Sitting of 12 June 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Grand Juries (Metropolitan Police District); Inclosure Acts Amendment.
3o Joint-Stock Companies Act Amendment; Court of Exchequer (Ireland).

TROOPS IN THE MAURITIUS—ORDER OF THE MEDJIDI—QUESTIONS.
MR. LAURIEasked the Under Secretary for War, whether the regiments at and upon their passage to the Mauritius have orders to proceed to China; and whether the pay will be at the same rate as the regiments now quartered in India; and, if not, why not? Also, to repeat the question as to when the Order of the Medjidi will be issued?
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, that some of our troops were now upon their way from the Mauritius to China, but they were so simply in the ordinary routine course of relief, and it was not the intention of the Government to draw upon the force usually stationed at the Mauritius, in order to reinforce the expedition to China. The troops in China would not receive the same rate of pay as those which were quartered in India. They would, however, be paid the ordinary colonial allowance as now-issued in the case of the troops stationed at Hong Kong. In reply to the last question, he had to state that the official list of those upon whom the Order of the Medjidi was to be conferred would soon be published, and he might add that it would have been published before, were it not that it had been found necessary to make certain alterations in the mode in which the list had been drawn up.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD KERRISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is his intention to introduce Amendments in the Reformatory; Schools Bill, to render more effectual the process of obtaining money from parents for the maintenance of their children in reformatory schools?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped when the Bill went into Committee, to be able to introduce into it certain Amendments to effect that object.
  On Motion, "That the House at rising adjourn till Monday next."

  ST. JAMES'S PALACE—THE DRAWING ROOMS—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. G. DUNDAS: I rise, Sir, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the Government to the great inconvenience which is experienced by ladies attending Her Majesty's Drawing-rooms at St. James's Palace, owing to the want of proper arrangements for their reception and departure. Sir, the subject may not be one of public importance, nevertheless it is one of no small domestic interest, for it concerns the comfort, the convenience, and the health of a large portion of Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, and those over whose happiness it is one of our first and principal duties and privileges to watch. This is by no means the first time the matter has come before the public, for complaints of the faulty arrangements at St. James's Palace on days when Her Majesty holds Courts there, date from Her Majesty's accession, and have been ever since of annual recurrence, and indignation has been annually expressed at the ordeal gone through by those who attend those assemblies, which, instead of being a pleasing and agreeable duty, has become a painful and distressing task, in consequence of the defective arrangements and the limited and inconvenient accommodation provided. But all these complaints and all that indignation pass by and are forgotten, because the sufferers in question are of the gentler sex, whose voices cannot be heard within these walls, and who are, therefore, constrained to suffer in silence, or at least to content themselves with making their complaints known through the circles of their friends or through the columns of the newspapers.

  1667
  The grievance, however, has at length become unbearable, and the proceedings of last Saturday leave one a hope that scenes so painful and so distressing as were then witnessed have occurred for the last time. I am confident that, had the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whose generosity and sympathy towards those whose hardships I am endeavouring to represent is so well known—I am confident that, had he been a witness of those scenes, he would be induced to give orders that would prevent their recurrence. Indeed, I know that it is only necessary to call his attention to the fact, to ensure such a change as shall effectually prevent similar complaints in future. I need hardly remind the noble Lord, who, I regret, is not in his place—I need not remind the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Woods, that times have greatly changed since this pile of buildings afforded ample accommodation, as it did in the times of the Stuarts for the assembling of the Court. What was in those days considered magnificent is now considered insignificant; and apartments which were then constructed as lofty and spacious, are now held to be small and mean. And how much more is the evil augmented, when we consider the vast increase in the numbers of those who throng to pay their respects and duty to their Sovereign—a crowd composed of the flower of the British people, who, on State occasions, contribute to form the most brilliant Court in the world, and an assemblage of beauty, the like of which no other nation in Europe can boast. But, Sir, if, on the one hand, we may well cherish a feeling of pride that these were our fair countrywomen, it is equally difficult, on the other hand, to repress a feeling of shame that they should have been exposed to the pains and hardships of Saturday last. It is only necessary to say, that 981 ladies attended the Drawing-room on Saturday last, of whom 264 were presented. In addition to this, there were a very large proportion of gentlemen present; but the returns upon that head he had not been able to obtain. However, keeping those numbers in view, it requires no great stretch of imagination to realize what on Saturday last was the state of that long, narrow corridor, which afforded the only means of egress and access to the Palace, excepting, of course, the private entrée, which is at the disposal of a limited number. It was rather with respect to the limited number of those ladies
  1668
  who were making their egress from the Palace, that he now wished more particularly to speak. It was difficult to imagine an arrangement more unsuited for the departure of a large number of people from a building. The corridor terminates abruptly at the front door of the Palace, and up to this door carriages are driven in rotation, and the names are called. But by this time the passage has become choked from end to end, and the pressure at the door has become excessive, so as to make the road to the carriage a matter of great difficulty and danger for a lady. When at last, however, she does reach the door, after a violent struggle, panting and exhausted, with her clothes crushed, perhaps torn, she finds her carriage has been compelled to drive on, and that her only alternative is to remain in the open shed, the only accommodation afforded, with a number of other ladies who are in a similar condition. In this plight, exposed to the inclemency of the weather, in the midst of the rain and damp, they are exposed to contact with attendants whose clothes were saturated with moisture. On Saturday last too many ladies had to endure all this—yes, prostrated with fatigue, fainting from the exhaustion, the heat, and the pressure of this "middle passage;" with, perhaps, costly and splendid clothing, crushed and utterly destroyed—many sunk on the matting for repose; not stretching themselves on benches, prepared against such an emergency, but upon the soiled and coarse matting that covered the flagstones, to wait there in patience for the moment when the carriages should be brought to their relief. Nor were benches wanted elsewhere, which might have alleviated in no small degree the amount of their sufferings. But where were they? Why, with a degree of ingenuity that reflected the highest credit upon the skill and judgment of somebody, these benches were placed in a position, not only entirely useless, but where they were a positive stumbling-block and a nuisance. They were placed down that large room where is placed that miserable structure known as the "pen," where they did the duty of traps and pitfalls, and caused not a few ill-fated ladies to be thrown violently to the ground. But why should he mention any particular arrangements where all were so bad. For what can be worse than the miserable "pen," at the fatal entry to which many a fair young girl's anticipations of a Drawing-room receive their first shock, and from

  1669
  which she escapes, perhaps, with a mutilated costume, no longer in a condition to be introduced to her Sovereign. Sir, do not think I have exaggerated a scene which I myself have with pain witnessed, and of which not a few ladies have assured me of the reality. I trust that I have said enough to justify me in having brought the matter before the House, and I feel that the appeal I am now making will not be disregarded by the noble Lord; but now that the circumstances have been brought before him, a remedy will be found. I am very confident also, Sir, that if our Royal Mistress could be made aware of how much was endured by those who gather together to bow before her and do her honour, that those warm sympathies which she possesses in so pre-eminent a degree, and which she never fails to extend to all her subjects, not only the highest and noblest in the land, but also the lowest and most humble, would impel her to have steps taken to prevent the recurrence of scenes so painful and so unbecoming.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLthen rose, but for some time he was unable to proceed in consequence of loud cries from the Opposition bunches for Lord E. Bruce (the Vice Chamberlain). At length, however, the right hon. Baronet proceeded to say—Sir, I have much pleasure in answering the appeal of my hon. Friend. I believe it is impossible to exaggerate the great inconvenience experienced by the ladies attending the Drawing-room on Saturday last. It must, however, be recollected that Drawing-rooms are now held in the same apartments in which they were held many years ago, when but from 100 to 200 persons assembled for the purpose of paying their respects to the Sovereign. And it may not be unknown to hon. Members that the time was, when, on the occasion of these Drawing-rooms, there being then sufficient room for the purpose, the Queen was in the habit of going round and noticing those persons whom she desired to honour. Instead, however, as then, of there being but 100 or 200 persons to assemble in the room, there were now upwards of 1,000—perhaps 1,400—persons gathered together. And, although the dresses of the ladies in former days were very large, yet I believe at the present moment they occupy very nearly the same space. It is, therefore, utterly impossible that any comfort should be experienced by those attending a Drawing-room in the present day, At the same time, I am
  1670
  happy to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman and the House, that I have received instructions from Her Majesty's Government to prepare plans for the purpose of enlarging the accommodation of St. James's Palace, and I hope I shall shortly be able to submit such plans to the House.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: May I ask, whether the works will be commenced before the plans are submitted to Parliament?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALL: The plans are not as yet drawn up; but, of course, the works will not be commenced until they have first been submitted to Parliament.

BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KNIGHTsaid, he wished to know when the Committee on this Bill would be taken.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would put it down second on the paper for Monday.
  MR. PALKsaid, that there was certainly a misunderstanding in regard to the time when the discussion on the bringing up of the Report on the Army Estimates would come on. Under such circumstances, he hoped that a longer time would be afforded the House for the consideration of the measure in question, as several hon. Members had been instructed by their respective constituencies to give some of the clauses of the Bill every opposition in their power.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that an opportunity would, of course, be given for an ample discussion of the subject.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that no hon. Member could have expected that the Government would have withdrawn the Civil Service and other Estimates upon the occasion referred to, for the purpose of proceeding with the Bills which had followed them on the paper. Consequently many hon. Members who wished to take part in the discussions upon them were absent. When notice was given for Supply, the common practice was, for the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Votes until about twelve o'clock.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that as the question of the survey of Scotland was to be brought in on bringing up the Report of the Army Estimates, would not the Government arrange to bring up the Report at an early hour—say on Thursday next?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would state what arrangements would be made on Monday.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising do adjourn till Monday next.
  On the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committe of Supply,

  PRESTON UNION—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which an order to build a workhouse was addressed by the Poor Law Board to the Guardians of the Preston Union (Lancashire). The hon. Gentleman said that by the Poor Law Amendment Act, the Poor Law Board had the power, when they had obtained the assent of a majority of the Board of Guardians of a union, to order the local authorities to purchase land for the purpose of building a workhouse. The 38th section of the statute declared that there should be at least one elective Guardian for every parish, and that the county justices of the peace should be ex officio Guardians. It was also enacted that nothing should be done by any Guardian as a member of the Board except at a meeting; but this rule was subject to one very remarkable exception; namely, that the Poor Law Board should have power to dispense with this last provision. The Poor Law Board had for many years endeavoured to induce the Guardians of the Preston Union to build a new workhouse, which the Guardians always resisted on the ground that they had good and sufficient workhouses. It appeared, however, that the Poor Law Board put themselves in communication about the latter part of 1855 with the Chairman of the Union, who was an ex officio Guardian, and obtained, principally through his instrumentality, the signatures of twenty-two out of twenty-four of the other ex officio Guardians, and also of eleven of the elective Guardians, to a requisition to the Poor Law Board, praying that Board to issue an order calling on them to build a union workhouse. In that union there were forty elective and twenty-four ex officio Guardians, so that the majority in the present instance was composed principally of ex officio Guardians. The order was applied for in March, 1856, and it was made by the Poor Law Board accordingly. He was anxious to elicit an ex-
  1672
  planation as to the reasons for this proceeding from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie); also, whether it was the practice of the poor Law Board to obtain the sanction of Poor Law Guardians in this manner, and whether it was their intention to enforce the order they had issued respecting the Preston Union. This was a question of considerable importance, because many other unions were similarly situated to that at Preston, and it was felt that the rights of the ratepayers were involved in this matter.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the workhouse at Preston was not a good one or in a satisfactory state, and it was the desire of a great number of the Poor Law Guardians, including the Chairman, that a new workhouse should be built; and they accordingly applied to the Poor Law Board for an order for the purpose. The workhouse could not be ordered without the consent of a majority of the whole number of the Guardians, nor without the consent of the Poor Law Board. It had been the practice of the Poor Law Board to issue such an order upon a requisition being presented to them signed by a majority of the Guardians. That was precisely the course taken in respect to the Preston workhouse. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that this order had been issued in spite of the elective Guardians, He (Mr. Bouverie) had, however, yet to learn that, in point of law and in every other respect, those ex officio Guardians had not precisely the same power as the elective Guardians to decide upon all such questions. Being gentlemen residing in the district, they were thoroughly competent to judge as to whether there was or was not a necessity for the erection of a new workhouse. He had no reason to suppose that the majority of the ratepayers was opposed to this proceeding. What further course the Poor Law Board might be induced to take in reference to this matter he was not then prepared to say.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had naturally supported a very unauthorized order, and if he had kept within the law he had certainly sailed very near the wind, and if the practice in question was within the law, the sooner it was altered the better. If they had the whole of the correspondence the took place upon the subject between the Guardians and the Poor Law Board, was it would show how many of the ex officio Guardians had signed the requisition to

  1673
  the Poor Law Board requesting it to issue the order referred to. He had been in formed that some of those Guardians had never attended the Board at all, and some of them might not be ratepayers in the district.
  MR. DRUMMONDtrusted the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) would not be intimidated by the cry raised against him throughout the country by these Boards of Guardians. If the law required amendment at all, it was in order to put more power into the hands of the Poor Law Board. As to the ex officio Guardians, it was perfectly right that they should not attend at the transaction of the ordinary business, which was far better left in the hands of the elective Guardians. But on special occasions it was the duty of the ex officio Guardians to see that something else besides the interest of the ratepayers was thought of. That interest alone was too generally considered, just as in the case of the Scotch lunatics; it was what would save most money to the ratepayers, and what was most economical that guided the Guardians, not what was most beneficial to the poor. The same principle regulated the allowances made to the doctors, which were reduced to so low a sum that it was utterly impossible for those gentlemen to attend properly to the duties of their position upon such terms; and everybody accustomed to attend these Boards must have noticed that when physic was prescribed to a sick man in the workhouse the Guardians had no objection to it, but when wine or other nourishment was ordered they usually rose against it. The conduct of the Poor Law Guardians was in many instances abominable. What would have been the condition of the poor in Marylebone and other parishes if it had not been for the exertions of the Pool Law Board? He trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman thought he had not sufficient power he would appeal to this House form more. Hon. Members behind me (Mr. Drummond concluded) are fond of reform; they are fond of universal suffrage. Well, then, let them take it now. Let the poor in future elect the Guardians, and not the ratepayers.

EXPENDITURE IN ST. JAMES'S PAKK.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR FRANCIS BARING SIR FRANCIS BARING rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the expenditure in St. James's
  1674
  Park. He did not intend on this occasion to discuss the propriety of any Vote contained in the Estimates. Such a course, indeed, would be irregular; it would have been his duty to do this, if at all, when they were proposed in Committee. His object was to bring before the House a question which appeared to him of more importance than the actual money spent; he meant that relating to the privileges of the House, and the course pursued by the Government. About a month ago, finding that some expenditure was going on in the parks not depending on any Vote of Parliament, he moved for certain papers on the subject. He did not at all complain of their not being forthcoming before, but they had only been presented within a few days, and he was forced to bring the matter before the House now, because the Vote itself would be considered early in Committee to-night. With regard to the facts of the case, he apprehended there would be no great difficulty. Everybody knew that certain works had been going on in St. James's Park; that the lake, as it was called, had been cleaned out, that the bed had been cemented, and that considerable expense had been incurred, which must be paid. There was no doubt of this; and it was equally undoubted that no money had been voted by Parliament on account of these works. Here he might refer to the Estimates, not with a view to discuss whether the expenditure was proper or not, but merely to show the amount demanded. The Estimates, then, stated that about £11,000 had been expended, and the House would by-and-bye be asked to vote that money on account of it. Now, he apprehended that there never was a clearer case of expenditure incurred without the sanction of Parliament, and he thought this was not a question of trifling importance, to be dealt in Committee as a mere Estimate open to criticism and objection. He did not intend to discuss whether the expenditure was a proper or an improper one—whether too much or too little had been spent. That was quite foreign to the more important point involved, which was this:—Admitting that Parliament ought to have voted the money, and that not a sixpence had been unnecessarily expended, how came it that public money had been expended at all without the sanction of Parliament? Every schoolboy knew how important a privilege it was, and not only a privilege but a duty,

  1675
  for Parliament to preserve intact this check upon the public expenditure. Perhaps, however, as this was a new Parliament, he might show from his own recollection how other Houses of Commons had dealt with cases of this kind. In 1841, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, in consequence of the disturbances in Syria, thought it necessary for the public service to exceed his Estimates, and incur certain expenses which had not been brought before the House of Commons. The subject came before the House. No one expressed a doubt as to the propriety of the increased expenditure; everybody seemed to admit that the Government had exercised a wise discretion under the circumstances in taking further precautions than were thought necessary when the Estimates were voted. But still the course taken was objected to; and the Government were called upon not only to explain, but to give satisfaction for having exceeded the Estimates. Upon that occasion, Ministers admitted that extreme necessity, and the fact that Parliament was not sitting at the time, formed their only justification; but such was the view entertained that a Bill of indemnity being suggested, be himself brought in a separate Appropriation Act with the view of marking that the transaction was an irregular one, not lightly to be passed over. The predecessor of the present Speaker thought that objections existed to the passing of such a Bill, and it was accordingly withdrawn; but in the Appropriation Act the Session a special clause was introduced which stated the necessity, and granted the money only on that ground. Again, it happened that in Lord Auckland's time the Estimates upon the item of the dockyard battalion had been exceeded. The justification then was, that at that moment there were reasons why additional measures should be taken for the protection of the country. Parliament, however, was so far from admitting such an excuse that Mr. Hume moved a Resolution, which was pretty nearly equivalent to a vote of censure, declaring it to be the duty of the Government not to exceed the Estimates, and this Resolution was agreed to without a dissentient voice. That instance was a still more remarkable one than the one he had first mentioned, for the Treasury had given the Admiralty a very strong "jobation" for what it had done. The House would see that these were cases of
  1676
  a much lighter character than that upon which he was remarking, because there Parliament had admitted the principle of the expenditure, and had actually voted a certain sum; and it was always considered that a mere excess of expenditure upon a sum granted was a more venial irregularity than to spend money upon a work which Parliament had never sanctioned, as in the present instance. On looking at the last Report of the Audit Office which had been presented, he found that the Auditors referred to a correspondence with the Treasury, in which they pointed out that in twenty-five instances works had been undertaken and paid for by the Board of Works before the sanction of Parliament had been obtained and that that sanction had not been obtained, until after the completion of the works. Some of those works were trifling in amount, but there was an item of £1,000 for wood pavement, and another of £1,600 for the great clock. He perceived that his right hon. Friend stated in explanation that all these were cases of emergency, and that he could not wait for a Vote of Parliament. He (Sir F. Baring) did not know whether that great clock was connected with the great bell which was to carry down his right hon. Friend's name to posterity, but he did not exactly see any emergency in the case which rendered it impossible to wait for a Vote of Parliament. As he had said, these sums were small in amount, but bad practices were always introduced by small irregularities at first, and when the House found that two years ago there were twenty five small peccadilloes, and that now we had arrived at about £11,000 so expended, it was time for Parliament just to show that it had not forgotten that which he apprehended to be one of its principal duties, namely, the control of the public expenditure. Hon. Gentlemen who had read the evidence before the Public Monies Committee would observe that a very strong impression prevailed that the principal check which there ought to be on the public expenditure should consist in the audit. That might be a right or a wrong view—he would not stop to discuss it; but if it were right, and if all other checks were insufficient, he begged his right hon. Friend to look for a moment to the return which had been presented last year upon the state of the accounts in the Audit Department. He found from that return that the accounts of the "Commissioners

