Sitting of 3 June 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Funded Debt.
3° Property Qualification; Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing.

ISTHMUS OF SUEZ.—QUESTION.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House the other night that he would be able shortly to inform them whether he could lay on the table the correspondence relative to the canal across the Isthmus of Suez. He had now to ask, therefore, whether the Government are prepared to produce the whole of the correspondence that has taken place between the Government of England and the English Embassy at Constantinople on that subject; also, the correspondence that has taken place between the Government of England and any other Foreign Government relative to the same matter?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that I said I should be prepared to give a reply to this inquiry; and I have now to say that it will not be convenient to lay that correspondence on the table of the House.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is in the contemplation of the Government to take any steps in consequence of the Resolution which passed the House on Tuesday, in favour of placing the whole administration and control of the Army under the undivided authority of a single Minister?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, Her Majesty's Government will be happy always to treat with great and due respect any Resolution come to by this House; but, considering the great importance of the question under discussion on Tuesday, the comparatively small number of Members in the House when the division was taken, and the bare majority by which that decision was come to, Her Majesty's Government do not feel that it is their duty to recommend any measure in consequence of the Vote which the House then advised.
  MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government intend to afford an opportunity for another discussion on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not understand exactly the purport of the hon. Member's inquiry. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any measure, either in this House or out of it, in consequence of the Vote which the House arrived at on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) on Tuesday night.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any Despatches have been recently received from Lord Elgin, and especially any Despatches communicating the fact of a rupture of the negotiations which had been opened with the Government of the Emperor of China; and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay upon the table of the House copies of such Despatches, and of any other Correspondence respecting our differences with China; and whether, consistently with due regard to the Public Service, he can now state the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the prosecution of our demands against the Emperor of China?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the hon. Gentleman is under an erroneous impression in supposing there has been any rupture in our negotiations with China. On the contrary, what the Emperor has done has not been to send a Minister of State to meet Lord Elgin at Shanghai, but to send a message to state that a Minister of State will be sent to Canton, and requesting that Lord Elgin will return to Canton to meet his Plenipotentiary there. Lord Elgin has, however, advanced towards the north. With regard to the second part of the inquiry, as to our intention to prosecute our demands, I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are acting at present with allies, and therefore it would be inconvenient to lay upon the table any instructions, either those given by our predecessors or by ourselves subsequently. We are acting in unison with other Powers, and under such circumstances it would, I repeat, be inconvenient to the Public Service to lay the Papers on the table,
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would give notice that he should ask the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow, whether any demand had been made upon the Chinese Government; and, if so, whether any an-

  1449
  swer to that demand had been received from them?

BARRACK MASTERS.—QUESTION.
MR. WARRENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any and what steps are being taken towards improving the condition of Barrack Masters, with reference to the revised scale of pay recently prepared in the Barrack Department?
GENERAL PEELsaid, that a new scale of pay had been prepared by the Barrack Department, which had under its consideration the condition of Barrack Masters. There were, however, many difficulties in the way, and no change could take place in the course of the present financial year.

ABSCONDING OF MR. ELLIOT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NICOLLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary for War if his attention has been called to a report that an officer high in the public service has recently absconded; and if it be true that the principal books and accounts at the Government Establishment at Weedon have for nearly three years been kept on the principle of single entry, during which period a complete stock-taking of stores has not been effected? And in the event of there being some foundation for these statements, if it is the intention of Government to cause an immediate investigation into the whole of the facts of the case?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, in reply to the question of the hon. Member, it was perfectly true that the principal storekeeper at Weedon (Mr. Elliot) had absconded. He absented himself on Thursday, the 20th May, promising to return on Saturday to pay the workmen their wages. As he did not do so information was telegraphed to the War Department on the following day (Sunday), and Sir Benjamin Hawes immediately gave directions that a detective officer should be employed to apprehend him. It was found that he had travelled to Liverpool, and bad sailed on Saturday in the American steamer for Boston. Two gentlemen had been sent down from the Storekeeper's Department to examine the state of Mr. Elliot's accounts. It was found that they were kept in a correct manner by double entry up to the 31st of December, but he had failed to make up his account at the end of the following quarter, and the impress he had demanded for May had not been given to him. It
  1450
  was not correct that no stock had been taken, for, in consequence of a change between the officers at Weedon and Dublin, stock had been taken which had only been finished on the 14th of May. The account so ascertained had not been examined with the ledger, but steps were now taken to do so, and the amount of the deficiency would then be known.

SUPPLY—REPORT.

  MR. HORSMAN AND THE IRISH SECRETARY'S OFFICE—EXPLANATION.
  MR. FITZROYbrought up the Report of the Committee of Supply.
  On the Motion that the Vote for the Irish Secretary's Office be agreed to,
  MR. HORSMANsaid, that the House would not expect him to agree to this Vote without offering some explanation in answer to the extraordinary statement made during his absence by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. MacMahon) when this Vote was before the House. He ought, perhaps, to apologize to the House for being absent when the Vote was taken for the salary and expense of the office which he so lately had the hon., our to fill. His absence, however, from the House was brief and accidental. After the discussion on the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Slough he went to dine, hoping to be back in time, but the earlier Votes in Supply were gone through so rapidly that when he returned the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office had been already agreed to. He was then told there had been some discussion on the manner in which he had fulfilled the duties of his office, and next morning he saw by the report in the newspapers that the hon. and learned Member for Wexford had used the following language:—
  "He regretted the absence of the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who was formerly Chief Secretary for Ireland, but he felt it his duty to say that he thought that right hon. Gentleman was entirely above his office. When the right hon. Gentleman first held the office, he (Mr. MacMahon) wished to see him occasionally on public business, but it was very difficult to find him. He. (Mr. MacMahon) perhaps found him once at his office, but he did not think he found bins twice. When he intended to put a question in the House, of which he wished to give the right hon. Gentleman notice, it was very difficult to find him there; and at last he (Mr. M'Mahon) abandoned all attempts to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of any question he wished to put."—The Times.
  Now, this charge, which he thought the House would agree with him in considering a very serious one, amounted to this, that

  1451
  for two years, during which he held flu office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, enjoying its advantages and receiving its emoluments, he was so culpably neglectful of his duty and so habitually absent from his office, that Irish Members of Parliament, wishing to transact business with him, found it impossible to do so, and were obliged to abandon all attempts to transact public business with him, If any man pretending to a character and conscience could hear such a charge without being able to refute it he ought to be ashamed to show his face, and the Minister who was said to have permitted such conduct for two years would have been censurable if he had not dismissed the person who had been guilty of it in two months. Now, he was able to state, not only that the facts as stated by the hon. and learned Member were not consistent with the truth, but that they were diametrically opposed to the truth. He meant of course—[An hon. MEMBER: In a Parliamentary sense.] He did not mean to say anything personally offensive to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but in self-defence he was bound to make a statement, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman should find it offensive lie would only have himself to blame. The hon. and learned Gentleman not only stated that he went to see him on business, but he specified the particular business, namely, to give him notice of a question in this House, and that he was at last obliged to abandon all attempts to do so. Now, every Gentleman in that House knew that the usual mode of giving notice to a Minister was not by calling on him, but by writing him a note, or better still, by putting the notice on the Votes. But he would pass that by, and he would take the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman in its broadest sense, that for two years he endeavoured to transact business with him, and was obliged to abandon any further attempt. Now when he accepted the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland he had to consider his relations with the different political parties into which Irish Members were divided. There were, first, the Liberal Members who supported the Government, with whom his relations were of an intimate and confidential character. There were then the Irish Members who supported the Government now in power, with whom, as political opponents, his relations were not so confidential, although they were characterized by the frankness and unreserve with which Gentlemen even of different political opinions could transact
  1452
  business. He saw many hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side with whom he had transcted business, and he would ask them if they had ever been able to discover from his mode of transacting affairs with them whether he was a political opponent or not? There was a third section—not a party, but ft certain number of hon. Gentleman, perhaps five or six—who sat on the Opposition side of the House, and were owned by neither party. They professed to be elected on the principle of independent opposition, which meant opposition to all Governments which did not make certain impossible concessions ["No!"]—that was to say, it was their endeavour to render, as far as they could, all Government impossible. Those hon. Gentlemen styled themselves Members of the Liberal party; but he invariably and steadily refused to recognize or communicate with them in that character. He knew that the Government which he represented had no sympathy with their views. He knew that the Irish Members had no association or fellowship in their proceedings; and although he was as ready to transact business with them as with any other Members, he still had found it necessary from circumstances that had occurred to fence round that transaction of business with a degree of caution and circumspection which he did not think it necessary to exercise with other Members. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that on one occasion, soon after he had taken office, he was fortunate enough to find him, but he was never successful enough to do so a second time. He was not at all disposed to dispute that statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He recollected the interview. It was sought by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and was of some duration. It was upon a matter of public business, and his reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that he could receive no verbal request, and could give no verbal answer; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would have the goodness to place himself in communication by writing he would reply to him by letter. He did that upon a rule which he had laid down for himself that in certain cases his business communications with Members should be in writing, and recorded, so as to be produced at any moment. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] The House would remember that he was making his statement in reply to a charge made against him by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was stating the mode of transacting business

  1453
  which he adopted. If a Member on either side of the House called he was readily admitted. If the hon. and learned Gentleman called he would be referred in the first intance to his secretary, who would ask whether the matter was urgent and could not be communicated in writing, and if it could be so communicated the hon. Gentleman would be requested to write. He was sorry to have to make this statement, but when the hon and learned Gentleman asserted that for two years he sought and could not find him, he was bound to state the rule which he had been compelled to lay down upon his own discretion, in the exercise of his own responsibility, and for reasons which had been forced upon him and which he should have been prepared to state and vindicate to the satisfaction of the House. Two hon. Members with whom he had frequently transacted business, appeared by their speeches the other night to give some confirmation to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was with pain and regret that he heard the impression created in the House that those hon. Members were parties to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he was sure that on reflection they would correct it. In defending the vote against an assault upon it, avowedly founded upon the authority of a speech which he had made at Stroud, it was natural that they should endeavour to discredit that authority, and they might convey to the House an impression rather different from that which they intended. He made no complaint of this, but as to the office itself he was prepared to adhere to every syllable of the speech, and to give evidence to substantiate it. He only regretted that he had made the statement so public, because he did it under the impression, which turned out to be erroneous, that the office of Lord Lieutenant was on the eve of abolition. If he had not felt there was some reason to believe that the abolition was intended he should have felt that the statement was inconsistent with the consideration which he felt was due to his right hon. Friend who succeeded him, and to whom he paid that consideration both as a duty and as a pleasure. To show the onerous character of the office, it was stated the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the duties of the Secretary of State for Ireland were identical with those of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but he was sure the right hon.
  1454
  Gentleman who made that statement would, after a moment's reflection, see how inadvertently he had expressed Ids opinion, and how calculated it was to mislead the House. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had an office in London, he presided over all the duties of the. office, every paper was under his eye, and every person who came on business might, if he pleased, have access to himself. The office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was in Ireland. Its duties were performed in Dublin, and he was sure he was under the mark when he said that out of every hundred papers not more than one came under his eye. The number of letters received by the Home Secretary might be counted, not by scores, but perhaps by hundreds a day. But it was a very high average to say that half a dozen letters came from the Irish office to the Chief Secretary daily. There were about thirty clerks in the office of the Home Secretary. The number of clerks in the office in London of the Irish Secretary was one, and that one was very insufficiently employed. In the interview which he had with his predecessor on taking office, he expressed his great amazement that there was only one clerk. The answer was—"And he has not half enough to do," and his own experience very soon satisfied him of that fact. The day after his appointment, full of new official ardour, he went to the office at ten o'clock in the morning. His reception was such as any gentleman might have met with when he had arrived at an inn early in the morning and there was no one up but the "boots." The fires were not lighted, the rooms were not swept, and when he asked where was his one clerk, he was told that the clerk might be expected to appear about twelve or one o'clock. He felt that all this required great reform. He gave strict injunctions that official hours should begin at ten o'clock, that his clerk establishment should then appear, and he showed indications of such a revolution in the office that he believed every one connected with it began fervently to pray for a change of Government. This went on for some weeks, but he found that until the arrival of the Irish post in the afternoon there was very little correspondence, and that until the Irish Members began to move down to the House between three and four there were no interviews, and he got positively ashamed of the cruelty he was practising on the clerk in making him do

