Sitting of 13 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Jews; Returns to Secretary of State; Turnpike Acts Continuance. 2o Sheep, &c., Contagious Diseases Prevention; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Continuance; Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Copyhold and Inclosure Commissions, &c.; Indemnity; Army Service; Inclosure of Lands.
3o Militia Ballots Suspension.

LOSS OF THE BARK "VARNA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in consequence of a Letter dated 1st July, addressed to the Secretary in the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, his attention has been drawn to the loss of the British barque Varna, of Greenock, on the coast of Tasmania, on the 24th December, 1857, through the ignorance of navigation of the officer who held his position as first mate under a certificate of service issued by the Local Board of Greenock, and succeeded to command on the death of the master; and if any steps will be taken to withdraw the said certificate of service, under authority of which
  1370
  the chief mate held his position on board the Varna?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had had his attention called to the circumstance which the hon. Member had alluded to, and had had a copy of the protest sent to him. It appeared in the protest that the master of the vessel died, and the mate, who had a certificate of service, not of competency, took his place. The mate did not know navigation, and could not take an observation, but it did not appear from the protest that the ship was lost in consequence of that ignorance. The ship was off the land for a day or two, when a gale of wind came on, and in consequence the ship was driven on shore; but it did not appear on the face of the protest whether from ignorance of navigation or stress of weather. When the mate came to England the matter would be investigated, and his certificate would be withheld until proper inquiries were made as to his competency. The man had been several voyages to the West Indies as mate, and in consequence of that, probably, it was that his certificate had been granted.

NEW ROADS AND NAVIGABLE CANALS IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Control, why the Return respecting New Roads and Navigable Canals in India, ordered by the House last Session, has not yet been laid upon the Table?
LORD STANLEYsaid, the reason was that sufficient materials did not exist in England to enable the Returns alluded to by the hon. Member to be made out. An order, had, however, been sent out to India for the information desired, and he had a letter from Colonel Bateman, in which he called on the local authorities in every part of India to furnish the details necessary. Probably, however, the disturbed state of the country had caused delay, and all he could now say was that they had not the information at present, but as soon as it was obtained it should be brought forward.

THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control whether it is his intention, considering the important duties of the office he now holds, to continue any longer Com-

  1371
  missioner for the University of Cambridge?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, at the beginning of the present year, when it devolved on him to undertake the duties of a Secretary of State, he proposed to the other members of the Cambridge Commission to resign the position he held in that body. There, however, was, he was entitled to say, an unanimous expression of opinion that it was not desirable he should cease to be a member of the Commission. That desire was founded upon two reasons—the first was, that no new member coming into the Commission after a period of eighteen months from its first sitting could have cognizance of all that had been done; and the second was, it was not thought advisable in the event of any of the subjects considered before the Commission coming under discussion in that House, that that Commission should lose its Parliamentary representation. It was, therefore, urgently desired that he should continue a member of the Commission, and he had consented to do so.

DESTRUCTION OF BRITISH PROPERTY IN THE BALTIC.—OBSERVATIONS.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) to postpone his Motion with regard to the destruction of property of British subjects in the Baltic during the war with Russia. The papers on the subject had been delivered to Members that morning, but he had not yet been able to obtain the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he should be sorry if the House came to a decision on the matter in the absence of those opinions.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, his Motion referred to a matter of great public importance, but, under the circumstances, he could hardly decline to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped, however, that the further consideration of this matter would not be indefinitely postponed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would undertake to give the hon. Member an early day for his Motion.

THE OATHS BILL AND THE JEWS BILL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I perceive by the votes of the other House that two Bills have passed the House of Lords, with regard to which it is at this period of
  1372
  the Session so important that I should state the course I intend to pursue, that, although, in consequence of some informality, they have not yet been received by us, I shall make a formal Motion for the adjournment of the House, in order that I may do so. The House is perfectly aware that for some years—for nine years I think—this House has agreed to Bills for the relief of Her Majesty's Jewish subjects, and to admit them to offices and to seats in Parliament on condition of their taking the oaths, omitting only those words in the oath of abjuration which Baron Rothschild declared not to be binding upon his conscience. Although these Bills were recommended by great authority in the House of Lords, and the reasons for adopting them were enforced by the ability and eloquence of Lord Lyndhurst, they failed to obtain the assent of that House. At the end of last year, after such a measure had been rejected by the House of Lords, a Committee was, upon my Motion, appointed to consider whether this House had not the power to substitute a declaration for the oath, and to admit a Member upon his taking that declaration. In the course of the proceedings of that Committee, over which I presided, very able arguments were used on both sides of the question; but more especially the Attorney General of that day, Sir Richard Bethell, enforced, with great legal learning and with great force of reasoning, the opinion that this House had the power to administer a declaration to a person objecting to take the oath, and that declaration would be sufficient to admit him to his seat. The decision of a narrow majority of the Committee was against that opinion, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's view was supported by many persons of great weight in this House, and among others, by three members of the present. Cabinet—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the President of the Board of Control. Had the Motion of the Attorney General been carried, it was the intention of the present First Lord of the Admiralty to move a Resolution, declaring, although it was competent to this House to receive a declaration in lieu of the oath, it was not desirable to use that power until all other constitutional remedies had been tried. I was not at that time called upon to give an opinion upon this subject, but it appeared to me that that was the right and true view of the question then before the House; that the legal power was in the House of Com-

  1373
  mons but that it was not expedient to use it until all other constitutional means had been exhausted. That proceeding appears to have had, as it naturally would have, great weight with those who had to consider this question. In the present Session there was another step in advance. Baron Rothschild, though he had not taken the oaths, was appointed a member of a Select Committee. A Bill similar in purport to these previously passed by this House, but calculated, if possible, to remove the objections of the House of Lords, was sent up to that House of Parliament, and was rejected by a majority, I think, of thirty-nine. But after that took place, this very grave question seemed to have made a great impression upon the minds of many members of the House of Peers. I had communications with some noble Lords, and they seemed to be affected by the inconvenience, not to say the danger, of the situation in which the Houses of Parliament were placed; because it was impossible not to see that, if on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell), the majority of this House decided that a declaration might be substituted for the oath, very great difficulties might arise. I believe that after this House had come to such a Resolution, the Courts of common law would have been disposed to think the authority of the House of Commons sufficient for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament which was supposed to give them the power in question. Still the contrary might have been the case. The fancy of the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice of England even went so far as to induce him to fear that he might be imprisoned by the House of Commons for having delivered an opinion contrary to the wishes of the House, and that the people rising in insurrection would deliver him from the prison in which he had been confined by the representatives of the people. Although that was rather a stretch of imagination, and believing this House would not have proceeded to such an extremity, yet I think it is obvious that if this House had come to the resolution that Baron Rothschild could take his seat upon a declaration, and if he had so taken his seat, it would have been incumbent upon us, in pursuance of our Resolution, to protect the Member so seated from the consequences that might have ensued, whether from a decision of the courts of law, or otherwise. It is clear that that state of
  1374
  things would have been injurious to the public interests, and that, although this House has the supreme power in the country, the exercise of that power of seating a Member would have been attended, in the first place, with no little disturbance of the public mind, and, in the second place, with no little inconvenience to the public business. Because we must always bear in mind that it is no longer like those questions of privilege which occurred in former ages, when this House was struggling against the undue prerogative of the Crown, and when the courts of law were the subservient instruments of the Sovereign. On the contrary, in the present day the House of Commons has so mush power that there is a tendency in the public mind to apprehend that this House may absorb more authority in the State than ought properly to belong to it, and the courts of law, being filled by independent Judges, have a weight and influence to which the people how with the greatest reverence. So a contest between the House of Commons and the courts of law would have been no longer what it was in former days, and must have been attended with great public inconvenience. I believe there would hardly have been any mode of settling that question, supposing the House of Commons to be determined to protect its Members, and the Judges conscientiously holding a different opinion, except the House resolving that it could not proceed to other business until its Jewish Members were seated, and thereupon a Bill being introduced and receiving the assent of both branches of the Legislature by which the power claimed by the House of Commons should be ratified by an Act of Parliament. If I am right in supposing that this must have been the course pursued, I think great credit is due to those who, in the House of Lords, have believed that it was their duty to prevent that embarrassment, and who have done at once that which might otherwise have been the result of a long and dangerous controversy. I allude to those Members of the House of Lords who, though they had previously voted against the Jews and opposed every legislative measure on their behalf, conceived that there might be a mode of relieving the two Houses from this difficulty which would not be repugnant to the feelings of the House of Lords, and which at the same time would satisfy the wishes so long expressed by the House of Commons. It appears from the Votes of the House of

  1375
  Lords that on the 31st of May the Earl of Lucan, considering the refusal of the House of Commons to give up the principal clauses of the Oaths Bill, proposed Amendments by which the difficulty might be removed. I think it was unfortunate that those Amendments were not taken into consideration, and that the Oaths Bill was not amended in the sense proposed. The House of Lords has taken another course, intending, no doubt, to arrive at the same end. Instead of adopting, on the 31st of May, the Amendments proposed by the Earl of Lucan, they resolved to insist upon their own Amendments to the Oaths Bill, and appointed a Committee to draw up reasons. A Bill was afterwards introduced into that House which gave the two Houses of Parliament the power, if they should think fit, upon the declaration of a person of the Jewish persuasion who had been duly elected, that he could not conscientiously take the oaths in the form in which they now stand, to relieve him from saying the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," and to allow him to take his seat upon the oath so made. The Bill in question did a great deal more, because it permitted persons of the Jewish persuasion to hold all the offices for which the Oath of Abjuration is now required, with the same omission of the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," excepting always those few offices which cannot be held by Roman Catholics. This Bill, therefore, was in effect a Bill for the relief of Her Majesty's Jewish subjects, because it gave them admission to a number of civil offices to which they cannot at present be admitted, and likewise enabled them to sit in Parliament upon a Resolution of either House to that effect. It is not certainly a concession of the whole principle of religious liberty for which the House of Commons has been contending; but it is a practical solution of a very grave question, and, as such, it is my intention, when the Bill comes down from the other House, to move its second reading, and to endeavour to carry it through all its stages. I propose, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to take precedence on that day, to move the second reading of the Bill on Friday next, giving ample time for discussion and division, if necessary. Supposing a majority of the House to affirm the principle of the Bill, I hope the measure will be allowed to proceed through its remaining stages with that rapidity with which Bills are often
  1376
  pushed forward at so late a period of the Session, and that no further obstacle will be interposed. I now come to say a few words upon the inconvenience of the mode in which the House of Lords has dealt with the Oaths Bill sent up by this House. Singular to say, that House not only has not concurred in the clauses by which the disabilities of the Jews were removed; but, instead of saying that it has omitted those clauses because it thought—which it might fairly do in the exercise of its privilege—that the object would be better provided for in a separate Bill, it has given all the reasons why no Bill of this kind should pass at all. Certainly that is a course that might be said to be insulting to the House of Commons. I have heard it stated, on the highest authority, that it is not intended as an insult to the House of Commons; but, at all events, it is a course which might place this House in some difficulty, and which still more exposes a singular inconsistency on the part of the majority of the House of Lords. I may quote from the Votes of the House of Lords one of the reasons for omitting the principal clauses of the Oaths Bill. It is, "because, without imputing any disloyalty or disaffection to Her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion the Lords conceive that the denial or rejection of that Saviour"—
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I rise to order. I wish to know whether the Reasons from which the noble Lord is quoting are before the House?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: They would have been had the Bill not been unfortunately delayed in the House of Lords, but they are to be found in the Votes of that House, and therefore I think I may be allowed to refer to them. I remember Lord Castlereagh, upon being interrupted while quoting the Votes of the House of Lords, declaring that that House was a court of record, and that therefore no Member ought to be interrupted when referring to its Votes. The Reason concludes thus—
  "That the denial or rejection of that Saviour in whose name the Legislature daily offers up its collective prayers for the Divine blessing on its councils constitutes a moral unfitness to take part in the legislation of a professedly Christian community."
  I certainly cannot understand the consistency of the House of Lords in saying that the Jews have a "moral unfitness" to take part in our legislation, and, at the

  1377
  same time, sending down a Bill by which Jews are allowed to take part in the legislation, not only of this House, but also of the House of Lords, if a majority of either House shall think fit to allow them to sit, omitting the objectionable words "upon the true faith of a Christian." It appears to me a matter of doubt, whether in agreeing in the course proposed by the House of Lords we should not place some Resolution on our Journals, in which, without answering the Reasons adopted by that House, we might state our reason for not taking notice of those Reasons; saying, for instance, that, as the Lords have passed a Bill carrying into effect the object of the House of Commons, it is not necessary to consider their Reasons. I think that with some guard of that sort—a guard for our own dignity and consistency, we might consent to waive insisting on our Bill, and we might concur in the Amendments of the Lords. That is to say, that when we have passed the Bill to admit the Jews, we might fairly consent to the Bill for altering the form of Oaths, though not containing any provision for the admission of the Jews, because by so doing we both secure an alteration of the Oaths, and the admission of Jews to Parliament. In proposing this course, I propose a course which I think it is our duty to follow—namely, to agree as far as possible with the Lords in the particular mode they suggest, so long as we attain our object. While it was a question of principle, we could do nothing else but insist on that principle of religious liberty for which the majority of this House contended; but when the Lords only make a difficulty with respect to the admission of a Jewish Member into their own House, if any should present himself for admission, I think we ought, waiving that point, to agree to the settlement of a question so long agitated. I shall rejoice if, after having admitted the Protestant Dissenters without the degradation, almost the profanation, of taking the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England—after having relieved the Roman Catholics from those heavy disabilities under which they once laboured—we should, by the admission of Jews to Parliament, consecrate the principle that religious opinion and religious faith do not constitute a disqualification for holding civil offices or for occupying a seat in the Legislature. I believe that the majority of this House have been quite right throughout in this contest, and
  1378
  that the House of Lords have been in darkness up to the present time. Yet we may hope that when the Jews have seats in this House, and when it shall be found by experience that those portentous consequences which have been predicted therefrom do not happen, the Lords may think right to put in a better and more consistent form their provisions on the subject. I now move the adjournment of the House, and beg to inquire whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow Friday to be fixed for the discussion of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that though the Reasons in reference to the Bill to which the noble Lord had referred had not yet reached that House, still he felt it his duty to answer the appeal of the noble Lord. Since the House had placed at the disposal of the Government all the time usually devoted to private Members for the transaction of their business, of course he thought it his duty, when a question of public importance arose, to make arrangements conducive to the convenience of the House, and therefore he was ready to say that Friday should be at the service of the noble Lord.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that he had interrupted the noble Lord, because he believed that the noble Lord was out of order in referring to Reasons which had not yet come down to that House, and because he was sensible not only of the great irregularity of which the noble Lord was guilty, but of the great inconvenience and unseemliness of the course taken by the noble Lord. It was impossible for a debate to be raised—and the noble Lord seemed to be about to raise one—on the propriety of Reasons which had not yet come down to the House, without the greatest possible inconvenience. With respect to the statement made by the noble Lord, he should not enter upon that subject further than to say, as a Member of the Committee to which the noble Lord referred, that he did not think that the noble Lord's version of the transactions of that Committee was perfectly correct. He heard one sentence fall from the noble Lord with great surprise. If his ears did not deceive him, he heard the noble Lord say that that House was the supreme power in the country, against which no other power could contend. He certainly was not aware until the present moment

