Sitting of 4 June 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Law of Property Amendment; New General Post Office (Edinburgh); Transfer of Land.
3° Oxford and Cambridge Universities, &c., Estates.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government have taken into their consideration the present system of Railway Legislation; and whether they are prepared to recommend to Parliament any alteration in that system?
MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not say

1517
the Government were prepared, in the present state of their information, to recommend legislation on this subject; but he was fully aware that it was one that required to be looked into. His hon. Friend had given notice of a Motion for a Commission of Inquiry; and he (Mr. Henley) thought the time had come when they ought to inquire how far the recommendations of the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr.Cardwell) had been acted on, and what had been their effects. If his hon. Friend would propose the appointment of a Committee for that purpose, he would be prepared, on the part of the Government, to give his assent to it, and to do all in his power to promote the inquiry.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that after the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his notice for a Commission, and on Monday would move for a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Resolutions passed by the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, and their effect on the railway system.

TRIAL OF THE BRITISH BANK DIRECTORS—QUESTION.
MR. BRADYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State if the scale of remuneration for the payment of the witnesses summoned on behalf of the Crown at the trial of the Royal British Bank Directors had been arranged; if so, when may the witnesses expect payment?
MR. HARDYsaid, a scale had been settled on the same rule as was adopted in civil cases and arrangements were in progress for a speedy payment.

THE COPYHOLD ACTS—QUESTION.
MR. HANKEYsaid, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill this Session for the Amendment of the Copyhold Acts; and if so, when he proposes to ask leave to introduce the Bill.
MR. HARDYsaid, there was a Bill for the purpose at present in the hands of the law officers, and it would, he believed, be introduced on Monday next.
On the Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday,

WINDING-UP ACTS—QUESTION.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had to ask whether it is the intention of the Go-
1518
vernment, without delay, to introduce a Bill to remedy the defects of the Winding-up Acts, or, on behalf both of share-holders and creditors, to prevent the funds of dissolved Companies being wasted in unnecessary litigation?
MR. HENLEYsaid, a Bill to remedy the defects in the Acts to which the hon. Member referred had been prepared, and in a short time would be laid on the table of the House. It was not a large measure, but he hoped it would be found to deal satisfactorily with the defects which had been found to stop the working of the Winding-up Acts.
MR. BRIGHT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that he will introduce the Bill in the ensuing week. It would be a great satisfaction if he could say that.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped to be able to introduce the Bill in the course of the ensuing week.

PRINCIPAL KEEPER OF THE REGISTER OF SASINES IN SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR G. GREYsaid, he wished to say a few words on a Vote of Supply, which appeared to have been taken last night, but which he was not aware was coming on so soon. He would not go into the question of the appointment of the gentleman who now held the office of Principal Keeper of the Register of Sasines in Scotland. He understood the Vote was coming on again, and he trusted that before it came on the whole of the correspondence which was in the Home Office on that subject would be laid on the table. There was undoubtedly a Minute of the Treasury suggesting that in the event of a vacancy the office should not be filled up until an inquiry had been made into the nature of the duties performed by that officer. Upon the death of Mr. Pringle that inquiry took place. An elaborate Report was presented to the Home Office, which he sent to the Treasury. A Minute was sent to the Home Office in reply, in accordance with which the office was filled up, satisfactory reasons having been given why the office should not be abolished. Until the debate of last night, he had thought it was the general opinion that it was not possible to abolish the office with a due regard to the public interests. He wished that the whole of the papers and the terms on which the office had been accepted by

  1519
  Mr. Brodie should be laid upon the table. After the present Government came into office, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Blackburne) gave a notice for the production of the correspondence. That notice disappeared from the paper, and he was informed that the reason was, that the hon. Member was quite satisfied that no objection could be taken to the course that had been pursued. If the correspondence were laid on the table, the House would see that no other course could be taken than to re-appoint to the office, subject to such modifications as had been made.

OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in consequence of the notice I gave last night, I rise to ask the Government what is the present state of our relations with China, and also to ask for the communication of the terms which Lord Elgin has demanded from the Emperor of China, and of the answer which has been received from the Chinese Government. Now, I beg to state in the first place that I do not wish for any communication that may be injurious to the public service, nor for a copy of the instructions that may have been given, because it may be inconvenient to produce them; but I wish to call the attention of the Government and of the House to the most recent communication that Parliament has received on this subject, and I think I may fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) for a general statement of the instructions given to Lord Elgin. At the time the public were informed that an expedition was proceeding to Canton I asked the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), who was then at the head of the Government, what communications had passed between Lord Elgin and the Governor of Canton, and whether there would be any objection to lay any such communications on the table? In a few days those communications were produced, and they at all events made it perfectly clear what were the terms that Lord Elgin had demanded, and which had been refused on the part of the Chinese. After that, military and naval operations took place, the city of Canton was taken possession of, and we had it in our power by means of our military and naval force to require such terms as we thought fit. However, it appears that since that time Lord Elgin has proceeded to the north, and thereby I imagine he has opened a larger
  1520
  question with respect to the Government of China. The former questions related to Canton, to the admission of the English, and to reparation to individuals for the injuries that British subjects had suffered. But it cannot be supposed that for the purpose of settling these questions Lord Elgin has proceeded to the north. There must be some larger object involved, and Parliament, and the House of Commons especially, which has voted large sums for the Naval Estimates, is entitled to know for what purpose Lord Elgin has proceeded to the north, and for what purpose our naval forces are there employed. The last account I heard with respect to our naval force in China was that it had been, inclusive of Marines, 13,000, and that it was then 11,000 men. In the present state of our relations with India, with accounts which the First Lord of the Admiralty says must make the country anxious on that subject, it does appear to me important to know for what purpose, involving as it must the interest and honour of this country, so large a force is employed in China. I do not suppose, as I have said, that it can be for any subject connected with Canton. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, before the usual hour (half-past four o'clock), at which questions are asked—and to that I may hereafter call the attention of the House—stated that the Government were acting in concert with other Powers, and that therefore no information could be afforded, Now that, it appears to me, is no reason why a communication should not be made to Parliament. If we have any convention with any foreign Power—if we have a convention with France, or Russia, or the United States—that convention ought surely to be communicated to Parliament. If we have made a demand in conjunction with those Powers upon the Emperor of China, that demand ought surely to be submitted to Parliament. If when we were about to go to war with Russia the Government of the day had been asked, "For what purpose are you about to quarrel with Russia?" it would have been no answer to say, that we were acting in agreement with France, and that the Government could not communicate that which concerned other Powers as well as this country. It does seem to me that this is is a most important question. I am not giving any opinion upon any policy which may be adopted either by the late Government or the present Government;

  1521
  but I do think that Parliament has some right to know what is the actual state of our relations with China—what policy we are pursuing. With regard to the treaty of 1842, all we know is, that there were two articles which were frequently, if not perpetually, violated. One article gave us the right to enter the city of Canton as well as four other cities, and that article has been perpetually violated by the refusal of the local Government to allow the admission of British subjects into Canton. Another article in a very solemn manner bound us to use our utmost efforts to prevent the trade of opium with China, and that article of the treaty has been as notoriously violated as the others. I believe it is an article very difficult to fulfil, and probably the Chinese custom-house officers have been as notoriously willing to violate that article as those who have brought opium from India, and engaged in the traffic of that article. This is the position in which we stand with regard to the treaty. It may be very desirable to revise that treaty, but I do not think that in the treaty of 1842 there is any provision by which at the end of a particular number of years we may ask for revision. With regard to France the case is different. The treaty between China and France provides that at the end of ten or twelve years France may ask for a revision, and I do not understand in what manner it is our duty to enforce upon China the revision demanded by France. France has her own grievances with China. A French missionary has been put to death in a most barbarous manner; but I do not know in what respect that act of outrage enables us to act with France. More especially I do not understand why so large a proportion of the force employed should be employed by Great Britain, while so much less a force is employed by France, and scarcely any at all by the United States. I think I am justified in asking that, as we have an expedition gone to the north, both in justice and policy there should be sufficient reasons for the steps we are now taking. I likewise think it is very desirable we should know what is the policy which is now being pursued. Of course, I do not expect any details, but it does seem desirable that there should be some general statement of the policy which we are pursuing, more especially when the forces voted for the army and navy are fully employed in other quar-
  1522
  ters, and it is difficult to see what can be the object of proceeding beyond the immediate object of Canton, though it is obvious that a correspondence between the Emperor of China and our Government may end in a war with China. I feel justified, therefore, in asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present state of our relations with China, and to ask for the communication of the terms which Lord Elgin has demanded from the Emperor of China, and of the answer which has been received from the Chinese Government.

