Sitting of 22 June 1857

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Carmarthenshire, David Pugh, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Court of Session (Scotland); Public Charities; Crown, &c. Suits (Scotland); Bankruptcy and Real Securities (Scotland); Bill Chamber (Scotland).
2° Reformatory Schools; Sites for Workhouses.

ROCHDALE ELECTION—COMMITTEE— PRIVILEGE—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHrose to put a question to the Speaker connected with the privileges of the House. He had always understood that a Committee of that House did not possess any power which the House itself had not; and he believed it would be generally admitted that no Member could be excluded from the debates unless there was some question under discussion personally affecting himself, while, even then, a Member was permitted to make a statement before he retired. As the House was aware, a Select Committee was appointed late last week to inquire into certain proceedings connected with the petition against the return for the borough of Rochdale. There were two forms in which a Committee could be appointed—namely, either as a Select Committee (as in this instance) or as a Secret Committee. If the House thought it advisable that an inquiry should be conducted in secret, it had the power so to order, and it had frequently done so. During the last forty years there had been some twelve cases of the House directing inquiries to be carried on in secret. Now, the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the Rochdale Election petition, without any knowledge different from that which, the House possessed when it appointed them—because they had not then taken any evidence—had thought fit to convert themselves into a Secret Committee. A great number of lawyers sat on that Committee, and therefore they had skilfully avoided committing themselves; they did not issue an order that no Member should be admitted, but they worded their notification in a peculiar way, to the effect that it was the opinion of the Committee that the public service would be promoted by the Members present being confined to those who had been selected to serve on the Committee. In common with other hon. Mem-
138
bers he had been rather anxious to witness the proceedings, and knowing that the Committee had no right to exclude him he went to the Committee-room. He was received with great courtesy by the members of the Committee. It was perfectly competent for him to remain, notwithstanding the unanimous opinion of the Committee; and if they really believed, as he supposed they did, that the presence of any Member would have injured the public service, or prejudiced the inquiry, he thought they had but one course to pursue—namely, to adjourn till that (Monday) evening, and then apply to the House for further instructions. Under the circumstances, he had deemed it better to withdraw from the Committee-room. But he now took the liberty of asking the Speaker whether a Select Committee appointed by that House had power, either directly or indirectly, to constitute themselves a secret tribunal.
MR. HENLEY: Sir, before you answer that question I hope you will allow me to make a suggestion to the House, as the Committee of Privileges did me the honour to ask me to preside over its deliberations. That Committee was perfectly well aware of the distinction between a select and a secret Committee. The hon. Member has said that he thinks the Committee was of opinion that its character ought to be changed, and that our duty was not to have proceeded with the inquiry but to have adjourned until the opinion of the House was asked as to whether it should be a select or a secret Committee. It is in the recollection of those hon. Members who were here late on Friday night, when this Committee was appointed, that the first thing proposed was that it should not meet till Monday; but, in consequence of a strong opinion expressed by various Members of the House, the unusual course was taken of appointing it to meet on Saturday. Many Members were apprehensive that if the Committee did not meet forthwith the ends of justice might be defeated. Under these circumstances the Committee met on Saturday. We were, of course, to a certain degree unaware of the nature of the evidence that might be given by Rothwell and Lord, who were the witnesses to be examined on that day. In exercising the discretion which the House intrusted to us we thought we should best carry into effect the view of the House by resolving that no person but a Member of the Com-

139
mittee should be present during the taking of the evidence. We, however, did not presume to exclude any Member of the House. There were, as the hon. Gentleman has said, many legal gentlemen on the Committee, and I may answer for them—though, generally speaking, it is very unadvisable to attempt to answer for such gentlemen,—that they would not presume to exclude any Member from the room. The view which we took as to what was most conducive to the public service received, I think, a most remarkable confirmation, because all the Members—and there were not a few—who were not on the Committee, but who at first desired to be present, immediately assented to the propriety of our view by abstaining from coming into the room. They, in fact, showed no disposition to come in after they became aware of the opinion of the Committee. After the inquiry was terminated on Saturday we saw no reason why the same course should be pursued on Monday, and therefore the public, as well as hon. Members, have been admitted.
MR. SPEAKER: In answering the question put to me by the hon. Member as to the rule of the House upon this subject, I have to state that cases of late years have occurred, and that a very distinct ruling upon this matter has been delivered from this Chair by my immediate predecessor. On the 23rd of February, 1849, he stated that, according to the rules of the House, every hon. Member has the privilege of attending in a Committee, unless it be a Secret Committee. The usual practice has been that during the deliberations of the Committee other hon. Members have left the room. There have been instances in which hon. Members would not leave the room, and where, on the application of the Committee, the House has granted the power of excluding hon. Members. The rule, therefore, has been very distinctly laid down—and it was assented to by the House—that hon. Members are privileged to attend in Committees. Indeed, there does not appear to have been any difference of opinion between hon. Members and the Members of the Committee upon this subject. The hon. Member does not ask me a question as to an exercise of discretion on either side, and I therefore think it fitting to confine myself to announcing what is the rule of the House.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE VICTORIA CROSS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of the Board of Works whether any arrangement had been made for the accommodation of Members of both Houses of Parliament on the occasion of the distribution by Her Majesty of the Victoria Cross?
  SIR BENJAMIN HALL: Sir, I am directed to state that the object of the Government is to provide as much general accommodation as possible, and not to give more exclusive accommodation than is absolutely necessary; and I have received instructions to make arrangements as follows—There will be a centre compartment for the Queen; there will be two other compartments, one on the right and the other on the left, to accommodate the members of the corps diplomatique, the great officers of State, both past and present, and distinguished naval and military officers, inclusive of the relations of those officers who are to receive the decorations from Her Majesty. Independent of this there will be wings to these compartments, one on the north and the other on the south, affording room for about 7,000 or 8,000 persons. These persons will be admitted by tickets, which must be applied for at the Quartermaster General's office, Horse Guards, and any Peer or Member of Parliament desirous of attending will receive a ticket on making application on or before Wednesday evening. There will be a large space of ground in the park for the public who do not obtain tickets.

ORDNANCE SURVEY—QUESTION.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, what progress had been made in the Ordnance Survey for the county of Northumberland?
MR. WILSONsaid, that the Ordnance surveys of Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Alnwick had been completed, as well as that of the mineral parts in the south-west of the county of Northumberland. The maps would have been published almost immediately upon a twenty-five inch scale but for the decision which was arrived at by the House the other night. They would therefore now be published on a six-inch scale. He had been informed that the maps would be published towards the end

141
of the year. The remainder of the county would be surveyed upon a six-inch scale.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War, Whether any communication has been received from Colonel James (the Director of the Ordnance Survey Department) stating that the plans appended to the Army Estimates, which were signed by him in October, and were issued to the Members of the House of Commons in February last, were incorrect, in so far as they represent the county of Durham to have been surveyed and drawn on the scale of six inches to the mile, whereas, in fact, they were drawn to the scale of twenty-five inches to the mile? When such Communication was made, and why it was not communicated to the House previous to the Report on the Army Estimates being brought up? By what authority the Survey of the county of Durham was drawn to the scale of twenty-five inches to the mile; and whether there will be any objections to lay on the Table of the House Copies of the authority under which such Survey on the enlarged scale was adopted, and of any Correspondence relating thereto?
SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, no communication of the kind referred to had been made by Colonel James before the bringing up of the Report on the Army Estimates. The map contained in the Army Estimates is published in order to show the state of the publication of the survey of England and Wales. It was perfectly true that Durham was drawn on the twenty-five-inch scale, but the drawings would be reduced by the photographic process, and would be published on the six-inch scale. The authority on which Durham is drawn on the twenty-five-inch scale was the Treasury Minute of the 18th May, 1855.

THE ISLAND OF PERIM—QUESTION.
MR. WHITEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control, seeing that the island of Perim, in the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, has been recently occupied in the name of the British Crown, whether the privileges of a free port have been or will be accorded thereto?
Mr. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the island of Perim was occupied by the Indian, Government so long ago as 1799; it was re-occupied by the Marquess of Wellesley in 1801, and our possession had been undisputed since that day. The hon.
142
Member was mistaken, therefore, in saying that the island had been "recently occupied." Perim was described as an island five miles in length, and its re-occupation now was with a view to the establishment of a lighthouse thereupon. As far as he knew no port existed. There was, however, a harbour, and any dues which were levied for the purpose of defraying the charges of the lighthouse would be levied equally on both foreign and British ships. There might be other islands in the Red Sea where it might be advantageous to erect lighthouses, but the present one being in the possession of the East India Company, it had been selected first. For the reason he had stated there was no intention of making it a free port.

CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDMUND HAYESsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he intends to introduce a measure during the present Session for the better distribution of the constabulary force in Ireland.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, that it was his intention to introduce the Bill for the re-allocation of the Irish constabulary which was promised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman).

FACTORY INSPECTORS' REPORTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Reports of the Factory Inspectors for the half-year ending on the 30th of April last, have been received by him, and when they will be laid on the table of the House?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Reports in question had been received by him, the letter transmitting them being dated the 9th of the present month. It was, however, quite necessary that the Secretary of State should have time to make himself acquainted with their contents previous to laying them before Parliament, but he believed the Reports would be presented by to-morrow or the next day.

THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. C. FITZWILLIAMsaid, he wished to ask the Under-Secretary for War whether

  143
  the Canadian Rifles, now proceeding to the Red River, have been sent at the request of the Hudson's Bay Company; and whether for the purpose of protecting the trade of the Company, in consequence of information received that any portion of the territory north of the boundary line is likely to be, or has already been, occupied by settlers from the United States.
  SIR JOHN RAMSDENsaid, his hon. Friend was quite right in assuming that the Canadian Rifles had been sent to the Red River at the request of the Hudson's Bay Company. They had not been sent, however, in consequence of any infringement of the British territory by the settlers of the United States, but merely for general purposes, it being considered undesirable that so large and isolated a settlement should be left entirely unprotected. The force now sent was not a new one; it was merely the re-establishment of an old garrison.

OATHS BILL.

  AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that on a former occasion he had expressed his opinion, on the ground both of justice and of propriety, that the clauses which it was now his duty to propose should be inserted in the Bill. At that time he understood, in common, he believed, with all the hon. Members on his side of the House, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government intended to resist these clauses whenever they were proposed. Since he had come down to the House, however, he had been informed that Her Majesty's Government had abandoned that Resolution, and did not now mean to offer any opposition to the adoption of the clauses. That being the case, it became quite unnecessary for him to trouble the House with those observations which it would have otherwise been his duty to offer. He could only congratulate hon. Members near him that it was from the Opposition side of the House that a Motion proceeded which had compelled the Government to do that which all parties appeared to agree in thinking to be right and just. He could also say that, had this Motion been opposed, and had a division been taken upon it, he believed, judging from the assurances he had received from many independent Members, as well as from those who generally sup-
  144
  ported the noble Lord, that although the Government might have succeeded in their opposition, the result of the division would not have been altogether satisfactory to them. In the present instance, therefore, discretion was the better part of valour as far as they were concerned. As he understood that the Government consented to the introduction of the clauses which stood in his name on the Notice Paper, it would merely be necessary for him now to move their insertion.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGseconded the Motion.
  Clause, "Provided always, and be it enacted, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to enable any person or persons professing the Jewish religion to hold or exercise the office of guardians and justices of the United Kingdom, or of regents of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted, or to enable any person to hold or enjoy the office of Lord High Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal of Great Britain or Ireland, or the office of Lord Lieutenant, or Deputy, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, or Her Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, or any place or office whatever of, in, or belonging to any of the Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature in England or Ireland respectively, or in any Courts of Appeal, or review of the sentence of such Courts, or of, in, or belonging to the Commissary Court of Edinburgh."
  Brought up and read 1°.
  On Motion that the Clause be read 2a,
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: When, Sir, upon a former stage of this Bill, I was asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government themselves to propose to put into the Bill provisions resembling those which the hon. and learned Member has moved, I stated that it was not our intention to make such a proposition; and the reason was that the contingency which these provisions were intended to guard against appeared to me to be so very unlikely to happen that it was scarcely worth while to make special provision in an Act of Parliament for these assumed cases. But, Sir, we are exceedingly anxious that this Bill should pass. We think it would be a very advantageous measure, both as regards hon. Members who have to take the oaths now, and persons who are at present excluded from this House. If, therefore, as we are led to believe, the adoption of the clauses proposed by the hon. and learned Member would tend in any degree to render more likely the passage of this Bill into a law, we should hold ourselves deeply responsible

  145
  if, from any fancied objection, we raised any opposition to that which we felt was so desirable. Therefore, Sir, upon that ground—not ourselves attaching any great importance to the provisions, but thinking them wholly unobjectionable, and believing that by their adoption we may render more probable the successful issue of this Bill—I am happy to give my support to the clauses of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he did not know what the result of this extraordinary unanimity would be. Of course, if the clauses were agreed to, there would be an end of the question; but he begged to say, that if any hon. Member divided the House, he did not mean to vote upon the question, because he would not be supposed to sanction in any way the principle of admitting the Jews to Parliament.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Lord Advocate had suggested an Amendment by striking out that part in this clause, which referred to a Court (the Commissary Court of Edinburgh) which now no longer existed. It would be necessary, therefore, to omit the words "or of, in, or belonging to the Commissary Court of Edinburgh."
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDobserved, that he had certainly compared the clause with those in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, but he had taken the words pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman from a Bill, on the back of which he found the names of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. If, therefore, he had been led into error, it was attributable to that Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that that Bill had been prepared some seven years ago, and that the Commissary Court of Scotland had been abolished since.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
  Clause, as amended, read 2°, and added to the Bill.
  On the Motion of Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD the following clauses were brought up and read 1°.
  "And be it enacted, that where any right of presentation to any ecclesiastical benefice shall belong to any office in the gift or appointment of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, and such office shall be held by a person professing the Jewish religion, the right of presentation shall devolve upon and be exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being."
  146
  "And be it enacted that it shall not be lawful for any person professing the Jewish religion directly or indirectly to advise Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, or any person or persons holding or exercising the office of guardians of the United Kingdom, or of regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted, or the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Deputy, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, touching or concerning the appointment to or disposal of any office or preferment in the United Church of England and Ireland or in the Church of Scotland."
  On Motion that the said clauses be read 2°.
  MR. DILLWYNconsidered that the Oaths Bill, with the proposed clauses, would be a Bill in the nature of a Bill of pains and penalties, and he should protest against it.
  MR. WIGRAMsaid, that the proposed clauses provided that Jews should not obtain certain distinctions which he did not believe any hon. Member in that House ever objected to Jews, as Jews, arriving at. What hon. Members who made objections to the Oaths Bill wanted was, to make the profession of Christianity one of the qualifications for Members of that House; but instead of that, they were bound by the clauses now before the House to distinctly exclude Jews and Jews only from certain privileges, whereas, if there was any class of the non-professors of Christianity to which he would accord those privileges, it was to the Jews. He certainly should prefer Jews to Hindoos, Mahomedans, and especially to Deists. He really thought they were going to send the Bill to the House of Lords in as absurd a shape as it could well assume.
  THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid that, although he gave the highest credit to his hon. and learned Friend for his intentions in having introduced these clauses, his opinion with respect to the measure remained unchanged, and he therefore felt himself bound to persevere in taking the sense of the House upon the third reading.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwould remind the House that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, eight years ago, abandoned clauses similar to those now proposed, because he felt that they furnished the most apt illustration of the objections to this Bill which could be afforded. What was the House now about to declare? Why, that the Jew was competent in his legislative capacity, to create or dispose of offices which he could not fill. They were electing him as law-maker, but

  147
  in the same breath they were voting that he was not fit to administer the law. He begged that he might not be understood to be one of those who had considered that the insertion of those clauses was a removal of the objections to the Bill; but he again repeated that he viewed them as an illustration of the objections to the Bill, an illustration so striking that all attempts to introduce those clauses had been abandoned for eight years.
  MR. BENTINCKquite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire that the clauses about to be inserted in the Bill showed the absurdity of the whole measure. In fact, there could not be a stronger illustration of that absurdity. He now wished to observe that whatever might be the result of the attempt to pass the Oaths Bill, there was no hon. Member of that House who was a sincere and determined opponent of the proposition to admit Jews into Parliament, but owed a deep debt of gratitude to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir F. Thesiger) for the ability and determination which he had shown in combating the measure. To him they had looked on this occasion, to him they owed their thanks. He believed that that opinion was not confined to that House, but was shared in by the country. The noble Lord had said that he was anxious the Bill should pass, but he (Mr. Bentinck) did not think that the country shared that anxiety: on the contrary, he believed that the country generally was opposed to the measure, and that the approval of it given by the House of Commons was owing to the fact that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London had pledged himself to the constant agitation of the question of the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that his experience led him to a very different conclusion from that which had been arrived at by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; for wherever he had gone he had seen a feeling evinced in favour of this Bill, arising not so much from a consideration for the Jew, as from an earnest and hearty desire to abolish that portion of intolerance which yet remained upon our statute-book—that rag of intolerance about which zealots still howled while they talked so glibly of Christian charity. For himself, he looked upon it that one act of mercy, one deed of liberality, was worth whole cartloads of such arguments as they had heard from
  148
  Gentlemen opposite, from the prophetic denunciations of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford to the ponderous denunciations of the junior Member for North Warwickshire.
  Motion agreed to; Clauses read 2° and added to the Bill.
  Bill to be read 3° on Thursday.

ASSAULTS UPON WOMEN—QUESTION.
Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply read.
VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, that he wished to put a question to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the administration of the law in cases of assault upon females, which he regretted to say appeared to have been on the increase since the rejection recently of his Motion for a Committee of inquiry into the subject. No fewer than three cases of ferocious assaults on women were recorded in that day's paper alone. In one case a man who was charged with a murderous assault upon his wife—having stabbed her in the face with a knife—appeared to be quite indifferent to the charge made against him, and being very properly sentenced by Mr. Combe, the magistrate, to six months' hard labour—being the full extent of the punishment which the magistrate had it in his power to award—he said, laughing, "That's just what I want; that'll serve her out." In another case a man was charged with a ferocious assault upon his wife, and he also treated the matter with great unconcern. Mr. Seeker, the magistrate, in adjudicating upon this case, said—
"It was melancholy to see a man in his respectable position of life charged with committing a series of brutal assaults on his wife. From the state of her body it was clear that he was in the habit of continually illusing her. Under all the circumstances he should not be doing his duty to the public unless he put the law in force with some severity. He must therefore be committed to the House of correction for two months, with hard labour."
He (Viscount Raynham) trusted, therefore, that the Government would see the necessity before long of making some alteration in the law applicable to such cases; and he would also beg to ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, in his opinion, Mr. Secker had inflicted the proper punishment in the second case he had alluded to, and, if in the opinion of the Home Secretary he had

149
not done so, whether any step would be taken to alter the sentence.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that, not having seen the particulars of the cases to which his noble Friend had adverted, he should be sorry to express an opinion as to whether the magistrate in exercising the discretion vested in him by the law with respect to the punishment which he awarded, had acted with sound judgment or not. He had not the least reason to doubt that the discretion exercised by the magistrates in question was a sound discretion. With respect to the operation of the existing Act, he would refer to a letter written by one of the police magistrates to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, in which letter the writer states that the Act had had a very great influence in checking the offences against which it was directed; and that in his district the numbers of cases had diminished from eighty-nine in 1854 to forty-three in 1856.