  1379
  that, either by law, custom, or fact, that House was the supreme power in the country. If those words escaped from the noble Lord unadvisedly and hastily, he had nothing more to say on the point; but, having heard them, he thought it necessary to observe that be did not concur in the noble Lord's view, and he hoped that that House would not allow it to go forth that as a deliberative assembly that House concurred in such a representation of its power as that given by the noble Lord.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he must beg to be allowed to say a few words in answer to the noble Lord. With respect to the point of order he believed that he was perfectly right, and that what Lord Castlereagh said was strictly in conformity with the Orders of that House—namely, that the votes of the House of Lords were matter of comment in that House. There was a great difference between commenting on speeches delivered in the other House, the reports of which might be totally incorrect, and quoting from documents printed by the Lords as part of their proceedings, the House of Lords being a Court of Record. He believed, therefore, that he was quite in order in the reference he had made. The noble Lord said that his statement with regard to the proceedings of the Committee which had been alluded to was incorrect, but the noble Lord did not mention in what particular. He (Lord John Russell) stated that the majority was against the opinion of the late Attorney General, but that in the minority were the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and the present President of the Indian Board. He believed that these were facts, and that no member of the Committee would contradict them. He also stated that the speech of the late Attorney General was distinguished by great ability, and he did not believe that any one who heard that learned Gentleman speak would deny that it was a speech of great ability. The noble Lord went further and said that he thought that he (Lord J. Russell) must have inadvertently stated that that House had a power with which no other body in the country could contend. Now, he always understood, and he thought that the whole history of the constitution showed, that if that House, when there was a Ministry or when there were laws which did not please it, resolved not to pass the Mutiny Bill or vote a single shilling of Supply until a
  1380
  change took place, it was impossible for any power in the constitution that he knew of to resist the expression of its will. He certainly thought that that House, because it had such power, was bound to exercise it with the greatest moderation and deliberation; but that House, freely elected by the people, and having the confidence of the people (if it had not it might be dissolved), possessed a power in the constitution which no other body could resist.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
The Report of the Committee of Supply was then brought up by Mr. FITZROY.
£16,474, National Gallery.
Resolution read a second time.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to say a few words with reference to several matters connected with this Vote. In the first place he wished to ascertain what were the intentions of the Government with reference to the report of the Royal Commission which had been appointed to inquire as to the most eligible site for a National Gallery. The Commission was appointed in consequence of a Resolution adopted by that House, that it was desirable that further inquiry should take place before the site of a National Gallery was finally determined upon. In his opinion that commission had discharged its duties most honestly and independently, and its recommendation that the site of the National Gallery should not be changed had been ratified generally by the public out of doors, and, as far as could be judged from what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion, by Her Majesty's Government. If, however, it was decided that the site of the Gallery should not be changed, some steps must be immediately taken in order to provide space upon that site for the national collection of pictures, which was at present scattered in different parts of London. It bad been the intention of the late Government, judging from a notice of Motion which had been placed upon the paper in the name of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, to propose the appointment of a Committee to inquire into this question, and also whether further accommodation was required, and in what manner it could be provided at the British Museum. The change of Government prevented this proposition from being submitted to the House, and the present Government determined to settle the question without referring it to any

1381
further Committee or Commission. It was, however, absolutely necessary that immediate steps should be taken to provide accommodation for the national collection of pictures. The Director of the National Gallery, in his report which appeared in the Estimates, made this statement:—
"The present crowded state of the pictures, and the necessity of removing many to inferior places in order to display new acquisitions, abundantly shows that the time is arrived when it is necessary that measures should be taken to build temporary accommodation for the pictures till the new National Gallery can be built. With regard to the means of providing space, under the circumstances, for pictures in the gallery in Trafalgar-square, I am still of opinion that the most feasible plan, while it would also be the least expensive, would be to add on the north side of the gallery, and on a level with the present rooms, a long room or corridor, supported on iron columns, so as to encroach as little as possible on the barracks. An estimate of the cost of such a room, about 120 feet long, was in the course of last year prepared under the direction of the Office of Works, the entire proposed cost being £3000."
The Director evidently entertained a strong opinion that the time had arrived when it was necessary without delay to provide accommodation for our rapidly increasing collection of pictures. He (Lord Elcho) would suggest a very simple mode of providing the requisite accommodation with trifling expense to the nation—the suggestion having been made on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham)—namely, by giving notice to quit to the Royal Academy, which at present occupied one-half of the National Gallery. He did not entertain the slightest feeling of towards the Royal Academy, but the position of that body with regard to the National Gallery had always been false and unfair. In the first instance, a sum of money was voted for the erection of a National Gallery, but at that time the whole of the building was not required for the national collection of pictures, and at the suggestion of the architect, who was himself a Royal Academician, the Royal Academy obtained accommodation within the building. The consequence was the sacrifice of a considerable amount of space, for there were in the National Gallery two staircases, one loading to the national collection, and the other to the Royal Academy, and a great deal of valuable space was lost in the hall, which was common to both. The Royal Academy had no legal or Parliamentary title to occupy the National Gallery, and he thought the simplest course would be to give them notice to quit. Discussions had frequently
1382
taken place in the House on this subject, and in 1834, Mr. Warburton inquired of Mr. S. Rice whether the Royal Academy had any title to the rooms which they occupied. Mr. S. Rice said—
"He was very glad that his hon. Friend had put that question to him. An arrangement had been entered into which he supposed his hon. Friend would approve—namely, that the Royal Academy should obtain only the use of the rooms, but that the property of them should rest in the public, and that if the resumption of these apartments became desirable the Academy should resign them."
When the same question was raised in 1850, the noble Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) stated, on behalf of the Government, that they—
"Intended to act in conformity with the recommendation of the report to which the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had alluded. The Royal Academicians would be obliged to find suitable accommodation for themselves out of the National Gallery, and the Vernon pictures would ultimately be placed in that building."
If the National Gallery were rendered exclusively available for the national collection of pictures, it would be unnecessary to incur any expenditure for the erection of a new building, at all events for some time to come.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to express his concurrence in the views of the noble Lord, and he wished to direct the attention of the house to the constitution of the Royal Academy, which was in reality a private society, enjoying the privileges of a public body. The Academy occupied—he might say to the injury of the public—a portion of a public building which was intended for another purpose; and in consequence of the privileges which it possessed, it was enabled to exercise a pressure upon the profession at large, which he believed, was extremely injurious to art. The Academy was also an unincorporated society, and was therefore totally irresponsible to any power in the State. It levied large contributions upon the public at the doors of its annual exhibition; and it had realized considerable funds, which he believed were amply sufficient for the erection of an edifice adequate to the purposes of the institution. The Royal Academy had, however, refused to allow any investigation of its accounts or any inquiries as to its duties, and it was for all practical purposes a totally irresponsible body. The National Gallery was originally intended for the exhibition of ancient pictures, and lone of the great faults always found with the Royal Academy was, that it had not supplied adequate means for studying antique sculp-

1383
ture as well as antique painting. One of the causes of the difference which occurred between Mr. Barry, the well-known painter, and the Academy, and which ultimately ended in his expulsion, was his attempt to enforce upon the Academy the necessity of forming a collection of ancient masters in painting and sculpture for the use of students, the want of such models rendering the system of instruction very inadequate and unsatisfactory. These deficiencies had, however, in some degree been remedied; but although the drawing schools—for they were really nothing else—had been considerably improved of late years; although architecture was recognized, and lectures were delivered upon anatomy and upon various branches of science connected with the fine arts, he believed there was still great room for improvement; and if the Royal Academy were allowed to occupy a public building, he maintained that it was the duty of that House to adopt a measure which would render that body responsible to Parliament and to the public. He thought this private society trafficking for profit should no longer be allowed to enjoy an irresponsible monopoly beneficial only to its members, and the effects of which were, he believed, actually injurious to artists and to the fine arts. In his opinion, the principle of free competition ought to be adopted, and, far from thinking that State institutions intended to diffuse a taste for art were successful, he believed they rather tended to check and to cripple private efforts which were directed to that object. He must urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity that some step should be taken to relieve the pressure which now existed within the walls of the National Gallery, and the simple remedy was to remove the Royal Academy as speedily as possible from Trafalgar Square.
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he wished to call attention to the want of courtesy displayed by the authorities of the Royal Academy towards that House in taking no notice of a Motion which he had made some time ago for a return of the number of visitors to the exhibition. Considering that the Academy occupied a building granted to them by the liberality of the nation, he thought they might have shown a little more courtesy.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no doubt the state of our national collections of art at present was extremely unsatisfactory. Adequate pre-
1384
mises must be supplied in order not merely to afford space for purchases, but to allow our collections to be enriched, as they might be, by donations from private individuals, which were now often withheld owing to the discouraging manner in which the country received such gifts. That being the state of affairs, and it being desirable that some conclusion should be come to upon this subject, he had on a previous occasion expressed his opinion that it was unnecessary to have any further public inquiry, and that there existed sufficient experience, a sufficient collection of facts and of well digested opinions, to guide any persons who really did not wish to shrink from responsibility. On the part of the Government, he had stated that they had made up their minds, after having considered the matter, to take that responsibility upon themselves; and that so far as the National Gallery was concerned—and he would say even with reference to other institutions—they should offer to the consideration and approval of the House at the proper time arrangements which would remove those great deficiencies now so generally acknowledged. He trusted, however, the House would feel that the work not being one of easy accomplishment and requiring a great deal of consideration and preparation, it would be somewhat unfair to require him now to enter into any further communication of their plans and intentions. It was enough that they accepted the responsibility of making arrangements, in order that our national collections should be placed in a position more worthy of the country and more conducive to the advancement of art.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he was sorry that no more definite statement had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Time pressed. The country was spending money in buying most expensive pictures, yet many of these had to be placed in the cellars and basement of the National Gallery, where they could not be seen. Now, this being the case, it rested with the Government to show why the Royal Academy should occupy one-half of the building for a day longer, when the whole gallery was required for its original purpose. He regretted, then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not stated that he would give the Academy warning. They had been allowed to occupy a portion of the building, because the space at that time was not wanted. It was known that they had accumulated a sum of money

1385
during the last 100 years; and, admitting all the advantages they had conferred upon art in this country, he thought Parliament might give them some additional sum so as to enable them to locate themselves in a separate building. But one or two years must elapse before such a building could be erected, and it was most important, therefore, that as soon as possible, notice should be given to them that they would be expected to vacate the building. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman might still be induced, perhaps in the course of the autumn, to give the requisite notice. It was evident that the Academy must leave Trafalgar Square at some future time, and perhaps space might be allotted to them at Kensington by means of a little addition to the zinc buildings there, until they were prepared to erect a gallery for themselves. He believed that great advantage would arise from removing the Academy from its present location, since this would be the first step towards its separation from the State. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Coningham) that the more completely art was separated from the State, the more original would be its conceptions and the greater its progress.
MR. W. EWARTdenied that the Royal Academy could be said to be at all connected with the State. The Government had always declared that they retained the power of calling on the Academy to vacate the building in Trafalgar Square whenever they thought it necessary, and he certainly believed the time had now come when the whole building should be appropriated to the wants of the national collection. The Academy was a private body, protected certainly by Royal patronage, but it was in no degree a national institution. In his opinion the country was not called upon to provide a new building for it. The subject was one of great importance, and while the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) deserved the thanks of the House for bringing it forward, he certainly thought the Government were called upon to act at once in the matter.
MR. A. SMITHsaid, it was unreasonable that an institution the exhibition of which was only open some three months in the year should occupy one-half of the National Gallery, which might be open to the public nearly all the year round. Nor did he think that it would be difficult for the Royal Academy to find a suitable place for themselves.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he then rose to
1386
move the reduction of the Vote by £300, which was the amount of the salary of the travelling agent. Last year he had brought the subject under the consideration of the Committee of Supply, at which time he coupled this Motion with one for the reduction of the secretary's salary. This he did because the Committee of 1853, of which he was a member, did not recommend the appointment of a secretary at all, and because it appeared to him that the salary of £800 a year was excessive in proportion to the duties which the secretary had to perform. On the present occasion, however, he did not intend to press that Motion, for after submitting it to the House he had received a letter from the secretary, requesting that before he spoke again on the duties of the office he would inform himself what those duties were, and declaring that, so far from having nothing to do, his duties were so onerous that they occupied his time both day and night. This year, therefore, he should not allude to that matter, because he was an advocate for paying every man liberally in proportion to his services, but he would confine his Motion to the salary of the travelling agent. He objected to the appointment, because this again was one which had not been recommended by the Committee of 1853, and because he believed that the travelling agent was not only an unnecessary officer, but that the appointment was positively mischievous in its result. It was self-evident that if you had a man of that kind going about Italy and elsewhere he would raise the price of pictures, and it was not merely a question of £300 a year of salary, but involved the enhanced price which the nation thus gave for its purchases. This agent was appointed under a Treasury Minute drawn up in 1855, when the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) was in office, and it was to this effect:—
"In order to enable the Trustees and Director the more easily to acquire fine pictures that may be offered for sale on the Continent, my Lords propose to appoint a travelling agent with a salary of £300 a year, whose duties will be to visit the private collections of distinguished families abroad, ascertaining and describing their contents, and obtaining the earliest information of any intended sale. The agent will be paid his travelling and personal expenses on a scale hereafter to be fixed."
The travelling expenses were afterwards fixed at £650 on these grounds:—
"As regards the travelling agent, it is probable that he will be absent from this country during the greater part of the year; and my

1387
Lords have fixed his salary at a moderate rate in consideration of the additional allowance to which he will be entitled while absent on his professional duties on the Continent."
The principle seemed to be to give a low salary in consideration of his being constantly travelling, and the inference therefore was that his travelling expenses were unnecessarily high. The duties to be performed by the travelling agent were also set forth in the Minute, and it appeared that he was called upon to keep a diary, which was to be produced when called for, in order that his employers might be satisfied that he had been active and industrious. Now, he (Lord Elcho) must confess that he should very much like to see that diary. That the gentleman in question had been sufficiently active and industrious in travelling about Italy and in letting it be known everywhere that he was the agent of the National Gallery he entertained no doubt. It appeared, indeed, that when he had first been appointed to his present situation he had announced upon his cards that he was the expert de a Galerie Nationale de Londres, and the consequence was that pictures had risen to price wherever he went, and that the Austrian Government had on that account issued instructions to the mayors of towns, heads of convents, &c., forbidding them to give him admission. He had since, however, ceased to describe himself as the agent of the National Gallery, and was now contented with placing the simple words "M. Otto Mundler" upon his card. In order to show how the affairs of the National Gallery were mismanaged, by having larger prices given for pictures than they were worth, he had upon a former occasion cited the instance of a Paul Veronese, for which nearly £2,000 had been paid, but which in the place where it was bought—and the Italians knew very well how to put a value on their pictures—was valued at something like £370. Then for another Paul Veronese the enormous sum of £14,000 had been given, which he had ventured last year to pronounce an excessive price, the picture not being likely to fetch more than £2,000 if it were set up to auction in this country. Indeed since the picture had been hung up one of the first authorities in London had stated it to be his opinion that if it were put up to sale in the ordinary course of business, and without any previous character accompanying it, it would not fetch at the hammer more than £2,500, and that, with all the advantages which a
1388
character could bestow on it, not more than £4,000 would be got for it. There were many other instances where large sums of the public money had been wasted under the existing arrangement with this travelling agent. There was one in particular, a Vandacci, for which in the month of December £1,125 was given, which in the month of September, when be first saw it, he might have purchased, had he pleased, for £470. The managers of the National Gallery had a power of sale; they could dispose of any portion of a collection which they did not think fit to keep. Now, they had paid £2,000 for the Lombardi Baldi collection, one picture in which they valued at £1,000, though he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) would be disposed to set such a price on it. They proceeded to try and dispose of the others. Any pictures that they wished to get rid of, and failed to dispose of here, they sent over to Dublin; and he was informed that one of the pictures purchased in that £2,000 collection, not having been disposed of in London, was transported across the water, and was now to be seen in the National Gallery of Dublin or in some other of the public buildings of that city. Many of the pictures in this Lombardi Baldi collection were considerably damaged, and when the trustees gave such a complete historical description of the pictures, with the dates when they were first painted, it was a pity, he thought, that they did not also give the dates of the last time they were painted—that was, the date of their restoration. The restoration of those pictures was, generally speaking, the work of professors in Italy, who operated upon them before they came over to this country; but in his opinion it would be much better if they were brought over here, where they could be restored quite as well as in Italy, and exhibited in the first instance in their original state, in order that the nation might see what we had got for our money. The strongest instance which, perhaps, he could give the Committee of the injurious results in the way of raising the prices of pictures throughout the Continent in consequence of the employment of a travelling agent was furnished in the case of a picture which had been purchased in Florence. A letter stating the circumstances of the case had been put into his hands some time ago by Mr. Barker, of Piccadilly, who was well known for his taste in such matters, and who had received the letter from his agent, to whom he had given