THE DEANERY OF YORK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what special reasons the recent appointment had been made to the Deanery of York? It was not his intention to speak with the slightest disrespect of the rev. gentleman who had been appointed, but on occasions of this kind reasons ought to be assigned or be assignable. In making this inquiry he was not influenced by any other motive than the interest of the Church, and through that of the country. The Church Commissioners in their Report in 1836 said:—
  "The advantages resulting to the interests of religion from the existence of this species of preferment, when conferred on clergymen distinguished for professional merit, and too obvious to require illustration."
  And in 1852 that—
  "In considering the employments of deans and canons we are of opinion that it is one distinct purpose of cathedral institutions to make provision for the cultivation and encouragement of theological learning."
  The onus probandi was on the Government. It rested with them to show that the recent appointment was made in conformity with the rule which had been observed in reference to former appointments. He admitted that distinction as a parish priest would render a man eligible for such a Deanery as well as great learning. Could not the Government have selected one amongst the distinguished parish priests of this country, many of whom were passing their lives in poverty?
  LORN HOTHAMwished, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart), to say a few words on this matter. He had nothing whatever to do with the appoint-

  1523
  ment. Neither bad he any interest in the appointment, except that interest which, he trusted, was shared by every one in the county of York in seeing the deanery filled by a respectable man, and the beautiful fabric which was the pride and ornament of the county, and which was placed under the Dean's charge, duly cared for. When he saw the hon. Gentleman's notice on the paper, it occurred to him that the hon. Member had been led to imagine that the Deanery of York was an office which had been recommended to be suppressed, or that the hon. Gentleman had some cause for alleging that the individual appointed was an improper person. He knew that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) was an individual of an inquiring mind, always anxious to add to the large store of information upon every subject which he possessed; but he would ask the House to remember into what a large field of inquiry they would enter if the Government—he cared not of whom composed—were to be called upon to state the specific grounds upon which every appointment was made. If the question were put to any hon. Gentleman, what were the special grounds on which he was appointed to a seat in that assembly, he would probably state, not because he was the fittest person that could be found in the United Kingdom, but because the constituency thought him the fittest of those who offered themselves for their suffrages. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter) were called upon to state the special grounds upon which all the numerous appointments were filled up by him during the five years be was in office, the result would at any rate be the production of a document which would excite as great curiosity as any document which had ever been produced. He was in entire ignorance of the reply which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give. He had ventured to form his own opinion upon the appointment; and, as he should take the liberty of stating it, the House would judge whether it was a sound one or not. In the first place, the individual who had been appointed Dean of York was a man of blameless and irreproachable character. He had long been one of the honorary canons of York, and was therefore well acquainted with all the duties of the deanery. In the second place, he was an honest and conscientious man, of sound religious convictions, although he belonged
  1524
  to neither of the extreme parties of the Church, whose fierce contentions he (Lord Hotham) thought were not the best calculated to produce all the advantages which they themselves professed a desire to attain. There was another consideration which ought not to be disregarded in this matter. Many hon. Gentlemen, no doubt, were under the impression that the deanery of York was a piece of valuable preferment, a much richer prize than in reality it was, the fact being that it had pleased Parliament so to reduce its emoluments that no person who had not private means of his own to fall back upon, could live in that deanery in the manner he ought to do. The county and city of York had lately seen with regret the deanery of that cathedral let year after year, and constantly held forth to the public as a desirable residence for any gentleman who wanted hunting quarters in the city. In mentioning this, he (Lord Hotham) did not mean to make it matter of reproach against any one; but having happened in one case, he thought it was desirable that care should be taken it should not occur again. Looking, then, at the three points to which he adverted—that the new Dean of York bore a blameless and irreproachable character, that he was unconnected with any extreme party in the Church; and that he would be able to preserve in a proper manner the dignity and appearance of the deanery, he ventured to say that he had come to the conclusion that in this matter the Queen had not only been faithfully but judiciously advised in the appointment she had made.
  TEE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he was very glad that the noble Lord had addressed the House on this subject, and he thought his observations, coming from a Member of such weight and of such great local knowledge, must be satisfactory to the House. [Mr. EWART: No.] Well, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) hoped that what he had to say would make it satisfactory. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry, he was not prepared to state what were the special grounds on which Her Majesty had been advised to make this appointment; but those who advised Her Majesty believed it was an appointment which it would be for the advantage of the country to make, and therefore it was made only on public grounds and in consideration for the public welfare. The noble Lord (Lord Hotham) had alluded to circumstances which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should have

  1525
  felt some embarrassment in bringing before the House, but on which he now felt bound to touch. There was a great misconception in supposing that the Deanery of York was a piece of rich preferment, for which there were many candidates who would have filled it in a satisfactory manner. The fact was that the income bore no proportion whatever to the expenses in which the gentleman was involved who happened to fill the office. Under our system of Church Reform, with which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not prepared to find any fault, we had greatly reduced the income of the Dean of York. Originally that dignitary enjoyed, upon the average, the large income of £3,000 or £4,000 a year; it was now reduced to £1,000 a year. He was not questioning the propriety of that arrangement, but he thought it was much to be regretted that the establishment required by the Dean of York for the residence in which he was called upon to live, and the expenditure consequent upon that establishment, had not at all been changed with the reduction of his income; and that expenditure was upon a scale which could only be maintained by a clergyman in possession of an almost episcopal income. The House would therefore see that the range of selection was much limited by that fact. The late Dean, besides his salary, had a considerable piece of preferment; yet he found it impossible to maintain the position which, as Dean of York, fell to his lot. In the present case, whatever the other recommendations of Mr. Duncombe for the office, he certainly had the advantage of possessing ample means; but he begged the House to believe that that was not the primary consideration, though, in the ultimate selection of that gentleman, it was from necessity one of the considerations which must have been in the view of the Minister who recommended the appointment; for it turned out that a sum amounting to many thousand pounds was required to be expended by the new Dean before he could enter upon his residence. Still he could assure the House that these were only secondary, or rather tertiary, considerations. The only object which the Earl of Derby, who recommended Her Majesty to make this appointment, had in view was that an individual should be selected who in himself, on the whole, united all those qualities which could best satisfy the requirements of the position. With the permission of the House he would read a
  1526
  letter which had been addressed to the Earl of Derby by the Archbishop of York, who, he need not remind the House, had no political connection with the Earl of Derby, and with whom the Earl of Derby had not the honour even of being personally acquainted:—
  "41, Belgrave Square, May 4, 1858.
  "My Lord,—I have reason to know that an application for the vacant Deanery of York has been made to your Lordship on behalf the Hon. and Rev. Augustus Duncombe, one of the non-residentiary canons of the cathedral, and I hope your Lordship will not deem me presumptuous in offering my humble testimony on the subject. Mr. Augustus Duncombe is a most amiable and respectable man, of sound and reasonable opinions, of irreproachable conduct, and an excellent clergyman. His appointment would, I am sure, be very acceptable to the diocese and of advantage to the Church. The high estimation in which he is held, and his family also, in the county of York, may serve to convince your lordship that I do not err in expressing these sentiments,
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord,
  "Your Lordship's most obedient servant,
  "T. EBOR.
  "The Earl of Derby."
  That was the letter of the Archbishop of York, who felt it his duty, though personally unacquainted with the Earl of Derby, to make this representation generally, on behalf not only of the clergy, but of the county of York; and it was only after due consideration, after encountering very great difficulties in ultimately fixing upon this selection, and animated only by one feeling—namely, that of making an appointment which on the whole would be most advantageous to society, and one which on the whole would most adequately fulfil the various requirements thought necessary—that, sanctioned by the appeal he had read from the Archbishop of York, this appointment was made, and he believed it, was one which would give general satisfaction.

