Sitting of 6 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Peace Preservation (Ireland).
2° Nuisances Removal, &c. (Scotland) (No. 2); Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Act 1853, Amendment; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance.

MANNING AND EQUIPMENT OF THE NAVY—QUESTION.
SIR GEORGE TYLERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Her Majesty's Government had under consideration any measure for securing the more immediate manning and equipment of the navy on any future emergency; and, if so, whether it was their intention to bring it forward during the present session of Parliament?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he fully admitted the great importance of the subject, which had been alluded to by the hon. and gallant member and which had been inquired into at various times, but with regard to which there was a great difference of opinion. The difference of opinion, indeed, was so great, that no practical conclusion had as yet been arrived at. All he could say was that the matter still occupied the most serious consideration of the Admiralty.

RIOTS IN DEMERARA—QUESTION.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he had any objection to lay on the table of the House copies of Governor Wodehouse's Despatches on the subject of the recent riots in Demerara, and whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any further intelligence?
MR. LABOUCHEREin reply said, that intelligence had been received by the West India mail, which arrived yesterday, that tranquillity had been completely restored in the colony; that the ringleaders in the late disgraceful disturbances had been tried and convicted, and that the law had been successfully vindicated. There would be no objection to lay the correspondence on the table if the hon. Member chose to move for it.

GRAND JURY CESS IN THE COUNTY OF MAYO—QUESTION.
COLONEL HIGGINSsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it was his intention to carry out the promise made by the Irish Government to the Grand Jury of the county of Mayo, of introducing a Bill to enable the Grand Jury to represent the arrears of cess now due in that county, and on the faith of which promise alone the Act of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 110, was agreed to by that county?
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that it was the intention of the Government immediately

1087
to bring in a Bill of the nature referred to; but it would not be introduced on any implied promise of the Irish Government.

RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES —QUESTION.
SIR BULWER LYTTON: Sir, seeing the noble Lord at the head of the Government in his place, I will take this opportunity of putting a question to him; and I think that the importance of the subject will justify me in making one or two very brief remarks, which shall be strictly explanatory of the question I am about to put. The House will, perhaps, recollect that some time ago I postponed a Motion of which I had given notice with regard to the disputes on the subject of Central America; and I did so in order that an answer might first be received from the United States to a proposal which we were given to understand had been made by Her Majesty's Government to submit those disputes to arbitration. Since then, very grave events have occurred and although I would fain believe, in the absence of official information, that our Minister has not been dismissed from Washington; yet at all events it is clear that the Government of which General Walker is the representative and the dictator has been recognised by the United States; and also that General Walker is on the point of annexing to the territory of Nicaragua the territory of Mosquito—a territory which our Government holds that it is pledged to protect from external aggression. Sir, I have it on very good authority, that the Government of the United States have sent a vessel of War to Nicaragua, though I hope it is only for the purpose of observation, and not with a view to assist those adventurers who, after the recognition of General Walker, would, no doubt, flock by hundreds and thousands to his standard in order to assist him in his threatened invasion of the Mosquito territory. Now, Sir, I think that these circumstances entail an awful responsibility upon the Governments of both nations—nations between whom war would be the greatest of all conceivable calamities, except indeed the loss of honour. Certainly, Sir, by no act of mine would I force on a discussion which might be considered premature or indiscreet, and thereby add to the elements of irritation which already exist. I shall therefore continue to postpone my Motion upon a question which has now unhappily
1088
become aggravated, and more extended in its character. The question that, in the meanwhile I would wish to ask the noble Lord is this—seeing that the Parliamentary discussion, and the advantage that might have resulted from it, have been delayed for the express purpose of obtaining an answer from the United States Government, to a conciliatory proposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government—seeing, too, that at the time I urged upon Her Majesty's Government the expediency of obtaining that answer as soon as possible, because I foresaw, as we must all have foreseen, the possibility that diplomatic negotiations might be suspended—I wish to ask whether in the interval of four or five weeks which has since elapsed, any steps have been taken on the part of Her Majesty's Government to press for and obtain that reply?
MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I am sorry to interpose between the hon. Gentleman's question and the noble Lords reply, but I believe that it is of the utmost possible importance that not only the public of England but that of America should understand what really are the feelings of this House and of the country with regard to the question which is now pending. Sir, I believe it is of the greatest importance that all the world should know—
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise to order. I do not understand that any question is before the House.
MR. ROEBUCK: I beg pardon. I thought the adjournment of the House had been moved.
MR. DISRAELI: I understand that, though my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire wished to address a question to the noble Lord, he would not take advantage of the opportunity which the Motion for the adjournment of the House would have given him, lest it should lead to a debate. Of course if a debate is to be permitted, other hon. Gentlemen as well as myself will wish to express their opinions as well as the hon. and learned member for Sheffield. Under these circumstances, I shall await with the greatest interest the answer of the noble Lord.
MR. ROEBUCK: I have to assure the House that I was under the impression that the adjournment of the House had been moved, and I beg to apologise for interposing.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am unable to give a definite answer to the particular question which the hon. Baronet

1089
(Sir B. Lytton) has put to me as to what particular steps have been taken during the last three weeks to obtain from the American Government an answer to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government for arbitration in respect to the Central American matter, but I can say this—that the American Government have been made fully aware that the offer is made and pressed on them to accept or decline, as they may think best. I do not know, in that short period, that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department has thought it necessary to press specially for an answer upon that particular subject, as another question of more practical moment was pending between the two Governments. With respect to the general tenour of what has fallen from the hon. Baronet, I may say that in the present state of things between the two Governments I do think, if my opinion is asked for, or if it be deemed desirable that the opinion of the Government should be expressed—I say, without hesitation, that I think the interests of the country and the prospect of maintaining permanent amicable relations between this country and the United States would be promoted by a continuance of that forbearance—that judicious forbearance—which the House has hitherto exhibited in regard to these questions. Upon other occasions of a somewhat similar nature, when questions of importance were pending in relation to the last war—both at the commencement of the war and when negotiations were pending which finally led to its conclusion—I think the House acted in a manner most honourable to itself and most creditable to its judgment in abstaining from throwing any possible difficulty in the way of the Government by provoking premature discussion upon the subjects then in dispute. The questions now pending are certainly, I confess, of a very grave character; but I hope, and sincerely hope—and I hope not without good reason—that those discussions may terminate without any interruption of the peaceful relations of the two countries. Where there is no real cause for collision, it is to be hoped that good sense on both sides of the water may prevent any unnecessary collision; but, certainly, discussion in this House, which must be productive of a conflict of opinions—some too much on one side and some too much on the other—cannot, in my opinion, fail to tend to injurious results. As I am
1090
quite sure the hon. Baronet, in putting his question, had in mind the answer which I gave to a question yesterday, I may be permitted to allude to it. In reply to a question, whether Mr. Crampton had retired from Washington, I stated yesterday that we had, indirectly, information that such had been the case. I find from my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department that the information came by a Cunard packet, which sailed from Halifax on the 22nd ultimo. Since that—yesterday evening—a packet has arrived from New York, which left that place on the 24th, and which does not bring any confirmation of the Report brought by the former packet. We are, therefore, not in possession of any official information on that subject.

ST. JAMES'S PARK—QUESTION.
MR. WILSONhaving moved that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday,
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he would beg to ask why the gates between St. James's Palace and the German Chapel were not open for the free passage of carriages; also, why free passage was not permitted to hackney carriages by day through the Stable-yard gate? He considered that it was incumbent on those who kept the two first-named gates shut to state the reasons for doing so. As to the Stable-yard gate, it was open to hackney cabs during the whole period of the Exhibition without inconvenience, and he wished to know what the owners of or riders in cabs had done since the Exhibition to require that inconsistent regulation? He did not put the question to any individual Member of the Government, because any individual might state that it was a matter not in his particular department; and he should not be surprised if he received no answer at all, because the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Viscount Ebrington) had been put off when he asked a similar question. There were, perhaps, about eight or nine Fridays more before the end of the Session, and he should feel it his duty to knock at these gates again, the restriction upon opening which ought not to continue.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a Vote in Committee of Supply that night would give full opportunity for the discussion to be raised. He believed the hon. Gentleman was incorrect in his statement as to the passage of cabs during the Exhibition.

SLIGO ELECTION COMMITTEE.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, it was with great regret and considerable reluctance that he begged to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Sligo Election Committee. An address had been put forth by a former member of that House (Mr. Somers), in which his (Mr. T. Buncombe's) name was mentioned, in consequence of his having undertaken to present a, petition from Mr. Somers, complaining of the appointment of the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth (Mr. G. Butt) as Chairman of the Sligo Election Committee. It appeared that Mr. Somers had written a letter to the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth, asking him to withdraw from that Chairmanship, because of a dispute which occurred between them some years ago. Mr. Somers having received no answer to that letter forthwith prepared a petition to the House, stating the circumstances, and praying the House to appoint another Chairman, as he could not expect impartial justice if the hon. and learned Gentleman was appointed Chairman of that Committee. In his address to the electors of Sligo, which had been published in the Irish papers, Mr. Somers said—
"He intrusted the presentation of the petition to his old friend, Mr. Duncombe, who informed Mr. Butt of his having received such a petition. Mr. Duncombe, after conversation with Mr. Butt, came out and gave a strong assurance that the quarrel would not influence Mr. Butt to the disadvantage or prejudice of his (Mr. Somers') case. Mr. Duncombe advised him against the presentation of the petition, and he was induced to withdraw it, relying on the adherence of Mr. Butt to his promise to act fairly and impartially."
Now, all that, he could state to the House, was perfectly true. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. G. Butt) did convince him that he had no prejudice against the petitioner, Mr. Somers, and he did say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the best thing he could do with Mr. Somers's letter, which he told Mr. Somers was an improper letter, was to put it into the fire, and he should advise Mr. Somers to put the petition in his pocket. Thus the matter ended. Well, the Committee met, sat, he believed only one day, and reported that Mr. Wynne was duly elected; that the petition of Mr. Somers was frivolous and vexatious; and that Edward Killoran and James Ward had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. The evidence which gave rise to the latter conclusion was this:— Killoran swore that he met Mr. Wynne
1092
and told him he was an elector and wanted some money; that Mr. Wynne appointed to meet him the next day; that Mr. Wynne did meet him that he, Killoran said, he was extremely poor and wanted money; and that Mr. Wynne gave him a £1 note of the Bank of Ireland in the street in the presence of many persons, one of whom was James Ward. Ward, in the course of his examination stated, that he saw Mr. Wynne give the £1 note to Killoran, and he further corroborated Killoran's evidence. Nothing had been done to shake the testimony of these two witnesses, and their character had not been impugned. They were, it is true, poor men, but such bribes would only be likely to be offered to poor men. The next witness called was the sitting Member for Sligo, whose seat was in jeopardy. He said, in reply to the questions of counsel, that he had heard the evidence given by Ward and Killoran, and that there was not one single word of truth in it from beginning to the end. Now, the only object he (Mr. Duncombe) had in view was, to see that justice had been done between all parties, whatever might be their condition in life. He would, therefore, ask, in the first place, the hon. and learned Member for Weymouth (Mr. G. Butt), whether he meant to carry out the opinion of the Committee, by moving that the accused parties should be indicted for perjury. If, however, such was not his intention, then he would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the determination of Her Majesty's Government to direct the Attorney General for Ireland to proceed to the prosecution of the parties. It was clear that perjury had been committed somewhere, and a serious imputation rested upon the hon. Gentleman who formerly represented Sligo until the matter was cleared up; because, if these two men were guilty of perjury, the imputation and the natural inference was, that Mr. Somers had been guilty of subornation of perjury. Now, Mr. Somers indignantly denied that imputation and was determined, if possible, to have the case fully investigated. It could not be overlooked certainly as an unfavourable feature in his case, that Mr. Somers had given board and lodging to these two witnesses. His answer was, that Mr. Wynne's agent had offered £20 to Killoran to keep out of the way. Other parties likewise would prove that they had seen Killoran receive the £1 note. Ought such a question to

1093
remain where it was, and ought the evidence of one man who had a seat in that House to overturn the evidence of two men whose character was not impeached? It was attempted to be proved that Ward had once been brought up for drunkenness. He said it was true he had been brought up once, but that it was for making a noise in the streets. Be that as it might, if every Irishman, or Englishman who was not a member of the Temperance Society was not to give evidence before Election Committees there would be an end to their functions. He was authorised to say, that if it were not intended by the Committee or the Government to prosecute those parties for perjury, it was the intention of Mr. Somers to indict the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Wynne) for perjury. [Laughter.] It might be a laughing matter to hon. Members opposite, but it would be considered no laughing matter in the eyes of the public that these parties should go to their homes under the stigma of perjury, when it was the opinion of those who knew them best that they had spoken the truth. He now wished to ask the hon. and learned Member who was Chairman of the Sligo Election Committee, or the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it was intended to move that Edward Killoran and James Ward be indicted for perjury in conformity with the Report, of that Committee?
MR. G. BUTTsaid, it was not his intention, to occupy the time of the House with any vindication of the course pursued by the Committee. Having been unwillingly appointed Chairman of the Committee, a fact was brought to his remembrance that about sixteen years ago he happened to be engaged as counsel in an arbitration case against the Gentleman who was petitioning against the return for Sligo. There was certainly something very offensive in the letter reminding him of the circumstance, and he therefore doubted whether he ought not to take public notice of it. However, upon the whole he came to the conclusion that it was better to let the letter lie by in his desk. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) spoke to him upon the subject, when he (Mr. Butt) assured him, that he had quite forgotten the fact to which the letter referred, while, at the same time, he sincerely wished to avoid being Chairman of the Committee. The result was, however, that he had no alternative but to be Chairman. As respected the communication which he had received,
1094
it was agreed that he should throw it in the fire. He might now state that the Members of the Committee were perfectly unanimous, except as regarded one or two minor points. He might also, perhaps, be allowed to remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe), as a point of general importance, that, by the Act of Parliament, according to which Election Committees were constituted, all matters were consigned to them in a judicial capacity, and, therefore, that the House was not a Court of Appeal from the decision of a Committee. He mentioned that as the reason why he did not enter into the discussion of the evidence taken before the Committee. In answer to the question put to him by the hon. Member, he begged to say that the Report of the Committee was before the House, and that it did not direct that he, as Chairman, should move the House to order that the Attorney General for Ireland should be called upon to prosecute the parties implicated for perjury. The Committee was now at an end, and he had no authority whatever to represent them as an individual. Therefore, he did not intend to make the Motion referred to by the hon. Gentleman. At the same it was, of course, still open to the Government to direct a prosecution if they should think fit. In any event he hoped that no denial of justice would be occasioned by any course which the Committee might have thought proper to adopt.
MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, that as a Member of the Sligo Election Committee, he wished to state that it was impossible for a Committee to have been more unanimous than the Sligo Election Committee had been. As there had been some attempt to cast an imputation upon the conduct of their Chairman, he felt bound to declare that the imputation was most unfounded, for nothing could be fairer than the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman throughout the whole of the investigation. When an appeal was made to him by the junior counsel for the petitioner, for indulgence, on the ground of the absence of his leader, as well as from his own inexperience in conducting a case of the kind, the Chairman freely granted that indulgence, and stated that every opportunity should be offered to him to substantiate the petitioner's case. Election Committees seemed to him every day to be becoming more and more worthy of public confidence; but those tribunals, it could not be concealed, would not long retain

1095
that character if imputations like the present were unwarrantably cast upon their Chairmen.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), or the Attorney General for Ireland, would state whether it was the intention of the Government to direct a prosecution against the two witnesses.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, the House would observe that the Committee had not adverted to the two witnesses as being guilty of perjury. Their language was that there was strong ground for believing that they had been guilty of perjury; and it must also be recollected that the Chairman had announced that the Committee had declined to recommend the Attorney General to prosecute. He was therefore bound to assume that the Committee had good reasons for so declining. If a direction had been given he should have put the law in force without fear or favour. He had read the Report and the evidence, and there evidently was a technical difficulty in the way of instituting a prosecution. The law required that there should be two witnesses to establish the fact of perjury, or that there should be one witness with corroborative evidence of the facts. He had examined the evidence, and he could not find, if a prosecution was instituted, that these two witnesses could give evidence of the perjury. He then looked to see whether there were any corroborative circumstances to depend upon. He found that though Killoran stated that the one pound note was given, he named only one person as being present at the time, and that person was Ward, who was equally charged by the Committee with perjury. Under those circumstances, the Government did not think it right to apply to the House for an order to prosecute the parties, nor could he on his own responsibility recommend a prosecution.
Subject dropped.

RETURN OF TROOPS FROM THE CRIMEA—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished, as general discontent prevailed at the delay in bringing home the troops from the Crimea, to put a question on the subject to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty. It was upon the 13th of March that the treaty of peace was signed, but for some time previously the Government must have been well aware that the negotiations would lead to a successful issue.
1096
Well, they had now arrived at the 6th of June, and, to the best of his belief, not a single infantry soldier had been brought home from the Crimea. He wished, therefore, to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the cause of that delay; for during the same period nearly 60,000 French troops, and nearly the whole of the Sardinian army, had been removed? At the same time our transports had been employed to carry the troops of our Allies. He was aware that it had been stated by the Government that the militia were in the first place to be brought home, and that then troops were to be taken from the army in the Crimea to garrison the Mediterranean stations. What, however, he wanted to know was, why the navy had not been employed as well as the transports to bring home the troops? Last week, indeed, orders were received at Plymouth and Portsmouth for ships of the navy to proceed to the Crimea to bring home troops. But if it was right that that order should be issued last week, why was it not equally right that it should have been issued five or six weeks ago?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, directions had been given that, in the first place, the Sardinian troops should be sent home, and upwards of 10,000 had accordingly been conveyed to Italy. In the next place, after those troops had been taken back to America, which had been withdrawn in consequence of the war, other English troops were to be conveyed to the Mediterranean stations, and the militia regiments which occupied those stations were to be conveyed home. Then the embarkation of the troops to be brought from the Crimea to England was to take place. The number of men who had been and who would be embarked was, in round numbers, as nearly as could be calculated, as follows:—10,000 Sardinians and 2,600 horses had been conveyed to Italy. Up to the 1st of June 17,000 English troops had been brought from the Crimea, and 4,000 from Scutari, making together 21,000 men. By the 20th of June there would be embarked 19,000; by the 10th of July 18,000; and by the end of July the remainder, about 14,000. This was according to most unfavourable calculation, but it was hoped that all the troops, including the Land Transport Corps, would be removed by the 30th of July. Steam transports had been provided for 32,000 men; sailing transports for 9,000. He calculated that 14,000 or 15,000 would

1097
be brought by ships of war. Two line-of-battle ships and six large steamers had been ordered from the Black Sea, three sailing line-of-battle ships had been sent hence, directions had been despatched to the Mediterranean that any vessels which could be spared should be employed in the conveyance of troops, and ten line-of-battle ships, two frigates, and two large steamers had been appropriated to that service. If the numbers had been correctly calculated, 38,000 men would be embarked by the first week in July, the total number to be removed was 47,000, and transport had been provided for 51,000. It was his belief that all the men would have left the Crimea by the end of July.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that, notwithstanding the right hon. Baronet's explanation, he yet wished to know why the ships of war were not ordered to bring home the troops before last week?
SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, that the reason was, that the ships were not in a state to be sent to sea immediately for that purpose.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that six weeks ago he had asked whether any line-of-battle ships, or other vessels, were to go to the Crimea to embark not only troops, but stores, guns, and other articles, including captures from the Russians. He was sorry to say that he only got a brief and unsatisfactory answer, and on repeating the question at a subsequent period, he was told that it was not proper employment for Her Majesty's ships. Those ships were ready to go to the Baltic if the war had continued, and now it was said that they had not been ready to go to the Crimea, although the mere removal of their lower deck guns would have made them fit for the purpose. If the ships had gone after the review at Spithead, they would have been home again by this time. If the hot season should cause sickness among the troops in the Crimea, he thought much blame would attach to the Board of Admiralty for having hesitated so long in the matter.
SIR MAURICE BERKELEYsaid, that he was in a great degree answerable for his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty not sending out the line-of-battle ships at an earlier period of the year, for as a naval officer he was aware how much ships were disorganised by the conveyance of troops. Besides, there was another circumstance which might not be within the knowledge of the hon. and gallant Member
1098
for Bath (Captain Scobell), but was within the knowledge of the Admiralty, namely—that a three-decker was nearly sunk in the Mediterranean on account of the way in which the screw was fitted. Consequently, when the ships came from the Baltic, it was thought necessary to examine all the screws, in order to prevent the possibility of accidents which that House and the country would have deeply deplored. The hon. and gallant Member for Bath intimated that it would have been an easy matter to get out the lower-deck guns of the line-of-battle ships, but it was no easy matter to make room for troops unless part of the ships companies were removed as well as the guns. For these reasons he had advised the First Lord of the Amiralty not to send out the line-of-battle ships to the Crimea, unless the necessity was urgent indeed.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he could not conceive why the Baltic fleet, immediately on its return home, was not sent out to bring home troops. It was quite true that the conveyance of troops was likely to disorganise a ship of war. But last night it was shown that the coastguard men, the riggers, and the "five years' men" had been all dismissed from the fleet, so that the crews of the ships had by that means been so reduced, he considered, as to allow of their bringing home troops without any inconvenience. He might also be allowed to observe, that the screws of the Baltic fleet had been all examined before proceeding there, and, therefore, he presumed, the ships were in a fit state to proceed to the Black Sea. He certainly thought the ships would have been perfectly ready to sail immediately after the review at Portsmouth. He was happy, however, to find that at last the ships had been ordered to the Mediterranean for the conveyance of troops, and as otherwise a great number of them would be paid off, he did not see how in any event the service could suffer.
Subject dropped.