  1455
  penance from ten in the morning, sitting in solitude with no business to occupy him. After a few weeks he relaxed the discipline, and gave his clerk more liberty, and, in one respect, he took more liberty himself. His own house was in the immediate vicinity of the Irish Office—so close that, sitting in his room in the Irish Office he could see everybody who entered his own house. He therefore did take the liberty of transacting a great portion of the business at his own house instead of at the office. But the strict rule was laid down that everybody who called at the office was told that he was across the way, if they liked to go over, or that if they would sit down he would immediately come over to them. He frequently came over; and there was not an instance in which those who called were delayed so long as nineteen out of every twenty persons who called on official men. He told his secretary also to make it his business to discover the smallest complaint or dissatisfaction upon that ground, and, not once or twice, but fifty times, he asked Irish Members whether there was any objection on their part to his receiving them at his own house instead of at the office, telling them that if there were the smallest desire on their parts that he should do so, he was willing to spend the day at his office. He received on every occasion an answer as sincere as it was courteous, and he thought it was sincere because it was followed by their coming to his house and transacting business just as freely as if he had been at the office at Whitehall. The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) stated that he only found him once.
  MR. BAGWELL: What I did say was, that I never met you at your office.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, the hon. Member could not have much knowledge of the system, as he only came into Parliament a fortnight before the dissolution, and therefore he was only a fortnight in office after the hon. Member was elected. In that fortnight the hon. Member came and introduced himself as the newly elected Member for Clonmel. The conversation was general upon Irish affairs. It lasted one or two hours, and at the end the hon. Member thanked him, and told him he had had so agreeable a visit that he hoped to have the pleasure of repeating it very often. He sincerely reciprocated that desire, and one of the losses which he felt he sustained by his subsequent retirement was the loss of so many of those visits which he
  1456
  had been allowed to look forward to with such agreeable anticipations. But though he lost office he had not lost. the acquaintance or friendship of the hon. Gentleman. That had continued, and he hoped would continue as long as they were in Parliament together. But during the whole time that he had been in office the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien) had been in Parliament, and he would appeal to him whether there had ever been any delay in answering his letters, or in fixing an interview, or whether he was aware that any single matter connected with the official business had been allowed to go into arrear. Certainly, with whatever other defect he might be chargeable he was not conscious of having shown any desire to shrink from labour, and he had never expected that the mere transaction of public business on one side of a street instead of the other would have been brought forward as a serious charge against him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening had made some observations, in a strain of pleasantry, complimentary to him as to the cause of his retirement from office, but that question was so purely personal that he should not be guilty of taking up the time of the House in alluding to it. Had his position, however, been such in the House as to justify him, he should have been most anxious to make a short statement on that point, because he knew there was nothing in his conduct during the whole of his tenure of office which was dishonourable or selfish. During his whole tenure of office, he had never exchanged a single word with any Irish Member or with any of his colleagues which he could feel pain on remembering. He had taken office under the noble Lord at the head of the Government with feelings of great sympathy for the difficulties under which he was placed in carrying on the war; he quitted office with feelings towards the noble Lord equally warm. He was quite aware that any Member, particularly one who had held office, who took any step or made any speech which was unpalatable to any parties in the House, very naturally subjected himself to a great many sinister rumours and to the imputation of personal motives. Of this result of Parliamentary warfare he could not complain, and he would only ask the House to believe that he should be able to meet any rumours in circulation with as complete a refutation, the moment they were brought forward publicly, as he had

  1457
  been able to give to the statements of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford. He thanked the House for the kindness with which they had listened to him; and if it should appear that he had occupied too much of their time, his only apology was to be found in his respect for the House, and his desire to retain the good opinion and confidence of those friends around him with whom he had long and consistently acted, and which he valued far more than any object of mere party or political connections.
  Mr. MACMAHONsaid, he felt placed in a very peculiar position, singled out as he was by the right hon. Gentleman from among those who had taken part in the debate on this subject the other evening, and who had gone quite as far, or even further, than he had. The right hon. Gentleman who possessed every advantage that political experience and social position could give him, had attacked him, apparently, because he was a member of the smallest party in the House, numbering only sonic five or six members; and he had passed over entirely the two hon. Gentlemen the Members for Clonmel and King's County. The right hon. Gentleman had, moreover, begun his attack with this advantage, that he had led the House to believe that he (Mr. MacMahon) had made during the right hon. Gentleman's absence, a charge against him diametrically opposed to the truth. The statement which he had made was, that the right hon. Gentleman was "above his business." That was merely a matter of opinion, but he felt bound to retract it at once. He no longer thought that the right hon. Gentleman was above his office, but he should be able to show before he sat down that he was very much below it. The remainder of the charge was, that he had had great difficulty in finding the right hon. Gentleman at his office—that though be might have seen him once, he didn't think he had seen him twice. The right hon. Gentleman had just admitted that this was a perfectly true statement. The right hon. Gentleman's own account was, that he had seen him once under peculiar circumstances, and that he had never seen him again, because he had laid down a rule to treat the party to which he belonged as utterly unworthy of personal communication, and whenever any of the gentlemen belonged to it called at the office, the clerk was ordered to tell them that the right hon. Gentleman could not be seen but only
  1458
  communicated with by letter. He left the House, then, to say whose statement was—not in a Parliamentary but in a moral sense—diametrically opposed to the truth, and whether the statement he had made was not the very truth itself. That he had seen the right hon. Gentleman once and never again, was what he had himself just admitted, and which he had stated was the necessary consequence of a certain line of conduct laid down by him to be observed towards a certain party. He was certainly not so well known either in or out of the House as the right hon. Gentleman, but no one had the slightest pretence or warrant for saying that, so long as he had been in the House his word was not equal to that of any man in the empire; nor had any one the slightest reason for suspecting that he would be likely to make use in public of a communication made to him in private. It was true that he had ceased to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of questions to be put to him in the House, for he had got quite tired of coming down and not finding the right hon. Gentleman there, while his co-ordinate subordinates laughed in his face, as if it were a good "sell." The right hon. Gentleman, he found, was treating him and his friends just as his superiors were treating the great Liberal party. The fact was that he (Mr. MacMahon) was a member of the really independent Opposition in that House—the really independent Liberals, and they were not to be treated with the confidence and courtesy which were usual among gentlemen, because upon the hustings they had pledged themselves to certain measures, in this House had adhered to those pledges, and had not condescended to gain their seats in Parliament upon false pretences. As to the right hon. Gentleman being above his place, that was a complimentary statement, and the right hon. Gentleman instead of being annoyed, ought to have felt flattered by it. No doubt it was an entire mistake to say so. The right hon. Gentleman would have the House think that he was a most efficient Secretary, but the general opinion in Ireland was that he was about the worst they had had for many years. Not very long ago the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) had thus spoken in the House of the state of affairs in Ireland when the right hon. Gentleman was there:—"The common description of the Government of Ireland when he (Mr. Horsman) was there, was—Carlisle did

  1459
  the dancing, Horsman the hunting, and Larcom the business." The right hon. Gentleman was present when those words were used, but the hon. and gallant Member of Roscommon had a party to back him, so the right hon. Gentleman made no reply. To show that he was not singular in the opinion which he entertained of the right hon. Gentleman he would read to the House an extract from a speech made recently at a public meeting in Dublin by Lord Talbot de Malahide, one of the right hon. Gentleman's own order, and whom he could not charge with saying that which was diametrically opposed to the truth. In that speech Lord Talbot de Malahide was reported in the public papers to have said:—
  "There never was a Chief Secretary that did less to carry out that administration in a proper manner. They all knew that he never set his foot in the country when he could avoid it; and when he did remain in it he never attended properly to the duties of the office. It was a very extraordinary thing that Mr. Horsman should have spoken as he did of the office, after his own conduct while holding it."
  Then he went on:—
  "If he (the Chief Secretary) was not an Irishman, there ought to be a sine qua non that lie made himself thoroughly acquainted with the country, and he would begin by submitting him to one of those examinations now so popular. And, perhaps, some Chief Secretaries they had known would not have been the worse of a preliminary examination in Irish geography. He would have them taught the geographical difference between Cavan and Westmeath, and between Ulster and Connaught."
  Apparently a difference which the right hon. Gentleman was unacquainted with.
  "He strongly suspected that their late Chief Secretary would not have passed such an examination creditably."
  That was said some time since, and the right hon. Gentleman had never contradicted it. When Lord Talbot de Malahide said that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have passed a competitive examination, he might at all events have attempted to rebut that charge. He assured the House, with respect to what he had stated the other evening, that he believed at the time that he alleged nothing that was not metaphysically and morally correct. He said that the right hon. Gentleman was above his office, meaning thereby that he looked down upon it as beneath him and unworthy of him. He had in his mind at the time the case of the evictions in Connaught. The right hon. Gentleman, when not in office, was a very
  1460
  vehement denunciator of the oppression of the Irish poor law, and as the right hon. Gentleman was in office when that case came on, he thought that it would be certain to receive a fair and impartial consideration. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman, but no, he would not state what occurred at that interview, because they were alone, and the right hon. Gentleman might deny it. He should confine himself to stating what occurred in the House when the question was discussed. Many persons took part in the debate, among others the right hon. Gentleman's chief, the noble Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), and the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), while the right hon. Gentleman discharged the duty so long ago described by Curran as appropriate to an Irish Secretary of one of the "mutes of the Castle." He had stated that the right hon. Gentleman was above his office. That was a matter of opinion. It was now clear that he was never equal to it. During the whole course of his career in Ireland he had not left upon the Statute book a single measure worthy of the character of any man pretending to the position of a statesman, much less of one aspiring to be hereafter the premier and leader of the Liberals of this country. It might be said that he passed the Bill abolishing ministers' money. But that was not so; for that injustice was virtually abolished by the Act of 1854, passed by the Aberdeen Government. Well, what had the right hon. Gentleman done? To an Irish Secretary possessed of administrative abilities there was a great field of usefulness open in Ireland. Neither the grand jury system, nor the municipal system, nor other great evils, had the right hon. Gentleman touched; and beyond the merely technical Bills connected with bankruptcy and insolvency (and which by the way were calculated as much to promote jobbery as legal reform) and the little Bill for facilitating the ejectment of cottiers, the only two measures which this great condemner of Irish grievances—this paulo post futurum Minister—had passed, were the Crime and Outrage Bill of 1855, and the Peace Preservation Bill of 1856. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to his address, and while he regretted to have occupied so much time in a matter personal to himself, he rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had at length been developed in his true colours. He was a type of that class of politicians

  1461
  who, if not pretending, at all events professed, liberal politics, and who put themselves forward as the denouncers of popular wrongs when they were out of office; but who, when they got hold of the crumbs of office, munched them until they were satiated, and then claimed credit from the public fur throwing away the residue. If he (Mr. MacMahon) were to go into the matter fully he could show that the right hon. Gentleman was not entitled to the credit of having, on his own free motion, and from pure motives, resigned his office in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt still anxious for office. He was one of those who hovered about the outer ring of official life, always panting for place. He had once been employed in Ireland. He probably did not expect to be employed there again, His next situation therefore must be in the service of the people of England, and it was quite right that the public of this country should know the kind of character he received from his last masters.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not but regret that the time of the House should be occupied with matters purely and exclusively of a personal character. With repect to the charge of want of courtesy alleged to have been exhibited by his right hon. Friend in his intercourse with Irish Members, he of course had no means of judging of the nature of that intercourse; but with reference to the more general charge, that he had held for two years or more an office of considerable emolument and of high position, and that he had neglected the duties of that office, he was bound to say, that being Secretary of State for the Home Department during the whole of that period, he had always found his right hon. Friend to be well informed on Irish subjects, and that he had never failed to receive from him the greatest assistance in the conduct of Irish affairs. While a sense of justice compelled him to bear this testimony to his right hon. Friend, he could not concur in the opinion which he had expressed, that because in the Irish Office in London there was no duty to be performed at an early hour in the morning, or before the arrival of the Irish post, therefore the office of Chief Secretary ought to be abolished. He could not concur in what regard right hon. Friend had said with regard to the duties of the Chief Secretaryship, and the public would be altogether led astray if they imagined that those duties
  1462
  were such as his right hon. Friend had represented them to be.
  LORD NAASsaid, he did not rise to continue this painful discussion to any length; but it was impossible for him to sit there and take no notice of the declaration of a right hon. Gentleman who had held the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland that its duties were light, insignificant, and unworthy of the energies of a Member of that House. Let him remind the House that the Chief Secretary was responsible in that House for the good government of Ireland. He should like to know how any man who discharged the duties of that office conscientiously could remain in it without making himself perfectly informed upon every important question connected with the government of Ireland. The government of Ireland had not been at all times one of the easiest problems that a statesman had to solve. Some of the most distinguished statesmen of the country had held the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Duke of Wellington held it for two years, Sir Robert Peel for five years, Mr. Goulburn for six years, Viscount Hardinge for one year, the Earl of Carlisle for five years, Sir William Somerville for five years, and the Earl of Derby, he believed, for three years. Could it be for a moment believed that men of their character, position, and intelligence would have consented to hold that office for so long a period if it were, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) had described it to be, little more than a sinecure? It was perfectly true that the establishment of Chief Secretary was in Dublin, but throughout the whole of the Session it was the duty of the Chief Secretary to be in attendance in that House to answer every question that might be put with regard to the government of Ireland. He believed that no man, even one of such transcendant abilities as the right hon. Gentleman himself, could properly discharge the duties of Chief Secretary without subjecting himself to great labour and patience. He (Lord Naas) did not hold himself up as a model Chief Secretary, but he could appeal to any hon. Gentleman who had ever held the office, to say whether its duties were entirely unworthy of his abilities and attention. So far as the present Session was concerned, many Bills of the highest importance had been introduced, and he hoped to be able to show that he was at least conversant with the objects of those Bills, and also