NATIONAL GALLERY—QUESTION.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he wished to ask the noble. Lord at the head of the Government, whether it was true, as stated in the newspapers, that the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the site of the National Gallery had been made; and if so, when might the House expect that it would be laid on the table?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot say whether it has been made or not; it had not been made two days ago.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think I can state that it is not yet made.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the chair.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed. "That a sum, not exceeding £102,861, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March 1858."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was afraid that the expenses of the two Houses of Parliament would amount to an awful Bill. In March of last year he referred to the scheme of the late Sir William Molesworth, to the effect that £280,000 would finish the expenses of the Houses of Parliament. There were then looming in the distance new charges to the amount of
150
£500,000, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works then gave a pledge that no expenditure should be entered into relating to that sum of £500,000 without a reference to that House. It appeared extremely doubtful whether that arrangement had not already been broken. He therefore wished to know in what position they stood with respect to the expenses of the Houses of Parliament. It seemed clear that the sum of £280,000 he had before mentioned had been already exceeded by £96,000, and seeing that the cost of the works which were originally estimated at £770,000 had already exceeded £2,000,000, he thought it was the duty of Parliament to ascertain when and where this drain was to stop. One cause of the enormous expenditure was the costly nature of the finishings of the Houses, and it had been stated by Mr. Hunt, a gentleman well qualified to form an opinion, that no less than £700,000 had been spent in what were called finishings. A sort of squabble, too, had taken place with the architect as to his commission. The position of the matter was, that Parliament had spent £2,000,000 and odd on the new Houses, and it was now going to spend £162,000 more, and therefore he wished to know whether the Commissioner of Works meant to deviate from the arrangement made by Sir William Molesworth. Were they to be set loose at sea again, and to have these constant demands for money? It was a disgrace to the House that it could not manage properly the expenditure for works going on close to it. He wished to know whether, in addition to the sum of £54,000 which had been paid to Sir Charles Barry, and with which he did not appear to be quite contented, there would be any additional charges for commission from other quarters. He also hoped the right hon. Baronet would inform the Committee what was the amount now outstanding which it would be necessary to pay, and whether any new works would be undertaken without the sanction of Parliament.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLobserved, that he was appointed to the office he had the honour to hold on the 24th of July, 1855, and within a few days afterwards he was asked by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire what course he intended to pursue with regard to the works connected with the Houses of Parliament. He replied that he proposed simply to complete the works then in hand, which had been

151
sanctioned by Parliament, and not to undertake any new works, and he had adhered most strictly to that declaration. He hoped the House of Commons would never on any future occasion fall into such an error as they had committed between 1834 and 1840. Instead of having a detailed plan and design before them, or appointing an officer who should be responsible for the execution of the work and the expenditure of the money, Parliament contented itself with obtaining a slight plan which merely shadowed out the general character of the structure to be erected. They appointed a Committee of taste, a Committee of fine arts, a Committee of supervision, a Committee of inquiry, and various similar Committees, without any one person being responsible to the House of Commons for the manner in which the work was executed or for the expenditure. The hon. Baronet had referred to the estimate of £280,000 for the completion of the works, which was given by Sir Charles Barry to Sir William Molesworth in 1854. He (Sir B. Hall) had been given to understand by Sir Charles Barry that the works would be completed for that amount; but when he found from the estimates sent in this year by Sir Charles Barry that a larger sum was demanded than had been proposed to his predecessor (Sir W. Molesworth), he thought it his duty to require some explanation on the subject. He (Sir B. Hall) was now referring only to the plans which had been sanctioned by Parliament, setting aside altogether the new buildings which Sir Charles Barry proposed to erect in New Palace Yard. Sir Charles Barry stated that he required an additional sum of £50,000, in consequence of the increase of contracts, and 34,000 for additional works. This reply was unsatisfactory, and he requested Sir Charles Barry to furnish him with a detailed statement of the purposes for which the outlay was required. He (Sir B. Hall) could assure the House that the pledge which he gave in 1855 and 1856 had been fully carried out, and that he had endeavoured to confine Sir Charles Barry to the plans which had been sanctioned by Parliament. He heard a few days ago that some alterations were in progress in the Speaker's house and court-yard, and he immediately wrote to Sir Charles Barry to inquire why a hoarding had been erected, and what alterations he was about to make. He mentioned this circumstance to show that he was deter-
152
mined, to the utmost of his power, to confine Sir Charles Barry to the works which had received the sanction of Parliament.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to have some explanation of the items, "Amount required to be provided in addition to the sums voted in previous years, for commission which has been paid to Sir Charles Barry to the 30th of June, 1856, £23,000," and the "Estimated amount which may be required for further payments to the architect, and for miscellaneous services from the 30th of June, 1856, to the 3lst of March, 1857, £5,000." He (Mr. Williams) observed another item in the Estimates of "£5,270 on account of superintendence and miscellaneous charges." He would be glad if the hon. Baronet could inform the Committee when it was probable that the expenditure for the Houses of Parliament would cease.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the question just put by the hon. Gentleman was somewhat difficult to answer, and he was afraid he should only deceive the House if he attempted to give any definite reply to it. All he could say was that he was endeavouring to wind up the concern as quickly as possible by preventing any new works from being undertaken. With regard to the items to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention, if he read a paper which had been circulated a day or two ago, he would find that it contained a full explanation of the mode in which Sir Charles Barry was to be remunerated under the Treasury Minute.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had not gathered from the right hon. Baronet's statement how much the present Vote would be in excess of the £284,000. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking, no doubt with perfect sincerity, of restraining Sir Charles "as far as he was able." That was a most unfortunate addendum to the right hon. Baronet's statement. As the right hon. Baronet was a member of the Government, it would be somewhat strange if he did not possess authority enough to prevent Sir Charles Barry from expending the public money at his own discretion. Surely he had only to refuse to place in the Estimates the cost of carrying out anything he disapproved of.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, as soon as he found that the estimate of 1854 was exceeded he wrote to Sir Charles Barry, desiring to be informed of the exact amount which would be required for the

153
completion of the buildings, and Sir Charles, Barry replied that £50,000 would be the excess upon the contracts, and that £34,000 would be wanted for additional works which were necessary. He (Sir B. Hall) was not satisfied with that statement, and he asked for further explanations, but to that communication he had not yet received an answer.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the Committee was now told that Sir Charles Barry asked the First Commissioner of Works for certain sums, partly for an excess arising on the contracts, and partly for other reasons, But it appeared the First Commissioner was not exactly aware what those reasons were. He (Mr. Henley) thought the Committee ought to take care that they were not by this Vote dragged into sanctioning works of which they at present knew nothing, for they were now asked to vote money on account, but were not told what it was for. There was also another matter to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. In the plan attached to the Estimates there were buildings shown under the title of "proposed buildings," which had not only not received the sanction of the House, but had been disapproved of by the Board of Works; and he thought the Chief Commissioner ought to have seen that such plan, at all events in its present shape, should not have appeared along with the Estimates. A few years hence, when, perhaps, they might not have so careful a Chief Commissioner of Works as they had at present, Sir Charles Barry might erect these additional buildings; and if found fault with for so doing might say he had submitted his plan to the House of Commons, who had approved of them, and that he had consequently carried them out. He (Mr. Henley) thought, therefore, that unapproved plans having been submitted to Parliament along with the Estimates, they might be the means of causing a considerable additional expenditure.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that he had objected to the plan being attached to the Estimates last year, and it was entirely his fault that it had appeared this year; but he would take care it should not be construed into the sanction of the new works in question. The fact was, the plan was received just before the Estimates were sent to the printer.
MR. BALLsaid, he was surprized to find an item of £20,000 and upwards in
154
this Vote "on further account of the completion of the Victoria and Clock towers and the fittings and finishings thereof." When the Committee looked at the immense sums which had been expended on those towers and their appendages they would probably think the public was entitled to see a clock of corresponding use and beauty, but instead of that they had a clock which was ashamed to show its face. Again, they were told they were to have a bell of extraordinary power for the Clock Tower. That bell they had got, and a high-sounding name they had given to it, but the public did not know whether its tones were likely to realize the expectations held out respecting them, for the bell had not been raised to its position in the tower.
MR. PALKsaid, his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) seemed to speak with doubt as to his power over the expenditure of Sir Charles Barry. He (Mr. Palk) imagined that Sir Charles Barry was employed by that House; that the Government were answerable for the works undertaken by him and the expenditure upon those works, and that there could be no difficulty whatever in restraining him from any works which were not likely to be sanctioned by a vote of the House. He would also call attention to the fact, that while the first item in the estimate was £20,300 for the Victoria and Clock towers, further down there were two items—one of £300 and another of £6,000—on account of the Clock tower. He should, therefore, wish to know why one sum had been placed at the top and two other sums lower down?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he could restrain Sir Charles Barry so far as regarded new works, though the difficulty of restraining an architect must have been practically felt by any Gentleman who had ever employed one. What he (Sir B. Hall) hoped was that if the House of Commons should hereafter sanction any new works in the shape of public offices or otherwise, they would make one man responsible for the whole, and have a clear and minute plan, the details of which had previously received the sanction of the House. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) he (Sir B. Ball) might say the clock was going, but unfortunately some years ago a wrong course was taken with respect to it. The bells for the tower

155
ought to have been cast before the clock was made, but it so happened that the clock was made before the bells were cast. One of those bells, as was well known, arrived in London some time ago; the other two had been cast, while two others remained to be cast; but it was thought useless to raise the large bell, which had arrived, to its place until they got the others to accompany it. He trusted that when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ball) was called on to attend his place in Parliament next Session he would have frequent opportunities of hearing the chimes the absence of which he now lamented. As regarded the items alluded to by the hon. Member for Devonshire (Mr. Palk), he had to state that the Vote of £20,300 at the top of the Estimates was for work done under the direction of Sir C. Barry; while the other two Votes were for the finishing of the clock towers, over which he had no control.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had complained that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) had not read a paper which had been circulated with the Estimates, explanatory of the Vote under consideration. He (Mr. Drummond) had read that document, and he found a very extraordinary item in it—namely, a charge made by Sir C. Barry of £1,393 for drawing the designs for the plate, linen, crockery, &c., for the refreshment rooms of the two Houses of Parliament. What on earth could they have been? It was true that the claim had been rejected by the Board of Works when it was first laid before it, and he (Mr. Drummond) had understood that it was the kitchen Committee which had ordered all these things; but was the kitchen Committee going to pay for it? The very mention of such an item was absurd. He saw a gentleman a few days ago to whom he mentioned that charge made by Sir Charles Barry of £1,393, and who thought it a most remarkable thing, for, said the gentleman in question, "I and another person made the drawings in question and got a guinea for our pains." He (Mr. Drummond) thought, however, that Sir Charles Barry had not been justly treated with regard to his remuneration. It appeared to him (Mr. Drummond) that many of the extraordinary bills of which the Committee complained were run up by Sir Charles Barry to eke out by extra charges for commission the remuneration
156
which Parliament refused to allow him. Then there was another item of £14,000 for furniture for the Speaker's house, and his (Mr. Drummond's) apprehension was that that sum would not be sufficient for the purpose, and that they were likely to have the same sum in the Estimates next year. Some one ought to be answerable for this expenditure.
LORD JOHN MANNERSfound an item of £4,500 for the lease of a house in Spring Gardens for the Clerk of the Parliaments. He should have thought an official residence might have been found for Mr. Lefevre in the enormous pile of buildings in which they were assembled. At all events, the item was singularly misplaced in this Vote; it ought to have appeared in the Vote agreed to the other night for public offices.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that Mr. Lefevre had hitherto had a residence in Palace Yard, which was very inconvenient. He agreed with the noble Lord that if any one officer connected with the Houses of Parliament ought to be provided with an official residence in the New Palace at Westminster, it was the Clerk of the Parliaments. He had inquired how it was that no provision had been made for this officer, but he could get no very satisfactory answer. It therefore became necessary to provide an official residence for him elsewhere, and the Vote had been by his direction inserted in the present Estimate, in order that the Committee might see in one Vote everything relative to the expenditure of the two Houses of Parliament. With regard to the furniture for the Speaker's new residence, he had desired an officer of his own department to go over the house and make an estimate. He intended that this work should not be undertaken by Sir Charles Barry, but by his own department, and he would endeavour to carry it out for the estimate.
MR. BERESFORD HOPErecalled attention to the charge of £1,393 for the I designs for plate, linen, &c., for the refreshment rooms. There was an additional charge which made this sum amount to £4,327. On that amount Sir Charles Barry claimed a commission at the rate of four per cent, which came to £173. He (Mr. B. Hope) could not understand that matter.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, when the Board of Works received the claim in question they could not admit its validity,

157
inasmuch as the first claim on that account was not ordered by that Board.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEthen understood that the per centage was claimed by Sir Charles Barry for superintending the drawing of these designs.
MR. WILSONsaid, the sum of £1,393 was not the cost of the designs, but the cost of the articles themselves; it was upon that Sir Charles Barry claimed his commission.
MR. BRISCOEsaid, he must protest against the extravagant expenditure upon the new Houses of Parliament. The original sum proposed for building these Houses was £250,000. This estimate soon rose to £760,000, and then reached £1,000,000. There was even now no assurance that the sum of £50,000 to be voted this year would be the last expense. The original sum of £250,000 had risen until the money actually expended very much exceeded £2,000,000, and it was time to require a clear and distinct statement from Sir Charles Barry as to the future expenditure. At present Sir Charles seemed to set the House at defiance. After this experience he had viewed with no inconsiderable alarm the exhibition in Westminster Hall of designs for public offices, and he wished to know what expenditure they were likely to involve. The estimate of the proposed expenditure was £5,000.000, and if they were to judge by their experience of the outlay on the Houses of Parliament the actual cost would exceed £13,000,000. He, therefore, hoped that the House would be warned by the past, and not blindly give its confidence where it was not deserved.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished for further explanation as to the sum of £1,393 already referred to—whether it was for designs or for the articles themselves?
MR. WILSONsaid, that the item of £1,393 was not for designs at all, but for the whole of the articles themselves which are specified under this head.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had been anxious on a previous occasion to learn how far the Estimate of £284,000 for completing the new palace was likely to be exceeded, and he now understood the excess on the present Vote to be about £20,000. He wished to strengthen the hands of the First Commissioner of Works, not to weaken them, and therefore he should move that this Vote be reduced to the sum of £20,000. His object was to require another Estimate to be submitted
158
to the House for these works, which should be final.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment. He (Sir B. Hall) had written to Sir Charles Barry, requesting to be furnished with all the particulars relating to the extra expenditure beyond the £284,000, which he stated in 1854 would be requisite to finish the new palace. Great inconvenience might arise if the sum were now reduced; but before the present Session terminated he certainly hoped he would be able to lay before the House a detailed Estimate of everything required to complete the works according to the plans which had been sanctioned. He could only repeat the assurance he had previously given that he would not, directly or indirectly, authorize any expenditure beyond that which had been sanctioned by Parliament.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he trusted, after what had fallen from the First Commissioner of Works, that the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) would not press his Amendment. Before that explanation was made, however, he (Lord C. Hamilton) had himself been inclined to support the Amendment, viewing it in the light of a vote of confidence in the First Commissioner of Works, who ought to be armed with the power of keeping Sir Charles Barry within some bounds. It was very difficult at any time to control an architect; but those who had watched Sir Charles Barry's career for the last eighteen years must have observed that he exceeded, in his ingenuity in devising extra charges, every other member of his profession. Some further explanation was needed as to the sum of £23,000 for Sir Charles Barry, and also as to the next item of £5,000. Last year the total sum stated to be due to that gentleman was £60,000, and it was therefore difficult to understand how this £23,000 had suddenly become payable to him. If that House had exercised a proper vigilance over this expenditure £500,000 might easily have been saved, and probably a far better building provided for the purposes of the nation. They ought to assist the First Commissioner of Works in his laudable determination to exact accurate estimates and specifications. Much of the money required for commission was composed by charges for works which were found unsuited for their object, and had to be pulled down again. No architect ought

159
to be suffered to charge for his own mistakes and want of foresight. Hon. Members might not be aware of the many successive transformations that the chamber in which they now sat had undergone. In the first place, the floor had to be lengthened; then the benches had to be altered, as they had been placed so close that hon. Members could not sit down; next, the galleries for Members had to be changed, the strangers' gallery and the reporters' gallery had likewise to be remodelled; the long lancet-shaped windows at first introduced were also found ill-adapted to the character of the House, and had to be all altered; the arrangements for ventilation had been the subject of numerous changes; and, last of all, it being discovered that nobody could hear in the House, the roof had to be entirely altered. What private firm that carried on its affairs with anything like ordinary prudence would allow an architect to play this game with them, and not even require him to state the expense incurred by such innumerable changes? Before they removed to that House they had a chamber in which they could hear one another, and which was well ventilated. He (Lord C. Hamilton) had once asked Sir William Molesworth to exemplify the system in which Sir Charles Barry had been permitted to run riot, and produce accounts showing the cost of these alterations; but that lamented statesman replied that it was totally impossible to procure the required figures, so dire was the confusion in which the whole matter was involved. He (Lord C. Hamilton) wished to have some explanation of the item of £23,000 for Sir Charles Barry in this Vote.
MR. BARROWsaid, he concurred in the opinion which had been expressed that the House itself was chiefly to blame for a great part of the expenditure. He doubted, moreover, whether the power of the First Commissioner of Works was sufficient to control the architect of the new Palace, and he thought the Committee would do wrong if it refused to accede to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) for stopping a portion of this Vote until they were furnished with better information.
MR. BRISCOEsaid, he also hoped the Amendment would be persevered with. He should vote for it, not from any want of confidence in the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Works, but in order to get the Estimate they wanted.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwould give an earnest support to the hon. Baronet's Amendment; but he desired at the same time to say that the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) was the only First Commissioner of Public Works who had attempted to put any sort of check upon the proceedings of Sir Charles Barry. Some steps ought to be taken to stop the extravagant expenditure which had been going on from year to year in the construction of the Houses of Parliament. As he presumed that the greater portion of the £4,000 which was now asked for, in addition to the £16,000 already voted for decorative works in the Palace at Westminster, would be expended in the erection of statues of men eminent in former days, he wished to be informed by the right hon. Baronet whether any provision had been made for bringing into public remembrance the most illustrious man this country ever produced—namely, the Protector Cromwell. Nothing had yet been done by this country in memory of his great character, but he would live in history. The time would come when his merits would be known. It would be a disgrace to the present generation if it did not produce something worthy of his great name.
MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, that while he admitted the necessity of some understanding being arrived at with respect to the subject alluded to by the hon. Member for Evesham, he deprecated any vote which would have the effect of placing hon. Members in the ridiculous position of having commenced the building of a house which they could not complete.
MR. WILSONsaid, that after the question of Sir C. Barry's remuneration had been disputed for many years, Lord Besborough, the then First Commissioner of Works, fixed the remuneration at £25,000 upon an original expenditure of £750,000, which remuneration was £10,000 less than if it had been at the rate of 5 per cent on the expenditure. In the course of time, and under successive Governments, considerable additions were made to the original design as well as extensive alterations; and, from time to time, Sir C. Barry received advances on account of such additions and alterations. In 1853, however, when it was thought right to put an end to those payments on account, and to fix a definite principle upon which Sir C. Barry should be rewarded, it was determined that, in addition to the £25,000 on the original estimate, he should be paid at the