PUBLIC OFFICES—QUESTION.
MR. OLIVEIRAsaid, he would beg to inquire what steps had been taken in reference to the application of £40,000 voted by clause 26 of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Act, 1855, 18 & 19 Vict., for the erection of a new Foreign Office; and the sum of £5,800, voted by the same Act, for the continuation of Pall Mall into the Green Park?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the sum of £40,000 voted, last year was for two purposes; a sum of £10,000 was intended for the purpose of repairing the Foreign Office, and the remaining sum of £30,000 was for the acquisition of property in the neighbourhood of the offices in Downing Street. He had not thought it advisable that the £10,000 should be laid out at the present time, because a Select Committee was appointed to consider what buildings should be erected in that neighbourhood. With respect to the £30,000 voted for the acquisition of property, he could state that a great deal of the property had been already purchased. The sum of £5,800, referred to by the hon. Member, was to be paid for some property belonging to Lord Ellesmere, being the only property between St. James's Street and the Green Park not in the possession of the Crown. The purchase was not yet completed, but the hon. Gentleman, was mistaken in supposing that that sum would be sufficient to open a line from Pall Mall to the Green Park. The cost of such a line would approach to something more like £100,000, and the Committee, so far from agreeing to that proposition, rejected it.

GRATUITY TO THE DISBANDED MILITIA —QUESTION.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to give any gratuity to the non-commissioned officers and privates of the militia on disembodiment? He understood that something was to be given to the officers, and it would certainly be very strange if the men were to be sent home without anything.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that in 1814 the militia were disembodied with fourteen days' pay in advance, and the troops of the line received a larger sum. That precedent would be followed on the present occasion, but the House, he was sure, would see that it was not desirable to place a large sum at once in the hands of men who were to be disembodied, when it was not quite sure that it would be applied in the manner most likely to be for their benefit. The best arrangement, it was thought, would be to consider the fourteen shillings as a gratuity of fourteen days' pay, and that the men should be entitled to the residue of the bounty when they came back to training next year. Colonels would be allowed to expend a part
1100
of the fourteen Shillings in providing the men who were in need of clothing with some; and, as they would take their fatigue jackets and other necessaries with them, those who had taken care of their clothes would be in no want for immediate use.
The Motion for the adjournment of the House to Monday was then agreed to.

SIMPSON'S CRIMEAN SKETCHES.
Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the propriety of purchasing for the nation Mr. Simpson's, Crimean sketches, which were now being exhibited at Messrs. Colnaghi's, Pall Mall East. The history of his bringing forward the Motion was simply this: Knowing the existence of those sketches, and that the collection was about to be broken up, it appeared to him that we should only be doing honour to our gallant army by endeavouring to keep together so faithful a record, made by a distinguished artist on the spot, of their heroic deeds, privations, and trials, during the late severe struggle in the Crimea. Mr. Simpson, the artist, was sent but specially by the Messrs. Colnaghi, for the purpose of illustrating upon the spot the many striking scenes in which our army was engaged in the Crimea. Mr. Simpson went out with every facility for doing so, and received letters to the late Commander in Chief, and other distinguished officers of our army in the East. He had discharged his difficult duties faithfully, conscientiously, and fearlessly, and most ably executed the commission entrusted to him. On referring to the catalogue, he found a paragraph, stating that while this gentleman was engaged in taking a particular scene a shell had dropped so close to him that it had the effect of covering his sketch with mud and dust. The collection of pictures embraced all the events in the Crimea, from the firing of the first shot to the last retreat of the Russians. He held in his hand letters from the Duke of Cambridge, Admiral Lyons, General Simpson, Colonel Steel (the military secretary of the late Lord Raglan), and other distinguished officers, all of which testified to their great merit and accuracy. He had also a letter

1101
from General Sir De Lacy Evans, in which that gallant Officer promised to support him (Lord Elcho) in his appeal to Government to purchase the pictures in question. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard), who was at present absent, unfortunately, on business in the East, had also promised to give him a similar support. With respect to the artistic merit of the pictures, he had the testimony of some of the most distinguished artists of the day—Mr. Stanfield, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Haghe—all of whom spoke in high terms of them as works of art. He now came to the question which was the most important to the House, namely, the price at which they could be obtained. These pictures were ninety in number, and the whole price asked for them was only £1,400—a sum which Mr. Colnaghi had assured him was infinitely less than they had originally cost. There was another point on which he would urge the desirability of purchasing these pictures, and that was, that they would serve as faithful records of the Crimean campaign for the use of the future historian. He had heard that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, when he first saw them, that it was to be regretted, on historical grounds, that we had not similar records of the campaigns of Marlborough. A truthful account of the war in the Crimea was yet to be written. It could not be found either in the letters of "Our own Correspondent," or the Report of the Crimean Commissioners; still less in a work which had been published on the other side of the Channel, with an Imperial dedication upon the title-page. It was to enable a future generation to arrive at the truth that he (Lord Elcho) wished that this collection should be purchased and preserved by the country. A precedent for such a collection might be found in the Palace of Versailles, where, as it was well known, there was a series of paintings illustrating the great military achievements of the Republican and Imperial armies, but they were less interesting than those to which his remarks referred, inasmuch as they were not taken by the artist on the spot, but were in some measure imaginary. If Government were to purchase these pictures they might be hung either at Woolwich, where there was at present something like a military museum, or in the hall of Chelsea Hospital, the only use of which at present was to try, on the
1102
termination of a war, such officers as had zealously and faithfully performed their duty. He had yesterday heard that the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his first admiration of the pictures, was not now disposed to recommend the Government to purchase them, and that he had come to that decision because Sir Charles Eastlake had pronounced against them. Now, although Sir Charles Eastlake was President of the Royal Academy and Director of the National Gallery, his opinion, he apprehended, had no weight With the artistic world. He understood that Sir Charles Eastlake's objections to the pictures were three in number, namely, that they were in water colours; that the price was excessive; and that they had been already engraved and published. The House should, however, bear in mind that Sir Charles Eastlake was a painter in oils, and on the principle "that there is nothing like leather," disapproved, of course, of paintings executed in water colours. He would also remind the House that there were many old paintings executed in water-colours, which still remained in a state of excellent preservation. With regard to the price, he thought it extremely moderate, and he certainly could not conceive that the fact of their having already been published was a valid objection. It was for the benefit of the public that he was anxious this collection should be purchased by the nation. The engraved copies were published at ten guineas; add it appeared to him to be a strange argument to Advance, that because a few persons could afford to give ten guineas for a copy, therefore it was not necessary to have these pictures purchased for the benefit of the million. He had nothing more to add, except to observe that, Whatever might be the opinion of the Government or the feeling of the House with reference to the purchasing of these pictures, there existed a strong desire out of doors that they should be kept together and possessed by the nation. Messrs. Colnaghi originally had no notion of offering them to the nation, and had disposed of many of them by private sale; but, as soon as the idea was suggested that they should be purchased by the Government, all those who had bought any of the pictures came forward and expressed their readiness to give them up for the benefit of the public. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would take a favourable view of the suggestion he had ventured to make, and

1103
feel it consistent with his duty to recommend the advance of a sum of money for the purpose of purchasing these pictures.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he felt that he need not assure the House how cordially he concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that anything which commemorated the exploits of their gallant army in the Crimea was interesting, both in an historical and national point of view, and that, therefore, if the acquisition of the water-colour drawings to which he had alluded would have that effect in any material degree, the application of a moderate sum of money from the public Exchequer would be fully justified. In consequence of a suggestion by his noble Friend, some time ago, he visited the pictures to which his noble Friend referred, and he did so for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was desirable that they should be purchased for the use of the nation. As far as he understood the facts, these water-colour drawings or sketches were made by an artist who was employed by Messrs. Colnaghi for the purpose of founding upon them a collection of engravings for publication. That collection having been completed by the engraver, they were subsequently offered for sale to the nation. Their size was not very large. No doubt, from the authentic character of the sketches, and from their connection with the memorable scenes in the Crimea, the pictures were highly interesting; but after having consulted and advised with very competent judges, it did not appear to him desirable that they should be purchased for the use of the nation. The materials on which they were painted were not sufficiently durable, and the paintings themselves were not of a character of that prominent importance such as a nation would wish to possess as a pictorial representation of the great struggle in the Crimea. Under these circumstances, he therefore did not feel himself justified in proposing an advance of the public money for the purpose of purchasing those pictures.

CHURCH ACCOMMODATION AT PLUM STEAD.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, he wished to call attention to the existing want of church accommodation in the parish of Plumstead, and to the claims upon the Government in respect of property and employment of labour in the
1104
parish. He was unwilling to delay the progress of public business; but as he considered that the Government was bound to make suitable provision for the moral, social, and religious convenience of those whom it employed, when the parochial means for that object were deficient, and knowing that expressions recognising that obligation had already fallen from some of Her Majesty's Ministers, he therefore wished to draw from the House such an expression of their opinion as might justify the Government in proceeding to do that which it was already their wish and desire to accomplish. With that view he rose to call their attention to the present state of the parish of Plumstead, in reference to church accommodation. The population of that parish had, from 1841 to 1851, increased from 2,816 to 8,373 persons, which increase was chiefly occasioned by the employment given at Woolwich Arsenal to such a large number of persons by Government; but he regretted to state that the church accommodation remained without any addition. The present parish church could accommodate only about 400 people, and was situate a mile and a half from the arsenal. It was true there were in the parish other places of worship. There was a Roman Catholic Chapel and a Dissenting Meeting-House. A memorial had been addressed to the War Department from the Archbishop of Canterbury and other dignitaries of the Church, in which a representation was made to the Government of the state of the parish. That memorial stated that the parish of Plumstead, in which the Arsenal of Woolwich was situate, had, since the commencement of the war, advanced from a population of 2,000 persons to 12,000. The increase was represented as being in some degree attributable to the increased amount of activity in the Government works. Nevertheless, there was a permanent population created by the Government works, which was not affected either by the increased activity consequent upon the war, or by the number that would be discharged during the peace. In 1841 the census stated that there were five houses building in the parish. In 1851, according to the Census Returns, there were no less than 1,556 houses building. He was informed by the incumbent of the parish that there were three or four families on an average residing in each of the houses there; and that the accommodation was, therefore, very inadequate

1105
for the population. As he had previously stated, there was no other accommodation for attendance on Divine worship, in addition to the one Protestant church, than one Dissenting Chapel and one Roman Catholic Chapel. The late Vicar stated that he offered £1,500 towards a new church, but all he could get in the shape of subscriptions was £260. Government only granted £100 towards the church, and that sum was so inadequate that he had lodged it in a bank, where it had since remained. The only other assistance the Vicar could obtain was £110 from the Church-building Commissioners, and £70 or £80 from the Incorporated Society. Government had, after many applications, recognised its duty towards the children of those it employed, and consented to give £1,000 towards the erection of schools, the incumbent undertaking to raise £1,000 more. The Government had also undertaken to erect a school in the Arsenal. That, he would confess, was doing something, though they had done it tardily. What the Vicar now wanted was, that the Government should contribute £2,000 towards the building of a church, he undertaking to provide £2,000 more. He based this application on the ground of the Government owning so much of the property in Plumstead. The acreage of Plumstead was about 3,000 acres, and the marshes were almost exclusively owned by the Government. The principle which he contended for was admitted in the case of Woolwich, where £7,000 had been granted for the building of a chapel in the dock-yard, and in the provisions made by the Government for the religious instruction of the coastguard and others in its employ. At Waltham Abbey and other places the principle was also admitted; and he could see no reason why what was now asked for should not be conceded. The principle was likewise recognised and acted upon by private individuals and firms, such as Messrs. Marshall, of Leeds, who had erected a church and schools for their operatives; Price's Candle Company, and several others. The importance of religious teaching in the case of the military, as in that of all other classes of society, would not be denied. Then, let them remember the large sums that had recently been spent in rejoicings for the peace. He valued the peace as much as any one, and did not quarrel with the expenditure for those rejoicings; but he
1106
thought that the Government should show themselves ready to acknowledge the blessings of tranquillity by liberally bestowing grants for churches on their own property. He would now beg to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the circumstances of the parish of Plumstead continue to demand the attention of the Government," instead thereof.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he could assure the House that the Minister for War felt as strongly as any one the duty of the Government in respect to those matters which the noble Marquess had brought before the House; and he (Mr. Monsell) thought the noble Marquess would act wisely if he now left the case in the hands of the Government. The Government were fully aware of their responsibility, and they had not been neglectful of the moral and religious state of the operatives they employed in the district referred to by the noble Marquess. A sum of £1,000 had, since June last, been granted by the Government towards the erection of schools in connection with the Established Church; and sites had been granted for a Roman Catholic Church and a Presbyterian Church, those several denominations undertaking to contribute certain sums. The school in the Arsenal had also been much improved and enlarged. At the time the £100 was given towards the new church a different state of circumstances existed. He could assure the noble Marquess that he would be quite safe in leaving this matter in the hands of the Government.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, that as a resident in the district he could speak from personal knowledge of the wants of the neighbourhood, and while admitting the extent to which the Government had responded to the demands for drainage, schools, and other improvements, he would refer to the liberality of Sir Culling Eardley in the adjoining parish of Erith, who had provided a site and built a church, and expressed a hope that the Government would make provision for the spiritual destitution of the population, which the Arsenal and other public works had brought together in Plumstead.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not quite collect, from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, what the particular intention of

1107
the Government with respect to the claim now before them was. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Blandford) had made out a very clear case; but considering the liberality—the very judicious liberality—displayed by the Government in the case of the Plumstead school, and also bearing in mind the very proper spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had met the statement of his noble Friend, he was led to hope that the Government were disposed to meet in a spirit of liberality the requirement which they themselves had created, especially as they had a precedent in the case of Waltham Abbey. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would discharge the duty which devolved upon them in respect of church accommodation at Plumstead; and after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, perhaps his noble Friend would think it more judicious not to press his Motion.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, he would not, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, that the matter would continue to receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, press his Motion.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

THE EDUCATION ESTIMATES.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was desirous, before Mr. Speaker left the chair, to address a few words to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government. A short time since that noble Lord was good enough to promise him that the Education Estimates should not be brought forward without notice. Now, the letter of that promise had been kept, but he hardly thought that its spirit had been, for he found those Estimates on the papers for that evening. The understanding when the promise was made was, that he (Sir J. Pakington) and his Friends should have fair notice when these Estimates were to be brought forward; but he could assure the noble Lord that until within the previous half hour he had not the least idea that those Estimates were to come before the House that evening. He had spoken to two or three Friends on the subject, and found that their impression as to the spirit of the promise was the same as his, and that the coming on of the Education Estimates that evening was to them likewise a source of surprise.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that, under the circumstances stated by the right hon. Baronet, the taking of the Votes on the Education Estimates would be postponed till Thursday next.
Main Question put and agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. FitzRoy in the chair.
(1.) £40,000, Cape of Good Hope.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished for some explanation of the Vote.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that last year a scheme had been submitted by Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, for the civilisation of the native tribes and the maintenance of tranquillity, a part of which consisted in providing means for employing them in the construction of public roads, the establishment of schools, and other works of improvement, which he considered would be more effectual in preserving peace and insuring the safety of the colony than any amount of force that could be sent out. That scheme involved an annual grant for ten years—to the extent of £40,000 for the first three years, to be diminished gradually in the succeeding years until it ceased altogether. He proposed to lay upon the table that night the accounts which had been received from the colony since last year, when the first grant was made, in which Governor Grey stated that the plan of employing the Kafirs upon public works had been most successful; that the cost was comparatively small; that it was opening up the resources of the country, implanting habits of industry in the native population, and preserving peace and tranquillity throughout that vast district. As a matter of economy he believed that this money was well spent, inasmuch as it afforded the most effectual means of preventing those outbreaks on the frontier which occurred some time ago, and which were not only calamitous in their results, but occasioned a heavy charge upon the finances of the country.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £12,634, Loss on Treasury Commissariat Chest Transactions—Freight of Specie.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he could not understand the Vote, and must beg for some explanation respecting it.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the Vote was composed of two items—£2,634, to make good loss on chest transactions in 1854–5,

1109
and £10,000 for freight of specie, including expenses of shipment in 1856·7. the change in the form of the Vote arose from the change in the form in which the account was kept. At one time the Commissariat Chest account and the Commissariat Vote were managed by the Treasury. About two years ago the Commissariat was bodily removed from the Treasury to the War Department, but after a year's experience the cash fund was removed to the Treasury, leaving the Commissariat Vote to the War Department.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £6,600, Agricultural Statistics.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he wished to call attention to this Vote, for the statistics were collected in Ireland by the constabulary, who, from their habit of life, must necessarily want the knowledge which would enable them to give the returns with that care and accuracy that were required. They were generally unacquainted with agricultural matters, could not survey an acre of land if told to do so, and were utterly incompetent to give a sound opinion with regard to the produce per acre. Under those circumstances he felt it to be his duty to state that the result was just what might have been expected—that those statistics were not to be relied upon, and peremptorily required that the attention of the Government should be directed to the subject.
MR. PALKsaid, he regretted that more Members were not present to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert). It would have been a lesson to them how they dealt with a measure on agricultural statistics for England which would shortly come before them from the other House. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more mischievous to the country generally, and the agricultural interest in particular, than a bad system of statistics; indeed, so far as agricultural statistics were concerned, he doubted the justice and propriety of collecting them under any circumstances. He was altogether at a loss to imagine how it was that those who had so strenuously promoted freedom of trade could, consistently with their own principles, ask Parliament to enact a measure for prying into a branch of industry the management of which they had no more right to inquire into than that of any other interest in the State. At all events, one thing would be admitted, that information gathered in the manner described by the hon. Member for
1110
Kerry must, of necessity, be very detrimental to the country, and to those speculators in corn, to whose offices, in time of scarcity, we were so much indebted for lowering the price of food to the people; and he contended that it was discreditable to that House to vote even small sums of money to be applied to so bad and injudicious a purpose. There was one point with regard to the question in respect to which some explanation was certainly necessary. He observed that the sum of £4,000 was voted last year for the collection of statistics in England, but that it was not expended. He should be glad to know, therefore, the reason for its remaining unexpended, and also if the Vote of £6,600 now proposed was in addition to that £4,000, or whether the £4,000 was to be deducted from it?
MR. WILSONsaid, that, in consequence of the recommendations of a Committee of the House of Lords, a Bill had been introduced into Parliament in the course of the present Session for the purpose of establishing a system of agricultural statistics in this country, as well as in Scotland and Ireland, where the machinery for collection already existed. But the Government had determined not to do anything with a view to the collection of these statistics in England until that Bill had passed into a law; consequently the £4,000 voted for the collection of agricultural statistics in England last year was not expended, whilst the Vote now proposed to be taken was for the cost of collecting statistics in Scotland and Ireland. The Government did not think it necessary to ask for a large sum for England in anticipation of the passing of the measure to which he referred, but resolved that as the £4,000 remained unexpended they would be satisfied with that sum for the present year. It was not proposed, therefore, to take a Vote for England this year at all. With regard to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert), he was compelled to admit, that when last year he compared the results of the Scotch inquiry with those which were sent from Ireland, he thought there were discrepancies between them which were not to be accounted for either by the soil or climate. In consequence, he referred the Returns back to the authorities in Ireland, and called their attention to those discrepancies; and they, after considerable investigation, admitted that the Returns were inaccurate in some