  OUR RELATIONS WITH CHINA.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply to the questions of Lord John Russell, then proceeded to say, that he was not at all surprised that the noble Lord, or any hon. Gentleman in that House, should, upon the important subject of our relations with China, feel the deep interest the noble Lord had expressed to have full information. He regretted to say, however, that the answer he had to give the noble Lord must, from the nature of the circumstances, be necessarily very brief—not from any desire to withhold information, or to veil in diplomatic obscurity the transactions

  1527
  which had occurred, or were occurring in China, but from the distance at which those transactions were occurring, and the brief period, comparatively speaking, during which the present Government had been in office, it could be easily seen that it was really out of his power to give any fresh information of importance to the House. When Her Majesty's Ministers acceded to office, our fleets and army were already in China. Instructions had been given by their predecessors to a most able and distinguished plenipotentiary, and these instructions very wisely included a large discretion. At this moment there was no evidence in the possession of Ministers that Lord Elgin was yet aware even of the change of the Government. Of course they had communicated with Lord Elgin without loss of time, but considering that before their communication could have reached him, events of importance must have occurred, and remembering the interval of time which must elapse in communicating with him, Her Majesty's Government had thought it their duty to extend to Lord Elgin the same wide discretion which had previously been extended to him by their predecessors, having full confidence in the abilities and experience of that distinguished man. The House knew, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told them the other night, that Lord Elgin had repaired to Shanghai, where he expected to meet and negotiate with a Minister of State from the Chinese Government, instead of which he received a letter from the Government, begging him to return to Canton and commence negotiations with the Imperial representative there. Lord Elgin, he understood, did not think proper to return to Canton, but went northward, and no doubt he acted wisely in so doing; but hon. Gentlemen would see that it was impossible for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to state what might have been the motives which influenced Lord Elgin in the exercise of his discretion in taking that course. He had no doubt, however, that it was a wise and proper course, and that in due season the Government would receive from Lord Elgin detailed reasons for the conduct he had pursued. It would seem at the first blush that having gone to Shanghai from Canton, it would have been a weak act on his part at the request of the Chinese authorities to return to Canton. He thought, therefore,
  1528
  that the course Lord Elgin had adopted was a wise and proper one. He could not inform the noble Lord what answer bad been received from the Chinese Government beyond the intimation to which he had just referred; but he did not believe it amounted to more than a recommendation to return to Canton to meet and negotiate with the Chinese plenipotentiary there. Moreover, it was not in his power specifically to state what were the conditions which Lord Elgin had demanded. Lord Elgin was invested necessarily with very large discretion, and we must trust to his discrimination in making such conditions as he might think best calculated to attain the object he had in view. That object was to effect a direct communication between the Government of this country and the highest authorities in China. The House were also aware, that with this object in view we had been acting from the first in complete concert with our French allies; that subsequently the Government of the United States had also completely joined us in our efforts, and that, to a certain extent, though not completely, the Government of Russia, too, had united in the scheme which had been laid down for opening direct communications between the civilized Governments of Europe and the Government of China. The House would see that these circumstances would have rendered it very difficult, even if there had been any papers to produce, to lay them on the table. We must act in concert with our allies, for the House should remember that although Her Majesty's Government had given a wide discretion to Lord Elgin, the French Government had also given great discretion to Baron Gros. All he could say then was, that having given, and given wisely, this large discretion to Lord Elgin, who, he doubted not, would use it for the advantage of the country, Her Majesty's Government had expressed to his Lordship their belief that it was of great importance that peace between China and England, or if we were not at war, a termination of the present misconceptions, should be effected as speedily as possible; and they trusted that he would succeed in putting an end to this unfortunate and unsatisfactory state of affairs as soon as he could do so with a due regard to the commercial and political interests of this country, and to the maintenance of a good understanding generally upon the subject with those of our allies who had acted with us with such sincerity and cordiality.
  MR. BRIGHT: Although the right hon. Gentleman has, for reasons which he has stated, been unable to communicate any information of importance to the House, I feel indebted to the noble Lord the Member for London for having raised this discussion. I was not in Parliament when the China question was debated last year, and I have never had any opportunity in public of expressing my views with regard to it. I may be excused, therefore, now for saying, that had I been here I should have agreed entirely with my hon. Friend, the then Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), in the course which he took upon that occasion. But there is one point in this matter which it behoves the House to consider. It is that the present condition of affairs in China has been arrived at without the consent of Parliament. I mean the complication into which the present Government is plunged by the course taken by their predecessors in inviting the aid of, or in co-operating with, other Governments in the settlement of a dispute, which, if it were a dispute at all, was entirely the affair of this country. The original question was whether a certain vessel was sailing under the Chinese or the British flag. The insult, if there were an insult, was to England and to England alone, and it appears to me that if the British Government felt bound to adopt the policy of Sir John Bowring the power of England was amply sufficient to vindicate the honour of England and to bring the question to such a settlement as it was capable of, without involving us in the complicated arrangements in which we are now engaged;—with France entirely co-operating in military operation, and Russia and the United States looking on with some kind of acquiescence,—for I believe the right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct in saying that the United States have taken any part in active operation. Now, the point which I wish to press upon the House is this—that the moment the Government of this country take into partnership a foreign Government in matters of this sort, two unfortunate things result. One is that the conduct of the negotiations is, to a great extent, taken out of the hands of the English Government. That is of itself, I think, a great misfortune. The other is, according to the theory of the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons cannot know anything of the matter, because when we have allies, and are acting in concert with them, and are
  1530
  carrying on military operations in conjunction with them, papers and information which may be in the possession of the Government cannot be communicated for fear that some unpleasantness might arise between us and our allies. There ought, I contend, to be some grave reason—a clear, distinct and unanswerable case—before the Government of this country involves itself in such complications. Who knows, at this moment, that the objects of France in China are the same as those of England? I don't even know what the object of England is. That particular piece of information was never precisely communicated to Parliament by the late Government. But if it be to get an apology from the Emperor of China, or compensation for the expenses that have been incurred, or admission into the city of Canton, all those are simple matters which we can understand, and which, together or separately, we can probably enforce. But if we have another country joined with us, having a treaty of a different character, and grievances of another nature, and objects totally at variance from those which the English Government has, and which the English Parliament would sanction, it may be utterly out of the power of our Administration to bring those affairs to a conclusion for months or even years to come; for if we are to join with France until China shall have conceded all the demands of France—we not knowing what those demands are—we may be led into interminable difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have, I believe, a genuine desire and an honest disposition to bring these proceedings to an end. Indeed I do not imagine that any man upon that bench, unless he were imported from Bedlam, could possibly take any other view of the question. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that we are unfortunately at war with rather more than half the human race. We know well the state of things in India and the demands which are made upon this country in consequence; and we have troubles in the West which cannot be regarded without some feeling of uneasiness. The noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), stated that we had between 13,000 and 15,000 men in China, and I have been informed that there are not less than seventy English ships of war in those waters. What can be the object of such a demonstration? Is it to settle that miserable and fraudulent dispute about the lorcha? Was it a proper thing of the