161
rate of 3 per cent on the increased expenditure. Hon. Members were aware that Sir Charles Barry remonstrated against that decision, and still persisted in claiming 5 per cent, according to the usual scale of architects; but the Government resisted his claim, and they were supported by the House in that resistance. When his account came to be settled last year he put in a claim for a large outlay for the measurement of the works, not included in the charge for the building. It was ultimately agreed, with the advice of the Board of Works, that he should be paid at the rate of 4 per cent instead of 3 per cent, in order that the additional 1 per cent might remunerate him for those measurements. When the account came to be settled it was found that the claim of Sir Charles Barry was £23,000. This was the £23,000 now under discussion, and the other sum of £5,400 was for his services in the ventilation and lighting of both Houses and other matters.
MR. MALINSwished to remind the Committee that Sir Charles Barry laboured under the disadvantage of not being permitted to reply to the attacks which had been made upon him with reference to the building of the Houses of Parliament. As there were two sides to every story, he had no doubt that Sir Charles Barry could show that not he, but the House itself, was answerable for most of the alterations that had been made in the original plan. Everybody knew that 5 per cent upon the outlay was the remuneration paid to an architect in the absence of a special contract, and as no contract had been entered into between Sir Charles Barry and the Government, he was entitled to 5 per cent upon the money expended in the construction of the Houses of Parliament. It was no doubt true that less than 5 per cent had been forced upon him, but he always protested against any reduction of his claim. As, then, there was a dispute between the Government and Sir Charles Barry, why should it not he referred to indifferent persons for settlement? The Reform Club had been erected by Sir Charles Barry; the same question arose as to his remuneration; it was referred to arbitration, and Mr. Justice Erle, then at the Bar, awarded him 5 per cent. Sir Charles Barry had received £58,000 for twenty years' services, and, considering the abilities of Sir Charles and his eminence as an architect, this was not a very astonishing sum. But he (Mr.
162
Malins) had received an assurance from Sir Charles that out of this sum, contrary to the usage of architects, he had had to pay from his own pocket a large amount of money for expenses thrown upon him by this House. The committee would therefore see that Sir Charles Barry had not received perfect justice. He had made no contract; the Government sought to impose their own terms upon him; and because they were more powerful than he they expected him to submit. He (Mr. Malins) contended that the Government was no more justified than an individual would be in imposing their own terms on Sir Charles. The case ought to be submitted to some impartial tribunal—either to a court of law or to arbitrators.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had stated that great inconvenience would arise if these Estimates were cut down. Would the right hon. Gentleman state what particular form this inconvenience would assume, and whether it would leave any buildings unfinished?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLreplied, that no new work of any magnitude, and not sanctioned by Parliament, had been undertaken with his sanction; but inconvenience would, of course, result if the Amendment were carried as regarded those buildings now in course of completion.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that Sir Charles Barry agreed to build the Houses for a certain sum of money; he deviated from his plan, and then sought to charge 5 per cent upon all the extra work.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £82,861, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March 1858."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 175: Majority 110.
MR. KIRKsaid, he wished to direct the attention of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to the decay which was apparent in the stones of the new Houses, and which was particularly to be remarked in the mouldings and ornamental front of the river terrace. Unless some means were adopted for preserving the stone the Houses would be in a great measure decayed before they were completed.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that it was evident, even upon a casual inspection, that the stone was going to pieces in all directions. He had observed, also, something

163
which appeared to him to be very like the rusting of iron in the roof. He hoped he was mistaken in these indications; but if he were not they did not argue much for the future permanence of the building.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he was sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman was not mistaken in his view of the case; for he had made inquiries some months ago as to the state of the roof, and he found on examination that the galvanized process had ceased to act, and that the rust was coming through, as was almost invariably the case where galvanized iron had been used for structures which were not of a temporary character. All that they could do now would be to cover it over with some chemical preparation, with the view of preventing further mischief; but he was sorry to say that the rust certainly was showing itself in different parts of the roof. His attention had also been drawn to some of the stone, which was decaying in certain places, and some chemical processes had been tried for the purpose of preserving it; but it would be years before the full success of the experiments could be tested.
MR. HENLEYasked whether something could not be done to prevent the rusting of the iron in those parts of the roof where it had not yet begun; because it would be much more difficult to stop it after, it had once shown itself than to prevent it in the first instance.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that he was in constant communication with persons upon the subject, but that it was very difficult to determine what measures would prevent the extension of the evil.
MR. KIRKobserved that it said very little for the state of architectural science in this country, if some means could not he devised for preventing the decay and defacement of the stones of the river terrace.
MR. WISEasked if the First Commissioner of the Board of Works had any objection to lay upon the table an account of the whole sums expended for the Houses of Parliament. He really was not able to say whether it was £2,500,000 £3,000,000. A short return showing the gross amount and various items would be extremely useful?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that he proposed to lay upon the table the estimate of Sir Charles Barry for the thorough completion of the Houses of Parliament and he should at the same time lay upon
164
the table an account of the cost from the commencement to the present time.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked if it were intended to abandon the galvanized iron roof, and to substitute a lead roof for it.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that had not been determined on; for to remove the covering of the roof of that immense building would involve a frightful expenditure; but his impression was that galvanized iron ought never to have been employed as a roofing for the Houses of Parliament.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) £443, Port Patrick Harbour.
MR. LIDDELLasked whether a return of the estimated expenses of the large works necessary for the completion of the enormous harbour at Dovor, moved for by an hon. Member recently, would soon be laid on the table?
MR. WILSONreplied that the present Vote was for the keeping up of this harbour, and not for general works; the proper time to put the question was when the general Vote for harbours was under discussion.
MR. HENLEYgave notice, that on that occasion he should call the attention of the Committee to the expenses of Dovor Harbour in reference to its basins.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £77,657, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858."
MR. COWANsaid, he wished to call attention to the item of £17,014 required for the execution of works recommended by the Commissioners at certain lunatic asylums in Ireland. He wished to know whether Scotland was to be put on the same footing as Ireland in this respect? Then, again, there was a large sum of money intended to be applied to the erection of a court for the Incumbered Estates Commission. He understood that the labours of the Commissioners were now nearly closed, therefore it was rather late in the day to propose such a Vote as this. Another item to which he objected was that of £1,102, required for alterations in the House of Industry in Dublin. Had Government, he asked, taken upon itself to become responsible for the support of charitable institutions in Dublin; and if so, were they about to be as liberal to

165
Edinburgh, or any other town in Scotland?
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he was at a loss to know why 5 per cent upon the items in this Vote should be charged for contingencies. Why was it that these Irish Estimates could not be made out as clearly and regularly as any others? He should be glad also to know how much of the £1,000 to be expended in repairs of model agricultural schools was to be given to the Albert Training Institution at Glasnevin. He believed that the works there were most costly, and would absorb the greater part of the money, to the detriment of the other institutions.
MB. W. WILLIAMSinquired why it was that the whole item of £10,500 for the erection, maintenance, and repairs of the offices and schools belonging to the Commissioners of National Education was not included in the Vote for education? He objected to these separate items, which all belonged to one class, being spread through the Votes in such a manner that it was almost impossible to tell to what department they belonged. He also objected to the large sums he saw put down for guard-houses and stables in connection with "the mock royalty" in Ireland; but, as a Motion to abolish the Viceroyalty was pending, he would not go into that at present further than to express his belief that, if there were no Viceroy, the Queen would, in all probability, visit Ireland oftener, and stay such a period as could not fail to be satisfactory to her Irish subjects. He also objected to the item for lunatic asylums. In England lunatic asylums were supported out of the county rate, and he did not see why Ireland should be exempted from discharging the same duty.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, with respect to the lunatic asylums in Ireland, that the Irish people paid for them by repaying the money advanced by the Government.
MR. WILSONsaid that, in consequence of a flaw in an Act of Parliament, the sum advanced by Government, amounting to nearly £200,000, for lunatic asylums in Ireland, was in considerable jeopardy. An Act of Parliament was brought in to correct that flaw; but several Irish Member objected, and said, "We do not object to pay our just debts, with regard to the erection of these buildings, but we have a claim in consequence of the bad manner in which these buildings have been erected." A Commission was therefore appointed to
166
visit all the asylums, and that Commission reported that £17,000 should be expended by the Government in completing works which ought to have been completed before. The cost for the erection of the asylums was defrayed in the first instance by the Government, but was now being repaid by the counties in Ireland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) thought that if the charitable institutions of Dublin were supported by the Government, those of Edinburgh ought to be supported in the same way; but, with respect to the Dublin hospitals, it was the House, and not the Government that was responsible for the expenditure. The Government were overruled by the House, and were obliged to bow to the decision of the House; but the House had not determined that the same thing should take place in Edinburgh. With respect to the question which had been put respecting the item of 5 per cent for contingencies, he observed that the charge for preliminary expenses and remuneration of architects might have been included in the gross sum, but that the separation of it made no difference in the amount. With respect to the charge for building offices, and offices for the Board of National Education in Ireland, this was the first time it had appeared under the present head; and the reason why it was now included under this head was, that it was much more economical to have the works of different departments executed under the responsibility of the Board of Works for Ireland than by each separate department. There were further charges for the maintenance of fever hospitals in Ireland, and he would suggest that the whole cost of hospitals should be included in one Vote.
MR. COWANasked whether the estimate of £17,000 for works in connection with lunatic asylums, recommended by the special Commissioners of Inquiry, would complete the claim upon the Exchequer in respect of those asylums? He also wished to know why it was proposed to expend £10,000 in providing a court and offices for the Commissioners for the Sale of Incumbered Estates, when the labours of those gentlemen were approaching their termination. He should, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by £1,102 10 s., the sum required for repairs to the hospitals of the House of Industry, Dublin.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £76,455, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of repairing

167
and maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858."
MR. WILSONstated that the estimate of £17,000 for lunatic asylums was the final charge that would be made upon the Government for works which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, ought to have been included in the original estimate. He was glad to inform the Committee that the outlay of £200,000 for these asylums was in course of regular repayment. With regard to the Vote for the erection of offices for the Incumbered Estates Commissioners, his hon. Friend must be aware, from the discussion which had taken place in that House, that the Commissioners did not at present possess even decent accommodation. His hon. Friend was mistaken if he supposed that the functions of those useful tribunals—the Incumbered Estates Courts—would cease, although the Commission itself might do so. The Government had pledged themselves last year to erect buildings for conducting the business of the Commission, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Four Courts at Dublin, and in pursuance of that pledge the Committee were asked to sanction this Vote. With regard to the repair of hospitals, the House had already committed itself to a certain extent to the maintenance of those establishments, and he thought they would not, by a side wind, avoid the responsibility they had undertaken, and reject this Vote.
MR. BAGWELLwas understood to say that the Vote of £17,000 for lunatic asylums was not regarded in Ireland as a final contribution for that object.
In reply to Mr. ADAMS,
MR. WILSONsaid that the Vote of £1,102 for the hospitals of the House of Industry was for the purpose of completing the repairs necessary to give effect to the Act of last Session.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were then agreed to:—

(4.) £15,100, Kingstown Harbour.

(5.) £87,967, Houses of Parliament.

(6.) £35,171, Treasury.

(7.) £16,466, Home Department.

(8.) £45,169, Foreign Office.

(9.) £20,160, Colonial Office.

(10.) £46,426, Privy Council, &c.

(11.) £1,700, Lord Privy Seal.

(12.) £11,510, Paymaster General.

168

(13). £4,218, Exchequer.

(14.) £18,614, Works and Buildings.

(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £15,145, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, to the 31st day of March 1858."
MR. CAIRDsaid, that he rose pursuant to notice, to move that this Vote be reduced to the same amount as was granted last year. Although the actual amount of this vote was small the department for which it was taken was entrusted with the management of a revenue which represented a capital sum of not less than £12,000,000 sterling. The sum which was brought under the criticism of Parliament was only one fifth part of the money expended on the Woods and Forests; and it was a remarkable circumstance that while daring four years that portion of the expenditure which was annually brought under the criticism of Parliament had increased £1,000 a year, the part which was not brought under the criticism of Parliament had increased by £27,000 a year. The gross average receipts of the whole hereditary revenues of the Crown under the management of this department amounted to £390,000 a year, and during the last year the gross expenditure in the collection and management of that sum, including the usual expenditure on landed estates, such as that for buildings and improvements, was £130,000 or not less than 33 per cent on the total amount of revenue received. Now he believed that everybody who was acquainted with the business which devolved on the owner of landed property must perceive that that was an extravagant charge for its management. Since 1852 the gross hereditary revenues of the Crown had increased very considerably. From the sum of £376,800, to which they amounted in 1852, they had risen in 1856 to £404,500 showing an increase of upwards of £27,500, and yet there was actually paid over a balance to the credit of the Exchequer less by £2,000 than there was in 1853. This department included two branches of property. The more profitable to the public was that included in the Land Revenue Department, which embraced a description of property that during the last few years had greatly increased in value in this country, including land in several counties in England and building sites in the metropolis. Many building leases would soon expire and a

169
great increase of revenue might reasonably be expected from that source, but he had to complain that there was no definite information accessible to Members of Parliament by which they could ascertain or criticise the gradual or probable advantages which this property might be supposed to realize under good management. He was therefore precluded from obtaining any information which could throw light on this subject, and therefore he should confine his attention to the second branch of the Woods and Forests. He found that last year the Forest Department realized £64,800, and that the cost of collection and management was £45,500, leaving, therefore, £19,300 as the revenue from 120,000 acres of land. He might be told that 20,000 of these were composed of land of a very inferior quality, but, taking the acreage at 100,000, as the total amount of profit was £19,300, those 100,000 acres might be said to have realized something less than 3s. 10 d. an acre. Since the retirement from the chief office in that department of Mr. Kennedy, one of the most active and honourable men ever employed in the service of any country, inquiries had been instituted into this subject, and improvements had been contemplated which did not seem to have been yet carried into effect. The public had, in fact, never derived the advantages they might reasonably have expected from the Woods and Forests, and in the time of Nelson and ever since, complaints had been made of the small quantity of timber which they supplied for the Royal navy. For what was the extent to which the Royal Forests supplied our dockyards with timber? Why, of £550,000 worth of timber bought annually for use in our dockyards the Royal forests did not supply l–50th part. The fact was that our ships were not built of British oak. The best oak came from the Continent—from Italy, and from the forests of Central Europe. It was no longer held a matter of importance to make ourselves independent of a foreign supply of any article; but in a country like this, with a limited territory and an increasing population, it was impossible that a crop, which required 150 years to bring it to maturity, could ever be a profitable one. He had no hesitation in saying that, considering the facilities by land and sea which now existed for importing timber from abroad we might be wholly independent of our Royal forests for the necessary supply. In 1852 the
170
office ceased to be an independent department of the Government, and an Act of Parliament was passed which placed it under the Treasury, so that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests could not even complete a lease without the sanction of the Treasury. There was therefore no occasion to keep up an expensive department, and there seemed no reason why the whole of the management of the Woods and Forests should not be carried on at an expense of £4,000 or £5,000 a year. When the change was made in 1852 the intention was that instead of two Commissioners one Commissioner should be appointed as Surveyor General, who should have under him a special officer in the nature of an inspector. He did not object to the appointment of a mineral inspector, but he did object to his salary of £800, in addition to the salaries of the two Commissioners, as this was the very officer whose appointment was contemplated by the arrangement to which he had referred. He also objected to the amount of the legal expenses of the department. The legal expenses were 1¾ per cent upon the gross revenue for England ¾ per cent for Ireland, and no less than 10 per cent for Scotland. He could not understand why so large a percentage should be incurred for law expenses in Scotland. The charges of the Scotch solicitor had gradually increased from £1,000 to £2,300 in the present year, which, with the addition of some other legal expenses, made a total of about £2,600 for law expenses in Scotland. His belief was that if the hereditary estates of the Crown were managed with the same prudence as private property, the net income of these estates would be equal to the amount of the Civil List. As guardians of the public purse, and trustees for the Queen, the House were bound to investigate this subject. The gross income derived from these sources was £410,000, and if the charge for management were reduced to 15 per cent, and if the income could be increased by 10 per cent, the clear net revenue would be quite equal to the whole amount paid over to Her Majesty in the Civil List. The Forest of Hainault in Essex four years ago yielded nothing, but by a new system of management, instituted by Mr. Kennedy, this forest now yielded a revenue of £2,500 a year. Some of the Crown estates were of very little value either for growing timber or as arable land, but there were purposes to which they might be applied, and he was