1111
respects, and, as far as they could, corrected them. True, those statistics were not of such a nature as to furnish a perfect criterion of the value of an estate; but they certainly did form a very fair index as to the general changes which took place from year to year in the description of cultivation that went on in Ireland. He could assure hon. Members that much more attention had been paid to making those statistics in Ireland reliable this year than last.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, that in this country agriculturists did not object to a just system of statistics; but they did object to a measure which was most vexatious alike in its schedules and in the pains and penalties it proposed to inflict.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, he quite agreed that a small outlay like that now proposed would be attended with beneficial results, provided the Returns were accurate, and the information they contained could be relied upon—not else.
LORD NAASsaid, he was fully sensible of the great value of agricultural statistics, and bad as those statistics were in Ireland, he believed they were highly valued even in their imperfect state by a large class of persons there. Two of the heads of inquiry—there were three altogether—were very useful. For instance, they got a very fair return of the number of acres under the various descriptions of crops; and also of the quantity and sort of stock in the possession of the owners and occupiers. But with regard to the third head of inquiry—namely, the average acreable produce throughout the country, he believed the Returns were totally and entirely fallacious, and did not supply even an approximate idea of the actual truth. It, however, could scarcely be otherwise; for how was the information collected? Some weeks or months after the Returns had been sent in, circulars were written to different persons in the employ of Government, and also to a few country gentlemen, requesting them to state what, in their opinion, was the average quantity of produce per acre in that particular district. But those inquiries were for the most part answered by the inspectors of constabulary, men who could not have the least idea on the matters they were required to report upon, and whose opinions could only be gained from casual conversations with persons they met at the different fairs and markets. The Returns as to the average acreable produce were based upon those inquiries alone,
1112
and, in his (Lord Naas's) opinion, they were not worth the paper upon which they were written. He would recommend to the Government, therefore, that in future the Returns should be confined to those two heads—the description of produce and the quantity and description of stock, and not include the average produce per acre. The only mode of getting an approximate idea of the quantity of corn throughout the country would be by getting Returns of the produce brought to market.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONsaid, that the acreage Returns were very well done by the constabulary, who were generally the sons of farmers, and very intelligent men; and they were afterwards submitted to the correction of proprietors of land. But when the constabulary came to collect the returns of the quantity or produce, it was very different, and by no means satisfactory.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, the Committee had reason to be indebted to the hon. Member for Kerry for having brought this subject under their notice. He believed that the police in Ireland did not perform the duty of collecting these statistics con amore; that they were rather disposed to look upon it as an extraneous labour forced upon them; and that even if they did the work willingly they were not competent either to measure the size of a field or calculate the produce of an acre of land accurately. As to the value of these statistics, the best proof of that would be found in the number of copies of the Returns which were purchased by the present proprietors in Ireland. He believed, however, that they generally governed their proceedings, not by the Blue-books containing those Returns, but by the reports which appeared in the newspapers, and by the conduct of those by whom they were surrounded. At the same time, he did not mean to say that the statistics were without value; but the merit of them in Ireland was, that no compulsion was used in their collection.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had admitted that those statistics were not sufficient to guide, direct, or control the buying or selling of land; in other words, that they did not give any information as to the effects which the growing crops were likely to exercise upon the prices in the market; and he added, also—and he (Mr. Spooner) agreed with him, that a Return of the quantity of acres under the different sorts of corn—

1113
namely, wheat, barley, oats, &c., in every year, ought to be as accurate as possible. Now, to making such a Return as that, he believed no objection whatever was entertained by the agriculturists of this country. The information would be of a most practical and useful character, and tend to check that extra cultivation which high prices sometimes encouraged, and regulate the number of acres in cultivation; but as far as Returns of the quantity of live stock on a farm were concerned, it would be impossible to come to any accurate conclusion from such Returns.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he quite agreed as to the value of agricultural statistics, though the peasants did not read them. But he should like to know what number of the labouring population of Ireland was receiving wages, and for how many months in the year. That was a branch of statistics he should wish to see attended to. He should also like to have Returns as regarded the improvements of estates in Ireland—the building of cottages for the labourers. Numbers of mud houses had been swept away, but he had not heard that they were replaced by other and better ones. He also wished to know what progress had been made in providing good farm buildings by landlords and tenants in that country. Until some improvement took place in the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland, these agricultural statistics would be of no use to the people of Ireland or the Government. He would suggest, therefore, that the statistics, which cost such a large sum, should include these particulars in future as regarded agricultural statistics in Ireland.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £2,000 British Historical Portrait Gallery.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he should like to have some information about the mode in which this sum was to be expended, as it was the first time a Vote of this kind had been proposed. He would beg to ask whether Government intended to purchase pictures when they came into the market, or whether they intended to employ artists to copy portraits; because, unless they adopted the latter course, there were many portraits in the possession of families as heir looms, which might never be brought into the market at all, but copies of which it might be desirable to obtain for the gallery.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER 1114
said, that this was the first occasion in which such a Vote as this had come before the Committee; and it had been proposed, in consequence of the answer which Her Majesty had been pleased to give to an Address agreed to by the other House of Parliament, praying her to take measures for the formation of a gallery of historical portraits. It had not been decided that there should be any necessary connection between this collection and the National Gallery of pictures, although such a connection might be convenient; but it was intended that this gallery should, in the first instance, lay the foundation for the acquisition of portraits, the chief value of which should consist rather in the accuracy of the likeness and the interest attaching to the person represented than to the celebrity of the painting. Owing to our happy exemption from intestine disturbances, civil wars, and other causes by which the houses of distinguished families in other countries had been destroyed and their collections of works of art dispersed, there existed, he believed, in the Inns of Court, the colleges, the bishops' palaces, the public institutions, and the large country houses of this country, a greater number of valuable historical portraits than any other nation of Europe would be found to possess. It was not to be supposed that any large number of these portraits would find their way into the market, family portraits being cherished beyond any other class of pictures. It might, however, be expected that, in some instances, if a gallery of this sort was established, persons would be disposed to make presents to the nation of historical portraits, and no doubt means would be found, as the noble Lord had stated, in cases where the original portraits could not be obtained, to employ artists who would make correct copies of them, which would form a chain in a chronological series which it might be desirous to establish. He could not say that before this Vote was obtained, Government had thought it desirable to lay down any principle on which the Vote should be administered, but so far as they had formed views on the subject, their desire would be in the first instance to begin with a collection of pictures, which might be contributed voluntarily, merely to form a temporary exhibition, of which the large building which would shortly be completed, at Kensington Gore, and which was the subject of the next Vote, would be a convenient receptacle.

1115
But he could assure the noble Lord and the Committee, that it was a subject which would engage the attention of the Government. It was their desire to administer the Vote in such a manner as to lay the foundation of a collection of historical portraits, which would prove interesting to those who desired to study the history of the country, and would form a supplement to those documentary treasures which we possessed, illustrative of our national history.
MR. SPOONERsaid that, in his opinion, this was not a legitimate object for the expenditure of public money. The taxes levied upon the malt, the tea, and other articles consumed by the labouring man, ought not to be expended upon the formation of galleries of historical portraits for the gratification of the taste of the higher classes. Although the question might be considered a very trifling one, it was the beginning of a new system, and was laying the foundation of an establishment of a National Portrait Gallery. It was likewise laying the foundation of a great expense. He could not give his silent acquiescence to any such proposition. He did not consider that it was a legitimate way of expending the public money. It was not pretended that the object was to promote the art of painting. It was merely to establish an historical gallery of men eminent in science, and who had rendered good service to their country whether in a military or naval capacity. He did not dispute that this was a very fit and proper thing to be done, but the poor people of this country ought not to be called upon to pay for it. Let it be put upon any system that would pay itself. If money were advanced for a time to promote the object, there might be no objection; but he could not give his consent to a proposition that the people of this country should be called upon to contribute towards an historical picture gallery that could be of no use to them, and which it would not be possible for them to enjoy. If such a gallery were to be established, let it be done either at the expense of those who enjoyed it, or, as he had before said, let it be self-remunerative. When he looked around him and beheld the empty benches while they were voting such large sums of the public money away, he could hardly expect any support in any effort he might make to prevent the Vote from being adopted. Nay, he could not help observing the absence of those who were the
1116
leaders of his own (the Opposition) side of the House, and he really felt that they were all neglecting their duty to the country in not evincing a greater watchfulness over the expenditure of the public money. Were he to oppose the Vote, Members who were then in the purlieus of the House would immediately come in and vote against him without having heard a single word upon the subject.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was very glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had taken up this subject in so spirited a manner. The country already possessed statues of the most eminent men, in Westminster Abbey and in St. Paul's; they had portraits of the most distinguished naval commanders at Greenwich and elsewhere, and they were now forming a gallery of statues in the Houses of Parliament. Some had already been produced at a very large cost, and they were considered to be the statues of the most eminent men in the history of this country. [Laughter.] He was quite aware that there was great difference of opinion on that point with regard to some of them. But what he wanted to know was, who were the men who were to apply this Vote?—who were to select the portraits that were to be placed in the gallery? He would venture to say that if the portraits selected by those on whom the duty would devolve were submitted to the House, three out of four would be rejected. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would divide the Committee against the Vote. He really began to look to the Opposition side of the House for measures of economical reform. On several divisions upon questions of expenditure which he considered to be unjustifiable, he had found hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House more friendly to economy than those sitting on that (the Ministerial) side; and he had latterly received from them more cordial support in his endeavours to promote economy. He, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would divide the Committee on this question.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESsaid, that, although the sum now proposed to be voted for a portrait gallery was comparatively small, yet they might expect that it would become greater every year; and that by and bye they would be told that after so much money had been invested in the collection of a portrait gallery it would be impolitic to refuse a further grant to sustain

1117
it. He, however, thought that such an outlay on the part of the country at large, for the enjoyment of the population of the metropolis only, could not be justified. It could not be said that whenever any man distinguished himself in this country—whether in the army, in the navy, or in any other capacity—Parliament was niggardly in rewarding him, both by conferring honours upon him and by granting to him money.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, if he had entire reliance on the taste and judgment of those whose duty it would be to select the historical portraits, he might be disposed to stretch a point and not offer any opposition to this Vote; but the statue of the Duke of Wellington ought to operate as a great warning, both to the Committee and the public, against confiding the collection of a gallery of historical portraits to any particular body of men. It was impossible that there should be an entire agreement as to the proper persons who should be appointed to make the selection; and there would be a still greater difference of opinion, he apprehended, as to the selection of the portraits to be placed in the gallery. With respect to the statues of the great men which had been put in the Houses of Parliament, he must confess that he should have proposed to place there the statues of men very different from those which had been selected. On this subject strong feelings and associations must necessarily exist. For instance, he should have proposed that statues of Pym and of Cromwell should be erected there. He thought that any man who could object to a statue of Cromwell must be imbued with bigotry and party spirit in the highest degree. Many, however, would, no doubt, think the contrary. Again, he should certainly be inclined to recommend Clarendon and Falkland, while others would be for excluding them altogether. This diversity of opinion and of taste must necessarily be, from the very nature of the work to be performed, and from the inadequate resources of those to whom such work would be confided. He, therefore, did not think it was right or proper to sanction a principle which must end in failure. Nobody could undervalue the benefit to the people of having the images of great men placed before them; and no one would attempt to depreciate the magnificent associations which the contemplation of those images was calculated to excite. Every man not utterly
1118
callous to all impressions must appreciate the feelings thus inspired; but the Committee must recollect that they were not legislating for the metropolis alone, but for an over-burdened and a patient people who had borne with great forbearance and in an uncomplaining spirit the weighty pressure which the exigencies of war had created, and that they were therefore not justified in giving away the public money to gratify a sentimental feeling.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the humbler classes would not appreciate portraits of an historical character.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he must beg to explain that he had not used the words attributed to him by the right hon. Baronet. He had said that such portraits would not be accessible to those classes.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was rejoiced to find that he had misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. At the same time he could not concur with the hon. Members for North Warwickshire and Lambeth, who considered the proposed Vote as an objectionable one. On the contrary, he was glad to see a beginning made towards the establishment of such a gallery as that which had been so gracefully suggested by a noble Friend of his in another place (Earl Stanhope) who had himself achieved great fame as an historian.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the arguments which have been used against this Vote apply equally to every collection connected with the arts or the history of the country. Upon the same principle we should have no statues, no paintings, and must confine the expenditure of the country to what is absolutely necessary for the administration of affairs. That has not been the practice of any country which had a pride in itself or a sense of its own dignity, and was desirous of elevating the minds of its people by the exhibition of objects which excited admiration. It does surprise me, Sir, to hear it said that the people of this country will have no opportunity of seeing these things; but surely those who say so forget what happened a week or ten days since, when this city was filled by tens of thousands who came from all parts of the country to take part in the rejoicings for peace. They must also forget the multitudes who thronged our streets month after month during the Great Exhibition of 1851. I really must say it

1119
argues a forgetfulness of a fundamental principle of human nature to declare that a collection of portraits of men distinguished in the history of the country is not an object worthy the expenditure of the small sum asked for in this Vote. Does any man say, who will only examine his own mind, that it is not a great gratification to see the likeness of men whose actions have excited our admiration? It has been said that when we read history it is merely a record of abstract names. You read that a man named Cæsar beat a man named Pompey, but you have no notion of what Cæsar was like, nor what Pompey. But if you see a picture which accurately represents what Cæsar was, or gives you an image of Pompey, what a much greater interest does it excite. In the same way I am sure it will afford to the people of this country the greatest satisfaction to see the features, to become acquainted with the countenances, of men whose actions had excited their interest when reading the history of former times. Then, again, it is said, such a collection will contain portraits of those whom some may consider unworthy of such honour and not deserving of public approbation. Why, Sir, in a free country like this, where there will always be contending parties, those men who are pre-eminent in history must belong to some party, and they will be regarded of course with different feeling, according to the views of each individual who considers them. Some will approve them, and others will condemn them. Now, this, Sir, is a very small Vote. It must not be supposed that we are going to ransack countryhouses to collect pictures of gentlemen's uncles and aunts. That is not the object, nor is it, as the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. Gr. Phillimore) seems to think, to form a collection of pictures valuable on account of their merit as works of art. The object is to get the best portraits of men distinguished in the history of the country. Of course there must be some judgment in the selection, but I trust that not only by the present Government, but by any that may succeed them, the small sum to be annually voted for this purpose will be judiciously expended, and that the collection will only contain the portraits of those who by general assent have played parts in life which qualified them for the honour of being represented in a national gallery. Other countries do the same thing. Every
1120
one must remember at Versailles the great collection of portraits of men distinguished in the history of France. Why should we feel less pride in a collection of images of those who have gone before us, and who, I will venture to say, are not less worthy than the historical characters of other nations to live in the memories of their descendants? There cannot, I feel convinced, be a greater incentive to mental exertion, to noble actions, to good conduct on the part of the living, than for them to see before them the features of those who have done things which are worthy of our admiration, and whose example we are more induced to imitate when they are brought before us in the visible and tangible shape of portraits.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord about the great advantage of a gallery of this sort. The inscription over the Pantheon at Paris, "Aux grands hommes la patrie est reconnaissante," always appeared to him most touching. But he had another doubt, and that was, as to the persons appointed for the selection; for he had heard it said that from their hall was excluded Cromwell, who was proposed to be there set forth in his image as a great man belonging to this country. He certainly was one of the rulers of our country, and one of the greatest rulers; and he, he was told, was excluded from that hall because he was not what was called a king. Now, if the Vote under consideration was to be used to shut out those who were really the honour and the pride of this country, though they might not be legitimate kings or legitimate inheritors of honours, then he should not agree to the Vote; but he believed that public opinion would guide those who selected the portraits, and he should therefore support it.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the noble Lord had, with his usual skill, met objections which he (Mr. Spooner) had not raised, and, at the same time, had answered those which he had not made. His objection to the proposition was, that they had no right to tax the labouring classes of this country to provide a gallery of portraits, which would be of no use to those people, and in which they could take no pleasure. The present Vote was but the beginning; and, small as the sum was, it might, and probably would, if granted, lead to very great expense in future years.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, my hon. and learned Friend

1121
the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) first asks whether it is intended that any political distinction should be made in the choice of portraits for the intended gallery, and then inquires who the persons are in whom the power of making the selection will be vested. Before the Vote has received the sanction of Parliament it would not be competent for the Government to nominate any persons by whom the grant should be administered; but I have no objection to explain to my hon. and learned Friend the principles on which it is designed that the institution shall be conducted. The object is to form a collection of historical portraits. Any one will understand by that, not sovereigns or statesmen pleasing to any particular party—not leaders of religious sects acceptable only to their own followers, but all men, of whatever opinions, who are illustrious in the records of history. Surely that view of the case will prevent any illiberal exclusion of sect or party, and open the gallery to men of all sects and parties who are celebrated in the annals of their country. That is my idea of a national portrait gallery, a place to which the portraits of all men shall be admissible, who, whether connected in their lifetime with Church or State, with arts or arms, occupy a distinguished position in the annals of the past. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) objects to this proposal that we are voting the money of the poorer classes of taxpayers to an object from which they cannot derive any benefit, and this objection he urges on the ground of economy. [Mr. SPOONER: Of justice.] Well, then, of justice based on considerations of economy. I confess, Sir, that this criticism does appear to me to be founded on views of a very narrow description, and I have the strongest conviction that if that hon. Member whom we were so long accustomed to regard as the representative of economy in this House—the late Mr. Hume—were now present, he would not join with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in proscribing a collection proposed to be conducted on such principles as I have described. I would ask the Committee whether it be true that the working classes obtain no advantage from institutions of this kind, which are calculated to diffuse a taste for national history, and to kindle feelings of patriotism; and whether they have not an interest in everything that promotes the
1122
education and enlightenment of the country? Doos the hon. Member suppose that he can draw distinctions in these respects between the working and the other classes of the community? If his doctrine were adopted we should at once have to shut up the British Museum. That institution is, I consider, doubly open to his objections. In the first place, it is an institution from which, according to his view, the working classes derive no benefit, for they can neither read the books in the learned languages nor study the antiquities, nor examine the collection of natural history with which its rooms are filled. In the second place, it is in London, and for that reason it is impossible that persons in different parts of the country should derive personal or immediate good from it. Adopt the hon. Member's view of the question, and not only must we close the British Museum and the National Gallery, but I should like to know upon what principle you will justify the keeping of a Record Office? The State Paper Office must also be abolished. It is maintained by an annual Vote of this House. Does the hon. Member suppose that the working classes examine the records of our ancient history? Really, if we commit ourselves to the hon. Member's narrow notions of economy, I know not where we are to stop. We all remember to have read that in former times the Romans, a nation eminently addicted to the cultivation of the patriotic feeling, adorned the vestibules of their mansions with the portraits of their illustrious ancestors—not as exhibiting a collection of works of art, but as an incentive to noble deeds, and as a means to excite the existing generation to emulate the bright example of the great men who had gone before them. That principle which the Romans followed with regard to their private families we now propose to adopt with reference to the whole community; and I cannot believe that an English House of Commons will lay it down, at the bidding of the hon. Member, that any class of the community—whether the working class or that which is devoted to intellectual pursuits—has no interest in a collection of portraits which will be a splendid record of the great deeds of their ancestors.
MR. RICEsaid, he thought that an injustice was done to the operative classes by the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that they were unable

1123
able to derive pleasure from pictures. He could state to the hon. Member that he had himself presented a working man's society in Dover—a self-supporting institution—with a portrait of the late Mr. Hume, and the gift was highly prized.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must disclaim having ever asserted that the working people of this country were unable to enjoy pictures. He had objected to their being taxed for that which they would have no opportunity of enjoying. He would willingly sanction any plan having for object the establishment of a portrait gallery on a self-supporting principle.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was very inconsistent in complaining that the working classes had no opportunity of enjoying pictures, after he had himself voted for the closing of the National Gallery on the only day of the week available to them for such a purpose.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he rose to support the Vote before the Committee, and to appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) to withdraw his opposition. None, he felt assured, would appreciate such a collection more than the people. Such portraits as that of Watt and other men who had risen from their own class by their ingenuity would give them the highest pleasure, and produce a wholesome effect. He had been that day at the British Museum, and had refreshed his memory with regard to the rules of that establishment, when he found that it was available to the public only on three days in the week, and he did not see why it should not be open every day in the week, except Sunday. While visiting that institution it had been gratifying to him to meet, in the sculpture gallery, the accomplished librarian of the establishment, and to express to him his concurrence in the elegant and classical compliment which Mr. Speaker had paid him a short time since; and as he there looked round on the busts of the Roman Emperors, he felt that the public money could not be better expended than in making the people better acquainted with the illustrious characters of history.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would remind the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, in his Budget speech, that if they did not reduce expenditure he could not reduce the taxation of the country. Now this year they had done nothing
1124
to diminish the annual charge, except in the naval and military departments. When the Income Tax was first imposed, the Civil Contingencies amounted only to £3,500,000; this year they were £6,700,000. Besides, he should like to know what they intended the gallery ultimately to be? Did they mean to have another Versailles? He would take the liberty of reminding the Committee that the French attained to great excellence in that respect at the time they were verging fast upon bankruptcy and revolution. He protested against the lavish expenditure which had prevailed of late years.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, towards carrying out measures for the formation of a Gallery of the Portraits of the Most Eminent Persons in British History, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:— Ayes 97; Noes 28: Majority 69.
(5.) £10,000, Science and Art Department, Marlborough House Removal.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, there was appended to the Vote, by way of explanation, a letter, the second paragraph of which stated that the German Chapel would be taken down to make a public road from Pall Mall to St. James's Park, and that public accommodation would have the effect of causing the removal of the principal class-rooms of the training-school. The Estimate for the new road was the next Vote, and until that was decided he thought the present Vote ought to be postponed.
MR. WILSONsaid, the new road was one of the minor grounds for the proposed removal, the principal ground being that the Department of Art and Science occupied Marlborough House only for a limited period, and must of necessity move to enable the building to be prepared by the time the Prince of Wales came of age. There could be no objection to the postponement of the Vote if the Committee thought proper, but he really could see no reason why they should postpone it.
MR. PELLATTsaid, he thought the postponement of the Vote ought to take place, in order that the Government might consider the whole question. When the proposed removal had been effected, at a cost of £10,000, what did the Government intend to do with the Schools of Design at Somerset House, the Geological School in Jermyn-Street, and other places?