1389
a commission for the purchase of the picture in question. The conclusion of the letter was as follows:—
"I open again this letter to tell you that in the meantime I was in the counting-house of the Marquess Ginori. I saw the card of M. Otto Mundler, who has offered 10,000 scudi for the Marquess's picture, which was estimated at 300 scudi only. I tell you, sir, this for your private information. If this offer had not been made, you most likely could have bought the picture for the 200 napoleons you offered; but at present, if you wish to have it, you must do a higher offer than the 10,000 scudi offered by M. Otto Mundler; he began by the offer of 7,000 to arrive at 10,000."
Now, it appeared under these circumstances that a great waste of money was the result of the employment of a travelling agent. Why, he should therefore ask, was not the same plan adopted in the case of the National Gallery which was pursued by the authorities of the British Museum. They had no accredited travelling agent travelling about the Continent, enhancing the value of what they desired to buy, but they had agents in all parts of the world, who went about silently selecting articles which they thought would be suitable for the institution, and obtaining them, if the trustees sanctioned the purchase, at a reasonable price. The same system was followed with equal success by the institution known as the "Brompton Boilers." The Director, indeed, ought to be his own travelling agent—and he did travel every summer and his travelling expenses were charged, although this travelling agent was maintained at a salary of £300 a year. If the Director could not give his whole time to his duties in connection with the Gallery, it was the fault of those who appointed him, But the fact was, he had too many other things to do. He was the President of the Royal Academy, and an artist besides, and could not, therefore, give his whole time to the duties of the office of Director. He ought, however, to recollect that the nation had the first claim, and that if he would take the trouble to travel himself and establish local agencies in the various continental towns, we might obtain all the pictures required for the National Gallery at a reasonable price. Having made those observations he should move that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £300, being the salary of the travelling agent, while he proposed to leave untouched the travelling expenses, notwithstanding that he deemed them somewhat excessive in amount. He was aware that in making the Motion which he had just sub-
1390
mitted to the Committee he was likely to encounter the opposition of the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson), who invariably stood up for the abuses connected with the management of the National Gallery; who had upon a former occasion defended the scrubbing of a certain lady—he meant "the Woman taken in Adultery," as well as the cleaning of other pictures, and who was no doubt still prepared to contend that, for the advantage of the public service, it was necessary that the office of travelling agent should be maintained. He would bring forward this Motion every year until he succeeded in carrying it. If he unfortunately failed on this occasion he might be disposed hereafter to vary the form of his proposition, and, instead of asking the House to disallow the salary of £300 for the travelling agent, he should be tempted to recommend them to give that gentleman £1,000 a year on condition that he stayed in this country. That he was convinced, would be one of the best bargains ever made by Parliament.
Amendment proposed, to leave out "four hundred," and insert "one hundred," instead thereof.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the House would pause before they thus suddenly determined the career of Mr. Mundler. Without pretending to vindicate the proceedings of that Gentleman, it was yet possible that a good deal might be said on his behalf. The whole question of the National Gallery was under consideration at the present moment, and no doubt a very great revolution would take place in the general management of that institution. Therefore, in a case like this, which concerned a person engaged at no very great salary, he should be sorry if the House, with the prospect of a general revision before them, should commence by adopting what might be a very harsh step towards an individual. He would undertake, on the part of the Government, that the whole establishment of the National Gallery should undergo an investigation, which there was some reason to believe it well deserved. He was not using a mere phrase when he said he deprecated a division, though the result might not be very injurious to Her Majesty's Government. But he wished to avoid that tendency to fix upon an individual, which was too often exhibited, where they discovered symptoms of unsatisfactory management in a public institution. Under

1391
such circumstances acts of severity were sometimes hastily accomplished from feelings which were otherwise meritorious. The Government would inquire into the duties of the various officers of this establishment; and if ever this estimate was brought forward again under their responsibility it would be framed in a manner which he trusted would be satisfactory to the House.
MR. COWPERsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would not insist upon a division. The understanding upon which this travelling agent was first employed was that he was to go abroad and ascertain what pictures contained in different private galleries it would be desirable to secure for our national collection. But he appeared to have gone beyond the limits of that understanding, and to have made offers for the purchase of certain pictures. This formed no part of his original duties, and was, moreover, a most injurious practice. At the same time, it would be exceedingly hard on an individual now to strike off this item; and if they voted for it on that occasion they would not be precluded from placing the functions of the travelling agent on a better footing for the future.
MR. WILSONsaid, they were all indebted to the noble Lord for the amusing speech which he annually made on this subject; but he wished to point out before the House came to a division that the noble Lord had been entirely misinformed in regard to Mr. Mundler. It was not to be expected that the person from whom the noble Lord had quoted, being a rival agent to Mr. Mundler, should have any very friendly feeling towards that gentleman. Mr. Mundler had no power whatever to buy pictures. He could not even offer a price for a picture. It was his duty to ascertain where suitable pictures were to be found, and then make his report to the Trustees of the National Gallery, on whose responsibility all offers and all purchases were afterwards made. He had never seen Mr. Mundler in his life; but he believed that that gentleman was an officer whose labours had been of great advantage to the institution with which he was connected.
Question put "That 'four hundred' stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 128—Majority 18.
"One hundred" inserted.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
Subsequent Resolutions, agreed to.

THE CHURCH SERVICES.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. COWPERsaid, he rose to move an humble Address praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into Her Royal consideration the proclamation of the first year of Her Majesty's reign, commanding that forms of prayer and service made for the 5th day of November, the 30th day of January, and the 29th day of May should be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said days, with a view to the discontinuance of those forms of prayer and service. No doubt it would be very unbecoming of the House to enter unnecessarily into any criticism or discussion of services which, he might say, were of a very solemn character, but after the Address adopted by the House of Lords in reference to those forms of prayer, it would not be desirable for the House of Commons to remain silent. These services were intended to record great political events, but they rested upon the authority or a Proclamation made at the commencement of each reign, when the country was generally in a state of excitement. Therefore at the moment when a Sovereign first came to the Throne an Address of this kind could not well be brought forward; but a time like the present, when there was an absence of all such excitement, seemed peculiarly well fitted for such a proceeding. These services were generally unacceptable to the great body of the clergy and congregations of the Church of England; and so unwilling were they to use them on the days for which they were appointed, that it was only in certain educational institutions, and in a few churches where scrupulous regard was paid to the authority which had ordered them, that they were ever used. He thought, therefore, it was manifestly undesirable that there should be a Royal command in existence which was so generally disregarded. No doubt the services, at the time they were originated, were well calculated to express the feelings of those who used them; still the lapse of years must necessarily render expressions of thankfulness and humiliation which were suitable to the minds of a people who had just come freshly out of what they considered great danger, inappropriate to the

  1393
  sentiments and feelings of the present times. He held that it was not wise that special services, prepared to commemorate an event which was strongly felt at the time, should be continued perpetually, or used after the lapse of 200 years by a people who were in totally different circumstances, and consequently felt they could not use them conscientiously. Indeed it did not appear, with regard to the earliest of these political services, that there was any intention at the commencement of making it a permanent service, because more than five years elapsed, after it was first used, before it was incorporated in the Prayer Book. On this first day, the 5th of November, the last important event that occurred was the battle of Inkermann, which stirred up so much feeling throughout the land. That event, although comparatively less in its influence on the general destiny of the country than the failure of the Gunpowder Plot, was one much mere warmly and keenly felt by people of the present day, and yet it was not singled out and celebrated on the 5th of November when they were commemorating events which were so much more distant, and were looked upon rather as matters of history. Great wisdom had been shown by the compilers of the Liturgy when they adopted more general terms in which to commemorate all national subjects of thankfulness and humiliation without specifying or particularising them; and he thought it would be only following the wisdom of those who compiled the Liturgy if this House addressed their advice to Her Majesty that she would, in the exercise of her authority, reconsider the Proclamation under which alone these services were used, and that they should henceforth be discontinued.
  MR. CONINGHAMseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,—
  "To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into Her Royal consideration the Proclamation of the first year of Her Majesty's reign, commanding that Forms of Prayer and Service made for the 5th day of November, the 30th day of January, and the 29th day of May, should be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said days, with a view to the discontinuance of those forms of Prayer and Service," instead thereof.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that after what
  1394
  had taken place in the other House, where a similar Address had been moved, assented to generally, and especially by the prelates of the church; and, as he knew, had received the gracious assent of Her Majesty, there could be no reason why the Motion should not be agreed to. The only doubt he had was whether it would not have been better originally, although it was too late now, to have effected the object in view by means of communication between the two Houses, so that the Address might have come from both of them, and the answer have been given to each of them at the same time. His own opinion was that occasional services were always to be deprecated, except at particular times; and it was now so many years since the occurrences which these services were intended to commemorate, and our own liturgy was so adapted to meet the whole wants of the people, whether for prayer or thanksgiving, that he thought it was detrimental to encumber the Prayer Book by the retention of these special services. He therefore gave his hearty assent to the Motion.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into Her Royal consideration the Proclamation of the first year of Her Majesty's reign, commanding that Forms of Prayer and Service made for the 5th day of November, the 30th day of January, and the 29th day of May, should be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer of the United Church of England and Ireland, to be used yearly on the said days, with a view to the discontinuance of those forms of Prayer and Service.

CHELSEA BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
MR. ALCOCKsaid, he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the expediency of offering the surplus land in Battersea Park (100 acres) for sale by auction, with a reserved price of £284,730 9s. 3d., in order to refund to the Government the loans advanced on account of Battersea Park, Chelsea Bridge, and Chelsea Embankment. It had been contended that it was not fair to make the Chief Commissioner sell this land now, when in fifteen or twenty years it would become so much more valuable; but the toll ought not to be kept on for fifteen or

1395
twenty years with that object, as they would thereby be charging the public of Chelsea and Battersea £6,500 a year or £130,000 if it was kept up for twenty years. He agreed that the House ought not to be asked for a single sixpence for the purpose of carrying out improvements in Chelsea or anywhere else in London; but at the same time they had no right to charge the people of those districts £6,500 a year for tolls in order that the land might be more valuable twenty years hence. His proposition was to test the value of the land by putting it up to auction, and if the price fell short of the debts for which it was liable, he had no doubt that the people of London, like those of Birmingham in the case of Aston Park, would raise the difference. The Chief Commissioner had no right to prevent the land being sold merely that he might ride over it as if it were his own, and keep the patronage that was attached to it.

THE SERPENTINE RIVER.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that before the noble Lord replied to the observations of the hon. Member for Surrey, he wished to say that he hoped the Government would in Committee take a vote for cleansing the Serpentine. They had lately heard a great deal about calling upon the metropolis to do its duty by purifying the Thames, and he understood that a Bill was to be brought in by the Government which would involve the expenditure of £3,000,000 of money for that purpose. Now, he had no objection, nor did he believe the ratepayers of the metropolis had any objection, to do that which was their duty; but he contended that that which applied to the metropolis equally applied to Government; and that as the Parks were under their sole control, and the Serpentine was as great a nuisance as it was possible to imagine during the hot weather, it was the duty of the Government to take care that a stagnant pool of water should not continue to exist in the centre of London, when a remedy could be easily effected by the expenditure of a sum of money for the purpose. Representations had been made to him that during the recent hot weather, when everybody was complaining of the state of the Thames, the stench from the Serpentine extended even to Park-lane and Hyde Park-gardens; and no wonder that it should be so, when it was recollected
  1396
  that the water which ran into the Serpentine came from the overflow of one of the London sewers, which contained the drainage of Kilburn Cemetery and that neighbourhood. Three years ago preparations were made by the Commissioners of Sewers for diverting the sewage to which he referred, but up to this time nothing whatever had been done in that direction; and as hundreds of thousands of people were in the habit of using the Serpentine for bathing in morning and evening during the summer months it was really intolerable that the state of things should be allowed to continue longer. The late Commissioner of Works, though attacked at the time for what he did by some Members of the present Government, had effected great good in St. James's Park, where the water was now so clear that any one might see the smallest object at the bottom. The pumping power there established was sufficient to pump fresh water into the Serpentine, and a very small outlay would effect all that was desired. No risk need be incurred in moving the mud, for concrete could be laid over it, as was done in St. James's Park. He hoped the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works would take the matter into his consideration.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Member for Surrey had put speeches into his mouth which he had never made, and attributed to him sentiments which he never entertained. The hon. Member imagined that it was a pleasure to him (Lord J. Manners) to be the trustee of a piece of low land, bounded on one side by an ordinary fence and on the other by an open sewer, and it was on this spot that the Chief Commissioner was supposed to take his daily exercise. He could, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that, so far from desiring to retain the control over the tracts of land referred to, he should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would bring him a capitalist with whom he could enter into arrangements for its sale; but, up to the present moment, he had received no offer of any kind, either from the hon. Gentleman or anybody else; and he need not say that of course, in order to effect a sale, it was necessary to have a purchaser. In answer to inquiries which he had made, he had been informed that when the general system of metropolitan drainage was carried out, and the sewers covered over, the ground would be in a fit state for sale; and he had reason to hope that then these hundred acres of land would become popular

  1397
  and valuable as an investment for building purposes. Whenever that took place, it would, of course, be his first duty to sell the land on the best terms he could obtain in the interests of the public. He would beg the hon. Gentleman, however, not to run away with the idea that, even if the land were sold, there would be any surplus available for the reduction of the tolls on Chelsea Bridge; for the hon. Gentleman had slightly underrated, in the figures which he had placed before the House, the extent of the liability on this hundred acres of land. The total sum which had been advanced by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, for the purchase and construction of Battersea Park, was £200,000, in addition to which there was a sum of £58,000 due for interest. True, £65,000 had been obtained by the sale to a railway company of a certain portion of the land on the outside of the park; but deducting that sum from the £258,000, which was the amount of the liability now imposed upon the hundred acres of land, the sum total remaining to be provided was £190,000. His own belief was that the park might be made to repay itself in the manner he had pointed out on a former occasion; but he could not say that he hoped there would be any surplus sufficient to make any diminution in the tolls of Chelsea Bridge. The hon. Gentleman held out a hope that a subscription, to be applied to the abolition of the tolls, might be expected from the inhabitants of Chelsea and the neighbourhood; and of course, if those who derived the greatest advantage from the park and the bridge subscribed any considerable sum with that object, it would be very acceptable to the Government. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), he was bound to say that he did not agree with the hon. Baronet in the statement he had made as to the offensive condition of the Serpentine in the hot weather. On the contrary, he had received information that so pellucid was the water in the Serpentine after the application of a quantity of lime, that persons were to be seen drinking that water out of the palms of their hands—a thing which had not been witnessed on the banks of the Serpentine for years past; and so encouraged was he by the effects of the lime, that he was applying to the Treasury for a Vote of public money to apply more, if need were, during the prevalence of the hot weather. He did tot mean to say that the normal condition
  1398
  of the Serpentine was anything but what the hon. Baronet had represented, but a remedy could not be effected without an enormous expenditure of money. The question, as the hon. Baronet was, no doubt, aware, had been under the consideration of successive First Commissioners of Works for many years past; but every First Lord of the Treasury had felt it to be inconsistent with his duty to ask for a large Vote to rectify the evil. There were great differences of opinion, even amongst medical men, as to the effects which great works of that sort produced upon the health of a neighbourhood. The hon. Member was quite right in pointing out, that until the evil results of the sewer at the north end were remedied, it would be in vain to incur any large expenditure in improving the Serpentine. He hoped, however, that the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the district Board, would soon settle that question effectively; and when that was done, it would be the duty of the Government to take into consideration the best means of permanently purifying the condition of the Serpentine.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Surrey was a reasonable one—namely, to ascertain the value of the land. The noble Lord said he had had no offer for the land, but the noble Lord had a Bill before the House which continued the toll on Chelsea Bridge until the debt was paid, and it would take thirty years to terminate it. He remembered that the late Mr. Cubitt offered to take the land in question, to pay off the principal and interest of the debt, and to give part of the land for a park. But the offer was not accepted. If the land was sold, and there was no surplus, any deficiency which might exist might be met by a subscription.

