligence of such an affray. The German Legion would not occupy their present quarters much longer.

BANK FRAUDS—QUESTION.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether he intends to propose any Amendment of the criminal law to meet the defects pointed out by him in relation to the Tipperary Bank case.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDreplied, that the Tipperary Bank case having disclosed the existence of a very great defect in the criminal law, owing to which more frauds might pass unpunished, it was his intention early next Session to introduce a full and

1035
complete measure which would, he hoped, meet all cases of fraudulent appropriation of the property of others.

THE FOREIGN LEGION— QUESTION.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON VISCOUNT PALMERSTON moved that the House at its rising should adjourn until Monday.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would avail himself of the opportunity which the Motion afforded of calling attention to the long time the Foreign Legion had been kept in this country. At the time the Foreign Enlistment Bill was passed, it was distinctly understood that the men enlisted under it would only be brought here for the purpose of being trained, and the second clause of the Bill contained an enactment to that effect; and yet how stood the fact? Why, a short while ago a portion of the German Legion was sent to perform duty in Plymouth garrison. He should have thought that the Government would have seized the earliest opportunity to disband these troops, and to apply their horses to the use of our cavalry regiments, who so much wanted them. It was quite humiliating to see those foreigners well mounted and our own troopers absolutely marching before their Sovereign without horses. The matter was one of so much importance that he was sure he should be excused for asking the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for War, what really were the intentions of the Government with respect to the foreign troops?
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would also take the opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) whether there was any truth in the report that officers who had not served in the army three years and were about to be reduced would only receive a gratuity, instead of half-pay. He admitted that under the warrant of October, 1854, the War Office had power to make such an arrangement, but he would submit that the services of those young officers, among whom there were forty or fifty captains, had been such as fully to entitle them to their half-pay.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to inquire what requital was intended to be made by Her Majesty's Government for the services of the chaplains in the army? He would likewise take that opportunity of expressing his opinion that some information should be given as to what was to be done with the Foreign Legion. It was originally promised that
1036
those troops should remain in England only to be trained for warlike operations. Some months had now elapsed since the conclusion of the war, but no preparations appeared to have been made to fulfil this promise by disbanding the legion. No estimate of the probable or the actual expense of the foreign troops had as yet been laid before the House, but he had himself made some calculations on the subject, from which it was to be inferred that these 14,000 or 15,000 foreigners would cost the country between £800,000 and £900,000 more than British troops. True, the House had granted to the Government the means of raising about 50,000 militia which were not embodied, and 40,000 troops of the line, which, though they were much needed the Government had not had the ingenuity to raise, and it was possible that the money voted for such purposes might now be available for the payment of those foreigners; but he considered that some statement ought to be made upon the subject before the termination of the Session, He begged to ask the First Minister of the Crown what were the intentions of the Government as to the retaining or disbanding of these troops?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I must, in the first place, respectfully enter my protest against the practice that has been growing up of late in this House of hon. Members getting up and asking the Government what is their intention upon this, that, and the other matter. No doubt there may be subjects of sufficient importance to justify prospective inquiry, but I apprehend that, speaking generally, the position of the responsible advisers of the Crown in Parliament is to be responsible for what they do, and that they are not called upon to take this House into their counsels in regard to what they are going to do on every small matter. In reply therefore to the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, I beg to observe that what we are going to do with respect to the disposal of the German Legion, will, I trust, when done, be found perfectly consistent with law and propriety. More than this I am not prepared to say.
MR. ROEBUCK: I beg, Sir, to call the attention of the noble Lord to this significant fact, that when we ask what the Government are about to do we are met with the objection that we are too early, and when we venture to inquire what

1037
they have done we are told that we are too late.
Subject dropped.

ACTING ASSISTANT ARMY SURGEONS— QUESTION.
MAJOR REEDsaid, he wished to put a question to the hon. Under Secretary for War, respecting the dismissal of the acting assisting surgeons of the army. He had received numerous communications from those gentlemen complaining that they were about to be dismissed with two months' pay, while the surgeons in the Turkish Contingent and other corps were to receive twelve months' pay. Inducements had been held out to those gentlemen at the beginning of the war to enter the army; they had laboured with the greatest skill and diligence—sometimes under the guns of the enemy—dressing the wounds of the soldiers; and now they were to be sent to the right-about with a miserable gratuity of two months' pay. One gentleman stated that he had been at above £150 expense, and had only received £19 as pay. They were about to present a memorial to Lord Panmure, in which they stated that they had given up a comfortable position and their private practice, and had volunteered to go to any part of the world. Mr. O'Callaghan, a gentleman who had received the thanks of the commanding general, stated that he had regularly taken his turn in the trenches at the siege of Sebastopol, and had been the means of saving several lives at the attack on the Redan.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend at the head of the Government, he need only refer to the questions respecting the reduced officers in the army, and the acting assistant surgeons. With regard to the reduced officers, the regulation in force was that no officer was entitled to full and permanent half-pay unless he had served three years upon full pay. If the officer was not brought again upon full pay, and chose to sever himself from the prospect of being so, he might receive from the Treasury the price he had paid for his commission. As to the acting assistant surgeons, it was distinctly explained to them, that in the event of their not being brought into the list of regular surgeons they would not be entitled to half-pay, and would be discharged with two months' pay. It was on this account that a rate of pay had been given them higher than
1038
they would otherwise have been entitled to. He believed it was raised from 10 s. to 11 s. a day. He could not hold out any promise that it would be in the power of the Government to alter the terms that had been proposed.

LOSS OF HER MAJESTY'S SHIP "B1RKENHEAD"—QUESTION.
MR. GORDONsaid, that not seeing the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the propriety of erecting, in the chapel of Chelsea Hospital, or elsewhere, some permanent memorial of the gallant and self-devoted conduct of the officers and men lost in Her Majesty's ship Birkenhead on the 25th day of February, 1852. He might be asked why he raised such a question at a period so long after the event to which it referred. His answer was, that it was not an unfitting time for us, now that the war was happily terminated and we all evinced our gratitude to the army which fought and suffered for us in the Crimea, to recognise services which, though of a peaceful character, were universally admitted to be as brilliant and distinguished as any recorded in our country's annals. The circumstances connected with the loss of the Birkenhead must be so fresh in the memory of all that it would be unnecessary for him to make any but the most passing allusion to them. The Birkenhead, a large troop-ship, was employed in carrying to the Cape of Good Hope the draughts of various regiments to the number of 600 men, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Seaton, and she sailed from Queenstown in the month of January, 1852. She arrived at Cape Town at the end of February, and left shortly afterwards for Algoa Bay. On the 25th of February the disaster occurred which called forth that display of gallantry and self-devotion to which he wished briefly to advert. There were on board the Birkenhead, when the melancholy catastrophe occurred, in addition to the soldiers, a number of women and children and sick persons. What he wished to call attention to was the calm heroism, the stern adherence to duty, the magnanimous disregard of life shown by those brave men, while the vessel was going to pieces under their feet. The only boats available were filled with the women and children, and sent off from the

1039
ship's side; so that the officers and soldiers, remaining on deck, deliberately deprived themselves of their only means of safety, and, calm and motionless, awaited the sinking of the vessel. Their noble conduct was well described by Captain Wright, one of the survivors, who, in a private letter, said that all the officers received their orders and had them carried out as if the men were embarking, instead of going to the bottom; that, indeed, he never saw an embarkation conducted with such an absence of noise and confusion; that there was not a single cry or murmur from any of the men; that just before the final plunge, a suggestion having been made that all who could swim should jump overboard and join the boat, the officers begged them not to do so, because the boats were filled with women and children, and must inevitably be swamped if their living freight were increased, when the men replied by a cheer, and only three of them attempted to reach the boats. This act of cool heroism, which had been estimated at its full value, not in this country alone but abroad, and had done much to sustain, and even to raise, the high character of our army for unflinching discipline, was beyond all praise. This result was in a great measure due to the efforts of Colonel Seaton, who was certainly no ordinary man, and whose rare talent for gaining the affections of the soldiers under his command and moulding them to his will had trained these men, most of whom were young and untried levies, to face danger and death with unshaken fortitude. An equal meed was due to all the other officers and men present on this trying occasion. The youngest officer of the regiment, to whom life was full of hope and promise, trod the deck by the side of his commander with as firm a step, and looked upon the ghastly horrors of death with as much bravery and composure as those who had been longest inured to peril. He (Mr. Gordon) assuredly did not think it too late to mark the country's sense of the discipline and heroism of men who had thus calmly sacrificed their lives to save others, and he therefore begged to put the question of which he had given notice.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that every one acquainted with the circumstances just described by his hon. Friend must fully concur in the feeling tribute which he had paid to the gallant and devoted band of British officers and men who lost their lives on the melancholy occasion of the
1040
wreck of the Birkenhead. That act of noble daring, performed by men who were not inspired by the incentives or surrounded with the glory and excitement of the battlefield, but under circumstances in which there were no approving eyes to see them, deserved an equal measure of admiration and gratitude with the brightest achievements in our military history. With those sentiments Her Majesty's Government were certainly prepared to take into consideration the propriety of erecting some permanent memorial to commemorate the magnanimity and adherence to duty of those brave men.

DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that, some years ago, several gentlemen of high character belonging to the Danubian Principalities were banished from their native country without having been previously brought before any tribunal, or condemned for any offence. If they had really been guilty of any crime, it was one in which this country had largely participated—namely, opposition to the protectorate proposed to be exercised over the Principalities by Russia. The case of these persons was laid before the Conferences at Paris, and, as a Commissioner had been appointed for the Principalities, he (Mr. Otway) wished to know whether the Government would give instructions to that Gentleman with the view of ameliorating the condition of those individuals and enabling them to return to their own country? To enable the noble Lord (the First Minister) to answer this question, if so disposed, he begged to move, as an Amendment to the Motion before them, that the House, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that such an Amendment was irregular.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The case of those natives of Moldavia and Wallachia had been brought under the notice of the Congress at Paris. It was still under the consideration of the Government, who hoped that an arrangement would be made by which the parties would be enabled to return to their own, country.