  1677
  of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, Lands, Revenues, Works, and Buildings," had been received up to 1851, and that they had been audited up to 1848; so that the audit of that department was nearly nine years in arrear. In 1851, a double audit took place, one called the audit of the expenditure, and the other, the appropriation audit; and to this latter, which was brought forward from year to year, great value was very properly attached. The Reports of the Auditors were full of complaints of the way in which the accounts were brought before them, and the auditors stated that they were not able to present them to Parliament in a satisfactory manner, owing to the way in which the balances of one year were carried on to the succeeding year. Under these circumstance, he (Sir F. Baring) thought that, instead of waiting for another year or two to find out how the money had been expended in St. James's Park, it would be better to bring the subject before the House at once, in order to obtain some explanation from his right hon. Friend. Whether that explanation should be verbally satisfactory or not, he thought that the House should not agree to a Vote including the money already spent without having the whole of the papers before them, and he should be glad if his right hon. Friend would give a pledge not to proceed with the Vote until the full papers were presented to Parliament. He did not wish to interfere with the business of the House, and he should not follow up the subject, therefore, with any Resolution.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that his right hon. Friend who had just sat down had moved upon the 20th of May for papers in relation to the works which had been proceeded with in St. James's Park; that on the 5th of the present month those papers had been presented to Parliament, that they were now being printed, and that they would very shortly be laid before the House in a printed form. He concurred most fully in all that his right hon. Friend had said as to its being the duty of Parliament to watch with jealous care any expenditure of public money which had not been sanctioned by a Vote of the Legislature; and he thought that whoever called upon the Treasury for any expenditure of public money which had not been so sanctioned ought to hold himself responsible for his conduct, and ought to be prepared to give a good and sufficient
  1678
  explanation to the House of Commons with respect to it. He proposed, therefore, to state to the House every circumstance in connection with the expenditure upon the lake in St. James's Park. At the end of July, 1855, he was appointed to his present office, having previously held the appointment of President of the Board of Health. He was at the Board of Health during the time that the cholera was raging in the Metropolis, and he was then brought into frequent contact with the principal medical practitioners in London; and almost every one of them to whom he had spoken had pointed out the defective state of the lakes in the parks, and had urged the necessity of having them put into a proper condition. On the 12th of October he wrote to the Treasury, stating that fact, and recommending the propriety of some steps being taken in order to improve the state of the lakes in the parks of the Metropolis. He stated also that before any works of that kind could be carried out, it would be necessary to make an outfall drain from the lake in St. James's Park, because it happened, owing to circumstances which had occurred many years ago, that the outfall was about five feet higher than the bed of the lake. He received the sanction of the Treasury to the making of that outfall drain, and hon. Members must be aware that it was a very heavy work. It went from the Victoria sewer near the Thames under the archway of the Horse Guards, and it was finished during last summer. The House would recollect that last Session a Select Committee was appointed to consider the communication from Pall Mall to Pimlico, and other communications through St. James's Park, and one of the resolutions arrived at was that there should be a footbridge made across the ornamental water. On the 6th of June he proposed to the House a Vote of £2,800 for the erection of such a bridge, but his proposition was rejected. The bridge was to have been very similar to the one which was now being erected there, only instead of being a suspension bridge it was to have been supported by light cast-iron pillars, and it would have been much cheaper than the present bridge, and it would not have been necessary in order to build it that the water should have been let out of the lake. That Vote was rejected, however, and the House determined that there should be a suspension bridge. That was resolved upon towards

  1679
  the close of last Session, Parliament breaking up in the third week in July. He then found that it was essential that deep foundations should be executed for the new bridge, that it would be absolutely necessary to let the water out of the lake, and that it must be out for a considerable time during the progress of the works. Taking that into consideration, knowing also the desirability of cleansing the lake, and that about 40,000 or 50,000 cubic yards of stuff would be required to fill up the holes and inequalities in the lake in order to render it safer for skaters and sliders; and finding, moreover, owing to the many buildings which were going on in the neighbourhood, that he could obtain that material for nothing, whereas in another year it might cost him 2s. or 2s. 6d. a yard (which would make a difference of £4,000 or £5,000 in the cost of the works), he had thought it better to urge upon the Treasury the necessity of proceeding with the works at once, instead of waiting for another year, when the cost of the material to which he had alluded might have added nearly fifty per cent to the original estimate. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would be of opinion that he was justified in urging on the Treasury the expediency of commencing a work which he believed to be necessary for the comfort and well-being of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. He wrote to the Treasury requesting power to proceed with the work, and on the 27th of August received their sanction. It had been his intention to ask for a Vote this year for the purpose of beginning the work, but under the circumstances he had stated he thought no time was to be lost, because it was impossible to say whether he might not be obliged, if he delayed, to ask for a very much larger sum. He therefore thought it best, as it was necessary to let out the water of the lake, to proceed with the work. That was the full explanation he had to give. He was ready to admit that neither he nor any one connected with a public department ought to spend the public money without the sanction of Parliament, yet circumstances might arise making it absolutely necessary and expedient that money should be spent without waiting for that sanction. His right hon. Friend had said that it was the practice for the Office of Works to spend sums of public money without a Vote of the House; and, having done so and executed the works, that then the
  1680
  First Commissioner came down to Parliament, and asked that money might be voted for the purpose of paying the expense of the works carried on by his authority under the sanction of the Treasury. He could assure his right hon. Friend that, whatever might have been the practice in former years, such was not the practice at present. In looking through the Estimates for the present year be found very few cases, and those of a very pressing nature, of works for which charges were made without the authority of Parliament. His right hon. Friend had called attention to two sums especially, one of which was on account of the construction of the clock, which he would allude to at once. He found that there was an agreement made with Mr. Dent, the maker of the clock, to the effect that as soon as the gentlemen to whom the matter was referred gave a certificate that the clock was in a proper state and went well and ought to be purchased, a sum should be paid on account. He therefore was bound, as soon as he was called on by Mr. Dent, to ask the referees whether they would give a certificate, and on receiving it he was also bound to write to the Treasury asking for the amount which he thought Mr. Dent fairly entitled to under the circumstances. Another item was occasioned by the distribution of the Crimean medals. That was a matter which could not be foreseen, and £1,600 were paid on account of it. There was a charge for ventilation, but that matter, he believed, was determined by a Committee of that House before he was in the office he now held. His right hon. Friend had called the attention of the House to the state of the accounts of the office. He was not aware that that question would have been brought forward, otherwise he would have been better prepared to give explanation respecting it. He was bound to say that, from circumstances over which he had no control, he found, when he first went to the Office of Works, the accounts in a most unsatisfactory state. This was owing to circumstances which the House would admit rendered it to some extent excusable. He found that the gentleman who was the principal secretary in the office had not, in consequence of severe illness, attended the office for eleven months, and the assistant-secretary very shortly after he (Sir B. Hall) entered the office was seized with a malady which affected his head. This gentleman in consequence left the office

  1681
  very soon, and was now in a very unfortunate state. Other matters connected with the office, which it was not necessary for him now to enter upon, also contributed to occasion the bad state of the accounts; he might state that no less than four hundred and forty-four queries had been sent from the Audit Office to be answered by the Office of Works, and of them he believed there were not thirty in allusion to the accounts passed during the time he had the honour to fill his present office. All those four hundred and forty-four queries had been answered during the time he had been in the office to the satisfaction of the Audit Office, and he believed that the accounts of the office were now in a most satisfactory state. He had only to repeat, with respect to the expenditure on St. James's Park, a large sum of money would hereafter be saved in consequence of the course which had been adopted.
  MR. BENTINCKdid not wish at any time to obstruct any Vote that might be required for the service of the country; but the House had a right to object to wasteful expenditure and he thought, when they compared the Votes they would be asked to agree to that night with those to which they had assented on a former night, it would be clear that while there was, on the part of the Government, a disinclination to bring forward Votes for sums necessary for the defence of the country, they were quite ready to propose Votes for works which were quite dispensable on the score of utility. On a recent occasion they were told by the First Lord of the Admiralty, that although it was impossible to coal Her Majesty's ships in Plymouth Sound on an emergency, yet that the Government did not propose to take a Vote for remedying this defect during the present year; and, on a subsequent night, they voted the magnificent sum of £13,000 for the defence of the mercantile ports of Great Britain. They might have just as well voted 13,000 pence; and this was the time when the Government had expended £11,000 for the alteration of fish-ponds, and the placing of flower-pots. This showed that it was requisite that there should be some general head to decide what money Parliament should be asked for, and to secure its appropriation to the legitimate wants and proper defence of the country, and not to the trifling objects to which it was now diverted. It was all very well for the right hon. Baronet opposite to obtain Votes
  1682
  for the purpose of adorning the metropolis, and gratifying his constituents.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was his duty to remind the hon. Member that the specific details of the Votes would be better discussed in Committee. The right hon. Baronet had confined himself to a question, which he considered was superior to details, and that was whether certain sums should be expended without the authority of Parliament. That was practically the point to which the attention of the House was directed.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, nothing was further from his intention than to violate the rules of the House, and he was sorry that he should have conveyed to the House the idea that he was discussing details, for he had wished to confine himself to principles. He was contending that our existing financial system was defective, inasmuch as it did not provide for any effective supervision of the Votes of that House, and of the public expenditure. It might be quite right to beautify the metropolis, but this should be done by a local rate, not by the public purse. What would be said if it were proposed to vote a sum of money to beautify a distant place? How many thousands of those who would have to contribute to this Vote would never visit the metropolis, and would never enjoy what they were obliged to pay for? He wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, while there was an increase of £24,000 in the sum voted for parks, pleasure gardens, &c., there was a decrease of £100,000 in that voted for harbours of refuge. To that he objected. He would have money expended upon national objects, and not upon those the enjoyment of which was confined to the people of London.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSunderstood that the steps taken by Sir B. Hall, in St. James's Park, were for the sake of saving a larger expenditure which would have been necessary had delay taken place. If that were so, it would be a justification; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman should give full information upon this point before he asked them to agree to the Vote. His advice to the House was, to give confidence to the right hon. Baronet, but to watch him well.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE MR. BERESFORD HOPE rose to protest against the principle which had been laid down by the hon. Member for West Norfolk, that the decoration of the metropolis, which was the seat of Government,

  1683
  was not a legitimate expense to the country generally. The parks of London contributed not only to the health and happiness of the millions who resided in London; but they also contributed to the pleasures of all those who from time to time visited London from every part of the country. Again, if the principle were admitted that no money could be expended on any work which it could not be proved would be enjoyed by every taxpayer, society would soon be reduced to a state of disorganization and barbarism. According to the views enunciated by the hon. Member, no taxation was to be thrown upon the country for any purpose from which all the community did not benefit. Now, the hon. Gentleman had referred to harbours of refuge. He did not wish to interfere with the construction of harbours of refuge; but, taking the hon. Gentleman upon his own hypothesis, he would beg to ask him what advantage harbours of refuge were to the inhabitants of the midland counties? On what ground, too, could the Votes for the Professors at the Universities be supported? Such a view appeared to him to be an absurdity. The proper principle was the principle of counterpoise—to agree to grants which benefited one place, and then to grants which benefited another. If that principle were not carried into effect, and if improvements like the one under consideration were refused, England would be regarded by the other Powers of Europe as a nation which, with greater means at her command, had disgraced herself by showing herself more niggardly than any other people in the world.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid that, as far as he had gathered from what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he understood that the works in St. James's Park had been undertaken in consequence of a representation which had been made to him in the autumn of 1855 by certain medical gentlemen. Now, if that were the case, he was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman had not during the last Session informed the House of his intentions. The course he had adopted created grave alarm for the future, for as far as he could make out, the complaints of those medical gentlemen applied not only to the water in St. James's Park, but to that in the Serpentine also. It was no new thing, however, for a President of the Board of Works to have similar statements addressed to him. When he had the honour of holding that
  1684
  office a very important medical deputation had waited upon him upon the same subject. He had then looked into the matter, and found that the opinions upon the subject were very often very various. As regarded the opinion which had been expressed to the right hon. Baronet by the medical gentlemen to whom he had referred, there could be no doubt that it applied to the water in the Serpentine as well as to that in St. James's Park, and, for his own part, he was alarmed lest, when Parliament was prorogued, a pressing deputation might persuade the right hon. Baronet to take up the question of the Serpentine, and, without any control of Parliament, to make urgent representations to the Treasury to induce them to enter upon expensive works. He trusted that the present discussion would not terminate without some assurance on the part of the Government that any such request would not be complied with until Parliament should have some opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLbegged to assure the House that he had not intended to convey the impression that he would make any application to the Treasury for grants for Public Works without the sanction of Parliament.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYcomplained that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had not intimated it to be his intention to comply with the request of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth to abstain from proceeding with the Vote until the House had the entire of the papers connected with the subject before it. The question under their notice was one of considerable importance. It involved the question of whether that House was to exercise any control over the expenditure of the public money. For his own part, he had always thought that it exercised very little. Indeed, he might say that he regarded the control of the House of Commons over the public expenditure as something very much in the nature of moonshine. The Secretary for the Treasury might, in fact, do as he pleased with the Civil Service Estimates. The public had no security that these estimates were subjected to audit, and there was at that moment no means of knowing whether money which had been granted by the House of Commons last year had or not been spent. If a gentleman connected with the Treasury could now spend £14,000

  1685
  at his pleasure, what security was there that next year he might not lay out £40,000 of his own mere motion? As to the expenditure of £3,721 for the sewer, he would wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) whether the House had not voted £8,000 for that same sewer last year, and if so, why there had not been a proper estimate of the expenditure laid before the House? If the amount had been expended under a Treasury letter, would the right hon. Gentleman explain to him what the meaning of a Treasury letter was? He now came to the expenditure of £11,000 for sending the ducks and drakes out of the lake, and cleaning the bottom of it. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that although Parliament had been sitting in July, and though the House of Commons had rejected by a very large majority the proposed Vote of £24,000 for making a connection from side to side of the Park, thereby intimating their determination not to sanction any vast expenditure on the Park, the Treasury, so soon after as the 27th of August, 1856—a few days after Parliament was prorogued—issued a letter authorising the expenditure now the subject of discussion? Was it by a Treasury letter of the 27th of August, 1856, or by one of the 14th of April, 1857, that this was accomplished? Or, it might be, that the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works had spent the money without any authority whatsoever. If so, he would ask hon. Members whether they were prepared to sanction such expenditure. If they were, then were the discussions in that House on matters of finance useless; but he trusted they would not lend to it their sanction, and that a Resolution would be carried declaring the laying out in that manner of the public money to be a violation of the privileges of the House of Commons.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) had, in introducing to their notice the subject under discussion, very courteously addressed himself to hon. Members sitting in that part of the House (the benches below the gangway on the Ministerial side) from which he (Mr. Ayrton) had the honour to speak. The right hon. Baronet had done so, probably, under the impression that those hon. Members took considerable interest in the question of the public expenditure, and because they embraced within their
  1686
  number all the metropolitan representatives, with, perhaps, the exception of the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works. He felt bound to tender his thanks to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth for the manner in which he had introduced the subject, but he must say that when the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works rose to give his explanation he had spoken in so low a tone that neither he (Mr. Ayrton) nor his hon. Friends near him had heard a single word of his speech. It was not improbable that the right hon. Baronet was of opinion that they ought to know nothing about it, because he had addressed himself altogether to the opposite side of the House, and judging from what had taken place, his explanation did not seem to be much appreciated in that quarter. The inhabitants of Marylebone would, no doubt, know the next day what the right hon. Baronet had really said; but he could not sit down without the expression of a hope that when the right hon. Baronet happened to rise in that House on a future occasion to offer an explanation upon a matter so important as that under discussion, he would at all events speak in a tone which would make his statement intelligible to the House. For his own part, he could only say that he would not accept for the metropolis the expenditure within it of the public money if to do so would be to act in violation of a great principle, as some hon. Gentlemen had suggested.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought that the House was greatly indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, who had brought forward this matter, as the case of St. James's Park was not the only instance in which the public money had been expended without the previous sanction of Parliament. Several thousands of pounds had last year been expended upon fireworks at the peace rejoicings, for the laying out of which the House of Commons had been unable to ascertain what department of Government was responsible. All Estimates in connexion with the matter had been refused, and they had been told that it would be defrayed out of the sum set apart to make provision for civil contingencies. Be that as it might, however, the House of Commons was to this day not in a position to ascertain whether a sum of £8,000 or £15,000 had been expended. He had only to add, that he could not subscribe to the doctrine which

  1687
  had been propounded by the hon. Member for Maidstone, to the effect that any sum of money which might be laid out in the decoration of the metropolis was necessarily well employed. Every one, of course, must be desirous of seeing the metropolis beautified, but he must confess he did not think that such works as those which were being carrried on in St. James's Park were, in point of utility, to be compared with such great national works as had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Norfolk—namely, harbours of refuge, by which life and valuable property might be saved.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be in the recollection of those hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the House at the time, that when the subject of the fireworks had been under their consideration last year, a question had been put to him with respect to the fund from which the sum proposed to be expended was to be defrayed. His answer to that question had been, that it was proposed to defray them out of the sum set apart for civil contingencies, which was not prepared by Estimate, but which was simply a sum placed at the disposal of the Government to meet the occasional requirements of the public service. In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby), he might state that the Vote for the works in connexion with the lake in St. James's Park would not be brought on that evening. The total amount of the first Vote would be diminished by that amount.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the explanation which had been given to the House by the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works was not a satisfactory answer to the charge that the Government had, without sufficient cause, and without the sanction of Parliament, expended a large amount of the public money. The right hon. Gentleman the chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that the expenditure for the fireworks last year had been defrayed out of the sum set apart for civil contingencies; but that statement, he apprehended, applied to the fireworks in St. James's and Hyde Parks alone, and not to those which had taken place at Woolwich, the cost of which would have to be defrayed out of the Votes for the Ordnance and military departments. The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman certainly did not
  1688
  afford much guarantee that in future a very strict hand would be held over the amount of public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Public Works had told them that, in consequence of the Vote of the House respecting the suspension bridge in St. James's Park, towards the close of the Session of last year, he found it necessary, in the month of August—one month after the prorogation of Parliament—to apply to the Treasury for authority to do certain other things in the park. Certainly that was rather quick after the close of the Session. But that was not all. The House had rejected the plan of the right hon. Baronet, the First Commissioner of Works, to erect a bridge upon iron standards, because, in consequence of the way in which those standards were sunk in the water, the effect of the construction of a bridge upon them would be to spoil the appearance of the lake, by cutting it up, as it were, into two small fish-ponds. So far, however, as he could form an opinion, the works now in progress were, by an ingenious contrivance, calculated to have precisely the same effect, for the present bridge hung down in such a way that it in reality seemed very little higher than if it were placed upon posts, as had originally been intended. If he were correct in that opinion, the result would be that the right hon. Baronet would have the satisfaction of carrying out—so far as appearance, at all events, was concerned—his first design, although in a different mode from that which he had proposed. The fact was, the right hon. Baronet had become so strongly inoculated, while at the Board of Health, with sanitary views, that one's pockets were in considerable danger under his administration. He was, therefore, very glad that the right hon. Baronet had not remained a longer time at the head of that department; for if so, he would, in all probability, be found more dangerous still than he was at present, and he cordially hoped that the successors of the right hon. Baronet in the office which he now held would not get the same training which he had received. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), as to the injustice of taxing the country at large for an expenditure incurred in the metropolis. If London required beautifying, then let Londoners do the work. But, while he entertained that opinion, he

  1689
  must admit that he did not regard the works in question as coming within that principle, inasmuch as the parks were the estate of the Crown, and therefore stood upon a different footing from other descriptions of property.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee of Supply, Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that before placing in the hands of the Chairman the first Vote which he intended to propose, he designed, in pursuance of the notice he had given last evening, to make a general statement with regard to the great increase that had taken place in the expenditure upon certain Votes in the Civil Service Estimates. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) had, indeed, questioned whether he would be quite in order in making that statement after going into Committee of Supply. As far as he was concerned, it was a matter of indifference whether he made that statement before going into Committee of Supply or in Committee of Supply; but the question having been referred to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, to whom it must be the wish of the House to defer, and the right hon. Gentleman having, as he thought, on good grounds decided that this statement would be best made in Committee of Supply, he hoped that he should be held to pursue the best and most consistent course in adopting that plan. He was aware that it was a novel practice to make a general statement on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates, but circumstances had somewhat changed of late in regard to these Estimates. Some years ago, the Civil Service Estimates amounted to a very small sum. It was customary in those days to place every description of civil expenditure upon the Consolidated Fund, but a more wholesome and Parliamentary course had since been adopted, of placing this expenditure upon the Voles of Parliament. These Votes had now increased to so large an amount that it was fair that Parliament should occasionally—he did not say every year—be informed of the grounds upon which this large expenditure had taken place. In making this statement, he did not wish to set a precedent for the future, but he should rather ask the Committee to allow him to take that course as a matter of indulgence, as it was only just,
  1690
  seeing the extensive manner in which these Estimates had been criticized, both in the House and the Country, that he should have an opportunity of explaining, on the part of the Government, the chief grounds on which the large increase had taken place, in order that the House of Commons should exercise its discretion, and determine whether it would proceed in the course it had pursued of annually increasing certain important Votes, which had led to the augmentation in these Estimates. Hon. Members would see in Parliamentary paper No. 136 of the present Session the amount under every head of the Civil expenditure as it had been voted since 1830. Hon. Members, on casting their eyes over this statement, would find that since 1838 the amount of the Civil Service Estimates had been increased from £2,393,182 in that year to no less a sum than £6,724,250 last year. It mast be admitted that this increase of expenditure was not unnaturally a subject of anxiety and alarm, both in and out of the House; but the Committee should bear in mind it had been caused in a great measure by an alteration in the practice which formerly prevailed of placing very large sums on the Consolidated Fund. For example, when it was determined by the House to pay the large amount required for the Irish Constabulary, that charge, amounting to £630,000 per annum, was placed on the Consolidated Fund, and was not found in the Civil Estimates voted by Parliament. In those days, and up to a comparatively recent period, too, all the charges for the Board of Works, the land revenue, the public parks and pleasure-grounds were paid out of the revenue of those departments before it reached the Exchequer. That practice was now altered. The House had not only properly prevented any expenditure from being withdrawn, after collection of revenue, on its way to the Exchequer, but it had entirely abandoned the plan of placing charges upon the Consolidated Fund, which, never coming before Parliament, by that means escaped the attention of the House of Commons. Every fresh item of expenditure sanctioned by Acts of Parliament was now placed in the annual Votes of Parliament; and, therefore, the House was enabled to consider, not only the question to which the expenditure referred, but also the amount and character of that expenditure. He did not propose to trace back those Estimates so far as 1838, but