FIRE INSURANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he had presented numerous petitions to the House, signed by thousands of persons, complaining of the injustice inflicted both upon the public and the revenue by the high rate of duty charged upon fire insurance policies. He wished to know whether it was intended by Her Majesty's Government to revise the Stamp Act with a view to reduce the duty in question?
  MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could only say that it was the

  1399
  intention of his right hon. Friend to consider the question of revising the stamp duties generally; but he could not take upon himself to state how far that intention might extend with regard to the particular case of fire insurances.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
(1.) £3,568, Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he did not doubt but that the Ecclesiastical Commission was of great benefit to the interests of the Church; but that being the case, he thought it would be more just to the public and would tend to the ultimate advantage of the Church if this payment were defrayed out of the estates of the Church, and not out of the public funds. The Church ought to pay its expenses. He did not mean to say a word against that Commission, one of whose members (Mr. Deedes) he was glad to see present; but while he believed that the Church benefited by their labours, he thought the Church ought to hear its expenses. He should therefore move the rejection of the Vote.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to remind the Committee that this Vote formed a part only of the expenses of the Commission, and that the other and by far the larger portion of its expenses was borne out of Church property. His own conviction was, that the reason why the Ecclesiastical Commission had worked so well was that it did not wholly represent the interests of the Church, but that it was beneficial, also, to those who might be fairly considered to represent the public as holders of Church property, and, therefore, it was arranged from the first that while a portion of these expenses should be borne by the public, the other and larger portion of them should be borne by the Church. Both the Church and the State gained by the Commission, and, therefore, it was not reasonable that the expense should be altogether saddled upon the property of the Church. Last year the surplus in the hands of the Commissioners was only £5,000, this year it amounted to £15,000, which sum, as was well known, was spent in the augmentation of small livings. But if the Committee insisted on taking this
1400
sum out of the surplus, it was his belief that, far from conferring a boon upon the State, it would be detrimental to its best interests, as well as those of the Church.
MR. WILSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had only confirmed him in an opinion he had long held, that his Vote was only an indirect mode of endowing small livings, and was most objectionable on that account. He believed that a Committee sitting on the Miscellaneous Estimates had recommended the discontinuance of this Vote, and he believed it was the intention of the late Government to consider the propriety of discontinuing it altogether. He could not expect the present Government to take that course, as they had not yet had an opportunity of considering the subject; and, therefore, he for one would not oppose the Vote on this occasion, but he would hold himself free to reject it in future years.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, nothing was more common than that every estate should bear the expenses of all that was done for its benefit. A Church establishment like that of England, with a revenue of £6,000,000 a year, ought surely to pay this paltry sum, which, small as it was, was an eyesore to multitudes in the country. He hoped the Committee would reject the Vote.
MR. DEEDESsaid, the hon. Gentleman argued the question as if the Ecclesiastical Commission existed for the exclusive benefit of the Church, whereas the fact was, that his right hon. Friend had already stated, that if the accounts of the Commission were analysed, it would appear that a much larger sum than what was now asked for was expended on matters in which the Church was not directly connected. A great deal of the time and attention of the Commissioners was occupied with the enfranchisement of property, which he did not say was of no benefit to the Church, but which was at least of equal benefit to the persons who occupied that property, and he believed that the expense arising from that source was more than double the sum now required. It appeared to him to stand in much the same relation to the public that the Charity Commission did. Why was the expense of the Charity Commissioners charged upon the public, and not upon the property of the charities, some of which were very large, and which were scattered throughout the country? That question had been argued in this House, and it was very properly decided that the

1401
question was one of public interest, and that the public ought therefore to bear the expense. With regard to the surplus which had been referred to, the large amount was in part owing to various benefactions which had been received through the year; and if that source of supply were continued, he thought great good would be done. He should certainly have been surprised if the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) had expressed his intention to vote against the sum; because, if the Government to which he belonged were opposed to it, they had had ample time to strike it out of the Estimates.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there could be no doubt the public were benefited by the process of enfranchisement, but primarily and directly the benefit accrued to the Church; and, therefore, the expense of enfranchisment, as well as the other expenses ought to be borne by the Church. The late Government did promise last year to take this Vote into its consideration, which was generally held to imply a pledge that they were in favour of its discontinuance. But it would be hard to bring this Vote to an end wholly without notice, and he believed that if they had still remained in office they would have proposed this Vote, with an intimation that it would be for the last time. He should have been glad to hear the present Government give such a pledge, but he could understand that they had not had time to consider the question.
MR. VERNON SMITHrose only to say that he was Chairman of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee in 1848, which recommended the cessation of this Vote. That recommendation has never been carried into effect. He believed the answer of the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), who was then Prime Minister, was to the effect that he would put an end to the Vote as soon as the funds of the Commission were in a more favourable state. He thought that the time had now arrived, and that the Commission was now in a condition to defray all the expenses that properly belonged to them.
MR. A. SMITHsaid, he was not satisfied with the answer of the Government. The public were not at all concerned in the enfranchisements which had been referred to, but the lessees of the property; and if any expense was incurred in that way they ought to pay it.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, as he was not trammelled by having
1402
supported his Vote in office, there was nothing to prevent him going to a division.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,568, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray a portion of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 61: Majority 6.
Vote agreed to, as was also,
(2.) £16,340, Charity Commission.
(3.) £20,000, Incumbered Estates Commission and Court for Sale and Transfer of Land in Ireland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected that though a Bill had been introduced to abolish this Court by the end of the year, its expenses for twelve months were here to be voted.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONexplained that part of this sum was to be taken in advance for the establishment of the new Court, and that it would be repaid out of the fees.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £11,402, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge for the Salaries and Expenses of sundry temporary Commissions, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he rose to move that the item of £1,861 for the Statute Law Commission be struck out of this Vote, as the Commission had been long denounced by public opinion. If any one were to look to the bottom of this Commission he would see that it was based upon the most selfish consideration. There was but one paid Commissioner, whom he should not hesitate to name, Mr. Bellenden Ker. That gentleman and a former pupil of his, the Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Brickdale, with the clerks and messengers, divided the grant among them. The old Criminal Law Commission, of which this Commission was the successor, was a job far more liberal. During the sixteen years Mr. Bellenden Ker had been upon that Commission he had received the sum of £10,400. In 1850 that Commission ceased: because Mr. Bellenden Ker was the only Commissioner left, it was found necessary to find or invent another situation for that learned gentleman; hence the appointment of the present Statute Law Commission. Great promises were made by the Lord Chancellor of that day, who undertook that in the next Session the whole statute-book should be expurgated. A staff of learned gentlemen was accordingly employed, who in a short space of time al-

1403
most accomplished wonders, but they were ignominiously dismissed, because they did so much that, if their labours had been continued for some time longer, the Commission would soon have ceased to exist. A distinct plan of procedure was laid down by Lord Cranworth, by which expurgation was to precede consolidation; but this plan was resisted and argued against by Mr. Bellenden Ker, and the result was that the Lord Chancellor's promise was broken, and the work of consolidation was to go before that of expurgation. There could be no doubt that the course thus pursued was the wrong one. At length the Attorney General promised that if the matter were left to him he would, in the space of eighteen months, consolidate our whole statute law. Nothing, however, was done. Occupying the post which that learned Gentleman did, he had kept on the notice paper from day to day a reference to a series of Consolidation Bills; but those measures had not yet made their appearance, and at this advanced period of the Session they were not likely ever to do so. In 1856 six or seven Bills were thrown upon the table of the House of Lords late in the Session, but they did not then pass, as it was not intended that they should. In 1857 those Bills were again introduced into the House of Lords, and passed through it with a protest from the Lord Chief Justice of England. Those measures were passed there upon the faith of the Statute Law Commission; but on coming down to that House they did not receive a second reading, in consequence of his own interposition, he having assured the late Government that if they went on with the Bills he would take the sense of the House upon them. It was most fortunate for the country that those measures did not become law, for he had been given to understand that though they were Consolidation Bills they were not accompanied with repealing enactments; so that their effect would have been to continue the old and the new law in force together, thereby adding to the confusion which already existed. Enormous sums had been spent upon these Commissions. The Commission which commenced in 1833 had expended directly £50,000 of the public money, and yet it actually did nothing. The present Commission, too, which had not passed a single Act, except the one relating to the sleeping statutes which he had himself carried through in spite of them, had already nearly absorbed £20,000 of the public money. The Vote
1404
now proposed for the Commission was only £1,861; but in addition to this sum, they were warned by a note appended to the Estimate that there were fees which would have to be paid to the draughtsmen employed by the Commissioners to draw Consolidation Bills, and execute other works connected with the revision of the statutes, and which would be defrayed from the Civil Contingencies Fund. The amount of such fees awarded in the year ending December 31, 1857, was £3,312; but whether an equal sum would be required for the present year, the note attached to the Vote said depended upon the course hereafter adopted by the Board. These fees were at first included in the Estimate, but now there seemed to be a disposition to keep them out of sight. When the Attorney General promised to bring in the Bills to which he had referred, the learned Gentleman did not like to say that they should be accepted upon the faith of the Commission, but proposed that they should be sent before a Select Committee. So that the workmanship of a Royal Commission was thus to be subjected to revision in a Committee-room upstairs, and the House was to take the whole responsibility. Believing that this Commission would, as long as it lasted, be the greatest obstacle to law reform, he begged to move that the item of £1,861 be altogether disallowed.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was surprising that one who, like the hon. Member for Surrey, had from the very first devoted the greatest attention to the proceedings of the Statute Law Commission, should have remained up to this time unconvinced that it had already effected great public good, and that it would be most impolitic to stop its progress now, when the whole nation was interested in the result of their labours. It might not be known to the House though well known to the hon. Member, that for at least 200 years the state of our statute-book had been the subject of grievous complaint, and various projects had been proposed and suggestions offered for its improvement by the most eminent lawyers and greatest statesmen whom this country had ever produced. Until the present century, however, not a single Bill was introduced into Parliament calculated to remedy so serious an evil. Since the year 1816 no less than eleven Commissions or Committees had sat upon the subject, presided over or directed by such men as Sir S. Romilly, Lord Brougham, Lord Tenterden, and Sir R. Peel, but down

1405
to 1853 nothing was done, and he begged to remind the hon. Gentleman, when he talked about the expenses of this Commission, that three alone of the Commissions of which he bad spoken had cost the country little short of £100,000, and yet nothing was done. The present Commission had sat only since 1854—perhaps, as it was preceded by another Commission, he might say 1853—and the cost of it was scarcely one per cent on the preceding useless and fruitless Commissions. He would state shortly what it had done. He would not stop to consider the great difficulty which had stood in the way of all reform on this subject. The statute-book consisted, as they all knew, of some forty large folio volumes, containing statutes with no other arrangement than according to the succession of the reigns of the Sovereigns and the successive years of those reigns. Many of these statutes, instead of being confined to the subject that one would expect from their title, embraced a great variety of totally different and unconnected subjects. These statutes had grown until the bulk of them constituted a great evil. If this were the time he could quote the language of eminent Judges, in which they complained that such was the state of our statute law that no man, however learned and however vigilant he might be, could know what the law was. It was impossible for any one, in looking through our statute-book, to trace his way through the multitude of conflicting and complicated provisions they contained; and the intricacy was much increased by the fact that out of the forty large folio volumes of the statute law, upwards of thirty were filled with statutes or parts of statutes which were either repealed or obsolete, or superseded, or in some way had become useless.
It would be necessary, in order to effect a consolidation, to reduce these forty volumes to something like four, and that instead of from 15,000 to 18,000 public general statutes, and some 36,000 to 37,000 other statutes, they must reduce the general statute law of England to some 200 or 300 Acts of Parliament, each Act embracing an entire subject, and expressed in an analytical and consistent form. He owned he thought it was a discredit to the Legislature that 250 years should have elapsed not only without anything being done, but without anything substantial and really useful being attempted by Parliament. The present Statute Law Commission, which
1406
the hon. Gentleman sought to extinguish, had not only attempted, but made great progress in accomplishing this great work, and he hoped, with the support of Parliament, that in a very short period, perhaps in two years from the time at which he was now speaking, the whole work would be effected, and the whole statute law of England consolidated. Nothing but the urgency and the severe pressure of public business which had recently occupied so large a share of the attention of Parliament had prevented him from submitting to the House the scheme of consolidating and amending the statutes and the preliminary measures, such as the appointment of a competent officer or board with a view to future legislation, which he trusted, ere long, would lead to its accomplishment. Before proceeding to state to the Committee what the Statute Law Commission had actually done, it was but right that he should do justice to the late Government, and above all to the noble and learned Lord who lately filled the office of Lord Chancellor, and briefly state the reasons why the efforts so successfully made by the Statute Law Commission had not yet had the effect of bringing before Parliament a number of Bills which he was sure would satisfy both the House and the country that they had made great progress in accomplishing the object in view. In 1853 Lord Cranworth, the then Lord Chancellor, submitted to the Statute Law Commissioners a plan of operations on which they immediately began. The gentleman who had been mentioned on this and former occasions, Mr. Bellenden Ker, was a member of the earlier Commissions, and of the late Commission, and he felt bound to say with regard to that learned gentleman that he had acted in a manner so disinterested, and had so devoted his whole time and attention to the public service, that he felt that nothing he could say for him would amount to the need of praise that was due to him for all he had done in relation to the statute law. It was true that he had received a payment of £1,000 a year, not, indeed, as a member of the Statute Law Commission, but because he had also, during that period, assisted the Lord Chancellor in all Bills, and especially law Bills, which had been submitted on the part of the Government to either House of Parliament. He had made pecuniary sacrifices amounting to a large annual income rather than leave unfinished, without his necessary assistance,

1407
the great work which successive Lord Chancellors had wished to accomplish. And now, let them see what the Statute Law Commissioners had done since 1853. In the first place, four Reports had emanated from them, embodying the principles on which it was suggested that the statute law should be consolidated. Besides these Reports, indices had been made, Bills had been drawn, and various other works performed, which, although they were not in their present shape, Bills which could be submitted to Parliament, yet those who had to complete the work of consolidation would find in them all that was required in respect to that particular branch of the law to which they related. Let him say, also, that although down to the year 1853 no one single Consolidation Bill had emanated from the Commissions existing to that time, from 1853 to 1857 the Statute Law Commissioners had caused to be prepared, and, as to most of them, to be completed—and the rest of them were in an advanced state of progress—no less than forty-three Consolidation Bills, embracing, he might almost say, all the most important subjects comprised in the statute law. These Bills were now actually, moat of them, ready to be laid on the table of the House. And he thought he could state to the satisfaction even of the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. L. King) why they had not been introduced. With respect to many of the Bills, great difference of opinion would inevitably exist, and it became a question whether, having taken the sense of one or the other House of Parliament, or some Committee of one or the other House of Parliament, upon something that might be deemed a fair specimen of the whole system of consolidation, they should bring forward any one Bill until the whole of the Bills of which the consolidation was to consist should be finished. The present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas suggested to the Commission that they should take some one branch of the law involving all the difficulties that could possibly arise, and he truly said that if they succeeded in that, they might hope to succeed in others. Lord Cranworth accepted that challenge. He called on the members of the Statute Law Commission to select a difficult and complicated subject, a fair test of the statute laws, and by common consent the criminal law was chosen. He would not detain the Committee, by going through the means they resorted to in order to accomplish the task allotted to
1408
them; but this he would say with pride and with confidence, that, from the very able and strenuous assistance they had received from the learned gentlemen who were employed to reduce to form and order the criminal law of the country, and with the assistance generally of the Statute Law Commission, of Mr. Bellenden Ker, of Mr. Brickdale, the secretary, and, above all, of Mr. Greaves, who had dedicated all his invaluable time and talents without fee or reward, with the assistance of Lord Granworth, of Lord Wensleydale, of the late Chief Justice Jervis, and of other eminent members of the Statute Law Commission, the whole of the criminal statute law had been reduced and consolidated into nine Bills. These Bills were laid on the table of the House of Lords in 1856, and there was the whole of the recess to consider them. In 1857 they underwent some criticism, he would not say opposition, for there was none, but they underwent an investigation, and they then passed the House of Lords and were sent down to this House. The late Government, however, at an early period of the Session of 1857, thought that the subject was too large and important to be dealt with at once by the House, notwithstanding that those Bills had received the sanction of the House of Lords. In that Session, however, the Bills were brought forward in the House of Commons and read a first time, and the intention of the Government was that they should be referred to a Select Committee of the House, who might report on the entire scheme in conjunction with a scheme perhaps scarcely less important—the appointment of an officer to supervise future legislation. In the month of March, however, in consequence of an event which they all remembered,—Parliament was unexpectedly dissolved, and it did not meet again for the despatch of business till the month of May. The consequence was that the Committee which had been appointed was interrupted in its progress, and no complete Report was made; and when Parliament met again, nothing further was done in the matter. At the beginning of the present Session his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Sir H. Keating) then Solicitor General, gave notice that he should bring forward the several criminal Bills, and it was only owing to the sudden and unexpected change of Government that he was prevented from doing so. Since the present Government had