THE BANK CHARTER—QUESTION.
MR. TITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention to institute an inquiry, by way of Committee or otherwise, in the next Session of

1041
Parliament, into the commercial, monetary, and financial operation of the Charter of the Bank of England, and of the departments of banking and issue respectively, under the provisions of the Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 42? It would be in the recollection of the House that early in the Session, the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government to institute any inquiry before a Committee of that House, or otherwise, into the working and effect of the Act?—and that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was, that if there should be a general wish for such an inquiry the Government would not oppose it; but that at the same time, under the extraordinary and exceptional state of things caused by the war, that would not be a favourable moment for an examination into the affairs of the Bank. In another place it had, however, been recently stated that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to the House any Motion for the appointment of such a Committee. It appeared, therefore, that the Government were contented with the present state of things, and apprehensions were consequently entertained in the commercial world that no inquiry would be instituted into the operation of the Bank Charter Act which was passed in 1844. According to the provisions of that Act, the Bank Charter might be revoked after the 1st of August, 1855, upon twelve months' notice being given by the Speaker after a Vote of the House, and he thought it most undesirable that a body like the Bank of England should be placed in a position of such uncertainty. In 1847, the Bank was subjected to a severe pressure, and Committees were appointed to inquire into the matter without, however, coming to any result; and it appeared that since 1844 the fluctuations in the value of money had been greater than they were between 1819 and 1844? and from 1844 to the present time there had been no less than forty-four different rates of discount. Such a state of things was very inconvenient to the commercial community, and it was desirable to ascertain whether it was attributable to the Bank Charter Act or to other causes. He would, therefore, now put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that in the early part of the session when a similar question was put to
1042
him, by the hon. Member for Kendal, he stated that as the country was at that time engaged in hostilities, and as various financial and pecuniary operations were in progress of an extraordinary and exceptional nature, it was not a convenient moment for instituting any inquiry. Later in the Session the same question was again put to him, and his answer was, that, looking to the period of the Session and the extent of the inquiry which a subject of this nature would necessitate—that it was not his intention to propose appointment of a Committee; but that, if any hon. Gentleman moved the appointment of such a Committee, and the proposal received the support of the House, the Government would not feel it to be their duty to oppose the appointment. No such Motion had been made, and accordingly the Session was approaching an end without any Committee having been appointed. The hon. Gentleman now asked whether it was the intention of the Government to move, at the beginning or early in the next Session, for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the Bank Charter Act. The only answer it was in his power to give was that the question was one which the Government had not yet considered with reference to the proceedings to be taken next Session, and that consequently they had come to no decision upon the subject.
Motion for the adjournment of the House was then agreed to.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order of the Day for considering the Lords' Amendments to this Bill, read
Mr. BOUVERIEsaid, he proposed to move that the House should agree to the whole of the Amendments. The first four Amendments had reference to various provisions in the Bill respecting the constitution of the electoral body of the University, the powers of the Commissioners, and the right of voting in the University. Those Amendments were comparatively unimportant, and the only important Amendment was one in the 44th clause, which really consisted in the restoration of the words of the clause as it stood when the Bill was originally introduced by him into that House. The clause originally proposed to give to persons who were not Members of the Church of England, and who had hitherto been excluded from taking degrees, the right of taking degrees and all consequent privileges, with the exception of votes in the

1043
Senate of the University. The hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Hey wood) proposed an Amendment, which was adopted, and which conferred upon persons who were not members of the Church of England, not merely the right of taking degrees, but of voting in the Senate, and so enjoying a share in the government of the University. The other House by a very large majority, exceeding two to one, had struck out that Amendment, or rather had restored the clause to the form in which it originally stood. He did not think there was any reasonable probability that the House of Lords would agree to any modification of the clause, and he would therefore propose that the House should agree to the Lords' Amendment, which, he believed, was the most that could be got. He must say, looking to the feeling which had often been exhibited on this subject in the other House, that he thought the Lords had made great concessions of opinion in agreeing to the clause as it at present stood, and he hoped that House would be disposed to meet them in the same spirit. On those grounds he should, therefore, move, that the House do agree to the Lords' Amendments.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, the object of which was to meet certain objections made against the clause as it stood originally. His Amendment was to give Dissenters, and other persons not members of the Church of England, the same powers as were possessed by members of the Church of England; and the main point was with regard to the public interests of the body, to open the Senate to them all. While his object was to give to Dissenters the right of admission to the Senate, he was quite willing that when the subject of theology was brought forward, only those persons should take a part in the proceedings who declared themselves members of the Church of England. He regretted the course which the Lords had taken on the Bill, as the ameliorations he asked for were in entire accordance with our national policy. The unsuccessful working of the Oxford University Act afforded one very strong reason why they should not in the present instance agree to the Lords' Amendments. It was supposed, when that Bill was passed, that the University would adopt a more modern and liberal system than before; but, so far from that, bigotry and intolerance had swelled at Oxford to a degree far higher than they had ever done in the days
1044
of the old oligarchy. The same ecclesiastical spirit reigned in Cambridge, and they might consequently expect the same results. The constituent body in Cambridge did not exceed 200 gentlemen, of whom 150 were clergymen of the Church of England, and even of the fifty remaining probably one-half intended to take holy-orders, so that not more than twenty of the number could be regarded as laymen. With such a constituent body they could have no difficulty in guessing what would be the system of government in the University. He therefore contended that it was humiliating to Dissenters to allow them to take degrees without sharing in the rights and privileges which those degrees ought to impart. No harm could accrue either to the Church or the State by the admission of Dissenters to the Senate, especially when he provided that they should take no part in theological examinations. Dissenters would be allowed to take the degree of B.A. or M.A., but with regard to any power, or emolument, or office, they would all be closed against them. He (Mr. Hey-wood), by his Amendment, wished to make the Bill one of religious liberty; whereas, as it stood, it was only one of toleration. There was, however, a much larger question for consideration, namely, the system of education pursued in the University, and he believed the introduction, of new blood would be a great improvement. He would conclude by moving the Amendment upon the Lords' Amendments, of which he had given notice—namely, after the words "entitle him to," to leave out "be or to become a member of the Senate," and insert, "take any part in those proceedings of the Senate which direct the course of study, and determine the books prescribed for the examinations in Church of England theology."
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, there was one practice in the University of Cambridge which he thought they might imitate with advantage on the present occasion, as well as on many others—namely, not to deliberate, but merely to vote. The hon. Member for North Lancashire did not now propose to give Dissenters votes for all purposes; but, being pressed with the difficulty of allowing them to take a share in directing the theological studies of the University, he wished to make them piebald members of the Senate, having votes for one purpose but none for another. Now, of the three proposals which had been made, that was decidedly the worst;

1045
and, believing that three-quarters of a loaf was better than no bread, he hoped the House would agree to the Lords' Amendments.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for North Lancashire was a fair compromise, and not open to very serious objection.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Amendment."
The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 71: Majority 21.
Question put, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 73: Majority 17.
Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION FUND.
Order for Committee read.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would appeal to the Government not to proceed with the Bill. The evidence taken before the Committee to which the subject had been referred, and the Resolutions at which they had arrived, had not yet been laid before the House; and, under those circumstances, considering that the Bill affected the interests of a large number of public servants, it would hardly be right to proceed with the Bill during the present Session.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he hoped the Government would withdraw the Bill. It was not of so pressing a nature that it could not stand over until the next Session, and he believed that those who were affected by it would prefer that course. He would, therefore, appeal to the noble Lord opposite, who had so often conceded the point of not proceeding with Bills at that late period of the Session to withdraw the Bill for the present.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he also thought that the best course which the Government could take would be to withdraw the Bill.
MR. ROBERT PALMERsaid, as a Member of the Committee, he must appeal to the Government to withdraw the Bill. The civil servants, he was afraid, would be more dissatisfied with the Bill than they were with the existing state of things. It certainly was not pressing, and could be left till next Session without inconvenience.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he should
1046
also support the proposal for the withdrawal of the Bill.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he could not see what other course was left to the Government but to withdraw the Bill, as the evidence and the Report of the Committee were not before the House. If the subject was worth being sent to a Committee, it was worth being well considered, but at present the House was positively not in a position to pronounce an opinion upon the question.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that early in the Session he had obtained leave to introduce a Bill upon the subject of Superannuation in the Civil Service, and he had upon that occasion made a statement of the existing state of the law upon that subject. The Bill had, with the consent of the House, been referred to a Select Committee, which had received full powers not only to consider that measure, but also to investigate the entire system of superannuation in the civil service, it having been previously known to the House that great complaints had been made by members of the civil service in reference to that system. Those complaints had been principally directed against that provision in the existing law under which annual deductions were made from the salaries of all persons who had entered the civil service since the year 1829, those deductions being considered to be made with reference to the right of those persons to obtain a superannuation on the conditions prescribed by the Act. The Committee entered very fully into the investigation of that subject, and they had ultimately come to a conclusion upon it at variance with the principle on which the Bill as originally introduced was founded. They agreed to recommend the abolition of the annual deductions, but they at the same time recommended that the salaries of the existing civil service should be revised, with a view to reduce them to an amount corresponding with the annual abatements. There were, besides, some further alterations in the Bill, partly affecting the scale of remuneration, and partly affecting other subjects, so that the measure, as it came out of the Committee, differed in some very material respects from the measure as it had been proposed by him at the commencement of the Session. He felt fully the justice of the appeal made to him by many Members, that it would not be fair to the House to enter into a consideration of that question before