  1691
  in the discussions which took place in the last Session, and in the speeches since made out of Parliament, it had almost become as familiar as a household word, that the Civil Service Estimates had increased during the short period between 1852 and 1856 by not less than £2,300,000. He was free to admit that this increase was not only a fitting subject for discussion by that House, but also by all who took an interest in the economy of the public service; and this being the point to which public attention had more particularly been drawn, he proposed, avoiding a discussion of individual Estimates in Committee, to call attention to the manner in which this large increase of expenditure had taken place, that the committee might see the exact amount of this increase, and the distribution of that amount, and determine whether it would proceed in the same course that it had of late years pursued. As to that increase of expenditure, the Government were not responsible. Every shilling of that amount had been voted by the House of Commons, and every item which went to make up the gross increase had been discussed in, and resulted from the deliberations and decisions of Parliament. It was, therefore, proper that the Committee should now have the opportunity of seeing the result of the various acts that it had done during the last four or five years, and of coming to a determination whether it would proceed in the same course for the future. He would now read to the Committee the amount of the Civil Service Estimates from 1852 to 1856. 1852, £4,407,754; 1853, £4,802,318; 1854, £6,648,522; 1855, £6,586,062; 1856, £6,724,250. The Committee would observe that the Estimates of 1854 showed an advance of rather more than £2,000,000 upon those of 1852—(a point which he begged hon. Members to bear in mind since, on the increase of that year, he should found many of the observations he should have to make); that the Estimates of 1855 were somewhat less than those of 1854, and that those of 1856 were somewhat greater. However, the Estimates for the last three years—1854, 1855, 1856—were nearly the same, the great increase having taken place in 1854. He would now give the increase of the Estimates of the following years, as compared with those of 1852. That increase was as follows:—1853, £394,564; 1854, £2,240,768; 1855, £2,178,308; 1856, £2,316,496.
  1692
  What he proposed was, not to trace the causes of the increase in each year, but to take the year 1856—the year of the largest amount, which would in a general way represent the causes of the increase in the years 1854 and 1855. In the first place, he must remind the Committee of the existence of a strong feeling manifested by the House on many occasions, and most of all expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) as to the inconvenience and loss that arose from the fact that a large portion of the expenditure was by Acts of Parliament imbedded in charges on the Consolidated Fund, and that another large portion was annually paid out of the gross revenue on its way to the Exchequer, since in these cases the House of Commons had no opportunity of saying a word on a single shilling of that expenditure, nor any opportunity of controlling it. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) took steps to remedy this defect, and among the many signal services performed by that right hon. Gentleman none were of greater importance than this. Early in the Session of 1854 the Treasury prepared, at the request of the Government, a Bill for the purpose of transferring from the Consolidated Fund all charges of a nature that could be voted by Parliament, and withdrawing from the Customs, the Exchequer, and the other revenue Departments, all payments either for salaries or other purposes. In pursuance of that Bill the House of Commons in 1854 removed from the Consolidated Fund thirty-four items of public expenditure. Therefore, in 1854, they voted for the first time for these items no less a sum than £977,600. By the same Act they transferred from the Customs twelve Votes, amounting to £205,800. They also transferred from the Navy and the Commissariat Votes to the extent of £29,600. For postages transferred from army, navy, and gross revenue, they annually voted £85,000. In addition to that, it had been the custom to pay a great number of persons by fees, but the House having condemned that practice, salaries had been paid instead, and the fees handed over to the Exchequer. In some cases these fees had been converted into stamp duties. Therefore a considerable number of new Votes were represented by fees paid annually into the Exchequer, or by stamp duties in lieu of fees, the total amount of them being £138,000. Adding these various

  1693
  sums together, it would be found that no less than £1,436,000 of the increase of £2,316,000 had been transferred from the other funds by which they had previously been defrayed, and were now borne on the annual Votes of Parliament. This reduced the large amount of £2,316,000 which looked so alarming when stated by itself, to only £880,000, and he wished to state how this sum of £880,000 had arisen. There was an increase for education in Great Britain of £291,000—in Ireland, £63,000; the department of science and art, £25,000; and the National Gallery, £15,000—making together £394,000. Now the Vote for education was one to which he desired to call the special attention of the Committee, for a very large increase would again be found in it this year; and if the present system was to continue they must expect the augmentation of this item to proceed still further. In 1852 the entire educational Votes, including England and Ireland, science, art, and the National Gallery, amounted to £440,000. In 1838 the corresponding sum was only £130,000; in 1856 it had risen as high as £759,000. The sum proposed for the present year was £850,000; He remembered a few years ago, when this Vote was about £263,000, some hon. Member complained, and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London expressed an ardent hope that it would very soon amount to half a million. In the present year, the Vote for England alone was £541,000. That was a thing for Parliament to meet; it was not a matter which the Government could exercise any control over, further than bringing it before the House. Hon. Members—those, at all events, who were in favour of an extended education—would feel that it must be some consolation to know that the cause they had at heart was not being neglected either by the Legislature or the Government. The next item was for Holyhead Harbour and other Harbours of Refuge. Upon this the increase in the plan of last year, as compared with that of 1852, was £170,000. When the first Vote for Holyhead Harbour was taken, a very large scheme was proposed to Parliament, founded on the recommendation of the Admiralty; but owing to the jealousy of Liverpool and the neighbouring ports, together with a scepticism on the part of that House as to the utility of the project, the undertaking was reduced from a plan that would cost £1,200,000—the original
  1694
  sum suggested—to one that would cost only £808,000. The smaller project was the one actually adopted; but to such a remarkable degree had the expectations of those who advocated the more extensive scheme been realized, that even during the progress of the works the Harbour was so much resorted to in its incomplete state, and so inadequate to receive the vessels having recourse to it, that the Government had been compelled to come down to the House and propose increase after increase in the Vote until they had reached the highest amount contemplated in the original plan, and the present estimate was £l,198,000. The following table, taken from the report of Captain Skinner, the Superintendent of Holyhead Harbour, showed the number of vessels which had entered it from 1852:—

  No.

  Tonnage.

  1852

  …

  …

  514

  …

  …

  34,650

  1853

  …

  …

  1,293

  …

  …

  106,392

  1854

  …

  …

  1,788

  …

  …

  137,058

  1855

  …

  …

  1,607

  …

  …

  119,413

  1856

  …

  …

  2,394

  …

  …

  198,666

  The importance of this harbour was very great, because not only did the Irish postal packets go to and from it, but it was for the convenience of the metropolis that the American steamers should land their letters, &c., when they arrived off Holyhead. One cause of the large increase upon this and similar works was, that it was found advisable to complete them as expeditiously as possible. It was due therefore to the exertions of the late Mr. Rendell, who had had the supervision of this harbour, and whose great professional abilities everybody would admit, that they had been able to expend a large sum in the execution of this undertaking in a single year. If important public works of this kind were to be carried out at all, the quicker they were advanced the better for the interests of the community. [An ironical cry of "Hear, hear!"] While the works continued unfinished a vast capital was lying idle from which the public derived no advantage, whereas—as he begged to remind hon. Members who cheered—the soon they were brought to completion the sooner would the country reap the benefit of its expenditure. Although Holyhead and some other harbours would not continue to be an annual charge to this extent, yet, from the interest generally taken in the state of the harbours of refuge along our coast, and from the absolute necessity of these improvements, if he might judge from the number of applications

  1695
  to Government, not only for the sake of the navy but for the safety of life and property connected with our mercantile marine, it would be for the House to determine whether it would persevere in outlays of this description in time of peace. The next head of charge was printing and stationery, the amount of which would no doubt produce some surprise. The increase since 1852 was no less than £241,000. He should not be doing justice to M'Culloch, who was at the head of this department, if he did not state his belief that no public servant had exerted himself more than that gentleman had done to economize and keep down this expenditure; although certainly his control over it was but limited, the head of the stationery branch being as it were but a sort of warehouseman for the other departments. The charge for stationery had augmented as follows:—

  In 1848 it was

  …

  …

  …

  £302,362

  In 1852

  …

  …

  …

  216,509

  In 1856

  …

  …

  …

  458,275

  This augmentation was subject to a diminution which the Committee would view with satisfaction. The difference between the items for 1852 and 1856 about (£242,000) was composed thus:—The printing of patents had been transferred to the Stationery Department; and though that item now cost the country £40,000 a year, which was included in this Vote, yet the amount of fees paid into the Exchequer was upwards of £100,000. Instead, therefore, of this forming a charge, it was on the whole a source of profit to the Exchequer. There was a sum of £30,000 in respect of a transfer to the stationery office for the purchase of stamps on parchments, which were repaid by the public in the purchase of those stamps. There was therefore an amount of £70,000, which consisted of a mere transfer from the Patent Office and the Inland Revenue Office, thus reducing the amount of increase to £171,000. Besides, the war had caused a very large increase in the demand for stationery. Hon. Members were probably aware that it had been the policy of the Government for many years past to bring into the Stationery Office the whole of the business connected with the purchase of paper, books, and the printing of documents for all the public departments; and even to such an extent had that been carried that the cartridge paper for the regiments had been purchased at the Stationery Office, by the Ordnance Department. It
  1696
  was obvious that the gentleman who was at the head of the Stationery Office, and who had frequently to make contracts with paper manufacturers for every description of paper, was more likely than the Superintendent of the Ordnance Department to enter into an advantageous contract for the supply of paper for the service of the army. In the War Department there had been an increase of £65,000, and in that of the Admiralty an increase of £16,000, making together £81,000, a large portion of which might be considered as temporary and attributed to the late war, and thus the £171,000 was further reduced to £90,000. As might naturally be expected from the increase of public business, the printing of that House had increased during the last few years. During the period, between 1852 and 1856, the Parliamentary printing had increased by £13,000—a considerable sum of money; but he hoped the measures which were being taken by the Printing Committee, and which the Treasury and Stationery Office would only be too happy to carry out, would have the effect of checking that piece of expenditure by leading to a wise consideration of the Returns which were made and of those which were omitted. The Committee was aware that it rarely happened that Motions for the printing of Returns were opposed by the Government; and why? Simply because the hon. Members who made these Motions almost invariably said that they intended to found Resolutions upon the papers for which they asked. But when the papers were printed, and they were frequently very bulky, not more than five or six persons cared to read or look at them. The increase in Parliamentary stationery was £3,000; increase of stationery in the Foreign Office, £3,000; Board of Trade, £4,000; Board of Customs, £8,000; Inland Revenue (owing principally to the increased number of printed forms required for the income and other taxes), £17,000; Post Office, £16,000; prisons and convict establishments, £4,000; making altogether £70,000; which was reduced, however, by £20,000 scattered in small sums over the whole of the public services. He might here refer to the Report of Mr. M'Culloch in page forty-three of the Estimates. In that memorandum Mr. M'Culloch said—
  "But, independent of the war with Russia, which may be looked upon us accidental, there is,

  1697
  speaking generally, a strong tendency to increase the demands for printing and stationery. This arises partly from the increasing population and connections of the empire, and the growing desire for publicity, and partly from the establishments of schools and libraries, either wholly or partly supported by the public. The latter include the various establishments connected with the Committee of Council on Education, the military and naval schools and libraries in barrack, garrisons, and ships; the schools and libraries in gaols, penitentiaries, hulks, &c. The outlay on these different heads is already large, and is rapidly increasing; and as it would appear to be a branch which is peculiarly liable to abuse, it should be sharply looked after. If I might presume to give an opinion on such a point, I should say that the books and stationery supplied to the schools and establishments now referred to are of a much too costly description, and that articles of an inferior quality and price would answer every useful purpose quite as well."
  No doubt it was most desirable that the establishments here referred to should be supplied with suitable libraries; but Mr. M'Culloch had frequently had to protest against unreasonable demands for books quite out of the range of convicts, soldiers, or sailors. A public servant more anxious to maintain a careful watch over his department than Mr. M'Culloch did not exist. The amount of increase under the head of which he (Mr. Wilson) had been speaking, though large, had been shown to consist in great measure of sums merely transposed from one department to another, or it had been caused by circumstances like the Russian war, which must he considered as accidental; or lastly, it was owing, in some small degree, to charges with which the Committee would not wish to interfere, so long as they were kept within proper bounds. The next head of increase was that of prisons and convict establishments, and the amount of the increase was £114,907. That was a subject which recent discussions in that House rendered peculiarly interesting. The particulars of that increase would indicate to hon. Members the steps which had been taken by the Government since 1852. The following was a tabular comparison under this head between the charges in 1852 and 1856—

  1852.

  1856.

  Inspection and general superintendence

  £16,196

  £16,783

  Government Prisons and Convict establishments at home

  261,522

  415,906

  Maintenance of prisoners

  159,123

  161,595

  Expenses of transportation

  101,041

  25,485

  Convict establishments in colonies

  253,586

  286,605

  £791,468

  £906,374

  1698
  The Committee would no doubt be surprised at the vast expenses for convict establishments in the colonies, after the abandonment of the transportation system some three or four years ago; but it ought to be borne in mind that, although they had ceased to send convicts to the colonies, there was yet a very large number of convicts there whose sentences must expire before they could be set at liberty. For some considerable time, therefore, an establishment as vast almost as that which was in existence when the transportation system was abolished would have to be maintained. But that was not all; for, about two years ago, in consequence of the increased cost of living in Australia, the salaries of the officers who superintended the convicts had to be considerably increased, and the maintenance of the convicts had also become more expensive. This Country, therefore, had at the present moment to bear the expense of two systems for the punishment of convicts, and it would be some time before one of them—namely, the transportation system—ceased to be a charge upon the country. The number of prisoners in England and Ireland during the year 1852 was 12,172; in 1856 it was 12,769, being an increase of only 597; so that, notwithstanding the cessation of transportation for the last few years, the increase of prisoners in the home prisons was only 597, which was lather surprising when one thought of the great outcry which was made a few months ago about the alarming increase of crime in England. Hon. Members were aware of the improvement which had taken place within the last few years in the management of the home prisons. That improvement especially marked the prisons in Ireland, and it was due in great measure to the visit of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle to the convict establishment at Spike Island, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), when he paid that visit expressed his surprise at seeing so many prisoners there. [Sir. J. GRAHAM: Hear, hear!] An accidental circumstance had brought the subject under the notice of the Treasury, and a Commission of inquiry was appointed, the result of which was the establishment of a permanent Commission, consisting of a Chairman and two members, for the management of convict establishments in Ireland. Since then two large new prisons had been erected at Cork and Philipstown,

  1699
  at the cost of £22,000. In England three such buildings had been erected, at Brixton, at Chatham, and at Fulham, the total annual expenditure on which was £180,917, so that it appeared that more than the whole increase was attributable to prisons erected since the year in question, and not to any increased expenditure connected with prisons existing at that time. The next increase to which he would refer was that in respect to public buildings, amounting to £81,000. These buildings were divided into six heads. Upon palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty the increase was only abort £3,000; upon those partly occupied by Her Majesty the increase was also very trifling; and upon palaces not so occupied at all the difference was also insignificant. The great increase arose under the head of buildings for the public Departments placed under the charge of the Board of Works. In England the charge for public buildings had increased by £68,517; in Scotland, by £12,500. In the first instance, this increase included the rent of offices hired on the part of the public, which in 1852 was £8,832; and in 1856, £42,638; the cost of furniture in 1852 being £23,600, and in 1856, £34,979. This increase had arisen in a great measure from the consolidation of the War Departments, and from the great number of public offices now hired for temporary purposes, for commissions, for the Merchant Seamen's Fund, and a great variety of new offices which had been created within the last three or four years. The total cost to the Exchequer on this account was now £81,000. These sums altogether amounted to somewhat more than the balance he had to account for, but he had only taken the principal items, preferring not to weary the Committee with the small changes involving a decrease of expenditure which had taken place. They arrived, therefore, at this comparison between 1852 and 1856. The increase of which they had heard so much was £2,316,496, and it was accounted for as follows:—

  Transferred from Consolidated Fund and gross revenue

  …

  …

  £1,436,000

  Education

  …

  …

  394,000

  Holyhead harbour

  …

  …

  180,000

  Printing and stationery

  …

  …

  241,000

  Prisons and convicts

  …

  …

  114,000

  Public buildings

  …

  …

  81,000

  £2,446,000

  Unfortunately this was not all. There
  1700
  was a very large increase in the Estimates of the present year, and he should now endeavour to show how that increase arose, namely in—

  Class 1. Public works and buildings

  …

  £24,882

  Class 3. Law and justice

  …

  330,010

  Class 4. Education, science, and art

  …

  123,385

  Class 5. Colonial, consular, and other foreign services

  …

  61,950

  Class 6. Occasional charges

  …

  13,490

  Total increase

  …

  603,753

  Deduct decrease in Class 2, Salaries and expenses of public departments

  …

  5,087

  Net increase

  …

  £598,660

  Showing a net increase of nearly £600,000 in the Estimates of the present year as compared with 1856. To these items he would now call attention. In the first place he found that the head of Education figured for a large proportion of the increase. The Vote for Education this year in excess of that for 1856 amounted for England to £90,020; for science and art the increase was £9,310; the National Gallery, £5,526; the British Museum, £34,000. In respect to the National Gallery, he might say in passing that the increase which had taken place was almost entirely occasioned by the splendid bequest of the late Mr. Turner, and he thought that no Member of this House would begrudge the £5,000 spent in providing for the magnificent collection of pictures so given to the nation. Here, therefore, was an increase of £138,856 attributable to the items of education, science, and art. Then with respect to class 3, hon. Members would bear in mind that last year a Bill was passed by which a portion, not exceeding one-fourth, of the police rates of counties and boroughs was paid out of the Consolidated Fund. An attempt was made to induce his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) to consent to a larger expenditure on this head, and it was not the fault of the House of Commons that such an expenditure did not take place. As it was, the charge for police under the Act of last year amounted to £145,980. Then, another Bill was passed respecting County Courts, upon which there was a strong combination, which the Government found themselves wholly unable to resist. They proposed what they believed to be a fair and liberal remuneration to the registrars, but the House doubled the amount they proposed by a majority of nearly two to one. He thought, therefore, that the Government were at all events not responsible for this very large increase of expenditure

  1701
  an increase which this year amounted to no less then £195,212, though it would be something less in future years, for the Vote then taken was for a year and a half. Then, again, hon. Members consented to a heavy charge upon the Consolidated Fund in respect to the salaries of the Judges, in which perhaps they exercised a wise discretion instead of making those salaries a matter of annual discussion in Parliament. Again, however, the Government had a very narrow escape, a demand which had nearly been successful being made that the salaries of the Country Court Judges should be increased by £20,000 a year. Under the Bill to which he alluded the total cost to the country would be, at the very least, £231,000 a year, thus made up. There would be an annual charge upon the Votes of £144,320; the salaries charged upon the Consolidated Fund would be £76,900: he compensation given to Judges of local Courts replaced by the County Courts, £10,000; making altogether, £231,220. Another point upon which the Government were foiled by the House had reference to the fees charged in these courts. It was argued that justice should be made as cheap as possible to the poor man. But he thought, judging from what had happened, it would be found that, instead of making justice cheap to the poor man, Parliament had encouraged an amount of litigation which would compel it in a very short time to reconsider its decision. In most cases he believed, particularly in the manufacturing and mining districts possessing a large population, the business of these courts had increased by fifty per cent. Now, if that increase represented legitimate attempts on the part of small traders to recover their debts, it could not be objected to. But he was told that small traders and hawkers, who in populous places went from door to door tempting poor people to buy upon credit, were systematically making use of these courts as a regular machine for the collection of their debts. They first induced people to take credit, forcing their goods upon them, and as soon as their customers got into debt to the extent of 20 s. or 25 s., they put them into the County Court, obtained judgment for a fee of 9d. or 1s., and then got the debts collected through an officer of the court at the rate of, perhaps, 1s. per week. In many instances it was found that these hawkers trusted the same
  1702
  persons again, and the same process took place, until the bailiffs of the court in these districts were fast becoming mere collectors of these small traders. He had dwelt upon these subjects at some length because out of the total increase of £598,666 in 1857 as compared with 1856, no less a sum than £341,192 was entailed by the two measures of which he had been speaking, passed in the last Session of Parliament. He wished to show the House of Commons that it really lay with them, rather than with the Government, to support measures of economy, and that in some instances the Government had been striving to enforce economy while the House had preferred something akin to extravagance. Then, as another example, in the present year there was an increase of £24,543 in prison and convict establishments; and in public buildings, also, there was an increase of £24,882. Here, again, was an increase attributable to the House of Commons, and not to the Government. Some years ago a Committee sat upon the Dublin Hospitals. Every one felt that to vote £16,000 or £20,000 a year to the Dublin hospitals, and nothing to the hospitals of Edinburgh, London, or other large towns, was an abuse, and the House determined that the Vote should be reduced by £1,000 a year until it expired altogether. The Vote was in process of extinction, and had been brought down in 185,3 to £13,000, when the hon. Member for Dublin gave notice of a Motion for recurring to the original Vote. He (Mr. Wilson) being then, as now, at the Treasury, opposed the Motion, but he was beaten in a tolerably full House, and the hon. Member obtained the appointment of a Committee. The Committee was fairly composed, for on it there was a majority of English and Scotch Members, and they recommended that the original Vote of £16,000 a year should be retained, and that it should be made permanent; so that there again the Government was foiled by the House of Commons, and they had nothing to do but to carry out the views of Parliament. The consequence was that £19,000 figured this year in the Estimates for the Dublin hospitals. Then there was a further additional charge of £12,000 for the constabulary, and some charges connected with alterations in the Court of Chancery; and thus upwards of £560,000 out of the 598,666 of increase was accounted for.