1409
been in power other urgent public measures had been constantly under the consideration of Government, so that it had been impossible for those to whom this matter was committed to consider these Consolidation Bills. The Committee had now to determine whether the Statute Law Commission should be put an end to before Parliament had an opportunity of considering these Bills, and he trusted they would not think of adopting such a course. From the labours of the Committee they would soon have the opportunity of considering not only the consolidation of the statute law, but no less than ninety-three Consolidation Bills, which only awaited the approbation of the House of the system on which the consolidation had proceeded, and which Bills would effect at least one-third, perhaps nearly one-half, of the entire consolidation of the statute law. He should not detain the Committee by going further into the subject. The hon. Member forgot that the Statute Law Commission had not only prepared a consolidation of the criminal law, but the law of real property. The hon. Member for Surrey, much to his surprise, took to himself the great credit of having done all in the way of consolidation that had been accomplished during the last five years. Now, the hon. Gentleman had conferred honour on the Statute Law Commissioners by taking up and passing through Parliament a Bill of which the Commissioners were the real authors, for they had furnished all the materials of which his Bill was composed; but, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman took up the work before it was completed, and so introduced a Bill with many imperfections. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would be persuaded to give a little further time to the Statute Law Commissioners to proceed with this undertaking, and he might feel assured they would at last accomplish a work worthy the approbation of this House and of the country.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he was satisfied that the progress of consolidation would only be impeded by the continuance of the Statute Law Commission. If they wanted consolidation, the best course they could take would be to abolish the Commission, and throw the responsibility upon the Attorney General. The consolidation of the statute was in some respects like the work of cleansing the Thames. They should lay down a principle, as was done in France and the United States, and
1410
name the proper men to whom the work should be intrusted. At present they had no plan whatever, and if they were merely to have an addition of four folio volumes to the statutes, the Commission would have done more harm than good. The Attorney General had referred to the labours of the Commission in regard to the criminal law; but so little knowledge did they possess of the criminal law of the country that they actually fancied the law that applied to petty larceny in England would not apply to Ireland, and that there must be one law for England and another for Ireland. He had carefully examined the Bills which passed the House of Lords, and to which the Attorney General had referred, and he felt perfectly confident that the right hon. Gentleman would be ashamed to stand up and ask the House to pass those measures as proper and fitting models of consolidation. When they came before the House he should he prepared, with regard to the law of libel, to show that the gentlemen who prepared those Bills evidently knew nothing at all about the subject. In truth, the present mode of proceeding was utterly indefensible. If the Attorney General would take the matter up on his own responsibility, he was sure there was not a Member of the House who would not have confidence in his labours, and there would be some chance of progress, but if they went on as they were now doing, instead of clearing the statute-book, they would find that year after year they were only adding to the evil which they wished to remedy.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would express a hope that the Committee would not enter upon the discussion of Bills that were not before them. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would be able in a few days—probably in the course of next week—to introduce Bills which embodied the views of the Government, and they would be printed for the consideration of hon. Members. In the meantime he hoped they would confine themselves to the question before the Committee, and give their sanction to the very moderate expenditure which was required for the Statute Law Commission.
MR. BAINESsaid, with regard to the criminal law Bills, he believed they bad been drawn up by Mr. Greaves, under the superintendence of Lord Wensleydale. The Attorney General said it was the intention of Government early next Session to go

1411
on with the inquiry before the Select Committee, and one object of the inquiry was which of the two methods of carrying out a scheme of consolidation ought to be adopted. Last Session the noble Lord the Member for the City of London suggested that instead of merely stringing together enactments which were scattered up and down the statute-book, they should amend the law as they went on. On the other hand, it was said that to attempt more than a bare consolidation of existing enactments would be to undertake a hopeless task. It was proposed to submit to a Committee the question which of these plans should be adopted, or to ascertain whether some middle course could not be pursued. But in every case there could be no doubt that the Commission had been accumulating for some time past a quantity of materials which would be found of the greatest utility whenever the Legislature determined upon any definite mode of action. He might particularise a work which had been undertaken by Mr. Wood at the instance of the Commissioners—namely, a register or digest of all the Acts of Parliament, or parts of Acts, which were actually in force. Mr. Wood had begun at the present time, and he was going back year by year through the statute-book. He had already reached the commencement of the present century, and he (Mr. Baines) had every reason to believe that when completed it would prove a most valuable work. He believed that the portion already finished would be ready to be laid on the table in about a fortnight; and in his humble opinion the Commission well deserved the confidence and approbation of the Committee.
MR. MELLORsaid, that though according to the Attorney General nothing had been done by any of the Committees or Commissions which had sat before 1853, Mr. Bellenden Ker had been a member of every one. He thought they would be doing a great service to the cause of law reform if they declined to continue the Vote.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the hon. and learned Attorney General said that nothing had been done by the Commissioners until 1853; that since then great things had been done, and that in two years more the whole statute law would be consolidated. But, two years ago, his hon. and learned Friend had promised that the whole statute law would be consolidated in eighteen months. He now promised that it should
1412
be done in two years from the present time. He had told his hon. and learned Friend on the former occasion, and he again told him then, that the truth was the House was spending money on that which for practical purposes could never be of any use. It might be true that ninety-three Bills had been prepared. But they were told that Bills were to be submitted to a Select Committee of that House. But how, unless they had a perpetual Parliament, or unless they abdicated their other legislative functions, were those ninety-three Bills to be passed through Parliament? Considering the practical difficulties that attended the subject, he was not surprised that more had not been done; but he thought that consolidation was almost impracticable.
MR. WHITESIDEadmitted that the question of the mode of effecting the object in view was a very fair one for consideration. And he thought it possible that a better mode of proceeding than that now in force might be adopted. Still he thought there was great force in the words of the right hon. Member (Mr. Baines) that whatever became of the Statute Law Commission they had collected a mass of materials of opposite opinions and of different views as to the subject, which was of great interest, and would be exceedingly useful to Parliament in a future Session. He thought that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) had unnecessarily alarmed the Committee, for he did not understand the Attorney General to say that ninety-three Bills were to be placed on the table of that House at once. What he understood him to say was that a Committee of learned and able men of that House might, with the materials collected by the Statute Law Commissioners, decide on the scheme or plan to be pursued for the consolidation of the statutes, after which the Commission would be no longer required, but that the individual men who were most competent might be appointed to do the work. He hoped that the Vote would not now be rejected, but that the Commission would be continued a little longer.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That the item of £1,861, for the Statute Law Commission, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 85: Majority 33.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £26,198, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Fees, Salaries,

1413
Expenses, and Compensations payable under the provisions of the Patent Law Amendment Act, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the extravagant fees payable to the law officers of the Crown in England, amounting on the whole to £8,500 per annum, while the Attorney General for Ireland obtained only £1,200, and the Lord Advocate for Scotland £850. It had been estimated that the sum derived by the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for England from their offices under the Crown and from their private practice was about equal to the salaries of three of our learned Judges, or of three Secretaries of State, including the Prime Minister. Their duties in connection with the Patent Office were of the most trivial description, and might easily be discharged by a clerk. It ought to be remembered too, that the persons who paid the fees, whatever their abilities might be, were generally very poor. He moved that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £4,000.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman should recollect what was done in this matter in 1852. The patent law was then materially altered, and the cost of a patent was reduced from £500 to £50 or £60, while the emoluments of the law officers were materially reduced. The hon. Gentleman should remember that there were no two men in the kingdom who were more overworked than the Attorney and Solicitor General. They had a large private practice, part of which they had to give up to attend to their public duties. They had to advise the Government constantly on matters of the greatest importance. It might be that during the period they held office the Attorney and Solicitor General derived greater emoluments than other professional men. But he did not believe that the fees paid by the Government to the Attorney and Solicitor General were anything like those which they would receive as fees for a similar amount of business from private persons. Putting aside the question whether the law officers should or should not be paid by salaries, he must say that so long as the law officers of the Crown were paid by fees he should be sorry to see a reflection cast on them by a reduction of those fees.
MR. GILPINsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment which he could not prevent from assuming
1414
a personal character. At the same time he did not think they could keep out of view the strong opinion entertained by many that officers of the Government, of whatever kind, should be paid by a direct Vote. He did not believe that the emoluments of the law officers were too large, but he should prefer a different mode of payment.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he did not intend any reflection upon them. At the same time he must say that the duties of the Home Secretary were quite as great and important, though his emoluments were much less.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that these fees were not paid as a general retainer to the Attorney and Solicitor General, but for their services in connection with patents, which he believed were generally of a routine character; that they were very much delegated to others; and that they were in excess of the services rendered in this particular way. Unless it could be shown that this sum was a fair remuneration for services rendered under the Patent Law Amendment Act, it could not, he thought, be fairly supported.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was very odious to speak on a matter so personal, but he felt it due to the office he held to say a few words. He would admit that these sums seemed large, but the Committee must remember that the Attorney and Solicitor General were dealt with in a manner in which no other public officers were dealt with. The Attorney and Solicitor General were provided with no accommodation in the way of offices for the transaction of the business that passed through their hands. In the next place, they had, at their own expense, to engage skilful clerks to transact that business, and a considerable sum was thus expended. He admitted that if, after appointing clerks, the law officers were to transfer to them business which they ought to transact themselves, that would be an abandonment of their duty; but that was not done. Every patent and provisional specification of a patent passed under the eye of the law officer of the Crown to whom it was referred. Not a week passed over in which, out of twenty or thirty patents that passed under the eye of each of the law officers, nine or ten were not sent back on account of some irregularity, or on account of their containing some improper claim which the Crown ought not to grant. He took it

1415
upon himself to say that the fees on this particular piece of business were not higher than the fees on a corresponding amount of business, such as would come regularly before the law officers in their ordinary practice, irrespective altogether of the outlay involved in the providing of offices and the engagements of clerks. The business transacted by these law officers in relation to patents was of a serious character, and could not be neglected without serious injury to the trade and industry of the country.
MR. COXsaid, he thought this was an exorbitant sum. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself said it could only be justified in consequence of the law officers being put to certain charges, and having to pay for clerks. It was unfortunate, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not look further into the Estimates, for there was an item of £750 for clerks.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had the satisfaction of paying two clerks for patent business, for whose salaries no provision whatever was made in the Votes. The fees referred to were not for the clerks who did the patent business; they were the fees which came regularly to the clerks of the Attorney and Solicitor General for the time being.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that if the Government would consider the subject before they met again, he would not trouble the Committee to divide.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) appeared to be under the impression that some portion of the duties of the Attorney and Solicitor General were performed by deputy. He could assure him there was no portion whatever of any public duty imposed upon them that they were not obliged to perform in their own persons. With respect to the fees, he could also state that in consequence of the difference that existed between the fees paid by the Crown and those paid by individuals the acceptance of office was productive of loss rather than of increased emoluments.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the item of £8,500, for Fees payable to the Law Officers of the Crown in England, be reduced by the sum of £4,000."
put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. WILSONsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Government to the circumstance that the amount received from stamps upon patents last year was £88,860, while the whole expense of the Patent Department was only £46,840, and therefore he would suggest that the amount of stamp duties levied upon patents should be reconsidered.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the whole of the stamp duties would probably be reconsidered next year, and the subject referred to by the hon. Gentleman would not be omitted.
MR. A. SMITHsaid, he wished for information respecting the sum of £1,500 required for the Museum of Patented Inventions at Kensington, and the further sum of £580 for the salaries of a curator, secretary, and assistant. He should move to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That the item of £5,126, for Patent Office, Salaries, &c., be reduced by the sum of £2,000."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALexplained that there was formerly a Museum of Patents in Chancery Lane, containing a number of valuable and most useful models and a library, which were of great assistance to inventors. The space being small and the situation inconvenient it became necessary to remove the museum, and accommodation was offered at Kensington. After some time the space at Kensington was required for other purposes; but the Commissioners offered to allow the Patent Museum to remain if the Government would expend a small sum in providing a building for the reception of the models and library. That arrangement was agreed to, and the present Vote was the necessary consequence.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he readily admitted the value of the museum, but he thought Kensington a most inconvenient locality for it.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that point had been considered, and the present arrangement was only temporary.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Museum of Patents had no connection with the Museum at Kensington. It had been removed there by the consent of the Royal Commissioners until proper accommodation could be found, which the Government were now making arrangements for doing.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(6.) Motion made and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £13,822, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. WHITEsaid, that last year a promise was made to make this Board self-supporting, by imposing a fee on every barrel of herrings branded. The Vote appeared to be a wretched remnant of the protective system, for he saw no reason for putting a brand on a barrel of herrings any more than on a bale of cotton or any other article; and he should move that the Vote be disallowed.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYobserved, that in the county to which he belonged more fishing was carried on than in any other county in England, and the fishermen there did not receive a single sixpence from the public funds. He thought the time had come for getting rid of this Vote.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it was true that a part of this Vote, having reference to the branding of barrels of herrings, was objected to last year, and an intimation was given that a portion of the Vote should be discontinued. A Bill had passed through the House in the present Session to provide for the branding of herring barrels, but not in time to meet the requirements of the fishery for the present year, and therefore it was necessary to continue the Vote for another year. There was a very strong feeling among the fishermen themselves in favour of continuing for a time the system of branding which gave a character to the herrings of Scotland. The Bill which had passed would bring to the test the expediency or inexpediency of that system. If the parties interested did not voluntarily comply with the provisions of that Bill, it would be obvious that there was no great value in the system of branding.
MR. COXsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Members for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), and Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), who resisted the grant to the Metropolis of any assistance out of the Consolidated Fund, were not now present, for he should like to ask them whether they approved of public money being given in aid of the fisheries of Scotland. He should certainly oppose this Vote, with the exception of the amount required for pensions.
MR. WHITEsaid, he did not mean to include the pensions, and, therefore, he would modify his Amendment by moving
1418
that the Vote, with the exception of the pensions, should be expunged.
MR. DUFFsaid, that the Board of Fisheries had other duties to perform besides branding herrings. They had officers stationed along the coast of Scotland whose duty it was, when herrings were brought in, to see that those sent out and exported abroad were properly packed, and were of a proper quality. They had also to supervise the whole of the fisheries, and manage the fishery police, as well as the piers and harbours in many of the fishing stations.
MR. WILSONsaid, that a portion of the Vote was appropriated to the supplementing (in the proportion of one to three) the amounts raised by voluntary subscriptions for piers and harbours on the coast of Scotland, and any hon. Member might satisfy himself that this was a wise expenditure by reading the report of the Commission on the subject.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,160, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 119: Majority 61.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(7.) £2,000; Board of Manufactures (Scotland).
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked what were the duties of this Board.
MR. WILSONsaid, that at the period of the union with Scotland it was arranged that £2,000 should be applied annually to the encouragement of Scotch manufactures; but, as the manufacturers of Scotland had made such progress that they no longer required this encouragement, it was provided in 1836 that this amount should be applied, under the control of the Treasury, to the promotion of art and science in that country. The result had been the establishment of one of the finest schools of design in the kingdom.
MR. WHITEsaid, the Vote appeared from the Estimates to be required for the encouragement of manufactures in Scotland, but it seemed to be really applied to the promotion of art and science in that country, and he hoped that next year the Government would state honestly and distinctly in the Estimates to what purpose it was devoted.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) £5,000; Highland Roads and Bridges.
MR. GILPINsaid, he should oppose the Vote, as he did not see why the expense of these roads should not be defrayed by an assessment upon local property rather than by a charge upon the public purse.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that a report of the application of this money was made annually to Parliament.
MR. COXsaid, he thought it would be a much more sensible thing to apply this £5,000 to the repair of roads and the abolition of turnpikes in the metropolis and its neighbourhood, instead of devoting it to the maintenance of roads in Scotland which were seldom used.
MR. COLLINSsaid, that as he had always opposed imperial grants for metropolitan improvements, he felt bound on principle to take a similar course with respect to the present Vote.
MR. CAIRDsaid, the Vote was applied to the maintenance of roads in districts in which it would not be easy to support them by assessment, and those roads were used principally by English tourists.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account of the Commissioners of Highland Roads and Bridges, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 73: Majority 45.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £2,000; Slave Bounties.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERasked, how many slaves had been captured last year?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that he was not prepared to state the exact number then, but he would do so on a future occasion. He understood that a definite sum per head was paid for each captured slave.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, that if the sum was, as he understood, £5 per head, the number of slaves captured last year was only 400.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £900; Publication of Ancient Laws and Institutes (Ireland).
MR. G. A. HAMILTONobserved, that some time ago a Commission was appointed to inquire into the expediency of publishing those laws, which contained much valuable information with regard to the ancient character and habits of the people, and the Commission having reported in favour of the object, this Vote was proposed in furtherance of it.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes.
(11.) £9,000, Process Servers (Ireland).
(12.) £58,900, Pensions (Merchant Service).
(13.) £2,084, Registration of Joint Stock Companies.
(14.) £1,693, Registration of Designs.
(15.) £50,000, Treaties of Reciprocity.
(16.) £4,700, Inspectors of Corn Returns.
(17.) £20,000, Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
(18.) £3,600, Quarantine Arrangements.
(19.) £17,850, Revising Barristers (England and Wales).
(20.) £3,856, Constabulary Police (Aldershot and Shorncliffe).
(21.) £3,000, Inspection of Burial Grounds.
(22.) £1,053, Professors (University of Cambridge).
(23.) £27,100, Lighthouses Abroad.
MR. A. SMITHcalled attention to several items forming this Vote.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that lighthouses had been erected at Ceylon and other places for the protection of the shipping trade. The expenditure had been imposed on the Government by the pressure of the trading community, by whom representations were constantly made by the trade of the country as to the necessity of lighthouses.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished for further particulars as regarded this Vote, and hoped they would be furnished during future years.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was a diminution in this Vote of £10,000 during the present year.
Vote agreed to; as was also the next Vote.
(24.) £1,000, Orange River Territory.
(25.) £20,000, Improvement of the Kafirs.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he thought the proposed grant very objectionable, and observed that the Cape colonists had shown very little disposition to assist the mother country in her severe struggles in India. He might refer to a despatch from Lord Stanley to Sir George Grey on this subject, dated May 5, showing that in the four years ending March 1859, Parliament had voted for colonial purposes in Caffraria—£140,000 for promoting civilization, and £210,000 for the passage,