  1531
  late Government to involve the country in all these troubles for such an object, and is the present Government pursuing a patriotic course in allowing these operations to go on a day longer than is necessary? The last war did nothing to facilitate commercial relations with China, and the war in which we are now engaged will do no more. I have not risen to make an attack on the present Government. They are not responsible for the origin of these transactions. To their honour, when they were sitting on this side of the House they expressed their opposition to them, and they voted, I believe, almost as a united party against them. I hope now that they are in office, and have succeeded to this legacy from their predecessors, that they will not think it necessary to trifle with this question, allowing it to go on from day to day, each day adding fresh entanglements and complications, which may at length lead to differences and estrangements between this country and those allies with whom we are now acting. I beg the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to face this matter fairly and boldly. I trust that they will not, because this legacy is bequeathed them at the Foreign Office, think that they are to array themselves in all the wretched and verminous rags they find there. Let them regard the subject patriotically, as they did from this side of the House; and if they bring these hostilities to a close, public opinion will sanction the step they take, and they will rise in the estimation of all men by pursuing a straightforward, resolute, and direct course in this most unfortunate transaction.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he merely rose to prevent an error being spread throughout the country without contradiction. He would be sorry to leave any misconception on the public mind with regard to our actual force in China. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) stated that 11,000 men were employed there, whilst the hon. Member for Birmingham made the number from 13,000 to 15,000, and seventy ships of war. The real fact was, that there were between sixty and seventy vessels in the East; but these included eighteen or twenty gun-boats, which were very small vessels. And he wished further to explain that, both with regard to the number of men and vessels, they included the whole of our naval force in the East Indies, and on the eastern stations, as well as the expedition which had been fitted out from this country for China. He might
  1532
  add, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reduce the force employed there at the earliest moment that it would be practicable to do so.

  CAPTAIN JUDKINS.—THE SLAVE TRADE.—COMMISSIONER YEH—QUESTIONS.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received any intelligence from New York of the arrest of Captain Judkins, of the Royal mail steamer Persia; and, if so, whether the circumstances of the case warranted such a procedure on the part of the American authorities?
  MR. WILSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any objection to lay upon the table copies of correspondence between the British Government and that of the United States upon the measures taken for the suppression of the slave trade; and, if not, when such papers could be produced?
  MR. LAURIEsaid, he wished to be informed by the Government whether it is intended to detain Commissioner Yeh as a prisoner in India or to bring him to England?
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), he begged to state that Her Majesty's Government had not received any official information as to the arrest of Captain Judkins. It was, therefore, impossible, for them to say whether the American authorities were warranted in the course they had taken. The Government, however, would give their immediate attention to the subject. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson), he begged to assure him and the House that there certainly was not the slightest disinclination on the part of the Government to produce any correspondence that had passed between the American Government and our own Government respecting the subject to which he referred. Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that upon such a subject the most frank communication should pass between both Governments; and that the more especially as the American Government had published some of their communications with Her Majesty's Government, it was desirable that a similar publicity should be given by Her Majesty's Government to the communications between themselves and the Ame-

  1533
  rican Government; that, in fact, on the part of Her Majesty's Government there should be no reserve upon the subject. At the same time, the House was well aware that communications had been made within the last two or three days by the American Government to the British Government with reference to some occurrences which were represented to have taken place in the waters of Cuba. These communications involved grave charges against some of the British officers in command there. No official communication had reached the British Government of the circumstances alleged to have occurred there. The only reply, therefore, they had been able to make to the communication of the American Government was to give them an assurance that if any such occurrences had taken place they would be regarded with the greatest regret by Her Majesty's Government, and that an immediate and careful investigation should be made into them. He thought the House would there- fore see that, such being the condition of affairs—having only the ex parte statement of the American Government, to which Her Majesty's Government had been able to give no answer—it would not be desirable at the present tune to lay a correspondence so incomplete upon the table of the House. At the earliest period, however, and without a moment's unnecessary delay, the correspondence would be laid upon the table. Her Majesty's Government had sent out instructions to the British officers engaged in the waters of Cuba to exercise with the greatest caution the powers entrusted to them. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Laurie), he could only say that it was thought necessary, in the present state of affairs in China, and partly for the preservation of Commissioner Yeh's life, that he should be removed from China. At present he was detained at a fort near Calcutta, and he was afraid the non. Gentleman would not have an opportunity of seeing Commissioner Yeh in England.

REJECTION OF THE VOTE OF LAST NIGHT.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. COWANsaid, he perceived that notice had been given for the recommittal of the Vote rejected last night, with the view, he (Mr. Cowan) supposed, of negativing the decision which was come to by the Committee. Papers had been laid upon the table which threw light upon the subject, but the recommendations which
1534
were made had been entirely ignored as to the appointment which should have been made. The object he had in view in rising was to express a wish—
MR. FITZROYsaid, he rose to order. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman was referring was not before the House in any shape or form whatever, for the Report of the Committee had not yet been received.
MR. COWANsaid, he merely wished to inquire whether the Government would consent to delay the further consideration of the Vote until the papers now in the hands of the printer were laid upon the table?
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had not as yet read the papers, but that he thought the proper course for the House to take would be to postpone the Vote, which would be reported that night, until the papers were laid upon the table, and then the Committee could reconsider the matter with the Papers in their hands.

THAMES PURIFICATION.—QUESTION.
MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether he is not aware that, in any consideration of the state of the water of the Thames, the whole question at issue is that of the effect upon the purity of the air which way be produced by the liberation of gases injurious to health from the water.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he believed the House was disposed to agree with him that the question which the hon. Gentleman addressed to him was more in the nature of the expression of an opinion on the hon. Gentleman's part that an inquiry put for the sake of obtaining information. He could assure the hon. Gentleman he was not competent to answer the question. But as the hon. Gentleman had put his question in the form of a suggestion, he begged to snake another suggestion in return to the hon. Gentleman, which was, that a Select Committee was now sitting to investigate that question, he should address a letter to the Chairman of that Committee, offering himself as a witness to explain and defend the theory which he (Lord John Manners) understood the hon. Gentleman was anxious to put forth.