  1703
  The remainder was composed of small sums, but the increases which he had now explained were—

  On education, science, and art, &c.

  £138,856

  Police for counties and boroughs

  145,980

  County Courts

  195,212

  Prison and convict establishments

  24,543

  Public buildings

  24,882

  Dublin hospitals

  19,000

  Court of Chancery and constabulary

  12,000

  Total

  £560,473

  The total increase from 1852, including the Estimates for the present year, amounted to no less than £2,978,000, or nearly £3,000,000 in five years upon the Civil Service Estimates:—

  The amount transferred was

  £1,436,000

  Education, &c.

  532,726

  Holyhead Harbour

  180,000

  Printing and stationery

  241,000

  Prisons and convicts, law and justice

  486,074

  Public buildings

  105,882

  Total

  £2,981,682

  Of that amount £1,436,000 represented charges transferred from other branches, while £1,545,682 represented altogether new charges or increases upon old charges. He had now stated as clearly and distinctly as he could the grounds upon which these respective increases rested, and he thought that the Committee would agree with him that the causes lay in a very small compass. The questions in which the Government were particularly concerned were few in number; they were matters peculiarly fitting for the consideration and decision of Parliament; they were all questions of high policy and not of small Governmental details; they are all questions mixed up with the interests, social and commercial, of the country, and therefore they were especially subject which Parliament ought to deal with. The Committee would shortly he called upon to deal with these questions on the Votes for items similar to those which he had been explaining. They would then have an opportunity of discussing the principles upon which the expenditure of the year was based, and of deciding, amongst others, whether this large increase of expenditure for education was to be allowed. His own impression was that they would decide, not only that the Vote now proposed should be sanctioned, but that it should go on increasing. They would have the opportunity of considering whether they would go on expending the moderate sum of £200,000 a year—for, after all, it was a moderate sum for a great country like
  1704
  this to expend—in the improvement of harbours of refuge. He should propose next week the appointment of a Committee to consider this subject as a whole, and to devise some scheme for systematically improving our coasts, with a view both to safety and commercial purposes, and to the improvement of the fisheries on the coasts of Scotland and Ireland. If the House should agree to a policy of that description, it would very probably be incumbent on Parliament to vote a considerable sum of money annually for that purpose, in order that they might proceed on some intelligible and systematic plan, instead of working piecemeal and without system, while Irish Members were crying out for Votes for Irish harbours, Scotch Members for Scotch harbours, and English Members all round the coast for harbours for the different places which they represented. They would have an opportunity also of considering whether they would proceed with the improved mode of managing convicts, which had led to so great an increase of expenditure; and, judging from the debates which had lately taken place, he had no doubt that they would persevere in that source of expenditure. With regard to public buildings, they all knew that there were three or four which were most urgently required at this very moment. We wanted a new Foreign-office, a new Colonial-office, and a War-office, and he thought that they would be unanimously of opinion that those works had been too long delayed. It would be seen, therefore, that all these increases of expenditure related to matters which were peculiarly for the consideration of the House of Commons, and he did not see how they could well escape the dilemma of spending even more money in that direction than they had hitherto done. The branches of expenditure to which he had referred were only those of a large and an important kind, which accounted, in a great measure, for the increase which had taken place. He had not referred to the Governmental departments of the country, in which, if an improvident spirit existed, a very considerable increase of expenditure might have been looked for—he meant the great Governmental departments in London, not the Customs or the Island Revenue. The Committee must be aware that there had been a very large increase of business within the last few years in all the public departments. There never had been a pe

  1705
  riod in the history of the country when there had been so rapid a development of its trade, its intercourse, and of everything which marked the material progress of a nation as had taken place in this country within the last few years. If he took the exports and imports as affording a broad and tolerably accurate indication of this fact, he found that the exports had increased from £78,076,854 in 1852, to £115,890,857 in 1856; that the imports had increased from £109,345,409 in 1852, to £172,651,823 in 1856, while shipping had increased in the same proportion. We had established steam communication with all parts of the world, and we had now a monthly steam communication with Australia, carrying the mails in about fifty days between Sydney and London. We had telegraphs established, or being established, connecting all parts of Europe, and arrangements were in progress for connecting the whole of our Mediterranean possessions with London by telegraph. The terms were being arranged by which we should be enabled to communicate almost with the rapidity of thought with Malta and Corfu. The telegraph was being laid also between the west coast of Ireland and Newfoundland, the service being already complete between Newfoundland and North America, and being disseminated over the whole of the United States and Canada. All these matters had led to an enormous increase of labour in the different Government offices. He found that in the Board of Trade there were—

  In 1852 papers received

  19,600

  In 1856 (to Nov. 20)

  50,470

  In 1852, papers despatched

  14,835

  In 1856 (to Nov. 20)

  34,692

  showing an increase of work of 150 per cent. In the Foreign Office there were—

  In 1852, papers received and sent

  32,043

  In 1856

  57,914

  showing an increase of

  25,871

  And beyond that large additional amount of correspondence which the Foreign Office had to conduct, the introduction of the telegraphic system had added almost as much to the labours of that department, in communicating by that means, as their correspondence in the shape of despatches had been augmented. In the Treasury the increase had also been very large. Notwithstanding this large increase of business, and notwithstanding there had been a revision of these establishments, which had led to an increase in the salaries and incomes of the leading officers,
  1706
  who had intellectual work to perform, there had been little or no increase in the general amount expended for salaries. Taking the Treasury, the Home-office, the Foreign-office, the Colonial-office, the Privy Council-office, and Educational Department, the Board of Trade, the Office for the Registry of Seamen, the Office of Paymaster General, the Office of the Comptroller General, the Office of Public Works, the Departments of Works and Woods, the State Paper-office, the Poor Law Boards for the United Kingdom, the Mint-office, the Office of Inspectors of Factories and Mines, the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Office of Public Works for Ireland, and the Office of the Paymaster of Civil Services (Ireland), and one or two others, the whole of the salaries in 1852 amounted to £332,899, and in 1857 to £332,976, being an increase of only £77. But that was not all. The Board of Trade had to carry out the Mercantile Marine Bill, which had led to an increased expenditure for salaries in that department of £12,717, and there had also been increased expenditure on account of the Department of the Inspectors of Mines of £6,725, in pursuance of the Bill passed by that House. Those two charges amounted to about £20,000. If that sum were deducted from the present charge for salaries, there would be an absolute diminution of expense for those offices in 1857 of about £20,000 as compared with the amount in 1852. He thought that that explanation would show that, while this enormous increase of expenditure in the Civil Service Estimates had taken place, it did arise in sources over which that House peculiarly had a direct control, and in almost every instance the House had expressed a direct opinion of its own, and had frequently exercised a pressure upon the Government against the opinion of the Government; and that, with respect to that class of expenditure peculiarly in the hands of the Government, and in regard to which, if the Government had been prodigal of the public money, and inclined to increase its influence and power by a wasteful expenditure, an increase might be expected to be seen there, notwithstanding a large increase of business, there was, instead of an increase, an absolute diminution on account of salaries of about £20,000. He would only advert to one more point, and then conclude. It was not for him, more than any other hon. Member, to recommend anything to the

  1707
  House of Commons, but there was one particular point which his experience at the Treasury would induce him to submit to the attention of the House. If hon. Members wished to study and promote economy, it was, above all things, necessary for them to look with a jealous eye at every proposition, from whatever quarter it might come, for removing local expenditure and placing it on the Consolidated Fund. Nothing had led to greater abuse, was more destructive of economy, or detrimental to the public service than that course. One of the arguments against a general poor-rate was, that the establishment of such a rate would remove the wholesome check now existing against an uneconomical administration of the rate. The same argument applied against placing local charges on the Consolidated Fund. Where there was a local rate, every one was careful to reduce it to the lowest amount consistent with the efficiency of the public service, but if the rate were placed on the Consolidated Fund, then every one would be trying to get the largest share of the bone. He would allude, in illustration, to one single case. In 1835 this House consented to take on itself the charge of half the cost of prosecutions throughout the country. Now, so long as the public Exchequer paid only one-half, there was no great harm done, because the counties, having to pay the other half, would, of course, be vigilant in watching the expenditure. But, unfortunately, in 1846, that House consented to place on the public Exchequer the remaining half. The object might have been good, but the consequences were very prejudicial, for the counties had no longer any motive for vigilance, and the sum annually increased, until at last the country was saddled with £250,000 for that charge. The Government had therefore been obliged, during the last three or four years, to send out Treasury officers for the purpose of controlling and checking this expenditure, in which object they had succeeded. In Scotland alone, out of £30,000, £5,000 or £6,000 had been struck off; and in the total quarter of a million the saving was in about the same proportion. Still, after all, the control thus exercised was very imperfect. Without saying that the county magistrates wished to swell these expenses, he must observe that they were not so vigilant as when the charge was paid out of the
  1708
  county rates. He had alluded to that case as an illustration of the evil and danger of removing these local charges to the Consolidated Fund, and he should now conclude by placing in the hands of the Chairman of the Committee the first Vote—
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £136,146, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintenance and repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose to express his opinion, not so much on the statement of the hon. Gentleman, as on the course which the hon. Gentleman had taken in making that statement after Mr. Speaker had left the Chair. It was a course, in his opinion, extremely inconvenient and inconclusive, and he hoped it would not be drawn into a precedent. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Speaker had stated that it was the best time to make it; but what he (Sir. J. Pakington) had understood Mr. Speaker to say was, that it was competent for the hon. Member to make it, and not that it was the best time for so doing. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought, and he believed the Committee would agree with him, that it was a bad precedent, and that it was an inconvenient time, and he was moreover of opinion that it would have been far better, and certainly far more convenient, if the hon. Gentleman had made his statement on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair; for, if Her Majesty's Government should take that course for a continuity, it would be open to every Member of the Committee to raise a general discussion upon each Estimate, and it would be difficult to resist the temptation of following all the items, so as to lead to a desultory debate upon a great variety of subjects. He hoped, therefore, that the course taken by the hon. Gentleman on this occasion would not be drawn into a precedent in future. He (Sir J. Pakington), however, also rose to notice the injustice that had been done by the hon. Member, unintentionally, ho was sure, to his (Sir J. Pakington's) right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, and, as his right hon. Friend was not then in his place, to, in so far as he was able, rectify that wrong. He (Sir J. Pakington) agreed with the hon. Gentleman in his general eulogium upon the financial talents of the right hon. Member for the University of

  1709
  Oxford; and though there were some financial measures proposed by that right hon. Gentleman to which he (Sir J. Pakington) could not give his assent, still no one could doubt for a moment the distinguished manner in which the finances of the country were conducted by him while he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that was no reason why the credit due to others should be given to that right hon. Gentleman; or rather, it was a reason the more why it should be given only where it was justly owing. The hon. Gentleman had said that the right hon. Gentleman in question was the first Minister who had brought the annual charge of collecting the revenue under the control of Parliament. In so far as bringing the matter under the control of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman's statement was perfectly true; but it was due to his (Sir J. Pakington's) right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire to state that his right hon. Friend, in laying his plan of finance before the House, had clearly announced the views of the Government to which he belonged, with regard to the expediency of bringing the collection of the revenue under the control of Parliament; and that he then informed the House of his intention to bring the matter before the House at an early opportunity. And furthermore, in answer to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), he had repeated his intention in still more distinct terms. In this case, therefore, as in the case of the reduction of the duty on tea, though the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had carried them into effect, it was announced by his right hon. Friend that such was his intention if he remained in office; and the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford had frankly admitted such to be the case. With respect to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, he (Sir J. Pakington) could only say that after the great extent to which the attention of the House and the country had been directed to the great increase which had taken place of late years in the Civil Service Estimates, Her Majesty's Government had, in his opinion, taken a wise and discreet course of laying such a statement before the Committee, and he would add that he thought it could not have been made in a clearer manner than it had been by the hon. Gentleman. He also felt bound to express the opinion that the hon. Gentleman had upon the
  1710
  whole satisfactorily explained the great increase which had taken place. The hon. Gentleman had stated that since 1852 there had been an increase of nearly £3,000,000, and that that increase was divided into two parts, one consisting of transfers and the other of new items of expenditure. The hon. Gentleman had not explained what had been the nature if the increase which had taken place before 1852; but if he remembered rightly a very considerable amount of transfers of local charges to the Consolidated Fund hen took place, and if the hon. Gentleman had given any explanation, it would have been very similar in character to the one which he had laid before the Committee. During that period, those charges for the administration of justice which had previously been defrayed by local rates had been placed upon the general revenue of the country; still, as regarded the observations of the hon. Member respecting the increased cost of the administration of justice since it had been thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, he (Sir J. Pakington) was certain, though the hon. Gentleman had cited the example of Scotland, that he had no ground for saying there had been any improper increase of the expense in that particular—he could speak confidently for his own county at any rate; and he did not believe generally that the cost had increased a shilling more since the change had taken place, and he thought he might say the same of most other counties. The hon. Gentleman had made it clear, on the one hand, that one-half of the increase since 1852 had arisen from transfers, and he was willing, on the other hand, to admit that, so far as a great portion of the other division, namely, that of new items, it had been occasioned by the necessity of the times in which we lived, and was rendered necessary by the great social improvements which had taken place. No one who heard the hon. Gentleman could fail to be struck with the great increase in the cost of stationery, which was equal to two-fifths of the whole amount, and which, in two years, had brought it to two millions and a half. He did not think the war fully explained that increase; but, if there was one item which he was inclined to regard with more doubt than another, it was that one connected with the expenditure of County Courts. He did not call into question the benefit which arose from the system of County Courts, but he thought that the improvements

  1711
  which had been made, might have been carried out without saddling the general revenue with so large an item of expenditure as it was now called upon at present to pay. As regarded County Courts, he could only say that he wished that in one item—the salaries of the Judges—Parliament had been more liberal. As regarded the Police Act, he (Sir J. Pakington) considered it as an unqualified blessing to the country, and he believed that Her Majesty's Government had acted both justly and wisely in undertaking the expense of that measure. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the large and interesting increase which took place year after year in the Vote for education. He (Sir J. Pakington) would not then enter upon that subject; and he would, therefore, only say that he would go entirely with the hon. Gentleman in the wish that the grant might be an increasing one every year, provided always that it could be shown the present system of education was the best for the purposes for which it was intended. He should never object to any increase on that Vote, so that an equivalent could be proved; but at the present time he considered that no such equivalent existed; and, moreover, he believed that the principle of local control held good in this case, as in the case of the poor rate, cited by the hon. Gentleman, or as in the case of the administration of justice. With these few remarks he would conclude, only repeating that in his opinion the Government had done well in laying before the House a statement such as they had—a statement which he could not but look upon as satisfactory.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he had derived great information from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but he wished to know whether the sum now proposed, £136,146 would be voted at once, or whether the several items would be taken separately, as he considered that it was absolutely necessary for the House to watch closely the expenditure of the public money. There was one item with regard to which he was very anxious to obtain some information, and that was an item for the purchase of furniture.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to order, as he understood the discussion that evening was to be taken upon the general question raised by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury and not upon the details of particular Votes.
  MR. BRISCOEwas under the impression that he was perfectly in order in referring to the items contained in the Votes under their notice. He had no wish, however, to persevere in addressing the Committee if to comment upon the details of that Vote were deemed to be irregular; but he was anxious to put a question before he sat down to the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works in reference to the park at Hampton Court. Notices, he had been informed, had recently been posted up in that park to the effect, that those persons who had hitherto enjoyed the privilege of having a key admitting them to it would be allowed that privilege no longer, except upon condition of the annual payment of a guinea. That was an announcement which had given much dissatisfaction to the people in the neighbourhood, and he should, therefore, wish to know why it had been made?
  MR. W. EWARTalso complained that the park and gardens of Hampton Court were closed against the public, and reserved entirely for the privileged persons who resided in the palace.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it might be convenient that he should state to the Committee what he understood to be the form in which their proceedings were to be conducted that evening. He was clearly of opinion that the course which had been proposed was that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should make a general statement with reference to the expenditure under the several heads embraced in the Civil Service Estimates. That general statement having been made, he of course could not preclude any hon. Member from entering into a general discussion upon it, and he thought it would facilitate the progress of public business if that course were then taken; but, if any question arose in reference to the specific items of a Vote, that explanations should be asked for and given when the particular Vote was under discussion.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSagreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) that the course pursued by the Secretary of the Treasury, in making his statement in Committee, was a most inconvenient course. The straightforward and usual course would be to make it while Mr. Speaker was still in the chair, for in that case there could be a discussion on the subject. He (Mr. Williams) complained of the extravagance of the Votes in every department of the Government—army, navy, civil service,

  1713
  revenue, &c.—one and all they had been increased to an enormous extent; and at no period of the financial history of this country had propositions for so large an amount of expenditure during a time of peace been made by many millions. In 1828, under the Canning Ministry, the Civil Service Estimates only amounted to £2,012,000; in 1830, under the Duke of Wellington, they fell to £1,930,000; in 1834, under Lord Grey, they were £2,007,000; in 1838, under Lord Melbourne, they were £2,061,000; in 1845, under Sir Robert Peel, they were £2,034,000; while this year, 1857, they were £7,250,000. There was nothing in the situation of the country to warrant such an increase, and yet it had gone on, and would still go on, unless it was cheeked. As regarded County Courts the increase of the salaries was much greater than the House had sanctioned; and as regarded the Dublin Hospitals, he (Mr. Williams) did not see why these institutions should be supported by the State more than the hospitals of any other town. The hon. Gentleman, however, charged the House with being the cause of this extravagance. He was sorry that he must agree with him in that opinion, for he had often seen the House disposed to adopt the propositions of the Government, however extravagant; but after the challenge made to the House by the Secretary to the Treasury, he hoped hon. Members would be prepared to show that they were not disposed to take for granted everything proposed by the Government. He believed that if the Government would grant a Select Committee the House would be able to make immense reductions, not only in the Civil Service, but also in other departments.
  MR. AYRTONwished to remind the Secretary to the Treasury that the late Mr. Hume had for twenty years endeavoured to bring all the income of the country into the public Exchequer, and that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, to his credit, the first Minister who saw the advantage of that course. He trusted that next Session an investigation would take place with the view of relieving the revenue from the great charge now imposed upon it from the erroneous principles adopted relative to the expenses connected with County Courts. It was alarming to see the increase which had taken place of late years in the Vote for education. He hoped there would be no further increase
  1714
  in this Vote until the Government had brought the whole question of education under the notice of Parliament in a distinct and intelligible form. There was nothing more unconstitutional than for the Government to slip in an addition to the education Vote of £50,000 in one year and £100,000 in another, to be disposed of by the Committee of Council on Education as they pleased, without any settled plan of education having rceived the deliberate sanction of Parliament.
  COLONEL SYKESfelt that there was a want of verification and explanation in order to satisfy the Committee that the Estimates were wanted. One half might possibly do where the whole was asked for; but how could he tell? For instance, there was an item of £6,218 for Hampton-court Palace, stables, and outbuildings. There was no explanation of this item; nor of £7,960 for Treasury and other Government offices in the Whitehall district; nor of a charge of £4,901 for furniture for the Secretary of War. If these Estimates were previously submitted to a Committee for the purpose of being examined there would then be some grounds for asking the Committee to vote them. At present he felt utterly incompetent to declare whether these sums ought to be voted or not.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was right in stating that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was the first Minister who made the proposition to bring all the income into the Exchequer; but the Member who first originated this reform was Sir J. Bowring, who was then Member for Bolton. He agreed with the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury in the opinion that local affairs ought to be left to local government as much as possible, and thought it would be better if the criminal and police expenditure were left to the county and borough authorities, instead of being paid out of the national funds. With regard to education, it would never be in a satisfactory state until it was established as in Scotland and the United States—upon a popular basis, managed by the people themselves, and paid out of the rates. The Secretary to the Treasury had stated that the salaries of the clerks in the Government departments had diminished rather than increased of late years, and there was reason to believe that in many cases the salaries of the most useful administrators in our public