1421
settlement, and pay of the German Legion, besides which £30,000 would be required for the pay of the Legion next year, and there was an outstanding item of £35,000 for extra pay last year. To put a stop to this expenditure he should move the rejection of the Vote.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he did not object to the policy of the Vote, but he would suggest that its payment should be divided between the Cape colony and this country.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Cape colony had nothing to do with the Vote. It was a vote for British Caffraria, which was a distinct colony, although it had the same person for Governor. The grant had been originally fixed at £40,000 a year, and it had then been understood that it was not to last for more than three years. But the Government had felt unwilling to withdraw it altogether this year. They had, however, reduced it by one-half, and they hoped to be able to put an end to it altogether next year.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he must express his strong disapproval of the practice of making grants of that character. Promises of reduction had been made annually, and he therefore hoped the hon. Baronet would persevere with his Amendment. He believed that if Sir George Grey were not able to govern Caffraria by some other means, the sooner they got rid both of him and of that colony the better.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, while he was at the head of the Colonial Office he differed from Sir George Grey on many points; but he must say, that in his opinion the energy and ability which that distinguished man had displayed had earned for him the gratitude of his country. There never was an idea held out by Sir George Grey that any part of the money would be repaid to the country. On the contrary, it was a payment necessary for the establishment of the colony—it was money well laid out, and the amount was by no means extravagant. He held that Sir George Grey was entitled to the thanks of the country for the course he had taken.
MR. NICOLLobjected to the grant as an improper application of the public money. It was a species of black mail paid to the Kafirs.
(25.) Motion made and Question put,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for promoting the improvement of the Kafirs, and the settlement and government of British Kaffraria, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1859."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 30: Majority 147.
Vote agreed to, as was also,
(26.) £29,940, Treasury Chest.
(27.) £2,000; Gallery of Portraits.
MR. BRISCOEsaid, he must ask for explanation concerning this Vote, and wished for its postponement. This Vote would lead to a large outlay of public money, which was wholly unwarrantable in the present state of the public finances. Besides, nobody could get to see this collection, and if it were formed at all it ought to be part of the National Gallery. The object, he understood, was to collect the portraits of persons eminent in English history; but on looking over the list of portraits already acquired, there were some whose claims to be there he could not understand. For instance, there was the portrait of Mr. Murphy. He should like to know who he was and what he had done to have a place in a National Portrait Gallery? Again, there was a portrait of "La Belle Hamilton," a very pretty woman no doubt in her time, but he was not aware that it was of any national interest to preserve her portrait.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that great results had scarcely ever been obtained at so small an expense as had been accomplished by the National Portrait Gallery Commissioners. Historical interest was of course the first consideration in the selection of the portraits, but many of those which had been collected were works of high art. For instance, the Commissioners had recently been fortunate enough to obtain a portrait of Sir Joshua Reynolds by himself, which was really worthy of Rembrant, and was one of the finest productions of the English school. Of course, some day or other, the collection would form part of the National Gallery; that was one of the chief objects in commencing it. The effect of this Vote naturally was to stimulate the public spirit of persons who possessed portraits of interest, and no doubt in time many very valuable works would be presented to the Gallery. Already it was enriched by the Chandos Shakspere, presented by the late Lord Ellesmere, who purchased it at the Stowe sale for 1,000 guineas. The collection would be the germ of a National Portrait Gallery of the highest interest, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would sanction this Vote.
MR. BYNGsaid, that having recently seen the gallery, he could bear testimony

1423
to its great value, and he had no doubt it was the first step towards the formation of a great national collection of portraits.
MR. EWARTsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide against the Vote.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(28.) £2,000; Cholera (West Indies.)
(29.) £1,600; Boundary Survey (Ireland).
SIR DENHAM NORREYS SIR DENHAM NORREYS moved the omission of the Vote. He had always understood that the boundaries had been settled years ago.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the boundaries were continually being altered, and required revision.
Motion made and Question put,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to Her Majesty, for the expense of adjusting and defining the Boundaries of Counties, Baronies, and Parishes in Ireland, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1859."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 91: Majority 27.
The following Vote was then agreed to,
(30.) £3,100; Agricultural and Emigration Statistics (Ireland).
(31.) £6,318, New Public Offices (Belfast).
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he wished to ask why the country was to be saddled with the expense attendant upon the town of Belfast?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, some time ago it was considered necessary to build a new custom-house and an inland revenue establishment in Belfast. In order to effect those objects, the Government were obliged to purchase a certain quantity of land, which was to serve as approaches to those buildings. The corporation of the town had undertaken to pay a portion of the cost of this land, but unfortunately they got into difficulties, and were unable to carry out their undertaking. The building of those public offices entailed certain improvements to the town. A portion of the land thus purchased for the corporation would be resold, and the money thus obtained would go some way to cover the present Vote.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he hoped that if this Vote were agreed to, Irish Members would remember that public money was sometimes expended on other places besides the metropolis.
MR. P. O'BRIENremarked that he viewed with some suspicion such a Vote as
1424
the present placed upon the Estimates, when he recollected how many members of the Government were connected with Belfast.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the debt was incurred long before the present Government came into office, and the present Vote was merely one for the purpose of liquidating liabilities already incurred.
MR. COXsaid, that the borough of Finsbury wanted improvement as well as Belfast, but the House of Commons would not Vote money for the "general improvement of the borough of Finsbury."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, this was the first time money had been voted for Belfast, while grants had been made for parks elsewhere. It should also be recollected that the custom-house of Belfast received large revenues for the general treasury of the kingdom, and, as the building was in a most dilapidated state, it became necessary to build a new one for the collection of the taxation. The same might be said of the post-office of the town.
MR. ELLICEsaid, he could not understand why it was necessary to effect those improvements in Belfast at the public expense to the extent of purchasing a quantity of land for the purpose of selling it again.
SIR F. BARINGsaid, this Vote would go to the improvement of approaches, which was an improvement of the town. The public buildings alluded to had been paid for already.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, it appeared that money was advanced for the improvement of Belfast by the late Government, and the present Government would no doubt seek for the repayment of that money so advanced.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he understood that powers had been taken to purchase land for the custom-house and another public building in Belfast. Power was at the same time taken for the purchase of other land which the corporation were anxious to buy. The corporation got into pecuniary difficulties, and were unable to fulfil their contract when the purchase money became due. The Government, being liable, were obliged to advance the money; but that land was yet to be sold. Already £500 had been received out of it, and ultimately, he believed, that no charge would fall upon the public.
Vote agreed to.
(32.) £15,000, Four Courts Extension (Dublin).
MR. VANCEasked, whether the proposed extension of those law buildings was for the accommodation of the new commissioners of the Encumbered Estates Court, and the Land Transfer Offices, and whether it was intended in the meantime to furnish any accommodation to those Commissioners before the new buildings were completed?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the object was the extension of the Four Courts, and the removal of the Incumbered Estates Court down there. The object of the Bill now going through the House was to secure the site. He was not able to say whether in the meantime the Incumbered Estates Commissioners could be accommodated in the Four Courts.
MR. P. O'BRIENasked whether it was contemplated to include the new Court of Probate in this building?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONwas understood to reply in the negative.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes,
(33.) £5,000, National Gallery (Dublin).
(34.) £1,000, Royal Dublin Society.
(35.) £10,000, Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
(36.) £2,033, Royal Institution, Edinburgh.
(37.) £7,500, General Register House, Edinburgh.
(38.) £200, Repository for Public Records.
(39.) £6,000, Completing the Stylobate, &c., Nelson Column.
MR. GRIFFITHSsaid, he understood that it was intended to make the proposed lions of granite, and to make them rose colour. He trusted that the Government would see that they were made of bronze.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbelieved that the material was not yet decided, but that the best would be selected. He understood that his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) was in communication with Sir E. Landseer on the subject of lions, and he hoped that the column would do honour to the metropolis and to the hero whom it commemorated. The suggestion of the hon. Member should be attended to, but though he should admire bronze lions, he should look with some apprehension at the sight of four red lions in Trafalgar Square.
Vote agreed to.
MR. COXsaid, he would move that the Chairman report progress.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there were only seven more Votes. He believed there was a general understanding that they should be finished if the hon. Gentleman would allow them to go on.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the next Votes that followed were all such as would cause discussion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that when the Committee was so full would be an advantageous time for the discussion to be taken. He would not press the Committee if there was any serious objection to going on.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House," put, and negatived.
(40.) Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £8,836, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1859, expenses in payments to Engineers, and other charges incurred in the examination of a Plan and Estimate for the Main Drainage of London."
MR. COXsaid, if they were to take the discussion, he must, say that this was a most monstrous proposition. The Committee was called on to vote £8,000, or rather nearly £9,000, for the examination of a plan for the drainage of the metropolis, which was proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1856. The Committee ought never to consent to it. The Metropolitan Board of Works proposed a plan which was submitted to the Chief Commissioner of Works. If that had not been done, the Committee could not have been asked to vote this sum, and the Board of Works would have been enabled to mitigate the evil from which the metropolis had been suffering. How could £9,000 have been expended on the examination of a plan? In fact, it was submitted to three engineers, who were instructed to find fault with it, and they proposed plans of their own which were to cost sums varying from three to eleven millions of money, and it was now said that the plan to be proposed by the Government was that which was originally proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £6,000.
Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year ending the

1427
31st day of March, 1859, expenses in payments to Engineers, and other charges incurred in the examination of a Plan and Estimate for the Main Drainage of London."
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, if the hon. Gentleman had been a Member of the House when the Act of 1855 passed, he could not have made the statement he had just made, for he would have been aware that it was the express desire of the House that the First Commissioner of Works should have a veto on any plan of the Metropolitan Board of Works. When the plan in question was submitted to him he thought it his duty to employ the best talent that could be obtained to advise him as to the course to be pursued, and he placed it in the hands of Mr. Simpson, Captain Galton, of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Blackwell. Captain Galton, of the Board of Trade, made no charge for his services, and the other gentlemen were satisfied with a remuneration of £1,500 for their services, which, looking to the nature of the remuneration received by gentlemen in their position, was little enough. The hon. Gentleman said, that he (Sir B. Hall) had instructed the engineers to find fault with the plan. He denied that statement, and it was a statement which ought not to have been made by the hon. Gentleman; and he called on him to give the authority on which he made such a charge. He would repeat that he did not give any such instructions, and if the hon. Gentleman insinuated that he gave improper instructions, the hon. Gentleman said that which was greatly incorrect. No doubt Mr. Bazalgette might have prepared a plan, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it might be that which was to be carried out now, and it might be a good one; but that gentleman had the assistance of Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Locke, who were members of the Commission of Sewers before that time; and the Metropolitan Board of Works had since appointed two referees—Mr. Bidder and Mr. Hawksley—who must be also paid. He hoped that the House of Commons would not think that he (Sir B. Hall) had done anything but that which was strictly his duty. He regretted that so large an expense should have been incurred, but it should be recollected that this was one of the greatest works that was ever undertaken, and that it was the duty of the gentlemen employed to make every inquiry, at any reasonable cost, and he thought that when it was considered
1428
that the work about to be done would cost three or four millions, this sum was not so large in proportion to the magnitude of the work.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that although the sum was large, if it had been incurred, it must be paid. He would not, therefore, oppose the vote; but he could not help observing that this was but another specimen of the lamentable condition in which the Government of the metropolis was placed, with no regular body to manage its concerns. It was the duty of the Government, and, if they did not do so, of Parliament, to take early and vigorous measures to regulate the Government of the metropolis. You could not deal with the metropolis as you would with other places; it was so large that if you created one municipal body for its government, that body would become so powerful that it would be almost as powerful as Parliament itself, and might become dangerous to the constitution. But he did not see why districts of the metropolis like the City, Lambeth, and Westminster, should not be put under municipal government, and delegates sent from each district to a Board which should represent the whole community of the metropolis, and which would be worthy to be entrusted with powers which, at the present, no body could be entrusted with. Such a Council, he thought, would command public confidence in the metropolis. The only danger would be, that it might be liable to the charge of being, as respected its relation to Parliament itself, an imperium in imperio. He must say, that he thought the power given to the Chief Commissioner of Works—an official who was appointed for political reasons, and was changed with every Government, to put a veto on the decision of the Metropolitan Board of Works—was a power with which he ought not to have been entrusted. He thought, however, they should be grateful for what the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) had done during his term of office, for he had done more probably than any of his predecessors.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the expense under consideration was uncalled for and unnecessary, but having been incurred, however improperly, the duty only remained to the Committee to sanction its payment. The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wortley) as to Parliament being overshadowed by the metropolis being erected into a municipality he regard-

1429
ed as puerile, and he looked forward to the day when this great city would have a municipal constitution commensurate with its importance.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the course the Government took on coming into office was to consult the law officers of the Crown, whether this expense ought not to be addressed to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Their opinion was, that that body was not responsible for the charge, and the Government had therefore no alternative but to propose this Vote to the House.
MR. COXsaid, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment, and at the same time to disclaim the slightest personal feeling towards the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) in proposing it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERintimating that, as there was not much business on the paper, perhaps they might go into Committee of Supply this day,
MR. G. A. HAMILTONstated, that there were some supplementary Votes still to be proposed, especially one by the Secretary of War for the sanitary improvements of barracks.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he would move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of asking a question he had ineffectually endeavoured to get an answer to in Committee—When was the Dublin Police Bill coming on?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was unreasonable. The Bill was on the paper, and would be referred to in its regular course. He might add, that he hoped to take the Bill at an early hour next Thursday.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT OF NEW CALEDONIA BILL.—CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration read.
MR. LOWEsaid, the Government, by founding this colony, had undertaken the protection of life and property in a wild and lawless district. This could not be done without expense, which he supposed the Government had calculated. He wished they would inform the House what their
1430
calculation was, before the third reading of the Bill.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would mention the matter to his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.
Bill to be read 3o on Thursday.

CIVIL BILLS, &c., (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had only one or two remarks to make. There were three clauses objected to in this Bill. The first was that which increased the retiring alllowances of aged barristers; so that there was no great objection. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: Oh, yes, there is.] Well, he did not believe the objection was a very strong one. The second, at all events, was more strongly opposed—that which gave the Crown the power of removing an assistant barrister for misconduct as well as for infirmity. The Government proposed to give up the removal for misconduct altogether, and to confine the infirmity to that which was proved before the Irish Privy Council. As to the third clause which concerned the removal of barristers from one district to another, the Government were prepared to say that they would not remove from one class to another; or if that would not satisfy the objectors they would withdraw the clause altogether. With these concessions, as the Bill was a valuable one, he hoped the House would allow it to be read a second time now, and take the discussion on going into Committee.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he did not think the Bill a valuable one at all. He saw no reason why assistant barristers should have any retiring allowance. These barristers did not discontinue their private practice. If they did, he would admit that they had a claim for retiring pensions.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the retiring pensions proposed for the assistant barristers was smaller than those now given to the sheriffs in Scotland and the County Court Judges in Scotland. As these gentlemen were now irremovable, if they had no retiring pension they would not retire, although they might be incapable

  1431
  of sitting; and the result would be that the public business would not be done.
  MR. COGANsaid, he had so decided an objection to the principle of the Bill that he must move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that he would consent to postpone the second reading to Thursday.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.

POOR REMOVAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  WITHDRAWAL OF BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTstated that some misconception had existed as to the object of this Bill. A general opinion seemed to prevail that its object was, in a covert manner, to abolish the removal of paupers altogether; but he must deny that the provisions of the measure justified any such suspicion. It was merely intended to compel the removing union to convey Irish and Scotch paupers to their destination, instead of throwing them ashore at the port in Ireland or Scotland which might happen to be the nearest to their place of ultimate destination, although it might be 100 miles distant from it. The expense entailed by the Bill would not have been more than a penny and a fraction for every mile that each person was conveyed into the interior of Scotland or Ireland. He hoped that next year he should be able to induce the House to assent to a measure for removing the scandals and the misery which at present attended the removal of paupers.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Two o'Clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a New General Post Office (Edinburgh); Joint Stock Banking Companies; Universities (Scotland).
3a Funded Debt; Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act Amendment; Nisi Prius Court, &c., (Ireland).