  1463
  that the Government of which he was a Member were endeavouring to confer great benefits upon the country by passing those measures. He could not listen to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the duties of the Chief Secretary without giving to it an unqualified contradiction. The right hon. Gentleman was, perhaps, unsuccessful in his office, but he (Lord Naas) hoped that he should never have the misfortune of placing himself, with respect to any section of the Irish representatives, in the same position as the right hon. Gentleman had assumed.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he did not desire to infuse anything personal into this discussion, but as the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. MacMahon) had alluded to him as one of the "co-ordinate subordinates" of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, he begged to deny that he had ever sneered at any Irish Member when he was interrogated upon Irish matters. While he held the office of Attorney General for Ireland he had a good deal of personal communication with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he always answered his questions without the slightest reserve. His right hon. Friend had done himself great injustice by disparaging the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. In fact, no man in the House had done more injustice to the right hon. Gentleman than himself (Mr. Horsman), when he stated that the duties of that office were insignificant. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have forgotten that the Parliamentary Session lasted for six months, during the whole of which the Chief Secretary was or ought to be in his place in Parliament to attend to Irish affairs, which required great labour and attention. He could state for himself (Mr. FitzGerald) that as one of the subordinates of the Irish Government during the administration of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton he had to attend twelve, thirteen, and sometimes fourteen hours a day to his Parliamentary and other duties, and was obliged to abandon his private professional business. His right hon. Friend ought to have recollected that he held the office of Chief Secretary while Ireland was, beyond precedent, quiet, contented, and prosperous; but that notwithstanding that fortunate state of Ireland, his attention ought to have been devoted to the preparation of measures for advancing the prosperity of the country. He might appeal
  1464
  to the right hon. Gentleman's successor (Mr. Herbert) whether he did not find the duties of Chief Secretary far otherwise than such as only demanded his attention two out of every twenty-four hours. The right hon. Gentleman's successor applied himself diligently to the discharge of his duties, and his industry was shown by the five important Bills which he had upon the table last Session relating to Ireland.
  COLONEL FRENCHobserved, that he could see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud should have selected certain Members to communicate with by letter, while he was personally accessible to others. If it had been said that the Government of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had received the support of the Irish Members in consequence of the adhesion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, it might also be said that the noble Lord had lost the confidence of others in consequence of his selection of an Irish Secretary.
  MR. VANCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud had no right to make any distinction between the hon. and learned Member for Wexford and the other Irish Members. He should not have risen if the right hon. Gentleman had not appealed to Irish Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House to say, whether he had not treated them with courtesy during his administration of Irish affairs. The courtesy with which they were treated was a matter of opinion, but his mode of conducting business was a matter of fact. He asserted that the right hon. Gentleman's mode of conducting Irish business was very much calculated to inconvenience Irish Members. The constant practice was to put Irish Bills at the bottom of the paper, so that they did not come before the House till the very latest hour. He had not only to complain of that, but also that when any Irish Member who occupied a seat on the Opposition benches during the late Administration, asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether or not he would proceed with a Bill, it was impossible to extract an answer from him, so that the Irish Members had to be in attendance every night until the House adjourned, lest Irish Bills should be pressed forward in their absence. He had not received such treatment from either the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor or his successor.
  MR. BLANDsaid, he rose to repeat in

  1465
  the right hon. Gentleman's presence what he had said in his absence. What he meant to say was, that in the communications which he had had with the right hon. Gentleman he had been treated with the greatest courtesy, but that he was absent from Ireland at times when his presence there might have been necessary, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not extended the rule under which he had been treated to all Irish Members.
  MR. BAGWELLremarked, that he wished to state that what he had said on a previous occasion was strictly correct. He had not ever met the right hon. Gentleman at his office, although he had at his private residence. He, however, had felt that the observation which he had thus made was uncalled for, and he had written next morning to the right hon. Gentleman to express his regret fur having made it.
  MR. HORSMANbegged to say one word in explanation. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. MacMahon) complained that he had singled him out from the others who had attacked him. The reason of his doing so was, that other hon. Gentlemen told him they had been misunderstood, and that they would state so in the House.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Order for Committee of Supply read;

THE CONSULSHIP AT MOBILE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WISEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Tulin, recently Vice Consul at Oran, has been appointed Consul at Mobile; whether it be true that a Certificate of Naturalization has been refused to that gentleman; and under what peculiar circumstances, and upon what grounds a Foreigner has been appointed to an American Consulate.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he had to inform the House that Mr. Tulin, recently Vice Consul at Oran, had been appointed Vice Consul at Mobile. It was true that the Certificate of Naturalisation had been refused to that gentleman, because, in order to come under the Act for the Naturalisation of Foreigners, it was necessary that the persons applying should have been sometime resident in this country. In reference to the last part of the question he had to state, in the first instance, that there was nothing in the law
  1466
  to prevent the appointment of a foreigner to any British Consulate. In this particular instance Mr. Tulin had been appointed solely on account of his public services. His father was for thirty years in the British service. He was well known as having performed most efficient services to the British Government and more particularly as having distinguished himself by his exertions to obtain the relief of the captives detained at Tunis. No one was more deserving of public respect. The present Mr. Tulin had been brought up here; he had been solely educated in England; he had been for many years employed in the service of this country; and it was only because that service had required him to reside abroad, that he had not been able to make himself by residence what he was in every other respect, an Englishman.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply. Mr. FitzRoy in the Chair.
(1.) £46,b75, Law Charges.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he observed that this Vote was £10,000 more than last year. He understood that was owing to the prosecution of the directors of the Royal British Bank, but it seemed to hint to be a most extravagant sum.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the bill of costs would not be so much, but it had not yet been furnished, and they proceeded upon a rough estimate of the expense furnished by the solicitors in the case. Of course the country would have the benefit of any saving.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £150,000, Prosecutions.
MR. WILSONsaid, he observed there was here a reduction of £100,000 from the sum voted last year. He was aware that savings bad been effected under this head in consequence of some inquiries that had been instituted by the late Government into this branch of expenditure. But he could hardly think the saving effected was so great, and, therefore, he wished to know whether this suns of £150,000 was expected to cover the whole expenditure of the year, or whether the hon. Gentleman was calculating upon the use of the unexpended balances from former years.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, there was no doubt that this sum would not cover the whole expenditure, but there were considerable balances in hand. He thought

1467
£200,000 would be required for the services of the year. The reductions alluded to by the hon. Gentleman were still going on, and he hoped that in the end a considerable saving would be the result,
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the rule which had always been observed was to set down in the Estimates for the year the Estimate of the entire sum that was expected to be spent in the year; and if at the end any portion was left unspent it was made a saving, and returned into the Exchequer. The plan here pursued would not only prevent any fair comparison between the expenditure of different years, but what was of far more importance, it would disturb the balance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to make between his estimated expenditure and his ways and means.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONadmitted that the practice was to some extent objectionable, but the same course had been adopted last year.
MR. WILSONsaid, the Secretary of the Treasury was in error. Relying on the balance that was in the Exchequer, the Government now asked for £150,000, though it was clear that £200,000 would have to be met from the ways and means of the year. The Estimate ought to be a criterion of the probable expenditure. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that he had saved £400,000 on the Miscellaneous Estimates he made a mistake; he would spend quite as large an amount as was spent last year, though he did not take a Vote for the whole sum. The Committee on Public Monies bad wisely recommended that the system adopted in regard to the Army and Navy Estimates should be applied to the Civil Service Estimates. That system prevented the Votes of one year from being devoted to defraying the expenditure of another year, and required the balances to be returned to the Exchequer.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, this appeared to him to be a very important question, and he agreed with the hon, Gentleman opposite, that the practice was fatal to the whole system of Estimates. He wished to know what was the precise amount of the balance now in hand, and what was the expenditure which the Government really anticipated for the year?
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that he thought the principle avowed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) of
1468
asking for more money than they expected to spend was highly objectionable. In his opinion the Estimates were nothing better than a farce.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would remind the Committee that the matter was fully explained in the marginal note in reference to this Estimate, which stated that the sum asked for would be sufficient, with the aid of the balances in hand. He could not at the moment state how much those balances were—they were very large—he thought about £50,000. He agreed that the practice was not a desirable one.
MR. WILSONrepeated, that unless the expenditure was distinctly stated, there was no proper comparison between different years. Besides, the balances from previous years were not strictly applicable to these purposes. Such a mistake as the present could not have occurred under the Army or Navy Estimates, for the Act of Parliament required that every surplus in those Votes should be returned to the Treasury, and every deficiency should be supplied by a fresh Vote. A Committee which lately sat on the application of public moneys, recommended that the same rule should apply to the Treasury, and his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis), before he left office, was about to introduce a Bill to carry these recommendations into effect. He wished to know whether the present Government were about to introduce that measure?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had stated the other day, in answer to the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) that it was not desirable that the Estimates should continue to be framed in this form. Henceforward the Civil Service Estimates should be prepared in the same manner as the Naval and Military Estimates.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsuggested the postponement of this Vote until they knew the exact amount of the balance from last year.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, there was a great principle involved in this Vote. As it was, they did not know what they were voting. They were asked to vote £150,000 and the balances; but they did not know how much the balances were. He had no objection to the Vote, but he thought, for the sake of the principle, the House ought to postpone the Vote till they knew what the balances were.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the Go-

1469
vernment took credit for a decrease in this Vote, while they at the same time intended to avail themselves of the money now in hand.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he had some time since moved for a return of all the unappropriated balances. If that return had been furnished, this item would have been amongst them. He wished now to ask the hon. Gentleman when that return might be expected.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not think it worth while to require the Government to withdraw the Vote, though in its present form it was certainly fallacious. There might be some diminution in its amount this year, but they had no means of ascertaining what that diminution was. He suggested that when the report of this Vote was brought up, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury should state what the actual expenses of the year would be.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would take care that the required explanation was furnished. He also wished to inform the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Han-key) that the return he had moved for would be produced very speedily.
MR. PULLERsaid, he wished to say a word upon a point of some importance to the country. The expenses of apprehension of prisoners and the prelimininary examinations before the magistrates were no longer allowed by the Treasury. Now, he was not desirous of finding fault with his hon. Friend the late Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) for having taken care that none but legal charges were allowed. Still they might make economy too dear. Powers were now given to magistrates in petty session to order the payment of the costs of the apprehension of offenders, and he believed that it was the practice for Judges and courts of quarter sessions to allow these expenses after they had been first allowed by the committing magistrate. He believed, however, that the opinion of counsel had been taken, to the effect that the allowance was illegal; and the result was, that prosecutors having to pay all the expenses, were deterred from going on with prosecutions in all the minor classes of offences. He mentioned this in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would take the matter into his consideration and endeavour to provide some remedy for such a very mischievous state of things.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the subject of preliminary expenses for the prosecution of offenders had been under the consideration of a Commission. On that Commission were included the right hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Cardwell), another gentleman connected with the magistracy and a Master of the Common Pleas, and he was informed they had collected much valuable information. He hoped to be in possession of the Report of the Commission during the autumn or in the course of the winter, and in the meantime it would be prudent to allow matters to remain as they were.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the great object that ought to be kept in view was to make a fair and reasonable allowance on the one hand to parties who had to give evidence against offenders in cases of prosecution, and on the other to protect the Treasury against a disposition that existed to raise these charges too high. He had to remind the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Puller) that in the rural police the constables were prohibited from receiving fees, being paid by salary.
MR. WILSONsaid, what the Treasury did was really this: by the arrangement effected in 1846–7, by Sir Robert Peel, it was agreed that whatever expenses were at that time borne by the county rates should be borne by the Treasury. But these preliminary expenses for prosecutions were not then borne by the county rates, and therefore they were refused by the Treasury. But this was one among several instances where there was a tendency to slip charges which were not borne by a locality upon the country at large.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must beg pardon of the hon. Gentleman, but his impression certainly was that these charges did form part of the county rates, as an essential portion of the expenses of prosecution,
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he highly, approved of the appointment of a Commission, which he had no doubt would make a fair distinction as to the expenses that ought and those that ought not to be allowed.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the Treasury wished to act literally on the principle laid down by Sir R. Peel in 1846, that counties were to be relieved from the expense of prosecutions. There bad been two judicial decisions laying down the

1471
meaning of the words "preliminary prosecutions," and it was on these decisions the Treasury now acted.
MR. NICOLLsaid, he wished to ask if there was any prospect of the appointment of a public prosecutor?
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £214,200, Police (Counties and Boroughs and Police in Scotland).
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was desirous of calling attention to the annual increase of this Vote. There was this year an increase of £68,220, of which he was aware £54,000 was for the establishment of the general police system in Scotland; but he wished to know what was the cause of the increase of £14,000 in England, and whether the Government had formed any estimate of the probable expense of the whole system when it was fully established?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Estimates for the last Session were only for a portion of the year, while those now before the House were for the whole year. The police force in many boroughs was inefficient last year, and no sum had been claimed by them under the Act of Parliament. The estimate he made was £200,000 for England and £25,000 for Scotland. The estimate this year, therefore, nearly amounted to the entire sum that would probably be chargeable under the Act. The police of the country having nearly attained to a standard of efficiency, the Vote would not be greatly increased beyond its present amount,
MR. BAXTERsaid, that there were many boroughs in Scotland in which the Act was not yet in operation.
SIR GEORGE GREY: Scotland was a year behind England in adopting the Act.
Vote agreed to, as were the following two Votes:—
(4.) £200, Crown Office, Chancery.
(5.) £1,500, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.
(6.) £14,519, Sheriffs, &c.
MR. GRIFFITHSsaid, he had to complain that the Sheriffs, whose office was compulsory, were put to expenses in the execution of the duties of their office, which they ought not to bear. The employment of javelin men was an old pageant that might well be allowed to fall into disuse, especially as the police did the real work. The custom, too, of the Sheriffs going in state to meet the Judges was was uncalled for; in one case he knew of, the Sheriff had to go from the county hall
1472
to the railway station—a distance of some fifty yards—in a carriage and four to meet the Judges. He should like to know what right a Judge had to fine a gentleman if he did not as Sheriff meet him with an equipage suitable to his dignity. The expenses necessary for these purposes at present fall upon the Sheriffs and that even without getting the credit of doing so; for the Government made a pretence of repaying them, but did so to so paltry a sum that it was perfectly contemptible the way in which they were treated. He thought that if the expensive formalities now insisted upon were to be kept up, they ought to be supported at the cost of the country, and not at the expense of private individuals, who were often unwillingly obliged to fulfil the office of High Sheriff.
MR. WALPOLEwas understood to reply that the office of Sheriff was an honorary office.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £5,940, Registrar of Admiralty and Admiralty Court, Dublin.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked what duties the Registrar had to perform?
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the Registrar's duties were very extensive—so extensive, in fact, that during the war it was necessary to increase his allowance.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) £6,856, Insolvent Debtor's Court.
MR. W. WILLIAMSasked whether the Government saw any difficulty in the way of abolishing these Courts and transferring their functions to the County Courts?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that such a transference would interfere with the duties of the County Court Judges. If the hon. Member had asked hint whether he did not think it would be advisable to consolidate the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts, he would have told him that that was a subject worthy of consideration, and he might have added that it was one which had occupied the attention of the Government.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the subject had not escaped the attention of the late Government. Tbe whole of the business of the Insolvent Courts in the country had been transferred to the County Courts, but it was found in regard to London that the County Courts were overworked, and that it was not advisable to transfer other business to them.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that