1125
He believed a saving of money and increased efficiency would be secured by having those establishments brought under one roof, instead of being scattered over different parts of the metropolis.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, he should support the Vote, believing the intended removal from Marlborough House to be absolutely necessary, in consequence of the insecure state of the temporary buildings there.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was of opinion that, before the Committee went on voting money for filling up the large vacant piece of ground at Kensington Gore, they ought to have some programme before them as to what was intended to be done with the ground, and what was the probable outlay which would take place. He had heard it stated, on very good authority, that there would be an expenditure of some millions of money, and that he knew was the prevalent impression in the public mind. As regarded the removal, for which the present Vote was to provide, the Committee should remember that it would be a day's journey for poor scholars to go to Kensington Gore and back again in all sorts of weather. He could not help thinking that a great error had been committed in the purchase of the ground for such objects. It was said that the gallery proposed to be erected there would be out of the smoke of London; but the fact was that the smoke of London was blown over that locality during the greater part of the year, and the smoke would damage the pictures quite as much at Kensington Gore as in any other part of London. The whole subject and the scheme proposed ought, he considered, to be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, the observations of the hon. Gentleman did not apply in the least to the Vote before the Committee, which was asked for on this ground:—At present the Science and Art Branch of the Education Department was located at Marlborough House, which belonged to the Prince of Wales, and was required, or would soon be required, for the use of the Prince. The question, then, arose, what was to be done with this department? The Prince of Wales was not going to live at Somerset House; the Prince of Wales was probably not going to live in Jermyn-Street; but would, at the proper time, require Marlborough House, his own befitting habitation. The Committee were not called upon, now to
1126
inquire into a subject of great magnitude and interest, which had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, but which had nothing whatever to do with the present Vote; they were called upon to provide the means by which this department could be removed and placed in a position compatible with the public convenience and accommodation, and he thought they ought to be very glad that they possessed at Kensington Gore a site to which it could be conveniently removed.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must confess that he found ample justification for what he had previously said on the question of this site at Kensington Gore in the contents of the third Report of the Commissioners of 1851, which he now held in his hand. The Vote of £150,000 on account of this site was passed at the instance of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli), and it was declared in the Report that the House of Commons had unanimously agreed to the Vote. Now, he certainly did not divide the Committee against the Vote when it was proposed, because he found that the general feeling was against him, but henceforth he should learn on such occasions not to be deterred from going to a division, even though by gentlemen opposite he should again be called a narrow-minded man, and by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) "an old-fashioned man." In a Treasury Minute contained in this Report, he found the following passage:—
"Under these circumstances, it is necessary to revert to the Vote of the year 1852, and the expectations with which it was given. Parliament appears to have been under the impression at the period of that Vote, that so far as regarded the purchase of land it was final. Had the Government of that day possessed information leading to a contrary conclusion, it would have been their duty to make it known to the House of Commons, and to give the best conjectural estimate in their power of the amount of any ulterior demand likely to arise. It is now obvious that more money will be, at least temporarily, and perhaps permanently, required, and this to an extent even exceeding the first Vote of Parliament, if the entire square defined by the main roads is to be made available for public purposes."
That square was now to be made available for public purposes, and the House of Commons would soon be asked for a larger sum than they had yet voted. They ought, therefore, to be cautious how they gave their sanction to a small sum which might be but the beginning of a series of large Votes. Another question was, to whom

1127
this land belonged? It appeared that the estate itself was vested in the Commissioners, and that the Government and the State had no power or control over it. He should have liked to ask the law officers of the Crown, if they had been present, what power the Government would have over this land, supposing at some future time there should be a dispute, as was not improbable, between the Exhibition Commissioners and the Government? He found in the Report a Treasury Minute, dated February 15th, 1853, relative to the control over this property:—
"Mr. Gladstone informs their Lordships that he has been in personal communication with the Royal Commissioners on the subject, and he suggests that an arrangement of the following nature should be submitted to them for their consideration. If the Royal Commissioners shall concur therein, and shall express to this Board their readiness to adopt and act thereon, then Mr. Gladstone is of opinion that such sums might properly be issued from time to time, not exceeding on the whole £150,000, as may be necessary to enable the Royal Commissioners to pay for such lands as shall be purchased to carry out the plan and arrangements contemplated in their second Report. It appears to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in order to secure that unity of action which it is highly desirable to maintain over property purchased from various different parties, but intended to be applied to kindred objects, the legal title to the whole should be vested in the Commissioners to whom the lands already purchased have been conveyed; but he suggests at the same time that, for the purpose of securing to the Crown the right of general superintendence, it should be distinctly understood that the Commissioners should hold the whole of such purchases, as well those already made as those to be made hereafter, subject to such directions of appropriation as shall from time to time be issued by this Board in respect to such part, not exceeding one moiety, as shall by agreement between this Board and the Royal Commissioners, be set apart for such institutions connected with science and art as are more immediately dependent upon and supported by the Government from funds voted by Parliament; and subject also, with respect to the other part thereof, to such general superintendence by the Lords of the Treasury as may be necessary to secure that the appropriation proposed to be made, and all the arrangements in relation thereto as regards buildings to be erected thereon, shall be in conformity with some general plan which shall be adopted as applicable to all parts of the property, whether such buildings shall be erected from public moneys or by private subscription. On the other hand, Mr. Gladstone thinks it should be understood that no buildings shall be erected at the public expense on any portion of the property, the whole of which will have been acquired for the public by the joint contribution, in equal moieties, of Parliament on the one hand, and of the Royal Commissioners on the other, without first giving to the Royal Commissioners opportunity of submitting to this
1128
Board their objections, if any should occur to them, to what may be proposed in respect to such buildings, whereby a joint superintendence of a beneficial character would be secured for the public over the whole."
Thus the title appeared to be in the Commissioners, while the control of the Government was based upon an understanding. The question for the Committee to decide was whether an irresponsible Board of Commissioners ought to be entrusted with the property in this estate, on which so much had been already laid out, and upon which, without doubt, the House of Commons would be asked to expend so much more. If such a proposal had been made in what used to be styled the corrupt Tory Parliaments of his younger days, no Minister would have dared to adopt it, and no House of Commons would have sanctioned it. It was left for a reformed House of Commons to trust a body of irresponsible Commissioners with a large property, bought, in great part, with the funds of the State, but over which the Government were to exercise no control except, as he had just said, upon an understanding. He had opposed all these grants successively, and he should recommend the property to be disposed of and the partnership to be dissolved between the Government and the Commissioners. He might not live to see it, but, depend upon it, the purchase of this property would involve the country in an expenditure which very few now contemplated.
MR. WILSONsaid, he hoped the Committee would allow him to make a few observations in reply to those made by the hon. Member who had last addressed them. The Vote had nothing whatever to do with the purchase of the estate. The hon. Gentleman was right in stating that the fee simple of the estate was in the hands of the Exhibition Commissioners of 1851, but it was held by them so subject to equitable rights that the House of Commons and the public could control its appropriation. In the first instance, the sum of £150,000, belonging to the Commissioners, had been invested in the purchase of the property. Parliament then consented to give £150,000 more to complete the purchase. When it became a question into whose hands the property was to be conveyed, it appeared to the Government of the day that the Royal Commissioners, having had actually conveyed to them a portion of the property

1129
in the first instance, it would be better that the whole of the property should be conveyed to them, but the Government insisted upon a clear and distinct understanding as to the conditions which should give to the public the proper control over this estate. The understanding expressed in the Minute was afterwards converted into an obligation, which was accepted by the Royal Commissioners. The Government took a legal opinion as to the legality of that equitable claim, and as to the control which the Government would have over this property. That claim was recognised in the Bill introduced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the site of the New National Gallery. The Vote of £10,000 was for the erection of an iron building in an outlying portion of the property, for the purpose of receiving the contents of the sheds and other buildings now at Marlborough House, and which it would be necessary to remove from there.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to ask whether there had been any understanding not to build upon this land except by the assent of the Treasury? He should like to know whether a deed of trust had been executed?
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that every one would admit the necessity of finding some place of reception for the contents of the temporary buildings which it would be necessary in a short time to remove from Marlborough House. The only doubt which he entertained upon the subject was, that he believed that these educational establishments, from the admirable manner in which they were working, would become permanent, and if so he thought that it was bad economy to put up these temporary buildings. As regarded the buildings in Marlborough House, the Committee had been told they were of that nature that they ought hardly to be permitted in the metropolis, and it was a question whether it was expedient to incur any expense in the removal of a quantity of wretched wooden sheds.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had stated that he thought it would be a hardship to take the students so far as Kensington, but when he (Sir J. Paxton) said that the students who received their instruction were brought from all parts of the country, it would appear that Kensington would be a far better place for them to reside in than anywhere else.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would like to hear whether this £10,000 was merely for removing the wretched buildings alluded to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), or whether it was for erecting a permanent building.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the chief part of the sum was required for the purpose of erecting an iron building, connected with an iron building now existing, which had been voted last year, and the removal of the sheds at Marlborough House would take a very small portion of the amount.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had, with a constancy and perseverance which all must admire, made the same statement which he had been in the habit of making on previous occasions. He had invariably stated, whenever these Votes had been brought before the Committee, that it was only an instance of the general practice of beginning by asking for a small sum, which would in the course of time lead to an expenditure never originally anticipated. Now, that was an erroneous view of his hon. Friend, notwithstanding the sedulousness with which he had read the Report of the Commissioners. At the commencement of these operations no small Vote was asked for. The Vote originally proposed was £150,000, the expenditure contemplated being £300,000, and the other moiety of that sum was to be supplied by the surplus shillings of the multitude who visited the Great Exhibition in 1851 in the hands of the Commissioners. That sum had been increased by a Vote of £25,000, for the purpose of purchasing a plot of ground which, from its particular position, it became absolutely necessary to possess in order to carry out the original idea; and, as a proof that the purchase was not an improvident one, the whole of the ground could now be sold at a great increase upon the sum which had been paid for it. His hon. Friend had also complained of the manner in which the property had been invested; but he maintained that it was necessary that the property should be vested in the Royal Commissioners. Now, that had not been done at the instance of the Commissioners, but at the instance of the Treasury, which had made it one of the conditions upon which that department would assist the Royal Commissioners, that the estate should be vested in them. Now, what had

1131
been the result? Why, on the very first; instance in which the Commissioners had been applied to—and that was with regard to the contemplated project of erecting a National Gallery upon that land—and when the question arose as to how the different interests might be defined, they had come forward at once, and said, "From the commencement we have only looked upon ourselves as trustees for the interest of the public; say what quantity of land you require, and we will at once exercise the authority we possess, and convey it to you without condition." The taunts, therefore, of his hon. Friend were not at all justified. His hon. Friend complained very much of the erection of buildings at Kensington Gore, and said the Commissioners were only empowered to purchase land, and not to build. But his hon. Friend must be quite aware of the circumstances of the case. The temporary building, for which £15,000 was voted, was not raised by or at the desire of the Royal Commissioners. At that moment collections of great value and interest were offered to the country on condition that they should be placed in Rome public gallery, collections which, to the shame of the country, the Government could not receive. The rare and valuable collection of Mr. Turner had been left to the country, on condition that within ten years some receptacle should be provided for it; five years of that period had elapsed, and yet it was not in the power of the Government to fulfil the condition on which alone it could accept the magnificent offering. Under those circumstances the Government determined to raise a temporary building, not of wood, not of decaying timber, but of iron and glass, according to the type originally erected by the genius of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Paxton)—the Crystal Palace—the materials of which might be brought into use when the purpose for which it had been erected had been accomplished. But the Government had no site upon which to raise such a building, and they applied to the Royal Commissioners, who, after consideration, gave them that site. He would beg to remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Spooner) that it was the Government that went to the Commissioners, not the Commissioners to the Government. It was no device or scheme of the Commissioners that the country was indebted for a museum which would, he believed, afford the greatest instruction and delight to the people of this country when it was completed. The Commissioners
1132
came forward to assist the Government, and on account of the service so rendered by the Commissioners his hon. Friend felt bound, it appeared, to oppose the progress of this plan. He could not believe that the Committee would sympathise with his hon. Friend in his attempt to oppose this plan, any more than it had sympathised with him in his opposition to the creation of a gallery of British worthies. He believed they would look upon this project as an attempt to refine the taste of the community—a community which was distinguished for great energy and enterprise, and which ought not to be deficient in that refinement and culture so eminently necessary to a country depending, as England depended, upon its manufacturing skill. He was confident that the Committee would take a large view of the question, and look on this as one of the most successful of the efforts which had been made to meet the genius of the age in which we lived—having for its object to advance and refine the taste of the community—founded not upon an idea that it was necessary to establish museums of mere curiosities and works of art, but upon the conviction that it was of the first necessity to a country like England that it should cultivate the taste of its people, and bring to bear upon the productions of its manufacturing skill all the inspirations and refinements of art.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the estate which had been purchased at Kensington Gore was so extremely valuable, and being so, he thought that the best thing they could do would be to sell it. Kensington Gore was too remote from the metropolis for the erection of a National Gallery. Perhaps, as a site for a training institution, the land in question might not be objectionable. He thought it was a strange scheme for the Government to get back, as it were, from the Royal Commissioners a portion of land which had been purchased by them. He wished to know what was intended to be done with Burlington House?
MR. WILSONsaid, there was at present no plan under consideration for building upon the site of Burlington House, but the Government thought it desirable to turn Burlington House to some use, and an arrangement with that object had just been concluded. By that arrangement the Senate of the London University would occupy the right wing for the purpose

1133
of holding their ordinary examinations. The centre of the building would be occupied by the Royal Society, in connection with the Linnean Society and the Chemical Society, on condition that the Royal Society and the Chemical Society gave up the important premises they now-occupied in Somerset House, which would then be available for the increasing demands of the Inland Revenue Office. Those societies had also consented to unite their three magnificent libraries, and the one library thereby formed would be open to any of the public upon the introduction of one fellow of either society. The other wing would be converted into a large hall, which would be used by the London University for their annual examinations, and would also be at the service of the three societies during the season for holding their usual meetings. The Royal Society had consented to place their magnificent collection of portraits in that building, and to allow the public free admission to it. He therefore trusted that that arrangement would be satisfactory to the Committee.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he begged to express his approval of the Vote, as he considered that it would tend to bring the whole of the business of the department together, and in a situation more convenient than the present one.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that, notwithstanding the observations that had been made in the course of the discussion, he would once more declare it as his conviction that they would yet see this sum of £150,000 grow to £1,000,000. It should be a warning to them how they commenced an undertaking before they had made up their minds what they were really going to do.
COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he trusted that he might be allowed to remind the Committee that the site which they were now disposing of would have been very appropriate for the purposes of barracks. They would shortly be in want of ground for barracks in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, for Lord Portman was calling out for the surrender of the barracks in Portman Street, and he knew no position better adapted for the purpose than that now under consideration.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £24,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of constructing a Road through Saint James's
1134
Park from Pall Mall to Buckingham Gate, and a Foot Bridge over the Ornamental Water, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1857."
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he desired to call attention to this Vote, as some important considerations were involved in it, and he thought he should not have much difficulty in showing the Committee that the proposition of the Vote was premature. It was his intention to move that the Vote be postponed for six months, with a view to the reconsideration of the subject of improvements in St. James's Park by a Select Committee of the House, before any expenditure was incurred for that purpose. He feared that if the Committee consented to give so large a sum for the purpose stated in the Vote, they would be not unlikely to add another to that long list of unfortunate failures which had resulted from the attempts to carry out what were called metropolitan improvements. Thousands of persons flocked to Paris from all parts of the world to see the magnificent embellishments which had recently been effected in that beautiful capital. He was aware that it was impossible, in consequence of English institutions, to emulate here what was done in the neighbouring country, but at the same time matters need not be managed so ill as they were at present. The people in this country were singularly unfortunate, for they did not know, on account of the number of Boards in the metropolis, who proposed the improvements, who were responsible for carrying them out, or who were to pay for them. Since he had had the honour of being connected with the representation of the metropolis, he had passed a good deal of his time in endeavouring to discover who were really responsible for the so-called metropolitan improvements. Last year it was thought they had devised an authority that would be a responsible body, hut it was found eventually that it was of no avail. The House had passed a Bill creating the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that Board had declared that they would not undertake those improvements at all, not believing that they had legal authority for the purpose. The country had got a magnificent palace in which the legislative business of the nation was transacted, but they all had the mortification of reflecting that some £400,000 or £500,000 had been spent, not in beautifying it, but positively in disfiguring it, by overloading it with useless ornaments. The present Vote, he

1135
presumed, was founded on the Report of the Committee appointed at the beginning of the Session, but nothing could be more discordant than the recommendations contained in that Report. The Committee agreed to Resolutions which totally contradicted each other. The only point on which the Committee divided and which they carried by rather a large majority, was a Resolution to the effect "that to any considerable increase of traffic in the Royal Parks there were grave objections," but afterwards the Committee resolved that the Duke of York's Column should be removed, and that a line of communication should be made from Waterloo Place to Storey's Gate; and, not satisfied with that, the Committee also proposed to make an opening into St. James's Park from Trafalgar Square by Spring Gardens. Charing Cross might be taken as the type of the struggle and bustle of a crowded city, and yet within a hundred yards of the spot you found yourself midst lowing herds and rural sights and sounds, which had existed there since the time of the Merry Monarch. All this would ruthlessly be swept away. Another Resolution was that on which the present Vote was founded. He thought that no one was better qualified than himself to speak with respect to the Parks, for he was born and bred within a few hundred yards of the place where he was now standing, had been for thirty-four years a Member of that House, and had probably traversed St. James's Park more frequently than any one he was addressing. He had paid a great deal of attention to sanitary matters connected with the metropolis, and he declared that nothing ever done to promote the health of the metropolis was comparable to the benefit derived from the parks now in existence, and of all those parks St. James's was, in his opinion, from its situation, the most valuable. He considered, therefore, that it would be desirable to interfere as little as possible with the parks; but if they stretched along an extended line of country the time must naturally arrive when the exigencies of the traffic would require that there should be some sacrifice made of the privacy of the parks. The two principles, however, which should guide the authorities when that time arrived, should clearly be, the interference with the smallest possible portion of the park, and the affording of the greatest amount of accommodation to the greatest number of people. The portions of the town which required now to be accommodated were those which
1136
lay to the north-west and south-west of the metropolis—all that part between Regent Street and Westbourne Terrace and Netting Hill on the one side, and the Thames and Belgravia on the other. Now, how was this to be effected? By a road through Pall Mall, with various turnings right and left, at acute angles, through the park. How could that answer the object? It would not secure the object, and it would entail great inconveniences and disadvantages. In his opinion, if there was to be a sacrifice of space, in the park, for the sake of an entrance and accommodation, let it be done well and handsomely. Go straight through St. James's Palace. Let that be the point of departure—from the bottom of St. James's Street. The consent of the Crown could be obtained to pass through the precincts of the palace. For that purpose, therefore, let the Vote be postponed. Then let the road go straight out to the other side of the park. ["Oh, oh!"] Let those who cried "Oh, oh !" point out any better mode of communication. He would take that opportunity of pleading, on behalf of those ladies who attended Her Majesty's Drawing Rooms, for better accommodation and a relief from inconveniences which were wholly unbefitting the place and the occasion, and to which they would not be exposed at a common theatre. Lord Ravensworth had well stated those inconveniences in a speech in the other House. He now came to the proposal with regard to the enclosure, and he would remind the Committee that the place where the gamins of London exercised their muscles and strengthened their limbs was not inside that enclosure, but in the Green Park, on the mall, and on the esplanade between the Duke of York's column and the entrance to the Treasury—those were the places where they played their games and "poked their fun." Therefore his proposal would in no way interfere with their amusement. With regard to the bridge across the ornamental water, he did not see that it would be any disfigurement to the park, and if it were deemed necessary, he saw no objection to it. The hon. Member for Coventry (Sir J. Paxton) could no doubt tell them of places where bridges were put up not because they were required, but in order to improve the view; many hon. Members must recollect the bridge at Blenheim which had been erected by Sir John Vanbrugh, no mean authority, evidently