1047
they were put in possession of the very detailed evidence which had been taken before the Committee with respect to various parts of the subject, and more especially with respect to the question of the annual abatements from the salaries. He readily admitted that that subject materially affected not only the feelings of the members of the civil service, but also the efficiency of that service; because that efficiency would naturally be impaired by the prevalence of discontent among those members. He, therefore, felt that it would be improper on his part to force the consideration of the Bill at that moment on the House; and he thought it desirable that its discussion should be postponed till a future occasion. He should, however, observe, that as he had been aware that the Bill in its altered shape was by no means acceptable to many members of the civil service, he had thought it his duty, considering the extent to which it had been changed by the Committee, to lay it before the House in order that the House might have an opportunity, if it should be thought proper, of considering its provisions. He had felt himself called upon to act in some measure as the organ of the Committee which had altered the Bill; but as it appeared to be the wish of the House that the measure should not be proceeded with; at present, he would at once consent to its withdrawal, and he should conclude by moving that the Order for its committal be discharged.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood one important recommendation of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said, the Committee had recommended that the salaries of the civil servants should be revised with a view to their reduction by an amount corresponding with the annual abatements. That was not, however, as he (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) understood the recommendation of the Committee. They had only recommended that the salaries should be revised, because they had not thought it desirable that the civil servants should at one swoop be made a present of some £70,000 or £80,000 a year. The Select Committee wished to have the salaries revised, but to have them revised with a due regard to the fair claims of the members of the service. The Bill had no doubt been altered in the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have varied in his views upon the subject,
1048
and it was only by his casting vote that the Committee had agreed to change one of the provisions in the right hon. Gentleman's own measure.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that a difference of opinion between the Members of the Committee on such an important point was sufficient proof of the propriety of withdrawing the Bill. He wished, however, to make one suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right hon. Friend was aware that the question, whether the deductions did not amount to a great deal more than was commensurate with the advantages given to the civil servants, had been before the Committee over; and over again, and had been referred by them to two eminent actuaries. Those gentlemen stated they had not sufficient materials for a decision, and in consequence of the view taken by the Committee they were directed not to proceed with their calculations. He would suggest, therefore, that as the Bill was postponed, those Gentlemen should prosecute their inquiry, and get at the truth of the question. The civil servants would then see how far their complaints were well founded.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid he begged to express his concurrence in the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in withdrawing the Bill; if they proceeded without having the evidence and Report before them, the Bill would appear to be the Report of the Committee, which it was not. He hoped measures would be taken as soon as possible to relieve the civil servants from the agitation and uncertainty in which they were placed in regard to a question of so much importance to them.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, he wished to say a word as to the decision of the Committee with regard to the annual deduction. The Member of the Committee who-proposed the Resolution was decidedly of opinion that all the salaries should be reduced in proportion to the abatement, but he had used the words "revised, with a view to reduction," in order to enable the Government to deal with any case of particular hardship that might arise.
Order discharged.

LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses agreed to.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to

1049
propose, after Clause 19, the following clause: —
"The Court shall be at liberty to grant any application under this Act in any case where the applicant, or any party entitled, has previously applied to either House of Parliament for a Private Act to effect the same or a similar object, and has not obtained such Act."
His object was to prevent the decisions of Parliament from being overruled by the Court of Chancery.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
MR. MALINSsaid, he hoped the Committee would reject the clause, because it sought to exclude one individual from the benefits which the measure would confer on all the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. The object of the advocates of the clause—although they had not the manliness to avow it—was to restrict Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson in regard to his Hampstead estate; and the words proposed would reach that gentleman, and that gentleman only, quite as effectually as though they had specified him by name. The circumstance that Sir Thomas Wilson had applied for a Private Act and been refused it was seized upon as a means of fixing him, a proceeding no less arbitrary or capricious than if they had hit upon that gentleman's stature, and declared that no man of that particular height should enjoy the advantages of the Bill. The covert design of the clause was, no doubt, to protect the public against the enclosure of Hampstead Heath—a thing, if possible, to be avoided; but, if the heath was common land, it could not be enclosed; and if it were private property, which it was desirable should be kept as it is for the use of the inhabitants of the metropolis, let the public purchase it. Certainly, nothing could be more unjust than that Sir Thomas Wilson, merely because he had an estate in a very agreeable situation, should be deprived of the power over it which all other owners of land were to be permitted to exercise. The Bill, although one of the very highest importance, had passed rapidly through the House, because its benefits were to be extended without distinction to all Her Majesty's subjects; and why, at the last moment, was the discussion to be embittered and the impartiality of the measure blemished, by the invidious exclusion of one individual from its benefits? The property belonging to Sir Thomas Wilson was not built upon, because, by the will of his father, he had not the power of granting leases; and when he applied to Parliament
1050
to confer that privilege upon him, it was denied by reason of a prejudice respecting the enclosure of Hampstead Heath. That privilege would be extended to him in common with every other proprietor by the provisions of the Bill, unless the very objectionable clause of the hon. Member for Sheffield was carried. It was a delusion to suppose that the proposition of the hon. Member would protect the public. Sir Thomas Wilson was not a very young man; he was the tenant for life, and, in the course of nature, would soon be succeeded by the tenant in tail, who could easily obtain the fee simple, and then snap his fingers at their endeavour to prevent him from granting leases.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, the Lord Chancellor had no objection to the clause. The noble and learned Lord had said, his objection was not to its principle——
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the noble Lord, that the course he was taking was irregular.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid he could, at all events state, that the opinion of the Lord Chancellor was in favour of the clause in principle.
MR. MALINSsaid, he rose to order. Surely it could not be regular thus to appeal to the opinions of noble Lords with respect to a Bill under discussion.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he thought there was no danger of that House being brought into collision with the House of Lords by the adoption of the clause, for he was able to state that not only the Lord Chancellor, but Lord Campbell and Lord Brougham were in favour of the clause. The Earl of Derby had likewise stated, that he did not consider this the case of a Private Bill at all. He believed, therefore, that if the clause were sent up to the House of Lords they would be willing to accept it. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) seemed to imagine that his (Lord R. Grosvenor's) constituents wished to inflict an injury upon Sir Thomas Wilson by obtaining his property for less than it was really worth, but he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that they were desirous of paying its fair value. Arrangements were now in progress which he (Lord R. Grosvenor) hoped might lead to the purchase of the property upon just and equitable terms. All his constituents objected to was, that the House should, by passing a retrospective measure, give a fictitious

1051
value to the property in question. He, therefore, hoped the hon. and learned Solicitor General would assent to the adoption of the clause. As regards the principle of the clause, it could not possibly be impeached, for surely the Court of Chancery ought not to be permitted to reverse the decision of Parliament.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that, when a similar measure to the one now under discussion was introduced last Session, he was informed that strong opposition would be offered to it because it would afford facilities to Sir Thomas Wilson to accomplish objects which he had previously been unable to attain. He (the Solicitor General) was, however, enabled to allay the apprehensions which were felt upon the subject, and he stated then, as he would state now, that, while he entertained the strongest objection to the introduction of any clause in a public Bill which amounted to a privilegium in the case of a particular individual, he knew no reason why any particular individual should be exempted from the operation of such a measure. He stated, also, that if the House of Commons approved the principle that propositions which Parliament had deliberated upon and rejected should not be reviewed by a court of justice, that principle should be embodied in the Bill, and that any Member who supported such a principle ought to be able honestly, candidly, and sincerely, to pledge himself that he believed the principle a just one, and that he did not advocate the introduction of the clause with the view of accomplishing any remote or sinister object. The notion that the Bill would give Sir Thomas Wilson the opportunity of doing what he had hitherto been unable to do was altogether idle and unfounded. Hampstead Heath would not be in any danger if the Bill were passed; but, if Sir Thomas Wilson had any private property adjoining the Heath which he could not now lease for building purposes, he would be enabled by the Bill to apply to the Court of Chancery for power to grant such leases. Why should the fact of Hampstead Heath being adjacent to Sir Thomas Wilson's property deprive him of that right? There might be many other cases in which applications had been made to Parliament, and such applications had been referred to the Judges; for, when a Private Estate Bill was proposed, it was generally referred to the Judges for their opinion, and if the Judges had reported Against such applications, and they had
1052
afterwards been rejected by Parliament, he thought it reasonable that the question should not be re-opened. If hon. Members were of that opinion, then they might vote for the insertion of the clause; but, unless they could conscientiously say that they supported it on that ground, the clause ought not to form part of the Bill. In any case he thought the clause could not stand as it was proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, because it simply rested on the fact of a Bill having been brought in, and not obtained. The clause, if inserted at all, ought, instead of the words, "has not obtained such Act," to read thus, "and such application has been rejected on its merits, or has been awarded against by the Judges to whom the Bill may have been referred." He hoped, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield would not persevere in the clause. He did not believe the Court of Chancery would ever grant an application that had already been adjudicated on by Parliament through the medium of a reference to the Judges.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he thought that, if the provisions of the Bill were correct, they should not be swayed by the circumstance that they might possibly affect the case of a particular individual. The object of the Bill was to substitute applications to the Court of Chancery for applications to Parliament, and, though he approved generally of the Bill, he knew the difficulties with which such applications to the Court of Chancery were beset—difficulties which rendered it almost impossible for the Judge to come to a sound judgment regarding them. He would, therefore, vote for the clause, should the hon. Gentleman press it to a division.
MR. MALINSsaid, the question was brought to a very narrow issue. The House of Lords had given up their privileges, and consented to vest them in the Court of Chancery, and the point was, would the House of Commons do the same?
MR. WARNERsaid, he considered the Bill as a measure attacking private property. It was an attempt, aided by a newspaper cry, to obtain Sir Thomas Wilson's property with or without his consent.
MR. HENLEYsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) did not say one word as to the general effect of the clause, but argued it solely on the ground of its application to a gentleman whose name