1473
the consolidation of the Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency would not only render the administration of justice more efficient, but would tend to a saving of expense. He was also anxious to hear from the Government whether it was in contemplation to do away with imprisonment for debt in cases where there was no fraud?
MR. WALPOLEreminded the hon. Gentleman that there could be no present saving of expense by consolidating the Courts, because they could not discharge the Judges and other officers without giving them compensation. But while guarding himself from anything like a pledge on the subject, he might mention that for two months the Government had had under their consideration the question of consolidating the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts. It was also under the consideration of the Government whether it would not be wise to abolish imprisonment for debt, where it was unaccompanied by fraud.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that in Ireland the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts had been consolidated, and that the system had proved efficient.
Mr. W. WILLIAMSsuggested that vacancies in either of the Courts should not for the present be filled up.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £35,162, Court of Probate and Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.
MR. BUTLERwished to know whether this Vote included the expenses of the Prerogative Office? The Vote was very large.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONstated that the salaries of the officials connected with the Court of Probate were fixed by the Judge on the understanding that they should undergo revision when the new system was fully established. He was afraid that the experiment of the Court of Probate would be in some respects an expensive one, but, on the other hand, the sum received in the shape of fees promised to be very considerable. From the opening of the court in January to the 5th of May the fees amounted to no less a sum than £19,952. It would be the duty of the Treasury, however, to keep down the expenses of the court as much as possible.
MR. HADFIELDinquired whether a Judge had been appointed to the Court of Arches. He complained that the Admiralty Court had not been thrown open to the profession generally, although that was
1474
one of the considerations which induced the House of Commons to incur the expense of the Court of Probate. No explanation had yet been given of the circumstance that a Member of the late Government struck out in the other House that clause of the recent Probate Act which abolished the monopoly in the Admiralty Court. The public had given ample compensation, but they had not got what had been promised.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that it was the duty of the present Government to carry out the Probate Act as it was passed. The House was aware that the appointment of the Judge in the Court of Arches was in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Great difficulty had arisen, in consequence of the smallness of the salary, in finding a person willing to accept the office. The Lord Chancellor, however, was in communication with the Archbishop on the subject; but he could not at that moment state whether any decision had been arrived at.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the understanding when the salaries were fixed was, that the fees should be commensurate to the expenses, so as to make the court, if possible, self-supporting. The present fees had been fixed as an experiment, and on the understanding that they should be revised within a twelvemonth.
MR. WARRENsaid, that a Bill had been been introduced into the other House for amendment of the Probate Act, and it was his intention when that Bill came before them, to move the insertion of clauses for throwing open the practice in the Admiralty Court to the profession generally, and he trusted he should receive the support of the House.
MR. SALISBURYsaid, that there was a strong feeling in the profession that the Admiralty Court should be thrown open to the bar generally.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must press for an expression of opinion, from the Treasury bench.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he did not recede from the opinion which he expressed last year, that the Ecclesiastical Courts ought to be thrown open to the profession, and he should be glad to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bothell), who was not then in his place, the reasons why the clause was struck out in the House of Lords, to which reference had been made. Being in ignorance of those reasons it would not become him to

1475
give a pledge one way or the other as to the course which the Government ought to pursue. It should, however, be borne in mind that the Bill, as amended, came down again from the House of Lords, and that the objection to the omission ought to have been urged at that stage.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir R. Bothell) had stated that he had never been consulted in the matter. They had been led to believe, when the Bill came down from the other House, that in this part of it it contained only verbal Amendments, and the omission of this clause had thus escaped notice. The late Attorney General had agreed that the whole monopoly of the proctors should be extinguished if compensation were given.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) Motion made, and Question pro-posed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £57,050, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the County Courts, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that though the Vote was less than that for last year, there was an item to which he must take objection, namely, the item of £55,000 for the expenses of providing court-houses, fees, stationery, and printing. The item had increased from £45,000 last year to £55,000 this year. By the original Act of 1846 the treasurers of County Courts were required to provide courts out of their salaries, and the principle was adhered to until an Act was passed two years ago with a provision that the Treasury should pay for the building of the courts. Great additional business had been thrown upon the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, and those courts were very similar to the County Courts in England; but when a deputation waited upon the present Prime Minister not lone' ago, the Earl of Derby told them that all such charges as these ought to he met by the districts in which the courts were held. It was most unfair to call upon the people of Scotland to contribute to the maintenance of County Courts in England if the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland were not to be placed on the same footing.
Amendment proposed—
"That the item of £55,000, being the Expense of providing Court Houses, Offices, Stationery, Printing, &c. for the County Courts, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he was not prepared to say whether any alteration
1476
ought to made in the law as regarded Scotland; but the County Court system was productive of immense benefit in England, and it appeared to him that the public wore not paying too high a price for the blessing of cheap and expeditious justice. However that might be, he apprehended that it was provided by Act of Parliament, the 19th and 20th Vic., that County Court-houses should be provided for from the public resources. The result of last year's account was that the expenses of the registers and other matters was £272,000, and the amount derived from fees was £216,000, leaving a deficiency of £56,000, which formed part of the sum they were called on to vote. The total expense of County Courts was £244,000, which would be diminished as the amount of fees increased, and he believed that expenditure would not be grudged. Whether it was reasonable or expedient that there should be an alteration of the law with regard to Scotland was not the question before the Committee, and ought not to be mixed up with this Vote.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment; the vote for the registry was only £45,000, although the hon. Gentleman stated the difference was £56,000.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he hoped that the Government would give a pledge to bring in a Bill to repeal the clause which had been slipped into the last Act, imposing this burden on the public funds. He thought the expense of constructing courthouses ought to be defrayed by the different districts in England, as it was defrayed in Ireland.
MR. WILSONsaid, it had never been intended that the cost of erecting courthouses should be paid by the treasurer of each court personally; and the Act of 1846 merely provided that the treasurer should meet that charge out of the sum derived from fees. He wished to take that opportunity of asking his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury how it happened that the difference between the salaries and the fee fund, which amounted last year to £56,000 was set down at £45,000 for the present year, thus showing a saving of £11,000? There was also a general feeling that the high bailiffs were overpaid officers, and the late Government had thought it right to institute inquiries into the subject. He (Mr. Wilson) had heard of a case where a County Court Judge had appointed his own brother-in-law high

1477
bailiff of his court, who was a medical practitioner living ten miles off. He wished to know whether the present Government meant to pursue their inquiries?
MR. SALISBURYsaid, that a great deal of expense attending the County Court system might be saved by buying off the high bailiffs, who were of no manner of use.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that the diminution of £11,000 in the salaries, as compared with the fee fund, arose from an estimated increase in the fund to that amount. With regard to the ease of the high bailiffs, he had to state that he was engaged in an inquiry into that subject with a view to diminish or to remove what there was some reason to suppose was to a great extent an unneccessary expenditure.
MR. BAXTER, remarked, that he believed the Treasury were not acquainted with the state of things in Scotland; unless they wished to have justice come to a stand, they should take steps to provide courts. He trusted his noble Friend would press the matter to a division, unless he got a distinct pledge from the Government that the subject would be considered.
MR. MACARTNEYsuggested, that in any changes which were made some provision should be contained for obliging the treasurers to do their duty themselves, and not by deputy.
MR. WILSONsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that in the whole range of public offices there were no gentlemen who had harder duties to perform than the treasurers of County Courts, and yet, he believed, none of those gentlemen had their duties performed by deputy. Indeed if any ease came to the knowledge of the Treasury of one of these officers delegating his duties to a deputy, it would be the subject of severe animadversion.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he found in ther48th clause of the Act passed in 1864, a provision made that treasurers, with the approval of the Secretary of State, should provide court-houses for the courts; and in the second Act he found that the Commissioners of the Treasury were to pay for such court-houses out of any money which might be provided from time to time for the purpose. The question was whether this was a bad thing or not. If it were founded on a bad principle they ought not to grant the money; but if it were granted in England it also ought to be granted in the case of Scotland. The Sheriffs' Court
1478
in the latter country were the same as the County Courts in England, and they certainly ought to be placed on the same footing.
SIR JOHN OGILVYsaid, he should support the Motion of the noble Lord as he contended with him, that if the principle on which the court-houses for the English County Courts were provided was a good one, it ought to be extended to the other side of the Tweed, He also must complain of the meagre amount of information supplied by the printed estimate in reference to the subject under discussion, and to the manner in which the money was to be appropriated.
MR, ADAMSsaid, that the County Court Act showed that, in truth, the expense of providing court-houses was charged on the fee fund, of which the County Court treasurers were the administrators, and it never did, at any time, fall as a charge on any other quarter. The Committee must deal with this as a good or a bad Vote per se. if it was a bad Vote, he could not understand how it could be made more acceptable by extending it to Scotland. Besides, the expenditure to which objection was taken by the noble Lord did not refer to buildings only. On the contrary, he believed it would be found that the proportion of the money applied solely to court houses was comparatively smal1.
MR. COWANsaid, this was not merely a question of court-houses, but it was a question whether justice should be decently administered or not. The accommodation for the Sheriffs was most deficient in Edinburgh, and he had already brought the matter before Parliament, when he was promised that means should be taken to remedy a state of things so utterly discreditable. The same state of things still continued by which the suitors and the public were put to almost intolerable inconvenience. As an illustration, he might add that superintendent of police in Edinburgh conducted his business in a cellar. He trusted the noble Lord would persevere in his Amendment.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he was surprised at the course taken by the Scotch Members, as it was not long since they had boasted of providing court-houses for themselves. The English County Courts were obtained, not at the expense of the public, but by means of a tax charged on the suitors. For some years those fees were not paid for the Judges or the officers, but

1479
for the building of the County Courts. Ultimately it was thought advisable that the fees should be placed under the control of the Treasury, and that all the expenses should appear in the annual Estimates; but at this moment a large portion of the funds contributed by the suitors was applied to the building of courts. Were Scotch Members prepared to vote for a fee being imposed on Scotch suitors for the building of Sheriffs' Courts? That would place the two countries on a footing of equality. Besides, the question really before the Committee was, not whether it was a reasonable proposition that some new provision should be made for the erection and maintenance of courts in Scotland, but whether it was desirable in the administration of justice, which was now being brought home to the doors of the people of England, to deprive them of those buildings wherein justice was administered. He submitted that that would not be a reasonable course to adopt; but if, on a comparison of the facilities which were afforded to the two countries in respect to court-houses, it should appear that sufficient provision was not made for Scotland, let that form the subject of a distinct proposition to be submitted to the House hereafter.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, if hon. Members would examine the Estimates, they would find that in 1857 the amount of the suitors' fee fund was £216,000, while the salaries of registrars and high bailiffs came to £272,000; being a difference of £56,000 or £1000 more than was now attempted to be obtained for the building and maintenance of the courts, and which was, by Act of Parliament, to be provided out of the Estimates. Under these circumstances, he was at a loss to understand on what ground the right hon. Gentleman could state that the suitors' fee fund was applicable to the expense of building and maintaining the court-houses.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that they had borrowed the idea of the establishment of County Courts in England from the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland; but inasmuch as there was no means of providing for the court buildings for the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, be did not see why the country should be asked for a large sum of money for the County Court buildings in England. No doubt, it was for the Government to determine how provision should be made for the decent administration of justice. If they said it should be provided for by means of a county rate, or by means of fees, let them bring in
1480
a Bill for that purpose; but, on the other hand, if they thought the burden should fall on the public taxes, Scotch Members might fairly contend that Scotland should be dealt with in the same manner as England. Justice was dear to all, and it was highly advisable to afford to the poor man cheap and speedy means of obtaining it; yet, unless the Government would give a pledge that the administration of justice in Scotland should be improved in this respect, he should vote against the Estimate.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he sympathised with the desire of the Scotch Members to obtain assistance for the Sheriffs' Courts, but he thought that they might take a much better course than dividing the House against this Vote. It had been admitted to be a sound general principle, that the expense of the administration of justice should be defrayed out of the public funds, but it was quite a mistake to suppose that the expense of the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland were paid for by a rate; that was by no means the general practice—sometimes the buildings were provided for by a voluntary assessment, sometimes by a local Act of Parliament, and sometimes by a rate. Still, however anomalous the law might be in this respect in Scotland, he submitted that the way to remedy it was, not to refuse to England that which was essential to the carrying out of an important system of jurisprudence, which had recently been established, and which was found to work efficiently.
MR. BLACKsaid, he only required for Scotland what was just and fair. The course pursued by the noble Lord was the only effectual way of making known the grievance of which he complained.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he must again remind the hon. Member that there was no proposition before the Committee for the benefit of Scotland. If the proposition were to transfer the money from England to Scotland, that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but as it at present stood the Amendment would rob Peter, but it would not pay Paul. His noble Friend (Viscount Duncan) having given expression to his wishes, should leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
MR,. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he thought it would be very inconvenient to take a division upon the Vote, and certainly the adoption of the noble Lord's Amendment would be disastrous to his own views, There was no proposition before