THE 100TH REGIMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War (Viscount Hardinge), whether it was true that orders had been given by the War Department to provide the 100th Regiment with complete clothing upon their arrival in this country from Canada, but that when the clothing came to be unpacked there were no buttons, owing to which the clothing was perfectly useless. That might not be the fault of the Secretary for the War Department; still it was the fault of some one; and when he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) recollected that numerous cases of similar neglect had occurred during the last few years without any person having been dismissed or punished for them, he thought it was his duty to mention in that House the rumour with regard to the 100th Regiment. He believed that until some person was punished for blunders of this kind they would be repeated. He remembered that great inconvenience was occasioned three years ago to the camp at Aldershot from the want of some wheelbarrows. The bodies of the barrows were sent from the Ordnance Department, and the wheels were sent down from the Engineers' Department. He wished to know whether the mistake of which he had heard with respect to the clothing sent to Liverpool had really occurred, and, if so, whether any person would be punished for the blunder?
VISCOUNT HARDINGEreplied, that no clothing was sent to Liverpool, because it was known that the regiment would disembark at that port fully equipped with fatigue clothing and necessaries. That dress clothing, tunics, and trousers, were sent immediately to Shorncliffe, from London, in order that no delay might take place in fitting the men when the regiment had arrived. That the buttons were immediately sent for from Weedon by telegraph, but that a delay was unavoidably occasioned by Sunday intervening, and the stores being closed. That another delay took place in London, which was entirely to be
1350
attributed to carelessness on the part of carriers employed by Messrs. Pickford to convey the stores from one terminus to another. That the buttons had certainly arrived forty-eight hours after the clothing, but that no practical inconvenience could have taken place, from the fact that it would take some weeks to fit the clothing to the men. That the Secretary of State was not aware that any blame attached to any officer in any department. That steps were now being taken to reorganize the clothing system, which would no doubt obviate any further complaints.

CHURCH RATES.
LORD PORTMANsaid, in consequence of an announcement which had been made in the other House of Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose at the commencement of the next Session a plan for the settlement of the church-rate question, he thought it would be presumptuous in him to lay on the table a Bill relating to that subject as he had intended to do. As long as the intentions of the Government remained doubtful, he considered it his duty to assist in resolving those doubts by placing his measure before the House; but under the altered circumstances he felt that it would be wrong in him to take that course. He had no objection to communicate to his noble Friend at the head of the Government the scheme which, after consultation with a great many people holding different opinions on the subject, he had intended to propose. His sole object was to assist in the settlement of the question, and the main feature of his plan was, that the rate for the fabric would be thrown upon Churchmen, and Nonconformists would be relieved from all compulsory payment. He thought there was a mode of doing that which would be satisfactory to both parties. He proposed that the rate should be exclusively for the fabric, and that the expense of the services should be provided for in another mode. He proposed that those who declined to pay church rates should not be eligible to vote in vestry on church business.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought his noble Friend had overstated the effect of the statement of his right hon. Friend in the House of Commons. His right hon. Friend did not say more than that it was the hope and intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose some means of grap-

1351
pling with this most difficult question. It would have been saying more than could have been said on the part of the Government to give a pledge, on their behalf, at that moment, that they would submit to Parliament a Bill. They certainly did intend to give their attention to the subject and, if possible, to bring in a measure, and as the subject was one of such very great importance, and on which such a variety of opinions was entertained, he should feel grateful to his noble Friend (Lord Portman) if, notwithstanding that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the question, he would lay his Bill on the table, and thus enable them to derive assistance from the examination of its provisions. He perceived that in the other House of Parliament notice had been given by an hon. Gentleman wholly unconnected with the Government of his intention to bring forward a measure for the commutation of church rates; and the more attention was bestowed on the subject the greater probability would there be of their arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.

JOINT-STOCK BANKING COMPANIES BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said the object of it was to apply to joint-stock banking companies that principle of limited liability which Parliament had already applied to other joint-stock companies. It was not necessary that he should enter into any argument on the subject. A noble Lord of high authority in these matters (Lord Overstone) had admitted that if the principle of limited liability were once conceded to joint-stock companies in general, there could be no valid reason for refusing to extend it to banking companies, and the same admission was made by his noble Friend near him (Lord Monteagle). Speaking generally, there was no doubt that the joint-stock banks had been conducted with considerable prudence, but the great temptation they had to contend with was to speculate beyond their bonâ fide resources on the credit of their shareholders. He had no wish at the present moment to advocate the exclusive adoption either of limited or unlimited liability by these banks; but he saw no reason why, with the enforcement of full publicity, the shareholders should not have limited liability; and it would then be for the public to
1352
determine whether they would deal with those establishments which were conducted with limited liability or with those that were not. The only object of the Bill was to give them the power of conducting their business on that principle if they chose, after full notice given to the public.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the noble Earl had overlooked the great distinction between banking companies and joint-stock companies in general, namely, that the former received the money of others on deposit. There was also this peculiarity in joint-stock banks, that they were founded by the creation of shares, but owing to the practice which prevailed of making advances to the shareholders on the deposit of shares the general public were deprived of the security which they would otherwise have had from the calling in of the capital not paid tip. He begged the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) to pause before he assented to this measure.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he confessed it was not without some hesitation that he gave his assent to the second reading of this Bill. But he could not help thinking that the dangers arising from the excessive speculation of banks must be incurred whether those establishments were founded on the principle of limited or of unlimited liability. They were all aware that some of the greatest commercial frauds that had been perpetrated of late years had followed from the practice of giving undue credit to the shareholders in banks whose liabilities were unlimited. That was an evil which attached not to a vice in the system itself of banking, but to a vice in the mode in which banking was conducted. He confessed that he could not draw a distinction between credit to be given to banks and credit to be given to other commercial bodies, in reference to the limited or the unlimited liability of the proprietors. The public must be left to decide for themselves on the amount of confidence which should be bestowed on any commercial establishment. Under all the circumstances of the case, although he thought that the subject ought to be considered very carefully, he could not take upon himself to refuse his support to the second reading of the Bill which merely extended an existing system to joint-stock banks.
LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he did not mean to oppose the second reading of the Bill. It appeared to him to be framed

1353
in conformity with that principle which had been generally adopted in our recent commercial legislation, of allowing the public to determine for themselves what was the amount of credit they should give to any commercial body. But he should observe that he thought it was desirable to introduce some clause into the measure under which joint-stock banking companies should be compelled, at stated periods, to declare the extent of their capital as well as the extent of their obligations, and should not be allowed to confine the information which they afforded the public to the mere names of their subscribers and the amount of money which had been subscribed.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he deplored what had taken place in the Scotch banks, but it should be recollected that all those were banks of unlimited liability. He believed that where banks were limited the public would feel it more incumbent on them to inquire into the affairs of the bank, and that in this way, to a certain extent, limited liability would be a security against false confidence. The colonial banks were banks of limited liability, though not in the sense to be established through this Bill, and he had not beard of any failures amongst them. The only proper protection for the public was, that they should not remove the obligation which rested on every one to look after his own interests.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2o accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CONFIRMATION OF EXECUTORS, &c., BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order)
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
On Clause 3,
LORD CRANWORTHwarned their Lordships that the use of the word "domicile" in the Bill would give rise, ere long, to many doubts and the greatest possible confusion and litigation. He would strongly recommend that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He would move that their Lordships disagree to the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLORfeared that if this Bill were sent to a Select Committee, where it would be considered more in the light of English than of Scottish law, they would have an English instead of a Scotch Bill. The Faculty of Advocates had thoroughly examined the Bill, and he might state that no difficulty whatever existed
1354
regarding it in Scotland. His noble and learned Friend proposed that an Amendment should be introduced into the third clause, by which, as was originally proposed in the Bill, executors should have an option of going either before the county or the Edinburgh Commissary. There was, however, no central Commissary Court in Scotland. The Sheriff of Edinburgh had no more power as Commissary than any other sheriff. This state of things had existed since 1830, previous to which the Sheriff of Edinburgh had a commissarial power over the counties of Haddington and Linlithgow, and no complaint had ever been made of the alteration which then took place. To enable parties to go to Edinburgh would be attended with great inconvenience, and he hoped his noble and learned Friend would not propose the Amendment of which he had given notice.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he held it to be of the highest importance in matters of this kind that there should be in Scotland, as in England, a tribunal to which persons might resort for a grant of executorship about the validity of which there could be no possibility of doubt or question; and he thought by far the wisest course would be to refer that part of the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee.
On Question, whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill? Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, that in moving the second reading of this Bill, he must be allowed to express the interest he felt in this question, from his personal connection with Scotland. He felt a similar interest, for the same reason, in the state of the Universities of Scotland, and all that was connected with them; and, therefore, he begged their Lordships' indulgence while he shortly explained to them the objects and intentions of this Bill. Although those Universities were each of them small, as compared with the great Universities of England, yet it would perhaps surprise their Lordships to learn that there were no fewer than six Universities in that country. There were not only the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, but there were two in St. Andrews and

1355
two in Aberdeen. It was right to say that these Universities had, upon the whole, bees eminently successful, as would be known to all their Lordships who were familiar with the history of Scotland. They had each of them produced many eminent men—men distinguished in every walk of literature and science; while the Professors also had been distinguished for the highest talents and acquirements. But although this was the general state of the Universities, and although it was undoubtedly true that to the influence of the Universities the progress of Scotland and the high rank she had attained among the nations was to be attributed, still there were various defects in the condition of those Universities which their best friends deplored, and which it was the object of this Bill to remedy. Various Commissions had to be issued to inquire into the state of those Universities, and to report upon what remedies were required. One of those Commissions was issued in the year 1832, another in 18451, and another so lately as last year, with the special object of inquiring, into the condition of the two Colleges of Aberdeen. He mentioned these facts to show that the idea of reforming the Scotch Universities was not a new idea, that it had been entertained from time to time, and that by persons who were most friendly to these Universities, the best acquainted with their internal condition, and the most solicitous for their welfare. A large and, influential public meeting was held last year in Edinburgh, to press upon Parliament and the Government the necessity of some reforms being applied to these eminent institutions; and such was the strength of the general feeling, that a Bill was prepared by the Lord Advocate under the late Government; but owing to the fall of that Ministry, it was not brought into Parliament. The defects that required reform were various. There were Professors of classes who had no pupils; but the greatest defect of all was that when Professors who, when they were first appointed were probably able and eminent men, and distinguished in the branch of science to which they, were attached, became unable, through the infirmities of age or disease to discharge their duties, no provision was made for their retirement, and they remained at their post, to the great detriment of the class. This, indeed, was the greatest defect of all, and it was one under which all the, Colleges suffered, while even in cases
1356
where a Professor retired, or rather appointed a substitute to discharge his duties for him, it could not be expected that that substitute would be very eminent is his special range of science, because the portion of his own salary that the retiring Professor could allow was necessarlly small, and there was great uncertainty about the substitute eventually succeeding to the professorship; so that them were few men of eminence who would accept a situation so doubtful. The consequence of this was, that at all times there were several Professors who were unable to perform their duties, and this was one of the points on which the various Commissions had laid great stress. Well, it was intended by the Bill to remedy this state of things. At the same time, it was considered a matter of great importance to give a certain control over the whole system—a body that should have some permanent survey and control over the professorial body. At present there was no superior body that could check them. These, as he had said, were the defects chiefly dwelt upon by the different Commissions, and to remedy these defects was the object of the Bill now before their Lordships. For the purpose of providing retiring allowances for aged or disabled Professors, a Vote would be taken in the House of Commons. It was also intended to constitute in each University a University Court, which would regulate and control the powers of the Professors, or, as their collective number in each college was called in Scotland, the Senatus Academicus. This court would consist of persons of eminence and distinction, and their duty would be to see that the Professors did their duty and carried out the system of education as it was prescribed in the University. There was another court also to be constituted, which was to be called the Council of the University. Its members would be composed of the graduates of the University; and one good effect of this court, it was hoped, would be, that it would give the students and alumni of the different Universities a deeper interest in the affairs of their college, and a greater, inducement to them to take the honours provided for the graduates. These were the general principles of the Bill, which he might mention had been received with, general approbation in Scotland, and in the Universities themselves. It had passed with general, approbation through the House of Commons; and though he did

1357
not mean to say that it had encountered he opposition, yet he would affirm that it was only opposed by persons whose local interests were affected by the changes proposed; and even they only opposed those clauses which affected their own interests. With respect to the union of the Universities, he might say that it had been recommended, or at least strong arguments had been brought forward in its favour by the Commissioners, when the whole matter was inquired into. He had always considered that that would be a very proper mode of dealing with the matter; but at the same time he did not wonder at persons connected with that part of the country, or who had taken degrees in either of the Universities, feeling some sort of jealousy at the idea of their particular University being merged into another. With respect to Aberdeen, he was extremely anxious that there should be a faculty of Arts still kept up both in King's and Marischal Colleges. The intention at present was that there should be only one Professor of each branch of education when the two colleges were united. There was this advantage in the union, that each University had several professorships, which the other did not enjoy, and by combining the two, there would be a Professor of each branch of education. But the Bill gave very great powers to the Commissioners, because they might, if they thought it advisable, institute a double professorship in the faculty of Arts, so that, in fact, the elementary branches of education, with Greek, Latin, and mathematics, might be taught in both of the colleges, which would no doubt be a very great convenience to the persons resident therein; whereas, by confining the teaching of that branch to King's College, considerable difficulty might be felt. Inasmuch as the Commissioners possessed the power, he was inclined to think that if they went to the extent of that power, almost the whole of the objections still felt to the Bill would be removed. He repeated that the powers of the Commissioners were extremely great, and subject only to the approbation of the Queen in Council; and he conceived they would be very much inclined to exercise them in the direction he had indicated. There was only one other point in the Bill with respect to which objections had been raised, and to which he would refer, namely, that which had reference to the patronage—the appointment of Professors in the Edinburgh University by the corporation of that city.
1358
He did not wish to detain the House by entering into a lengthened detail of those objections which would be more properly discussed in Committee, when that clause was considered. It was agreed to only after considerable discussion in the House of Commons, and it was regarded very much in the light of a compromise between the two parties, one being anxious to denude the corporation of that, patronage altogether, and the other to retail it in its entirety. This clause, however, addressed itself to a practical solution of the difficulty. The power of the appointment of the Professors was still left in the corporation, only it was put under a better system and more stringent control. It was given to seven curators, four of whom were appointed by the Town Council, and three by the University; so that the Council would at all times have a majority in respect to the medium through which the appointment of Professors was made. The other three would act merely as a check upon the former. It was true that the appointment was taken away from the Council as a body corporate; but it was done in such a manner as to retain their influence, while it put an end to the complaints of those who thought that it was in reality a very objectionable thing that candidates for Professorships should be obliged to canvass individual members of the Town Council for those appointments. As far as the power of appointment went, it seemed to him that it was essentially the same in this Bill as at present. He admitted that the Bill interfered very much with vested rights and interests; but at the same time he reminded their Lordships that it was difficult to pass any Bill without interfering with vested rights more or less, and he did not conceive that any sound objection could be urged to the measure upon that ground. There was just one more point to which he would address himself before he sat down, and that was with reference to the grant which it was proposed to make for retiring allowances to Professors, and for the general expenses which the Commissioners might think proper to authorize in carrying out the Act. The amount which it was pros posed to place on the Estimates far this purpose was £10,000. He must confess that he thought that was a very small sum indeed. It might perhaps be sufficient far the immediate wants; and the first objects which the Commissioners had in view was to do what was necessary and proper in