1053
had been drawn into the debate. Everybody, however, knew that the application of the clause would be much wider. Those Estates Bills were always rejected by the House of Lords, and the clause would apply to any such case. If he thought it could affect some one individual only the clause would not have his support, but it was a general clause, as the hon. and learned Solicitor General had clearly shown to the Committee. If it caused inconvenience to A or B, it could not be helped. It had been whispered about, though it could not of course be true, that the Bill would never have been heard of had it not been for the rejection of a private Bill. Such things were said, but no one of course could believe it. He hoped the clause, as amended by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, would be assented to by the Committee.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he was satisfied with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General—that there would be no danger of the Court of Chancery, within a short time, granting an application which had been refused by Parliament. It was a monstrous proposition to maintain that, because a person had at any time in his life applied to Parliament for a private Bill, and been refused, therefore he should for ever afterwards be precluded from applying to the Court of Chancery, under a general Act, although circumstances might have entirely changed. Such a limitation, if adopted, might in many cases defeat the object of the Bill. If any doubt were entertained as to whether the Court of Chancery would or would not, immediately after the passing of the Bill, reverse any decision to which Parliament had already come, then, no doubt, a restriction as to time might be introduced; but if the hon. and learned Solicitor General felt confident, as he had professed himself to be, that no application under the same circumstances would be granted in one place which had been refused in another, there could be no good reason for adopting the clause.
MR. BARROWsaid, he must maintain, notwithstanding what had been said on the other side of the House, that in dealing with this question they could proceed upon general principles. He knew nothing of the individual to whom allusion had been made, nor, so far as he was aware, had he ever been on Hampstead Heath, unless, indeed, he had passed it on the top of a mail-coach many years ago. He therefore
1054
felt no personal interest in the matter one way or the other, but, upon general principles, he held that Parliament had a right to lay it down as a rule that, having itself already refused an application for a private Settled Estate Bill, no inferior authority should be at liberty to reverse its decision. Circumstances could not possibly vary, for the circumstances upon which Parliament had decided in any given case were those in which the property had been settled; but, supposing that a change of circumstances did take place, to whom should a renewed application be made? Surely to the persons who had decided in the first instance. They were the parties to whom the alleged change of circumstances should be submitted, in order that they might have an opportunity, if they thought fit, of altering their decision. Upon those grounds he was prepared to vote for the clause.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the clause, if sound, would, in his opinion, be fatal to the principle of the Bill. But he was not aware that any person who had applied to Parliament for a private Bill and been refused was thereby debarred from making a second application. Where Parliament had refused it would be proper, generally speaking, for the Court of Chancery to object also; but, if it were right to empower that Court to deal with one case, why should it be prevented from deciding in all? He regarded the Bill as one of great importance. It was to extend to Ireland; and in that country he knew many properties which could not be used with advantage on account of the limited leasing powers. He should certainly vote against the proposed clause.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General would be a great improvement to the clause, and he would, therefore, be willing to adopt it.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Member should also add to his clause:—"And where no material alteration in the circumstances under which such Bill was refused has since occurred."
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that the more he listened to the discussion the stronger became his objections to the clause. If they could not trust the Court of Chancery, they ought not to pass the Bill.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he did not believe there was a single Gentleman in the House, with the exception,

1055
perhaps, of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow), who was so simple-minded as not to see that the real object of the clause was to deprive one individual of the right of using his property as he pleased. They wished to preserve Hampstead Heath, but were in reality preventing Sir Thomas Wilson from using another property at least a mile from the Heath.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be now read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 42: Majority 42.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he wished to move a clause to the following effect—
"That the Court of Chancery shall not be at liberty to grant any application which a Committee of the House has rejected or reported against."
MR. NAPIERsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment upon the hon. and learned Solicitor General's clause, namely, after the word "rejected," to add, "on its merits."
Clause agreed to.
MR. HADFIELD MR. HADFIELD moved the addition of the following clause—
"Before making any application to the Court under this Act, the party intending to apply shall give notice of such intended application, by advertisement in the London Gazette, three calendar months before making such application, and by advertisement to be inserted once every week during such three months in a London daily paper, and also in a country paper circulating in the county where the estate is situated, and by printed handbills posted on the most usual and conspicuous places in the same county; and any person or body corporate, whether interested in the estate or not, may apply to the Court of Chancery, by Motion for leave to be heard in opposition to any such application, and the Court is hereby authorised to permit such person or corporation to appear and be heard in opposition to any such application, on such terms and in such manner as it shall think fit."
The clause, with certain verbal Amendments, agreed to.
The House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he proposed to fill up the blank left for the salary of the Vice President with the sum of £2,000. The Vice President would be a Member of the Privy Council, and by analogy with
1056
other offices it was thought that the salary ought to be £2,000 a year.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that, under the circumstances, the salary was enormous. When the Bill was brought in the Government had an Education Bill in the other House of Parliament, and there was an extensive scheme in that House proposed by a noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) which, if carried out, would have required constant supervision of extensive machinery at headquarters. That large scheme and the smaller scheme of the other House had equally miscarried, and he did not consider that there was any occasion to set up an expensive Minister who would only have to discharge a moderate amount of duty.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must defend the proposal, on the ground of the amount of duty which the Vice President would have to perform; for the office, if it were to be properly filled, would require a person of some official experience holding the rank of a Privy Councillor, who, having a seat in that House, would be able to give any information that might he required on the subject of education. Having regard also to the amount of other salaries, he did not see how a lower amount could be proposed.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to guard himself against expressing any opinion as to the amount of salary. He directed his observations against, any salary being paid at all. At that late period of the Session, when so many Members had left town, there was no opportunity of dicussing such an important subject in a full House. The Bill had been for many months on the paper, and there did not seen now to be so much prospect of the national system being adopted as there was eighteen months ago. As no inconvenience would result in the recess, he should prefer to have the subject stand over.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would like to take the sense of the Committee upon the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. He would, therefore, move that the Chairman report progress; and if he did not succeed in that, he should subsequently move that the salary be reduced to £1,000. The sum of £2,000 a year was enormous when they considered that a County Court Judge would only receive £1,500.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Being aware, Sir, of the sentiments entertained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) on matters of this

1057
sort, I feel that the course which he now proposes to adopt is in perfect conformity with his opinions. The Committee, however, ought to recollect that, although this measure has been proposed by Her Majesty's Government, yet it has been pressed on them by parties on both sides of the House. Indeed, I know of nothing on which there has been a greater degree of consent than the advantages of appointing some person who would be responsible for the education of the country, and I, therefore, hope that the Committee will not by its vote sanction any attempt to defeat the Bill, as it would be entirely at variance with what has been understood to be the strong opinion of hon. Members on both sides of the House as expressed not only during the present Session, but also last year, when they urged on the Government how important it was that there should be in this House some official person responsible for the education of the country, and ready to give the House every necessary explanation in reference to it. With regard to the time, the hour was not so late but that those hon. Members who had objections to the measure might have ample opportunities of stating those objections.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he was aware of the enormous quantity of work which devolved upon the President of the Council and the Secretary of the Education Committee, and believed there would be ample employment for the new officer whom it was proposed to appoint. He also thought the appointment of a lay Vice President, to represent in that House the secular view, would be an advantage as tending to diminish the ecclesiastical supremacy which at present pressed upon the cause of education. The Oxford Commission would expire in a year, and it was desirable to have some authority to attend to the proceedings of that University.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he quite agreed in what had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley), and should oppose the measure. He should very much dread the introduction of political bias into the management of the education of the youth of the country. He did not think that a Vice President selected, as such an officer would be, from the Government members, would have sufficient weight in the Council to prevent rash changes in the education system. There could be no greater misfortune than the introduction of political bias into the
1058
Committee of Council; it would be most detrimental to education; and, believing that the Bill would lead to such calamitous results he should vote against it.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Committee of Council of Education consisted exclusively of members of the Government for the time being; and the object of the present Bill was merely to individualise the duties, and make one person responsible to that House for the execution of those duties.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not imagine a stronger objection to the measure than that afforded by the fact that it would so individualise the responsibility. The vesting of the responsibility to one person holding particular opinions was pregnant with danger to the educational system, particularly in its connection with the Church.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought it would be much more convenient to have one recognised member of the Committee of Council in that House to act as a Minister of Education. The Secretary of State for the Home Department could not make himself sufficiently acquainted with the details of educational matters to give satisfactory answers to the questions of hon. Members on those subjects. He, however, thought that a salary of £1,500 a year would be sufficient for the Vice President.
Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 91: Majority 61.
Motion made and Question proposed,
"That the blank be filled with £2,000."
MR. THORNELYsaid, he should move that the salary be £1,200 only. He did not think that it ought to be greater than the salaries of such officers as County Court Judges.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the Bill was an ill-judged one. The duties of the Vice President were also ill-defined, and they were taking a leap in the dark. He I thought that £1,200 was quite sufficient.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would suggest that the salary should be £1,500.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was very desirable that the office should be held by a person of official experience, and for that reason it had been thought requisite to name £2,000. The Bill, however, did not fix the salary at that amount, but merely laid it down as a maximum, which

1059
was not to be exceeded. The salary would come every year under the revision of Parliament.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he thought that as the creation of the office was an experiment £1,200 was well enough to begin with.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the office was one of the highest importance, and it would not, in his opinion, be judicious to name a salary which would make it unworthy of the acceptance of any person holding the rank of a Privy Councillor.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, though he was opposed to proceeding with the Bill at so late a period of the Session, he was not willing to reduce the salary so low as to make it unlikely that it would be accepted by a person of high position and experience.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he thought that £2,000 a year was not a shilling too much.
MR. E. BALLsaid, that until they had arrived at some clear idea of what was to be the national system of education which they were to adopt, it would be unwise in his opinion to appoint an officer with so large a salary.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the Government had almost pledged itself last Session that a Minister of Education should be appointed. Under all the educational schemes proposed, such a Minister was considered essential. He would point out the advantages to the country and the Committee of the appointment of a President of the Poor Law Board. At one time, all poor-law questions were answered by the Secretary of State. The salary was fixed by the case itself, as no Privy Councillor holding office had a salary of less than £2,000 a year. The case of the office of Judge of the County Courts was not applicable, as that office was a permanent one.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that it was accidental that the President of the Council happened not to be in that House, otherwise he would be the person to answer educational questions. As he did not know what the duties of the proposed officer would be he could not determine what the salary ought to be, and should vote against all salary. There was no complaint of the way in which the work was done at present.
Question put, "That the blank be filled with £2,000.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 78: Noes 47; Majority 31.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to propose the following proviso—
"Provided always that the duties of the said Vice President shall extend to the superintendence of grants of money for educational purposes in all parts of the United Kingdom and the application thereof, and the reporting of the benefits which may from time to time result therefrom."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must oppose the proviso, which, if carried, would create an unnecessary interference with the Irish educational system, admirably managed already.
Proviso negatived.
The House resumed; Bill reported as amended.

CHARITIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he should move the substitution of July for September. In 1853, the House had been promised that the Roman Catholic charities should be only temporarily exempted from the operation of the Act, but that promise had not hitherto been redeemed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baines) had, however, pledged himself to introduce a measure of this kind next Session, and the object of the Amendment was, that the right hon. Gentleman might redeem his pledge early next Session, when there would be a full attendance of Members.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "September," and insert the word "July" instead thereof.
MR. BAINESsaid, he could not accede to the proposal. The House had determined in favour of a Continuance Bill, but he had never heard of one extending only over ten months. How could he answer for any delays which might take place in carrying the Bill through this and the other House next Session? Yet if it had not received the Royal Assent by the 1st of July, all those charities would, from that time, if the hon. Gentleman's Amendment passed, be completely unprotected.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill ought to be general, and that all exemptions were objectionable. He was persuaded that the popular feeling would be strongly opposed to the continued exclusion of Roman Catholic charities from the operation of the measure.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that it had

1061
been admitted on the previous day, by the hon. Members for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) that there were special circumstances affecting Roman Catholic trusts which would render it undesirable that they should be included in the Bill in its present form. After the pledge which had been given by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to bring in, early next Session, a Bill which should include Roman Catholic charities, he trusted that no objection would be made to the continuance of the present Bill for another year.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would adduce the case of the Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Act as a precedent for the continuance of an Act of Parliament for a shorter period than one year.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the special reason for continuing that Act for ten months was, that Irish Members who wished to discuss it could not be present at the end of the Session. There was no such reason for continuing the measure before the House for ten months instead of a year.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he should support the Amendment on the ground that it was objectionable to continue partial legislation upon the subject, and that the Government had given a pledge to introduce a general measure. Having, in his capacity of Chairman of the Mortmain Committee, examined into the circumstances of many of the Roman Catholic charities, he believed that there was no reason whatever for their exemption, and that they would not suffer from being subjected to the Board as it was now constituted.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that there was nothing magical in twelve months any more than ten, and, as the present Bill was a measure which would require a good deal of legal discussion, it would be desirable to bring it on before learned Gentlemen went on circuit, which they did early in July.
MR. BAINESsaid, he could only repeat that he would bring in a general measure upon the subject early in the next Session, and he hoped that there would be ample opportunities of discussing it before July. That he had promised to do, and he had no doubt that he should be able to fulfil his promise; but he wished to avoid involving himself in a pledge that the Bill should pass before July.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was clearly
1062
of opinion that the duration of the Bill should be limited to next July.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he should support the Amendment, because he had a distinct recollection that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London pledged himself, when the Bill was first introduced, that within two years he would bring in, another measure to meet the case of the Roman Catholic charities.
Question put, "That the word 'September' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 46: Majority 12.
House resumed.
Bill reported without Amendment.

JOINT-STOCK BANKS BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [24th April], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. VANCEsaid, he should move that the Bill be committed that day three months. The Bill proposed to do away with a security granted to shareholders by the Banking Act of 1844, which required that a change should take place in the direction of banks from lime to time. That provision of the law had worked no inconvenience in the case of the banks of England or Ireland; on the contrary, it had proved a great safeguard in both instances. The Act of Sir Robert Peel did not compel directors to retire by rotation, for the old and experienced directors might remain, while the younger ones could retire. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Shelley), however, the framer of the Bill, would alter that, and allow all the directors to retain their seats year after year—there were, in fact, to be no retirements at all. Having seen the disasters to which banks were exposed under the management of self-elected directors in the case of the Tipperary Bank, and also in that of a Yorkshire bank with which he was acquainted, he should call upon the House not to permit such a dangerous innovation, but to let the law remain as it was.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would

1063
only observe that the Bill was not intended to do away with the system of the directors retiring, the only change which it would effect was to render those who retired re-eligible, which the existing law did not allow.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment.

DWELLINGS FOR THE LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he rose to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to extend the Act to facilitate the improvement of landed property in Ireland, and the Acts amending the same, to the erection of improved dwellings for the labouring classes in Ireland. His object in introducing the Bill at that advanced stage of the Session was, that its merits might be canvassed during the recess.
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE and Mr. GEORGE ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
Bill read 1°; to be read 2° on this day three months.
The House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Income and Land Taxes; Stamp Duties; Racehorse Duty; Coast guard Service; Corrupt Practices Prevention; General Board of Health Continuance; Militia Pay; Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer; Lunatic Asylums Act Amendment.
2a Courts of Common Law (Ireland); Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Parochial Schools (Scotland).
3a Intestates Personal Estates; Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment (No. 2); Sherburn Hospital; Oxford College Estates; Prisons (Ireland); Commons Inclosure (No. 2).

STEAM-PACKET COMMUNICATION BE TWEEN HOLYHEAD AND KINGSTOWN.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he was anxious that the Session should not close without some explanation from the Government on a matter which was of the greatest importance to the public. He alluded to the present state of the steam-packet communication between Holyhead and Kingstown. It was hardly necessary for him to remind their Lordships that, after the most minute inquiries on the part of practical men, it had been ascertained that the passage between Holyhead and Kingstown was the best, speediest, and safest between this country and Ireland, and that in consequence a railway had been constructed along the coast from Chester to Holyhead, crossing the Conway and Menai bridges. Yet that part of the passage which was most essential was in reality most defective. In the first place, the present steam-packets could not afford sufficient accommodation for the passengers who were perpetually passing and repassing; and, in the second, the time consumed in the passage was far greater than it need be, if steamers of proper horse power were placed upon the station. At present the passage was never under four hours and a half, even in the calmest weather, and if there was any head wind, it was often five hours and a half, and sometimes six hours. If steamers of sufficient horse power were employed, the passage could be made in three hours, and if they were 350 feet in length, there would be ample accommodation for the passengers. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) might not be aware of the inconvenience to which the public was subjected, but if he had often to cross over to Ireland he would see the necessity of some change. He (Viscount Dungannon) hoped that the mere question of expense would not be considered by a great country like this. He should therefore ask his noble Friend whether there was any prospect of an arrangement being come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Steam Packet Company relative to a line of larger vessels with increased horse power.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDESaid, he wished to ask at what hour the
1008
mail train from London would start? The noble Duke on a former occasion had stated that it would start at half-past seven in the morning—a most inconvenient hour.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, there was a very fair prospect of a satisfactory arrangement being made with the steam-packet companies; negotiations were not yet completed, but he hoped they would come to a speedy conclusion. With regard to the remark of the noble Marquess, he would observe that it was the clear duty of the department with which he was connected to accelerate as much as possible the passage of the mails, not only to Dublin, but also to the rest of Ireland. In order to carry out that object, in order to prevent other parts of Ireland from being sacrificed to the metropolis, it was essential that the mails should arrive at Dublin in sufficient time to allow of the departure of the provincial mails as early as they were now despatched. If they were allowed to be despatched at a later hour the arrangements for the distribution of the letters in the distant parts of the country would be seriously disturbed. He did not think there was anything very unreasonable in requiring passengers to start from London for Dublin at half-past seven in the morning.

FURTHER ARCTIC EXPEDITION.
LORD WROTTESLEYsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellesmere) who had given notice of the question he (Lord Wrottesley) was about to put to Her Majesty's Government, was, unfortunately, obliged to absent himself through illness, and he had delegated his task to him. He had, therefore, to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government had returned an answer to a memorial relative to a further Arctic Expedition? He trusted he might be allowed to accompany this question with some remarks explanatory of the position in which the whole matter now stood, the rather that much misconception prevailed upon the subject. The tale of Arctic search and Arctic suffering was indeed a melancholy one, and awakened so many sad and painful recollections, that he greatly feared, lest in his sympathy for the sufferers he might exaggerate the merits of the case he had undertaken to plead. He should much regret such a result, for he was well aware that in taking this course he was incurring a grave responsibility. Through eight long dreary years the relatives and friends of

1009
those gallant men who had served their country only too well anxiously awaited, and awaited in vain, some tidings of their fate. During the first part of that distressing period, they expected with each returning summer or autumn to welcome those adventurous seamen returning home in triumph from a successful enterprise, crowned with civic laurels, and about to reap the well earned reward of their meritorious exertions. During the latter part of that period they hoped to receive some intelligence which might enlighten them as to the manner and the circumstances under which the little band of heroes had breathed their last—perhaps after much suffering removed, very far removed, from their cherished homes. Those who had experienced the misery of thus losing those who were near and dear to them in foreign lands, where the details of the calamity were necessarily imperfectly known, would remember how anxiously we desired to know all the particulars of the mournful event—the how, the when, and the where—each additional fact when learnt, added acutely to the sorrow; and yet there was a continual craving to know more and more; a thirst that could not be allayed. But in the case to which he alluded, to fill up the measure of sorrow, we had to add the agonies of suspense, since every day, every hour of each returning year might bring complete relief, or a confirmation of the worst anticipations. At last, in 1855, the crisis of the fate of these mariners arrived, and a cruel revelation was made, the particulars of which he should shortly detail:—Their Lordships were aware that, commencing with the year 1848, several expeditions, both by land and sea, were, with laudable zeal, sent out by the Admiralty, and even by our brothers on the other side of the Atlantic, to endeavour to ascertain the fate of Franklin and his companions. He would not weary their Lordships with the details of these exploits anterior to 1854; suffice it to say that, by some cruel fatality, they seemed all to have proceeded in every direction but the right one. Nothing was ascertained beyond the discovery, in 1851, of the graves on Beechy Island, the only effect of which was to send one of the best-appointed expeditions that ever left our shores in a wrong direction—to the north instead of to the south. He now came to the eventful year 1854; but before detailing the transactions of that year it was necessary, in order that their Lordships might comprehend
1010
his description of them and his comments upon them, that he should explain a few particulars relative to the configuration of the north coast of America. Three great rivers fell into the Polar Sea, flowing from the south. The Mackenzie River was that most to the west, the Coppermine River occupied the centre place, and the Great Fish, or Back River (the mouth of which was the scene of the events he was about to describe), flowing towards the northeast, occupied the most eastern position of the three. The general trending of the north coast of America was west and east, but opposite to the Coppermine River was situate, separated from the main by a narrow strait, a vast island extending through twenty degrees of longitude; similarly, opposite to the mouth of Back River, there was on the west a comparatively small island, very imperfectly explored, called King William's Land, and on the east there was a long tract of land consisting of a peninsula to the south and an island to the north. The peninsula and island were divided by a narrow strait, called after the gallant Frenchman who perished—Bellot's Strait. The peninsula was called Boothia, and the island was called North Somerset. Now, on each side of this long peninsula—and he begged their Lordships particularly to attend to this—there were two magnificent inlets or arms of the sea, running from north to south from Barrow's Strait; that to the west was called Peel Sound, and debouched on the south into Victoria Strait, at the southern extremity of which lay King William's Land and the estuary of the Back River; that to the east was called Prince Regent's Inlet, and it terminated in Boothia Gulf. In the year 1854, the Hudson's Bay Company sent Dr. Rae, one of their most intelligent and adventurous Arctic travellers to explore the west coast of Boothia Peninsula. When he arrived in Pelly Bay, which was near the bottom of Boothia Gulf, he obtained from various Esquimaux, whom he encountered there, certain particulars relative to the fate of Franklin and his companions. The story was to the effect that about 1850 a party of about forty gaunt and starving men ware seen dragging a boat over the ice to the north of King William's Land; that they went down the west coast of that island, and afterwards perished near a great river. Now, had not this story been confirmed by the circumstance that these Esquimaux were in possession of various