1137
for the purpose of improving the scenic effect. The plan which he proposed would afford greater accommodation than any other to those portions of the metropolis which required better communication than what they now enjoyed, and, when closely examined, he believed it would not be found to be liable to the objections which had originally been urged against it. His object was, as he had previously stated, to have the subject re-investigated by a Select Committee, and to give an opportunity in the meantime for the Government to reconsider the matter, and he should conclude, therefore, by moving that this Vote be disallowed.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he was very much surprised at the course which his noble Friend had taken. The point which was strongly urged upon the Government was the construction of a road from the north side of the park to Belgravia, and, in consequence of the constant demands made on the Government to that effect, a Select Committee was appointed to consider the best means of carrying out the desired object. Before that Committee several plans were laid. One was to make a road across the ornamental water, but that plan did not meet with the approbation of the Committee. Another plan was to make a road through Cleveland Row, taking down the north side of it, through Lord Sydney's House, and through the Green Park to the north angle of the Mall immediately in front of Buckingham Palace. The expense of that plan, owing to the great value of the property which it was proposed to take, was estimated at £163,000; and it was also rejected by the Committee. The Committee came to a Resolution condemnatory of any great increase of traffic in the park, and then came the question how a road could be made from Pall Mall to Belgravia, which would cut up the park to the least possible extent. The proposition embodied in that question was considered by the Committee, and it was carried by a majority of eight to four. The noble Lord himself was one of those who concurred in that vote. [Lord R. GROSVENOR: No, no !] At any rate, the noble Lord's name was down among those who voted in favour of the proposition, and he could not understand how the noble Lord could now express his dissent from it. He supported now that which he had rejected in Committee, and opposed that which he had voted for in Committee. The noble Lord
1138
said he would do anything rather than sacrifice the park; but that plan certainly involved no sacrifice of the park. It opened no new road, and it travelled upon a road which was already travelled upon. It would meet the wishes of the public, as expressed in that House; and it would afford a great amount of accommodation to the surrounding districts.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to ask the Government how they reconciled the plan which was in prospect of fitting up Marlborough House for the Prince of Wales with the proposition now before the Committee to drive a road right through the courtyard of Marlborough House?
MR. TITEsaid, that all that was wanted, in the first instance, by the public, was a communication between Belgravia and Pall Mall, through the Stable Yard; and he could not see why that could not be granted, while these plans were under discussion. If a road by Marlborough House were desired, all that was necessary was to take in a portion of the garden of St. James's Palace, forty feet wide, and 210 feet in length. If they did this they would have a road forty feet wide, removed seventy feet from Marlborough House, and the cost, instead of being £21,900, would only be about the odd £900. There would then be no necessity to pull down the German Chapel, which internally was one of the best specimens of architecture, as applied to a private chapel, in the kingdom. It was built by Inigo Jones, for Catharine of Braganza, the Queen of Charles II., and was associated with many historical recollections; there was no necessity for interfering with this chapel, in reference to which he had received letters from many distinguished architects, all deprecating the pulling it down. Let the entrance to Marlborough House be as it ought to be, from Pall Mall, and all the advantages he proposed would be obtained. Nothing could be more tasteless and ugly than the bridge which it was proposed to throw over the ornamental water, supported upon sixteen poles, and he thought it would be much better to act upon the suggestion made by Mr. Sydney Smirke, in a book published in the year 1834, and to substitute for it a suspension bridge of wire like that which was to be seen at Geneva, and in many cases on the Seine. His proposition was—"That the road from Pall Mall into St. James's Park be so placed that the necessity for pulling down and re-building

1139
the German Chapel be avoided, and that the £10,000 provided for doing so be omitted in the estimate." He believed that by the adoption of this suggestion they would be doing justice to the public and saving the country from a large and unnecessary expense.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that the road past Marlborough House which had been recommended by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) would interfere with the holding of Drawing Rooms and Levees. It was not proposed that the German Chapel should be destroyed, but only that it should be removed. For his own part, he should not be sorry that the matter should stand over for a little while; and that an experiment should be made by opening to the public the existing road. He decidedly objected to the proposed foot-bridge across the ornamental water in St. James's Park. It would cut the lake into two, and materially interfere with the prospect. A much more desirable improvement would be the opening of fresh entrances to the park. There was at present no carriage entrance behind the Duke of York's column, and at two or three other places openings might be made with great advantage to the public. Moreover, the detestable, unsightly hurdles which now disfigured the park would be a disgrace to Donnybrook Fair, and the sooner they were removed the better.
COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, he could not avoid expressing his surprise that hon. Gentlemen who had served upon the Committee, and had taken part in its deliberations, should deem it their duty now to repudiate the conclusions at which it arrived. He wished to know, in the first place, what restrictions were to be put upon the admission to the park—whether carts and omnibuses were to be excluded—because that would make an alteration in the original proposals? It appeared to him, in the next place, that it would not be necessary to expend a large sum in pulling down the German Chapel, because by removing the two gates, as had been suggested, space enough, he considered, would be provided for all useful purposes. The House had decided not to take down the Duke of York's Column, and the President of the Board of Works had stated that the Government had no power to make a road there at all. He wished to know whether that question had been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and, if so, what was their opinion upon it?
1140
That part of the plan which related to the footbridge across the ornamental water in the park was carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, and he did not believe it would be successful. Its construction was bad, and it would be a great detriment to the park. He could not, however, support the Motion for the rejection of the whole Vote, because he thought the recommendations of the Committee with one or two exceptions, should be carried into effect.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that as one of the minority in the Committee who voted against the plan now under consideration, he was anxious to state his objections to it. In the first place, it seemed to him that it combined great expense with the minimum of public accommodation. The best plan, in his opinion, was that which carried a road across the park. The question was not so much how to accommodate Belgravia as how to place the north of London in connection with Westminster and the south. For that purpose the road recommended by the Committee would be of no use whatever, while one carried straight across the park, with a bridge over the ornamental water, would meet every possible requirement. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) had proposed a very good plan, and one which they might contemplate for the future. One main objection, indeed, to the scheme suggested by the Committee was, that it would prevent the possibility of the adoption of that plan or anything like it. Other objections were that it would afford no accommodation except to Westminster and Belgravia, and that it would very much interfere with the enjoyment of the park. Rather than adopt such a plan, he would infinitely prefer to see the Board of Works confining its attention to the improvement of the present entrances to the park. The opening of the gates between St. James' Palace and Marlborough House would afford a vast increase of accommodation to the public, and he was sure that Her Majesty would not object to any measure which promoted the comfort and convenience of her subjects, even though it might interfere, to some slight extent, with the absolute privacy of some portions of the Palace.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he did not understand why the taxes paid by the people of this country generally should be applied to improvements in London, or what interest

1141
the lower classes had in the construction of a road from Belgravia to the north of the metropolis. The civil Estimates had, within the last fifteen years, been increased from £3,000,000 to £6,000,000, and if the people learnt that such improvements as these caused them to pay a double price for their sugar and their tea, he apprehended that they would begin to inquire what was the difference between President and Prince. Improvements of this description raised the value of property in London, but they conferred no benefit upon people in other districts of the country. He thought it most objectionable that the Chief Commissioner of Works should be the representative of a metropolitan constituency. That was the great evil. Last year a sum of £5,800 had been voted for establishing a communication between Pall Mall and the Green Park, but they had never heard in what manner the money had been applied. If such an opening were made the road might be carried along in front of the Palace, and that probably might meet the public convenience; but if a road, to be traversed by cabs and other vehicles, was to be established through the park, the safety of pedestrians, and especially of children who resorted to the park in great numbers for recreation, would be seriously endangered. Under these circumstances, therefore, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Vote.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, he wished to explain how it happened that he had voted in favour of the proposition of the Government. He was unable to attend the Select Committee on the first day of its sitting, and on that day the Committee determined that they would not entertain the plan for crossing the enclosure. He could not, therefore, vote in favour of that plan after the Committee had decided upon it, and he gave his vote for the present plan because he thought it preferable to any of the others which were proposed. He hoped the decision of the Committee upon this question might be deferred, in order to afford an opportunity for the expression of public opinion on the subject.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 192: Majority 122.
The next Vote (6.) £2,570, for the formation of a new road through Holyrood Park to Duddingstone, was agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,184, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1857, compensation to Mr.
1142
Patrick Boyle, on the surrender of his Patent Office of Clerk of Justiciary in Scotland."
THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply to a question from Mr. W. WILLIAMS, explained that the office of the Principal Clerk of Justiciary was a patent office, which at the death of the present holder, Mr. Boyle, would be abolished. Under the provisions of the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 36, Mr. Boyle's rights had been purchased, among which was the power of appointing his deputies, who really did the work of the office, and whose selection would henceforth be vested in the Crown.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know what was the annual value of Mr. Boyle's situation? Without knowing that it would be impossible for the Committee to judge whether the amount of his compensation was reasonable.
MR. WILSONreplied, that before the money was paid, he would take care that all the papers relating to the office should be laid before the House. This was the last patent office in that Court, and by its abolition the officer in question was greatly injured.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanation.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, Mr. Boyle, the officer in question, had the power of appointing deputies, one of whom was of very advanced age, and therefore it was desirable that the arrangement to abolish fees should be made before a vacancy occurred. He (the Lord Advocate) had not a statement of the fees received by the officer; but the compensation had been estimated by an actuary.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he did not see how this could have been an unforeseen contingency, if it had been under consideration since 1853.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he believed a Motion to postpone the Vote could not be put. He would, therefore, move, that the Chairman report progress, unless the Government withdrew the Vote for the present.
MR. WILSONsaid, he would withdraw the Vote.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question, by leave, withdrawn. House resumed.

JOINT STOCK COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MALINS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it had come

1143
down from the House of Lords with the sanction of the high authorities of Lord Brougham, who introduced it, of the Lord Chancellor, and, with some Amendments, of Lord St. Leonards. Its object was to remedy a great defect in the present Winding-up Acts. It was originally proposed that the failing of a joint-stock company should be an act of bankruptcy, that in the official manager should vest all the estate of the company applicable to pay its debts, and that he should have control over the separate estate of the shareholders, making the proceedings analogous to the bankruptcy of a private firm. But those who introduced the Winding-up Acts made them to settle the liabilities of shareholders inter se, and the creditors were left the same remedy as before, with the exception that after a winding-up order was made a creditor was no longer at liberty to sue without first taking a proof of debt into the Master's Office. An impression, he believed, prevailed that this Bill was brought in by some parties to give protection to the shareholders of the Tipperary Bank. If hon. Members wished to continue to entertain an erroneous impression, he could not help that; but he had thought that he would be free from the supposition that he had any sinister motive in the introduction to that House of a measure like the present. He could not be presumed to have any personal connection with the party whom some hon. Members seemed to think the Bill was intended to benefit; and certainly he had no political sympathy whatever with those individuals who had been concerned in the affairs of the Tipperary Bank. He was conscious of the rectitude of his own motives; and nothing but that consciousness could have compensated him for the pain inflicted on him by the opinions expressed in reference to this Bill by some of those whom he had been accustomed to regard as his nearest and dearest political friends. The origin of the Bill was this. On a Saturday, about three weeks ago, Mr. Bacon, a learned and distinguished Queen's counsel said, as he was sitting by his side in Court, that his attention had been called in a marked manner to the evil of the Winding-up Acts, by his having to advise whether the Tipperary Bank could be made bankrupt, and he thought it could not, as the joint property vested in the official manager. He told Mr. Bacon he was quite aware of the imperfection in the law, and he perused an opinion of his learned Friend and a Bill prepared to remedy
1144
the evil. Having in the interim been waited upon by the solicitor who had charge of the business, he stated on the Monday that he was so clearly of opinion that something ought to be done that, if it were desired, he would take charge of a Bill upon the subject. The Tipperary Bank had no doubt given rise to the Bill. The House would remember that Sydney Smith once said, that railways would never be set right till a Bishop was killed; so the evils now brought before the House would never have been attempted to be remedied if it had not been for the monstrous injuries inflicted on a large body of individuals by the failure of the Tipperary Bank. He would ask hon. Members what difference ought there to be made between the failure of a firm consisting of ten members, and of a firm consisting of 100 members? If the joint estate and the separate estate of the ten members should vest in the assignees, why should not the same process apply to the joint and separate estates of the 100 members? But, according to the present law, in the latter the joint estate was only vested in the assignees, while the separate estate of the shareholders was untouched. There was another great difference between the bankrupt law and the Winding-up Act. By the bankrupt law all process against the parties by the creditors was stopped, except by the assignees; but, under the Winding-up Act, any creditor might sue a shareholder, so that he had the means of litigation, and might come in and take the spoil, and a comparatively wealthy shareholder was assailed as it were by a pack of blood-hounds. Now, he would ask, was it reasonable or proper that one principle should prevail in the case of a bankruptcy of a firm consisting of ten partners, and another principle in the case of a firm consisting of 100 partners? Justice and reason required the same principle to apply whatever the number of proprietors might be. It was monstrous that every creditor should be let loose on every shareholder, by means of which either all the property of a share-bolder might be laid hold of by a single creditor, or, if 100 creditors brought actions, the whole of the property of the shareholders might be absorbed in the expenses of litigation. He would now show the working of the present law in another shape. He would suppose a certain number of the shareholders of a company under the Winding-up Act to be possessed of means by which all the debts

1145
of the company might be paid; and that the joint estate which was vested in the assignees was only equal to pay 2s. in the pound. The question then would be, how were the creditors to get paid the residue of their debts? It would be done by making calls on the shareholders. Well, a call of £40 a share had already been made in the case of the Tipperary Bank, and if that were not enough, a second call would be made; so that if there were 200 shareholders, and it was found that the call was not sufficient to pay the whole of the debts, by making a further call those creditors who had means would be made to pay on account of those who were not possessed of any. At present the creditors under the Winding-up Act, although they might he thousands in number, had no representative; and they could not be brought to bind themselves to any particular course of action. The object of the present Bill was to enable the judge or master charged with the winding up of any company to call upon the creditors to appoint a representative, by whose acts the creditors should be bound. Was there anything very wrong in that? And yet he had been charged with advocating a Bill for the purpose of whitewashing some political delinquents. By the 150th clause of the Bankruptcy Act the assignee, with the sanction of the Commissioner, could enter into arrangements with the creditors. Was it improper to extend that principle? The object of the Bill was, without sacrificing the interests of creditors, to afford some protection to shareholders. It was not intended to refer particularly to the bank with which the late Mr. Sadleir had been connected, but it was certain that person was in the habit of visiting Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire in consequence of his connection with another bank, and the result was, he believed, that hundreds of persons who were induced to take shares in the Tipperary Bank now found themselves suddenly ruined. He was aware, that all that those persons possessed must, to the last farthing, if necessary, be applied in paying the debts of the company. By the second clause of the Bill, he proposed that the Master should be enabled to call meetings of the creditors, at which the creditors should appoint a representative, and that this official person should have the power of making arrangements with the shareholders either for payment in full, or for payment in part, giving time, entering into compromises, and so on; and that the
1146
official person who represented the shareholders should have the same power of compromising with the creditors, that the assignee in bankruptcy now possessed under the sanction of the Court. It had been supposed by hon. Gentlemen from the other side of the water, that his object was to release shareholders from their liability. That would, in fact, be impossible under an Irish Act, called "The Bankers' Act," the 33 Geo. II. By the 3rd clause of that Act, from the moment any person became a banker, his estate was pledged to the creditors, and he could not afterwards make any settlement so as to deprive his creditors of the security of any part of the estate. It was decided in 1838, by Lord Plunket, that where a banker made a settlement on his son and became bankrupt, the settlement was void. That principle was applicable to joint-stock banks, so that in the case of the Tipperary Bank, all shareholders possessing real estate were liable to the full extent of their property, so that if he had intended by his Bill to protect the shareholders in that bank, he should have signally failed. Having thus stated the objects of the Bill, he would beg to urge its second reading on the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, in opposing the second reading of the Bill now before the House he felt the difficulty of his position, as his Amendment, if carried, would materially affect some Members of that House for whom he had the greatest respect. There must be also, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, considerable sympathy with the innocent shareholders who now found that their whole estates would be swept away if this Bill were not passed. At the same time the provisions of the Bill were not only injurious but cruel to the small depositors who had invested their all in that bank, and so opposed to the policy of the law affecting joint-stock banks that he felt it his duty to oppose the second reading. It might be true, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for Walling-ford, that it was not the object of the Bill to whitewash the shareholders of the Tipperary Bank, but that such would be its effect could scarcely be questioned. Assuredly there was something suspicious in the unreasonable haste with which the measure had been pressed on, not only in