171
surprised to hear the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), assert, in speaking of Aldershot the other night, that there were very few spaces of open land which could now be procured for the evolutions of troops and the purposes of a camp. Woolmer Forest, for example, offered a much larger space than Aldershot. It was within a few miles of that place, a royal forest containing 6,000 acres untimbered, and yielding almost nothing to the public, but which was traversed by the direct road from the metropolis to Portsmouth, and skirted by a railway. The ground was finely undulated, and from his own observation, he could state that it was better supplied with water than Aldershot, and was well adapted for a camp. The Government had given £14 an acre for Aldershot, and though they said they could now sell it for a higher price, he doubted whether they could get more than that money for it if the camp were withdrawn. Woolmer Forest was valued for sale not long ago by the Crown Surveyor at £3 or £4: an acre, so that if the Government had fixed upon this, their own property, as the site for the camp they would have saved a great deal of money and very much increased the value of the adjoining land. Again, the New Forest in Hampshire, another Crown property, contained 65,000 acres, of which 30,000 acres were open unoccupied land. It was traversed by a railway, and was within a short march from Portsmouth. If the Government had established their camp there they would have had many applications for leases, and would have raised the value of property which belonged to the nation. The noble Lord had chivalrously taken upon himself the responsibility for the purchase of Aldershot, but he could not have made choice of the ground, and the Crown surveyors ought to have known the capabilities of these Crown estates and the advantages which would have been derived from selecting them. He objected to any increase in the amount payable to this department, believing that the former charge was ample. He trusted that he should have the support, not only of hon. Members who sat around him, but of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), who had taunted hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side with not performing the pledges of economy they had made on the hustings. He hoped he should also have the support of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), who had blamed
172
Parliament the other night for voting away the public money. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,481, being the excess over the Vote of last year.
MR. WILSONsaid, he could not have supposed, from the notice given by the hon. Member, that he intended to raise so large a question upon a Vote for the civil expenses of an office in London. The subject was, no doubt, well deserving of consideration, and he only wished the hon. Gentleman had indicated by his notice that he intended to raise the question of the policy of the management of these estates; for then he would have been prepared to follow him into the details. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman in the high estimate he had formed of the qualifications of Mr. Kennedy. With regard to the gentleman appointed Chief Mineral Inspector, he would observe that he had been selected by Mr. Kennedy, although he had been appointed by that gentleman's successor. In the Forest of Dean, and upon other Crown estates, there was mineral property the value of which was undeveloped, and it would be the duty of the Chief Mineral Inspector to turn the mineral resources of the Crown estates to the best account. The Government thought it necessary to have a competent officer to advise them with regard to the mineral property of the Crown, and Mr. Smith was recommended to them as a person well qualified for the appointment. This was an extensive property, scattered over the whole kingdom, and the Government would hardly have been consulting the interests of the Crown, whose trustees they were, nor the advantage of the public, who were interested in as large a revenue as possible being obtained from this source, if they had not appointed a mineral agent to develope its riches. As far as their experience had gone, the exertions of Mr. Smith had fully borne out the expectations entertained from his selection. Therefore the Committee would scarcely be acting wisely in cutting off the salary of £800 a year paid to an able and efficient officer charged with all the delicate operations connected with ascertaining the value of, and letting, the whole mineral property of the Crown, consisting of coal, iron, and copper mines. It was manifestly impossible that the Treasury officers could discharge duties of so highly technical and purely professional a nature. Moreover, looking at the scale of remu-

173
neration, paid by private proprietors for analogous services, the salary allowed to Mr. Smith was anything but extravagant. It was to be hoped, then, that the hon. Member would not divide the Committee against so obviously useful an expenditure. As to the largeness of the sum required for law charges, it was entirely owing to accidental circumstances. Several heavy cases involving the Royal prerogative had been taken to the House of Lords on appeal from the Scotch Courts, and were now on the point of being brought to a conclusion. Questions of principle affecting the right of the Crown to its whole property having been at issue in these actions, this litigation could not well have been avoided. This item, however, was merely an estimate for the liquidation of unusual charges. The hon. Gentleman had also animadverted on the great differences between the gross and the net income of the Crown property. With regard to the forests, no one knew better than the hon. Member that the cost of management of such property must bear a large proportion to the receipts. A large portion of the difference to which the hon. Member had referred was to be attributed to the necessity of incurring a large outlay in thinning the trees, and in other works connected with the improvement of the property. The case of the Forest of Hainault was a striking example of the reproductiveness of a judicious outlay of capital. Only four or five years ago, it was covered with timber of no value whatever, but now it was let for £2,500 a year to one of the most improving tenants in this country. A heavy expense had, however, to be first incurred in drainage and other works before such results could be realized. Hardly a year passed but it became his duty to introduce a Bill for the disafforestation of these Crown forests, and the expenditure required for bringing the land into a profitable condition accounted, to a great extent, for the large percentage of the income which was absorbed by the cost of management. This was all the explanation it was at that moment in his power to offer in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Dartmouth. As to the immediate object of this Motion, it resolved itself simply into a refusal of the salary of the mineral agent, together with the law charges for certain heavy suits now on the eve of settlement.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the
174
Secretary for the Treasury had not dealt quite fairly with this Motion. The country was indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Caird) for the able manner in which he had brought forward this subject. Other hon. Gentlemen who used to devote their attention to this department had gradually become absorbed into the bench below (the Ministry) and the House had consequently lost the advantage of their special knowledge. The hon. Member did not object to a mineral agent, but merely suggested that, by abolishing one of the other offices, the means of paying that gentleman might be found without necessitating additional expense. Therefore, the whole of the Secretary for the Treasury's elaborate argument fell to the ground. If only five years had been required to obtain so great a return from the Forest of Hainault, why was not so fruitful an outlay made long before? The Committee which had inquired into this department had proved that its affairs were greatly mismanaged.
MR. WILSONexplained that, without a Commissioner in London, the business of this department could not be satisfactorily conducted.
MR. WISEsaid, that while he agreed in other respects with the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird), yet he differed entirely from him as to the item on which he proposed to take the sense of the House. As to the alleged efficiency of this department the documents on the table of the House failed to establish it. Having regard to the various inquiries which had been instituted on this subject, and to the alteration of system which took place in 1852 in the Board of Woods and Forests, much greater changes and improvements than any that had yet occurred might have been expected. He should be glad to see the two Commissioners succeeded by a surveyor and a deputy surveyor who thoroughly understood the deputies of their offices. This was a more important subject than at first sight it appeared to be, for if the Woods and Forests belonging to the Crown were properly managed he believed that they might be made to yield a rental of £600,000 a year, or £200,000 in excess of the civil list. He gave credit to the Board of Works for having effected a considerable reduction in the expenditure in respect of Crown lands, but in the Woods and Forests Department there was still that extravagant expenditure of which complaint had been so frequently made. Every one who knew any-

175
thing thing of woods and forests would admit that the Crown woods and forests were the worst managed property to be found anywhere. In the department of the Board of Works, the revenue for four years ending in 1852 was £1,216,559, and the expenditure £364,977; the revenue of the same department for the four years ending in 1856 was £1,256,407, and the expenditure £244,762, showing a considerable reduction of expenditure. But what was the case when he turned to the department of Woods and Forests? The revenue there for the four years ending in 1852 was £186,517, and the expenditure £188,101. For the four years ending in 1856, the revenue was £307,487, and the expenditure £245,470. In fact, the revenue and expenditure accounts of the Woods and Forests beat everything which he had ever heard in that way. From the year 1803 to 1856 the receipts of the Woods and Forests were £2,326,546, and the expenditure £1,861,023, leaving a miserable balance on so large an income. The New Forest was valued by Mr. Webster, a competent man, at £2,334,507. Its receipts for five years were £121,963, and its expenditure £74,848. The receipts for one year from the Forest of Dean were £4,501, and the expenditure was £1,195. He had said that he did not object to the appointment of a mineral inspector, but he did object to a deputy gavaller for this forest at a salary of £400 a year; and what could they think too of an expenditure of £200 for gamekeepers in such a forest! He hoped that the Treasury, which had now a partial control over this Crown property, would exercise more vigilance in order to check extravagant expenditure. He wished that the Treasury had complete control over the woods and forests of the Crown, in order that the produce might be paid into the national Exchequer. As an instance of the present management he might mention the case of the forest of Whittle, the produce of which was only £41 1s. 9d. while the expenditure was £303 19 s. 2d. He was afraid, too, that the exchange of lands was not always made for the benefit of the Crown, for if he was correctly informed they had given land in Downing Street worth £123,000, for land in New Oxford Street, worth £120,000—a part of the town which did not appear to be so valuable that the Crown should buy lands there. To use an expression of "old Arthur Young," the Crown woods and forests
176
appeared to be maintained merely to afford excuses for paying salaries. They produced anything but oak.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he also thought the question one which it was important for the Committee to consider. Some years ago the present Duke of Somerset, then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, consented to subject the accounts of the Board to an audit; but he (Sir H. Willoughby) thought the House ought not to be satisfied until the affairs of that department were submitted, like those of every other department of the State, in detailed estimates to the House. The receipts of Windsor Park last year were £5,000, the expenditure £16,000. He should not go through all the items of the Windsor Park expenditure, for the gross results were quite sufficient to show the necessity for a change in the present system. He also wished to inquire whether the accounts of the department had been audited up to the 31st March last, as it had been said that the Woods and Forests Commissioners were so contumacious, that it was difficult to get them to bring their accounts before the Audit Board. Were they so still? He trusted that the Government would give some information to the Committee on this matter, and also state what was the objection to these accounts being made matter of estimate.
MR BRISCOEsaid, if it had been proposed to appoint a Committee of inquiry into the whole management of the Crown property he could not have refused his assent to such a Motion; but he could not give his vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Caird). It was admitted generally that the office of mineral inspector ought to be retained, and he did not therefore see upon what plea the Committee could be asked to vote for striking out the salary of £800.
MR. WILSONstated, in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) that, as far as he knew, there was no question between the Audit Board and the office now under discussion; on the contrary, he believed the audit had been most satisfactory. As to the proposal of the hon. Baronet that the expenditure he referred to should come before the House of Commons in the shape of estimates, he could not say that the Government had come to any conclusion yet on this subject. No doubt some of the expenses might be estimated, but from the nature of the property it would

177
be impossible to do this with other portions, or at all events they would be estimated in a very loose manner. The question, however, should receive further consideration.
MR. COWANsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Dartmouth had done good service to the country in bringing this matter before the House, and that he trusted that the result of the discussion would be the institution of a searching inquiry into the whole management of the woods and forests. The Bill for legal expenses in Scotland was much too large. The privileges of the Crown were often used as a pretext for oppressing the subject; and, in his opinion, the system of giving a solicitor an unlimited power of drawing on the Treasury for money to carry on lawsuits was a direct encouragement to such oppression.
MR. CAIRDsaid, in the remarks which he had made he had no intention whatever to find fault with the appointment of the mineral inspector, but he must say that the expenses of the whole department were far greater than was necessary. With regard to the legal expenses, he thought it would be much better to place the solicitor in Scotland on the same footing as the solicitor in England, and pay him by salary. In the time of James the Second, the forests yielded a larger supply of timber than they did at the present time. Crops that would not arrive at maturity in less than 150 years were not proper crops for cultivation in this country, particularly when timber could be obtained at a cheaper rate from other sources.
MR. STEUARTobserved, that there was no doubt great mineral wealth in the possessions of the Crown, and that a mineral inspector therefore was an officer who might prove extremely useful. He Mr. Steuart, was well acquainted with some parts of the New Forest, and believed they might be let in small allotments, or sold with advantage to the public interests. Still, he hoped that the hon. Member for Dartmouth would be content with having brought the subject before the Committee, and that he would not press his Amendment.
Motion made, and Question—
"That a sum, not exceeding £13,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, to the 31st day of March 1858," put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to; as was also the next Vote—

(16.) £13,876, Public Records.

(17.) £217,240 Poor Law Commissions.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that many years ago Lord Althorp promised that when the administration of the Poor Law should be brought into good working order the Commission would be abolished and the department would be attached to the Home Office. However ably the Poor Law Board was presided over at present, it was impossible to deny that it was very unpopular with the country. He wished to know, therefore, whether there was any hope now, after a lapse of nearly twenty-one years, of reducing the great expenditure of the present department, and of arriving at that happy state of things I when the Poor Law Commission might be dispensed with.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that since the period to which the hon. Baronet had referred the subject had been very fully considered by Parliament, and it bad been determined that the Poor Law Board should be represented in that House by a President. Under those circumstances the Act passed by which the present constitution of the Board was established, and he thought that every one must acknowledge that the result had been satisfactory. There had been since that time an officer in Parliament responsible for the management of the Poor Law, who was thoroughly acquainted with all the details of its administration, and who could at once give explanations and answer questions which might be addressed to him, without going to any other department to obtain the requisite information. He thought that the present arrangement afforded a much better administration of the Poor Law than the old system, and it was not proposed, therefore, to abandon it in order to recur to a less satisfactory mode of management.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLinsisted that it was considered, generally, that the action of the Poor Law Board was not satisfactory, but that there was great room for reform. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) was president of that Board the popular feeling which existed against it had become much modified; but the country could not be always sure of having so able a president at the head of that department. It appeared to him (Sir G. Pechell), that the

179
work done by the Board generally was very small, while the salaries to its staff were very large. The Board commenced its Reports with the words "We, the Commissioners," but the Reports were signed by the President only, and they rarely contained anything which was worth knowing or that was not known already. For instance the main feature of the Report of 1856 was a statement that the Commissioners had settled a dispute between the University and the town of Cambridge; and yet for this Board the country was called upon to pay £36,000, just £400 more than last year. He also thought that these Reports ought to be addressed to that House, instead of Her Majesty, the Queen. The Board appeared to have been in hot water with half the unions of the country, the disputes arising out of the most trifling matters. Recently they applied to the guardians of Gateshead for the exact quantity of the suet used in that union to a pound of flour, and the answer of the guardians was a resolution to forward one of the dumplings referred to in the application, to enable the Commissioners to judge for themselves. Again, in another case, that of the guardians of Dudley, the Board held a correspondence and carried on a litigation, extending over many months, about some petty charge of £2 10 s. for plum puddings used in the union. There was no end to these cases; but the great evil was the large amount of law charges involved in them, and the House of Commons could not apply its economical principles to a better purpose than reforming this Board.
MR. C. CLIVEobserved, that the law expenses under the old system were far greater than under the present Board. He wished to know what had been done with respect to the retiring allowance of Mr. Richard Hall, one of the Poor Law Inspectors, a most useful public servant, who was now broken in health, and consequently compelled to give up his appointment.
MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, he could not agree with those who condemned the Poor Law Board as extravagant. It might have its faults, as what or who had not, but he considered it to be the only guardian of the helpless poor, whom it protected from the tyranny of the local authorities, and especially in the metropolitan parishes, as the blue-books would show, with respect to the parishes of St. Mary-le-bone, and Pancras.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved, he was as anxious to protect the poor from tyranny as any man, but he wished to see it done in a constitutional manner, and by constitutional means. He did not complain of the principle of the Poor Law, but of the heavy expenses connected with its administration.
MR. WILSONsaid, that with regard to the question of the hon. Member, he would remind the Committee that the Poor Law Board was originally an experiment, and the officers were appointed at salaries that did not contemplate any retiring allowance or payment to the superannuation fund. Consequently no deduction had been made on this latter account, and the Treasury, in dealing with Mr. Hall's case, had granted him a superannuation allowance subject to a deduction equivalent to what he would have paid had he contributed to the superannuation fund.
MR. C. CLIVEcontended that such an arrangement was not fair to Mr. Hall, who had passed twenty-four years in the service of the Board, and during that period had been one of its most efficient and useful officials. No difficulty could be got over without his assistance—indeed, much of the success of the Board was owing to his exertions, and of all the public servants, he, at least, was the one most entitled to a superannuation allowance beyond a paltry £150 year which appeared to have been granted to him.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the Poor Law Board in Ireland was much more expensive than that of England. In England there was but one Commissioner, at a salary of £2,000 a year. In Ireland there was a chief Commissioner at a salary of £2,000, and two Commissioners at salaries of £1,200 each. In England there were but forty-four clerks, in Ireland forty-seven. The English Board dealt with upwards of 600 unions, the Irish with but 120 or 130; and the sums expended for the relief of the poor in Ireland were now much less than in England.
MR. KIRKsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, with regard to Ireland, the Consolidated Fund only bore the expense of the Dublin office; all other expenditure being paid out of the local rates, which was not the case in England. For instance, this Vote included £28,000 for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, and £100,000 for medical attendance in Eng-

181
land and Scotland, both of which charges were in Ireland defrayed out of the poor-rates.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must remind the hon. Member of the charge for the constabulary in Ireland. Previous to 1846 I half the charge was paid by the localities, and the other half out of the Consolidated Fund; but, after that year, the whole was thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, Depend upon it, Ireland got her fair share out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. KIRKsaid, that the grant referred to was for the benefit of the Irish landlords, who paid but little of the poor-rates, and to whom the second half of the grant was given about the year 1846, as a compensation for the free-trade measures which it was thought would seriously injure them. Instead of being injured, however, they had benefited by these measures.
MR. HENLEY: Then let them show their gratitude for free trade by giving up half the Vote for the constabulary.
MR. GROGANsaid, that the plain fact was, that half the charge for the constabulary of Ireland was originally placed on the Consolidated Fund, because the Government appointed the whole of the officers, and had the entire control of it; but, when it was found a convenient policy to repeal the corn laws and establish free trade, the Minister of the day, Sir R. Peel, being aware that that policy would be injurious to Ireland, thought it right to place on the national Exchequer the remaining half of the charge. As the schoolmasters and half the expense of medical officers were paid in England, it was not just that the same payments were not allowed in Ireland.
Vote agreed to.

(18.) £36,195, Mint.