1011
relics of the expedition, which Dr. Rae brought home, it would have been placed, as it well deserved to have been placed, on a par with various other falsehoods told by these Esquimaux during the progress of this search. Not any one of these Esquimaux who told the story had seen any of the forty men. Dr. Rae was at one time within fifty miles of the scene of the alleged catastrophe; but being, as he states, then uninformed as to the precise locality, unhappily returned home without visiting it. Neither the Government nor public were satisfied, and it was an important point in the case that they were not satisfied. Another land expedition went out in 1855 under Anderson; they descended the Back River, but they could obtain no interpreter; they were only provided with birch-bark canoes, too frail to live in the open sea; and they were supported by no ship laden with supplies and able to overawe the natives. They returned with more relies, but with no additional information of importance, except that these forty men, with a large boat, had actually arrived within the estuary of the Back River and perished there. Such was the present state of the question, and since that time the Admiralty had been in vain importuned to finish the good work they had begun. Another expedition was advocated, upon arguments which seemed unanswerable to himself and others. It was said that the clue was now found of which we had been so long in search; that the danger was now slight, because the area of research was limited to a comparatively small district, situate between the 68th and 72nd degrees of parallel of latitude, and the meridians of 95 and 100 degrees west, a region almost wholly unexplored; that even now, late as it was, a ship might be got ready by the middle of August, which might be directed to enter either Peel Sound or Prince Regent's Inlet, according as the one or the other was most free from ice; and after she had penetrated as far south as possible, walking parties might be detached from her to the scene of the catastrophe, distant probably about 400 miles (and walks of 1,200 miles had been made); or that if the approach from the west was preferred, Captain Collinson had undertaken to take a ship within 150 miles of the spot by that route. It had been shown that only forty men out of 135 had been accounted for; that as the settlements of the Esquimaux were certainly reached, as evidenced by their possession of the relics,
1012
some of the men so unaccounted for might yet be living domesticated among these tribes; that nothing had been found but a few forks and spoons and other trifles; that the boat party had not been traced back to the ships; that the ships had not been found; that they remained possibly intact, frozen up and abandoned near King William's Land; but that, even if broken up, inasmuch as, by the invariable practice of Arctic voyagers, journals and scientific records were kept carefully in tin cases, at least some portion of these might be discovered. It was a great mistake to suppose that the interests of science were in no way concerned in sending out another expedition. In the first place, the scene of the catastrophe had been scarcely at all explored; and, in the next place, it was a great object to recover the magnetical records—for magnetical observations made within the Arctic and Antarctic circles were peculiarly valuable in reference to the theory of magnetism. Now, as a very perfect set of magnetical instruments was supplied to Sir John Franklin's expedition, and they were consigned to the charge of officers of high scientific attainments, who received a special training in their use, the observations made were likely to be very valuable. Then, supposing such an expedition on other grounds to be deemed expedient, what an opportunity it offered to some of those gallant members of the naval profession who had been thrown out of employment by the peace, and were disappointed that the war had yielded such few opportunities of distinction. In conclusion, the noble Lord said that a further expedition was recommended in a temperate memorial, signed by influential and well-informed men of almost every grade and profession, and advocated by distinguished Arctic navigators, who supported their opinions by facts and reasonings which carried conviction home to the minds of men accustomed to estimate the bearings of doubtful evidence—that such an expedition would furnish employment for gallant officers; that it might lead to the recovery of lost scientific records of great value; that it might gratify the longings of attached and mourning relatives, and especially of a widowed lady who had made great sacrifices on behalf of her heroic and lamented husband; and, above all, that it would carry out to its legitimate solution an important problem in which the honour of England was largely concerned, and

1013
which had excited the curiosity and interest of the whole civilised world.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, although nothing was more natural than that such should be the strong desire of the friends of all engaged in the expedition, which reflected so much honour upon those of whom it was composed, and upon the English name, and also of persons interested in the scientific results which might be expected from the recovery of the documents supposed to have been left by that expedition, yet other considerations must be taken into account before another Arctic expedition was despatched. His right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty was of opinion, that, at all events, it was much too late to entertain hopes of organising an expedition this season with any chance of success. His right hon. Friend was, however, fully disposed to take into his most serious consideration in the recess whether it was desirable that any further expedition should be sent out. But he (Lord Stanley) would submit to the noble Lord whether they ought to incur the responsibility of risking the lives of brave men for such an object. As long as any hopes remained of rescuing our brave countrymen from those inhospitable regions many strong reasons might be urged for fitting out another expedition; but when the only object was the obtaining further details of the fate of these unfortunate men and some further scientific information, it was matter for grave consideration before the Government undertook such a responsibility.

THE CRIMEAN BOARD OF INQUIRY— REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS— ADDRESS FOR.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN rose to move—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to give Directions that the Report of the Chelsea Board of Officers be laid upon the table of the House. The noble Earl said that he regretted to find himself compelled to seek from their Lordships that justice which he could not obtain from the Minister of War; but he thought it was impossible to question this fact—that it was the fixed purpose of the Minister of War not to present the Report of the Chelsea Commissioners to Parliament during the present Session. The noble Lord began to be exceedingly entertained, and he could promise the noble Lord more
1014
amusement before he concluded. He believed that the fixed purpose of the noble Lord was to withhold the Report from Parliament and from the country; and such a course of conduct appeared to him (the Earl of Lucan) to be inconsistent with common justice. Indeed, it was difficult to understand the feelings that could have prompted that determination on the part of the noble Lord, or the boldness and assurance that could support it; but unquestionably it had been in every mouth for a long time past, that it was not the intention of the noble Lord to present this Report to Parliament this Session. The answers given in that House to questions put by him (the Earl of Lucan) to the noble Lord left it without a doubt that that was his intention; and his (the Earl of Lucan's) firm belief was, that unless he could prevail upon their Lordships that night to agree to this Motion, justice would be denied to the officers of the array by the withholding the Report. To satisfy their Lordships that he was not doing an injustice to the noble Lord, he should remind them that on the previous Monday week the noble Lord stated, in answer to a question put by him (the Earl of Lucan), that he believed the Report had not at that time reached Her Majesty, and that in consequence of the illness of the Commander in Chief, it was very doubtful when it would; and that after it had been laid before Her Majesty, it would have to be considered by the Government what course they should take upon it before it could be laid upon the table of the House. However, on a subsequent occasion the noble Lord admitted that he had been misinformed—that he had since found the fact to be that the Report had been laid before Her Majesty, but that up to that time (Friday last) it still continued in Her Majesty's hands, in consequence of no printed copy of the evidence having been forwarded with the Report to Her Majesty; and that it would remain with Her Majesty till She had an opportunity of comparing it with that evidence. He hoped to hear on the present occasion from the noble Lord that the Report had reached him from Her Majesty, Now he (the Earl of Lucan) knew not what object the noble Lord had in the statement to which he had just referred, but it appeared to him (the Earl of Lucan) that that statement might lead to the inference that Her Majesty was, to some extent, a party to the injustice which