1481
the Committee to provide court-houses, but the result of the adoption of the Amendment would be to arrest the administration of justice in the County Courts. It was true that in Ireland all the expenses of building court-houses were paid out of the county rates, and he thought England should be placed upon an equal footing with Ireland and Scotland in that respect, but in order to arrive at that end, he would not recommend the refusal of the present Vote, but that a separate measure should be prepared upon the subject.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALobserved that hon. Members who wished for equality should remember that in Scotland the Sheriffs Courts were not only civil but criminal courts, in which the larger portion of the criminal business of the county was disposed of. The criminal courts in this country were paid out of the borough and county rates. And yet Scotch Members now declared that while England paid for the building of her criminal courts out of rates, Scotland was entitled to have her criminal courts paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. He would ask Scotch Members whether that was equality. As to the civil business transacted in the Scotch courts, be would remind the Committee that they were not discussing a Scotch Vote, but one for carrying out an elaborate system under which a great part of the legal business of the country was disposed of. It appeared as if Scotch Members wanted to stop the supplies necessary for the administration of Justice in England, in order to extort from the Government a promise to do something for the benefit of Scotland. That was neither the fair nor the proper way to deal with a question which he admitted to be of gravity and deserving of consideration, but which should be deliberated on in the shape of a Bill prepared for the purpose. Then, again, he would ask hon. Members to consider the nature of the fund from which the expenses of the County Courts were paid. In order that there might be a control over the fees the moneys were paid into the public revenue and appeared in the estimates, but that circumstance did not alter the nature of the trust with which they were impressed when collected. The noble Lord had compared the £272,000 paid for salaries, &c., with the £216,010 received in fees, and argued that there was, consequently, a deficiency of £56,000. As to figures the noble Lord was right, but he must bear in mind the purpose to which
1482
Parliament had directed those fees to be applied. In the original County Court Act there was a section enacting that for the purpose of raising sums for providing courthouses and offices, and for paying off money borrowed, certain fees should be charged, to be regulated by the Secretary of State. The County Court clerk was to pay the fees to the treasurer, and then it was provided that the fund should be applied towards paying the interest upon sums borrowed, to paying rent and other expenses necessarily incurred in holding the courts, to paying off sums borrowed, and to defraying other expenses charged upon the general fund, the surplus, if any, to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Thus, Parliament had given the County Court officers authority to demand from every plaintiff certain fees to be applied upon certain trusts strictly defined. He was aware that a subsequent Act of Parliament contained a provision which charged the Commissioners of the Treasury with making good, out of sums to be obtained from Parliament from time to time, the whole of the deficiency which might arise in the necessary expenses for the building of the courts in question; but, then, that provision by no means repealed the section in the previous Act to which he had just, referred. Those hon. Gentlemen who supported the proposition of the noble Lord opposite talked of fairness, but he would ask them whether it was in accordance with common honesty that they should thus seek to violate a trust? The fees were in fact a trust fund; the trusts were distinctly defined by Parliament, and the public had a right to demand that the money should be applied to the purposes for which it was taken. He could assure the noble Lord that this was money which could not properly be applied to the payment of salaries till every shilling that was necessary had been expended in providing courts. [Viscount DUNCAN: No.] The noble Lord might say No, but he could assure the noble Lord that if he were appointed a trustee and were to deal with the trust property as he asked the Committee to deal with the fund under discussion, he would be guilty of a breach of trust, and would be bound to make good the whole of the money himself, Parliament in its omnipotence could of course do what it pleased in the matter, but he would nevertheless advise the Committee to hesitate before they converted money which was properly applicable to the build-

1483
ing of court-houses to a totally different purpose
MR. WILSONsaid, that while entertaining a strong opinion that it would be very inexpedient to adopt the course proposed by the noble Lord, he was anxious to correct a misstatement on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman with reference to the applicability of the suitors' fee fund, ss he thought the hon, and learned Gentleman had not put the matter in its proper light before the Committee. It was no doubt perfectly true that the Act of 1846 made the expenses for the building of court-houses a trust-charge upon the fees in question; but by a law which had been passed two years ago those fees were confined to two specific purposes—those purposes being the payment of the salaries of the registrar and the high bailiff; while the expenses for court-houses were made chargeable upon sums to be voted by the House of Commons, and therefore it was that they appeared in the estimate as a separate and distinct Vote. The Committee would further bear in mind that the original Act provided that all existing courthouses in England should be applicable to the purposes of the County Courts, and it was only in those cases where there was no accommodation that Parliament was applied to for the purpose of supplying money to build courts.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was perfectly ready to admit the financial capacity of the hon. Gentleman, but he must excuse him if he observed that he was altogether under a mispprehension of the law of the case. The Act of Parliament which had been passed two years ago simply provided that, for purposes of mere convenience, and to avoid the needless remittance of money backwards and forwards, the payments of the salaries of the registrar and high-bailiff should be made out of those fees, instead of their being remitted in the first instance to the Treasury, Parliament undertaking to recoup the money thus laid out. He might add that the Act which was passed two years ago, while distinctly setting forth that it operated as a repeal of several of the clauses of the original Act, left untouched the 57th clause, which was still in force, and under the operation of which the trust upon the fees still continued to exist.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he could not support the proposition of the noble Lord. He considered the establishment of the County Courts was the most important
1484
law reform that had ever taken place in this country, and nobody could deny the enormous benefits which resulted therefrom. Tim real question, however, was, whether justice was done to Scotland; for his part, he should wish to see the three kingdoms placed upon the same footing in respect to this matter.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, if any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench would rise and repeat the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), he would at once withdraw his Motion. He admired the system of County Courts as much as any one, and he did not want to impede the administration of justice, but he was convinced that, if they stopped this £55,000 to-night, the immediate effect would be that the Solicitor General would come down to-morrow with a Bill in his hand to provide for the payment out of the public money of the necessary buildings for administering justice in all parts of the United Kingdom.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, this was not a Vote for carrying out an Act just passed, but for defraying the expenses of a system which, with the approbation of the Legislature and the country, had been established several years for the administration of justice, and he therefore hoped that the noble Lord would not, even for the sake of advancing what he thought a just principle, overthrow that system. If the noble Lord thought that Scotland was entitled to what he claimed for her, let him discuss that question on some future occasion upon its own merits. The noble Lord filled an office in the late Government, and he therefore appealed to him, as a statesman, whether the course he was pursuing was not inexpedient and unfair.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought that his noble Friend deserved great credit for the gallantry with which he had fought the battle of his own country—a battle which exceeded in interest and importance the fight about the unicorn. He hoped, however, that his noble Friend would be content with the glory he had won, because the stopping of a Vote like this could only be justified in a most extreme case. This Vote was for carrying out the provisions of an Act of Parliament by which most important improvements were effected in the administration of justice. It was not a prospective Vote that could be postponed without inconvenience, but a Vote which was absolutely necessary for carrying on the admi-

1485
nistration of these County Courts. If the House were to refuse this Vote, they would, in the first place, shake the confidence of the country in Acts of Parliament, the carrying out of which required grants from the Consolidated Fund. In the next place, they would paralyze at once one of the most important improvements in modern times in the administration of justice, whereby justice was brought to the door of every poor man in the country. They would, therefore, be punishing the great bulk of the population of this country merely for the purpose of effecting that which ought to be effected by some other course. He hoped the House would not be induced to support the noble Lord. If it were right that the arrangements which had been made with regard to England should be extended to Scotland and Ireland, well and good; but that should be effected, not by stopping this Vote, but by the introduction of a Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would respond to the appeal which had been made to him. He could assure him that there was no wish on the Ministerial side of the House to obtain any advantage for England at the expense of Scotland or Ireland. After very ample discussion in the Legislature, and considerable agitation throughout the country, that most important improvement in the administration of justice in this country—the County Court system—was established with the general sanction of the Legislature and the country. The proposition of the noble Lord was absolutely to arrest the fulfilment of the intentions of the Legislature and the country, and to withdraw national support from a mode of administering justice which had given universal satisfaction. If the noble Lord thought the incidence of taxation in England, Scotland, and Ireland should he inquired into, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would never oppose an inquiry of that kind. With his full consent the noble Lord might be appointed Chairman of the Committee to which that inquiry might be intrusted. From the knowledge which he had of the ability and impartiality of the noble Lord, as shown in the Committee upon the land revenues of this country, he had no doubt that such an inquiry under the noble Lord's direction would be most satisfactorily pursued and end in important results. The House, he was sure, would listen with respect to those results, and if the noble Lord could show
1486
that Scotland suffered any injustice, and that England was a favoured country compared with Scotland, there could be no doubt that the noble Lord's appeal for justice to Scotland would be respectfully listened to. Put the present proposition of the noble Lord was to arrest improvement in England, and not to secure improvement in Scotland. The House, he was sure, would never assent to so unfair and unwise a proposition. He should be the first to support any just proposition which the noble Lord might hereafter make with regard to the incidence of taxation in Scotland.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he was unwilling to waste the time of the House, and he could conscientiously assert that it would give him the very greatest pain to obstruct the administration of justice in the County Courts of England. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would attend to what he was about to say. He would certainly be prepared at once to withdraw his present Motion, if he clearly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if a Bill to have the expenses of providing County Courts in Scotland paid for out of the Consolidated Fund were brought in he would support it.
MR. WISEsaid, as the noble Lord was a Lord of the Treasury under the late Government, he wished to know whether he did not as such approve these Estimates?
VISCOUNT DUNCAN: In answer to my hon. Friend I beg leave to say that the late Government did not prepare these Estimates.
MR. WILSONsaid, it was owing to mere accident that they were not prepared by the late Government, but that there would not have been the slightest difference between their Estimates and those now before the House.
SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR, said, he thought the noble Lord would exercise a sound discretion by withdrawing the Motion.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, his purpose had been mainly answered by the discussion which had taken place. He hoped that discussion would not be lost sight of when the next Estimates were framed, and under these circumstances he should now withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(11.) Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £25,428, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the

1487
Police Courts of the Metropolis, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, on the last Vote he was asked to produce a case where criminal courts were provided for out of the Consolidated Fund. Here was one.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must also complain of the system by which the police courts of a particular district were supported at the public expense. This was unfair to the rest of the country, and he should therefore move the reduction of the Vote by £7,430, the amount of salaries for clerks.
MR. KINNAIRDremarked, that his hon. Friend had objected to the wrong item.
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the Estimate was not drawn in an intelligible manner.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, it should be more explicit next year.
Amendment proposed—.
"That the item of £7,430, for the Salaries of Clerks of the Police Courts of the Metropolis, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he did not mean to object to the Vote, but certainly thought that the expense of the Metropolitan police courts ought not to be borne by the country generally. Other large towns defrayed these expenses themselves, and the general feeling was that London ought to do the name.
MR. D. NICOLLasked for explanation as to an item of £2,000 for rent of premises, although £17,900 had been expended this year in building new police offices.
MR. HARDYexplained that there were a great number of houses rented.
MR. PEASEsaid, he did not think it was fair to the counties to pass those large sums for the Metropolitan police courts.
Mr. AYRTONsaid, that the Metropolitan police stood upon a different ground to that occupied by the rural police. The Metropolitan police was a great national force, available for any part of the Kingdom in case of necessity, and under the control of the Government.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought that there should be no objection to a national payment to the Metropolitan police, seeing that this police did so large an amount of national duty.
MR. COXsaid, he quite concurred that it was very desirable that there should be
1488
no application to the Consolidated Fund for the police of the Metropolis; but then their police force should be on the same footing as that of the country. Three-fourths of the expense of the police of the Metropolis was maintained by rates, and the other fourth was paid by the Government, to enable them to use the police—to use them as foreign spies, to attend at places where discussion societies were held, and to obtain evidence against Dr. Bernard or against some publisher. That was the reason why one-fourth part of the charge was placed on the Consolidated Fund.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that the police of Manchester or those of Liverpool were national as well as those of London; but that it was not only for the police of London but for other things—for the parks and bridges—that the country were called on to pay. It was unjust, and he thought that they ought to bring the thing to a test. He was therefore inclined to oppose the whole Vote.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought his hon. Friend misunderstood the position of the inhabitants of London in regard to the police. They had nothing to do with their government, and at one-half of the rates they had to pay they could provide a police quite sufficient for the purposes of the Metropolis; while at present he walked from that House to the Regent's Park at all hours of the night and scarcely ever met a policeman.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(12.) Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £128,607, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. GRIFFITHsaid, that, in his opinion, a lesson might be taken from the Continental police as regarded their action in cases of obstruction in public thoroughfares. Many streets in London were periodically obstructed, to the great annoyance of hon. Members returning home; and, as far as he could see, the police had little or no control in the matter.
MR. GILPINsaid, he did not know how it was, but perhaps hon. Gentlemen had more personal attractions than he had, and that might account for his not being insulted when going home from the House. He wished to ask the Secretary for the Home Department if he could give any ex-