MR. CROSSsaid, he wished to advert to the Reports of the Commissioners on Decimal Coinage, and to ask whether, as the florin piece had been struck to pave the way to the establishment for a decimal coinage, the Government would take into consideration the expediency of now going one step further, and of introducing into the currency a coin of the value of the hundredth part of a pound sterling, which seemed on all hands to be fixed as the basis of the decimal system?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Commission appointed to report on the subject of decimal coinage was composed of very able men, who had collected evidence which was embodied
182
in a preliminary Report, and one of the Commissioners (Lord Overstone) had accompanied that Report by a paper, in which, in the form of questions, was set forth a number of matters deserving consideration by those who wished to see an immediate change in the denominations of the coinage. The Commissioners were still prosecuting their inquiries, and it was not the intention of the Government at present to make any alteration in the denominations of the coinage by introducing such coins as cent and mil, the 100th and 1,000th part of a pound sterling. The cent would amount in value to twopence and two-fifths of a penny, and he would answer the question of the hon. Member by asking him another. Would the hon. Member who desired to see the cent introduced have it in silver or in copper? If the coin were in silver, it would be inconveniently small, and if in copper, it would be inconveniently large. Now, the Government would wait the hon. Member's solution of that dilemma before undertaking to issue a cent.
MR. CROSSsaid that, if the difficulty stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be considered insuperable, a decimal coinage never could be established, and the Commission might as well be abolished. He, however, did not see the great difficulty. There was already in circulation a threepenny piece, and the difference between that and a piece of the value of twopence and two-fifths of a penny was almost inappreciable. The new coin would not be so small, if the elaborate work which was put upon coins was dispensed with, and the metal beat out.
MR. HEADLAMthought the course taken by the Commissioners very unsatisfactory, as they recommended neither one thing nor the other, so as to enable the House to deal with the matter. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, assuming the objections to a decimal coinage to be, as he suggested, insuperable, it was desirable to maintain the florin-piece in circulation? The florin-piece would be convenient if a decimal coinage were to be established; but, if not, there would be no advantage in retaining it side by side with the halfcrown.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEthought the course pursued by the Commission was, to a great extent, unsatisfactory to the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look to a late Report

183
of one of the Inspectors of Schools, he would see how warmly a decimal system of calculation was advocated. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would again consider the matter, and see that some determination was come to; and he was sorry to perceive cold water thrown on a proposition which, if carried into effect, would be a great boon to the commercial community. He would suggest that the proposed coin should consist of an alloy, and then there would be no difficulties as to its size.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished not to be understood as expressing any definite opinion upon the question of decimal coinage generally, which he considered to be referred to the inquiry of a Commission. All that he did was, to answer a specific question put to him by an hon. Member, and after hearing that hon. Member's remarks in reply, he still retained his opinion that a coin of the value of twopence and two-fifths of a penny, of whatever metal composed, never could be a current coin of this country. But let him remark that the advocates of a decimal coinage were by no means unanimous. There were a variety of theories. One school of decimalists started from the pound sterling, as the unit of value, another from the penny. It by no means followed, that the coinage should be based on one coin being the 100th part of a pound. We might have a coin of 10 d., and another coin of 100 d., and so on, advancing from 1d., and discarding the pound altogether. That was one of the many schemes for the purpose of considering which the Commission had been appointed.
MR. CROSSsaid, he had collected from the Reports of the various Committees and Commissions that the pound had really been fixed upon as the basis of the coinage. One step in that direction had been taken by the issue of the florin, and as that had been found to answer so well, his object in questioning the Government was to ascertain whether they had any intention of taking another preliminary step in the same direction, which might probably answer equally well.
LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, whether any steps had been taken to call in the halfcrown?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no steps had been taken for that purpose.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(19.) 14,995, Inspectors of Factories, &c.
(20.) 6,054, Queen's Remembrancer (Scotland).
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to ask, what was the nature of the duties of the Queen's Remembrancer?
MR. WILSONsaid, that the office of Queen's Remembrancer was one of very great importance, combining some of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Board of Inland Revenue in England. The whole of the Scotch payments to the revenue passed through his office.
Vote agreed to.
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,431, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858."
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that this Vote would be one of the items in the bill of indictment which he meant to bring against the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was quite clear, from the details of the Estimate, that this was mere spending of money for spending's sake. For instance, there was a gentleman usher, a gentleman of the chambers, four aides-de-camp, and two gentlemen at large charged for. Anything more trumpery than the whole affair of the Viceroyalty of Ireland could scarcely be conceived, and he hoped that this was the last time the Vote would ever come before them.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would move to reduce the Vote by £1,574, charge for Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEdefended the item, on the ground that it was for a national purpose. All our legislation in this country had been unfavourable to the improvement of the breed of horses. We taxed horses and we taxed carriages, which was, in fact, another tax upon horses, and such plates as these were the only encouragement given to the breed of horses. In all countries which had not such a good breed of horses as ours, great national establishments were kept up at the public expense. Horses in this country had been at a scarcity price, and the foreign dealers got hold of all our best. It was to Ireland that we had to look for horses of all descriptions, and if it had not been for Irish horses in the late war, we should have been very hardly put to it. Looking,

185
therefore, to the great necessity for encouraging the breed of horses, he hoped the Committee would not agree with the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
MR. ROEBUCKremarked, he was astonished to hear from the hon. Baronet that these plates had anything whatever to do with keeping up the breed of horses. Surely, the scarcity price at which the foreign dealers were ready and willing to buy our horses was sufficient of itself for that purpose. This was, in truth, a little remnant of that system of protection which had been done away with in the rest of the empire; and he (Mr. Roebuck) must insist that Ireland had come to a pretty pass, if its prosperity at all depended on this Vote.
MR. MILESwas afraid that the hon. Members for Sheffield and Lambeth did not ride much, or they would know the advantage of having a horse of good blood and able to get through a long day's work. Nobody knew that better than an old fox-hunter like himself. He could assure the Committee that nothing had done more to encourage the breed of horses than plates of this sort, and from what he had heard from foreign dealers, he believed that such encouragement was much wanted abroad. He admitted that this was a remnant of protection, but it was for a good purpose; but the fact was, that owing to our superior breed of horses, we sold at the dearest price, and the Government by this Vote would assist this result as much as possible.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the argument of the hon. Gentleman was a fox-hunter's argument. The Committee were told that foreigners gave such extravagant prices, that they bought our best horses, and that protection was therefore requisite. If the Vote depended upon that argument, he thought it was doomed.
MR. PALKremarked that he could not admit that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was not a good rider, for certainly no man rode his own hobby better or more perseveringly. The hon. and learned Gentleman was an avowed financial reformer, but if this Vote of £1,500 were expunged from the Estimates he would ask the hon. Member what fraction would go into the pocket of any individual in this country? He thought that if the grant of so small a sum tended to improve the breed of horses it was money well spent; but even if, without effecting that object, it kept up a good feeling between Ireland and this country, he considered that, sim-
186
ply upon such a ground, it ought to be continued.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsuggested that if the hon. Member for Lambeth wished to maintain a character for consistency he ought not to divide the Committee upon this question, for some four months ago Parliament had, without a division, voted the sum required for two Queen's plates in Scotland, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would bring a hornet's nest about his ears if he robbed Ireland of a similar privilege.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that last year he divided against the Vote for Queen's plates in Scotland, and he intended now to take the sense of the Committee upon a similar Vote for Ireland. If he was defeated on this occasion, he would nest year divide upon the Vote for the Scotch plates.
Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,857, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March 1858."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 202: Majority 147.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—

(22.) £15,358, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

(23.) £5,118, Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland.

(24.) £1,783, Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland.

(25.) £15,997. Board of Public Works in Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the number of officers connected with this Board was altogether unnecessary. He especially referred to the number of Commissioners, and the fact that there were two deputy chairmen when one was sufficient.
MR. WILSONsaid, the Board of Works in Ireland had very heavy duties to perform. The drainage works alone occupied the attention of two of the Commissioners.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.

(26.) £26,575, Auditing of Public Accounts.

(27.) £11,753, Copyhold, Inclosure and Tithe Commission.

(28.) £8,130, Inclosure, and Drainage Acts.

(29.) £26,300, General Register Office.

187

(30.) £2,432, General Register Office, Dublin.

(31.) £4,085, Registrar General, Edinburgh.

(32.) £8,921, National Debt Office.

(33.) £1,805, Public Works Loan Commissioners.

(34.) £1,170, West India Islands Relief Commissioners.

(35.) £1,320, Commissioners in Lunacy.

(36.) £684, County Roads, South Wales.

(37.) £1,659, Registrars of Friendly Societies.

(38.) £22,000, Secret Services.

(39.) £300,745, Stationery, Printing,&c.

MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to make a suggestion with respect to the expense of printing incurred by the House. It was an indisputable fact that a great many Returns were ordered to be printed on the Motion of Members of the House, parts of which, and in some cases the whole, might already be found in Returns already granted. Some supervision over this department of the public expenditure was therefore highly necessary; and he would suggest that before an hon. Member moved for a Return he should confer with the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, which had been organized for the express purpose of collecting and arranging the statistics of the country, in order to see whether or not the Return he desired to have was one which could be furnished by that department.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, the expenditure for printing and stationery was enormous, and he was afraid it was one over which the House had at present very little check. The check must be applied by the Treasury. In 1848 the Treasury set to work and laid down certain checks, with a view to lessen this branch of the public expenditure, and in the course of four years they reduced it by about £80,000. The war came, however, and then the expenditure for printing and stationery was, of course, greatly augmented; and even now it was double what it was in 1852. He thought, now that there had been a return of peace, it was high time that effective measures were taken to reduce this department of the public expenditure, and he could wish to hear from his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) what the Treasury had done towards carrying out the recommendations made on this subject by the Controller of Stationery. When he (Sir F. Baring) was at the Admiralty he thought the expenditure for the library
188
there was excessive, and that more expensive books were purchased than were necessary. He observed that the Controller of Stationery had made the same remark, not only as respecting the library of the Admiralty, but also those of every other public department. He (Sir F. Baring) submitted that there would never be an effectual control over this branch of expenditure until each department was rendered accountable for its own particular outlay for printing and stationery.
MR. WILSONsaid, the Treasury had taken steps towards carrying out the whole of the recommendations of the Controller of Stationery, with one exception, and there would be laid before the House in a day or two a Return which would show in one view the expenditure in this respect of each public department, which, he trusted, would answer as a check to some extent such as his right hon. Friend (Sir F. Baring) desired to see imposed on this part of the public expenditure. With the same view the Treasury were about to cooperate with the Printing Committee appointed by the House. At the same time, he wished to remind his right hon. Friend and the Committee that some new items were added to this Vote which did not appear in the Estimate under this head in 1852, including, among others £40,000 for patents, and £30,000 connected with the transfer from the Inland Revenue Office; so that a very large proportion of the money now included in this Vote was formerly voted under different heads, and that the increase was therefore more apparent than real.
Vote agreed to.

(40.) £88,045, Postage of Letters.

MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought that was an item which had better not appear on the Estimates at all, inasmuch as the result was only to play off one public department against another. Instead of having this annual charge for postage, he suggested it would be better that the public departments should return to the system of franking, and of receiving letters free of expense either to them or the writers.
MR. WILSONsaid, there was no doubt it was a mere transfer from one department to another, and he did not think t there was much utility in it, except to show t the exact amount of the Post Office receipts and expenditure. When the Penny Post Act was passed, and the privilege of franking was given up, it was thought

189
better that the Post Office should be credited for the business it did for the other public departments.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was one of those who had always thought the Penny Post Act one of the greatest jobs ever perpetrated, and one of the greatest financial mistakes ever committed by the country. It was no use continuing the Estimate merely to test the working of the penny post.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsuggested that the hon. Gentleman should try to bring back the old rates of postage, and he would then see what was the feeling of the country with regard to the penny rate. It was thought that the accounts ought to show the amount of service performed by the Post Office, and the charge was brought into the Estimates in order to put a stop at once to the gross abuse of official franks. He was inclined to think that abuse was carried to an enormous extent, and he was afraid, if they gave the public offices the right of franking, the same abuse would recur.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had never been in office, and did not know what abuses were practised by official men. The hon. Baronet was, no doubt, a better authority on that subject than himself. He did not admit the merits of an Act because it was difficult to rescind it.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, there were two objects in voting this money—to know what was expended, and to check persons spending more than necessary. The appearance of this item prevented any abuse of the Post Office machinery. The "Ambassadors' bag" in past times had been sadly weighted. Coats, lace, boots, and other articles, were sent by it, even a pianoforte, and not only a pianoforte, but a horse.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, it seemed to be quite true that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not know much about horses, since he imagined a horse to be sent in an ambassador's bag.
MR. PEASEthought it fair to show the amount of work done by the Post Office.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes—

(41.) £24,130, Law Charges.

(42.) £250,000, Prosecutions.

(43.) £105,980, Police.

(44.) £1,140, Crown Office, Chancery.

(45.) £2,140, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.

190

(46.) £16,319, Sheriffs.

(47.) £6,480, Registrar of Admiralty.

(48.) £7,226, Insolvent Debtors' Court.

(49.) £109,062, County Courts.

MR. ROEBUCKinquired whether the aggregate amount of the fees derived from the suitors in County Courts was printed in the public accounts?
MR. WILSONreplied that the statement of the fees in question was being prepared, and would be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was informed that the fees exceeded the expenses of the County Courts, which consequently paid themselves. As a contrary impression existed, he should like to know the sum which was actually reaped from the suitors in the shape of fees.
MR. WILSONstated that before the fees were reduced last year they were inadequate to defray the expenses of the Courts. They were now, of course, still more inadequate, and the deficiency had still further increased by an increase in the salaries of the registrars. The item of £60,000 in the Vote was an estimate of the deficiency for the present year.
MR. ROEBUCKremarked that he believed that the increased expenses of the County Courts had arisen from the fact of the salaries of the high bailiffs and registrars being raised. He wanted to know whether the Treasury had received letters from County Court Judges stating that high bailiffs were not required, and that reappointments would impose an unnecessary burden upon the country.
MR. WILSONreplied that communications to that effect had been received by the Treasury, and he quite agreed with the writers that high bailiffs were an unnecessary expenditure, and that in a short time the House would have to reconsider the constitution of the County Courts as far as high bailiffs were concerned.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would ask, as such was the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, whether the Treasury had received a letter from a County Court Judge, stating that a vacancy in the office of high bailiff was about to take place in his district, and requesting to be informed what he ought to do, and whether, in answer to that communication, the Treasury had left the whole responsibility upon the Judge, thus abdicating one of its most important functions, which was to guard the public purse.
MR. WILSONreplied that the hon.

191
Gentleman had correctly stated the purport of a letter received by the Treasury, and the nature of the answer. The Treasury was not authorized by the Act to interfere in any way with the appointment of high bailiffs, which was left to the discretion of the Judges.
MR. HENLEYsuggested that in future the Estimates should be so framed as to enable the House to see what the actual expenses of the County Courts were, and also what was the entire amount received in the shape of fees. The House would then be able to ascertain whether the Courts paid themselves or not.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes—

(50.) £19,625, Police Courts.

(51.) £63,645, Metropolitan Police.

(52.) £2,715, Queen's Prison.

(53.) £2,342, Lord Advocate, &c.

(54.) £11,767, Court of Session.

(55.) £10,029, Court of Justiciary.

(56.) £5,550, Criminal Prosecutions.

(57.) £1,080, Exchequer (Scotland).

(58.) £50,000, Sheriff Courts.

(59.) £7,955, Procurators Fiscal.

(60.) £6,553, Sheriff Clerks.

(61.) £2,200, Solicitor of the Crown.

(62.) £11,067, General Register House.

(63.) £739, Commissary Clerk.

(64.) £1,878, Bankruptcy.

(65.) £51,470, Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMSwould express his opinion that this portion of the Estimates required consideration. He had not expected such rapid progress to be made, and had left his copy of the Estimates with marginal annotations at home. He therefore moved that the Chairman do report progress.
MR. P. O'BRIENobserved that he thought it exceedingly strange that directly a Vote for Ireland was proposed the hon. Member for Lambeth should offer a factious opposition.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would not persist in his Motion. The Votes in this branch were not numerous, and it was desirable to proceed with them.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwould admit the Votes were not numerous, but their total amount was large—£762,000, and he was not prepared at that moment to point out several items, which required explanation.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreminded the hon. Member that he could avail
192
himself of the interleaved copy of the Estimates on the Report.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—

(66.) £6,979, Officers of Court of Chancery.

(67.) £1,778, Queen's Bench.

(68.) £1,801, Common Pleas.

(69.) £1,510, Exchequer.

(70.) £100, Clerk to Taxing Officers.

(71.) £3,232, Registrars.

(72.) £1,788, Registration of Judgments.

(73.) £200, Delegates.

(74.) £1,866, Insolvent Debtors' Court.

(75.) £167, Court of Errors.

(76.) £1,100, Police Justices, Dublin.

(77.) £24,500, Divisional Police Courts.

(78.) £394,820, Constabulary.

(79.) £1,479, Four Courts, Marshalsea.

House resumed; Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

ACCOMMODATION IN SHERIFFS' COURT (SCOTLAND).
On the bringing up the Report of Supp]y,
MR. COWANsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate or Home Secretary if any complaints had been received of a grievous want of accommodation for the administration of justice and for the exercise of the functions of the Sheriffs, Procurator Fiscal, and other officials, in the Sheriffs' Court in the city and for the county of Edinburgh, and if it was the intention of the Government to adopt any measures for remedying the evil? Recent changes in legislation had caused a great deal of additional work in the Sheriffs' Courts, and the accommodation was wholly insufficient. He had received a letter from one of the Gentlemen interested in this question, which, had it not been so late, he would have read to the House. He would, however, content himself with pointing out the extremely inefficient state of the public offices in this respect.
SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, he was desirous of corroborating the statement which had just been made, and to bear testimony to the inadequacy of the Courts at Edinburgh and Dundee.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that, no doubt, the evil of which the hon. Member

193
complained was very great, and required a remedy. He had been prevented by the dissolution of Parliament from proposing a general measure on the subject, but he hoped before next Session to direct the attention of the Government to the want of accommodation in the Sheriffs' Courts.
Resolutions agreed to.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ALCOCKhoped, if they meant to discuss the Bill, that the order for the second reading would be postponed, as at that hour of the morning (twenty minutes past twelve) it would be impossible to discuss it.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was under the impression that no one objected to the Bill. It differed considerably from the Bill which had been before the House on a former occasion, and its main provision was to give certain powers to magistrates for the purposes of aiding in the establishment of reformatory schools. There was a measure before the other House which stood over until this measure should come before that House. It was, therefore, desirable that no unnecessary delay should take place, and, moreover, it would be difficult to name a day for the second reading of the Bill, if it was not proceeded with at that time.
  MR. MILEShoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his opposition to the Bill being read a second time. He had no doubt that when the Bill went into Committee, provisions would be introduced to rectify its defects, and prevent the admission of boys of sixteen and upwards into the same establishment with younger children. By such indiscriminate association, the younger children were only corrupted and the discipline of the school destroyed. He looked upon the Bill now introduced as a compromise between the system supported by voluntary efforts and that by which the expense of the schools was provided for out of the county rates; and considering the great benefits which would be obtained by the establishment of these schools, he thought that the Bill would meet with the support of both classes.
  MR. ALCOCKwas again about to address the House, when he was stopped by cries of "Order."
  MR. MAGUIREtrusted the hon. Gen-
  194
  tleman would not withdraw his Amendment, because, as there was a difference on the principle of the measure, the Government ought not to press it forward at half-past twelve at night.
  MR. P. O'BRIENalso complained at the Bill being pressed that night.
  MR. HENLEYhoped, that when the Bill went into Committee, a provision would be introduced by which the children in counties where no reformatory schools could be established, by reason of the smallness of the number, might be admitted into the reformatories of the neighbouring counties on the payment of a weekly, monthly, or annual sum. He did not wish that there should be any alteration in the principle of the measure.
  Motion made, and question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  House divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 6: Majority 148.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday.

JOINT-STOCK BANKS.