1015
the withholding of the Report inflicted upon the officers whose conduct was referred to in it; but it was well known that Her Majesty's first care was to do honour to Her army, and that she had deeply sympathised in the sufferings which they had undergone in the Crimea; and, therefore, no one could for one moment suppose that Her Majesty would be a party to the doing of an injustice to any portion of that army. He would tell the noble Lord that it was upon him, and upon him alone, that the whole injustice of withholding the Report must be laid. The noble Lord had said that it would he necessary for him to read over every word of the evidence before he could advise Her Majesty as to what steps should be taken in reference to that evidence, and to the Report which had been founded upon it. In that case there would be little chance of the Report being laid before Parliament during the present Session. But what was the course which had been taken by the noble Lord with reference to the Report of the Crimean Commissioners? Let the House for a moment contrast the noble Lord's conduct with respect to that Report with his conduct with respect to the Report now asked for. In the case of the Report of the Crimean Commissioners there was so much precipitancy and haste displayed by the noble Lord, that he found it impossible to refer that Report for the consideration of the Commander in Chief; indeed, he went farther, and said that he had scarcely allowed himself time to peruse it before he laid it before Parliament. Undoubtedly, such a Report ought to have been referred to the Commander in Chief; but such was the haste to lay it before Parliament, that that course was not taken, and though the document was only signed during the last two or three days of January, it was on the table of their Lordships' House by the 4th or 5th of February. The contrast was not favourable to the noble Lord, who now showed himself so slow in repairing injustice by presenting an exculpatory Report. The noble Lord now smiled. [Lord PANMURE: No.] But he could assure the noble Lord that he (the Earl of Lucan) knew no more about the contents of the Report than the noble Lord himself. However, this he did know—he knew every word of the evidence given before the Commissioners, and having the greatest confidence in their honour and integrity,
1016
he felt sure that the whole of the allegations made against him (the Earl of Lucan) and other officers must be stamped by the Commissioners as totally unfounded. For himself he felt little concern, because immediately after the conclusion of the evidence Colonel Tulloch came over to him, and though he had never said a word or communicated with that gallant officer before, he (Colonel Tulloch) said he thought it due to him (the Earl of Lucan) to state that had he not been misled by the evidence given him in the Crimea, by Colonel Gordon and Sir Richard Airey, he or the other Commissioner would never have said a word to his (the Earl of Lucan's) disadvantage. After such a statement as that, taken in connection with the evidence given at Chelsea, he (the Earl of Lucan), thought he was fully warranted in assuming that the Report was, so far as he was concerned, an exculpatory Report. The Minister of War excused himself on the last occasion for not producing the Report, and stated that he was acting under the advice of the Judge Advocate General. He did not desire to comment upon the manner in which that learned Gentleman conducted himself on that inquiry, or he might say that he appeared to him. (the Earl of Lucan) to assume more the authority of the Board than the position of the legal adviser of the Board. What character the learned Gentleman assumed during the deliberations, with closed doors, he would not say, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that he was a colleague of the noble Lord the Minister of War, and was, therefore, no doubt most unfairly, open to the suspicion that he might not he inure impatient for the drawing up of the Report than the noble Lord was for producing it. The noble and learned Lord Chief Justice shook his head; but that did not alter the facts, and he (the Earl of Lucan) could not regard the noble and learned Lord's shake of the head as an answer to what he was putting to the House.
LORD CAMPBELLhoped the noble and gallant Earl would pardon his interruption, when he said that he (Lord Campbell) could not hear any one in a judicial situation accused without what he considered any ground, and not express his dissent from the accusation.
THE EARL OF LUCANbelieved it to be repugnant to all sense of justice that, in a political inquiry a political partisan should

1017
be the officer to advise the court. A review of the proceedings at Chelsea made it clear that the administration of justice before military courts required consideration on the part of the Legislature, and, as he believed that consideration could not be given to it in a more fitting place than their Lordships' House, he hoped the next Session would not pass away without the attention of their Lordships being called to the office of the Judge Advocate General, the functions of that officer, his tenure of office, and the mode of procedure before military courts, which he did not hesitate to say was at present unnecessarily tedious and obstructive to eliciting truth. Well, the Report had, no doubt, been presented, and the evidence had been printed, for it was printed from time to time while the inquiry was being proceeded with; but something had been said about the appendix not being printed. Now, he could not understand how that could be, because some papers had been returned to him on the ground that they could not he received after the close of the inquiry, and if all the papers proposed to be printed were in the hands of the Commissioners when the inquiry terminated he could not account for the delay in printing the appendix. However, he did not think it necessary that the appendix should be printed before the Report was laid upon the table of the House, for the House had frequently received Reports and the papers which accompanied them volume by volume. On a former occasion the noble Lord the Minister of War stated that in the case of the Commission on the Convention of Cintra, the manuscript remarks made on the Report by George IV. were countersigned by Lord Castlereagh, after the Report was returned to the Government by the King, and that this was done before the document was presented to the House. Now, seeing that it had been stated that Parliament would be up in a week from this time, if the noble Lord intended to follow the precedent of the Cintra Convention Commission Report, he (the Earl of Lucan) did not think it likely that the Minister of War would produce the Report of the Chelsea Commissioners during the present Session, if the House did not express some opinion on the subject. He thought he could not be charged with any undue haste in bringing this question before Parliament. The Report had been signed fourteen days; eleven days had elapsed since it was laid before Her Majesty; this was the 18th of July; and in
1018
the course of another week, the present Session of Parliament would be brought to a close. Entertaining, therefore, as he did, the conviction that the Minister of War would not produce this Report to the House unless their Lordships expressed an opinion on the subject, he hoped he should not be considered unreasonable in calling upon the House to support his Motion. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that the Report of the Chelsea Board of Officers be laid upon the table of the House."
LORD PANMUREsaid, that after the speech of the noble Earl, in which he complained that it was his (Lord Panmure's) intention to withhold from him justice on this occasion, he thought that the very few facts which he (Lord Panmure) was about to state to their Lordships would show them the utter unreasonableness of the address to which they had just listened. Throughout the whole of his statement the noble Earl had told them of apprehensions which existed in his own mind, but for which, in his (Lord Panmure's) opinion, the noble Earl had given no reason whatever. Let him just trace the course of these proceedings; and let their Lordships mark the course which the noble Earl had pursued with reference to them. On the 7th July this Report was first presented to the Queen. On the 8th the noble Earl demanded to know when it would be laid before Parliament. He (Lord Panmure) said nothing on that occasion to justify the noble Earl in arriving at the conclusion that he was averse to laying the Report before Parliament. He (Lord Panmure) admitted the reasonableness of the anxiety felt by the noble Earl, for himself, and on the part of the officers whose case had been before the Commissioners at Chelsea; and all he claimed for the Government was time for the consideration of the Report before it was laid upon the table of the House. That Report was delivered to the Queen in manuscript on the 7th of July: every page of that Report referred to the proceedings which were not delivered to Her Majesty till the 9th. The 10th intervened; and late on the evening of the 11th he received that Report and those proceedings from Her Majesty, with an expressed desire that She should receive the advice of Her Cabinet on the subject. On the 12th he laid the Report before the Cabinet; the

1019
13th was Sunday; and the Report, which he had sent to be printed on the evening of the 12th, was delivered to him in a printed shape, occupying some thirty pages of close type, on the 15th. This was the 18th; and during the time that had intervened between the day he received the Report and that on which he received it in its printed shape he instructed the Under Secretary of State to state, in reply to a question which was to be put in the other House of Parliament, that it would be laid upon the table as soon as possible. His colleagues and himself had between the 15th instant and the present day perused the Report. They had not yet advised Her Majesty with respect to it; but between that day and Monday they would tender that advice to Her Majesty; and, therefore, he could not conceive why the noble Earl had arrived at the inference that the Report was not intended to be laid upon the table before the rising of Parliament. He could assure the noble Earl that it was his intention to lay the Report upon the table on Monday, and not only the Report, but the proceedings attached to it, and the appendix, which he could not understand why the noble Earl assumed was not printed. That appendix was printed with the rest of the proceedings, which he believed had been printed and published from day to day during the inquiry. So much as to the documents. Now, with regard to the whole proceeding, it seemed to him that the noble Earl had been trying to fix upon him some intention, personally, of withholding justice from him (the Earl of Lucan) and the other officers. He could assure the House that no such intention had ever existed in his mind; and in reply to the noble Earl's charge that the inquiry at Chelsea had been a political one, he (Lord Panmure) begged most distinctly and positively to aver that there had never been any proceeding more removed from the character of a political inquiry. That inquiry was a military-judicial inquiry, demanded by the officers themselves, and referred to officers of as high character as that of any officers in Her Majesty's service, without reference to their political opinions in the smallest degree. Nay, more, it was his conviction that if the political opinions of the Chelsea Board were inquired into, they would be found to be very much more in accordance with those of the noble Earl than with those of Her Majesty's Government. But because the Judge Advocate General, in his official
1020
capacity, was the adviser of the military Board on that occasion, the noble Earl gave that as a reason, forsooth, why that Board should assume a political hue. There was one answer for that—namely, that there was not an officer on that Board who, whatever might be the position of a public servant brought in connection with him in the discharge of judicial duties, would allow political opinions to bias him in respect to the conduct of the inquiry. The noble Earl insinuated that during the time the doors of the Board-room were closed, and while the public was excluded, the Board might have received some advice or other from his (Lord Panmure's) right hon. and learned Friend the Judge Advocate, which might have delayed the production of the Report in the first place to Her Majesty. Now, on a former occasion he (Lord Panmure) had stated that in the inquiry at Chelsea, while in most respects following the precedent of that which took place in 1808 with reference to the Convention of Cintra, in some it was deviated from, so far as allowing a fuller examination of the matters in hand, so as to assist the Commissioners in arriving at a conclusion. He found, on referring to the Report in the Cintra Convention case, that the Report was delivered to the King on the 22nd of December; and as far as he could gather from the order made by the House of Commons for the printing of the document, it was not laid before Parliament till the 31st of January. He did not know whether Parliament had been sitting before that date, but his impression was that it had been, for in 1808 Parliament assembled at an earlier period of the year than it now usually did; but it was clear that a very considerable delay had taken place in the delivery of the Report to the House from the time it was presented to the King. He did not, when before speaking on this subject, say that that Report was not signed by the Secretary of State; but what he said was, that the remarks made on that Report by His Majesty were countersigned by Lord Castlereagh as Secretary for State. The noble Earl had contrasted the time which had elapsed since the Chelsea Report reached the hands of the Government with the immediate production of the Report of the Commissioners from whose statements the late inquiry had emanated. But the Report from the Commissioners sent to the Crimea was made under a very different state of circumstances. The Commissioners who