THE BELFAST RIOTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the recent riots at Belfast; and to ask the

  1535
  Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the intention of Government to propose any measure for the better preservation of the peace and protection of property in that Borough, He would occupy the attention of the House for a few moments only while he directed the attention of the Irish Government to the recent outrages in Belfast, and endeavoured to show that whatever might be the prosperity of the borough, its social condition was of the very lowest character. It had no doubt come to the knowledge of hon. Members, through the instrumentality of the Newspapers, that a series of riots broke out on Sunday last, were continued day after day, and, for all he knew to the contrary, were going on at the present moment. He had no special information, nor did he wish to go into the origin of those riots, as it was far from his intention to involve the House in a religious or political discussion. His sole object was to ascertain from the Government their intention with regard to the preservation of peace. These riots he believed to be a continuation of those that had occurred in July last year, which broke out again in the month of September, when the Government was obliged to place Belfast under military law, to proclaim the town, and, as a consequence of that proclaiming, to disarm the inhabitants; and now they found that in June, notwithstanding those Proclamations, rioting had again broken out. It appeared that a district in Belfast, named Sandy Row, was inhabited by Orangemen, and another district, named the Pound, was inhabited by Roman Catholics, and such was the animosity between them, that no Roman Catholic could be allowed to live in Sandy Row, nor any Orangeman in the Pound. On the occasion of the riot in September last the Government poured a large military force into the town, and in virtue of the Proclamation to which he had referred they appointed persons to grant licences for the carrying of arms, with strict injunctions to grant licences to none who were members of either Orange or Ribbon clubs. In consequence of those circumstances, the late Government appointed two Gentlemen of high standing and irreproachable character—the one a Roman Catholic and the other a Protestant—to proceed to Belfast and inquire into the causes of the outrages, and those Gentlemen (Messrs. Smyth and Lynch) took evidence, and reported a state of facts which could not fail to startle the House. The same scenes which had been
  1536
  enacted in July last year were now being repeated; and the report of the Commissioners was of great importance under present circumstances. The Commissioners gave a description of the means which then existed for the preservation of peace m Belfast. There were on the 13th of July last, a local police force numbering 160, and a body of general constabulary force numbering thirty. That force, they said, was plainly insufficient to protect the town; and when the military or a fresh body of constabulary was sent their first and principal duty was to protect the local police. They also stated that the members of this local police, with six or seven exceptions, were all Protestants; that those in command were entirely so; that there were several Orangemen among them, and that two at least of the police had walked in an orange procession. The Commissioners concluded their report by expressing a hope that the worst had been seen of the riots in Belfast; and that, as all the inhabitants seemed ashamed of the consequences which had ensued from the state of party feeling, the good sense of the people would put a stop to any such proceedings for the future. Notwithstanding the expression of that hope, he regretted to say that the social condition of Belfast was in a very unhappy state. The Report of the Commissioners was drawn up in November last, but was not placed in the hands of Members until February last. It was the intention of the then Government to have proposed legislation in reference to the subject, and especially as to police affairs in Belfast, which were undoubtedly in a very unsatisfactory state. He had intended to draw the attention of the House to the subject, because in March last, when there was a discussion on the Trinity College riots, he had understood the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to say that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps on the Report of the Commissioners. He (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) then stated that he did not think they would be doing their duty to the people of Belfast if they left the police in the state they then were. He might, however, have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and he had now to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland the question which he had brought under his notice. Since he had put his question on the paper he observed that notice had been given by the noble Lord of a Bill for the regulation of the constabu-

  1537
  lary in towns in Ireland, and perhaps a remedy for some of the evils of Belfast might be found in the provisions of that Bill. At the same time he felt assured that it was not by a mere constabulary Bill that the evils which beset that town could ever be thoroughly removed, and he would put it to the noble Lord that it was his duty now to take the matter into his consideration, and to introduce a measure which should put an end to such a disgraceful state of things.
  LORD NAASsaid, he thought it was hardly necessary for the right hon. Gentleman, in putting his question, to go into a long and laboured statement of the riots of last year. He certainly would not follow him into these details; he would merely tell the House what he knew with regard to the unfortunate events which had recently occurred. On Sunday last, on the return of a procession from the funeral of the relation of a man who was the relative of the chairman of a well known Ribbon association, known by the name of the Gun Club, a collision took place between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. Some thousands of persons collected together, and there was considerable excitement. The operations of this riotous assemblage on Sunday were confined to stone throwing, and on that evening no serious damage had been done to life or property. During the day and night of Monday and Tuesday these riots were repeated, and though he had no official information of what took place on the subsequent days he feared that up to a late hour of Wednesday the rioting was continued. The moment the Government received information of the matter they took steps to put it down with the strong hand, and a large force of cavalry was sent on to Belfast, which already contained a depot battalion of infantry numbering 1000 men. Mr. Coulson and two other experienced stipendiary magistrates had been ordered to Belfast to assist Mr. Tracey. Mr. Hamilton, the Crown solicitor, was also sent down to be on the spot to take informations; in fact, everything had been done which could have been done. With regard to the further measures the Government proposed to take for the protection of the peace, it was his intention immediately to submit a Bill dealing with the police force of towns in Ireland generally, and when the right hon. Gentleman saw the mode in which it was proposed to deal with the police in towns he would be perfectly
  1538
  satisfied. The Right hon. Gentleman had not indicated what other steps he would recommend; but for his own part he (Lord Naas) believed that for the suppression of riot and disturbance the ordinary law of the country was perfect and sufficient, provided it were administered with prudence and firmness. Besides, he really did not see what further measures the Government could take, and from what he had heard that afternoon he had reason to believe that the riots were now thoroughly put down. They were of a different character from those which took place last year. Owing to the Proclamation the people had no arms in their hands, and in consequence, the riots were not so serious as those of last year. He hoped this would satisfy the House. He could assure the House the matter was occupying the serious attention of the Government, and that everything that prudence and firmness could suggest would be employed to put down those disturbances.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he must complain that Belfast was not treated like other towns. When a riot occurred elsewhere the constabulary was poured into the district, and the inhabitants were assessed to pay for them. When Belfast was disturbed, soldiers were employed, or the riot was suppressed at the expense of the country. He believed nothing would teach those persons the necessity of order so much as touching their pockets.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

SALE AND TRANSFER OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair, in order that the House might go into Committee on this Bill.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. J. D. FITZGERALD, in rising to move that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee, said that so far was he from being hostile to it that if he thought that its reference to a Select Committee would endanger its passing this Session, or would not be the most convenient course, he would withdraw his Motion. The Bill upon which there had as yet been no discussion, was one of a most important character, and it was desirable

1539
that it should be thoroughly and carefully examined in order that it might pass in the best and safest form. As he understood it, it had four principal objects; first, to substitute for the Incumbered Estates Court a permanent tribunal, to be called the Landed Estates Court; secondly, to give to the new tribunal, in addition to the power to sell incumbered estates, jurisdiction to sell those not incumbered; thirdly, to give it power where there was a contract for the sale of lands specifically to carry that contract into execution, and to convey the estate to the vendee; and, fourthly—which was perhaps the most important and most novel provision of all—to give the Court power to examine any title and declare whether it was good or bad, so that if the Bill passed any one might call upon the Court for a declaration, which, if once given, established a title which would thereafter be indefeasible. The first three of these were principles for which he had been contending during the six years that he had occupied a seat in that House; but two of them, if not all three, had been as steadily opposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside). Not quite nine years ago, in November, 1849, the Incumbered Estates Court first came into operation, and considering bow much of the progressive prosperity which had since fallen to the lot of Ireland was due to the action of that Court they ought to be very cautious in disturbing it, and to take great care that the substitute proposed was a safe and satisfactory one. The condition of a great many of the estates in Ireland at that time was well illustrated by the remark made by a tenant, when asked by a gentleman who had purchased an estate under the Incumbered Estates Act, why he had not made certain improvements. The tenant's reply was that during eleven years he had had seven different masters, who were all receivers of the Court of Chancery. Since the establishment of the court, a petition, signed by a large number of the most influential landowners in Ireland, had been presented to Parliament, praying that the Act should be extended so as to enable any proprietor who wished to sell his estate, whether incumbered or not, to have his title investigated by a competent legal tribunal. The members of the present Government had claimed the credit of being the first to propose the extension of the existing Act to unincumbered estates, but it was a fact that while in Opposition they steadily resisted the principles em-
1540
bodied in the present Bill. Still he was glad to find that they were now prepared to adopt principles which they so steadily opposed [Lord NAAS made a gesture of dissent]. The noble Lord seemed to doubt what he had said, but in proof of his assertion he might refer to the language of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who called the measure monstrous, unrighteous, and unjust, ruinous to the proprietors, and fatal to the landed interest of the country. The Attorney General for Ireland also had opposed the Bill as an attempt to make permanent what he could never have supported, except on the ground put forward by the late Sir R. Peel, as a desperate remedy for a desperate state of things. A great deal of controversy had arisen as to the original authors of the incumbered estates system, but, as far as he could ascertain, the persons to whom Ireland was indebted for the introduction of that system were the noble Lord the Member for London Lord J. Russell, Sir John Romilly, the late Chancellor for Ireland, and, though last not least, the Right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who so far back as 1847 advised the establishment of a court for the sale of incumbered estates. He found that up to the month of April last, landed property had been sold by means of the Incumbered Estates Court to the amount of £21,326,000. The number of Chancery suits it had put an end to—some of them of long standing—was 267. The number of Irish purchasers of estates sold by the Court was 7180, and the number of English, Scotch, and foreign purchasers was 309. Of the total amount of sales £18,000,000 were paid by Irish purchasers, and £3,000,000 by other purchasers, so that the operations of the Court had developed a vast amount of local capital, promoting in a surprising degree the social progress of the country. Perhaps the most gratifying fact connected with the working of the Incumbered Estates Act was the large number of purchases made by the actual occupiers of the land offered for sale. He mentioned these facts to show that in dealing with a system which had operated so beneficially, it was the bounden duty of the House to see that any measure to which it might give its assent was perfectly safe. So important did the Aberdeen Government consider the question in 1854 that they issued a Commission on the subject. That Commission, which consisted of Sir John Romilly, the Chancellor for Ireland,