1489
planation as to the very large increase in the amount to be voted in payment of salaries. There was an increase of about £25,000. He wished to know whether there was any sum paid for the expense of foreign police. The increase was from £103,645 to £128,607.
MR. WALPOLEexplained that a portion of the increase in the Vote was to be accounted for by the fact that power was given by an Act of last Session to raise, on the security of the rates, a large sum of money for the establishment of new police districts in the Metropolis. Among the items included in this Vote there was also one of £33,175 as a contribution to make good the deficiency in the police superannuation fund.
MR. MASSEYsaid, that representations having been made to his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary that various new districts in the suburbs of the metropolis were left entirely unprotected by the police, it became necessary to appoint a large number of men, with inspectors and sergeants in proportion, to meet the demands of the inhabitants in those districts. That number of men did not fall much short of 450, and the expense amounted to between £25,000 and £26,000. The new districts comprised a line of streets, and roads that extended over fourteen miles.
MR. NICOLLsaid, that the increased expense of the police might, to some extent, be accounted for by the variety of duties they were called upon to perform. Amongst others he alluded to the arrangement by which the proprietors of theatres and other places of entertainment, as well as of private houses, hired their services, on account of which an item of £5,550 figured in the columns of this Vote. That practice was open to abuse, and it had come to his knowledge as a magistrate that the police in a certain case had been acting as door-keepers to one of the greatest sinks of iniquity in the metropolis. The Police Act required amendment, not only on this head, but also in respect to the basis of the rating.
MR. AYRTONstrongly condemned the system of passing Bills through that house, imposing new charges on the public, without an estimate of the amount of those charges being first laid on the table. The increase in the Vote under discussion was a consequence of the reckless manner in which such statutes were passed.
MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary,
1490
would give an answer to his question, which was one of a practical nature. The right hon. Gentleman had received deputations relative to the social evil; and it was well known that the pavements in the neighbourhood of King Street, St. James's, were obstructed by a class of persons to whose character he need not more particularly allude. There never were any policemen within reach to remedy this inconvenience.
MR. WALPOLE: If the hon. Member would look into the original Police Act he would see there was a power given to the police to prevent the persons to whom he referred from doing anything to annoy passers-by; but for the police to interfere beyond that would be regarded as a most arbitrary proceeding. The subject had been brought under his attention, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that everything which could be required for proper order and decency in the streets, and to prevent annoyance to persons passing along, was provided by the Police Act; that everything which could be done within reasonable limits should he done, but beyond that he must say, once for all, he should decline to interfere.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYwas understood to object to the Vote, on the ground that it applied to purely metropolitan objects, and to suggest its postponement until further information on the subject had been obtained.
MR. WILSONsaid, he thought the Vote was fully explained by the printed estimates. The total estimated expenditure was £464,283, of which £300,895 was contributed by the metropolitan districts, and sums received from other sources raised this amount to £340,187, leaving a balance including the charge for additional inspectors and sergeants,—whose appointment was now under the consideration of the Secretary of State,—of £128,710, which was the amount to which the charge on the public was limited by various Acts of Parliament. There had been a considerable increase in the Vote in consequence of the necessary extension of the police force, but three-fourths of this increase were defrayed by local rates, and the remaining fourth was a charge upon the public.
MR. HADFLELDsaid, that the police force was increased in consequence of the extension of the London suburbs, where, notoriously, the richest of the London population resided; and in order to protect their property and persons the whole coun-

1491
try was taxed. That was unfair, and he should, therefore, resist the Vote.
The Committee divided:— Ayes 157; Noes 28: Majority, 129.
Vote agreed to, as was also the next Vote,
(13.) £3,495, Queen's Prison.
(14.) £3,342, Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, Scotland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that this Vote constituted a grievance for England, as the salaries of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General in Scotland formed an expense not existing in the case of the English Attorney and Solicitor General. He was aware that the latter were remunerated by fees, but he believed that the Scotch law officers also received emoluments of that kind.
MR. MACMAHONsaid, that the expenses of the administration of justice for Scotland were much greater in proportion to the population of the country than was the expense of administering justice in either England or Ireland. The sum required for Scotland was £110,000, while the charge for justice in Ireland, exclusive of the charges for the Dublin and country police, which amounted to £700,000, was only about £73,000. He should also contend that the present state of the law of Scotland inflicted great hardship upon England. He could instance a recent case in which an Englishman who had dealings with a Scotchman sent him a letter which the latter considered libellous. The latter commenced an action for libel, and, proceeding by "indictal citation," obtained judgment by default, and then set off the damages obtained in this action against a sum due from him to the other on account of goods. It had even been made a matter of discussion amongst Scotch lawyers, whether, if an Englishman left an umbrella or a toothpick behind him in Scotland, that would not afford a foundation for a process against him by "indictal citation." Then they had no habeas corpus in Scotland, which was another defect in the law of that country.
MR. NICOLLobserved, that in Scotland the Lord Advocate was also the public prosecutor, and he wanted to know why the benefits of such an office should be confined to that part of the United Kingdom?
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would remind the House of the opinion of the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas when Attorney General, who recommend-
1492
ed the gradual introduction of the system of public prosecutors in a way to suit as much as possible the system now in existence, and he trusted the present Government would give that recommendation their careful consideration.
MR. MILESsaid, that as one of the Committee appointed to inquire into that subject, he could speak of the great assistance given them by that very learned Judge, as well as by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He said the evidence before that Committee showed how much better the criminal business of the country was conducted in Scotland and in Ireland than it was in England, and he trusted his hon. Friends in the present Government would take that evidence into their consideration.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that this was a subject which, but for its importance, would long since have received the great and anxious consideration of the Government; but he must remind the Committee that from the late period of the Session when the present Government came into office, their capability to consider important questions had been necessarily limited. He could say for himself, that from the hour that he had accepted office, every moment not engaged in other public business had been given to subjects of law reform, which would be submitted to the consideration of Parliament either in this or in the other House. One of these subjects was the bankrupt law, which involved as large a number of important questions as any one could undertake; but he was happy to say that it was a subject which was now nearly in a state to be submitted to Parliament. Another subject which had engaged the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General, namely, the appointment of a Minister of Justice, had also occupied his time, and he hoped, as soon as he could obtain an evening free from still more important business, to be able to submit a Bill to the House on that subject. He hoped also to submit several Bills for a first reading for the consolidation of important branches of the statute law, and he proposed to move for a Committee to consider the appointment of a Board not only for the consolidation of the statutes now in existence, but for the revision also of any Bills which the House might think proper to refer to it in their progress through Parliament. With these and other subjects his attention had been entirely engaged, so as to make it

1493
quite impossible for him to give the evidence of the Committee alluded to his attention. But to that evidence he would devote any time which he could secure from the subjects which he had now in hand, and he hoped he might yet be able to submit a measure on the subject. With regard to the particular Vote before the Committee, it might be unknown to many hon. Members that the law officers of the Crown in England received no salary, but received fees in criminal prosecutions. On the other hand, the Lord Advocate and his learned colleague were obliged to leave their homes and spend nearly a quarter of the year in London, and to give their attention to the maturing measures to please the fastidious tastes of a large section of the House. It was necessary in these circumstances that they should receive salaries, but the salaries they did receive appeared to him very inadequate for the services rendered by the law officers of Scotland.
MR. MACMAHONsaid, he must protest against the doctrine that the criminal business of England was worse done than in Ireland or Scotland; for he had before proved to the House, and he hoped to prove again, should a Bill for the institution of a public prosecutor be introduced, that the business in England was better done than in either of the other two countries. For proof of this he might instance the case of the British Bank delinquents as compared with the case of the directors of the Western Bank of Scotland, who, with the whole system of public prosecutors and procurators-fiscal, were still at large and unquestioned.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.
(15.) £18,577, Court of Session, Scotland.
(16.) £11,261, Court of Justiciary Scotland.
(17.) £5,550, Criminal Prosecutions, Scotland.
(18.) £1,860, Legal Branch of Exchequer, Scotland.
(19.) £25,000, Sheriffs' Courts, Scotland.
(20.) £11,955, Procurators Fiscal, Scotland.
(21.) £13,110, Sheriff Clerks, Scotland.
(22.) £2,250, Solicitor of the Crown, &c., Scotland.
Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £15,118, be
1494
granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the several Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh, to the 31st day of March, 1859."
MR. CAIRDsaid, he wished to call attention to the cost of the fees for the transfer of land, which were double the cost of the work itself. The late Government held out some hope of those fees being reduced, and he hoped the present Government would carry out the intentions of their predecessors.
MR. COWANsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to an item of £1,000, included in the Vote for the salary of the Keeper of the Registry of Sasines. He wished to know whether a Treasury Minute had not been made some time since recommending that upon the occasion of a vacancy this appointment should not be renewed, on the ground that it was a sinecure. He was desirous also of asking the late Secretary of the Treasury whether the late Government had not when in a moribund state filled up this lucrative appointment, notwithstanding the Treasury Minute in question?
MR. WILSONsaid, it was quite true that some two or three years ago the Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland called the attention of the Treasury to this office as a sinecure, and recommended that it should be abolished on the death of its then holder. Last summer the holder of the office died, Mr. Pringle, the salary being then £1,500 a year. The Treasury then proposed to abolish the office, but his hon. Friend, who was then Lord Advocate, decided that the office should not be abolished, but amalgamated with some other, and made a real working office. He might add that the general feeling of the legal profession in Scotland was very much opposed to the extinction of the office. The salary had, however, been reduced from £1,500 to £1,000. He believed he was correct in stating that the present Lord Advocate concurred in the expediency of those amalgamations, and in the policy of retaining the office.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, if the office was a sinecure in the hands of Mr. Pringle a sinecure it was still; because, with the single exception that the salary was somewhat reduced, it remained now exactly as it was. There was no amalgamation; Mr. Brodie, the present holder, was keeper of Sasines, and nothing else; but at the same time he must say that he believed the continuance of the office

1495
was highly necessary, and he could not conceive how any one acquainted with the titles of land in Scotland could think otherwise. As to the question of the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird), it was quite true that there was a surplus of some £4,000 or £5,000 a year over and above the expenses of the establishment, arising from fees; and to that extent, perhaps, they might be reduced. But he might state that it was intended to centralise all the local registers under one office in Edinburgh, which would effect a further saving of expense; but till that was done he was afraid he could not hold out much hope of diminishing the fees.
MR. COWANremarked, that however important the duties might be, they had not hitherto been discharged by the Keeper of Sasines, but by the deputy keeper. He felt so strongly that this was something approaching the character of a job, that he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
Amendment proposed—
"That the item of £1,000, being the Salary of the Keeper of the General and Particular Registers of Sasines, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. WILSONsaid, he must complain that the Lord Advocate had in one part of his speech said there was no amalgamation of duties, and in the other pointed out the amalgamation that was to be effected. The centralization of the local offices under the one Keeper in Edinburgh was the very amalgamation the late Government contemplated.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. He repeated that there had been no amalgamation, and certainly none would be effected by the centralization he contemplated. He might add that he was not aware, nor had he found any trace, of its being the intention of the late Government to bring in such a Bill as he referred to.
MR. WILSONsaid, that such was the fact nevertheless.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he hoped the Scotch Members who often complained of profusion in regard to English Votes would resist this job as applied to Scotland. But there was an earlier Vote he wished to object to—that of Lord Clerk Registrar, to which was appended a salary of £1,200. That office was a decided sinecure, for it was held by the Marquess of Dalhousie while he was Governor General of India, while the du-
1496
ties of the office were in reality discharged by an assistant keeper, and he thought the high salary should be given to the official who did the work. He should like to hear from the Lord Advocate something regarding the honorary office of Lord Clerk Registrar, and what were the intentions of the Government regarding it.
SIR GEORGE LEWISremarked, that he did not very clearly understand what were the grounds of the objection taken to the arrangement made by the late Government, or on what grounds it was proposed to omit from the Vote the salary of the Keeper of the Registrar of Sasines. The Lord Advocate had given his opinion that the gentleman holding that office discharged duties that should be discharged, and that it was impossible the office could be abolished. In these circumstances he did not understand what was the ground of objection—whether it was an objection to the maintenance of the office or to the competency of the individual who discharged its duties.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, the office of Lord Clerk Registrar, now held by the Marquess of Dalhousie, was, no doubt, a sinecure, but as it was an old and an honourable office he should be sorry to see it abolished. The better course would be not to maintain it as a sinecure, but to turn it to some advantage, which could easily be done in connection with the Register House. He was sorry to hear from the Lord Advocate that there was to be no consolidation of the offices, of which there had been a general expectation. After the late Government had tendered their resignation, they appointed as Keeper of the Register of Sasines a man of great eminence in his profession—so eminent that he could not find time to attend to the duties of his office. He thought that on principle there was an objection to the appointment of persons of too high practice to an office like this.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEhad been informed by one of the clerks of the office that nothing could exceed the zeal and ability with which the present holder of the office discharged his duties. He could not concur in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), for the duties of this office were so important that he thought men of the very highest professional ability should be selected to fill it.
MR. G. DUNDASsaid, this was a job perpetrated by the late Government alter their resignation. It was generally ex-

1497
pected in Scotland that the office would have been conferred upon a gentleman employed at the Register House in Edinburgh, thoroughly conversant with all the duties of the post, and a man of great erudition and antiquarian knowledge; but on the break up of the late Government they appointed a gentleman who had strong political claims upon them, and thus effected a job which had caused the greatest dissatisfaction.
THE LORD ADVOCATE, in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), said there was no doubt that the office of Lord Clerk Register was an honorary one, and had been so for a century back and more. It was now held by the Marquess of Dalhousie. He put it to the House, however, whether they would interfere rashly with an office that was established under an Act of Parliament.
MR. HORSMANsaid, whether they called this office an honorary one or a sinecure it was clearly all anomaly. It had been held by the Marquess of Dalhousie even when he was Governor General of India. He wished to know whether in any future measure that might be introduced it was in the contemplation of the Government to do away with this office when the next vacancy occurred?
MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether he could move an Amendment to the Vote for the Lord Clerk Registrar, though it came before the Vote objected to by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan).
MR. CHAIRMANsaid, that the earlier item could not be discussed unless the hon. Member for Edinburgh withdrew his Amendment.
MR. COWANcertainly intended to ad here to his Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
"That the item of £1,000, being the Salary of the Keeper of the General and Particular Registers of Sasines, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. WHITE: Where are we?
MR. TITE: We cannot bear a word here. The Chairman is going at the rate of sixty miles an hour.
MR. WILSONsaid, there was some confusion as to the last proposition put from the Chair, as he understood the Committee, had assented to the Amendment for the reduction of one item of£1,000. The effect of the reduction would be to impair,
1498
the efficiency of the office, which was one of great responsibility, for the holder was responsible for all the errors his clerks might commit. Not many years ago the holder of this office had to refund £3,000, in consequence of an error made by one of his clerks.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he must declare that hon. Members around him had challenged the Amendment in the usual way when the question was put, and they considered that they were going to a division. There had evidently been a great mistake.
MR. MILESsaid he wished to know whether there was a Treasury Minute declaring the office to be a sinecure.
MR. WILSONsaid, that he had given an explanation on the subject when the hon. Member for Somersetshire was absent. He would, however, repeat what he had before said on the subject. Two years ago the attention of the Treasury was called to the subject. The Queen's Remembrancer for Scotland declared that upon a vacancy there was no occasion to fill it up. A letter was thereupon written by the Treasury to the Home Office, suggesting that in the event of a vacancy it should not be filled up without consideration. When the vacancy occurred a correspondence took place between the Lord Advocate of Scotland and the Home Office, in which the Treasury had no share, but good grounds, as he understood, were given why the office should be continued in a modified shape.
MR. G. DUNDASsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. Member intended to convey the impression that the holder of this office bad not exercised sufficient surveillance over his clerks.
MR. WILSONsaid, he had not intended to convey the impression that the loss had arisen in consequence of any defalcation on the part of one of the clerks. A mistake was made in a search which led to a considerable loss, for which a court of law held that the Keeper of the Registers was responsible.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEremarked, that he had said "no" to the reduction of the Vote, and he was not at all aware that the Amendment was carried.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Keeper of the Registers could not be expected to perform the duties of his office if he received no salary. If the salary were struck out the people of Scotland