1147
that House but elsewhere. The hon. and learned Member who had charge of the Bill had promised not to bring it forward after twelve o'clock, and he (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) conceived that he had a just cause of complaint that the engagement had not been adhered to.
MR. MALINSsaid, he must explain that it was only five minutes after twelve o'clock when he rose to move the second reading, and he had done so in obedience to loud calls from all parts of the House.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he must state that he had not heard any of those calls, and he still thought that the hon. and learned Member would have acted more fairly in respecting the original arrangement. There could be no doubt that the reason why the Bill was forced on with such precipitation was that, passing into law without delay, it might be made applicable, notwithstanding what had been stated to the contrary, to the particular case of the Tipperary Bank. If such was not the intention, nothing could be easier than for the hon. and learned Member to introduce a general proviso declaring that the Bill should not have a retrospective effect, or a special one excluding the Tipperary Bank from its operation. With respect to the shareholders in that establishment, there were some of whom it was not too much to say that no language of reprobation could be too strong to mark the sense which the country entertained of their fraud and criminality. Others of them there were who were not liable to such serious imputations, but even they had laid themselves open to grave censure, inasmuch as they had, through their neglect or incompetency, permitted a state of things in reference to the bank which had been productive of the most calamitous results to many industrious and deserving families. No doubt there were other shareholders who had acted in an honourable spirit, and for whom, their fortunes being swept away by the ruin that had overtaken the bank, it was impossible not to feel sympathy. But, on the other hand, it should not be forgotten that there was a multitude of humble creditors—depositors of sums varying from £30 to £100—whose whole savings would be lost to them for ever if the present Bill should become law. These poor people had all the stronger claim on the commiseration of the Legislature that they had no means of making their voices heard in that House. The aspect of the question was twofold.
1148
In the first place the Bill would touch the particular case of the Tipperary Bank, and secondly it would also affect the general law as regarded joint-stock banks. It was obviously liable to the objection which Parliament had at all times entertained to ex post facto legislation. It would curtail the rights of depositors and the liabilities of shareholders. Then there was another circumstance with reference to this Bill to which he desired to call attention. Look at the way it had passed the Lords! Brought in on Monday, it was read a second time on Tuesday, committed on Thursday, and read a third time on Friday. The printed draught of it had not reached Dublin until after the Bill had gone through all its stages in the other House. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Malins) contended that it would not be in the power of the Bill to destroy that provision of the Irish Bankers' Act which gave to the creditor a lien on all the property of the shareholder; but the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to explain to the House the probable operation of the second clause. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) was inclined to think that under that clause it would be quite possible for the representative of the creditors to enter into a compromise or composition one term or condition of which should be the discharge of that lien. His hon. and learned Friend said he wished by this Bill to bind every shilling and every acre of the shareholders' property, but already every acre and shilling of the shareholder was liable to the creditor. More than this the Bill could not give them. It object was clearly to give him less—to serve the shareholder at the expense of the creditor. The assignee of a bankrupt establishment was possessed of the joint and separate estates of the bankrupts, and could at once say whether a proposed compromise would be beneficial and equitable or otherwise, but no such knowledge would be within the power of the "official representative" contemplated by this Bill. Moreover, an assignee would not sanction any compromise that was not approved by a majority of the creditors representing both numbers and value, whereas the present Bill proposed that the representatives should be bound by a majority in value only.
MR. MALINS: I propose to alter that in Committee, and to provide that the compromise shall be sanctioned by two-thirds of the creditors, regard being had both to value and number.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: In that case the objection would fall to the ground. But there were other serious arguments against the Bill. The Bill provided that the representative of the creditors, who was to enter into the compromise, should be elected by those who, at the moment when it was thought desirable to make the compromise, should have proved their debts. It was perfectly obvious, therefore, that this representative might be elected at a time when a portion of the creditors only might have proved their debts—those creditors being persons whose claims were the largest, who could best afford the loss, and who would thus be enabled to bind all those who had not proved. It appeared to him that the Bill was one intended for the benefit of the rich shareholders, and in order to oust, as far as it could, the poor creditor. It was obvious that when you had to deal with an institution which would have its head-quarters in a town or city, you would be sure to find the richer creditors living close in the neighbourhood of the bank, and easily able to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill now under consideration, while the poorer creditors, to whom the loss of £30 or £40 would be of more importance than thousands to a rich man, would be scattered over the country, would be probably in ignorance of the course to be taken under the Bill, and would find themselves under its provisions ousted of their rights, and denied the payment of their just debts. But he would put the matter to the House in another point of view. It seemed to him that by this proposed alteration in the law, you changed the whole system of credit upon which these joint-stock banks rested. What was now the security of a depositor in a joint-stock bank? Why, he knew that there was a certain paid-up capital, that the shareholders had a certain additional amount to pay in calls before the capital was completely raised, and that every mouth there was published in the Gazette a list of the shareholders in the bank, so that the depositors might see in case of failure to whom they were to have recourse for the discharge of the bank's liabilities. The present Bill, however, declared that there should no longer be a list of men who to their utmost shilling would be responsible to the creditors for the debts of the bank, but that it should be a list of gentlemen who might, by collusion with an official manager, by having friends among the creditors of the bank, and by threatening
1150
litigation, induce the poorer creditors to accept a composition, and instead of 20 s., take, perhaps, only 10 s. in the pound. Of course it was in the power of Parliament to do anything, but in the case of a Bill which was to meet a by-gone case he was at a loss to understand on what principle of equity or justice, if any creditor of this bank could get 20 s. in the pound, Parliament should interfere and say, "You have a right to 20 s., but because some other creditors in the bank are willing to let the shareholders off easily and accept 12 s., we will compel you to forego your legal rights and to accept the same composition." On those grounds—looking to the effect of the Bill as applicable to this particular case, and also believing it to be most objectionable—being of opinion that it would be attended with great injustice and cruelty to the poorer creditors—looking at the same time to the general policy of the law affecting joint-stock banks, and believing that it would strike a fatal blow to the credit of joint-stock banks generally, he asked the House to assent to the Amendment with which he would now conclude—namely, that this Bill should be read a second time that day six months.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would second the Amendment. He wished, in the first place, to remark upon the defence which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) had thought it necessary to make against imputations which he said had been cast upon him in reference to this Bill. Now, he (Mr. Henley) had heard of no such imputations, and he thought his hon. and learned Friend need hardly have troubled himself to notice them. His hon. and learned Friend had honestly avowed that this was a Bill intended to meet the case of the Tipperary Bank; that, in fact, it was brought in with that special object. Now, the House had only just passed a Bill which included among its objects the Amendment of the Winding-up Acts, and if this grievance had been so much felt it was certainly very odd that it had not occurred to his hon. and learned Friend to insert clauses in that Bill which would have accomplished his object. The only ground on which his hon. and learned Friend asked the House to assent to the Bill now before them was because he said it was a very hard case, if five or six persons were in trade, and were made bankrupts, that you should not give to the 100 persons in a joint-stock company the same advantages as to those fire or six individuals.

1151
But his hon. and learned Friend did not propose in his Bill that all the property of these 100 shareholders in the joint-stock bank, about which he was so tender, should immediately vest in the assignee. If that were the proposal made, he could understand what was meant. Then his hon. and learned Friend was a great stickler for what he called freedom of contract, but it was a strange sequence to freedom of contract that as soon as men had made contracts and found them to be inconvenient the Legislature was to interfere for their relief. When once a principle of that sort was established—when once Parliament countenanced such a mode of proceeding—there was no telling where it would end. It would open the door to every species of collusion and trickery.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BLANDsaid, he did not think that, as between the shareholders and the creditors, this was by any means a fair Bill. It was a one-sided Bill, which did not, as it ought to do, attempt to put the creditors of these banks in the same position as the creditors of bankrupts.
MR. HUME MR. HUME moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. MALINSsaid, he should be sorry to take a division at that hour, after his having given an assurance that he would not proceed with the Bill after Twelve o'clock, and therefore he would accede to the Motion for adjournment.
Debate adjourned.

ANNUITIES REDEMPTION.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must beg to state in reference to this measure that in 1853 a number of charges then paid out of the gross revenue was transferred to the Votes in Supply, and certain hereditary pensions were bought up, and paid for out of the gross revenue. Four of these purchasable pensions still remained, but it was considered advisable to pay for them out of the gross revenue, and the object of the Bill he was about to bring in was to transfer the cost to the Consolidation Fund. Three of the pensions were for £1,000 a
1152
year each, and the other for £375 a year, and they would be all specifically referred to in the Bill.
House resumed.
Resolved—"That it is expedient to redeem certain Annuities charged on Branches of the Gross Revenue, by payments out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."
Resolution to be reported on Monday next.
House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sleeping Statutes. 2a Drafts on Bankers; Public Health Supplemental.
3a Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords).

LORD DENMAN AND THE PRESS.
LORD DENMANcomplained that he had been misrepresented by a leading journal in the statement that he had greatly praised the present Limited Liability Bill, whereas his remarks solely applied to the Bill before the House last Session. If he were not so insignificant an individual, he should really think himself an object of dislike to the paper in question, for in February 1854, he addressed a letter to the "Standard" respecting the leading article in The Times on the deafness of Lord Rokeby, after which a letter was inserted in the first edition of The Times, which edition he scarcely ever saw (and it was withdrawn from the second edition on account of the proved exaggeration of the statement), so that taking the second edition he had not seen it for some time; but still he bore no malice to the publication, and continued to take it in, until he saw a flippant report from the correspondent in the Crimea, noticing in a marked manner Lord Rokeby's attending at the representation of "Deaf as a Post," and he could stand it no longer, and discontinued taking in the paper. This same afterwards-suppressed letter had accused him of ignorance of acoustics from not knowing that in a railway carriage any deaf person can hear better than in a quiet room; whereas he had written, that when the "vile guns roared" Lord Rokeby would hear the faintest whisper. He added, that it (coming from the Reform Club) had treated him with the utmost contempt, and doubted about the "Standard," to which his father had often contributed with a benevolent design. He went on to say, that when journals for a political object misrepresented the truth, they might well be reminded of a Canadian journal which, in the time of Lord Metcalfe, had suffered for speaking the truth, and read an extract, premising that it was the object of a party to have the word "your" substituted for "our" as to the Governor's imagined secession from his post:—
"So much importance is attached by the party to a general belief among their followers of the certainty of that occurrence, that in the French

1055
paper the Minerve, the organ of that party, those passages of my speech at the close of the session which contained the words 'our next meeting,' and 'until we meet again,' are translated so as to convert those words into 'your next session,' and 'until your return.' Another French paper, the Aurore, noticed the mistranslation and exposed the design, But the Aurore is excommunicated, and the Minerve is the only paper read to the mass of the French Canadians."—Life of Lord Metcalfe, vol. ii. p. 570.
The gentlemen behind the clock alluded to by a noble Earl the other night in the debate on Indian affairs were not bound to report him at all, but if they did so they should adhere to truth; and if journals could be discommons-ed for speaking the truth, surely they might be treated like dishonest Oxford tradesmen if they wilfully persisted in falsehood; and the same journal has never expressed the slightest regret for the misrepresentation as to the number of troops to be sent with Sir W. Eyre to Montreal, which has caused two million dollars to be raised for war preparations in the United States; and he could only close these rather desultory remarks by reminding the organs of information that "Magna est veritas et prœvalebit."

DRAFTS ON BANKERS' BILL.
LORD MONTEAGLE LORD MONTEAGLE moved the second reading of this Bill, which had been passed through the other House unanimously, and had received the support of persons of the greatest experience in the commercial world. He had not, however, taken charge of it until he had consulted some of his noble and learned Friends, and found there was no objection to it on their part. As their Lordships were aware, a custom had grown up of crossing cheques with the name of a banker, which was supposed to give a certain degree of security; but a recent decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had shown that feeling to be a fallacy. The object of the Bill was to legalise the custom, and enact that cheques so crossed should not be paid, except through a banker.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had not the smallest objection to the Bill, which he thought would prove very harmless, and which he believed had, in the first in instance, been occasioned by a decision which he had given in the Court of Queen's Bench upon the subject of crossed cheques. The Bill did not affect that decision, but it would afford a limited security against a too easy negotiation of drafts, because it provided that the bearer or drawer of a
1056
draft on a banker might write "and Co." across it, in which case it would only be payable to a banker; but, at the same time, there was no doubt that the draft would be negotiable in the same way as any other security for money.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was very glad that no opposition was offered to this Bill, which would, he believed, prove of great service by affording that limited check to which his noble and learned Friend had referred against the too great circulation of bills.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH ON WOMEN— QUESTION.
LORD ST. LEONARDS, in rising to put the Question of which he had given notice—Whether Her Majesty's Government intended to bring in any Bill to abolish the punishment of death as regarded women?—desired to explain that he did not ask the question with any desire of suggesting to the Government to bring in any such measure, which, on the contrary, he should certainly oppose to the utmost, if it were introduced; neither did he wish to quarrel with the right of the Crown to exercise its prerogative as had been done in two recent cases. But the question had been suggested by what had taken place with reference to two women who had recently been convicted for most atrocious murders of their own illegitimate offspring. The feeling of the public certainly was that justice had not been done in those cases. Upon the evidence, more atrocious murders never had been committed. One of these cases was of a peculiarly horrible character, for a girl of ten or twelve years old had been cruelly murdered, under circumstances the most revolting, by her own mother, who had entrapped her down into a cellar, and had there committed the revolting crime. If ever a case was calculated to excite horror this was that case. Now, if the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) could state that these women had been allowed to escape the punishment of death on account of any particular circumstances which had induced the Crown to extend the prerogative of mercy, he had not a word to say; but, from want of any information on that point, as far as the public knew, the perpetrators of two of the most atrocious murders ever committed in this country had been pardoned

1057
without any sufficient reason. There might have been extenuating circumstances in those cases, which had satisfied the advisers of the Crown that the last punishment of the law ought not to be carried into effect. But if they had been relieved from the penalty of death merely because the Government had an opinion that the sentiment of the country was against exposing women to public execution, let it be stated; the exact state of the case would then be known, and he should have something to say on the subject. Such a course would practically involve an abrogation of the law as regarded women. It would be annulling the law of the land by the authority of the Crown, and not an exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and it would lead to the most frightful consequences, if it were understood that in future female murderers were to escape the penalty of death. It would be extremely satisfactory, therefore, to hear upon what grounds the sentences on these women had been commuted. If the sole reason were any supposed feeling as to the indecency of executing women in public, then, although he desired to express no opinion as to the propriety of private executions—being a Member of the Committee of their Lordships' House upon the subject, he should think it would be better to execute women in private than to let it be understood that they were not to be executed at all.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, in answer to the question which had been put by the noble Lord with so much propriety, he had to state that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in any Bill proposing any such change in the law as he had referred to; and it was not the intention of the Government, in all cases, to extend the prerogative of mercy to women convicted of murder. He was glad to hear the noble Lord lay it down so clearly, that the exercise of the prerogative was not to be canvassed in either House of Parliament. But he had to state, as to the particular cases referred to, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had given due consideration, not only to these cases, but to others in which the prerogative of mercy had been exercised; and had come to the conclusion that it was his duty to recommend to the Crown that the sentences of death should be suspended. He would add, that in conformity with the ordinary practice, his right
1058
hon. Friend had left a statement of the circumstances of these cases in writing for the information of his successor in the office.
LORD CAMPBELLagreed with the noble Earl as to the inconvenience of Parliament discussing, in each particular case, the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Department had for many years discharged the duties of that office with the greatest ability and impartiality, as had also Mr. Waddington, the, Under-Secretary. He should very much regret if it should be supposed that it was the determination of the Government not to carry the sentence of death into execution in any case in which a woman was convicted of murder—an opinion which was widely prevalent—and he now heard, therefore, with much satisfaction, that no such rule had been laid down. The first person upon whom it had been his painful duty to pass sentence of death happened to be a woman, who went by the name, in the county where she lived, of "Sally Arsenic," and she had murdered he knew not how many persons before the case could be satisfactorily brought home to her. She had attained such a consummate skill in the crime, and apportioned the doses with such nicety and minuteness that it was impossible to trace the death directly to the poison, and it became necessary, therefore, to indict her not for wilful murder, but for administering poison with intent to murder. Upon this indictment she was found guilty and executed. At the time of her trial the practice of poisoning by arsenic had become frightfully common in the county where she lived, but he believed that since her execution it had entirely ceased. To lay down the rule, therefore, that no woman should suffer the last sentence of the law would, in his opinion, lead to most disastrous consequences, because, unhappily, we knew from history that women had been driven to the detestable crime of poisoning quite as frequently as the other sex. He had heard with satisfaction from his noble Friend the President of the Council that it was in consideration of the special circumstances of the two cases which had been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonard's) that the prerogative of mercy had been exercised; and he had no doubt, from what he knew of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and of the Under-Secretary, that extenuating

1059
circumstances had been discovered in those two cases, and that the prerogative had been rightly exercised. He was glad to hear that there was no intention to alter the law of the land upon this subject.

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION (HOUSE OF LORDS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE QUEEN'S consent signified.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I am sensible that to object to a Bill for the first time at its third reading is both irregular and inconvenient; but in the present case no option has been afforded me, for although the measure now before the House is the most important that has ever been brought under its consideration, affecting as it does the very principle of its constitution, it has been introduced and carried to its present advanced stage with such unusual celerity, that I have been deprived of the possibility of expressing my opinion upon it earlier. The Report of the Select Committee upon which it is founded having only been issued, and unaccompanied by the evidence, on last Saturday week, I felt assured that the House would have been allowed time to consider the important question it dealt with along with the evidence taken upon it before any further legislative proceeding, and in confidence of this ventured to absent myself, not certainly on Parliamentary duty, but to attend for a few days the Paris Cattle Show. What, however, was my astonishment at learning on last Monday night at Paris, that not only had the present Bill been presented to your Lordships, but that on the previous Friday, within a week of the first issue of the Report, and before its re-issue with the evidence, the House had given it a second reading, and that it was to be committed on the ensuing Tuesday! Under these circumstances it was manifestly impossible for me to record a vote, or express an objection against the Bill or any of its provisions before its arriving at its present stage, I therefore trust I may claim the indulgence of your Lordships for a very few minutes. While, my Lords, I regret, and have, I think, some reason to complain of the apparent precipitation with which the Bill has been hitherto carried forward, I am free to admit that it has met with a very marked acceptance on the
1060
part of the House, and that it has come recommended by a very high weight of authority, for undoubtedly the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of the appellate jurisdiction of this House was chosen with the utmost impartiality, and included, from both sides of the House, Peers of the greatest experience, learning, and influence, and to whose judgment in general the utmost deference is due; but deference has its limits, and may not be yielded against conviction. With an earnest desire to concur in the general feeling of the House in favour of this Bill, I can, truly say that I have examined most carefully into the reasons by which it has been supported; but, admitting the importance of improving the appellate jurisdiction and retaining it in this House in the manner the most satisfactory to the public, I see nothing in the case to call for or warrant the institution of life peerages. It is a proposition at direct variance with a recent Resolution of your Lordships, and with every respect for the high authorities who have united in recommending it, I cannot but regard it as a practical abandonment of the prescriptive title by which the Barons of England have been ever hitherto regarded as the hereditary counsellors of the Crown, and the hereditary guardians of the constitutional liberties of the people. I therefore desire to decline any share in the responsibility of such a measure. It has been represented to me that the peerages for life are to be limited to four, and that the Act will therefore be a restriction upon the Crown against the exercise of any real or supposed prerogative in conferring such dignities upon any greater number; but is that the opinion of those Members of Her Majesty's Government who prepared the Bill? Unless newspaper reports have done great injustice to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, he stated to your Lordships that the Royal prerogative had been left untouched, and another noble Lord (a noble Marquess, not now in his place), declared that the Bill would not have had his support if it contained anything binding upon | the future action of the Crown. Therefore, according to the views of those noble Lords by whom the Bill is offered for your acceptance, it must, notwithstanding any seeming limitation to the number of four,—it must still rest with the discretion of Ministers of the Crown to advise or not, as they may think proper, the creation of any greater number of life peerages. Why

1061
not leave the question as it was settled by the late Resolution of the House? What necessity is there for raising in this Bill any question about life peerages? There is nothing in the preamble to justify it, and the improvement of the appellate jurisdiction may be equally well obtained by its omission. Not only is the Bill silent as to any reason for the institution of life peerages, but the Committee, while recommending them in the Report, do not venture to assign the reasons on which they found their recommendation; it is only to be gathered from the evidence of Mr. Malins that an apprehension had been created in the minds of the Committee that, unless the peerages conferred upon eminent lawyers were limited to their own lives, there might be a danger of their successors being very poor Peers, as in the present practice of the law it was difficult to amass large fortunes. I do not think his evidence fully bears out that view of the case, nor, if the fact were even so, does it appear to me that wealth is a necessary qualification for the peerage. The lawyer, who has not been able to earn by his profession what may be termed a competency, would probably not be a man of that professional eminence that would point him out for advancement; but a lawyer whose abilities and learning have brought him into notice is commonly well rewarded by his practice, and in a position, after attaining to the bench, to make ample provision for his family. When it is proposed to elevate those to the peerage who have held high judicial offices, it is probable that such persons would be found, if not in affluent circumstances, possessed, at all events, of fortune sufficient for independence and respectability; and, if appointed to the offices now proposed, of Lords of Appeal in this House, the handsome salaries designed for them, which are not given for the purpose of mounting grand establishments and giving expensive entertainments, but simply as the due reward of public service, would go far towards making provision for those who might come after them in hereditary succession. But if the possible succession of a poor man to a peerage is an evil of such magnitude as to guard against it in the case of peerages held by Law Lords, you cannot stop there. Is there no danger, my Lords, of the introduction of poor Peers by the spendthrift habits of any of the sons of Peers already created? or of such as may be hereafter created with hereditary peerages,
1062
or even arising from the improvidence of existing Peers? These are cases quite as necessary to guard against as those of peerages conferred for judicial services. Desirable, however, as no doubt it is, that the Members of this House should be persons independent in point of income, and possessed of that real property that may give them a direct interest in the well-being of the country, and enable them to exercise a wholesome influence in their respective districts, there are other qualifications for a legislator quite as important, and the argument for life peerages would equally, if not more forcibly apply to insure this House against the admission of persons unworthy of the privileges or unfitted for the duties of Membership from incapacity, want of education, or from immorality of character. If the present constitution of this House is to be altered by legislation, public opinion will not ratify a measure which provides merely an inadequate security against the inheritance of peerages by persons of small fortune. Innovation cannot stop here, and should the principle of granting life peerages go further, what becomes of the independence of the House? With its independence its influence would be lost, and the abandonment of the principle of hereditary succession in the peerage may even imperil its continuance in the Crown. I cannot pass over another objection which the provisions of this Bill have presented to my mind,—your Lordships can hardly have considered in what position you are proposing to place the most highly qualified Members of the House. Surely, when peerages are granted to men whose learning and abilities have been tested by their having filled the highest judicial offices in the land, and who have been selected on that very account, the dignities conferred upon them should not be in any sense inferior to those of the rest of the peerage, yet from the tenor of the Bill it is manifestly designed that the non-hereditary peerage is invented for those only who are learned in the law. I am, I confess, surprised that such a measure should come before your Lordships recommended and approved of by noble and learned Lords. The legal profession will regard it as a very bad compliment, and I should doubt that, except for the sake of the salary proposed for the Lords of Appeal, any person of real eminence would accept a title upon such conditions. The Bill, I may further observe, is open to the objection