1541
Sir Richard Bethell, Mr. Cairns, the Chief Justice of Common Pleas in Ireland, and others, after a very diligent inquiry, recommended that a Parliamentary title should be given to purchasers under judicial sales, and that the right to give such titles should be extended to all estates, whether incumbered or unincumbered, by whatever tenure they might be held, provided the titles should be submitted to judicial investigation and found to be satisfactory. Another recommendation of the commission was that the proposed jurisdiction should be vested in the Court of Chancery, which it was intended to reconstruct so as to enable it to discharge the new duties to be imposed upon it. The Commissioners were influenced, in making that recommendation, by the fear lest in creating a separate tribunal they would be creating two Courts of Chancery, with co-ordinate jurisdiction. In 1856 it became his duty to introduce a Bill founded upon the recommendations of that Commission; and he might state that on the Motion for the second reading of that measure the present Attorney General for Ireland expressed his decided opinion that it would be highly impolitic to create a jurisdiction for the sale of unincumbered estates. The Bill was ultimately referred to a Select Committee, with power to examine witnesses—a power he did not propose should be given in the present instance—and the result was, that the Committee agreed to drop the Bill and to propose instead, certain Resolutions which might form the basis of future legislation. The effect of those Resolutions was, that the Incumbered Estates Court should be perpetuated, that a Parliamentary title should be extended to all estates sold, whether incumbered or unincumbered, and that a distinct tribunal should exist, having power to give an indefeasible title. When those Resolutions were under discussion, it would be remembered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite met them by a counter Resolution, to the effect that no exceptional tribunal should be permanently established, and therefore he was justified in saying that the right hon. Gentleman was throughout opposed to tins system. He would now examine the provisions of the Bill before the House. He had given notice of his intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, because he thought that that would be the most convenient course of proceeding; but he had no objection to
1542
consider the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, if that should be deemed more desirable. He approved of the leading principles of the Bill, but he thought that it had not been prepared in the most workmanlike manner, and that every clause of it would require great consideration. In the first place, it was proposed to abolish the Incumbered Estates Court, and to substitute fur it an independent tribunal, to be called the Landed Estates Court. He had no objection to this arrangement in point of form, provided the system for the sale of estates in a free and open market was preserved unimpaired; but it behoved the House to see that they established those safeguards which would prevent the new tribunal from degenerating into a second Court of Chancery. It was proposed to give the new Court, jurisdiction over the sales of estates whether incumbered or unincumbered, the administration of the proceeds, and the settlement of all questions of equity that might arise on them. Further, by the 44th clause it was to appoint receivers, and to have the like authority over such receivers and the tenants of the lands under their management, and over the funds produced by the rents and profits, &c., as was now exercised by the Court of Chancery. Now, he must declare in the outset his objection to have the court armed with such authority, as this would be the first departure from the simple character of the Incumbered Estates Court. The first thing to be done was to facilitate the sale of the land, and thereby do away with the necessity of receivers altogether. By the next clause the new court was to exercise the jurisdiction of Chancery for the sale of settled estates under the Act of last Session. Now, he was of opinion that the object should be to limit the powers of the new tribunal as far as possible to the sale of land, and not to incumber it with all the inquiries and investigations which would necessarily arise upon the sale of settled estates. He found that by the 46th clause it should be lawful for any vendor or vendee, under any contract for a sale of an estate in land in Ireland, to present a petition to the court, and thereon the Court might make order for the specific performance of such contract, so that this Court was not only to sell the estate, but to exercise the very extensive jurisdiction in all its ramifications of enforcing the specific performance of contracts relating to the sale of land. He

1543
called attention to these points, because he believed that unless great caution were exercised a new Court of Chancery would be established. Another provision gave power to the new Court, in relation to any matter brought before it, of sending the case to a court of law for its opinion, and of directing issues of fact to be tried before juries. Such a power was a very proper power to be given to the original temporary tribunal; but he did not understand why the new court, which was to be a permanent one, should be incumbered by such a regulation, particularly after the Bill of the Solicitor General, which had passed through the House, gave to the Court of Chancery the power of trying all issues of fact raised before it. While every facility ought to be given for the sale of Incumbered Estates by the Court, he thought it desirable to narrow, as far as possible, the power of determining other questions not immediately referring to the sale of land. He wished in the next instance to call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bill in respect to the present Judges of the Incumbered Estates Court, and in so doing he was anxious to bear his humble testimony to the learning, ability, and administrative talent displayed by Commissioners Longfield and Hargreave, and also by Master Flanagan. The Chief Commissioner, Mr. Martley, although he had not been so long in office, had entirely justified the nomination of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman). Indeed, had not the Act been well administered, it would from the strong feeling at first entertained against it, at once have fallen to the ground. The powers of the Court were to be enlarged under this Act. The Judges were to have a new jurisdiction. They were to examine into titles, to carry out all the sales of the Court of Chancery, of the Court of Bankruptcy, and the Court of Insolvency, and yet the Bill proposed to reduce the staff from three Judges to two. Mr. Martley and Mr. Longfield were to be continued in their offices, but Mr. Hargreave was to be sent back to England in receipt of his full salary of £2,000 a year. If this Commissioner was to be superseded he ought to retire upon his full salary; but he must be permitted to add that it appeared to him most unwise to reduce the number of Judges at the very time when the proposed alterations would obviously have the effect of materially adding to the business of the Court. In the Bill which was brought forward in 1852, and in which it was
1544
merely proposed to give to the Incumbered Estates Court the additional power of dealing with unincumbered estates, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite (Mr. Whiteside) had been the first to exclaim against the impolicy of the then proposed reduction in the number of the Commissioners, on the ground that that change would entail additional work. Now, the best economy would be to make the new Court thoroughly efficient, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would recognise the propriety of retaining the three Judges with equal salaries, with the understanding that in the event of a vacancy occurring such vacancy should not be filled up unless the requirements of the public service rendered it necessary. [Mr. WHITESIDE was underderstood to say that Mr. Commissioner Martley and Mr. Commissioner Longfield would receive the same salary.] He was glad to hear it, but he thought it most unwise to supersede one. What he intended to propose to the late Government, if it had remained in office, was to create an independent branch of the Court of Chancery for the sale of estates, to be called the Sales Department of the Court of Chancery, and preserving the procedure and practice of the Incumbered Estates Court. He should have proposed to Lord Cranworth that the three present Commissioners should be the Judges of the court, but that on the first vacancy the business should be carried on by the two remaining Judges. This was a suggestion which he now made entirely on his own responsibility. The 72nd clause of the Bill provided that each Judge might nominate any number of conveyancing counsel, not less than three to be approved by the Lord Chancellor, for the aid and assistance of such Judge in the investigation of titles to estates. It was, however, to be competent for any party to object to any opinion of any such counsel, whereupon the Judge was to dispose of the point in dispute in such form as he should think fit. He objected to such a provision. The safety of the public consisted in leaving the entire responsibility in the matter of title upon the Judges, where it had hitherto been. There was also another point to which he wished to refer. The principle of the 89th clause, which provided that a duty should be levied on every estate sold, conveyed, or partitioned by the Court, met with his entire approbation; but he thought that, instead of charging 10 s. on every £100 where the estate was of less value than £10,000, and £1 per