1499
would have no one responsible next year for the accuracy of the register.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as some misconception appeared to have taken place on this item he proposed to withdraw the Vote altogether for the present.
MR. LOCKHARTobserved, that he knew that the late Mr. Pringle had considered the office of Keeper of the Register to be no sinecure. He did not believe that any defalcation had taken place in his time.
MR. WILSONsaid, he had cast no imputation on any one. He did not know the time when the holder of the office was held responsible to the owner of the property in consequence of the mistake of a clerk. It was some time ago.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had never heard a question put more distinctly than the question of the omission of the item. There was great silence and unusual delay. It was therefore hardly fair for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say it was a mistake,
MR. BAXTERsaid, he conceived the deprivation of salary would not affect the responsibility of the officer.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that as a point of order he objected to again discussing a matter already decided by a Vote of the Committee. He would therefore call upon the Chairman to say whether he had not decided the omission in the affirmative.
MR. CHAIRMANsaid, that decision had been arrived at by the Committee. The question now was whether it was their pleasure that the Vote should be withdrawn.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was customary for the Government to signify dissent when any item was challenged. He understood that it was through inadvertence that it was not done in this case. [Cries of "No!"] He was only repeating what he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say. Under these circumstances it was rather discourteous on the part of hon. Gentlemen who differed from the Government to prevent the Vote being withdrawn, that the subject might be reconsidered on a future occasion. It seemed to have been a mere accident that the omission of the item was not challenged. ["No!"] He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it was a mere accident, and he did not sec
1500
why they should disbelieve that statement. It would be a somewhat unusual course to insist upon an advantage gained in that accidental manner.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, he was not in his place when the question was put. He found the Committee in some confusion, and, on asking the cause, he was told that the Chairman had not heard the cry of "No." He had no other wish than to do that which was proper. Of course, there was no imputation on their able Chairman, but there was an error. The Committee had arrived at a conclusion which was challenged. Under those circumstances he thought the best way was to withdraw the Vote. There should never be a feeling on either side that in a Committee of Supply there was anything like sharp practice. There could be but one feeling on each side, that the money of the country should be voted for efficient services, and if there were any doubt as to the mode in which a decision had been arrived at it was by no means an unusual course to withdraw the Vote and reconsider it on a future opportunity. He was still of opinion that it was a proper course, and he should therefore move that the Vote be withdrawn.
MR. HORSMANsaid, their first feeling should be to support the regularity of their proceedings, and especially to support the Chairman, whose duty was discharged with great ability and propriety. When the Motion of omission was put there was an unusual pause, because the Chairman, like the rest of the Committee, was evidently surprised that no one on the Government side said "No." It was not inadvertence. It was indecision. He watched the Secretary for the Home Department and the Lord Advocate. He saw them turn round and confer with a neighbour. The fact was, they were taken by surprise. It was really indecision, and, although he should have no objection to withdraw the Vote, if it could be put on a proper footing, he appealed to the Committee whether they should allow it to be withdrawn upon the ground that there was something in the mode in which the Chairman put the question which had placed the Committee in embarrassment.
LORD JOHN MANNERSbegged to say, that he did challenge the omission in time. It was impossible to explain why his voice was not heard by the Chairman.
MR. HORSMANasked, whether the

1501
noble Lord, had not challenged after the Chairman said, "The Ayes have it."
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that he said "No" to the question, and repeated it a second time.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the blame ought to rest entirely with him, as it was his duty to make the challenge, and he intended to do so, but he supposed he said "No" at the wrong time. He was engaged at the moment speaking to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside). It was entirely inadvertence. There was no hesitation on his part in reference to the intention on the part of the Government to call for a division.
MR. WALPOLEremarked, that it was of the first importance that they should support the decision of the Chairman, and he had the greatest pleasure in making that observation, because he never saw a Chairman who conducted business in Committee with greater fairness and impartiality. He was therefore perfectly willing, whatever misapprehension there might be, to trust entirely to the Chairman's judgment, and to say to that judgment they ought to bow. As far as the Government were personally concerned it was not a Vote in which they were interested, because the only objection he had heard taken was the appointment of a gentleman after an assurance had been given by the late Government that the office should not be filled up, and that appointment took place shortly before the resignation of the late Government. In defending the Vote he was not actuated by any personal motives whatever, for his personal feelings, if he had any, would rather lean to the other side. The substantial point to be ascertained was, whether the House was of opinion that there should be a head of this department at the salary of £1,000 a year. That could not now be ascertained, because the Committee had formally rejected the item, but the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the Committee an opportunity of reconsidering the question. By agreeing to postpone the Vote those who were against this item would not be placed at any disadvantage, and the Committee would thereby have the opportunity of giving a bonâ fide decision.
MR. COWANsaid, he had no objection to the postponement of the Vote if the Government would pledge themselves that only one officer—and one officer it had been
1502
shown was sufficient to do the work—should be appointed.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not meet the object which he had in view. The item of £1,000 had been struck out, aad if the Vote were now postponed the House would not be able at any other time to do more than consider the reduced Vote of £14,000. The best plan would be to agree to the reduced Vote, and on the Report to move the addition of this item of £1,000.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in his opinion that the course suggested by the hon. Baronet was impracticable.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he agreed that the hon. Baronet's proposition was informal, and he would therefore suggest that the reduced Vote should now be passed, and that on the Report the Government should move that the Vote be recommitted, with a view of adding the omitted item.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the course suggested by the noble Viscount was perfectly consistent with the practice of Committees of Supply.
(23.) Question—
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,118 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the several Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh, to the 31st day of March, 1859,"
put, and agreed to. The three following Votes were then agreed to.
(24.) £1,124, Commissary Clerk, Edinburgh.
(25.) £1,675, Accountant in Bankruptcy, Scotland.
(26.) £26,620, Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland.
(27.) £3,726, Officers of the Court of Chancery, Ireland.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYexpressed his opinion that it would be greatly for the public advantage if the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland were made permanent. There was no reason in the world why the office should be made a political office, as that of the Lord Chancellor in this country necessarily was.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
(28.) £2,599, Court of Queen's Bench, Ireland.
(29.) £3,480, Court of Common Pleas, Ireland.
(30.) £3,975, Court of Exchequer, Ireland.
(31.) £200, Clerk of Taxing Officers for the Three Law Courts, Ireland.
(32.) £5,850, Registrars to the Judges, Ireland.
(33.) £2,348, Registration of Judgments, Ireland.
(34.) £9,546, Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Ireland.
(35.) £8,872, Court of Probate, Ireland.
(36.) £830, Revising Barristers, Dublin.
(37.) £267, Court of Errors, Ireland.
(38.) £1,600, Police Justices, Dublin.
(39.) £24,500, Divisional Police Courts, &c., Dublin.
(40.) £514,287, Constabulary Force, Ireland.
(41.) £2,583, Four Courts, Dublin.
(42.) £17,703, Inspection of Prisons.
(43.) £380,756, Prisons and Convict Establishments.
(44.) £140,023, County Gaols, &c.
(45.) £24,715, Transportation.
(46.) £225,968, Convict Establishments.
House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

JOINT-STOCK BANKING COMPANIES BILL—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. HEADLAM MR. HEADLAM moved that the House go into Committee on this Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. BUCHANANsaid, that at that late hour (twelve o'clock) it was impossible that so important a measure could be properly discussed. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that as the Government had refused to appoint a day for the consideration of the Bill, he saw no reason why the House should not go into Committee at once.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that if there was no prospect of any prolonged discussion, he hoped the House would consent to pass the Bill through Committee.
MR. MALINSurged the propriety of proceeding, on the ground that if private Members were to go on night after night, putting off their Bills because it was past twelve o'clock, they would never pass any
1504
measure. The principle of the Bill had already been discussed, and the Committee could not occupy more than ten minutes, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be allowed to proceed.
MR. WILSONsaid, that he should have to propose some additions in Committee; and if it was the wish of the House he was perfectly ready to proceed.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 140: Majority 63.
Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WILSONsaid, he rose to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee, but—
MR. WALPOLE, as a point of order, objected that the hon. Gentleman was too late, after the Motion for going into Committee had been moved and decided.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Gentleman could move his Instruction as an Amendment to the Motion that "the Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. WILSONsaid, as they were about to remove the exemption of unlimited liability from banking companies, it was only right to do the same in respect of insurance companies. There was a special as well as a general reason for the Instruction which he proposed. At present the law of limited liability did not extend to insurance companies, but practically their liability was limited, for there was a clause inserted in all policies stating that insurers should only look to the funds of the society for payment. It would be only right to make the change he proposed, for most persons were quite unaware of the clause in their policies which limited the liability of their insurers, and therefore one uniform law would be for the public convenience and advantage.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the provisions of the Bill to Insurance Companies,'" instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. COWANsaid, he was surprised at the change of views which had come over the hon. Gentleman since he presided over a Committee in 1853, which reported that

1505
the law affecting insurance companies was defective, that many abuses existed, and that companies were established without any expectation of succeeding.
MR. LYGONrose to order, and appealed to the Speaker whether, under Regulation 203 of the House, it was competent for the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) to raise this discussion.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the rule referred to pointed out to Members the most convenient course in moving an Instruction:—That the Instruction should be moved before the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair; but as that stage had been passed, it was not contrary to order to move the Instruction as an Amendment.
MR. COWANthen resumed, and expressed his regret that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) had not introduced a Bill upon the subject of insurance companies, as was expected from him after drawing up the Report to which he had referred.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he did not object to the proposed instruction.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, he thought they were entering upon a very wide subject, embracing many points of considerable importance, and that it was therefore extremely inexpedient they should proceed with the discussion at so late a period of the night.
MR. WARREN MR. WARREN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he saw no reason why the instruction should not be assented to, inasmuch as there would be ample opportunity of discussing the merits of the proposition when the Bill went into Committee.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that if the power were given to consider the subject in Committee, he should ask to go no further than that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair, when he should assent to the Motion for reporting progress.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the House was placed in a position of some difficulty, owing to the circumstance that the Motion of the hon. Member for Devonport was put as an Amendment to that for going into Committee. If that Amendment were carried, he did not see how it would be possible to go into Committee.
MR. BOUVERIEobserved that, as to vote in favour of the instruction would
1506
be in point of fact to vote against going into Committee, he should suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport the expediency of withdrawing his Motion.
MR. WILSONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Headlam) did not press his Motion for going into Committee that night.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would agree to postpone the going into Committee till to-morrow.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Amendment and Motion, by leave withdrawn.
Committee deferred till this day.

PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL

  THIRD READING.
  MR. LOCKE KING MR. LOCKE KING moved that this Bill be read a third time.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he felt that, as he had on a recent occasion taken the initiative in opposing this Bill, he might fairly, in accordance with the usages of the House, late as was the hour (One o'clock), oppose the further progress of the Bill, but he would at once say that he did not mean to take that course. They had a full and fair discussion upon the subject yesterday. Those who were opposed to the Bill stated their reasons to the best of their ability. They were beaten and well beaten by a large majority, and therefore he felt that if he were to persevere in his opposition to the Bill, he should only be wasting unnecessarily the time of the House. So far as he was concerned, be should offer no further opposition to it. Before he resumed his seat, he begged to express his extreme regret that they had been unable, owing to one of those very curious accidents which had happened so frequently of late, to hear an explanation from the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston)—who had only left the House two minutes before the Motion was made, that the Bill be read a third time—of the reasons that had induced him to follow a course on this question when in opposition so diametrically opposed to that which he followed when in office. As it seemed impossible to catch the noble Lord, though he regretted very much having failed to do so, he should now offer no further opposition to the Bill.
  MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he had observed on the previous day, that this was the first time in the history of the country when property was dissociated from representation. On that occasion the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had taken him to task and had quoted the statute of Anne. That statute, however, had no more to do with the question than the Man in the Moon. Originally, none could be elected for counties but knights of the shire, while borough representatives were members of the corporation. The House had now adopted one of the five points of the charter, which had been supported by a Conservative Administration. After this he hoped they would hear no more about the pride of having a great Conservative party, and that they would arrive at the honest conviction that there was no such thing left. He begged to congratulate the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. L. King) on his deserved success.
  Bill read 3° and passed.

FUNDED DEBT BILL.

  LEAVE—FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal certain provisions for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of fixed amounts for the reduction of the funded debt. At that hour of the night he should not trouble the House with any statement as to the object of the Bill, but it was necessary for the public service that it should not be delayed.
  Leave given.
  Bill to repeal certain provisions for the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of fixed amounts for the reduction of the Funded Debt, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. HAMILTON.
  Bill presented and read 1°
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Wodehouse.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Prescription (Ireland).
2a Non-Parochial Registers; Chancery Amendment.