1359
the first instance; but he could not say he thought it would be sufficient after the new system had been established,—especially when he compared it with the large sums voted for educational purposes in Ireland, both as regarded Maynooth and Queen's Colleges. He was convinced that this small sum of £10,000 would not be found sufficient for Scotland, and he alluded to the subject now because he knew how difficult it would be, when such a Vote had once been granted, to increase the amount in the House of Commons in succeeding years. He had now explained the general principles of the measure, which, as he conceived, was all that was necessary for him to do on the present occasion; it being the second reading of the measure, and having had the earnest consideration of all the Scotch Members in the House of Commons. Although he did not pretend to say that some of its provisions were not objected to, yet it was the fact that a very large number of persons approved not only of the Bill itself, but of this particular clause, in the localities in which the Universities were situated. He trusted that their Lordships would pass this Bill in the form in which it had come up to them from the other House, because, although it certainly was a great interference with the Universities, and introduced an entirely new system of government, and although the Scottish Universities had been a success in past years, yet there was every reason to hope that under this measure their continued prosperity would be ensured.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENthought that every friend to education in Scotland must feel grateful to the Government, and especially to the late Lord Advocate, who had introduced this measure into Parliament, and had carried it through the House of Commons. The Bill was one which met with general approval. No doubt that some of its provisions had met with very great opposition, and he was sorry to say that the opposition had come principally from that part of the country, and had reference principally to the provisions connected with the University of Aberdeen. He must say that he did not recollect ever having witnessed any degree of exitement so great in intensity, or feelings so strong, or so perfectly unanimous in the public mind as with regard to this measure. He must say that he shared in some of those conflicts; but he thought that which had been mentioned with re-
1360
spect to the great powers the Commissioners would possess, would tend to allay that excitement; for, in his opinion, the proper exercise of those powers would effect all that alteration, and modify all those operations of the Bill to which so much objection had been expressed. The persons connected with the University of Aberdeen did not object to the Bill generally; they only wished to preserve to each College that system of tuition which at present existed. It was a great many years since he was Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen; but he had never ceased to feel an interest in its prosperity. Both Colleges had been eminently useful in the north of Scotland; they had accomplished great good; and he should view with deep regret any alteration consequent on this Bill which would have the effect of destroying the system of education which at present prevailed in the University of Aberdeen. As far as he was concerned, he approved of many of the principles contained in the Bill, and even of the union of the two Colleges; but only in the hope that such alteration would be made by the Commissioners as would obviate the objections felt, and conduce to the interest of the University. They would scarcely believe the excitement which the questions had created in a city of 70,000 or 80,000 people, who felt, almost to a man, that they were being deprived of an ancient institution, under which their forefathers had lived, and from which they had received the greatest benefits. It could not be the wish of their Lordships to destroy a system that had worked so well, and proved so beneficial to the whole of the country. He did not wish, by any means, to throw any opposition in the way of passing this Bill, for he was one of those who had recommended a measure which, in principle, was similar to the present. Some years ago, when he was at the head of the Government, he projected a Bill something similar in character to the present; but he found the opposition so strong in the district to which he had alluded, that he thought the good which would result from it would not counterbalance the evil that it might give rise to. He felt, at that time, the necessity of having one general University for Scotland; but yielding to the feelings, or as they might choose to term it, to the prejudices of the inhabitants of the cities in which the Universities were situated, he did not persevere in a measure which he believed, as far as

1361
he recollected it, to be very similar to the one now lying on the table. He, therefore, saw no objection either to the principle or the details of this measure, because he thought that the Amendments which had been introduced during its passage through the Commons were sufficient to enable the Commissioners to obviate the objections felt with respect to the Aberdeen University clause. He had had, however, a petition entrusted to him, which he had presented, by the Provost and Corporation of Aberdeen, praying that, as an act of justice, they might be heard by themselves or their counsel at the bar of the House; and he thought, considering the interest felt and the strong feeling which had been excited, the prayer of the petition was a reasonable one.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, he thought the Government entitled to the greatest praise for bringing in this measure, and great credit was especially due to the Lord Advocate, who, it gave him great pleasure to see, had just been chosen by Her Majesty to fill a high official post, and who, he had no doubt, would be found eminently deserving of that honour. He desired to express his cordial approval of the principle of the measure; but at the same time there were some points in which he, in common with a great many persons in Scotland, could not but think some amendment necessary. The Scotch Universities were quite differently situated to those in England, where the advantages of a first class University education were not extended to persons of the same rank in the social scale as was the case in Scotland. For that reason he should be very sorry to see such a fusion of the Universities as would make the Colleges difficult to enter. In respect to the great benefit resulting from the present system, he would read to their Lordships the extract of a letter he received from a minister of the Church of Scotland, in a parish near Aberdeen, dated July 9, 1858, accompanying a petition against the fusion clause in the Bill. In the petition their Lordships would observe that there were numerous signatures from servants. The extract was:—
"I take the liberty of informing you that many of my servants availing themselves of instruction from the minister and schoolmaster, after the labours of the day, have qualified themselves for entering the lists as competitors for the bursaries for King's and Marischal Colleges, and it comes within my personal knowledge that not a few of this class are now occupying situations as clergymen and teachers with very great success."
1362
He could not help thinking that facts like that were quite sufficient to induce their Lordships to provide the best possible means for continuing so admirable a system, and one which had been productive of so much good. This Bill had received, since its first introduction, very considerble amendments during its progress through the House of Commons, and he would mention one thing, namely, that provision which left the election of Lord Rector to the students. It was also his profound conviction, that the clause introduced by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), giving to the Commissioners the power under the Bill of establishing a general University for Scotland was a most valuable one. He was rather surprised that the noble Duke (the Duke of Montrose) had not made that a great feature in his general exposition of the measure, for he thought it was one which had received general assent, provided it could be carried out consistently with the preservation of the rights of the existing Universities. He looked upon this as one of the vital points of the Bill, and gave his right hon. Friend the greatest praise for having introduced it. He did not deny that there would be immense difficulties to overcome in the way of patronage, but he thought that if properly worked out nothing would prove more advantageous for Scotland. Learning had advanced with rapid strides in Scotland, but had not yet reached its full development. A central University would be a great gathering point, and it might exist in intimate connection with the present Universities. Believing that the Bill, as amended, was an extremely good one, he viewed with great regret the opposition to which some portions of it had given rise in Scotland, and he thought he should satisfy their Lordships that a very small alteration in the Bill should be all that was necessary. The noble Duke had not quite accurately stated the feelings of the people of Scotland with respect to the measure. He said that there was a feeling of objection with respect to the friends of the two Colleges in the University of Aberdeen. So far as he could understand there was a unanimous feeling in favour of the union; everybody agreed that it would be a great improvement, the only difference being whether or not the Faculty of Arts should be fixed. On this point he had received a letter from one of the principal functionaries of the northern University—a man held in the highest respect by the

1363
entire community of Aberdeen. He wrote under date the 10th July,—
"The excitement in Aberdeen, and in the north generally, is very great on this subject. Even if I had held the opinion that there should be but one College, I should deem it highly inexpedient to force the measure against the deliberate and expressed desire of the inhabitants of the north of Scotland. I humbly and respectfully submit that it would be better at present to do what all are agreed about, namely, to endow the University with the higher faculties of theology, law, and medicine, and to leave the Colleges separate, which I think would give great satisfaction."
The question, then, was really this, whether there should be one or two faculties in the University of Aberdeen. Now, he did not at all mean to say that arguments might not be adduced en the one Bill as well as on the other in that case. He readily admitted that there were arguments of considerable weight in favour of the establishment of a single faculty in the University of Aberdeen, and he only maintained that there were also arguments of considerable weight in favour of the double faculty. He could at all events state, without any doubt or hesitation, that the feeling in Aberdeen, and throughout the north of Scotland generally, in favour of maintaining a distinct Faculty of Arts, was of the strongest and most decided character. Upon that point their Lordships had already heard the statement of his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen); and although he could not of course pretend to possess the same amount of local knowledge as his noble Friend, he had reason to know, from the communications which he had received, that there was no exaggeration in the language of his noble Friend, and that there prevailed a very determined opposition to that proposal. The question that their Lordships had to consider was whether it would be worth their while to run counter to such a feeling, and thus to endanger the popularity and the success of the whole measure The Bill, as it stood, would give the Commissioners pewee to keep the two faculties distinct if they should so think fit; and the assent of the people of the north of Scotland would be attained, if, instead of giving that permissive power to the Commissioners, it were made obligatory on them to maintain the two faculties. He believed that, under such an arrangement, all traces of dissatisfaction in that matter would disappear, and that only one feeling would prevail throughout Scotland; of cordial satisfaction with the Bill, and of deep gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for its intro-
1364
duction. That change in the measure might not, indeed, be as much as the Town Council of Aberdeen had asked; but he had reason to believe that a mere provision of the kind he had stated, making that obligatory on the Commissioners, which by the Bill was left permissive, would answer every necessary purpose. He confessed that he did not think it would be worth while to persist in the proposal contained in the Bill against the strongly pronounced wish of the great majority of those whom it would immediately affect. A measure of that kind, if it were very unpopular, could not work well. There were, no doubt, cases in which coercive legislation was absolutely necessary, and it might even happen when outraged justice was to be vindicated, that the more unpopular a measure was the more would it be becoming and effective. But a Bill of the present character stood in an entirely different position. It could not be carried successfully into effect unless the public sympathy was enlisted in its favour. He really believed that in such a case a less perfect measure which received the popular support would work better than a more perfect one which excited popular opposition; and they ought not to look for legislation which would be unexceptionable in theory, but for the legislation which would be most successful in practice. He had himself no wish in that matter except to render the measure as efficient as possible, and he was glad to find that a Bill for the settlement of this important question had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government. They could be influenced by no personal or political feeling in the course which they were pursuing; their only object must be to promote the welfare of the people of Scotland, by providing the best possible system of public education in that country. And he would ask them what advantage they could expect to derive from the most perfect theoretical measure, compared with that which must result from their securing for their scheme the goodwill of those whom it immediately concerned? He did not wish to oppose the Bill. On the contrary, he should be sorry to do anything to endanger its passing; and he would give his cordial assent to the Motion for its second reading. He hoped, however, his noble Friend at, the head of the Government would allow him to direct his attention to the point to which he had been spe-

1365
cially adverting, and to ask him to reconsider it in the interval which was to elapse between the second reading and the Committee, with a view to render the measure as acceptable as possible to those whose interests it would specially affect.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that as it had been his good fortune to have been educated at one of the Scottish Universities, he wished to say e few words upon the subject. He could not but feel with the noble Earl who had last addressed their Lordships, that great thanks were due to Her Majesty's Government for having prepared a measure likely to be so beneficial. But he would observe, that there was one provision in the Bill of which the noble Earl had spoken in terms of the highest commendation which appeared to him to be of very doubtful advantage. The establishment of a central University for the whole of Scotland was proposed by one of the clauses and the noble Earl seemed to think that such a measure was likely to be productive of great benefit to the people of Scotland. That clause, as it at present stood, was merely permissive. For his part, he had felt that it was not probable it could ever be carried into effect, and he had therefore thought that it would not be necessary to take any notice of it. But as the noble Earl was himself one of the Commissioners for carrying out the Bill, it become much more important after his statement of his deep conviction that this was one of the most valuable provisions in the measure. Now, his first objection to the clause was, that he could not understand from it what was meant by a "central University for the whole of Scotland." It was not, he presumed, to be a local University to which the students in the different Colleges would have to go for the purpose of obtaining degrees. One of the greatest advantages of the Scottish system of education was, as he had always understood, that, by the extent of the sphere which it embraced, it enabled persons in a very humble condition of life to receive a university education not far from their own homes. He was sure that there could be no intention of establishing a central Scottish University, which would interfere with the individual life of the existing Universities; and if any such intention were entertained, he should consider that the scheme would be attended with the greatest possible evils. But then was it to be a mere beard of Examiners, who were to be called
1366
a University? He could not but think that such an establishment would he repugnant to our ideas of a University on this side of the border. It was true that we had such an establishment in the London University, of which he wished to speak with every respect. But still our old Universities from which we derived our general ideas of such institutions were not mere examining bodies; they were actual places of education; and most of the advantages they offered were derived from their associations, and from the actual education they communicated. He thought, therefore, that it would be a great mistake to interfere with the individual life of the existing Universities in Scotland in order to establish a central University institution, which would in truth be no University at all. There was another very important point involved in the measure to which he wished to take that opportunity of adverting, although he would not express any decided opinion with respect to it. By the third clause of this Bill, as it now stood altered, the connection which had hitherto existed between the Universities and the Established Church of Scotland, seemed to be seriously interfered with. The principals of the different Colleges had been, he believed, from time immemorial, Divinity Professors connected with the Established Church of Scotland; and it was proposed by the clause to which he was then referring, that the principals might hereafter be persons not members of the Established Church, nor in any way connected with it; and as the duty attached from ancient times to their office was to give instruction in divinity to the students, that must be considered, at all events, as a very serious alteration in the Bill, as it had been originally introduced by Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was very satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government to know, that on the whole, a Bill of very important character, for the improvement of the Universities of Scotland had been found generally acceptable. He believed, that not only in the two Houses of Parliament, but throughout Scotland, the general principle of the measure had been regarded as satisfactory. It was also very, gratifying to the Government to find that the objections made to the Bill reduced themselves within the narrowest possible compass. One clause to which the reverend Prelate had adverted, was not contained in the measure as it had been originally pro-

1367
posed by the Lord Advocate. That clause had been opposed by Her Majesty's Government, but contrary to their wish and their opinion, it had been passed by a majority of the House of Commons. With respect to the case of Aberdeen, he had to observe that his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) was quite correct in saying that the objection was to the union of the colleges in that town. He should also say that his noble Friend was quite right in stating that Her Majesty's Government could have no other wish in that case than to produce a measure which, in the judgment of those best acquainted with the subject, would be the most conducive to the welfare of the people of Scotland. Now, the only objection he had heard urged to the union of the two colleges had been founded not on the injurious character of the proposition, but on the general hostility entertained to it by the inhabitants of Aberdeen. Both his noble Friends opposite seemed to think that the proposal was not in itself of an objectionable character, and they rested their opposition to it solely on the ground of the strong feeling of disapproval with which it had been met among those whom it would immediately affect. Under these circumstances, the point which their Lordships had to consider was whether the feeling—perhaps the not unnatural feeling—of the people of Aberdeen and of its neighbourhood—ought to be allowed to preponderate over the calm judgment of those persons who were best acquainted with the subject, and also over the discretion of the Commissioners who had formerly inquired into the question, and who had invariably expressed their belief that it was a matter of the greatest importance that there should be a union of the two colleges. He confessed that he attached more importance to those recommendations than to the feelings of the people of Aberdeen. However much he might be disposed to respect those feelings, he was the more inclined to adhere to that view of the subject, when he remembered that the Bill contained—as his noble Friend had remarked—a clause giving the Commissioners a permissive power to retain the two Professors in the Faculty of Arts. His noble Friend seemed to think that in order to allay the discontent which prevailed upon the subject, it was only necessary to convert that permissive power into an absolute injunction. But the feeling among the parties most interested did not appear to be altogether unanimous upon that point, for
1368
he had himself presented a petition from the Senatus Academicus of Marischal College, in which they stated that the only clause in the Bill to which they objected was the one which gave the Commission that permissive power. When he remembered who were the persons who had been selected Commissioners, their connection with Scotland, and their intimate knowledge of the question to which that clause referred, he could not but think that such a subject which was not a very extensive or important one, had much better be left in their hands than be decided absolutely by their Lordships. It should also be borne in mind that any conclusion at which the Commissioners might arrive was subject to the sanction of the Queen in Council; so that any person who might object to it would have an opportunity of memorializing Her Majesty in Council against its adoption. On the whole, therefore, and not having any personal interest or predilection in the matter, he was inclined to adhere to the Bill as it had been drawn by his right hon. Friend the late Lord Advocate, whose retirement from Parliament no man could regret more sincerely than he did, because no one was more fully aware of the value of his services. His right hon. Friend, however, with many other distinguished personages, would be a member of the Commission; and he believed the question of the union of the two colleges of Aberdeen might be safely left to their consideration. With regard to the proposal that the Town Council of Aberdeen should be heard against the Bill, he would put it to the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) whether he really thought the body whom he represented upon that point stood a chance of being benefited by such a proceeding. In the first place, it was extremely doubtful whether they had any claim to be so heard. His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had expressed great doubt whether, according to precedent, the House ought to grant that request. But he should further say that he had never known a petitioner who had obtained leave to be heard by his counsel at the bar against any particular measure, derive the smallest advantage from the lengthened speech which was delivered on his behalf; and he believed that no address of the kind had ever changed the opinion of a single Member. If, however, their Lordships should be determined on hearing counsel in that case, the result would be that they should meet

1369
for the purpose at four o'clock instead of five o'clock, and he had no doubt but they would aferwards in the Committee on the Bill, give their best consideration to any arguments that might have been addressed to them. He hoped that under all the circumstances of the case, the noble Earl would not think it necessary to press that request, but if he should do so he (the Earl of Derby) would not oppose the Motion.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that after the statement of the noble Earl, he should not press that request. He had thought it right to state the views of the petitioners, although he confessed he did not think they had established their case. He had himself been placed in a false position, for he had been advocating a cause of which he did not approve.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter to Eight o'Clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.