  1715
  departments were much below their proper amount.
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, he must make this general observation that during the whole time he had been in Parliament he had never seen hon. Members receive Estimates so easily, or pay so little attention to retrenchment, as they had done this Session. The election speeches and addresses which he had read led him to hope that the expenditure of the country would undergo some scrutiny; but the reckless way in which the Estimates had been recently voted for the Army and Navy was not merely a temptation, but a stimulus to extravagance, on the part of the Government. No exhortations to economy of any importance or coherence had been addressed to the Government by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side; but, from quarters in which an ardent and sometimes even an indiscreet zeal for reductions used to prevail, such as the representatives from Southwark and other places, positive appeals had been made in favour of further outlays, beyond what even the Government themselves had thought necessary. Every subordinate department of every Government office was always calling out to its superiors for increased expenditure, and every Government office was always calling on the Treasury to sanction such increased expenditure. With this pressure from the subordinate departments, not to mention other influences, what chance was there of enforcing economy upon the Government by mere carping and nibbling at minute Votes of £100, without giving them a diligent and comprehensive study before approaching their discussion? It was ridiculous to content themselves with proposing to refer the Estimates to a Committee. According to the practice of our constitution, a Committee could not take the place of the Ministry of the day. The skill of the Secretary to the Treasury was shown as much in what he skimmed over as in what he fully explained. If hon. Gentlemen opposite did not bestir themselves to redeem some of the electioneering pledges which they had so lavishly made in favour of economy, they might one day find that they had taxed too far, not the credulity only, but the endurance of their constituents. He hoped they would display more knowledge and more care in discussing the present Estimates than they had displayed in regard to the Votes for the Army and Navy, because, to do hon. Gentlemen
  1716
  justice, less knowledge and less care than were exhibited on that occasion he had never seen.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to draw a conclusion very different to that which the hon. Gentleman had drawn from the course the House had pursued in regard to the military and naval Estimates. The hon. Gentleman inferred that because no great objections were offered to those Estimates, hon. Members had forgotten the pledges they gave at the hustings to enforce economy, and had shown a blameable want of industry in not making themselves masters of the details of the several Votes proposed to Parliament. He (Lord Palmerston) must beg leave to draw an exactly opposite conclusion from that fact. He inferred, and was justified in inferring, that if there had been no prolonged discussions on the Army and Navy Estimates, it arose from this plain and simple fact—that hon. Members having paid attention to the details of those Votes—having exercised great industry—in making themselves masters of them, and in comparing the Estimates now presented with those which were presented during the war were struck with surprise—as he know many were—that the Government had been enabled in so short a space of time to make such great reductions in regard both to the army and navy. Therefore he took, as a tribute of praise to the care and attention which the Government had bestowed on the economical arrangement of these branches of the public service, the hon. Gentleman's admission that the Estimates had met with the general acquiescence of the House. And speaking now seriously on the subject, those who were the most competent judges, and had bestowed attention to the subject, were satisfied that the Government had done as much as they possibly could do in the course of the year that had elapsed since the war, in reducing the charges of the public service. He would say a word as to the course his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) had pursued in regard to these Estimates. He was surprised that any one who had attended to the course of public business in that House should hold that his hon. Friend ought to have made his statement while Mr. Speaker was in the chair. Had he done so, he would have departed from the course always taken in analogous cases. It was always customary when it was necessary to introduce Estimates by an explanatory statement

  1717
  to make that statement after Mr. Speaker had left the chair, and when the House was in Committee of Supply. And that was obviously the more convenient course, for the debate on the Estimates being a desultory discussion, it ought to take place in Committee, when hon. Members not being fettered by the strict rules of debate, were more free to state their opinions upon the various items therein, and to receive such explanations as it might be requisite to give. So far, then, from his hon. Friend having adopted a new course, he had strictly followed that which was always taken in reference to the Army and the Navy Estimates, and that which was in every way the most convenient to the House. But, independently of these considerations, the Chairman had ruled that his hon. Friend was in order in the course he had pursued, and the opinion of Mr. Speaker himself, and also of other hon. Gentlemen who were high authorities as to their forms of procedure, was to the same effect.
  Mr. HENLEYobserved that this question was not so much one of order as of convenience. No doubt, strictly speaking, the Secretary to the Treasury had been in order; but there was no perfect analogy between the Estimates for the Army and Navy and those for the Civil Service. The former were more or less one subject, and turned on general considerations as to the number of men required for both those services; whereas the Votes for the Civil Service were entirely miscellaneous in their character, and as different from the Army and Navy Estimates, and also from each other, as light and darkness. They related to a motley group of heterogeneous subjects ranging from the cost of a Palace at home to the charge for consular establishments abroad. However, he understood from the Secretary to the Treasury that his practice on the present occasion was to be considered exceptional, and was not to be adopted as a precedent. He should be sorry to see these Estimates referred to a Committee, which would probably only lead to their being increased 50 per cent. A Committee had neither body, soul, conscience, head, tail, nor anything else, and there was no kind of enormity which might not be practised by a Government under its shelter, as it could not have that information as to what was necessary and what was not which the Ministers possessed. He was glad the noble Lord derived
  1718
  so much satisfaction from the silence of hon. Members behind him on the Army and Navy Votes, but thought it possible the noble Lord's explanation might excite in their minds as much suspicion as their silence had done in the minds of others.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYwished to know whether the Vote for buildings at Hampton Court included any outlay on the "stud house?" He thought that as there was an annual sale of blood stock at Hampton Court connected with the breeding establishment, it was scarcely fair to throw the expense of the stud buildings upon the country.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYinquired if the expense of keeping up the paddocks for a stud, at Hampton Court, was borne by the public? There being an annual sale of the stock, he thought the charge should be borne by those who received the produce of such sales.
  MR. BENTINCKcomplained that there was no controlling power in the Government to decide what should be the proportionate expense of each department. The same discussions took place night after night and year after year, and the same result was always come to—namely, that the Vote was passed, and the money paid. He thought a general revision of the whole subject was necessary.
  MR. BLACKBURN, having referred to the Estimates of 1852, wished to know how it came to pass that the Estimate for the present year on account of Royal palaces showed an increase of £80,000, or 70 per cent.?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the sum voted last year for the Royal palaces was £41,862, and this year it was £39,690. As to the Hampton Court Palace expenses alluded to by the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), none of the items charged had any reference to the lacing stock, but was entirely for the stud which was kept up for Her Majesty's use. In answer to the question of the gallant Colonel (Colonel Sykes), who said that £4,901 had been granted for furniture for the Secretary of War, he had to say that that amount was the sum granted last year, and only inserted in the present Estimates for the purpose of comparison. As to the £6,218 for Hampton Court Palace, there had certainly been an increase of £783, arising from the employment of police instead of sentries, and from

  1719
  the repairs of the chapels, making good some wood earvings. It was never intended that a charge was to be made for admission to the Hampton Court gardens; but, with a view of putting a stop to certain nuisances, it was intended that, if gentlemen wished to have keys to pass through the private park, they might have them on payment of 20 s. a year.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the statement just made by the hon. Baronet was additional evidence as to the inconvenience of the course taken that evening. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) in an able and laborious statement, instituted a comparison between the expenditure of 1852 and 1856. Hereupon a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) as to the increase which had taken place in the Vote now under discussion between 1852 and 1857: hut the right hon. Gentleman replied to this "Don't talk to me about 1852; I know nothing of that year, but I am prepared to answer any questions with respect to 1857." Now, if this were to be the result of the course taken by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury, he thought that the Committee had gained nothing by his exordium, but for all practical purposes were rather more in the dark than they were before. Surely the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, who had originated this mode of proceeding, was bound to explain the increase that had taken place in the Vote immediately before the Committee. Every subject that could possiby be thought of was opened up by the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was not justified in saying that, as to the half million of money about to be voted for educational purposes, they were utterly ignorant as to how it was to be applied. The member of the Government to whom that department belonged should have immediately risen in his place to furnish the hon. Gentleman with the information for which he sought. He contended that the great subject of education was greatly prejudiced by observations of such a nature—observations which were induced in consequence of the inconvenient mode of proceeding adopted that evening by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury.
  MR. AYRTONexplained.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the increase of expenditure in public buildings and palaces in 1856, as compared with 1852,
  1720
  was £81,000. There had been no increase in palaces occupied by the Queen, but the great increase had been in two items of public buildings and offices in England and Scotland. In 1852 the rents for public offices was £8,832, while in 1856, the rents were £42,638; and there had been an increase of £7,856 for furniture. There had been voted last year £6,000 for the repair of King's College, Aberdeen, and £5,000 for the purchase of land for the erection of an office for the Scotch Poor Law Board, and all those items made up the increase of £81,000 for 1856.
  MR. SPOONERinquired why an item of £7,000 for Burlington House and Marlborough House was separated from the Vote of £73,000 granted for the Department of Art and Science?
  COLONEL FRENCHasked, by what authority the right hon. Gentleman took it upon himself to charge £1 for entrance into Her Majesty's Parks? The last time he was there, he observed that the trees had been greatly injured by the horses that were now taken into the park in lieu of cows, because the former paid a shilling a week more.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was rather struck by the observations of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, (Mr. Stafford) with regard to the conduct of the House on the Army and Navy Estimates. The hon. Member said that hon. Members had made wondrous statements on the hustings as to what they would do when they came into the House, but when they came there they did nothing. The hon. Member should have recollected that, in order that hon. Members of that House should be able to do something, they must have knowledge of what they were going to do, and that could only be gained by experience. He had collected from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he found fault with the Naval Estimates, and blamed the House because they did not interfere, and propose reductions in them. He would ask whom could the House be more ready to follow in the reduction of these Estimates than the hon. Gentleman? If knowledge obtained by experience of office was necessary to deal with these Estimates, he ought to have acquired it. The hon. Gentleman said the Naval Estimates were extravagant: who was more capable of pointing out extravagance—of putting his finger on items of extravagance—than

  1721
  the hon. Gentleman? But he had set an example of shrinking from that duty—and should he be the first to blame hon. Members who had just come into the House for making professions on the hustings, and then not making those criticisms on the Estimates which the knowledge and experience of the hon. Gentleman rendered him fully capable of making? He (Mr. Roebuck) could well understand gentlemen, on their first entrance into political life, saying on the hustings that they would be ready to sanction and support every possible reduction. He would ask whom were they to follow in an attempt to make these reductions? If his lamented Friend, Mr. Hume, were there now, there was no one they would more readily have followed; for, although Mr. Hume had never been in office, he spoke with an authority derived from long experience on the subject of the Estimates. But if there was a gentleman who had a right to know something of the Naval Estimates, it was the hon. Member for Northamptonshire himself, and if any man could have pointed out extravagance, it was the hon. Gentleman; and he ought to be the last man to have sneered at new Members who did not propose reform and reduction in those Estimates. He (Mr. Roebuck) would allow that the Estimates required special attention, and he believed the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, with his skill and ability in putting a gloss on matters, could overturn any inexperienced Member; but he could not overturn the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. That hon. Member could have met the other hon. Member almost on equal terms. He did not say that he could have met him on equal terms as regarded the capability of putting a gloss on the case; but still the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) had some power of making the worse appear the better cause. Indeed, if he (Mr. Roebuck) had to select two cocks for an arena, he did not know that he could choose a better match than the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire; and he thought that the Committee would agree with him, that it did not lie in the mouth of that hon. Member to accuse the new Members of that House with not redeeming the pledges they had given to their constituents. He would now refer to a special matter. With respect to the mode in which the Estimates had been brought
  1722
  before the Committee, he quite concurred in the criticism which had been expressed by the right hon. Member for Droitwich, because, as there had been a departure from the proper method, there seemed to be no means now of leading Members away from the general discussion, and of confining them to the details of the special matters in hand. The course which ought to have been pursued should have been, that a general statement should have been made, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, as it was notorious that the discussions in that House were more solemn and serious when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. He wished to know when the general discussion was to close.
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that he (Mr. Stafford) had learnt something of the navy, and he had learnt one or two other things besides. One of these was, to take good-humouredly and easily any attacks made upon him. He had had so many, and such bitter attacks made on him, that he had ceased to be very thin-skinned. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated—not what he did say, but almost the very opposite of what he said. He had made no attack on the Naval Estimates; he was present all the time they were being discussed, and so far as he remembered, there was not one article to which he objected, because he was content with supporting Her Majesty's Government. But, at the hustings, he made no pledge of retrenchment. They, the county Members, were supposed to support prodigal establishments, and to maintain a wasteful expenditure, and the arguments if hon. Members opposite—of those who would supplant them in the good opinion of constituencies—said, if they came into Parliament, they would cut down the Estimates, and retrench the public expenditure; but that, if those country gentlemen were returned—those wasteful Tories—it might be expected that the establishments would be large, and the expenditure heavy. Now, he had ventured to apply the principles of those hon. Gentlemen to their conduct; and he repeated that he, not having come into Parliament with pledges of economy, was perfectly consistent in supporting Ministers in maintaining the necessary establishments, while the addresses and speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite certainly hail led him to expect other things from them. If they had modified their

  1723
  principles, or altered their opinions—if they had been taught that it was desirable to maintain larger establishments than when simple citizens and private gentlemen they thought to be necessary, so much the better for them—so much the better for the Government—and so much the better for the country. It was a change on their part on which they must permit him very respectfully—but very good-humouredly, and very heartily—to congratulate them.
  MR. SPOONERasked if they might not now conclude that the general discussion had terminated? It was ten o'clock, and not one Vote had been agreed to?
  MR. MOWBRAYwished to have some explanation about the Vote for Burlington House, and whether any plans had been prepared for the conversion of that building to public uses?
  MR. WILSONexplained that the cost price of Burlington House in 1853 was £140,000, and it had been purchased with the view of building public offices upon the site. Plans were prepared during the period that the late Sir W. Molesworth presided over the Department of Works, but no steps had been taken to carry them out, and the Government had no present intention of doing so. In consequence of the great demand for space at Somerset House, arising from the increased business which was caused by the succession duties, it was found necessary to remove the learned Societies from the wing which they had occupied in that building, and to transfer them temporarily to Burlington House. A Vote of £4,758 was asked for making a large hall in which the meetings of those Societies could be held, and in which also the examinations of the London University and for the Civil Service could be conducted.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) had told the Committee that he supported the Government upon the Navy Estimates because he found nothing in them to which he could take exception. The Committee would judge whether the statement of the hon. Gentleman originally was not finding fault with Members for not objecting to the Navy Estimates, and he (Mr. Roebuck) could not forbear adding that the next time the hon. Gentleman read a lesson to the House, at least he should have some foundation for it. The hon. Gentleman
  1724
  said he was thick-skinned, and he (Mr. Roebuck) had no desire to wound the hon. Gentleman under that thick skin, but could assure him that his own temper was as unruffled as the hon. Gentleman's.
  MR. KERthought it would be better to desist from personal discussions and proceed with the public business.
  COLONEL HERBERTthought that such discussions as those which had taken place between the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) were very much to be regretted, as tending to obstruct the progress of the Committee.
  MR. GILPINsaid, with reference to the remark of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, he was one of those who had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman as having advocated reduction on the hustings, and having since falsified his pledges by his conduct in that House. He had made those pledges, he was not ashamed of them, and he meant to redeem them. He had learnt a lesson in that House, and that was, that hon. Gentlemen should not talk of that with which they were imperfectly acquainted, and before he committed himself to deal with any particular measure he was resolved thoroughly to understand it—he would endeavour to learn before he attempted to speak. He believed that the cause of retrenchment and economy, which he did not advocate at the expense of perfect efficiency, would be better promoted by hon. Gentlemen learning and gaining experience by the conduct of affairs in that House.
  COLONEL SYKEScommented upon the inconvenience which arose from the accumulation of questions in such a manner that, notwithstanding the right hon. Baronet's willingness to afford information, it was impossible for him to bear in mind all the points upon which hon. Gentlemen had asked for information. He had asked for explanation upon some points, but other hon. Members interposed with other questions, and his had been overlooked. He had already risen seven times to put his third question, and he again wished to know the meaning of the item of £7,960 for a long list of rooms, houses, and mansions, to be hired, as he presumed.
  MR. WISEthought they were proceeding in a very unsatisfactory manner. In order to extricate the Committee from the position in which they were placed, he

  1725
  should move that the Chairman report progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he thought it would be more convenient if hon. Members would allow him to answer one question before others were put. He was perfectly ready and willing to give any explanation that might be required.
  Mr. W. WILLIAMSwas going to put a practical question. He intended to propose a renduction of the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that the Motion before the Committee was, that he do report progress.
  COLONEL FRENCHhoped that the Chairman would not report progress until the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had had an opportunity of answering the questions which had been put to him. The right hon. Baronet had just informed them he was quite ready to answer the four or five questions which he had been asked, hut he had sat down without replying to any one.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYreally thought the best course would be to report progress. He had called attention to the point of order yesterday, as he foresaw what would take place. It was impossible in a general discussion of Estimates containing 130 distinct items to consider any one point as it should be considered.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that several very serious charges had been preferred against the House that evening. It had been accused of lavishly voting the Army and Navy Estimates. It had also been imputed to it that it had been somewhat prodigal of money with respect to the Civil Service Estimates. He thought it would be liable to the charge of wasting time if, at that hour of the evening and with so much business before it, it was not to make but to report progress, simply because the questions which had been put to the Chief Commissioner in a desultory and, perhaps, not very intelligible manner, had not been answered in a way which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to expect. He was quite sure that it was the wish of the Chief Commissioner to answer every question which might be put to him, find which he understood. His right hon. Friend had already answered a large number. Whatever questions remained unanswered, the Chief Commissioner, when they were
  1726
  brought plainly before the House, would answer to the best of his ability. In these circumstances it was to be hoped that the Motion for reporting progress would be withdrawn, and that the House would be allowed to proceed with the Estimates.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONthought it was unfair to blame the Chief Commissioner for any want of courtesy in refusing to answer questions. The fault, if any, lay in putting such a vast number of items in one Vote. How was it possible for the House, whatever might be its anxiety to guard the public purse, to discuss in anything like an orderly manner a Vote which extended over eleven closely printed pages? He would suggest that the various items should be taken in the order in which they appeared on the Vote, and that, after one had been disposed of, no hon. Gentleman should be allowed to go back upon it.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLthanked the noble Lord for his observations, and asked how it was possible for him to answer questions which not only required time for their consideration, but were put in such rapid succession, and referred to so many different items scattered over the face of the Vote, that it was extremely difficult even to understand them? There were, as far as he recollected, only three questions which he had not answered. The first, put to him by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), required him to institute a comparison between certain Estimates for 1852 and those for the present year. He was not prepared to do so at the time, but, having immediately sent for the book which contained the Estimates for 1852, he was now in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the result of his examination. In 1852 the expenditure for the Royal palaces was £45,427, while in the present year it was £39,690, showing a decrease of between £5,000 and £6,000. The next question—that of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) referred to the sum of £7,960, expended on public offices in the Whitehall district. Those offices were the largest in the various departments, and, as compared with last year, there was a diminution of no less than £2,000. The third question was put by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French), who asked who was responsible for the charge of £l per annum for keys of admission to Hampton Court Park? His reply was, that as Chief Commissioner of Works, and having charge of the parks, he was, responsible