1063
of not providing for any rights of precedence, incident to the life peerage, for the Peer's family; these, though of little comparative value, are not without their importance, and should not be left in doubt. I will not longer trouble your Lordships by urging objections to the Bill, which I am aware must at this stage be unavailing. While I appreciate the importance of having the appellate jurisdiction improved, I cannot regard it as otherwise than most unfortunate that, without any necessity, a most dangerous innovation should have been proposed in the constitution of the House. Practically, the appellate jurisdiction has long since been exercised only by Law Lords, and it may be said to have been formally transferred to them when, in 1844, after the Twelve Judges had expressed their opinions upon the writ of error in the case of the Queen v. O'Connell, the lay Peers, who had formed their judgments upon the opinions then delivered, at the suggestion of Members of their own body consented not to vote, and left the case in the hands of the few Law Lords present. I do not think, under the circumstances, that the House has any great interest in retaining a jurisdiction merely nominal as regards the great body of the Lords, and if it cannot be retained and improved without abandoning the principle of hereditary succession in the peerage, it is better, far better, that it should be given up. I shall conclude, merely observing, that my chief object in now addressing your Lordships has been, for so humble a Member of the House could not hope to do more, to relieve myself from the responsibility of assenting to a measure which I deem to be fraught with danger to the constitution and future independence of this branch of the Legislature.
Amendment moved to leave out "now" and insert "this Day Six Months."
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. He had listened with much attention and respect, in the last autumn, to an explanation by a noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) as to the true state of the House as a Court of Appeal, in answer to certain reflections thrown upon it by the Solicitor General; and he now must comment upon the evidence before the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, which appeared to state that there was no faith to be given to appellate Judges, because they walked like Peripatetic philosophers, and to declare that all the wisdom
1064
was in the wig. He would first, however, read an extract from a letter from his, Father to himself, respecting the O'Counell case, as to which case Sir Fitzroy Kelly, in his evidence before the Select Committee on their Lordships' Appellate Jurisdiction, had said:—
"There was scarcely an individual at, the Bar of England, or in the country, who really watched and understood the course of that proceeding, who was not perfectly satisfied that if, instead of Mr. O'Connell, the appellant in that case had been some factory agitator, in a low class of life, from Lancashire or Yorkshire, the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, in Ireland, would have been affirmed almost without argument."
Now, it so happened that the late Lord Chief Justice wrote to him, on September 19th, 1844, as follows, in reference to the O'Connell Judgment, in answer to a letter from him:—
"And now I must thank you for your remarks on the great case, I am very glad you take the same view of it that I do, and feel the value of your testimony, that I should have said the same, if the case had come on under the most ordinary circumstances. I take some credit for my decided line on the jury question, which must check a most mischievous practice, and will probably lead to the reform of monstrous abuse now established and growing in Ireland. I have received information to this effect from a trust-worthy quarter at Dublin. I am highly amused with the respectable Tory Editor, who laughs at the crotchet of trial by jury; but what does he say to his compatriot Judge, whose language was ten times stronger than mine.
"The second point, at first sight, appears to be merely technical, but in truth it goes directly to the security of public justice, and I believe the profession to have become nearly unanimous on that doctrine, throwing aside their first impressions for the opposite opinion, as soon as they really examined the authorities. I have revised the report of what I said, and shall direct a copy to be sent from the House of Lords to you."
He did not believe that their Lordships, would attribute less impartiality to the other noble and learned Lords, and reminding their Lordships that Lord Wharn-cliffe requested the lay peers to abstain from voting, "in order to preserve the appellate jurisdiction of the House;" and that the Earl of Stradbroke would have voted if a noble Marquess had not prevented his doing so, solely on account of his and other noble Lords not having heard the whole of the argument in the case. His Father addressed their Lordships (more strongly than he otherwise would have done, which he afterwards regretted), believing that they would exercise their right to vote; and what did he say relative to the opinion of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), who now,

1065
in spite of extreme old age, treats all subjects, especially the present one, with incomparable vigour?—
"I heard my noble and learned Friend (said the late Lord Chief Justice) with the admiration I always do, when he laid down the rule on this subject. Whether, in point of principle, certain cases were good law, assuming that they ought to be rejected, if proved to be founded on mistake; nor did any one impugn the right and the duty to examine the legal proposition.
"He reminded your Lordships that you are not bound to do more than respect in the highest degree, and consider with the utmost care, the opinions which may be given to you by the Judges. But you have a duty of your own to perform. Your consciences are to be satisfied; your privilege affords you the assistance of the most learned men living: but your duty forbids you to delegate your office to them."
The next case mentioned by the late Lord Chief Justice involved a like principle, and the termination of it reminded him (the present Lord Denman) of one of the subjects of grievance laid hold of by the Solicitor General last autumn, and in his evidence; namely, the so-called grievance of the Court being divided, and the judgment of the Court below being thereby affirmed. The late Lord Chief Justice goes on:—
"Did my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) feel himself fettered by this unanimous opinion of the present luminaries of Westminster Hall? By a most powerful argument he sought to overthrow their conclusion, and strenuously exhorted your Lordships to dissent from it. Nor did he stand alone; others among us concurred with him in holding the former principles to be just, and the reasoning of all my learned brethren to be insufficient to confute them. Your Lordships have not forgotten the termination of that case. Those of your Lordships who took a part in the discussion were equally divided, the consequence of which was, that the judgment of the Court below stood affirmed, deciding against the dicta of those most venerable and distinguished individuals."
Those great authorities were, Lords Mansfield, Ellenborough, Kenyon, Tenterden, Lord Chief Justice Gibbs, and other learned Judges, and Lord Stowell, on the subject of marriage, and not the slightest surprise escaped his father's lips on such a course of proceeding, as affirming the judgment of the Court below, on the Law Lords being equally divided, although it Was in so grave a case.
But there is a heavy charge against the noble and learned Lord (St. Leonards) as to the case of Shortridge v. Bosanquet. Mr. Solicitor General declares in his evidence that he spoke a whole day opening the case in that noble and learned Lord's absence, and that judgment was given by
1066
him without hearing or knowing anything of the leading counsel's opening address; but the evidence of Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. Charles Clarke proves that the opening was very short, lasting only two hours (which is proved by a reference to the record of the time which speeches take, being always made), while the speech was so unimportant that the junior had taken no note of it, though the noble and learned Lord tried to obtain one, and no one at the time made the slightest complaint of the case (with which the noble and learned Lord confessedly took great pains) not being fully understood. Perhaps an adverse judgment may have elicited this imaginary dissatisfaction.
Much of the evidence before the Select Committee shows great contentment with the present appellate jurisdiction; and if their Lordships would only apply the means in their power of judging—either as a sort of grand jurymen or as lay assessors, hearing the whole of every case—they would form such a Court of Appeal as the world has not seen. Vice Chancellor Stuart, in his evidence before the Select Committee, alleges that he cannot conceive a case in which their Lordships are not capable of doing justice. Such men as the first Lord Wharncliffe, who was considered equal to a Judge, and Lord Lauderdale, who was brought up to the Bar, and as an appellate Judge highly praised by Lord Eldon, still existed among them; and the rising generation might emulate such honours by a legal education. Though he was not bound to say anything in praise of the Lord Chancellor (who has a leaning to the decision of a single Judge of Appeal), he must do him the justice to say that, although an equity lawyer, he thoroughly mastered the difficulties of the common law and of the criminal law, and that he may easily surmount any remaining impediments to his thorough acquaintance with Scotch law. Too great love of technicalities, however, does harm, and English and Scotch witnesses give instances of their leading to erroneous conclusions.
The present Bill would not increase the judicial staff of the House; for, although in 1823 [See 2 Hansard, ix. 1322], Lord Eldon proposed that the (£4,000 a year) retiring pension to Chancellors should not be paid unless they attended to hear appeals in this House, yet notwithstanding the increase to £5,000 a year, retired Chancellors are not bound to attend; and three noble and learned Lords have

1067
attended voluntarily for many years, to ensure the uniformity of the law, for which they deserve most hardly-earned thanks. It has been said by one of the witnesses that no future Lords Chief Justices or other sages of the law can, as members of the Bar, ever earn sufficient to maintain the dignity of the peerage; but if one be Attorney General long enough, he may amass as much wealth as his predecessors. One of the best Judges of Appeal (in the Privy Council) is already wealthy enough, and, it is said, has twice refused that dignity. Judges, also, may have private fortunes, combined with great public spirit both in the equity and common law courts. It would be ungracious to make the attendance of retiring Chancellors and Judges (who may be peers) imperative; but unless the Legislature did so, the additional life peers would not constitute a larger judicial body than the present.
He should recommend such of their Lordships as in future hear appeals, to begin with a fresh case, and to attend upon it until its conclusion. And now with regard to appeals themselves. His Father always waited to the latest moment with a jury, in order that the verdict might be entered in such a way and such questions be asked of the jury as would render a new trial of any sort unnecessary. He himself had been with his Father till two o'clock in the morning, in Guildhall, waiting for a doubtful decision. And at the present time the Lord Chancellor is so freed from all other duties, except those connected with this House, that neither the sitting with the Lord Justices, nor presiding alone in the Court of Chancery, nor attending Select Committees, need interfere with his presiding at the House of Lords on appeals; and the local knowledge of Peers, as well as their experience and independence, may add greatly to the efficiency of this tribunal.
The change in the constitution proposed by this Bill is very great. From what source does it emanate? from that which proposed to create a judge a life peer in 1852—from a noble Lord whose relative (Lord Minto) still thinks the power of creating life peers of Parliament inherent in the prerogative of the Crown; and when on the subject of the constitution, he might mention the fact that his late Father wished the present Lord Wensleydale to succeed him as Lord Chief Justice of England—who more fit therefore to be a hereditary peer? and to advocate the right of creation of an unlimited
1068
number of peers for life, if such be the prerogative of the Crown? So important did his Father think the appointment of another than the noble and learned Lord, Chief Justice, that he wrote a letter of remonstrance to Lord John Russell against his appointment, not from any ill will, for he was incapable of malice, but on account of what he considered his unconstitutional conduct in the case of privilege in the House of Commons. He (the present Lord Denman) strongly objected to this step, and his lamented Father (from the pressure of disease) was most indignant at his doing so; but still he was ready to incur all the consequences of that act of remonstrance by his Father; and as a noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) had said, on a previous stage of this Bill, that the Resolutions of their Lordships' House might be set aside by other Resolutions (as in the case of Wilkes's expulsion from Parliament) he begged to remind their Lordships that no Resolution of either House of Parliament could stand, unless it were founded on the law of the land; and, that where an enabling statute is required, as it was by the House of Commons in order to the doing of a particular Act, they might, as in the present case, conclude that the Act would not have been legal without such statute. He felt sure that the noble and learned Lord would, if then Chief Justice, have acted as his Father did.
The recommendation of the Select Committee as to the continued attendance of lay Peers was quite disregarded, and this Bill would only constitute another Court with a small number of Judges.
As their Lordships were impatient to divide, he would refrain from further observations.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I should be sorry if your Lordships were to proceed to a division before an answer had been given to the objections urged against this Bill by my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Clancarty). With regard to the objections of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I must say that, though I listened with great attention, I am very nearly as ignorant of their meaning as I was before the noble Lord rose. The arguments of my noble Friend behind me are, on the contrary very clear and distinct, but I trust I shall be able to convince him that they may be easily answered. In the first place, my noble Friend complained that there has been great haste in

1069
forwarding this Bill through the House. It is true that no very great length of time has elapsed since the Committee appointed to consider the question to which the Bill relates presented their Report to your Lordships; but the noble Lord must not infer from that fact that the measure has been hastily adopted. My noble Friend says he places great confidence in the Members of the House to whom the consideration of the matter in Committee was referred; and I can assure my noble Friend that in the whole course of my Parliamentary experience I do not remember any subject which has been more calmly, deliberately, and impartially sifted than this most important question with regard to the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House. My noble Friend must bear in mind that, though no long period has intervened between the presentation of the Report and the introduction of the Bill, the House was placed, by the production of that Report, in a position of increased difficulty in respect to its appellate jurisdiction. It was already sufficiently embarrassing that there should have arisen a controversy which placed this House in apparent antagonism with the Crown on a question of privilege, and which put a noble and learned Lord, whom, from his high personal character and his great attainments, your Lordships would have been happy to receive amongst you, in the anomalous and distressing position of having received from the Crown a title of honour which did not confer upon him those privileges which it was the obvious intention of Her Majesty should accompany that title. But, in addition to these difficulties, the inquiries of the Committee had almost placed the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House in abeyance for a time, because they must have thrown very considerable doubt, not upon the actual exercise of that jurisdiction, but upon the sufficiency of the provision made for its exercise, and therefore must have tended to shake the confidence of the public in its decisions, and placed the law Lords in a situation of some anxiety and embarrassment, from which it was desirable that they should be relieved as soon as possible. It is not to be denied that, while the witnesses examined before the Committee bore willing testimony to the zeal, learning, and ability displayed at all times by the noble and learned Lords who practically exercise the appellate jurisdiction of this House. They also showed
1070
that there is among the leading Members of the Bar a very decided opinion that the composition of the great appellate tribunal of the nation is not on the whole satisfactory. It appears to be admitted on all hands that there are elements of uncertainty, not as regarded the competency of the law Lords in attendance—for on that point there could be no second opinion—but with reference to their number. The unsatisfactory result of this state of things is, that sometimes two noble and learned Lords of equal ability were divided in opinion on the case under consideration, while on other occasions a single noble and learned Lord, who was assisted—I will not say by the opinion, but—by the presence of two lay Peers who took no part in the proceedings, had to perform the delicate and difficult duty either of reversing or of affirming a judgment pronounced by the united Judges of the Court below. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Denman) concurs in an opinion not unfrequently expressed, that it is desirable that lay Lords should take a real and practical part in the appellate jurisdiction of your Lordships' House. Now, I do not mean to undervalue the advantage of Peers not connected with the legal profession directing their attention to the consideration of the law and the investigation of legal questions; but, when the law is to be solemnly decided by way of appeal from the judgments of the highly qualified persons who preside in the various Courts throughout the country, I cannot but think that it is of the first importance that such decisions of the law should rest upon the gravest and most indisputable authority of this House. And I also think that if the lay Lords should take upon themselves to go counter to the opinions of the learned individuals who by their previous professional practice and their high reputation have won the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House, such a proceeding would be highly detrimental to the administration of justice, and would shake all confidence in your Lordships' House as a court of appeal. The question, then, which the Committee had to consider was, how these various difficulties might best be solved. In the first place, there was the difficulty caused by the belief, on the part of the Queen's advisers, that Her Majesty had, by virtue of Her prerogative, the power of conferring peerages for life. A considerable majority of your Lordships' House, however, came to the conclusion

1071
that the Crown's prerogative gave no such power, and that even though it did the exercise of such a power would be exceedingly dangerous. We went into Committee, however, not with the view of ascertaining whether the Crown had or had not that power, but for the purpose of inquiring whether the appellate jurisdiction of the House stood in need of amendment; and, if so, whether it would be possible to devise, in order to its amendment, any plan preferable to that of creating an unlimited number of non-hereditary judicial peerages. The Committee was, with one exception, unanimous that it was most expedient that the supreme appellate jurisdiction should be retained in your Lordships' hands—that its constitution as an appellate tribunal should be strengthened, and that means should be taken to obviate the inconveniences of our having, perhaps, but a single Judge to reverse the decisions of the courts below, or the still greater inconvenience of our having but two Judges equally divided on the point referred to their consideration. That exception was the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), who thought that Scotch appeals should be referred to an appellate tribunal in Scotland, or, at least, that the suggestion to that effect was worthy of consideration. With this qualified exception, the conclusion of the Committee was unanimous that your Lordships House should continue to be the great court of final appeal for the nation, and that it should consist of not less than three Judges. Under the present constitution of the House, it was not possible to secure the infallible attendance of three eminently qualified Judges, and hence the necessity for the Bill now under consideration. As things now stand, the attendance of all the law Lords, with the single exception of the Lord Chancellor, is absolutely gratuitous and voluntary. It is not more their duty than that of any other of your Lordships to attend at the hearing of appeals. It so happens that of late years we have had the good fortune of having among us an unusual number of learned men connected with the profession of the law, willing and qualified in every way to conduct our judicial business; but we cannot be certain that this will always be the case, nor should we forget that it has occasionally occurred that owing to the accidental absence of some of the law Lords, appeals have been argued before two, and sometimes even before one, of such Peers; and this
1072
circumstance has given rise to considerable dissatisfaction. It may naturally be asked why the Committee did not recommend an addition to the law Lords holding hereditary Peerages?—a measure which would involve no change in the constitution of the House. But there are manifest objections both to the needless multiplication of hereditary Peerages and to the introduction into this House of an unnecessarily large number of lawyers. And I may further observe, that we have been told by my noble Friend on my right, that the Judges selected for judicial office here are not likely to be qualified for that post, unless they are persons who have realised a fine income by their professional practice; but the attainment of large fortunes is so rare in these days, that year after year there would be a smaller number of lawyers willing to saddle their successors with an hereditary peerage. At the same time, the Committee felt it absolutely necessary that we should have in this House, for the purposes of his appellate jurisdiction, the services of the most eminent lawyers of whom this country can boast. Well, then, it seemed very desirable that these learned persons should be Members of this House, while it was admitted that you could not always persuade eminent lawyers to accept the prospective burden of an hereditary peerage. What, then, were we to do? It appeared to the Committee that the most obvious mode of proceeding was to enable the Crown, as I should say, to appoint a limited number of Peers for life—official Peers—Peers appointed in consideration of the discharge of certain duties, and no more hereditary Peers than the right rev. Bench opposite, who feel that no degradation and no discredit is cast upon them from inability to transfer their peerages by hereditary succession. Now, I can perfectly understand that, if a peerage were conferred as a mark of honour and distinction, there would be a sense of inferiority on the part of such a Peer when created for life only; but when a person receives a seat here for the discharge of a specific duty, in virtue of which, and in order to give additional dignity and importance to his office, the Peerage is conferred, I cannot conceive that there is any degradation in his acceptance of the title for life only. Upon full consideration, it appeared to the Committee that it would be quite sufficient if, in addition to the noble Lord who at the time might occupy the woolsack, there were always two men

1073
of high eminence possessed of these official peerages, and bound to give their constant services to the House and to the public in hearing appeals from the Courts below. It was also felt that it was impossible to bind upon them the obligation of perpetually discharging such important and most laborious duties without an adequate salary, particularly as in the positions they before held upon the bench they would be entitled to a retiring pension. As I have before remarked, the great objection to the present constitution of the court is that the services of its members being voluntary and unremunerated, you are never sure of obtaining the number necessary for the proper formation of an appellate tribunal. That being the case, it was almost the unanimous opinion of the Committee that the Lord Chancellor should be assisted by two Peers, who should be regularly bound to perform the duties of salaried officers. The question then was, how to reconcile the conflicting opinions of those who contended in favour of the prerogative of the Crown to create any number of life Peers, and those who denied the existence of that prerogative? Now, I believe this Bill to be so worded as not to bind either one party or the other to renounce its opinion on the subject. The farmers of the measure on both sides were animated by a feeling of mutual respect, and were not desirous that either the supporters or the opponents of the prerogative should be obliged to alter in any way the views they had previously maintained in the discussion of the question. Our object was not to declare what was the actual state of the law with regard to the creation of life peerages, but to declare for the future with respect to the appellate jurisdiction of this House, and I confess that it would be to me a subject of the deepest possible regret if the Bill which we have recommended for the attainment of that object should not receive the assent of both Houses of the Legislature. It has been agreed to, after a most laborious investigation by persons of different opinions, but imbued with an earnest anxiety to promote the public good, and they have arrived at a conclusion which I may venture to call almost unanimous. They have had exceeding difficulty in framing the Bill so as to effect the object upon which they were all agreed, without at the same time calling in question the recorded opinions of everybody. For my own part, although I cannot go quite so far as the noble and
1074
learned Lord Chief Justice, and say that the decision of the House of Lords in this matter is a final and authoritative statement of the law, I do contend that your Lordships' decision is an authoritative declaration of what the law is with regard to the prerogative, and that nothing short of a contrary judgment by the same tribunal can alter the law as thus laid down. That, however, was not the opinion of the Government, and the question was,—Can we frame the Bill in such a manner as not to call upon the Ministry to pronounce in it a condemnation upon the Vote they previously gave, and, on the other hand, not to commit the body of the House of Lords to a proceeding which might appear inconsistent with the stand they made—and, I think, most wisely made—in defence of the hereditary character of the peerage. The course taken in order to accomplish this end is the introduction of a measure which will practically enable the Crown to grant certain salaries to certain persons qualified in the manner described in the Bill, and to issue to them a writ of summons whereby they will be entitled, so long as they hold the office to which they have been raised, to all the privileges and advantages of a life peerage. Observe that the peerage for life is conferred upon these persons by a writ of summons by the authority of Parliament, and such a creation is consequently not open to the objections we urged against the right claimed by the Crown to constitute these life peerages by its prerogative alone. My noble Friend the Lord President of the Council has recorded Her Majesty's assent to the introduction of this measure; and this assent is equivalent to a declaration on the part of the Government against any supposed abandonment of their opinion that the prerogative of the Crown is to a certain extent infringed by this Bill, because it is a mode of stating that the Crown, on the recommendation of its constitutional advisers, waives that portion of what they consider to be its prerogative. Probably many of your Lordships will agree with me that the Crown had no prerogative to waive, and that, therefore, no Royal consent was necessary; and, undoubtedly, if that consent had taken a more formal shape, and had been communicated to your Lordships as a Message, I, for one, should have experienced great difficulty in receiving such a Message and in consenting to the adoption of an Address in answer thereto, which would appear to