1545
cent. where the estate was of the value of £10,000 and upwards, the smaller percentage should be charged on the higher sums. It would be a very small amount to charge £10 upon an estate realizing £1,000, but £1 per cent. on an estate realizing £450,000 would be a heavy burden, while the expense of investigating the titles would be the same. A large proportion of the suits in the Court of Chancery in Ireland embraced the sale of estates, and if estates could be sold in the new court without the expenses of fees and stamp duties, which met the Chancery suitor at every step, the result would be that the public would have recourse entirely to the cheaper tribunal, The Court of Chancery ought to be put in an equally favourable position as to fees. He believed the framers of the Bill expected to receive a large annual sum from the Bank of Ireland, in consideration of the advantage which the Bank would derive from being made the depository of the money received by the Court; but he confessed that he very much doubted whether that expectation would be realised. He should listen with great pleasure to an explanation of the point, but it ought not to be forgotten that the Bank stood in the same position as the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery. He would next call attention to the most important clause, the 50th, which gave the new jurisdiction to the Court. In reference to this, and almost all the other clauses, he should say that the language was open to the greatest objection, and proved that the Bill had been evidently drawn in a hurry. Under the 50th section, any owner who desired to have his title investigated, and a judicial declaration made that he had a good title, might apply to the Court, whereupon the Court should investigate it, and if the title appeared satisfactory the Judge should make and sign a written declaration to that effect, sealed with the seal of the Court, and should state in a schedule any leases, tenancies, and incumbrances to which the estate was subject, and such declaration shall make it conclusive and indefeasible. The clause made no distinction between the owner of an estate in the land and the owner of the land itself. He knew it might be said that it could be easily amended in Committee, but in dealing with real estates they could not be too precise in the language which they used. An estate in land might be only a short lease of it. The declaration that the title was
1546
good was to be conclusive, and therefore it would be necessary to investigate, not only the title, but the incumbrances, the charges and the tenancies. Yet, while giving that sweeping power to call upon every encumbrancer to establish his rights, the petitioner was not even made punishable by being subjected to costs. It was said that the Bill was founded on the Report of the Committee last year, but it did not carry out one of their recommendations. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had not distinguished between a registration of conveyances and a registration of titles, and the Bill would only secure a registration of conveyances. He was so anxious, however, to see the Bill passed that if the Solicitor General and the Attorney General for Ireland continued firm in their opinion that the new power should be vested in the Court he would not object to it; and, further than that, if they should think that to refer the Bill to a Select Committee would imperil it passing this Session, he would not divide the House on the point. The only other point to which he would then allude was, the proposal that the office of Master of the Incumbered Estates Court should be abolished, and that Mr. Flanagan, who had hitherto discharged the duties of that office with great zeal, ability, and success, should go to the Treasury, and obtain from them any compensation to which they might think he was entitled. It seemed to him that such arrangement would be unfair to Mr. Flanagan, who had abandoned, nine years ago, the profession of the bar for the purpose of devoting himself to the business of that court; and he could not help thinking that the proper mode of dealing with that genleman would be to continue to him his full salary of £1,000 a year, until he should be appointed to some equally lucrative post.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Bill be committed to a Select Committee,' instead thereof."
Question proposed—
"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was glad to find that they were invited to enter into a discussion on the Bill, because he believed that the more its provisions were considered the more would it become acceptable to the House and the country, and the greater was the probability that it

1547
would be passed in a satisfactory shape. But he could not agree with his right hon. and learned Friend that it would be desirable to refer the measure to a Select Committee. The fact was, that even if that course were adopted, it would be necessary for the House to consider and to decide upon all the certain leading and important features. The questions of detail in the Bill were not new, but simply borrowed from the details of the Act under which the existing Incumbered Estates Court had been constituted, which had stood the test of several years' working, and in reference to this part of the Bill, therefore, there was still less need of reference to a Select Committee. Under these circumstances he trusted his right hon. and learned Friend would not persevere with a Motion which might imperil the passing of the measure during the present Session. According to the right hon. Gentleman there was no clause of the Bill which did not require reconsideration and improvement; but having read through the whole of it carefully, he was bound to say that, whoever might be the draughtsman, it certainly was drawn with considerable care and skill, although like all other Bills it might be susceptible of some Amendment. The discussion raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to whose was the merit of suggesting the Incumbered Estates Court, and the different opinions which had been held by various hon. Members as to it, was a very profitless one, and certainly must have the effect of detracting considerably from the weight of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. No doubt the Incumbered Estates Court was in the beginning one of the strongest measures which had ever been introduced into Parliament, and very sound and reasonable arguments were, on its introduction, urged against it by persons who, since they had seen the effects of its working and had experience of its benefits, had gradually changed their opinions about it. Many persons, owners of land and others, had viewed the formation of that tribunal with considerable apprehension and distrust, but had since been led to regard it as one of the greatest blessings the Legislature had ever conferred upon Ireland. The present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was among the original opponents of the court, but so early as the year 1853 he had so far changed his mind that he introduced a Bill in conjunction with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the At-
1548
torney General for Ireland, giving an indefeasible title in the cases of sales effected under the ordinary process of the Court of Chancery. What then were the leading provisions of the present measure? It would, in the first place, give a power of selling incumbered estates. That was no new provision. But it would also enable proprietors to sell unincumbered estates, and to obtain for them a Parliamentary title. It would go still further, and it would, in the third and last place, enable landowners to obtain a Parliamentary title without going through the formality of a sale. The two last principles were new, but the argument by which they were deduced from the first principle was perfectly logical. Suppose an estate worth £100,000 were incumbered to the extent of £10,000, one-tenth of its value. The proprietor brought it into Court, and for the sake of paying the incumbrance of one-tenth he allowed the Court to dispose of the Membered nine-tenths. Why should it not be just as safe to allow the Court to dispose of an unincumbered whole as of the unincumbered nine-tenths. In point of principle there was no difference between an estate partially incumbered and an estate wholly unincumbered as to the unincumbered part. The mere existence of an incumbrance afforded no additional security to a title. On the contrary, no person had so much interest in concealing any flaw in the title as an incumbrancer. He contended, both in point of principle and of practicability, that when once they arrived at the conclusion that it was desirable to give a Parliamentary title in the case of an incumbered estate, there was no power to stop short and say that it was not desirable to give it also to an unincumbered estate. If they did, it would be giving a premium to those who had acted extravagantly; and in practice the limitation would be ineffectual, as there were many instances in which an incumbrance was created merely to bring an estate under the jurisdiction of the present Court. As to the third point—the acquiring an indefeasible title without going through the formality of a sale—what magic was there in the fact of a sale in giving greater security of title? All that was wanted was security; the desire was to give a good title to his estate to every man; and what security was there in the fact of there being a vendor and purchaser? None at all. Besides the hypothesis being that a purchaser was to get a Parliamentary title when his sale was