NOTICES OF QUESTIONS BY THE EARL OF KINGSTON.
THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSbegged to draw their Lordships' attention to what he thought was a very inconvenient practice on the part of the Earl of Kingston in placing notices of Questions upon their Lordships' paper which he did not ask, and without naming a day on which he would ask them. Those notices embraced a variety of subjects, and had appeared on the paper at intervals for some time past. Among other questions of which the noble Earl had given notice, one was relating to a Custom House officer of Liverpool; another to the appointment of Mr. Sullivan to Lima; another, "Whether the resignation of General Ashburnham, Commander in Chief of the Chinese expedition, was a voluntary act of that officer; or, if not, from what source were the expenses of his return to this country defrayed." Another was, "Whether the whole course

1439
and conduct of Rajah Brooke in the East has not been such as to desecrate the name of England for humanity and justice." He repeated that, to say the least, it was an inconvenient practice to place such notices on their Lordships' paper without asking the questions, more especially when they imputed, as in the case of the Rajah Brooke, serious charges to individuals.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was afraid there was no remedy for the inconvenience of which the noble Earl complained, and that such matters must be left to the discretion of noble Lords. Absurd as it might appear, he had seen notices of Motion on the paper a much longer time than those of the noble Earl.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, it was formerly the invariable practice when a notice of a Question was placed on the paper to add the day on which it would be asked. He thought the noble Earl (the Earl of St. Germans) should have given Lord Kingston notice of his intention to bring this matter under the notice of the House.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, that under any circumstances there would have been great impropriety in placing on the paper such a notice as that relating to Rajah Brooke.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, the Notices in question did not state that the Questions would be addressed to Her Majesty's Government, nor, indeed, to whom they would be put. He fully concurred in the remarks that had been made on the impropriety of placing such notices on the paper. It ought to be borne in mind that their Lordships' paper of business was sent all over the kingdom to every public library, and it might thus be made the vehicle for disseminating the most atrocious libels.

NON-PAROCHIAL REGISTERS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said their Lordships were aware that among the documents admitted in evidence in our courts of law the registers of births, deaths, and marriages, were in many cases exceedingly important and useful; as they were also on other occasions. Until 1837, however, no entries of this kind were admissible in evidence, except those contained in the parochial registers. In that year a registrar-general was appointed, and provision was made for registering births and deaths. But various religious bodies
  1440
  of different denominations were under this disadvantage—that their registers, which they had preserved with great care, were not admissible in evidence, according to the then existing law, prior to 1837. In 1836 a Commission was issued for the purpose of ascertaining the state and custody of the registers of those various bodies, and of authenticating them and placing them in proper custody, so that they might be put upon the footing of other similar registers. The Commission examined 8,500 registers. An Act of Parliament was passed in 1840, which provided for their being placed in the custody and care of the registrar-general, and for their being admitted in evidence under certain conditions. In 1857 the Commission of 1836 was renewed, and an investigation was again made into the state of the registers belonging to various religious bodies. Registers which had not been previously to the number of 262, containing 154,000 entries, were examined, and this Bill was intended to place them upon the same footing as registers affected by the former Act. The measure was one to which he conceived no objection could be made, and therefore he asked their Lordships to allow it to be read a second time.
  LORD CAMPBELLapproved the Bill, and hoped the Motion would be agreed to unanimously.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

CHANCERY AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had to ask their Lordships to give a second reading to another Bill of considerable importance. It was one for the Amendment of the procedure of the Court of Chancery. It came up from the other House where it had received the unanimous assent of every legal Member, and it was recommended on the authority of a Commission consisting of persons peculiarly qualified to consider the whole of this subject and to suggest alterations in the law. When he mentioned that on that Commission there were the Master of the Rolls, one of the Lords Justices, two Vice Chancellors, a Judge of the Common Law Courts, Sir James Graham, Mr. Henley, and three of the most eminent counsel

  1441
  practising at the Chancery bar, their Lordships would feel satisfied that great care and deliberation had been exercised in considering the subject, and that they might feel safe in proceeding on their recommendations. The principle of the Bill was to enable the Court of Chancery to give full and complete relief to suitors who came before it. At present if any person had sustained any injury by the wrongful act of another for which he was entitled to sue for damages, and if he also desired to obtain an injunction to restrain the wrongdoer from continuing the wrongful act, he must apply to the Court of Chancery for the latter; but he must go to a common law Court to obtain damages. The tendency of all recent legislation had been to enable the different Courts to give as far as possible full and complete relief to all who applied to them. Before the passing of the Common Law Procedure Act in 1854 a Court of Common law had no power to compel parties who had been guilty of any breach of duty or engagement to perform that duty or engagement, but could only award damages for any injury that had been sustained. The Common Law Procedure Act gave the common law Courts power to issue a mandamus to compel the performance of a duty. Power was also given to those Courts to grant injunctions. Again, there were cases in which persons who were sued had, according to the strict rules of law, no defence to the action, but who had a very good defence in equity, and in such cases the defendant formerly was obliged to allow judgment to go against him in the common law Court, and then apply to the Court of Chancery upon equitable grounds to restrain the proceedings against him. The Legislature thought that course was needlessly complicated, and therefore by the Common Law Procedure Act permitted a defendant to plead an equitable defence to an action. He made those explanations to prove that the Bill he now proposed, to give the Court of Chancery power to award damages, was in strict accordance with the principles upon which Parliament had been acting of late. The power of giving damages would impose upon the Court of Chancery the duty of estimating the injury done, and of ascertaining all the facts relating to the case. This had rendered necessary that portion of the Bill which related to the examination of witnesses. The country was indebted to a noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) for
  1442
  an improvement in that respect by substituting vivâ voce examinations before an examiner for the old mode of taking evidence by interrogatories. Even that improved system was not exactly satisfactory, as in practice he believed that nine-tenths of the evidence in chief was taken upon affidavit, and the offices of the examiner were only called in for cross-examination, and even then his power was very limited. Now, he might also observe that it was extremely expedient that the witnesses to facts should he examined before the Judge by whom a decision on those facts was to be pronounced, inasmuch as great light was often thrown upon the question at issue by the very demeanour of the witnesses, and by the facility which existed of putting interrogatories to them, by means of which all doubt was cleared up. But that object was not at all secured by the present system. Some of the equity Judges, no doubt, bearing those considerations in mind, adopted the principle of examining persons in open court; but some of them objected to it altogether. Moreover, as he had said, the Court of Chancery possessed the power of assessing damages. Those who were accustomed to investigations in our courts of law were perfectly aware that no more important aid could be given to a Judge upon any question, and especially upon a question in which the assessment of damages was involved, than that which was to be derived from the assistance of a jury, and it was therefore proposed in the present Bill to leave it to the option of the Judge to allow a jury to be summoned in courts of equity to decide disputed questions of fact, and those also embracing the assessment of damages. In support of the views which he had just submitted to their Lordships he might mention a remarkable case which had come before the Lords Justices, and in which the parties to the suit were, as was not unusual, completely at issue, with respect to the facts. The Lords Justices had the parties in open court, where they were subjected to a lengthened vivâ voce examination, the result of that examination was, that the Lords Justices found themselves quite perplexed by conflicting testimony as to the decision at which they should arrive. They eventually determined to send down an issue to be tried before his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Campbell) and a jury, and the upshot was that the jury found no difficulty in coming to a conclusion in favour

  1443
  of the truth of the statements of one of the parties. Their verdict in the matter was perfectly satisfactory; and although it was in opposition to the interests of the persons for whom he (the Lord Chancellor) happened to have been the advocate, yet he had no hesitation in expressing his concurrence in its justice. He had adduced the case as a slight illustration of the advantages which were to be derived from the assistance of juries in trying disputed questions of fact; and he might add, that so important did the principle appear to be to the Legislature, that in establishing the new Court of Probate it had given the Judges the power of calling in the aid of a jury to decide upon those questions. His noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord St. Leonards) entertained, he believed, some objection to certain clauses of the Bill; but he might inform him that he was prepared to assent, when the second reading had been taken, to remit the bill to a Select Committee, in order that its provisions might undergo more careful examination. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BROUGHAMthought that this Bi11 would effect an important reform in the law by enabling suitors to obtain to a greater extent than at present a complete remedy for any wrong of which they complained in a single court. He thought, however, that the Judge should not have the option of directing that a jury should be summoned without the consent of the parties.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, of many of the provisions of which he was inclined to speak with favour. He quite concurred with his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack in the opinion that the names of those gentlemen from whom the Report on which the measure was founded had emanated were entitled to great weight; and he was prepared to admit that, so far as it tended to carry out the wish of the public and the Legislature, the Court in which a suit was originally instituted should entirely dispose of the subject-matter in dispute. The Bill proposed to give a Judge in equity, without a jury, the power of assessing damages; and to this he objected, believing that an equity Judge could not exercise that power beneficially, as he had no adequate machinery for the purpose. It was, he thought, a mistake in having a jury in a Court of
  1444
  Chancery, instead of sending an issue to be tried in a court of law which possessed the necessary machinery, and all the necessary experience in the ordinary working of the jury system. He did not object to a Court of equity having the same jurisdiction as a Court of law, so as to be enabled to deal with the subject of a suit in a manner to do full justice to the suitor. There was a portion of this Bill, however, which lost sight of that principle, and not merely gave a Court of equity the same power as a Court of law, but gave it a new and more extended power than had ever yet been attempted. In cases for specific performance of contracts, it was not often necessary to have recourse to both law and equity in order to have a contract specifically performed, and also to award damages. In many cases a Court of equity, when it granted specific performance, did not allow the parties to go to law. This proviso, therefore, gave a power far beyond any which had existed before. He did not oppose the general principle of the Bill, but he trusted that its details would receive the careful consideration of the Select Committee.
  LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his entire concurrence in the principle of the Bill, which be took to be, one cause to one court. It was a reproach to Westminster Hall that, under the existing system, a cause oscillated from one court to another—from a court of law to a court of equity. He believed that nothing approaching to such a system existed in any other country in the world, and it was a great reproach to the administration of justice. He regarded this Bill as a step in the right direction; but, although great improvements had been effected, much still remained to be done. Where damages were to be assessed in equity, it ought not to be necessary to go from one court to another, employing different solicitors and counsel, and thus incurring a very wasteful expenditure. He thought it was a matter of congratulation that Courts of equity were now able of their own authority to do complete justice to suitors. He should state, however, his belief that what was called a fusion of law and equity was impracticable; but still there might be an equitable jurisdiction given to Courts of law, in order that they might be enabled to terminate satisfactorily suits commenced in the first instance in courts of law.
  LORD CRANWORTHwas happy to add his testimony to the unanimous feeling ex-

  1445
  pressed towards his noble and learned Friend for the introduction of this useful measure. The Bill, in its main feature, was the result of the recommendations of the Chancery Commissioners in their third Report, which was presented at the end of the Session of 1856; and he (Lord Cranworth) had, in consequence, felt it to be his duty to prepare a measure—which, however, did not go as far as the present Bill—with the object of carrying out the recommendations of the Commission. If he was asked why he did not bring in that Bill last year, his answer was, that he believed Parliament was so fully occupied by the two great measures for the establishment of the Courts of Probate and Divorce, that he did not think it would have been satisfactorily dealt with. No such obstacle now existed, and he trusted that nothing would occur to prevent this Bill being carried. He did not see any reason why a person who sought specific performance of a contract should not be entitled to have it performed, and also to receive damages for any injury he might have sustained by reason of its non-performance. The Bill proposed to do more than was contained in the recommendation of the Commissioners, because it proposed in all cases to make it competent for a Court of Chancery to summon a jury. This might be quite right; but it was a power which could not be often usefully exercised, inasmuch as in the matters which came before those Courts there were seldom any disputed facts. If the proposed system was adopted, the delays which were now complained of in Chancery suits would be added to, if in every case a jury was to be employed. But as it was only proposed to give the power without making its use imperative, the provision might be a useful one. In the assessment of damages a jury would be useful, but it would be wrong to require one in every case.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

DIOCESE OF NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF POWISinquired whether any measures were now in progress for the subdivision of the diocese of New Zealand? The matter did not involve the expenditure of Imperial or Parliamentary funds, and it was desirable that no undue delay should take place.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought
  1446
  he could give his noble Friend a very satisfactory answer, and one which he would be well pleased to hear. Those arrangements which were for such a length of time desirable to have carried out in respect to various sees in New Zealand he had every reason to hope would be immediately completed. The history of the case was a simple one. The original see, as their Lordships were aware, was the see of New Zealand, over which Bishop Selwyn, whose zeal and activity it would be impossible to exaggerate, presided. When he was in England, in 1854, that right rev. Prelate brought the whole matter under the consideration of the most rev. Primate and of the Government here, and he suggested a plan, which was in a great measure agreed to. That plan was the creation of four bishoprics—namely, Wellington, Christ Church or Canterbury, and the two native bishoprics. That scheme was in part carried out in 1856. The bishopric of Christ Church was then founded. There were then, however, no other steps taken in regard to the three other bishoprics, because difficulties in the way of arrangement had arisen—first, as to the metropolitan of the colony, and others of a financial character. Consequently the whole matter hung up for the following year or so. Last year, in 1857, the matter was resumed, and the scheme by that time was in sonic respects modified. It was then proposed to blend the two native dioceses into one, and to make Nelson a separate diocese. By the present arrangement there was guaranteed £5,000 to be set aside in the case of the Wellington diocese, by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; £3,000 was promised from the same source for Nelson; £1,000 was to be added by the Bishop of New Zealand out of his own private resources; another £1,000 was guaranteed by private individuals in New Zealand itself—therefore £5,000 would be forthcoming for each of those dioceses. The native see would be provided for by the munificence of the Church Missionary Society until other arrangements were made. That was the state of things in 1857, when difficulties of a somewhat technical nature interposed, He was, however, happy to say, that within the last month the matter had been pushed forward, and he saw no reason whatever to doubt the probability of all these sees being brought into activity in a very short period.
  House adjourned at Half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.