  COMMITTEE. LEAVE.
  Acts read.
  MR. LOWE,in moving that the House reslove itself into Committee to consider the laws relating to Joint-stock Banks with the view of a Bill being brought in to amend those laws, said, that at that late hour (twenty minutes to one o'clock) he would trouble the House with very few words on the subject. The law relating to Joint-stock Banks was in a very unsatisfactory state. Great difficulties were interposed by the law in the way of forming a company, and when it was formed it gained no privilege by its formation except a bare licence to trade, and was still subjected to almost every possible inconvenience which the law could accumulate upon it. Persons desirous of forming a company had first to petition the Crown, for the grant of a charter. That petition was referred to the Board of Trade, which ascertained that all the requisites had been complied with. A charter was then granted containing a considerable number of conditions which formed great difficulties in the way of bonâ fide companies, but which were uniformly eluded, as in the case of the Royal British Bank, by companies not bonâ fide. That charter, which was obtained after very great delay and expense, gave a mere licence to trade, but no privilege whatever. As long as the

  195
  company went on prosperously it went on just like every other corporation, but should it fall into difficulties, the unfortunate shareholders were sure to discover that they were not invested with any kind of privilege whatever, but are subject to all sorts of legal processes. They are handed over to be wound up either by a Court of Bankruptcy or by a Court of Equity, or by both together, a fight taking place as to which of the Courts shall have the privilege of winding them up. As if that was not enough, the common law jurisdiction is also put in force against the shareholders, so that, in addition to being wound up by two Courts, they are sued at common law for payment of the debts due from the Company. The object of the Bill which he desired to introduce was to remedy these evils, and the manner was very simple. It consisted, in fact, merely of repealing so much of the Joint-stock Companies Act of last year as enacted that Joint-stock Banks should not come within its operation. In future, therefore, Joint-stock Banks might be formed like any other Joint-stock Company, by a memorandum, and the application of the few simple provisions contained in that Act. There would be a register of the shareholders which would be primâ facie evidence of the persons who were to be called upon to contribute. Such a bank would be liable to certain powers of inspection by one-fifth of the shareholders, and in case it came to be wound up, as soon as it was handed over to the Court which was to wind it up all actions against the shareholders would be stopped. It was proposed to retain the present limitation of shares in Joint-stock Banks to £100, and the proposed Bill would not make any alteration in the law, which at present required the liability of shareholders of Joint-stock Banks to be unlimited.
  House in Committe.
  MR. MALINSentirely approved the general object of the Bill, but regretted that it was not proposed to limit the liability of the shareholders in Joint-stock Banks as well as in other joint-stock undertakings, He hoped that what were understood to be the right hon. Gentleman's own views on this subject had not been overruled; but, if so, he trusted the Government would not consider that this subject had been finally decided. He felt satisfied that it was necessary for the good conduct of Joint-stock Banks, and
  196
  in order to induce persons of substance to join them, to provide that such persons should not forfeit the whole of their property upon the failure of these undertakings.
  MR. COWANasked whether it was intended that this Bill should apply to Scotland?
  MR. LOWE: Yes.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was surprised to hear that the principle of limited liability was not to apply to Joint-stock Banks. He recollected very distinctly some observations made by the right hon. Gentleman when he brought in his Limited Liability Act. The right hon. Gentleman said then, that for his own part he did not see why that principle should not apply to Joint-stock Banks; and he must have seen by what had since occurred that unlimited liability did not hold out any security to the depositors, and, in fact, worked altogether pure unmingled mischief. Take the case of the London and Westminster Bank. The capital now amounted to £1,000,000; the deposits are £15,000,000. Suppose that bank should fail (which was, however, a very improbable supposition), although unmitigated ruin would fall on the shareholders, did any body believe any advantage would accrue to the depositors from the unlimited liability? In the case of the Royal British Bank the only result had been an amount of misery which should make the House shudder at its own work. From what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion his views on this subject were evidently clear-sighted enough; it was apparent that he thoroughly understood the work he was about; and it was supposed that he would work out the regeneration of the law on this subject. He (Mr. Roebuck) was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had departed from that which, no doubt, in his heart he believed to be right, and had bowed to a prejudice which pervaded a great many minds, but ought not to have influenced his.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYadded the expression of his great disappointment that the Bill did not extend to Joint-stock Banks. It was perfectly outrageous that the only Joint-stock Companies to which the principle of limited liability would not now apply should be banking companies.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it must not be forgotten that the great confidence reposed by

  197
  the public in Joint-stock Banks, and the vast deposits entrusted to them, arose from the fact that the depositors believed they could come upon the last acre and the last shilling of every shareholder. The public were weak enough to suppose that the proprietary of these banks would be honest enough (he would almost say) to fulfil the engagements they had entered into in the prospectuses they had so widely circulated when the concern was set afloat. If a private banker failed, you "made no bones" with him. His last acre and his last shilling were seized upon, and as far as his estate went the claims of the depositors were satisfied. It was otherwise, however, with a Joint-stock Bank. Directly a crisis came, the shareholder said, "It is very hard that we should be ruined. If we were called upon for £2,000 or £3,000, we would not mind paying it; but sooner than part with all, we will make away with our property or go abroad." The result was that the creditors were bandied about from court to court; the lawyers got a great deal of money, and the creditors and depositors very little. If the creditors of these banks were to be deprived of any means of going against the shareholders, he hoped some clause would be introduced, preventing the latter from making away with their property before the winding-up was effected. As the law now stood, every shareholder in the Royal British Bank had apparently been able to disappoint every creditor, and nobody had paid anybody anything.
  COLONEL SYKESwas of opinion that unlimited liability was calculated to prevent a man of capital from entering into any speculation, and regarded it, therefore, as impolitic to throw overboard the principle of limited liability.
  MR. WYLDsaid, that in the case of the British Bank, the debts were £500,000, while the assets were £250,000, and that, as the law now stood, the shareholders were liable for the balance between the debts and the assets. The consequence was, that the shareholders endeavoured to shield themselves from the payment of the debts altogether, whereas, if their liability had been limited, they would have come forward and paid their debts.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the difference between the shareholder in Joint-stock Banks and private bankers consisted in the circumstance that the shareholders had nothing to do with the management of the
  198
  business, while, with respect to the latter, the contrary was the case. He also thought it imprudent to make the holder of a single share liable for all the debts of a bank. Such a system deterred parties from joining in Joint-stock concerns. If the law was inefficient, the depositor had a fictitious security, and all the misery that the unfortunate shareholder endured afforded no substantial benefit to the depositor. If there was a greater liability attached to directorship, it might be beneficial. It might be said, that by making the responsibility of the director too great they would drive from the directory all respectable men. This was a difficulty; but he still thought that the directors who managed a concern ought to have a heavier liability than the mere shareholders, who had nothing to do with the management of the bank.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the shareholder was unable to obtain credit for the bank by pledging his individual responsibility. He took his share of the profits, and therefore there was no honesty in saying that he would not be prepared to meet his liabilities.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, it was well worth while delaying till they ascertained how the limited liability system would work before it was introduced into banking. He believed the system of limited liability was vicious in principle, and that our commercial prosperity was in a great degree owing to the fact that our merchants, traders, and bankers were responsible for any concern with which they connected their names.
  MR. HANKEYwould express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) had departed so far from principles that had been adopted by that House.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he must object to the discussion of such a measure as this at a quarter past one o'clock in the morning.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Joint-stock Banks.
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY Mr. LOWE, and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Bishop of Exeter.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aCoal Whippers Offences against the Person; Larceny, &c.; Malicious Injuries to Property; Libel; Forgery; Coinage Offences; Accessories and Abettors; Deer, Game, and Rabbits.

OPIUM TRADE WITH CHINA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that it would be recollected that some time since he brought before the House the subject of the legality of the opium trade, carried on by the East India Company with China, and the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack promised to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the subject. He begged to ask the noble and learned Lord, whether the question of the legality or illegality of this trade had been submitted to the consideration of the law officers of the Crown, in accordance with the promise which had upon a former occasion been made by the Government; and, if so, when that opinion was likely to be given?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that subsequent to the statement which was made by his noble Friend upon the subject in that House a case was prepared upon which it was proposed that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown should be taken. The case thus prepared was submitted to the authorities at the India House in order to ascertain whether the facts set forth in it were correctly stated. It was found upon communication with the President of the Board of Control that the facts were not considered to be so stated, and the document containing the case was at present under revision. The question had, in consequence, been suspended for a short period, but it was by no means the intention of the Government to delay submitting it to the notice of the law officers of the Crown beyond the time which must necessarily be occupied in endeavouring to secure a correct representation of the facts.

CANNON—QUESTION.
LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the War Department. During the late War in the Crimea, when artillery of a heavy calibre was much required, a firm in this country very patriotically contributed a gun of very large calibre, which, having been proved, was presented by them to the Government, on the condition that it would be employed at a very early opportunity against the enemy. Before it could be so used, however, the war was brought to a close, and he believed the gun was now lying at Shoeburyness. What he wished to know was, whether the noble Lord would have
108
any objection to employ this piece of artillery against an enemy with whom we were now at war in another hemisphere—the Chinese? He saw no reason why this gun should not be employed in hostilities in that country, and he wished to ask the noble Lord if he was prepared to redeem the pledge given by employing this piece of artillery in China? There was another point on which he wished to ask a question. He had been informed that six guns of large calibre, constructed upon a new principle for loading at the breech—a principle which was prohibited by patent—had been purchased in America. The manufacturers in this country considered that those arms might just as well have been east in this country, and he should be glad if the noble Lord would inform him whether the report was correct.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that with regard to the first question of the noble Lord no doubt the gun had been presented to the Government—or rather to the country—by the firm in question; but he was not aware that any distinct pledge had been given that it should be used soon against the enemy. It had been intended to so use it, but fortunately the return of peace had prevented that intention being carried into effect. It had not, however, remained in perfect inactivity at Shoeburyness, because a variety of experiments had been made with the view of testing its effects at various ranges and with various charges; though these experiments had been imperfect owing to the difficulty of constructing a carriage for such a piece of ordnance. With regard to using it against the Chinese, it was thought that the ordinary artillery would be sufficient for the purpose of that warfare, and that it would not be desirable to give up a vessel for the purpose of conveying that gun to China. With regard to the other question, the facts were, that an American gentleman had discoved a system for loading guns at the breech, and that system had been referred to the Select Committee appointed to inquire into inventions of that character, and was by them very favourably reported upon, and upon that report the Government had purchased the six guns referred to by the noble Lord. It was quite true that if the inventor had been in England those guns could, with his assistance, have been cast in this country; but they could not be cast without his leave, as the invention was protected by a patent. He was not

109
however, in this country, and therefore those guns had been purchased in America, and he believed that they would prove of considerable service.

THE CASE OF MR. DIXON.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLErose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for—
  "A Copy of the Memorial of Frederick Beverley Dixon, Esquire, of Castlewood House, Darrow, Queen's County, to The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, delivered to His Excellency on or about the 13th of July, 1854, praying for an Inquiry into the Conduct of David Brudenell Franks, Esquire, Stipendiary Magistrate, who illegally arrested and imprisoned the Memorialist's Son, a Child of between Six and Seven Years of Age, and committed other Acts contrary to Law in connection with the Prosecution of the Memorialist on a false Charge of Conspiracy to murder one Thomas Brophy, of which Charge he was acquitted at the Spring Assizes at Maryborough in 1854: Also,
  "Copy of the Memorial of the aforesaid F. B. Dixon to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, dated 6th December, 1856, praying that the Police Tax of One hundred and seventy-four Pounds Thirteen Shillings and Ninepence, which had been levied on his Property under the Crime and Outrage Act, in consequence of the said false Charge, may be refunded: And also,
  "Copy of the Answer of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury thereto, dated 1st January, 1857."
  The noble Earl said that the case of Mr. Dixon was of great importance to the due administration of justice. Mr. Dixon was a native of Norfolk, and had practised for upwards of eighteen years as a medical man in Norwich, where he married a lady named Gardner, the daughter of a Chancery barrister and one of the magistrates for the county of Westmoreland. Mr. Dixon removed in 1850 to Ireland, for the purpose of engaging in agricultural pursuits, and accordingly rented a farm at Castlewood, in Queen's County, for that purpose. In the year 1854 he got into an altercation with a peasant tenant named Brophy, which resulted in Mr. Dixon giving him notice to quit. Immediately afterwards Brophy brought a charge against Mr. Dixon of a conspiracy to murder him, by firing at him from behind a hedge, on a certain day in February. Absurd as the charge might appear, it found ready credence with Mr. Franks, one of the stipendiary magistrates, and who, appearing to be convinced of the guilt of Mr. Dixon,
  110
  thought any means justified the desired end—namely, the conviction of Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon had two children, the eldest of whom, a child between six and seven years of age, was accustomed to be taken to school, a distance of about two miles from Castlewood House. On the 20th February, Mr. Franks seized upon the child and conveyed him prisoner to the police barracks at Castle Darrow, and from thence to the county gaol at Maryborough, where he was kept in confinement for seventeen days, in order that he might give evidence to hang his own father and mother. The extraordinary trial took place on the 9th of March, 1854, before the Chief Justice Monaghan, and Mr. and Mrs. Dixon were exposed to the public gaze in the felons' dock on a charge of conspiracy to murder. It appeared that Brophy was in the habit of wearing a close-fitting cap; but on the day of the occurrence he wore a high crowned hat, which was produced in court. There were two holes through it, and the Chief Justice on examining it found that they had been made from the inside, in the Irish fashion. It would be a waste of time to tell their Lordships that, under these circumstances the jury, without a moment's hesitation, acquitted the prisoners. In reference to that trial the Lord Chief Baron, in another trial connected with the same business, thus expressed himself—
  "I think no jury could possibly arrive at any other conclusion than that of acquittal. For myself, I have not the slightest shadow of a doubt as to the perfect innocence of Dixon. I have read the information of the child, and I have often before seen extraordinary depositions, but I never saw so extraordinary and incredible a one as this."
  When Mrs. Dixon first heard of the unlawful arrest of her child she became in a frantic state, and went to the barracks to recover him. She was there rudely repulsed by the constables. From that period up to the trial she was kept up by excitement, but immediately afterwards she fell a victim to the persecution she had undergone, and died of a broken heart. Prior to the trial, and also subsequent to it, the magistrates of Castle Darrow, in consequence of this charge against Mr. Dixon, petitioned the Lord Lieutenant to send a party of police to the district, under the Crime and Outrage Act. Accordingly, a police force was sent down, although no crime or outrage had been committed by Mr. Dixon or any other person in the townland, and although there

  111
  was not a tittle of evidence to show that an increase of the police force in that quarter was necessary. He now wished to call attention to the excessive amount of impost which was laid on Mr. Dixon. The townland comprised 337 acres, 212 of which were in the occupation of Mr. Dixon, and the portion of the rate he had to pay amounted to £34 13 s. 9d. a quarter, being equal to the whole amount of the rent. The whole sum which he paid in respect of this impost was £174 13 s. 9d. In July, 1854, he petitioned the Lord Lieutenant for an Inquiry into the conduct of the stipendiary magistrate, and also for the remission of this tax, which was continued after his acquittal from this false charge. Now, he (the Earl of Albemarle) believed that the Lord Lieutenant at that time (the Earl of St. Germans) was incapable of intentionally doing an injustice to any person, but he believed that he had been ill-advised in this case in refusing both the requests of Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon was given to understand that if he had any complaint to make against the stipendiary magistrate he must seek redress in a court of law. He accordingly did bring an action against him; but in consequence of the Orange tinge which spread over the politico-religious sentiments of the good Protestants in that part of Queen's County, he wisely and prudently changed the venue to Dublin. The action was there tried by a special jury, and Mr. Dixon obtained a verdict of £500 against Mr. Franks, the stipendiary magistrate. Mr. Dixon did not now seek any reparation against that gentleman, but he wished to have refunded the sum of £174 13 s. 9d., with which he contended he had been unjustly charged, under the Crime and Outrage Act. This year an application had been made to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to that effect, but it had been refused without any reason being assigned for the refusal. It was with the view of giving some Member of the Government an opportunity of making a statement that he (the Earl of Albemarle) had brought the subject under the notice of their Lordships. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Address for the Papers referred to.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSthanked his noble Friend for giving notice of his Motion, as it had enabled him to refresh his memory as to the particulars of the case. So far from complaining of the Motion, or the speech by which it was
  112
  accompanied, ho thought that if, as his noble Friend believed, Mr. Dixon was an aggrieved person, he had done no more than his duty in placing his case for redress before the House; and he had submitted that case to their Lordships in a speech characterized by great forbearance and discretion, as well as by a friendly spirit. It was unnecessary to advert to all the circumstances of the accusation against Mr. Dixon, as the noble Earl did not ask that further proceedings should be taken against Mr. Franks, his sole object being to obtain a reimbursement of the money of which he believed he had been mulcted on account of the extra police force in his neighbourhood, and he (Earl St. Germans) would therefore confine himself to that point. He must say, however, that he thought it was hardly fair to Mr. Franks to make this serious charge against him when he had no opportunity of defending; himself. He really believed that Mr. Franks was not actuated in this matter by any unworthy motives. He was a magistrate of great experience, intelligence, and integrity, and totally unprejudiced against Mr. Dixon. But he (Earl St. Germans) wished to show, by reading extracts from certain papers he held in his hands, their Lordships that he did not exercise the discretionary power with which the Lord Lieutenant was vested by the Crime and Outrage Act on insufficient grounds in this particular instance. The first document he would refer to was a resolution agreed to at a public meeting of the magistrates of Queen's County, held at Castle Darrow on February 3,1854, and presided over by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, Lord de Vesci. That resolution related the circumstances of Brophy of Castlewood being fired at on his way home between eight and nine o'clock at night, and requested the Government to offer a reward for the apprehension of the guilty party; and in consequence of the danger in which the man's life was placed from the threats which had at various times been made to him, strongly recommended the Government to send a party of police to the locality, under the Crime and Outrage Act, to be chargeable on the townsland, but suggesting that Thomas Brophy should be exempted from that charge. The magistrates who signed that resolution included Lord Ashbrook, Mr. Deasy, M.P., and others. The Irish Government also received a memorial from

  113
  Mr. Dixon, protesting against this measure, and a second one from another party, and these were transmitted to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, Lord de Vesci, who returned answer that he had carefully examined them, and that he entirely differed from most of the allegations of Mr. Dixon; that he held an investigation in conjunction with the magistrates, and, after a long and searching inquiry, they were fully convinced that such an outrage had taken place, and that a shot had been fired at Brophy with intent to take away his life; and his Lordship added that nothing had since taken place to alter his opinion upon the point; and his Lordship repudiated, in the strongest manner, Mr. Dixon's charge that the magistrates had desired the police force to be sent from personal feelings against him. On the 13th of July, in the same year, after the trial he (the Earl of St. Germans) received a deputation consisting of Mr. Dixon and other parties in favour of withdrawing the additional police force in the district; and his answer to them was that it would not be consistent with his duty in preserving the public peace to comply with their request, and that it was a satisfaction to him to find that he was confirmed in that view by the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and all the county magistrates, including those resident in the district, as well as by those of the law officers of the Crown, and the Judge who tried the case. On the 24th of August following, Mr. Franks, the resident magistrate, wrote saying the necessity for an extra police force still continued; and on the 24th of December, 1856, nearly three years after this proceeding, he sent another letter to the same effect, and up to the present day it had not been thought expedient by the Government to remove the force. These facts would at least show that he (Earl St. Germans) did not act capriciously, nor in an arbitrary manner, but obtained the best information he could on the subject, and acted upon that information to the best of his judgment. He might mention, also, that although the production of these papers was ordered on the 20th of July, 1854, by the House of Commons, on the Motion of Mr. O'Brien, and were laid on the table on the 13th of August in the same year, up to the present moment, neither that hon. Member nor any other hon. Member had moved that they should be printed. As to the Motion of the noble Earl he would neither oppose nor support
  114
  it, being perfectly content to leave the matter to be dealt with by their Lordships as they should think fit.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Albemarle) ought to have informed himself more accurately as to the facts before he cast wholesale on so respectable and honourable a body of men as the magistrates of the Queen's County, imputations of this serious nature—imputations which he defied him to prove. As to Mr. Franks, he believed that gentleman to be entirely incapable of the conduct which had been laid to his charge; but what he wished to ask the noble Earl who had spoken last was, whether the Government had paid the damages and costs in the action for false imprisonment, in which Mr. Dixon had recovered £500, because, if they had done so, they adopted the conduct of Mr. Franks and completely exonerated him.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, that, speaking to the best of his recollection, he believed that the costs and damages were paid by the Government, who believed that Mr. Franks had acted honestly according to the best of his judgment. As regarded the child, he was placed in the charge of the wife of the governor of the prison, in order that he might be separated from his parents.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONwished to know out of what fund the damages were paid? There was a fund in Ireland called "the secret service money" at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant, and that probably was the fund called upon for the purpose.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSbelieved the money was paid by the Government out of that fund, but not having had notice of the question he was unable to answer it exactly.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsuggested that if the practice was to be that the Government should pay the damages and costs when a magistrate exceeded his duty and a verdict went against him, it ought to be generally known, and the same rule should be applicable to England as well as to Ireland. He hoped the papers would be laid on the table, that they might be able to form a more correct opinion upon the merits of the case.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was no objection to the production of all the papers relating to the subject.
  Motion agreed to.