1075
imply a recognition of that prerogative. My opinion is, that the Bill extends within certain limits a prerogative which the Crown never before possessed; Her Majesty's Government believe that it restricts the prerogative of the Crown, but restricts it with the consent of the Crown itself; but whether that prerogative existed before or did not exist, Parliament is free to deal with this question, and we deal with it now in the sense of maintaining inviolate the hereditary character of the peerage in general, subject to this exception—that two individuals, eminently qualified by their judicial position, may have the rights of life Peers upon condition of discharging certain duties, by virtue of which duties they obtain a seat and vote in this House. Such is the conclusion to which the Committee have arrived. It appeared to them that, notwithstanding the eminent abilities of noble Lords who have presided over the appellate jurisdiction of this Honse, an alteration which should secure the attendance upon all occasions of qualified persons to hear appeals in this House would give great satisfaction to the public, and would materially increase the respect paid to this, the highest tribunal in the kingdom. We considered it right that those persons who were thus elected to a Peerage for life should sit and vote in this House, not only upon legal questions, but upon all questions upon a footing of perfect and entire equality with the rest of your Lordships. We thought that in advising the creation of those two peerages for life we should reconcile the various difficulties which existed, that we should relieve Parliament and the Crown from a position of great embarrassment, and enable an individual whose services will without doubt be of considerable value, and who is placed in a most unpleasant position through no fault of his own—for no one can speak of that distinguished personage without the highest respect—to take a seat in your Lordships' House; and, at the same time, we thought we should have secured the hereditary character of the peerage by the exception which we made of those who were entitled to seats in this House in virtue of a character strictly defined and regulated by the authority of Parliament itself. It was acting upon these views that I, for one, cordially supported the Bill introduced upon the part of Her Majesty's Government after the closest consideration of the evidence which was brought under the notice of the Committee; and I must confess
1076
that I should regard it as a matter of great regret that any alteration should be made in the measure which would tend to mar the agreement and unanimity with which the Bill has been recommended by the Committee to your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he felt himself bound to express the very strong objections which he entertained to the Bill. The noble Earl, towards the close of his speech, had let out the real difficulty with which the Committee had had to contend, and which had led to the present measure. That difficulty originated in the different opinions on a point of constitutional law which had been expressed on different sides of that House by very eminent individuals, and the result had been that a compromise had been effected in matters which did not form a fit subject for a compromise. He objected to the Bill, upon the ground that it proposed to carry into effect a totally new principle; namely, the payment of Members of that House for the performance of what was in reality a strictly Parliamentary duty. Either their Lordships were fit to discharge the duties of a court of appeal, or they were not. If they were fit, they ought not to pay persons for the performance of those duties. The real fact was, however, that the House of Lords as a body had long ceased to discharge the functions of a court of appeal. They had, in fact, no more to do with deciding appeals than the benches upon which they sat; but so long as the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction continued to give satisfaction to the country, he saw no objection to the maintenance of that form, in accordance with which lay Lords were wont to come down to that House for the purpose of rendering the ceremony complete for proceeding with the administration of justice. It was, however, a dangerous proceeding, and one which, in his conscience, he believed to be calculated to lower the dignity of that House, to pay men for the performance of strictly Parliamentary duties, while that course was taken for the purpose of retaining a nominal jurisdiction in cases in which ninety-nine out of every hundred among their Lordships took no active part whatsoever. But, passing from the question of appellate jurisdiction, he should beg the House to consider the consequences which were likely to follow from the operation of the Bill in relation to the subject of the creation of life peerages. There could, he

1077
thought, be no doubt that under that operation the prerogative of the Crown, with respect to that subject, would be affected, one way or the other. That prerogative would be either extended or restrained; and whichever effect took place, the measure was equally objectionable. It was his opinion, as well as that of Her Majesty's Ministers, that the Crown might lawfully create Peers for life; but if the Bill were to pass, was there one of their Lordships who would contend that the Crown could, for the future, grant a life peerage without the consent of the Legislature? Noble Lords opposite maintained that the Crown had not the power to grant such peerages, and appeared to apprehend the most dangerous consequences from the exercise of such a power upon the part of some future Minister. But what did the Bill propose to do? To give the give the Crown the power of creating Peers for life for certain purposes. Now, let him ask those noble Lords whether they really believed that a step in the proposed direction having been once taken, the creation of life peerages would stop at the point laid down by the measure under their notice? For his own part, he should not only answer that question in the negative, but should further say, that in his opinion the power of such creation should not be so defined. Why, he would ask, should the creation of these peerages be restricted to members of the legal profession? Why should members of the military and naval professions be excluded from the privileges which it sought to confer? or, looking upon it in the light of creating a disability, why was it that the members of the legal profession should be made the subject of that disability, and deprived of the hope they had hitherto entertained, of gaining for themselves an hereditary peerage? For his own part, his objections to the Bill were so strong, that he could not refrain from expressing a hope that it would not pass into a law; but even if it should, he could never believe that it would pass the House of Commons.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should not have thought it necessary to add anything to the very accurate statement which had been made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) of the course taken by both parties in the Committee, were it not for some observations which had fallen from the noble Marquess who had just sat down. It was difficult to understand what was really the objection of the noble Marquess
1078
to this Bill in connection with life peerages, he having himself voted that the question of life peerages should be referred to the Committee for Privileges. Apparently the noble Marquess objected to the Bill strongly upon two grounds; but upon neither of these grounds had he been able to gather very accurately what the noble Marquess's own views were.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: I did not express my views.
EARL GRANVILLE: The first objection urged by the noble Marquess was the prejudicial effect which he imagined the Bill would have upon the manner in which their Lordships would for the future discharge their functions of appellate jurisdiction. He was not sure whether the noble Marquess would desire the immediate removal of the appellate jurisdiction from the House or not; but he thought that his argument seemed to be in favour of its removal. The noble Marquess said, "You are now going for the first time to confer salaries upon some Members of this House for discharging Parliamentary duties." But there were certainly two Members of that House—the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees—who discharged Parliamentary duties of the most important character, and who received salaries for their services.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: I deny that the Lord Chancellor is paid for his Parliamentary duties.
EARL GRANVILLEwas not quite sure how the case was with regard to the Lord Chancellor; but he thought that the Act of Parliament diminished the salary of the Chancellor by £4,000 a year as long as he was paid that sum for the performance of his Parliamentary duties as Speaker of the House of Lords; and he was reminded by his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Campbell) that Lord Eldon had for a time received £4,000 a year as Speaker of that House. Exactly the same thing occurred in the House of Commons—the Chairman of Committees there was paid for duties purely Parliamentary; and, whatever doubt there might be about the Lord Chancellor there could be none that the Speaker was paid purely for Parliamentary duties. The noble Marquess also objected to the Bill because it destroyed the fiction of the whole House exercising the functions of appellate jurisdiction. It was true that the Bill would put an end to the hitherto necessary fiction of having three Members to form a House, although

1079
two of them were Peers who only came down, probably, day by day, hearing a bit of the argument now and then, and confessedly having nothing to do with the decision. In place of that, however, it would ensure a quorum of men whose opinions were entitled to the greatest possible weight; and he thought that that was an improvement upon the custom under which one law Lord alone could decide. With regard to the question of peerages for life, he must say that the Government had by circumstances been placed at a considerable disadvantage. With all their strength and industry the Government had endeavoured to fight the battle of the Queen's prerogative with respect to the creation of life peerages; but they had unfortunately been deprived of all legal assistance on the occasion; while many of those who usually supported the Government, with their votes and speeches, were prevented from giving them their good offices. The noble Marquess, however, voted in the division which referred the question to the Committee for Privileges, and he (Earl Granville) had always seen, after that division, how difficult it would be for the Government to persuade the House to stultify itself by treating the decision of the Committee as of no avail. What then happened? The opponents of life peerages obtained a position from which, without having recourse to the most violent measures, which, he was sure, every one of their Lordships would have condemned, it would have been impossible to dislodge them. The question was as good as settled, and that, too, in a manner which placed the Crown, the House of Lords, and Baron Wensleydale himself, in a situation of the utmost difficulty and delicacy. In those circumstances, the Government thought it was worth while to see whether, the ground having been, as it were cut beneath their feet upon the abstract question, they could not attain the practical results of the step which had been taken in advising Her Majesty to create a life Peer. The chief objection to that measure was, that it introduced a principle capable of almost infinite extension; that Her Majesty might be advised to create not one but twenty life Peers, and that there was no security against the House being swamped by such creations. He need not say that, as far as the Government were concerned, that objection was entirely unfounded. What they wanted was to strengthen a little the number of law Peers in the House by means of life
1080
instead of hereditary peerages, and they also thought that a slur would be cast upon the Crown if Baron Wensleydale were not allowed to take his seat in virtue of the patent granted to him by Her Majesty. Although the Opposition objected to the creation of life peerages by the Crown, they were fully alive to the importance of preserving the appellate jurisdiction of the House, and expressed their willingness to facilitate the arrangements of the Government in that respect, provided they consented to limit the number of life Peers. He maintained that the Government had secured the great object which they had in view when they advised Her Majesty to confer a life peerage upon Baron Wensleydale, and had secured it, moreover, without making any but the slightest possible change in the constitution of the House. They had strengthened the appellate jurisdiction of the House by securing that, at all times, there should be present a sufficient number of persons able to perform judicial functions; and when the noble Marquess came forward at the last moment, but not till then, to attack the Government for what they had done, it would, perhaps, have been as well If he had told their Lordships what he himself would have proposed. No doubt there was something objectionable in the doctrine that life Peers ought to be created by the authority of Parliament; but when it was admitted on all hands to be desirable to have a certain number of such Peers, and when there was an actual collision between the Crown and the House of Lords on the question, he could not conceive any more constitutional mode of removing the difficulty than by the two Houses of Parliament, with the concurrence of the Crown, deciding what should be done. He admitted, without hesitation, that the present Bill did limit the prerogative of the Crown; but he submitted that a slight limitation of the prerogative was not too high a price to pay for a measure which removed an anomaly and subserved the interests of the public by strengthening their appellate jurisdiction without weakening the House itself.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought that that the Bill would, to a certain extent, improve the appellate jurisdiction of the House, although its advantages in that respect had been greatly overrated, for the new life Peers would no sooner be created than the old law Lords would cease to perform the duties which they

1081
had hitherto discharged. But he charged the Government with having carried their compromise to the extent of sacrificing the prerogative of the Crown, and nothing which he had yet heard had tended in the smallest degree to weaken that objection to the Bill. He regretted that Her Majesty's Ministers did not hold a higher tone on the Committee, one consequence of which was the introduction of this paltry measure, by which the prerogative of the Crown was in no small degree lowered.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN rose to reply, amidst loud cries of "Order!" and "Divide!"
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Lord was quite out of order, as by the twenty-first standing order of the House no Peer could speak twice on any one stage of a Bill.
On Question, that ("now") stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:— Content 44; Not-content 4: Majority 40.
Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly: Amendments moved and negatived: a further Amendment moved and negatived: Amendments made.
On Question that the Bill do pass,
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he would take that opportunity of replying to the observations of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), and of explaining why he had delayed the expression of his views on this subject until now. The fact was, the Government ought to have put him on the Committee if they had been anxious to learn his opinions of the matter, and the Government, and not himself, were to blame that he had not been able to propound them before. It was the Government, and not he, who had shirked the question of life Peerages, by what was called the "compromise" effected by the Bill—for the Bill not only evaded that question, but it did not even embody the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee recommended that steps should be taken to reduce the expense of appeals, that especial attention should be devoted to Scotch appeals, but this Bill did not contain a single word upon either of those subjects. But the noble Earl, the President of the Council, said the Bill had been framed to meet the case of Lord Wensleydale; but it would do nothing of the sort, unless Lord Wensleydale consented to become a Deputy Speaker, and even then the noble and learned Lord would assume more the position of an officer than a Member of the House.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must disclaim any responsibility with regard to the omission of the name of the noble Marquess from the Committee. It was usual for any noble Lord who moved for a Committee to prepare the list of its Members. His noble and learned Friend opposite, who moved for the Committee on this subject, submitted to him the list of names, and he believed he made one suggestion with reference to it, but he certainly would not have thought it his duty to propose the addition of the name of the noble Marquess who had voted in opposition to him. The noble Marquess had entirely misrepresented the recommendation of the Report—there was no recommendation about the saving of expense or improving the manner of conducting Scotch appeals. Nevertheless, he regretted that the noble Marquess was not on the Committee, because they might in that case have obtained a still better measure.
LORD CAMPBELLthought their Lordships had reason to complain that the noble Marquess had concealed within his own bosom some plan better than that proposed by the Government. He would say to the noble Marquess—
"Si quid novisti reetius istis,
"Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum."
He felt it right, at the close of the proceedings upon this Bill, to allude to the favourite scheme entertained by those out of doors who disapproved this measure—namely, to send all appeals before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would be a most unconstitutional course, because the members of that Committee held their offices during the pleasure of the Crown, and many questions arose between the Crown and the subject, which it would be very improper to refer to such a tribunal. Another objection to such an arrangement was, that although the members of that court were well able to get through the business now allotted to them, it would be utterly impossible for them, in addition, to dispose of the appeals which now came before their Lordships. If such a scheme were adopted, it would be necessary entirely to remodel the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and great expense would be entailed upon the country. By this Bill the public were called upon to pay £10,000 a year, in order to add to the judicial strength of that House; but three times £10,000 would be required if the Judicial Committee

1083
of Privy Council were remodelled, and enabled to dispose of the legal business now brought before their Lordships. The only plan that had been suggested for creating an appellate jurisdiction would be most unconstitutional, most impracticable, and much more costly than that proposed by the present Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to correct an erroneous impression that had got abroad, with respect to what he had said as to the Bill interfering with the prerogative of the Crown; what he really did say was, that whether it did interfere with the prerogative or not would depend on the construction given to one of the clauses. He did not say what that construction would be, but one of the two constructions put upon it would undoubtedly have the effect of depriving the Crown of a prerogative which, in his opinion, it had heretofore possessed.
LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved the omission from Clause 2, which declares the qualification necessary for the office of Deputy Speaker, of the words "Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England, Judge of the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Judge of the Prerogative Court in Ireland." The Resolution of the Committee contemplated that the choice of the Deputy Speakers should be made from persons who had held high judicial offices for a period of not less than five years; but it was never intended that the circle of selection should include the Judge of the Admiralty Court, or the Judge of the Prerogative Court in either country, whose qualifications did not extend to the branches of the law comprehended within the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord then moved his Amendment, in order that it might appear on the journals, but said he should not trouble the House to divide.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the intention of the Committee, in inserting the names of these Judges, was not that they should be selected, but that they should be eligible for the offices referred to. The desire was to secure judicial experience and talent, and in his opinion those qualifications might sometimes be found in persons who were administering the law, though perhaps not that branch of it which generally demanded their Lordships' consideration. If it were not so, the argument in favour of introducing the Scotch element would fall to the
1084
ground. He hoped their Lordships would not agree to the omission.
Amendment negatived.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTESTS.

  THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION (HOUSE OF LORDS) BILL.
  Die Veneris, 6° Junii, 1856.
  Third Reading of The Appellate Jurisdiction Bill.
  DISSENTIENT—"1. Because pecuniary payment to Members of this House, nominated by the Crown, for deliberating and voting in Parliament is, in my opinion, an innovation calculated to impair the independence, dignity, and character of the House of Lords.
  "The services for which the Speaker of the House may be paid are not voting upon or discussing Questions submitted to Parliament; as Speaker only, he can do neither, and is not necessarily a Peer. The Chairman of Committees is not nominated by the Crown, but elected by the House, and the duties imposed upon him are of a special nature, such as could not be performed by Members of the House indiscriminately. But it is now proposed to pay certain Peers named by the Crown for executing those duties which, so long as the Appellate Jurisdiction is retained, devolve upon all Lords of Parliament. The Bill thus proclaims that the Hereditary Peers are incompetent or unwilling to perform functions which they nevertheless desire to retain, and for the execution of which they seek to provide at the cost of the public revenue.
  "2. Because whether by this Bill a Prerogative long disused be revived, or a new power be accorded to the Crown—(a question upon which high authorities in debate were divided)—to enact the admission to Parliament of Peers for life, and to confine that admission to the sole case of remedying the inefficiency or consulting the ease of Hereditary Peers, appears to me unjust, impolitic, and impossible. If a certain number of Judges are by reason of their professional eminence to sit in this House with life-peerages, upon what ground can we exclude Admirals and Generals, and it may be others, who may have proved their capacity, and risen to high distinction in the public service, and whose presence and counsel might add wisdom and authority to our proceedings? If life-peerages are to be created by Act of Parliament, they cannot be restricted to Judges of Appeals.
  "3. Because the Bill wholly fails to establish such a Supreme Court of Appeal as the opinion and the requirements of the country demand. It does not even secure the permanent existence of the Court it is designed to create. For it is obvious that, under the provisions of the Bill, four Peers for life may enjoy pensions, and sit and vote in Parliament, after they have ceased to act as Judges of Appeals. The occurrence of such a contingency is not very improbable, as the new Deputy Speakers, who must be Judges of experience, may be persons also of advanced age.
  "A suitor must still be in uncertainty regarding the composition of the appellate tribunal. An appeal may still be tried by several, or virtually by one learned Judge, according to the varying capabilities, convenience, or caprice of the Lords.

  1085
  "4. Because a Bill thus faulty in principle and short-sighted in its enactments cannot, in my opinion, secure a satisfactory administration of the law, or uphold the dignity and authority of this House.
  "SOMERHILL.
  "For the 3rd and 4th Reason,
  "DUNGANNON."
  DISSENTIENT.—"Because the creation of any Peers with a patent for life only, though limited to the number of four, and introduced for a special object and for special reasons to sit and vote in the House of Lords, is an innovation of a dangerous character, and an invasion of those Hereditary Principles and Privileges which have hitherto distinguished that branch of the Legislature, thereby establishing a Precedent which may, at no very distant period of time, be acted upon and extended, to the serious Prejudice of the Hereditary Peerage and the Peril of the Stability of the Throne.
  "DUNGANNON,
  "CLANCARTY."
  DISSENTIENT—"1. Because it recognises the creation of Peerages for life only, which by a recent Resolution of the House have been declared illegal and unconstitutional.
  "2. Because the conferring of Life Peerages would be subversive of the prescriptive title by which Peers of the Realm now sit as Hereditary Counsellors of the Crown; and though limited by the Bill to four, would be dangerous as a precedent for further innovations upon the constitution of the House, and is uncalled for by any necessity.
  "3. Because the object of the Bill being to obtain 'for the hearing of Appeals an increased number of Peers who have filled high judicial offices,' it appears an anomaly that for the admission to the House of persons whose learning and abilities have been thus tested, and whose qualifications for the Peerage are therefore of the highest order, dignities should be proposed, inferior in point of estate to those held by other Peers.
  "4. Because the strict maintenance of the principle of hereditary succession in the Peerage is essential to the independence, and therefore to the due influence, of the House of Lords in the Great Council of the Nation.
  "5. Because the abandonment of the hereditary principle in the Peerage may imperil its continuance in the Crown.
  "CLANCARTY,
  "DUNGANNON."
  House adjourned to Monday next.