1021
were sent to the Crimea to inquire into allegations which had been made by other sources were sent by the Government; the Government announced to Parliament that they had sent them, and gave Parliament distinctly to understand that as soon as the Commissioners reported, their Report should be laid upon the tables of both Houses. He would again repeat, that, so far from there being any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government of withholding the result of the present inquiry, it was his (Lord Panmure's) intention to have presented the Report to both Houses of Parliament on Monday next; and under those circumstances he could see no necessity whatever for the noble Earl's Motion.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that after the assurance given by the noble Lord, his noble and gallant Friend would not of course press his Motion for an Address to the Crown for the production of the Report; and he had no doubt that had such an assurance been given to his noble and gallant Friend at an earlier period, he would not have thought it necessary to bring forward the present Motion. The language, however, of the noble Lord opposite on the two occasions upon which the subject was mentioned was, as he understood—not having been present on either of those occasions—such as to lead his noble and gallant Friend to suppose that there would be considerable delay in the production of the Report.
LORD PANMURE: I did not use any such language.
THE EARL OF DERBYcould only say what he had heard was the language of the noble Lord. It was such as to leave his noble and gallant Friend under the impression that it was not the intention of the noble Lord, on the part of the Government, to bring forward the Report previous to the recess. On the first occasion to which he referred, the noble Lord had erroneously stated, as a ground for delay, that the papers had not then been presented to Her Majesty. The noble Lord, it appeared, was in error in that statement. And on the second occasion of the question being asked, the noble Lord stated that the papers were not received back from Her Majesty, and that when She did send them back it would be necessary for the Government to review them. [Lord PANMURE: No, no!] He could only say what he had heard was the nature of the language used by the noble Lord—
1022
that it was not likely the papers would be produced before the rising of Parliament; and certainly those conversations had left his noble and gallant Friend under the impression that it was not likely an opportunity would be afforded to their Lordships for a consideration of the Report before the recess. That being the case his noble and gallant Friend was naturally anxious for the production, as soon as possible, of the Report which so materially concerned himself and other gallant officers. His noble and gallant Friend was, therefore, quite justified under such circumstances in giving notice of a Motion for an Address to the Crown on the subject. But now, whether the production of the papers on Monday should be considered as the spontaneous act of the noble Lord, or the result of this Motion for an Address to the Crown, the result was such as to render a perseverance by his noble and gallant Friend in this Motion unnecessary.
EARL BEAUCHAMPbore his testimony to the impartial manner in which the whole inquiry was conducted.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as the noble Earl had made a charge against the Judge Advocate, imputing misconduct during the investigation in question, he (Lord Campbell) thought it his duty to say that he was sure no one could have conducted himself more honourably or impartially during the trial than that distinguished functionary.
THE EARL OF LUCANdenied that he had ever made any such imputation against the Judge Advocate General. He certainly expressed an opinion on the fact of the Judge Advocate acting as adviser to the Board in a political inquiry; and he thought that it was just possible that the Judge Advocate would have shown no more anxiety in the drawing up of the Report than the noble Lord opposite had done in the presentation of it to the House.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was of opinion that the Judge Advocate had conducted himself with the utmost possible impartiality.
Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

INCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,in moving the third reading, expressed his

1023
opinion that the object of the measure was of a most useful character. As a person connected with Ireland, and aware of the difficulties which this measure had had to encounter, he wished to state that nothing could exceed the zeal, ability, and personal courage with which these Commissioners had executed the important task intrusted to them. More had been done by this new Court in six years than had been effected by the Court of Chancery during the space of half a century. One ninth part of the whole country of Ireland had changed hands without any blemish or fault in the proceedings, unless it were in one case only, where the value concerned was £25. Not less than £18,000,000 of money had been awarded, out of which sum £15,000,000 had been actually received. As an Irish proprietor he felt deeply indebted to the Commissioners for the manner in which they had discharged a great public duty.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that he viewed the Bill with great regret. He did not deny that the law which the Bill was intended to continue had done great good to Ireland; but that was the very reason why the Court should not be continued for two years, and for two years only. Laws such as those should not be allowed to continue exceptional and temporary, but should be incorporated in the permanent legislation of the country. If this could not be done, it would be better that the law should cease altogether. There was nothing now exceptional in the state of Ireland; it was in a state of great order. It was time to arrive at a state of normal law with regard to the property of the country. It was not right that men who had not overencumbered their estates should be placed at a disadvantage with those who had. What he could have wished would have teen a different Bill—one to enable the present Court to wind up its business, which it would take only one or two years to settle, and not to allow any further petitions to be received by it. There ought to be some explanation as to the continuance for two years. He did not blame the Government in the matter—the Bill was founded on the report of Commissioners and arose from the contests of legal men, who had prevented the Government from carrying out its intention. This exceptional court ought to be suspended, and they should come to a
1024
fixed measure, not only with regard to the incumbered property, but with regard to all the property of Ireland. The Bill affected not only land but mortgages. He knew that one-third of the property bought in the Incumbered Estates Court had been paid for by borrowed money, and there were some cases in which the purchaser had not paid a single shilling, and some in which they were giving eight per cent for the money they borrowed. If this were so, it clearly defeated the object which the Bill was intended to accomplish. And there was, moreover, this consequence—that any one with an incumbered estate, who wished to raise money, could not do so, without paying enormous interest. With respect to the practice and procedure of the Court itself, he admitted that on the whole the Court and those who presided over it deserved the thanks of the public; but he could not agree in the unqualified approbation which had been expressed by the noble Marquess who had just sat down. There were not wanting instances of considerable importance to prove that the Court was not altogether faultless; while in matters of minor details there had been an irregularity and uncertainty—not to use the more popular expression, caprice—which were perhaps incidental to a Court so hastily and so imperfectly constituted, but which nevertheless were much to be regretted. The fact was that the real estates of Ireland required a permanent law and a permanent Court to deal with them, and he hoped that the Government would give an assurance that at as early a period as possible they would introduce a measure of that nature.
THE LORD CHANCELLORconcurred with his noble Friend that the principle of having an exceptional Court was extremely objectionable. On that account Her Majesty's Government, at the commencement of the Session, introduced three Bills, the great object of which was to make the Court perpetual—not confining it to incumbered estates, but giving it jurisdiction with regard to the sale of estates generally. Those Bills were introduced in the other House of Parliament, and were subsequently referred to a Select Committee. Great difference of opinion prevailed in the Committee, and the result was that they disapproved of the establishment of a permanent tribunal, mainly, he believed, because the Judges were named Vice-Chancellors, there being a vulgar prejudice

1025
against anything connected with the Court of Chancery. The Commissioners, however, reported in favour of the continuance of the Incumbered Estates Court. He confessed it would be much more satisfactory to his mind that that Court should be made a permanent institution of the country, and not be treated as an exceptional Court. He was happy to find that there was nothing in the present state of the landed property of Ireland to render any exceptional legislation of this kind justifiable. Although he could not exactly pledge himself to any particular course, he might say that the Government would be actuated by the same feelings as he had expressed, and that the matter would not escape their attention and consideration. It was, he thought, marvellous that so few errors had been committed during the progress of the transactions of the Court. There were only one or two cases in which the decisions of the Court had been called in question, and whether rightly or wrongly was yet to be ascertained. But even if the Court were wrong in those two cases, he thought that they could hardly express a greater tribute of praise to the proceedings of any court or tribunal than to say that in the course of its seven years of business, involving transactions amounting to £18,000,000, there were only one or two cases in which the decisions of that Court had been called in question. If their Lordships assented to the third reading he would suggest an Amendment, which would make the Act to expire contemporaneously with the next Session of Parliament, instead of the 28th of July.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments.
On Motion, That the Bill do now pass,
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHcalled attention to the Amendments made in that Bill against the wishes of the Government, and said he was very anxious to know what the Government intended to do in relation to the clauses struck out of the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he thought it quite possible that the other House might reinsert in the Bill the clauses which had been struck out of it at the instance of the noble Duke.
LORD CAMPBELLhoped that nothing would be done that could endanger the passing of the Bill.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he trusted the Government would use their influence to prevent the reinsertion of those clauses.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could undertake to give no pledge as to what course the Government would pursue in the other House with respect to the new clause which had been inserted by their Lordships. On a subject of the kind, there ought to have been mutual concessions. Nevertheless, he must remind their Lordships that all the concessions made had been on the part of the Government, while upon the side of the majority in that House there had positively been none. The question at issue should be settled definitively one way or another; for certainly the subject of which the Bill treated ought not to be dealt with as a mere continuance Bill. The measure, therefore, must be left to its fate, and he would warn their Lordships that the opinions of a large proportion of the representatives of Scotland were not to be overlooked.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONdwelt upon the hardship which would be inflicted upon the schoolmasters if this Bill were not passed. In that case they would be rendered dependent on the charity and benevolence of the heritors, and this certainly should not be the case.
LORD PANMUREsupported the Bill, and stated that all Government desired was, that while they reserved the control of the schools to the parish ministers, the children of other parties besides those belonging to the Established Church should be admitted to the benefits of them.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHremarked that the Scotch Members in the other House who supported the measure were the representatives of the boroughs, in which parochial schools were not all required, while of the county Members they were as two to one against it. The subject had been taken up by the counties of Scotland at their meetings, and, with the exception of the county of Banff, they were all decidedly opposed to the present Bill. The noble Duke had stated that no concession had been made by the noble Lords opposed to the Bill; but, for his own part, he considered that he had given way considerably. What he most objected to was the interference of the inspectors, not in the inspection of the schools, but in other repects, and he did trust that Government would seriously consider the objection.
THE MARQUESS OF BREADALBANEcalled upon their Lordships not to be misled by the so-called expression of opinion of the great county meetings in Scotland. These annual gatherings could always be got to pronounce against reforms of every description. Look at their conduct with reference to the reform of the constitution of the other House of Parliament. Why the county meetings were for upholding the old disgraceful system when representation was a mockery, and they were as completely opposed to the Reform of 1832 as they were to the measure now under consideration. His belief was that if the people of England and Scotland were to be debarred a proper system of national education through ecclesiastical interference and nice religious distinctions, the sooner they severed the connection between the Established Church and education the better. Why should the clergy of the country have the control of the schools? In former times it might have been different, because then the clergy alone were educated; but it was to be hoped that now-a-days others besides the clergy were equally able to administer the work of education, and the sooner the exclusive power of the clergy was got rid of the better.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONwas sorry to hear such a declaration as that which had just fallen from the noble Marquess, because it implied that the noble Marquess thought the time was come to establish a system of education in which religion was kept out of sight.
THE MARQUESS OF BREADALBANEexplained that he did not say the system should be one in which religious principles were not inculcated. What he said was, that the exclusive control should be taken from the clergy.
Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned to Monday next.