  1727
  for it, and, if any further explanation were necessary, he would merely say that the park in question was a private park, that it had never been thrown open to the public, that keys were given to certain persons as a matter of favour, that the privilege had been abused in many instances, and that the charge now made was less than that demanded for admission to similar places elsewhere, and could in no sense be called exorbitant.
  MR. W. EWARTinquired why the pictures at Hampton Court were not classified and labelled in the same way as those in the National Gallery and other public collections?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLstated, in reply, that as soon as the pictures sent to the Manchester Exhibition were returned he intended to have them classified, and the names of the artists and the titles of the subjects affixed to them.
  MR. WISEremarked, that his only object in moving that the Chairman report progress was to save the time of the House; and, on the distinct understanding that they were now to proceed with the business before them, he would be happy to withdraw it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSproposed to make a reduction in the Vote, which he said contained a great number of things all jumbled together in the most unaccountable manner. He did not wish to propose any alteration with regard to Her Majesty's palaces, but there were other palaces in a different position. There was a charge "for the internal and external repairs of Clarence-house, the apartments of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge and the apartments of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge," &c., amounting to £2,689. Kensington Palace, with the stables and out-buildings, £945. Hampton Court Palace, with the stables and outbuildings, £6,218. Purchase of the lease of the water-mill on the bank of the Longford river, and for fixing a pump, &c., £950; Hampton Court-gardens, £110; Hampton Court stud-house, and paddocks and buildings in Hampton Court Park, appropriated to the stud establishment, £1,881; Kew Palace, and buildings on Kew-green, £897; the Royal Observatory, Kew, £450; military knights' houses, Windsor, £301. Richmond Park, &c., £130; furniture, &c., for the repair and cleansing of furniture and fittings at
  1728
  Kensington, Kew, and Hampton Court Palaces, £1,180; making a total for palaces not in the personal occupation of Her Majesty of £18,160. There was a charge of £4,725 for Burlington-house; £720 for offices for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; £500 for the Board of Health; £50 for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's stables, Scotland-yard; £8,208 for Holy-rood Palace; £245 for Linlithgow Palace, and other charges of a similar nature. He proposed to reduce these various items one-half—namely, £17,834. These reductions would bring down the additional Vote for Royal Palaces to the sum of £118,312.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £118,312, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 3lst day of March 1858, the Expense of maintenance and repairs of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings."
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYwished to know whether any of the money appropriated for Hampton Court Palace and stables, and Bushy-park, gardens, and stables, was applied for the purposes of the breeding studs in those places?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALL: None, whatever.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONwished to know whether, if the whole Vote were reduced as proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth by the sum of £17,834, the several Votes mentioned by that hon. Member would be reduced in the proportions stated by him?
  MR. BLACKBURNnoticed that there was a Vote taken in these Estimates for Sandhurst College, while a Vote for the same college had been taken in the War Estimates. One department might be pulling down what the other built up.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that this was the last time the item would appear in the Civil Service Estimates, for next year it would be handed over entirely to the War Department.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOconcurred in what had been stated by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) that if the Committee should determine to reduce the whole Vote it would even then have no security that the particular items would be reduced in the way desired by hon. Members. He therefore thought that the Chairman had better report progress, in order that the Estimates might be brought before the Committee in a more convenient form, and so that the items might be considered separately.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Committee ought to bear in mind that this was not the first year in which this class of Estimates had been laid before them. It was convenient to adhere to the form in which they had been voted for a long series of years for the purpose of comparison. It was true that the Vote consisted of a greater number of items, and that formerly the items were not given in such detail, but that had been done in deference to the frequently expressed wish of the House. He was asked how it was possible the Committee could, if they wished, omit an item of £4,500. Any hon. Member could move to reduce the Estimate by that amount, and if it were carried on a division, the Government would consider themselves bound by the decision, and not apply that sum of money to the object to which it referred. That was the ordinary practice in dealing with Votes in Committee of Supply, and was not peculiar to the Civil Service Estimates, but was common to the Army and Navy Estimates.
  MR. HENLEYadmitted that it was convenient to adhere to precedent in the form of the Vote, unless good reasons could be given for departing from it, but thought it was very unjust indeed to Her Majesty that a large Vote of £196,000 should be asked for palaces and public buildings, when by far the greater part was for public buildings with which Her Majesty had no more to do than the hope. The amount for public buildings had grown out of all proportion to the amount for Royal Palaces, and he thought it would be very convenient if in another year the Vote were divided. Many hon. Members might not wish to strike out the £4,500, but might wish to strike out a larger sum, and he apprehended, if the Vote were reduced by the lesser sum, they could not further reduce it.
  MR. BENTINCKdid not think they would lose the advantage of comparison if the Government put the Votes in a more distinct form. The number of large sums which appeared under one head produced confusion and rendered it difficult to discuss them.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to impress upon the Committee the objection of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire. Supposing the smaller sum were carried, and he wanted further to diminish the amount, he believed, by the form in which the Vote was placed before the Committee,
  1730
  he could not do so. The Chairman would tell him that the Committee had determined to vote £118,000, and he could not propose a less sum. No comparison was really afforded by the printed Estimates, and the whole thing was therefore a delusion.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn; Original Question again proposed.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYthen moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,500—the amount of the item for the residence of the Crown Equerry.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £131,646, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintenance and repairs of Royal palaces and Public Buildings."
  MR. ROEBUCK, said, he would now put the question distinctly to the Chairman. Supposing the smaller sum to be carried, and supposing he wanted afterwards to reduce the amount by £7,960 for the Whitehall district, could he move an Amendment which would have that effect?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would not be competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to move a further reduction.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when in Committees of Supply propositions were made for the reduction of several sums it was the practice to propose the reduction of the largest sum first. For example, if on the Vote then before the Committee one hon. Member proposed to reduce it by £50,000, another by £40,000, another by £30,000, and so on, the practice would be to put first the reduction of the £50,000, and if that were negatived, then to put the reduction of £40,000, and so on till the Committee arrived at the least reduction; but if the largest reduction were agreed to, then it would not be competent for any hon. Gentleman to move the reduction by a lower sum. With respect to the statement of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck), that the form in which the Votes were presented in the present Estimates led to delusion, inasmuch as it afforded no means of comparing the Votes for the present year with those of former years, if his hon. and learned Friend would refer to page 2 of the Estimates marked 2, he would see a comparison of the different Votes for the years 1856 and 1857.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that the

  1731
  right hon. Gentleman had not met the real difficulty, for the case might happen that he wanted to reduce the Vote under consideration by £4,500, while another hon. Gentleman might wish to reduce it by £3,000, and he wanted to know if, by the rules of the House, the Committee could entertain one Motion after the other? The whole difficulty seemed to arise out of the practice, on the part of the Treasury, of including large sums in one item in the Estimates, in order to carry them by a single Vote, and so avoid discussion and trouble. After the decision of the Chairman he saw no alternative but to move that the Chairman report progress, in order that time might be given for the form in which the Estimates were presented being amended.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the difficulty which his hon. Friend (Mr. Ricardo) imagined to exist in this case was in reality no difficulty at all. It was perfectly impossible that an Estimate could be given without the details on which it was founded being given at the same time, and it was equally impossible that a separate Vote could be taken on each of its details. Every Estimate must necessarily include a great number of different items, and if any hon. Gentleman wished to object to any portion of the aggregate, he might move a reduction equivalent to the sum of which he desired to get rid, and if that reduction were carried it would be well understood by the Government that the particular charge, which was the subject of the reduction was not to be incurred. There was no difficulty in the matter.
  MR. ROEBUCK: The noble Lord said those who objected to some particular portion of the aggregate sum might make the objection, and take the opinion of the Committee upon it. But suppose there were a dozen hon. Gentlemen who wished to take as many similar objections? There were something like 90 or 100 items in this Vote. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) objected to No. 3, and he (Mr. Roebuck) objected to a great number besides. What was he to do? According to the decision of the Chairman of the Committee he could do nothing. He was absolutely driven by the admirable system, which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) eulogized, to sit down and hold his
  1732
  tongue. He (Mr. Roebuck) wanted to get at the different items in the proposed expenditure, and with that view he would put a question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Works. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had looked into the accounts respecting those different items, or, if he had not, who had, and who was answerable for the sums put down? He (Mr. Roebuck) found this item put down as part of the Vote under consideration:—
  "St. James's Palace.—For the internal and external repairs of Clarence House; the apartments of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge and the apartments of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge; and for the external repairs of houses and apartments not occupied by members of the Royal family and their respective households, £2,689."
  He wished to know who in that House was answerable for the correctness of that item?
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSthought it was quite time that the House should attempt to control the extravagance shown in the items included in the Vote under consideration, and he strongly recommended the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny) to take the opinion of the House on his Motion.
  MR. WILSONwished to explain how the dilemma might be surmounted, by stating what took place on the discussion of the Estimates last year. One hon. Gentleman moved to reduce an Estimate by £5,000, another moved to reduce it by £7,000, and another by £3,000. In that state of things the Chairman put the lowest sum of all to which the Vote was proposed to be reduced, and in so doing the object of all the three was secured. He would only add, that he could not see any good arise from the Chairman reporting progress at that hour of the night.
  MR. HENLEYthought the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wilson) was open to some exception. The hon. Gentleman said one hon. Member moved to reduce a Vote by £5,000, another by £7,000, and a third by £3,000. Each of the three hon. Members would make a Motion to that effect, and how the Chairman came to put only the lowest sum to which the Vote was proposed to be reduced he (Mr. Henley) did not understand. Objections to different items did not really make one aggregate amount for reduction, inasmuch as one hon. Member might be inclined to retain what another wished to strike out. He wished

  1733
  to have an explanation from the Chair upon that point.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that, supposing that three reductions of a Vote of £50,000 were proposed by different Members—the first of £5,000, the second of £10,000, and the third of £20,000—it would be his duty, in the first instance, to put the question upon the reduction of £20,000. If that reduction were carried, it would not then be competent to any hon. Member to propose another Amendment; but if it were negatived, it would be his duty to put the reduction of £10,000; and if that were rejected, the reduction of £5,000. If either the first or the second of these reductions were assented to by the Committee, it was not open to any hon. Member to propose a further reduction.
  MR. HENLEYthought that, as such various objections were taken by hon. Members to the items of this Vote, the best course would be for the Government to withdraw the Vote, and put it in such a form that its details might be brought more clearly before the Committee for discussion.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGbelieved the Chairman had stated most correctly the course which ought to be followed with regard to questions of this kind. At the same time, he must confess he had always been of opinion that the practice pursued in Committees of the House was open to great objection. It had been suggested that the Votes should be subdivided, and, consequently, that a greater number of Votes of less amount should be submitted to the Committee. He believed, however, that if that were done the difficulty would not be obviated. Ho thought the best plan would be for the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. Members of experience, to consider the matter, with the view of simplifying the Votes, for under the present system some hon. Gentlemen were anxious to effect one reduction, and some another, while none of them knew for what they were really voting.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLbelieved the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) was quite correct in his opinion that, however the Estimates might be divided or subdivided, the same difficulties as were now experienced would continue to exist so long as the forms of the House remained unchanged. He had endeavoured to comply, as far as possible, with the wish
  1734
  of the House by framing the Estimates of his department in such a manner as to render them easily intelligible, and if he remained in office next Session he would place the items included in those Estimates under different heads;—for instance, in No.1 Estimate he would give the expenditure for palaces, for public buildings, and for furniture, separately.
  MR. PALKsaid, that if such were the difficulties to old Members, how great must be the difficulty for those who now entered the House for the first time. He thought the suggestion that these rules should be referred to a Committee acquainted with the subject a good one, and the best thing would be to agree that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. AYRTONsuggested that the best plan of avoiding confusion would be to enable hon. Members to move that particular items be struck out of the Estimate.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the withdrawing of the Estimate would not advance the matter in the slightest degree, because a principle was at stake, and that principle was the privilege of every Member of the House to object to any Vote. An Estimate might contain fifty items. If, however, he proposed to reduce the Estimate by the amount of one of those items, and was unsuccessful, no other hon. Member could object to any item in that Estimate. If such was the rule of the House, as he understood it to be from the explanation of the Chairman, he thought the sooner it was amended the better.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, that he believed the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen was mistaken in supposing that if his Motion for the reduction of an item was negatived, he would be precluded from proposing the reduction of another item in the same Estimate; the case only arose when the Motion for reduction was carried. He did not think the forms of the House were so objectionable as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose, for during a long experience he did not remember any similar difficulty to that which had been experienced that night. Generally speaking, the items had been fewer in number and much less in amount, and therefore the difficulties which had arisen that night had not been experienced in the same degree. The Government having decided, in compliance with the general wish of the House, to afford detailed particulars of each Estimate,

  1735
  the inevitable consequence was, that it was now necessary to consider a number of separate Votes which were formerly comprised in a single Estimate. He did not think that the forms of the House presented the difficulties which had been suggested, but the best course to pursue would, he believed, be to assent to the course suggested by his right hon. Friend, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of reconstructing the Estimate. He did not see any other way out of the difficulty, and he was by no means sanguine that any good would result from an attempt to alter the forms of the House. Those forms had been adopted after a very extended experience, and had very recently been submitted to the consideration of some of the most experienced Members of the House; and nothing would be more dangerous than suddenly and rashly to alter forms which, in point of fact, embalmed the experience of centuries of Parliamentary legislation.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLwould consent to withdraw the Vote for the present, on the understanding that the Committee would proceed with the next Vote. He was only actuated by a desire to meet the wish of the Committee, and also to get through some business that evening. He would therefore consent to withdraw the Vote upon that understanding, and to bring it forward divided into three heads on a future occasion.
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSconsidered that the forms of the House to which reference had been made occasioned a great deal of inconvenience. They were a new Parliament, and they ought to begin new ways. If he found himself supported by the House, he would himself, before the next Committee of Supply, move an instruction to the Chairman that when any hon. Member objected to any particular item the discussion should be confined to that item until it was disposed of by the Committee.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOwished the right hon. Baronet to understand that he did not accept his proposition to divide the Vote into three heads. Many hon. Gentlemen thought that it ought to be divided into more than three heads. The present form of the Estimates was most inconsistent. In one Vote items which had no relation with each other were mixed up together, while he found that there were two separate Votes for the harbours of Holyhead and Port Patrick.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £75,781, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, and other charges connected therewith."
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he did not understand why the people in different parts of the country should be called upon to pay for the establishment of parks in the neighbourhood of London, and he should therefore move that the Vote be reduced by £8,069 14 s., the sum asked for Battersea Park.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £67,711 6s., be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, and other charges connected therewith."
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that when the Civil Service Estimates were under the consideration of the House last year, he was urged to complete Battersea Park. When he came into office, it was almost a swamp, without a shrub or a walk in it, and it was not yet quite laid out. He, however, would do his utmost to throw it entirely open to the public by the month of August in the next year. It was now in part open, and was frequented by thousands of persons.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEobserved that, as he understood the Vote under consideration, it involved the £11,000 to be voted for the works in St. James's Park. Now, a distinct assurance had been given upon the part of the Government that that particular item would not be pressed that evening, and he should like to know why that assurance had not been adhered to.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALL: I propose to reduce the Vote by the amount which the hon. Baronet has just mentioned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £64,096, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March 1858, the Expense of maintaining and keeping in repair the Royal Parks, Pleasure Grounds, and other charges connected therewith."
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the result of that proposal upon the part of the Government to move an Amendment upon their own Vote, would be that no other Motion for its reduction could be put. He

  1737
  saw on the Estimates a considerable item for laying down new iron posts and railings in Hyde Park, and he should wish to have some explanation upon the point.
  SIR BENJAMIN HALL: That is an additional Vote.
  MR. BENTICKobjected to the Votes relating to St. James's Park, on the ground that the Committee was not in possession of the requisite information.
  MR. BLACKBURNthen moved that the Chairman report progress. Owing to the confusion which prevailed with respect to the Vote, he thought that the best course which the Committee could adopt. It was impossible to proceed at that hour (five minutes to twelve).
  SIR DENHAM NORREYSthought the Committee ought to have dealt with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Dillwyn) in reference to Battersea Park before they entertained the subject of St. James's Park. The system of thus proceeding from one point to another without arriving at a decision upon any, was productive of great inconvenience.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as certain papers connected with the Vote would not be delivered to hon. Members until Monday morning he was prepared to assent to the Motion for reporting progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
  The House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  SOUND DUES BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. W. WILLIAMS MR. W. WILLIAMS rose to move that the Bill be committed on that day six months. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them the other evening that the amount of the revenue for the year, as compared with the expenditure, had left him a balance of £1,800,000 beyond the estimate he had formed; but it appeared that the actual expenditure of the year had exceeded the revenue by a sum of £3,250,000. He should be glad to see these Dues abolished, but he objected to a measure which would provide for their abolition at the expense of the public, and for the profit of the Baltic merchants.
  COLONEL WHITEfelt bound to second
  1738
  the Motion; but, looking to the confusion that had prevailed all night in the debate, and the late hour of the night, he doubted whether the question could then be very usefully discussed. Still, as a new Member desirous to verify the promises he had made on the hustings, he could not forbear from offering a few observations. The principle involved in this question was one of no common importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, being rendered uncomfortable by having in the Exchequer rather more than he was accustomed to have, found out that there were very weighty motives of State policy which rendered it desirable to commute the Sound Dues. There could be no question about the policy of commuting these Dues, but the question was upon whom the incidence of taxation ought to fall£the Baltic merchants or the British people? The Baltic merchants were clever enough to shift the payment upon the British people, but as he was a representative of the British people and not of the Baltic merchants, he was there to say that the payment of this impost ought not not to fall upon the British people. He repudiated altogether the assertion that these dues were paid by the consumer. They were paid by the producer, and he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that on a former occasion, when he laid the Resolution on the table, the question was fully debated both in its principle and details, and as no new topic had now been submitted to the House he should ill consult the wishes of the House if he entered upon the subject at any length at that hour (a quarter past Twelve o'clock). He would, however, remind the hon. Gentlemen that the object of this Bill was to fulfill the engagements of a treaty which had been entered into with the King of Denmark, and that all the principal Powers of Europe, including France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Sweden, were parties to that treaty, paying a similar sum in proportion to their trade as ourselves. These Powers having a direct interest in the question, and having also access to statistical and local information, the presumption was that the arrangement was beneficial to the Powers

  1739
  signing the treaty, of whom Great Britain was only one. His hon. Friend had misunderstood his statement of the financial condition of the nation at the present moment as compared with that of the beginning of last Session. Having made that statement when the financial year was incomplete, he was only able to make an estimate of the expenditure and income for the last six weeks of the year. It was necessary to be on the safe side, and as his estimate of the income was insufficient, and his estimate of the expenditure was greater than the reality, the consequence was that at the end of the year the Exchequer was £1,500,000 richer than he had anticipated. Under those circumstances he did not feel justified in proposing to borrow money by the creation of permanent annuities; but, there being a sufficient sum to defray this charge in the Exchequer, he preferred to pay it at once. This, he believed, would be a most beneficial arrangement for the consumers of this country, upon whom the Sound Dues ultimately fell. His hon. Friend would see on reflection that these Dues, being an addition to the cost of navigation in the Baltic, must enter, like all such charges, into the price of the articles furnished for the use of the community. He therefore trusted the House would go into Committee on the Bill, and enable Her Majesty's Government to complete this arrangement.
  MR. WYLDtrusted, that due provision would be made in the treaty for the keeping up of the lighthouses along the coasts of the Sound and the Great Belt by the Danish Government. Her Majesty's Government ought also to have stipulated for the remission of the Danish transit Dues, which would press very heavily on the commerce of the country. The redemption of the Sound Dues was, however, a very judicious measure; and he hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would not persist in his Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that there was a very full provision in the treaty respecting the lighthouses. A large proportion of the transit Dues would also be abolished.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed: Bill reported, without Amendment, to be read 3o on Monday next.

THE GRAND JURIES (METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  MR. WINGFIELDremarked that by the Act constituting the Central Criminal Court a portion of the southern part of the county of Essex was brought within its jurisdiction. There they had no police Magistrates; and he therefore thought that some exception ought to be made in the case of prisoners committed by the local magistrates from that district.
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, the present was not the proper occasion for going into the details of the measure. When they got into Committee he should be happy to attend to any suggestion the hon. Gentleman should make, but the committals from the district referred to were so few that he did not see any grounds for exempting them from the Act.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Cinque Ports Act Amendment.
THE IRISH GOVERNMENT—MR. STUART.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM THE EARL OF LEITRIM rose, pursuant to notice, to ask Her Majesty's Ministers why the protection of the police was to be removed from David Stuart in the county of Leitrim, and why the Government should require him to emigrate or otherwise provide for his personal safety, and

  1639
  to what extent the persecution of Protestants was to be permitted? The noble Earl (who was very indistinctly heard) suggested that the police had been withdrawn from watching this Gentleman's house because he had given a vote adverse to the candidate of the Irish Government in the late election; and expressed his opinion that no Lord Lieutenant had ever taken so strong a part in politics as the Earl of Carlisle.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the best answer to the charge of partisanship against his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant was, the universal respect in which the noble Earl was held by men of all classes and denominations of religion and by all political parties in Ireland. As to the particular case in question, he was not aware that any protection had been withdrawn from Mr. Stuart's house. It appeared that that gentleman had made himself obnoxious to his neighbours in some way or other, and at his own request two police constables were appointed to watch his house. Subsequently he gave notice of his intention to emigrate, and requested that the policemen might be withdrawn. He changed his mind, however, and did not emigrate, and the police constables were kept on duty there at a considerable expense to the country.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that even justice was not dealt out to Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ireland, and that if this had been an attack made upon any body of Roman Catholics in Ireland the country would have been roused from one end to the other, and no effort would have been spared by the Government to bring the guilty parties to punishment. But such was not the case when Protestants were attacked, though it was notorious that such attacks took place daily. He could point to cases where Protestant ladies in Dublin were hooted and pelted on their way to give instruction in Protestant schools, and where the Roman Catholic police not only gave them no assistance but cheered on the assailants. The Roman Catholics of Ireland seemed alone to be regarded as valuable subjects, while everything like honesty of purpose, ability, and talent was denied to the Protestant population. His noble Friend had asked how long this state of things was to go on and he thought he was entitled to a fair and satisfactory answer. He felt assured that, sooner or later, the indignation of the
  1640
  Protestants in Ireland would compel the Government to give due attention to the grievances under which they laboured, and to apply a correction to such a partial system. Some of the scenes that had taken place of late were absolutely disgraceful. He contended that Roman Catholics and Protestants ought to share alike the favours of the Government. The Protestants were not the most numerous body in Ireland, but they comprised, to a great extent, the intellect and usefulness of the country, and they had a right to claim protection. Their Lordships might depend upon it that the case referred to by his noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) was but one of many which indicated a state of circumstances calling loudly for the interference of Parliament, and his noble Friend deserved the thanks of the Protestants of Ireland for calling attention to it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl at the head of the Government in Ireland conducted his administration on the principle of perfect fairness and equality towards all classes of Her Majesty's subjects in that country. If the noble Earl opposite could bring against the Government a particular charge of partiality, either one way or other, he would have no objection to such case or cases being submitted to a Committee in order to their being considered on their merits. Charges had been made against the Lord Lieutenant of having acted unfairly towards Roman Catholics; charges had also been made against him of having acted unfairly to Protestants; and such recrimination would always take place when belligerent denominations were pitted against each other. The trumping up such cases as these was calculated to throw discredit on the principle which actuated the Irish Viceroy, that of dispensing equal justice to every creed and class in Ireland. He entirely denied that the Government had pressed the man to whom the noble Earl had referred to emigrate. Indeed, nobody could believe that the Government had had recourse to any such policy. Two policemen were at this moment in his house at considerable expense to the public, and in such circumstances it was idle to say that the Government was not giving protection to Protestants.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, if the noble Earl would give him a Committee, he would show the House and the country how sixpenny penalties were imposed by the magistrates. In Kilkenny—
  EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE rose to order. It would be very inconvenient to go on with this discussion in the way the noble Earl was now doing. If the noble Earl chose to give notice of a Motion for referring to a Select Committee any particular cases, the House, when that Motion came before them, would be able to judge whether sufficient grounds were made out for such a Committee; but he thought it was trifling; with the time of their Lordships to discuss such petty charges as had been made in a wav so irregular.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, all he wished to say was, that the answer given by the noble Earl to his question was most unsatisfactory and most incorrect.