THIRD REPORT OF THE STATUTE LAW COMMISSION—BILLS PRESENTED.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had to call the attention of their Lordships to a subject very different from that with which they had just been occupied, but one of very great importance—namely, the Third Report of the Statute Law Commission; and he should conclude the observations he had to make by asking their Lordships to give a first reading to eight Bills, the object of each of which was the consolidation into a single statute of the whole of the law relating to an important portion of the Criminal law, and which were now dispersed over a great number of statutes. These Bills had been prepared by the Members of the Commission appointed in 1854 for the purpose of considering the expediency and possibility of consolidating the statute law of this country. This was a subject that had at all times occupied the attention of lawyers, and one which had been considered of the utmost importance from the earliest times of our legal history. It had been pointed out by Bacon, Coke, and Hale as one that the Legislature ought in some way or other to undertake. But all their recommendations ended in nothing. Finally, about forty years ago—in 1816—a Resolution was passed by their Lordships' House in favour of this work being undertaken, and carried into execution by our most distinguished lawyers. That Resolution was communicated to the other House in it; that House expressed its entire concurrence. There however, he regretted—or rather he was ashamed—to say, the matter ended, for no steps were taken to remedy the evil. If, however, that was an evil forty years ago, he need not say that in our day the evil had become infinitely more pressing; for there were every year added to the statute book from 100 to 150 Acts, so that no lawyer, even the most profound, ever pretended that he was able to make himself master of all the statutes of the realm. In order to remedy this state of things, in the year 1854 the Crown issued a Commission directed to a number of distinguished lawyers for the purpose of investigating the whole question. The first point which the Commission took into consideration was the different modes by which the object they had in view might be attained; and finally they came to the conclusion that it was better far to attempt to do something than to speculate on what might be the best man-
116
ner of curing the evil. The difficulties which they had to encounter were undoubtedly enormous. It was suggested that they should at once proceed to systematize and consolidate some portion of the law. That appeared plausible, and no doubt was the correct mode of framing a code of laws; but then the duty laid on the Commission was not to frame a code of laws, but to consolidate the law as it now existed. After various dicussions, and having attempted in the first instance to take up what were called groups of statutes, and made some progress in that work, they found that it would not do, and that the only way to make any impression on the statute book was to take different subjects and consolidate all the laws relating to each of those subjects. This was not only attended with great difficulty, but with great danger. If they knew that any specified statutes contained all the provisions relating to a given subject, the task would have been easy; but there was not a single subject to which their attention was likely to be directed which was not probably treated of in many enactments; and it was impossible to be sure that every statute, or part of a statute, relating to a subject could be found and consolidated, and that some would not remain undiscovered, and, therefore, unconsolidated. In. order, therefore, to proceed with certainty the Commission employed some gentlemen of great information and research to commence a register of the statutes, beginning with the statutes of the previous year, taking statute by statute and clause by clause of every statute, from chapter 1 of last Session to the end. These Gentlemen went to work, marking every enactment and every section, and every previous enactment to which any section referred, either in the way of repeal or modification. This implied great labour; but he was satisfied, in common with most eminent lawyers, that if the Statute Law Commission had done nothing else but complete this work they would have done something that was extremely valuable, for without such a process it would be impossible to make any progress in the consolidation of the law. It would now, however, be possible to publish an edition of the statutes containing all the enactments actually in force. But beyond that it would scarcely be believed how much that process had reduced the statute book in bulk. With the assistance of a very learned Member of the Bar the Com-

117
missioners then proceeded to divide the statutes into classes. He might remind their Lordships that there was a class of statutes which the public in general had very little to do with except in the year in which they were passed—those relating to the army and navy, passed every year, and some relating to the revenue and financial subjects. They next proceeded to divide statutes into classes ranged according to the extent of their operation, those relating to the United Kingdom being placed in one class, those applying to England alone in another, and so on, making in all thirteen classes. In that operation they had not proceeded beyond Her Majesty's reign; but of the Acts passed during the last twenty years it was found that one-third did not form what might properly be called the law of the country, such as the Appropriation Act, and all acts the force of which expired after a limited period. Taking out those statutes, the Commissioners proceeded to ascertain how many of the remainder applied to the United Kingdom. They found that only one-third so applied; and therefore three-fourths of the statutes which had been passed during the twenty years of Her Majesty's reign could form no portion of the statute law book if that book were to consist merely of laws which regulated the conduct of Her Majesty's lieges. The Commission had not gone further back than Her Majesty's reign; but when the operation was extended it would be found that the numbers of statutes to be excluded would be continually increasing, and the labour of consolidation be as continually diminishing; but still they could not be sure of embodying all the statutes upon each subject until they had gone through all the statutes from Victoria to Magna Charta. It might, then, be said that the examination not having been concluded no consolidation could be made. The commissioners had considered that point, and had come to the conclusion that upon some subjects of a popular nature, of which consolidation would be eminently useful, it would be undesirable to postpone action, merely because some prior enactments might possibly be overlooked. They had therefore selected a number of subjects, as to which it appeared probable that the consolidation would be perfect. Amongst these, acting upon the recommendation of a Committee of their Lordships' House in 1854, that the formation of a criminal code should be post-
118
poned, but that a consolidation should be effected, they had taken the criminal law. Besides the criminal law, they selected several other subjects in which they considered consolidation could be made tolerably perfect, depending as they did upon recent statutes, such as the laws relating to bills of exchange, to patents, to ecclesiastical leases, savings banks, &c. In all they had consolidated sixty-five statutes, besides nine others, which were now in the hands of the gentlemen who assisted the Commission. It must be understood that although the Commission employed the most skilled draughtsmen they could find, yet they had not asked Parliament to sanction any Bills which had not been gone through with the utmost care by those members of the Commission best qualified to judge of their merits. The Bills relating to the criminal law had been gone through by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, by the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, by a gentleman who was of the utmost assistance to the Commission, Mr. Greaves, and by Sir FitzRoy Kelly. These Bills he laid upon the table at the close of the last Session; but in the interval before reintroducing them this Session, it occurred to him that improvements might be made in them. They had been framed to include all indictable offences, but some offences became indictable after one or two previous summary convictions, and he thought it would be better to alter the shape of the Bills, and make them relate to offences whether indictable or punishable by some other mode. He (the Lord Chancellor) had gone through the Bills with Mr. Greaves, and he now asked their Lordships to read them a first time. They did not include all the subjects embraced in the Bills of last year, some of which he thought could be deferred without much inconvenience, especially criminal procedure, which ought not to be dealt with pending the inquiries now being made by the Government in consequence of an Address presented last Session to Her Majesty by the House of Commons upon the subject of the department of criminal justice. They had also postponed dealing with the subject of treason and offences; against the State, which were not of a pressing nature. The eight Bills which he now asked the House to read a first time related to—1. Offences against the Person; 2. Larceny; 3. Malicious Injuries to Pro-

119
perty; 4. Libel; 5. Forgery; 6. Coinage Offences; 7. Accessories and Abettors; 8. The Game Laws; which, although relating to a species of larceny, it had been thought best to deal with in a separate Bill. If he were asked whether those Bills were mere consolidations, he must reply that they were not; for the Commissioners had not felt themselves justified in overlooking the decision of the House in 1854, that in any Bills which might be prepared it was desirable that the Amendments that had been suggested by the Criminal Law Commissioners, and which had met with universal approval, should be embodied. Those alterations, he thought, would lead to no difference of opinion. Such, then, were the Bills which he proposed to lay on the table. There were several others quite ready to be laid before Parliament, but he thought it would be more convenient that they should be introduced in the other House. He thought he ought to tell their Lordships further that in proceeding with their work the Commissioners had come to several conclusions different from those to which they had arrived when they first considered the subject. It was felt that there were many ancient statutes, for example, which could not and ought not to be consolidated. It would be ridiculous pedantry to consolidate Magna Charta, the Act Quia Emptores, and other old statutes of the same class, which formed the basis rather than the superstructure of the statute law. The Commissioners had therefore come to the conclusion that with regard to all statutes of that sort they could do nothing in the way of consolidation. There were also a number of statutes expressed in such curious language and framed in so different a style from that of modern times, that if the Commissioners were simply to consolidate them, retaining as much as possible the old language, they would produce a piece of patchwork which it would not be creditable to lay before Parliament. One of the subjects to which that observation applied was the law relating to landlord and tenant, upon which a Bill had been prepared with singular care and skill by Mr. Bissett, a gentleman of some standing at the bar. There had been enactments upon the relations between landlord and tenant from the time of the Plantagenets down to the reign of Queen Victoria, and the Commissioners found that to consolidate all these into one statute would involve their being entirely re-
120
written, if it were desired to have the language harmonious throughout. Moreover, the language of the greater part of them had received a judicial construction, and there was great danger that in modernizing it the Commissioners might not be able to adhere to that construction. There were a great number of other statutes which, though comparatively modern, had yet been amended by one or two subsequent Acts, but in which the alterations were so few or unimportant that it would be a waste of time to consolidate them, either alone or in connection with the amending statutes. For example, in 1838 was passed an Act regulating the mode of framing, and in some respects of construing wills; but in consequence of some difficulties which arose in carrying it into operation a few years afterwards an amending Bill was introduced and carried through Parliament. He was not sure whether, in consolidating the law relating to real property, the Commissioners had consolidated these two statutes, or not; but they certainly came to the conclusion that it would be absurd pedantry to consolidate such modern statutes of that sort as had but few additions made to them, thinking it better that the original statute and the subsequent Act amending it should be taken together. So with respect to the statute abolishing fines and recoveries. Again, there were a number of statutes which could not be repealed, and yet which it would be equally absurd to consolidate. The Wills Act, which he had already mentioned, afforded a good illustration of his meaning. Before the passing of that Act in 1838 there was a law of Charles II. which regulated, up to that time, the formalities necessary with respect to wills. That law must still remain in force with regard to all wills made before 1838, but it would be hardly worth while to consolidate it. So with respect to the Tithe Commutation Act, which was fast working itself out, and which it would, therefore, be a waste of time to consolidate. There were other statutes in the same position; but after all deductions there still remained a very great number of subjects which the Commissioners had no difficulty in dealing with, and with which they were determined to proceed until their labours were concluded. He did not think that he could usefully occupy the time of their Lordships by stating more in detail the course which the Commissioners had been pursuing. It had

121
been said that the Statute Law Commission had done nothing at all. If it was meant that they had introduced no Bills which had become law the statement was perfectly true. They could not possibly have done so. The difficulties had been great, but he trusted that they had now found their way to do good service; and if their Lordships would render their assistance in laying before the public that which would at all events be a useful specimen of the labours of the Commissioners, he was in hopes that in the course of a few years they might be able to reduce the forty or fifty volumes of statutes now in existence to ten, two, or three. The noble and learned Lord concluded by presenting the following eight Bills:—
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Offences against the Person [Offences against the Person Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Larceny and other similar Offences [Larceny, &c. Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to malicious Injuries to Property [Malicious Injuries to Property Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Libel [Libel Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to indictable Offences by Forgery [Forgery Bill].
A Bill to consolidate and amend the Laws against Offences relating to the Coin [Coinage Offences Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Accessories to and Abettors of Indictable Offences [Accessories and Abettors Bill].
A Bill to consolidate the Statute Law of England relating to Deer, Game, and Rabbits [Deer, Game, and Rabbits Bill].
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely approved the course which had been taken by his noble and learned Friend. Great misrepresentations had been made with respect to the Statute Law Commission, and he was glad that his noble and learned Friend had described exactly what the Commissioners had done and how far their labours of consolidation had proceeded. He was not prepared at that moment to go into the several subjects which had been broached by his noble and learned Friend, but he could not help remarking that the consolidation of the statute law apart from the consolidation of the common law was open to serious objection. There were many important parts of the law under its different heads which were not contained in the statutes, and to tell the people that they had to obey the latter only was merely to mislead and deceive
122
them. The statement of the noble and learned Lord as to the value of the services of the Commissioners was by no means exaggerated, and if he were asked to mention one or two of the Commissioners who were more especially entitled to the thanks of the country, he would mention the names of Mr. Bellenden Ker, Mr. Coulson, and Sir FitzRoy Kelly.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he had no hesitation in concurring with his noble and learned Friend in approbation of the course adopted by the noble Lord on the woolsack, and he was sure their Lordships would willingly give these Bills a first reading. But he hoped the noble and learned Lord would be contented with that during the present Session, because it was desirable to see the work of consolidation as a whole, and to detect inaccuracies which, even with the utmost care, might still be discovered. He had never doubted that the whole statute law might be consolidated, but such statutes as that of the reign of Edward III. with regard to treason ought to be given in ipsissimis verbis in which they were originally enacted—it would evidently be most unwise to attempt to consolidate them.
The said Bills were then severally read 1a.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  LORD ABINGERsaid, that in moving for the Return of which he had given notice, he must in the first place disclaim any disrespect towards the members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who had been educated in the faith of their forefathers. He must, however, be permitted to say that he thought the Bill which stood on the paper for Second Reading to-morrow (the Roman Catholic Charities Bill) was likely to raise questions similar to those which had recently caused so much agitation in Belgium. There would, he thought, be little difficulty in, furnishing the returns for which he was about to move, while he believed that their production would be of the utmost importance in order to enable the Government to legislate upon the subject of Roman Catholic charities with advantage. He was strongly the advocate of inquiry previous to legislation being entered upon, and he felt assured that the Government would act wisely in postponing the Bill he had referred to until such inquiry had taken place, and until they should be in a position

  123
  to introduce a measure of a general nature, regulating the acquisition of property held in trust for the use of Roman Catholic and Protestant charities alike. It was most desirable, in his opinion, that the acquisition of such property should be fenced round with those precautions and safeguards which would prevent it from being turned to the advantage of insidious and designing persons, and he must contend that if the Bill to which he had adverted were passed the title to the description of property in question would be confirmed, no matter how contrary the form of its tenure to the provisions of the Statutes of Mortmain. It was a mistake to suppose that the interests of Roman Catholics generally were involved in the matter. The fact was that it was the Roman Catholic priests and the immediate agents of the Pope whom the Bill would benefit, and in support of that view of the case he might state that the evidence which had been given by the most intelligent and respectable witnesses who had been examined before the late Mortmain Committee went to show that what was most desirable for the benefit of the Roman Catholic laity was the application of the principles of the law of mortmain to personal property. It became, therefore, expedient to consider whether the uses to which any particular property was devoted were in themselves lawful, and how far it was in accordance with a sound policy to sanction its application to the use of monasteries, for instance, which were illegal institutions. To establish the principle that Roman Catholics might accumulate property for charitable purposes to any extent would be to take the best means of promoting the spread of the Roman Catholic religion in this country, and would be to walk in the path which had been trodden by Austria, by Italy, and by Spain, with what results he need not recall to the attention of the House. Their Lordships might depend upon it that if they were to bring about anything like equality between the power of the Roman Catholics, founded upon the possession of property, and that of the Established Church, they would be preparing the way for the outbreak of civil dissension; and it was therefore that he felt called upon to urge upon the House the necessity of proceeding in the matter with the utmost caution. The noble Lord concluded by moving that there be laid before this House—
  "Return of Property in Lands, Mortgages,
  124
  Houses, and Government Securities held in Trust or otherwise affected to the Use of Roman Catholic Charities in Great Britain, describing the Locality and Extent of such Landed Property and the Amount and Nature of the Securities, the Names of the Trustees, and the particular Uses to which such Property is applicable."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Lord was premature in making the present Motion. At present the Charity Commissioners had no jurisdiction over Roman Catholic charities, and therefore it would be impossible to procure the return moved for by the noble Lord. The Roman Catholic Charities Bill would be brought under the consideration of their Lordships to-morrow, and if that Bill passed into law, the returns moved for by the noble Lord might be procured in future; but at present it was impossible to procure them.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

MINISTERS' MONEY (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee on the Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: Before the House decides upon putting the Bill into Committee, I beg to submit for the consideration of your Lordships, what appears to me to be a very sufficient reason for your not proceeding further with it. It is, I believe, an understood rule, that the result of any discussion upon the second reading of a Bill decides the question as to the adoption or rejection of the principle of the measure, and upon that question, after full debate, issue was joined upon the second reading of the Bill before the House. Now, my Lords, by the paper I hold in my hand, which is the record of the proceedings of the House giving the division list upon the occasion, I find it recorded that there was a majority of five in favour of the Bill; but the same record also shows, that the majority of the Peers present by whom the principle and provisions of the Bill had been discussed, who had fulfilled the duty of deliberating in this House upon the matters upon which they were to give advice to the Crown, decided by a majority of seventy-one to sixty-five, that the Bill should be rejected. These numbers, however, do not represent the total of those who were present at the debate, and who paired off either for or