  TRANSPORTATION AND PENAL SERVI TUDE BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY THE EARL OF HARROWBY rose to move that the House go into Committee on the Transportation and Penal Servitude Bill, and said, that their Lordships would recollect that considerable interest had been felt throughout the country on the subject of transportation and what, was called the ticket of-leave system, and that no small excitement and perhaps prejudice existed in the community with regard to the number of persons convicted of offences who were supposed to be at large in possession of those tickets of leave. The real ground of apprehension, however, was not the existence of the ticket-of-leave system as such, but the cessation of the system of transportation, by which, instead of sending annually great numbers of the worst criminals to different portions of our colonial empire, we were obliged to retain them at home. No doubt it was a very simple process to shuffle off our criminal population to the Colonies, and for a while it seemed to work well; but in course of time it became an evil which the colonists were unable to bear, and they became so excited on the subject as to render transportation in a great measure impossible. The Committee which sat last year expressed its approbation of transportation if it could be carried out with the consent of the Colonies, but they also laid down as principles to guide the selection of colonies whither convicts should be sent that there should be a demand for their labour, and a sufficient amount of free population to prevent
  1642
  inequality of the sexes and too great a proportion of criminal inhabitants. Those principles excluded nearly every colony in Australia, and convicts could not be transported to the Cape of Good Hope, to Moreton Bay, to the Red River settlement, nor to the Falkland Islands. With respect to Vancouver's Island the Committee had not sufficient information to enable them to pronounce a definite opinion, and further inquiry had not convinced the Government that convicts could be sent there. The obstacles were—first, the great distance; and next, the contiguity of the American territories. Under these circumstances the only place which the Committee could point out as fitted at present for the reception of convicts was Western Australia; but, even in regard to that colony, he (the Earl of Harrowby) could not hold out the hope that that resource would be available for any very extended period. The free population was only about 7,000: and there were few very strong inducements for any rapid increase in that population. However, that colony was desirous of having convicts sent to them, and the Government would endeavour by all means in its power to comply with that wish in the manner most advantageous to this country and to the colonists. During the inquiries of the Committee one obstacle to carrying out any system of transportation even to colonies desirous of receiving convicts was ascertained which it was in the power of the Legislature to remove. It would be remembered that when in 1853 it became obvious that a limit must be placed upon the number of convicts to be transported, the principle was laid down that only persons sentenced for periods of fourteen years and upwards should be transported. By that measure it was intended that transportation should be carried out only in the cases of the worst kind of offenders; but it was not quite clear that criminals regarded transportation to a foreign country as a more severe punishment than confinement at home. The number of convicts annually sentenced to those longer periods of punishment averaged 400, from which women and persons physically or otherwise unfit for transportation being deducted, there were left only about 250 convicts who could be sent away every year to Western Australia. In order to enable the Government to meet the wishes of the colonists, and to remove from this country a number of persons

  1643
  whose reformation was more probable in a distant land than at home, the Bill which he now proposed had been prepared. Its object was, whenever a sentence of penal servitude was pronounced, it should be in the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide, according to the demands of the colonies and the fitness of the convicts for transportation, whether the sentences should be carried out at home or abroad. An objection had been raised against that proposition, upon the ground of the uncertainty it would create as to the effect of the sentence; but the same objection would apply to the present system. No Judge could say, when he was passing sentence of transportation, whether it would be carried into effect or not. Of 12,621 persons sentenced to transportation in the years immediately preceding the introduction of the new system, only 4,710 were actually sent out of the country. In the ten years from 1842 to 1852, taking England, Wales, and Scotland together, thirty-six per cent of all the persons sentenced to transportation were kept at home. Under these circumstances a discretion must be left somewhere, and he did not know to whom it could be given if not to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was responsible to Parliament and the public for all his acts. The Bill, besides giving that discretion to the Home Secretary, nominally abolished the sentence of transportation, which had become a perfect mockery; but under the sentence of penal servitude, power was taken to send out of the country, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, a larger number of convicts than it had recently been possible to dispose of in our colonies. He would not trouble the House with many observations upon the ticket-of-leave system. The apprehensions upon that score had very much subsided; and when their Lordships bore in mind that up to the present moment only about fifteen per cent of the ticket-of-leave men had been recommitted, they would see that the system had incurred a good deal of undeserved odium, and that the Government would not have been justified in proposing to abolish it.
  Moved, That the House no now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  LORD CAMPBELLdid not rise to oppose the Motion for going into Committee, but to express his deep disappointment at the provisions of the Bill. Both Parliament and the country had expressed a decided
  1644
  opinion in favour of transportation, and he certainly had expected that the Government would make some attempt to comply with the wishes of those who bad studied the subject and were competent to give advice upon it. He now saw, however, that transportation was to be permanently abandoned, or rather, instead of being a punishment for the worst offenders, it was to be a reward for the most meritorious. A new "order of merit" was to be established, and the token was to be a ticket of transportation. He viewed with alarm the situation in which the country had now the prospect of being placed. It was a new situation. Before the time of Henry VIII. offenders were dealt with in an extremely summary manner, and there were no accumulations of convicts. The system of transportation was coeval with the settlement of America; and from the time of Charles the Second to the declaration of independence, our convicts were sent thither. After that came the Australian colonies, and they, until very recently received annually a considerable portion of our worst criminals. Now, however, that system was to be done away with, and our convicts were to be accumulated at home from year to year, and there was no prospect of their being placed in a situation where they would be prevented from recurring to their criminal practices, or where the public would be saved from their depredations and acts of violence. Such a result might be necessary, but it was most deplorable. Our penal colonies had been the envy of all those foreigners who had considered the subject of secondary punishments, and he deeply regretted that, like France and other continental States, we were no longer to have the means of giving our convicts a chance of reformation or of relieving the public from a repetition of their crimes. There were, no doubt, some difficulties to be encountered; but an attempt ought to have been made to overcome them, and it was wrong at once to abandon transportation. That which was formerly a punishment was now to be a reward for good conduct. There was to be a selection of those who were most innocent and to whom the least objection would be made in the colonies, and they were to be rewarded by being sentenced to transportation, carrying their wives and families with them. They were to be favoured emigrants, and sent abroad at the

  1645
  public expense. Formerly, when he passed a sentence of transportation for fifteen years or for life, he thought it would be carried into effect. The convict, the convict's family, the bystanders, and the Judge believed it. But now all that they knew was, that it would not be carried into effect unless the convict earned the reward of transportation by extraordinary good conduct. It was contrary to the first principles of criminal jurisprudence to substitute the discretion of the Secretary of State, who had not heard the evidence and knew nothing of the circumstances attendant upon the commission of the crime, for that of the Judge by whom the prisoner was tried. In future, if he were to tell the truth, he would have to sentence the convict for fifteen years at the discretion of the Secretary of State. He would have to say, "During that term the Secretary of State for the time being may allow you to remain in prison, or you may be sent to the public works at Bermuda; or, if you show repentance, you may have the good fortune to be transported to Western Australia." Such a system aggravated all the evils which had been deplored, and held out no prospect of any equivalent advantage.
  EARL GREYsaid, he had heard with the greatest sorrow the speech of his noble and learned Friend, because it showed that his noble and learned Friend had entirely forgotten the arrangements of 1847 and 1848, and now condemned a system to which he was not only an assenting; party but the chief adviser upon whose authority it was established. The object of this Bill was to enable the Government to revert to that system. Previous to the establishment of that system it had been found from experience that the strictly penal part of the sentence of transportation could be much better carried into effect at home than abroad. The sentence of transportation implied two things—removal from the country and forced labour in the custody of Government officers. Long experience had shown that the effective part of the punishment, forced labour, could only be safely and properly carried out at home. When it was attempted to carry it out at a distance, abuses had invariably been developed. In Norfolk Island, in Van Diemen's Land, in New South Wales—in every instance where convicts had been subjected to severe penal labour out of sight of the home Government, and removed from the influence
  1646
  which secured trustworthy officers, the system had failed. But although the Colonies had not answered for carrying into effect the strictly penal part of the sentence, they had answered the purpose of disposing of convicts when they could no longer be kept under severe punishment. Common humanity rendered it impossible that even the worst offenders could be kept under punishment for life. Every attempt of that kind practically failed. Sooner or later they must be relieved from punishment. But when that was done in this country, in spite of the utmost care, it was almost impossible to prevent convicts from returning to a course of crime. In this country they had the disadvantage of meeting their own associates, added to the difficulty of obtaining employment whereby to support themselves. But in the Colonies it was not so, and the consequence was, that when they passed out of the hands of the Government a large majority became useful members of society. The system, therefore, which was established in 1847 and 1848 was this:—that every convict upon whom sentence of transportation was passed went, in the first instance, to, solitary or separate imprisonment at Pentonville, or an establishment of that kind; thence, after a longer or shorter term, according to his conduct and original sentence, he went to a penal establishment like that at Portland; and thence, according as his conduct was better or worse, he was sent at an earlier or later period to one of the colonies, the Secretary of State sending them abroad or detaining them at home at his discretion. By that system they obtained two advantages. The strictly penal part of the sentence was inflicted in this country, where, if abuses sprung up, they were at once checked, and a discipline was applied which fitted the man to be useful in the colony to which he was ultimately sent. But the greatest advantage of all was, that the system gave a motive to the convict to conduct himself well. Captain Maconochie, a gentleman of great benevolence and ability, projected the plan of substituting moral influence for brute force, and making punishment to cease when the convict, by industry and good conduct, had earned a certain number of marks. He thought Captain Maconochie had attempted to carry the principle too far, although undoubtedly it was a sound principle, because prior to that the only mode

  1647
  of compelling convicts to behave well was to punish them. It was mere brute force and mere coercion. The lash was the only thing upon which they depended for enforcing industry and preventing misconduct. The lash was an instrument of which the power was speedily lost; the men became hardened, and it was impossible to prevent the most horrible state of things prevailing in convict establishments. But the moment they changed the plan, and, retaining severity and strict punishment for those who deserved them, held out the prospect of earlier relief, they brought into play the strongest motive which could act upon the human mind. The system had been successful, and at Dartmoor and Portland the work performed under such a stimulus by convict labour, even compared with free labour, had been in the highest degree satisfactory. Records showed that the convicts were industrious, and he was persuaded where there was real industry there could be no great misconduct. When men had been made really industrious, and maintained the outward decencies of good conduct, if nothing more, he was persuaded a great deal had been done towards promoting their real improvement. He knew that the plan of giving rewards to convicts for good conduct had been held up as highly objectionable. It was said that it encouraged hypocrisy, and that the worst men very often behaved best in a penal establishment. He was well aware of that, and he was afraid that, do what they would, where the heart was corrupted it was only in a few instances, and that under the Divine influence rather than by any other means, that it was thoroughly reclaimed. But he said, where they could not change the heart they did a great deal if they could teach habits of industry, and that they conferred an incalculable benefit on society by increasing outward decency of conduct among this class, for at all events they prevented those outrageous breaches of all decorum which used to prevail under former systems of punishment. When the subject was under the consideration of the Committee of their Lordships' House, it became manifest that a very strong feeling had sprung up in Van Diemen's Land against transportation to that colony. In 1852 it was believed to be impossible to continue to apply that system, and the Government of the day came to the conclusion that it was necessary to close the colony of Van Diemen's
  1648
  Land against the reception of convicts sentenced to transportation. When that was the case it was obvious that some change of the system must be adopted, and in 1853 a Bill was brought in for substituting penal servitude for transportation. He thought at the time, and still was of opinion, that that was a very unadvised measure, and was therefore strongly opposed to it. The result, in his opinion, had fully borne out his views upon that subject. However, the Government, conceiving that they could no longer send convicts abroad, thought it necessary to make that substitution, but in doing so, committed what he conceived to be a very grave error; because they shortened the period of punishment by making four years of penal servitude equal to seven years' transportation. By doing this they destroyed the discipline which formerly existed, because they were unable to make remissions in consequence of good conduct without remitting the punishment altogether. In framing the law they had provided that no persons should be sent abroad who were under a sentence of less than fourteen years' transportation. But by taking that course they, in effect, were prevented from sending the very persons who, if convicts at all were admitted, would be the most useful and the least objectionable in the colony. It should be borne in mind that the colonies were not the proper places to which the incorrigible class of convicts should be sent. If they acted on any other rule than that they would not be able to continue the system of transportation at all. For the incorrigible there ought to be places properly selected within the British islands, and there they ought to be retained permanently under the Government surveillance. Those should be places where persons utterly incorrigible should be separated from society and prevented doing the mischief which they would otherwise occasion. The persons that ought to be sent to the colonies, and whom the colonies would be ready to receive for the sake of their labour, were those who had been betrayed into crime, who were not thoroughly hardened, who had gone through a course of discipline such as he had described, and who on being placed in circumstances favourable to their moral improvement, would be in a position to retrieve a lost character. Of those persons a very large proportion used to be sentenced to seven years' transportation, but that class of men were entirely

  1649
  excluded from the advantages of being sent to a colony by the measure of 1853. And now, what was the measure before the House? It simply enabled the Legislature to retrace its steps, and it gave back to the Government that discretionary power over convicts which from the time that transportation was introduced they had always possessed, and which they ought by right to exercise. The early Acts on transportation, in the time of George III. and George IV., carefully provided that convicts might either be punished in this country, in the hulks, or be sent abroad. His noble and learned Friend said that by the provisions of this Bill convicts would be immured hopelessly in the hulks unless means were found from time to time of sending them abroad, and expressed his fear of the result which would ensue when the colony of Western Australia was closed against them. He (Earl Grey) must say that he did not participate in the fear that that event would soon take place. On the contrary, he believed that, if it were properly managed, there would be no desire on the part of the colonists there to put an end to the employment of convicts in that colony. What would happen? Precisely what happened in the case of New South Wales, where convicts, being usefully employed, in process of time acquired habits of industry, and became reformed characters; and he believed that up to the period of 1840, when that colony was unwisely, as he thought, closed against their admission, it had received benefits so substantial from convict labour that it ought not to have been done away with. His opinion was, that it was the duty of the Government to send out convicts to the colonies as long as there was a necessity for their labour; and, therefore, it was somewhat foreign to discuss the question as to what colony would retain the system longest. He supported this Bill on the simple ground that in the circumstances in which the country was placed it was for them to retrace an erroneous course, and to reintroduce transportation, for the purpose of relieving England of a mass of persons who, while they remained here were dangerous to the peaceable and well-disposed, but who might be usefully employed, and have the chance afforded them of leading a new and useful life in the colonies.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he wished to trouble their Lordships with a few remarks, because his noble Friend
  1650
  who had introduced this Bill seemed to assume that the revival of transportation upon a large scale was altogether impracticable. He agreed with the noble Earl that the real difficulty was not in finding a place where convicts might be securely confined, but a country possessing a fertile soil and natural resources, which would afford an almost inexhaustible demand for labour. If such a spot could not be found, they would save both time and trouble by imprisoning their convicts in England. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought, however, that they jumped at a too hasty conclusion if they assumed that no place could be found within the limits of the English empire for the reception of our convicts. Undoubtedly weighty objections existed to the selection of the Hudson's Bay district as a penal colony, for during several months of the year that settlement was entirely inaccessible. Vancouver's Island had been suggested as adapted for the purpose, but its vicinity to the United States, and the facilities afforded by the chain of islands which connected it with the mainland for the escape of convicts, rendered it unsuited for the reception of a large criminal population. The soil of the Falkland Islands was not adapted to agricultural operations, and the limited extent of those islands, as well as the scanty employment which could be afforded upon public works, unfitted them for a large convict settlement. It appeared, however, from the evidence before the Committee of l843, that Western Australia was a country rich in vegetable and mineral productions, where the great necessity was the creation of harbours and roads, which would afford ample employment for convict labour. The Committee had spared no pains or labour in obtaining the best information on the subject, and they found that both Western and Northern Australia were admirably adapted for the establishment of a penal settlement. They had there the wide range of country which was watered by the rivers of the Gulf of Carpentaria, which had been surveyed by a most efficient officer, whose report showed that it was rich in productions, and that it comprised extensive tracts of well-timbered and open country, and highly suitable for the reception of Europeans. There was, however, another district—the valley of the Victoria—which had recently been explored by Mr. Gregory, a very able surveyor and traveller, and which seemed to present great advantages as a penal settle-

  1651
  ment. This district was generally bare of timber, but the pastures were described as of extraordinary richness. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) would not venture to put his opinion in opposition to that of his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby), who had access to official documents; but he might quote the testimony of Sir Roderick Murchison, who was a high authority on the subject, and who, in his address to the Geographical Society the other night, said,—
  "The real opinion of such an experienced colonist and geographer, whose merits have been already dwelt upon in conferring upon him our founder's gold medal, is of infinitely greater value than those speculations which would describe the whole of that region, on account of its latitude, as unfit for the settlement of the Anglo-Saxon race! The plain answer to this view is, that on the banks of its navigable river, Victoria, the party of Wickham and Stokes were perfectly healthy in 1839, and that recently our countrymen were stationed there for nine months without the loss of a man…… A region which so many experienced naval officers and other authorities have eulogized as offering capacious harbours and a climate not unsuited to Europeans—lands in which the pastures are magnificent, while the sea swarms with the finest fishes."
  Mr. Gregory said,—
  "This portion of Australia far surpasses the western coast both in its fertility and extent, and its capabilities for settlement. Good harbours are numerous along the coast, and there is abundance of fine country for stock and cultivation."
  Again he said,—
  "The valley of the Victoria far exceeds the best parts of Western Australia."
  Dr. Ferdinand Müller said,—
  "North Australia, with the exception of the east coast, possesses essentially a dry Australian and not a moist Indian climate. Fevers do not therefore exist, and we escaped such jungles and swamps as those in which Kennedy's party exhausted their strength. There is abundance of good country in North Australia, and, with access for vessels to the lower part of the Victoria, full scope for the formation of a new colony."
  A despatch of the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Labouchere) contained this passage:—
  "You have called attention to the description which Mr. Gregory gives of the soil and climate on the banks of the Victoria river, and indeed it is of such a nature that it is no extravagant supposition that some of us may live to hear of that hitherto unknown region becoming the home of a prosperous English settlement."
  With this mass of evidence before them, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought it was not unreasonable to assert that there was an opening for a penal settlement in the northern districts of Australia. He knew that one objection to the formation of new convict settlements was that, however well situated those settlements might be, it would be impossible to prevent the escape
  1652
  of convicts to other settlements. He believed, however, that there would be no possibility of escape from a convict establishment in North Australia, either on its northern, western, or southern sides, which were bounded by the sea, and by an impenetrable desert. He admitted that there was a possibility of escape on the eastern side, but it could not be effected without horses or mules, and then vast sandy deserts and tracts of barren country must be traversed, and he believed that the district would be utterly impassable to solitary convicts. He thought, therefore, that the colonists in the southern districts could not with any reason or justice complain of the establishment of a penal settlement in the north. Considering also that Western Australia would eventually form a link in the chain of communication between Borneo, China, and the Eastern Archipelago generally, he was of opinion that it must sooner or later be extensively colonized, and he thought, therefore, that it would for a very long period offer facilities for the reception of convicts. He was no advocate for sending out hardened and impracticable criminals only; some principles must necessarily be observed in order to the well working of any system of transportation. It would be always advantageous to send out persons who had a considerable portion of their penal servitude to work out, during which time a system of strict discipline should be enforced; they ought never to lose sight of the question of free colonization, and that there should always be a large preponderance of free emigration; they must also take care that there should be some proportion between the sexes. The noble Earl concluded by saying that he would gladly have made some observations upon the working of the ticket-of-leave system, but that to do so he must trespass unduly upon their Lordships' attention.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONexpressed the great disappointment he felt at the introduction of such a Bill as the present, which retained a system so full of evil, and so much objected to, as the ticket-of-leave system, He recalled the attention of the House to the many cases of heinous crime which had been traced to ticket-of-leave men in this country, and expressed his opinion that a Bill which retained the principle could be satisfactory to nobody. It might be, and indeed had been argued that the re-convictions of ticket-of-leave men were few in comparison to the num-

  1653
  ber of tickets issued. They had been placed at 15 per cent. That was a great deal too many, and their Lordships must bear in mind the large number of cases in which it must be assumed the perpetrators of offences were undetected, He implored the Government, in mercy to the convicts themselves, who, when they returned to their old haunts, without a character and without employment, were driven as it were again to crime—to give them a chance, by removing them to a new country, of amending their lives and becoming honest and useful members of society. It was mistaken mercy to shorten imprisonment by tickets of leave, because it left the holder so completely under the surveillance of the police, and with such a stigma upon him, that he was fit for nothing but his old courses. The present measure would leave utterly untouched the source of the evil, and he must therefore give it his most uncompromising opposition.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not propose to offer any objection at the present stage of the Bill, nor did he intend to move any Amendment in Committee, because he thought that it was not properly the subject of Amendment at that stage, but that all matters of this kind must be left entirely in the hands of the Government, He could not, however, feel satisfied without saying that, in his opinion, the present measure was most imperfect and unsatisfactory, and did not appear to proceed on any definite principle whatever. The only alteration which would be effected in the existing state of things by the Bill was that, whereas formerly transportation was a sentence which might have been commuted into penal servitude or imprisonment at home, penal servitude was now a sentence which might henceforward be commuted into transportation at the discretion of the Secretary of State. But he would ask his noble Friend on what principle the Secretary of State was to be guided in substituting transportation for penal servitude? Was transportation to be regarded as an aggravation or a mitigation of the sentence? His noble Friend did not seem to approve of the inference drawn by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, that the sending of a person to a colony was to be considered as a reward for good conduct. But it seemed to him (the Earl of Derby) that the language of the Bill bore out that view of the case: and his noble Friend himself said, on the part of the Government, that
  1654
  great complaints had been made of their sending out incorrigible offenders, and that they would henceforward only send out the best-conducted men, and those whose physical capacity fitted them for discharging the duties of colonists. His noble Friend had further stated that those men would receive a boon which was not granted to voluntary emigrants, inasmuch as their wives and families would be sent out with them. Again, it did not appear in the Bill what portion of the sentence was to be carried out at home, and what other portion in a colony. That was left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Now, he could understand the principle adopted in the measure of 1848, that the strictly penal part of the sentence should be carried out in this country, and that after a certain time, regulated by his conduct, the convict might be sent out to a colony. But, in that case, there was a minimum of penal servitude to be undergone in this country before the Secretary of State could have the power of effecting any change in the sentence of the convict. According to the present Bill, however, it would be competent to the Secretary of State, the moment after the sentence had been passed, to say that the penal servitude should not be enforced, but that the individual should at once be sent to Bermuda, or Gibraltar, or Australia, or any other settlement. The measure seemed to substitute the will, or the caprice, or at best the discretion, of the Secretary of State for any positive enactment with respect to the period at which the different stages of the punishment were to take place. He believed the Bill failed in two very important particulars. It did nothing to remedy the two great difficulties under which this country laboured—namely, the difficulty of disposing of the better affected portion of its convicts, and the difficulty of disposing of the incorrigible offenders. For neither the one nor the other of those cases did the measure make any provision whatever. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) had alluded to a proposal for finding some place to which incorrigible offenders might be removed, and kept under surveillance, and in seclusion from the rest of the community, although not in actual imprisonment. Such a proposal formed no unimportant portion of the scheme which the Government of 1852 contemplated, and steps were taken for securing such a place, He himself mentioned the name of that place to the noble Duke (the

  1655
  Duke of Newcastle) who succeeded to the seals of the Colonial Department; but he did not state the name publicly, lest he might by that means have added to the difficulty of carrying out such a project. Certainly, with regard to incorrigible offenders, he was strongly of opinion that great evils had resulted from the practice of granting tickets of leave to the extent to which that practice had been carried, and that great advantages might be derived from the possession of some place within the limits of the British empire, and not too far removed from the surveillance of the Government, to which incorrigible offenders might be removed, so that they might be prevented from again entering into society in this country. Again, he agreed that it was not advisable to send all the most incorrigible offenders to the colonies, for that would give the colonists great cause to complain; but he thought the Government might have done much more than they had done to secure a provision for the settlement of those who did not belong to the incorrigible class. It appeared to him that the Government had too hastily abandoned the idea of establishing new penal colonies. He did not think that all parts of the world were closed for such a purpose. In the first place, he agreed with the noble Earl, that Western Australia might gradually find room for an increased number of convicts. He also believed that the northern coast of Australia was perfectly eligible, not in the first instance, for the reception of convicts properly so called, but for the establishment of colonies to which persons who had been under penal sentence in this country might be sent as freemen, and pioneers of civilization. In this manner, by sending out persons who could not be regarded as incorrigible, but whom it would not be safe to throw on society here, we might lay the foundation of useful and valuable colonies, which, for a considerable time, might afford a means of gradually absorbing our convict population. But the Bill before the House proceeded on no principle whatever; it would leave everything in a state of uncertainty far greater than that which at present prevailed; it would place a most mischievous and dangerous discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State. He did not mean to say that that discretion would be abused; but the measure would cast such a degree of uncertainty on the whole operation of the law, that neither prisoners, nor judges, nor jury would
  1656
  know the principle which was to regulate the punishment of offences. These were the principal objections he entertained to the Bill—he meant rather to its imperfections and its shortcomings than to its absolute demerits. In conclusion, he had only to repeat that he did not mean to propose any Amendments in the measure, as he felt that the subject was one which must be left in the hands of the Government.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that the noble Earl admitted that they would not continue to send out incorrigible offenders, but that those should be sent who afforded hope of reformation. It was impossible to do that unless the decision was left to the discretion of those who had an opportunity of judging of the conduct and character of the criminals. As to tickets of leave, it was not intended to retain them as a system, but to grant them only in exceptionable cases.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the insecurity of life and property after the establishment of the ticket-of-leave system was so great, that Committees of both Houses of Parliament were appointed to investigate the matter, and they agreed in the necessity of the reinstatement of transportation. The Bill carried out that recommendation in rather a singular way, as it commenced by enacting that thence-forward no person should be transported. The Bill entirely lost sight of the object for which the subject had been brought under the consideration of Parliament, as it did not contain a word about the ticket-of-leave system. Instead of leaving the nature of punishment to the dictum of the Secretary of State, it should be for the Judge to decide, as he had the best opportunity of becoming acquainted with the character of the man. He hoped, that as far as possible the system of transportation would be restored.
  LORD DENMANconsidered that the term of punishment imposed by the Judge ought invariably to be inflicted. He believed that many of the colonies would be still willing to receive convicts, if they were allowed to make their own arrangements for their disposal. The feeling of the country decidedly was that the system of transportation should be re-established. The ticket of leave was a total failure: 13 per cent might be a small thing as a matter of calculation, but any one of those who relapsed might commit a crime which would shock them all.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEthought it very desirable that the sentences of the Judges should be fully carried out, as he was quite satisfied that it was necessary for the suppression of crime that offenders should know that their sentences were certain.
  Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYproposed a clause to enable the Secretary of State to direct the removal of any person sentenced to hard labour to any person in England or Wales, where public works were carried on. The object of this clause was to enable the Government to employ prisoners on reproductive works. The labour on which prisoners were now generally employed was such as to interfere with the trade of the honest industrious classes.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that the managers of the large convict prisons believed that the influx of a number of criminals, such as the clause proposed, would interfere with the success of the system.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn. An Amendment made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL—REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to order).
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that he had given notice of certain Amendments, the object of which was to enable those of Her Majesty's subjects who, from religious convictions, did not think themselves justified in asking for a divorce to obtain a judicial separation in cases of adultery, and to authorize the Court in such cases to punish the guilty parties. As the Bill now stood, the Court had not the power, unless a divorce was prayed for. He should not, however, press the Amendments on that occasion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the discussion which had taken place had suggested various Amendments which he now asked the House to agree to. The first was, that the term "judicial separation" should be substituted for a divorce à mensâ et thoro, and that the same power be given to a sentence of judicial separation as now belonged to a divorce à mensâ et thoro. In reference to the 17th clause, he proposed to insert a clause, giving to a husband or
  1658
  wife against whom a decree of judicial separation had been pronounced on the ground of desertion, the power of applying to the Court for a reversal of the sentence, if it could be proved that the absence has been involuntary or unavoidable. Another Amendment which he proposed was that in cases, which might happen, where persons who had been judicially separated, chose to come together again, in order that it might be known that the woman had ceased to be a femme sole, the parties should enter a notice to that effect in some book to be kept by the Court. He also proposed to add a clause exempting Jewish marriages from the operation of the Act.
  The several verbal Amendments were agreed to.
  On the Motion of the noble and learned Lord the three following clauses were inserted in the Bill.
  To follow Clause XVII.
  Clause (A.) "Any Husband or Wife, upon the Application of whose Wife or Husband, as the Case may be, a Decree of Judicial Separation has been pronounced, may, at any Time thereafter, present a Petition to the Court praying for a Reversal of such Decree on the Ground that it was obtained in his or her Absence, and that there was reasonable Ground for the alleged Desertion; and the Court may, on being satisfied of the Truth of the Allegations of such Petition, reverse the Decree accordingly; but the Reversal thereof shall not prejudice or affect the Rights or Remedies which any other Person would have had in case such Reversal had not been decreed, in respect of any Debts, Contracts, or Acts of the Wife incurred, entered into, or done between the Times of the Sentence of Separation and of the Reversal thereof."
  To follow Clause XX.
  Clause (B.) "Where after a Divorce à Mensâ et Thoro or a Judicial Separation the Husband and Wife again cohabit, they may cause to be lodged with the Registrar of the Court a Declaration that their Separation has ceased, and the Registrar shall cause all such Declarations to be forthwith entered in a Book to be kept by him for that Purpose, and which all Persons shall be at liberty to search on Payment of a Fee of One Shilling; and until such Declaration has been so lodged with the Registrar, every Creditor or other Person shall in respect of the Debts, Contracts, and Acts of the Wife have the same Rights and Remedies as against the Wife and her Property as if such Separation had continued."
  To follow Clause LVIII.
  "Nothing herein contained shall give the Court hereby established Jurisdiction in relation to any Marriage of Persons both professing the Jewish Religion contracted or solemnized according to their own Usages."
  On Clause 54,
  EARL NELSONproposed an Amendment, the effect of which was to confine the marriages of divorced persons to civil

  1659
  contracts entered into before the registrar, thereby relieving clergymen from performing the ceremony, to which they might have conscientious objections. The noble Earl said that the divorce à vinculo was forbidden by the common law, which was based on the canon law, and that on the Scriptures. The advocates of the measure had shrunk from the Scriptural argument. Now, as this was an Act to repeal the ecclesiastical by the power of the civil law, the advocates of the measure had no right to avail themselves of the ecclesiastical power to carry out their objects. Those who in this House took the same view with himself were but twenty-six, but they represented hundreds out of doors who felt this law to be opposed to the Scriptures. How could a clergyman, when he put the question to persons presenting themselves to be married, whether they knew of any impediment to their marriage, how could he accept their reply that they did not? How could he conscientiously perform the ceremony under such circumstances? And if a clergyman, from conscientious motives, gave up his office rather than perform the ceremony, he was disqualified by the very fact of his holding holy orders from any civil office. They were thus forced either to violate their consciences or lose their means of living. There was an understood contract with the clergy, who were not represented in Parliament, not even in this House by the Bench of Bishops, for they had no voice in electing them. They ought to be consulted in this matter. The change ought to apply only to civil marriages.
  Moved—"To insert after the Words ('to marry again') the following Words ('in the Office of the Registrar, or in any Building registered under the Marriage and Registration Acts.')
  THE LORD CHANCELLORtrusted their Lordships would not accede to this Amendment. In order to get rid of a supposed difficulty on the part of the clergy, they were asked to deprive persons of a religious ceremony which, in their eyes, might render their marriage more sacred. The law having said that certain parties were no longer married, and that it was lawful for them to marry, he could not see why any clergyman should refuse to give credit to the law and be justified in declining to perform the marriage service. The clergy would, no doubt, act in regard to any civil rights in the same way as any other of Her Majesty's subjects, and the law having said that these persons being no longer husband or wife, he did not
  1660
  think a clergyman would refuse to marry them.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, the Amendment rested upon two distinct grounds, upon one of which he should be ready to assent to it, and upon the other to reject it. The scruples of the clergy were represented as resting partly on the law of the Church, and partly on the law of God. If it were simply a question of the law of the Church, he should feel great difficulty in saying that there ought, or could be any law repugnant to the law of the land, or that any law of the Church could be pleaded for refusing obedience to the law of the State. But, with regard to the law of God, it was impossible for any Act of Parliament to overrule, or change, or affect in the slightest degree any conscientious scruples on that ground. Without feeling those scruples, he sympathized with those who did, and as the measure would probably multiply cases in which divorce would be pronounced, he would assent to the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLtrusted their Lordships would remember that they were discussing in a very thin and empty House a question which, in a very full House, had been decided by a large majority. This was the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) in an aggravated form, because, whereas the right rev. Prelate proposed only to give individual clergymen room to exercise their own scruples, this Amendment absolutely prohibited any clergyman of the Church of England, whether he had scruples or not, from celebrating marriages between persons, one of whom had been divorced. In another point of view he thought the right rev. Prelates should oppose it. What a step it would be towards the separation of Church and State if, by an Act of Parliament providing that parties under certain conditions might marry again, they enacted that they might be married by registrars or ministers of dissenting congregations, but not by clergymen of the Church of England? He contended that the legal effect of this Amendment would be that the marriage could not be celebrated in any church of the Church of England or by any clergyman of the Church of England.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he must call the attention of the House to a clause inserted at his own instance into an Act of last Session, by which clergymen were empowered to superadd the religious ceremony

  1661
  to any marriage which had been previously solemnized at the registrar's office in cases where the parties wished to avail themselves of the religious rite. He contended that the argument of the noble Duke fell to the ground, because the Amendment, together with the provision in the Act of last Session, would enable persons who wished to be married before the registrar, and yet to superadd the religious ceremony, to apply to a clergyman for that purpose, only taking care to obtain the services of one whose conscience would not be violated by the performance of the ceremony. The Amendment would therefore relieve clergymen who had a scruple in reference to such marriages, and at the same time enable parties to add the religious ceremony to a marriage solemnized before the registrar, if they wished to do so. He trusted, therefore, the House would grant this redress, for it was precisely in the track of the law that was passed last year, and so prevent the great evil of a collision between Church and State.
  LORD REDESDALEsupported the Amendment, contending that what was asked by it was strictly in accordance with the course of legislation in existing Acts of Parliament, and citing the case of the Quakers, whose conscientious scruples had been respected by the legislative permission accorded to them to substitute an affirmation for an oath. He added, that if he himself were a clergyman he should refuse to marry persons who had been divorced, believing as he did in the indissolubility of the marriage tie.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it had been admitted with perfect fairness that the effect of the Amendment would be to reverse a decision which had been arrived at in a very full House, and he did not believe that if the House were now equally full, there would be any disposition to adopt such a course. He could hold out no expectation on the part of the Government that, as at present advised, they would be inclined to acquiesce in the Amendment. He did not think the reference of the noble Lord to the case of Quakers was at all in point, for Quakers were persons who were not in a position which required them to discharge public duties. If, as a right rev. Prelate had said, these marriages were forbidden by the law of God, why should a registrar be compelled to solemnize a marriage which he might consider contrary to the Divine
  1662
  law, while a clergyman was relieved from such an obligation.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sexplained that his argument was, that a clergyman might have scruples, believing marriage under these circumstances to be contrary to the law of God. But he could not understand what kind of conscience that must be in a civil registrar, that could object to register a civil contract.
  THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFFsaid, although he did not think that the dissolution of marriage was in every case forbidden by the law of God, he believed that remarriage was contrary to that law. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, he was convinced in his own mind that the marriages against which the Amendment was directed were contrary to the Divine law, and if he were called upon to solemnize such a marriage he could not hesitate as to which law he should follow—the law of his God or the law of the State. He, therefore, besought their Lordships, by adopting the Amendment of the noble Earl, to give clergymen a means of escape from the difficulty in which they might otherwise be placed.
  EARL GREYsaid, that when this question was previously before the House he had not supported the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, who wished, as it appeared to him, to claim for individual clergymen the right to refuse to perform certain marriages which they thought contrary to the law of God. In his opinion it would be most objectionable thus to lay down the principle that the ecclesiastical law was to supersede the law of the land, and that individual clergymen might determine which law they would obey. As he understood, a practical and legal marriage could be contracted before a registrar, and therefore the inconvenience which might have arisen under the right rev. Prelate's Amendment would be in a great measure obviated. The statements made to-night as to the existence of scruples of conscience on the part of clergymen were much stronger than those made on the previous occasion, and he thought that, even as a matter of policy, such scruples ought to be treated with every possible indulgence. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would adopt this Amendment; but, feeling the inexpediency of reversing in a comparatively small House, and

  1663
  when the question was not expected to be raised, a decision previously come to, he should recommend the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment not to press it to a division at present, but to bring it forward again on the third reading of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTERsaid, that in his own diocese there was a considerable number of clergymen who regarded this as a scriptural question. If the Bill passed without the insertion of some protection for the consciences of such clergymen, what the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had said would be true in a different sense from that in which he meant it, and this would be a most important step towards the separation of Church and State.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that if their Lordships considered only the scruples of clergymen they might place in a very difficult position many members of the Church of England who objected to be married before a registrar. The effect of the principle involved in this Amendment would be to relieve the clergyman from the performance of any duties imposed upon him by law which he chose to say violated his conscientious scruples. He, for one, should most strongly object to the introduction of such a principle. On that ground, therefore, and because it was most unusual in a comparatively small House, consisting chiefly of friends of the Motion, to attempt to reverse a previously arrived-at decision, he hoped their Lordships would not agree to this Amendment. If they did, the question would be again brought forward, and there would be a third discussion.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONobjected to the statement of the House being taken by surprise. Due notice had been given by his noble Friend of the Amendment to which the noble Lord objected.
  EARL NELSONrepelled the charge of surprise, not having written to his most intimate friends respecting the clause. He regretted that he could not adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) opposite, which was a good one, if accompanied by any promse from the Government to reconsider their decision. As that promise had not been given he should feel bound to divide the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that his impression of the clause was, that it would not enable the person to be married before a clergyman. Under the new Marriage
  1664
  Act it was quite clear that no marriage could take place except in the office of the registrar, or in some registered building. He trusted the House, whether taken by surprise or not, would not introduce so important an alteration as that suggested without its being materially considered. The language ought to be such as to place it beyond all possible doubt.
  EARL NELSONwould be happy to insert the words "In accordance with the Marriage and Registration Act," if the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) would promise to support the Amendment.
  LORD DENMANbelieved that the Amendment would empower a clergyman to shut the church door in the face of any one that he believed to be a guilty person. He should therefore oppose it.
  On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 20: Majority 3.

  CONTENTS.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Grey, E.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Mayo, E.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Powis, E.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Dungannon, V.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Melville, V.

  Congleton, L.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cranworth, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Denman, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Townshend, M.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.)

  Airlie, E.

  Granville, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Minto, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Truro, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Wrottesley, L.

  LORD REDESDALEgave notice that on the third Reading of the Bill he should move the omission from the third clause of the words "and divorce;" and in the event of the House agreeing to omit those words, to move such further Amendments as may be required to deprive the Court of the power of pronouncing decrees for the dissolution of marriages.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDgave notice that, in the event of this Amendment not

  1665
  being carried, he should move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. The Bill contained several Amendments of the law which he should be glad to see carried into effect, but he could not consent to purchase them at the cost of the very serious injury to the morals of the people which the introduction of this law of divorce would bring about.
  EARL NELSONalso gave notice that he should again move the Amendment which had just been negatived, or one to a similar effect.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock till To-morrow, half-past One o'clock