  125
  against the measure before the House divided; I was, myself, one of ninety-four Peers who so left the House, before the debate had ended. So that the majority of six, that was first recorded against the Bill, in fact represented the decision of a House numbering 230 Peers present. How was this decision annulled, and a majority of six against the Bill changed into a majority of five in its favour? Why, by the proxies of those who did not attend, and who very probably knew nothing about the measure, in favour of winch their votes are recorded. The number of proxies were thirty-six for, twenty-five against the Bill; so that, in fact, the decision of 230 Peers present and deliberating was overborne and reversed by the vote that was called for of sixty-one absent non-deliberating Peers, probably unacquainted with the subject-matter of the debate. My Lords, such an anomaly can never have been contemplated in the exercise of the privilege of voting by proxy, and calls for consideration and correction in the Standing Orders of the House; but its bearing upon the question of the committal of the Bill must, I think, in reason and consistency be conclusive against your proceeding further with it. The preamble of the Bill, as of every Act of Parliament, winds up by the recital of these words, "be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled." Now, my Lords, these words would set forth what is plainly contrary to the fact. It cannot, with truth, be said of this Bill, that its enactment would be by and with the advice and consent of the Lords in Parliament assembled, as their decision was directly the reverse. To be consistent, you must say of this Bill, if it should become law, that it was enacted, contrary to the advice and consent of the assembled Peers, and without their authority, which, of course, you could not do, while the House of Lords is an essential part of the Legislature. Let it not be supposed, my Lords, that I undervalue the privilege of vote by proxy; I consider it a most valuable privilege and calculated to be of great public advantage if rightly used. What I deprecate is its abuse. As a general rule, I hold it to be the duty of a Peer to attend in his place in Parliament to advise upon the measures that may be submitted to the House; but there are occasions when, business or sick-
  126
  ness may prevent attendance, and some of the sagest and most venerated Members of the House are often compelled, by physical infirmity, to absent themselves. It is, I conceive, important to the conservative character of this House, that where the assembled Peers have adopted any measure of very questionable principle, the absent Peers should be enabled to record their opinions for or against the measure, so that if considered by the majority to be objectionable it may be rejected; and if adopted, it may have the general consent of the Peers absent or present; but it is quite a different thing where the assembled Peers have rejected the principle of a Bill, for absent Peers by their proxies to tender advice for its adoption; where such is the case, the usefulness of your Lordships' deliberations is at an end, and the Crown is deprived of the benefit of the advice and consent of this branch of the Legislature which is supposed to be tendered by those only who are in Parliament assembled. The Bill before the House, which has received a second reading, contrary to the advice and consent of the assembled Lords, involves principles most detrimental to the future good government of Ireland, and as a measure distinctly abolishing, without any compensation, an important branch of the property of the Established Church. I apprehend that the Crown cannot consent thereto consistently with the obligations solemnly accepted at the coronation. Surely, the House should pause before it sends forward such a Bill, and not allow Her Majesty to be advised to assent to it by absent Peers, who are probably ignorant of its provisions and contrary to the advice of that large assembly, whose deliberative voice was given against it. Had those who voted by proxy been in their places, I have no doubt they would have increased, instead of reversing the majority against the Bill; for, though they would have heard the arguments, such as they were, that the noble President of the Council urged in favour of the Bill, they would also have heard the unanswered and unanswerable speech of the noble Earl, by whom it was opposed (the Earl of Derby). Far be it from me to speak disparagingly of the abilities of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in recommending the measures of Government to the House. The noble Earl's addresses to the House are generally characterized by great ability and listened to with pleasure; but I never

  127
  heard him so weak and so painfully at a loss for argument, with which to carry out the duty that devolved upon him of recommending this Bill to the House. What he said, he appeared to address to those behind, who were in the same boat with himself, or to the bar of the House, where, of course, there was no one to hear him; but he rarely addressed this side of the House, and never once looked towards the Lord Chancellor, the keeper of the Queen's conscience. How different was the speech of the noble Earl on this side; how freely his address was directed to the whole assembly of the House; every argument he used, every sentiment he expressed, every word he uttered, appeared to find an echo with every one that heard him; and, I am sure, had the Peers, whose proxies were called for on the division, been present, many, if not all of them, would have joined with the majority of the House in repudiating the measure. I will not detain your Lordships further, by going into the merits of the Bill, but viewing as I do the statement in the preamble as not borne out by the facts of the case, I think right to move, that the Committee on the Bill be deferred to this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, there is no person who feels more strongly than I do the demerits of this Bill, or who more objects to the principle, or rather to the want of principle, by which it is characterized; but I think my noble Friend on consideration will see that the present state of the House would render his Motion, to say the least, injudicious. I must also confess that I cannot altogether coincide in the arguments which have been used by my noble Friend, because they would go to say either that the system of voting by proxy should be abandoned, or—what my noble Friend seemed rather to point at—that proxies might be given on one side but not on the other. Had that been so, we should the other night have had a most satisfactory majority, and might have had no scruples of conscience at availing ourselves of that addition. However, we have the comfort of knowing—what to me is very satisfactory—that of the Peers present and who heard the debate there was a majority against the Bill. At the same time, I cannot flatter myself that listening to the arguments would have had any influence upon the minds of those who voted by proxy in its favour. That is
  128
  a general principle; and, while my noble Friend has been speaking, I have been confirmed in my fears that such would not have been the case by looking over the list of Peers whose proxies were given. Looking through them generally, a set of Peers less likely to be convinced by argument I never saw. To speak seriously on this matter, however, I cannot help feeling that the difficulty of enforcing the existing law would be materially increased by the fact of a Bill for its repeal having received the sanction, not only of the other House of Parliament, but also of a small majority of this House; and, so far as I am myself concerned, although I continue to regard it as dangerous both in precedent and principle, it is not my wish to take any part in opposing the further progress of this Bill. I adhere to all the objections which I expressed the other evening, and I cannot help pressing on the reconsideration of Her Majesty's Government the very dangerous precedent which is involved in this Bill. For what does it do? By this Bill a tax on the one hand and a right to receipt on the other, which have subsisted for 200 years, and which were confirmed by a Parliamentary sanction only three years ago, are to be abolished, simply for the reason that the parties upon whom three years ago Parliament imposed the duty of collecting the tax tell the Government to its face that they intend to violate the law. I cannot conceive any proceeding on the part of the Government more dangerous to all rights of property, more calculated to shake all confidence in Parliamentary titles, or more likely to remove the idea that Parliament will adhere to what it has done and sanctioned. For some time past there have been many and anxious discussions upon the grant to Maynooth; and upon what ground has that been mainly defended? That, whatever may be the merits of the case, there is an implied contract on the part of Parliament; that there has been a Parliamentary grant which ought not lightly to be tampered with. That grant goes back for a period of only twelve years since it was placed on the Consolidated Fund, for only fifty years from the time when it was first made; and I should like to know how it is to be supported in the face of this Bill which abolishes ministers' money, although it has endured for 200 years. In this case, too, you propose not only to do away with taxation, but also to exempt all persons from the payment of arrears due within the last

  129
  three years. I know that the Members of the Government will here meet me with the argument of expediency. They will say that these arrears form but a trifling sum, for the collection of which it is not worth while to keep up all the excitement and irritation, and to expose the Government to all the difficulties which now exist. I admit that. But see what you do. You say not only that in consequence of some persons having expressed their intention to violate the law they shall be freed from their obligations, but that persons who have violated the law shall have the benefit of their past violation, while those who have obeyed the law shall be placed in a worse position than those who have disobeyed it. Considering all these circumstances, I will ask Her Majesty's Government on which side the principle of expediency lies? I feel all the objections to this measure which I endeavoured to state—unsuccessfully I admit—the other evening. I think that the grievance of the tax has been altogether done away with by the Act of 1854, move especially by the provisions in that Act which enable the owners of property to redeem this tax at not more than fourteen years' purchase. I must say that I deeply lament, not so much from pecuniary considerations as upon the ground of principle, the course which Her Majesty's Government have—I believe reluctantly and unwillingly, and in the teeth of their former declarations with regard to this tax—pursued. At the same time, I admit that they have carried the second reading of this Bill. If they think fit to persevere with it, as I suppose they will, upon them must rest the responsibility. Liberavi animam meam. The division the other evening will serve as a solemn protest, on the ground of principle, of the majority of those present, and of a considerable minority of the Peers of England.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Earl, he would withdraw his Motion against the Committee; but if the Government persisted with the Bill, he should, on the Motion for the third reading, move that it be deferred until that day six months.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has dealt so satisfactorily with the arguments of the noble Earl who first addressed your Lordships on this Bill that I shall not add a word in reference to the points on which he touched. Neither am I going to make
  130
  another speech on the principle of the Bill; but I must say that the course which the noble Earl opposite proposes to take in reference to this Bill is both judicious and consistent. It is judicious, because, as he very justly pointed out, the difficulties which stand in the way of the enforcement of the law would be very greatly increased by the majority which sanctioned the second reading of the Bill the other evening; and it is quite consistent that the noble Earl should still retain all his objections to the Bill, although he does not intend to offer any opposition to its further progress. With regard to the analogy which the noble Earl drew between the abolition of ministers' money and the withdrawal of the Maynooth grant I draw a great distinction between the two cases, for in this case we have provided for the maintenance of the ministers who have hitherto been in receipt of this fund—[Lord REDESDALE: Yes, out of their own pockets.]—whereas the disendowment of Maynooth would leave the professors without their salaries. The principle on which we have acted, and which I believe to be a sound principle, is that it will be greatly to the interests of the Church in Ireland to give up, for the sake of peace and goodwill, a small portion of its revenues, which we see now can readily be made up by a little economy. We thought it would be for the interest of the Church in Ireland to remove the only open sore which is now left; and it is upon this principle, and this principle alone, that I have ventured to advocate this Bill.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that after the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in this House in reference to this part of the subject, he should only bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice pro formâ but he wished, in justice to the petitioners, to point out how the position in which they were now placed differed from that in which they were placed when their petition was drawn up. When this Bill was before the late House of Commons at the commencement of the present year, the Commissioners saw in The Times newspaper that the right hon. Gentleman the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman) had made a statement in that House, in regard to their revenues and the surplus then in their hands, which they conceived to be totally at variance with the truth. They imme-

  131
  diately waited on the Lord Lieutenant, with the Archbishop of Dublin at their head, and laid before him a true and exact statement of their revenue, showing that that which had been put down by the Irish Secretary as revenue was not revenue at all. To their astonishment, however, the statement was repeated by the same right hon. Gentleman in the present Parliament, and with an additional exaggeration. Their only resource, then, was to apply to their Lordships to be allowed to contradict this incorrect statement and to lay before them the true state of the case. No doubt the large majority by which this Bill had been affirmed in the other House had been greatly influenced by these very false statements; and he himself, opposed as he was to the principle of the Bill, if it could have been made clear that the Commissioners had such a surplus in their hands would not have voted against the Bill. But Her Majesty's Ministers in this House had taken a very different course, for they had acknowledged fairly and openly that there was no surplus. The Church Temporalties Act had always been considered in Ireland as a final settlement of the affairs of the Irish Church. It was well known that the funds applicable to the various purposes pointed out in that Act were not at that time in the hands of the Commissioners; it was a work of time to realize them:—and, now that the Commissioners were just placed in a position to carry out the intentions of the Church Temporalities Act, Parliament stepped in, snatched these funds out of their hands, and determined to apply them for the benefit of a certain number of the £10 householders in a few of the towns in Ireland. So that the great settlement of the Irish Church question was about to be upset for the clamour of a few £10 householders in Cork and other towns—for he believed that if the £10 householders of Dublin were canvassed upon the question, they would be found to be generally in favour of the continuance of the charge. This measure also, it should be remembered, did not originate with the Government, although Ministers had since adopted it. Looking at all these circumstances, and at the quarter from which the Bill proceeded, he was very much surprized that the Government had taken charge of it. Equally surprized was he at the manner in which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had abandoned his opposition to the Bill. The Archbishop of Dublin—generally a supporter
  132
  of the Government—was strenuously opposed to the Bill. His Grace expressed it as his opinion that the Bill would commit a cruel injustice by robbing the Church for the benefit of a few householders, and he trusted that at any rate the House of Lords would not refuse the Commissioners a hearing or insist upon legislating in the dark. These were the views of the Archbishop of Dublin, and he had felt it to be his duty to lay them before their Lordships. This was simply a landlord's question; for the owners of property, and not the occupiers of houses would be benefited by the Bill, and if the Government chose to apply to this tax the principle of the vestry cess, and gave the Lord Lieutenant power to collect the money, they would overcome all the difficulties that at present existed to the collection of the tax. He would now move pro formâ, That the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland be heard by counsel against the said Bill upon their Petition (presented to the House on Monday last).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, though the Government might feel safe as to the further progress of this Bill, he was not satisfied with mere success, but wished to see it admitted that there was nothing unjust in the principle of the measure. In the discussion the other night, the question raised by almost every noble Lord who spoke, with the exception of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore) was, whether there was or was not a surplus in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and it was said that a discrepancy on this point existed between the statements of the Government in that and the other House of Parliament. Now, if their Lordships looked at the statutory interpretation of the word "surplus," he thought the difficulty which had been raised on this point would be greatly removed. By the 77th clause of the Church Temporalities Act, the surplus was declared to be that which remained after certain purposes and liabilities laid down in the Act had been provided for. The clause stated that "when and as soon as in any one year the Commissioners shall have any surplus after due provision has been made for the several purposes hereinbefore mentioned," &c. The argument the other evening was, that the augmentation of small livings was one of the purposes for which provision was to be made by the Commissioners, and it was said this Bill would interfere with that duty. But the

  133
  augmentation of small livings was not mentioned in the Act till the 93rd clause, and therefore was not one of the things that came under the meaning of the phrase "hereinbefore mentioned" in the 77th clause. It could not be doubted, that if the towns affected by this tax were polled, the result would be a complete condemnation of the impost. It had been objected that no substitute was provided; but it should be remembered, that the only substitute proposed for vestry cess when it was abolished, was a tax upon the incomes of the clergy. The course adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was to meet at a certain period, when, after estimating the probable amount of the income for the ensuing year, and the amount of their fixed charges, they struck a balance which was to be appropriated to the repair of churches and other purposes. The only effect of this, if passed, would be to place £12,000 a year upon the fixed charges, and leave the Commissioners £12,000 less to dispose of in other ways. The tax was one which was felt to be oppressive by the Catholics of Ireland, and it was in the real interest of the Protestant Church that the Government had proposed its abolition.
  THE BISHOP OF KILMOREsaid, that an attempt had been made to justify the abolition of ministers' money by what had been done in the case of vestry cess. But the two cases were widely different. But when the Church Temporalities Act abolished vestry cess, it only deprived the Church of the right of taxation, the exercise of which was optional, and did not take away any actual property: the vestry cess could have been practically abolished without any Act of Parliament, had the vestries refused to make any assessment. But by this Bill the Irish Church was deprived of actual property, for ministers' money was property conferred on the Church by Act of Parliament, and sanctioned by an existence of nearly two centuries. At the same time he approved of the intention of the noble Earl opposite to abandon any further opposition to this measure; and he must say that, from the friendly expressions towards that Church which had fallen from various Members of that House during the debate, and particularly from the Government, he hoped that the case of that institution would, on another occasion, receive favourable attention and consideration, and that any attempts which its friends might make to develop its resources would be met in no
  134
  adverse spirit. It would, indeed, be necessary that something should be done to increase its revenues if this Bill were passed; for, after it became law, while the income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was £99,000, the expenditure would be £97,000, leaving only £2,000 applicable to the augmentation of small livings, of which there were 302 under £100 a year, and for the building fund. He believed that the income of the Church might be increased by a more economical management of the parochial church funds amongst the parishioners; but only a very small increase of revenue could be expected from this source. Much more might be anticipated from giving the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the power which they did not now possess, of dealing with the property vested in them in the most advantageous manner, and of raising the fines payable on renewals in the same way which a Bishop, or other private person, might do. He certainly did hope that, if after the passing of this Act, any proposition was made for enabling the Commissioners so to manage the property of the Church, as to derive from it a greater revenue than at present, it would receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdenied that there was any analogy between ministers' money and vestry cess. There was no force in the argument which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had derived for the language of the 77th section of the Church Temporalities Act, and from the fact that the augmentation of small livings was not mentioned till the 93rd section of the same Act; for by an Act passed in the reign of Her present Majesty the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland were expressly directed to apply these funds to this purpose. While fully coinciding in the course pursued by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in not further opposing this measure, he must warn the House that it sprung from a settled desire on the part of the Roman Catholics in Ireland to agitate against the very existence of the Established Church, and not to rest satisfied with anything short of its abolition, nor, he feared, would the present Bill in anywise induce them to give up that determination. It was folly to talk of this Bill as a message of peace—as a measure for securing tranquillity—as a means of putting a stop to agitation, and of securing the undisturbed existence

  135
  of the Protestant Church. The Act of 1833 was based on broad, intelligible, and true principles; it took nothing from the Church. But this measure rested on no principle, for it was a simple transference of the property of the Church to the householders of certain towns, and those not the largest in Ireland. It was perfectly ridiculous to yield to so small an agitation as that which had been got up against ministers' money, and he could only take this Bill as an evidence of want of determination on the part of Ministers to make that stand which must be made somewhere if the existence of the Irish Church was to be upheld against the agitation which the Catholics were carrying on, and would continue to carry on, against it. He still felt the same objections to the measure that he had expressed on the second reading; but as the Government had carried the second reading, he would leave to the majority the responsibility of passing the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he believed that so long as there was a Protestant Institution in Ireland the Roman Catholic clergy would never let the Protestant religion exist in quiet. Let not the Government "lay the flattering unction to their souls" that this concession would give religious peace in Ireland. He did not think that the Roman Catholic laity had those feelings of hostility towards the Protestant Church. If they were let alone this kind of religious dissension would not continue. The Roman Catholic clergy would talk against the Church as long as they were permitted, and until they were able to strike it effectually, which they would not fail to do.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he could not agree in the principle of withdrawing any further opposition to this measure. He thought it was a bad measure, and that it ought to be opposed to the last. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary way of displaying a friendly feeling towards the Church to take away one of its supports in Ireland. It was admitted on all hands that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had not sufficient funds to supply the deficiency that would be occasioned by the abolition of ministers' money. He thought of all dangerous precedents ever established this was one. He thought that this was the most glaring of all acts of injustice. Of all the outrageous acts of spoliation committed against the Established Church in his opinion this was the
  136
  most flagrant. He regretted exceedingly that the noble Earl with whom it was his pride generally to act had withdrawn all further opposition to the measure. He confessed he was at a loss to understand the reason why he had adopted that course. He viewed this Bill as the first step in the downward movement, which would be followed by the most disastrous consequences to the Established Church in Ireland. The Government were establishing a precedent which he thought was fraught with mischief and glaring injustice.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had placed an Amendment before Her Majesty's Ministers. He was not disposed to detain their Lordships by urging arguments in support of it. He would leave it in the hands of the Government to do what they liked with it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Bill did not deal with the re-organization of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and, therefore, he did not think that that was a proper time to discuss the Amendment of the noble Earl. The Government would, however, be willing to take the Amendments generally into consideration, with a view of shaping some measure to effect the object they had in view.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought, under those circumstances, it would be much better to postpone the further progress of the measure until the Amendments were considered.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was of opinion that no advantage could result from the postponement of the Bill. The Government were prepared to give due consideration to the Amendments which had been suggested, and he felt assured that in adopting that course they would have the full co-operation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves.
  THE BISHOP OF KILMOREsaid, that he should be sorry that the passing of the Bill should lead to an agitation upon the clergy of the Established Church against the Maynooth grant, by way of reprisal for the abolition of ministers' money. The adoption of such a course would, in his opinion, be unworthy of their sacred calling.
  Original Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.