1549
complete, if they gave it only in the cases of sales it would be impossible to prevent a person who desired a Parliamentary title to his estate passing through the form and ceremony of a sale, and thereby putting in action the jurisdiction of the Court. In short, fictitious sales would be made as fictitious charges had been. It therefore seemed to him that once they had taken the first step of giving this species of title to incumbered estates, they must go another step and give such titles also—but always, he admitted, with the most careful guards that the ingenuity of man could suggest—to unincumbered estates, and even to estates which did not undergo the process of sale. He trusted that the time might come when, if they succeeded in passing a wise and wholesome measure of this kind with regard to Ireland, they would also be able to extend it with great benefit to the landed property of this country. There were few taxes to which the land of this country was exposed which pressed upon it so heavily as those connected with the dealing of land in the way of sale and transfer. He had the curiosity on one occasion to endeavour to ascertain the amount of saving which resulted from one small measure of reform affecting the transfer of land. The House might remember that a measure was passed some years ago, under the auspices of Lord Brougham, which put an end to a form that was gone through on every sale of an estate—namely, of assigning what, in technical phrase, were called "satisfied terms" attendant on the estate. With the view to ascertain how much was saved by that one Act of Parliament, he consulted a most eminent conveyancer—the most eminent, ho might perhaps say, in his department—who went very carefully into the matter, and the result showed that, upon a moderate calculation, the saving to the landed property of this country by that comparatively unimportant statute could not be less than £300,000 a year. The expense of assigning those "satisfied terms" was a mere fragment in the cost attending the sale and transfer of land, and if they might ever look to the application of a system by which titles to estates could be given in this country as safe as those conferred under the jurisdiction of the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, he ventured to think that every landowner in England would increase the fee-simple value of his property by a very considerable sum—probably from 5 to 10 per cent. He would next pass to
1550
the consideration of the objections taken to the measure by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. FitzGerald). His right hon. and learned Friend said, he was apprehensive that the court to be created by the Bill would degenerate in process of time into another Court of Chancery. That would be extremely undesirable. He (the Solicitor General) had perhaps some reason to be quite satisfied with the Court of Chancery, but he agreed that this would not be desirable. He did not, however, share in his right hon. and learned Friend's apprehension in this respect, inasmuch as he did not think the Court of Chancery, where the business was purely contentious, was, in its present constitution, well adapted for discharging the functions which would devolve on the court contemplated by the Bill under consideration. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. FitzGerald) had told the House that he himself had prepared a Bill which made the Court for the sale of land a branch of the Court of Chancery. Now, under a Bill of that kind there would be much greater reason to apprehend the court degenerating into a tribunal which would follow the system of action known in the Court of Chancery. His right hon. and learned Friend also objected to the Bill on the ground of the power given by it to appoint receivers. He agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend that the employment of permanent receivers was undesirable, but he thought at the same time it was advantageous when exercised within wholesome limits. They could not expect sales of property to be completed in less than from six to twelve months, or perhaps a greater interval; but even in cases of that kind it might be desirable for the new court, which would have to secure the rights of incumbrancers and owners, to have the power to appoint an officer to receive and take care of the rents of an estate under sale during that period. Of course it was desirable to get rid of the system of permanent receiverships, which had been a great curse to Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made two objections, which appeared to be somewhat contradictory. He observed that there was in the Bill a power given to the Land Court to enforce specific performance, and there was also a provision to enable that Court to send issues to other Courts for trial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had remarked upon the first provision that it gave the Court power to deal with con-

1551
tentious business, and upon the second that the Land Court would not be performing completely all the business brought before it. Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must elect to which objection he would adhere. If the Court was to administer all the rights of parties applying to it, it was necessary to give it the power to some extent of enforcing specific performance. With respect to sending issues for trial by juries, he (the Solicitor General) was as anxious as any one to make each Court complete in itself, but if questions of fact were to be tried relating to distant counties in Ireland, and the Court itself was not to be peripatetic, it was obvious that the best thing to be done was to send the issue to the judge of assize to be tried. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also complained that the Bill removed the jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Chancery by the Lease and Sale of Settled Estates Act. By that Act the Court of Chancery was empowered to sell, but could not give a Parliamentary title; and unless a change was made these estates would be in a more unfavourable position than any other. It seemed to him absolutely necessary, therefore, that if this Bill was passed, settled estates should have the benefit of its provisions. The next point was as to the Judges of the court, and he agreed with all the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said in praise of Mr. Longfield and Mr. Hargreave, whose administration of their functions had made the court as popular as it was. Whatever they might do in the way of legislation, the goodness or badness of the court must depend in a great degree on those who had to carry it into operation, and the gentlemen whose names he had mentioned, had from the first set themselves to work in such a manner as to gain for their court the highest reputation. With respect to the judicial staff that was necessary, that was a question which was considered by the Commission of 1854 and the Committee of 1855, which came to the conclusion that two Judges would be sufficient. There was another consideration to be borne in mind. It had been urged by some that in making the court permanent it would be necessary to increase the salaries of the Judges, and therefore he hoped the House would be careful in sanctioning any increase in the number of Judges beyond what was absolutely necessary. For his own part, he conceived that two Judges would be amply sufficient for the work that
1552
would be entailed upon them. It must be recollected that while hitherto the two Judges had sat together on certain days, there being thus practically only one judge on those days, each Judge would henceforth dispose of all the business brought before him, and thus there would always be two Judges sitting. He next came to the clause which had excited the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, respecting the employment of conveyancing counsel. He confessed that when he (the Solicitor General) first read the clause he made very much the same observations as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done, but the explanation he received was that at present there was an investigation into every abstract of title in the Incumbered Estates Court before the business came before the Judges. When the title was brought into court it was referred to some counsel for examination, the council being selected by the solicitor promoting the proceedings, and the fees for such examination were paid as part of the expenses. The Chief Commissioner had found that those examinations were totally unsatisfactory and useless to the Court, creating needless expense to the suitors; and he thought that if there were to be such investigations care should be taken, by providing a proper staff of conveyancing counsel, that they should be performed in a satisfactory and useful manner. That was the object of the clause, but it still appeared to him (the Solicitor General) that it was a subject worthy of consideration whether that provision was desirable, but that was a matter that could be considered in Committee. The next objection taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that care must be taken, as the Land Court was to have power in any case where there was land to he sold to sell with a Parliamentary title, not to withdraw the business of the Court of Chancery and exhaust the business of that Court. Considering that the right hon. and learned Gentleman began his speech by professing to deprecate the Court of Chancery as a tribunal for the sale of land, it was to be expected that he would view with favour any provision tending to take away from that court the sale of land and transfer it to a court whose especial function it would be to deal with such subjects. It must be recollected, too, that although there were a great number of suits in Chancery relating to the sale of land, yet that in almost all of them there were incumbrances upon the land, which

1553
rendered those cases very proper matters for the Land Court to deal with. There was only one other provision upon which he had to remark, and that was the 50th clause, upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken objections both as to form and principle. The objections as to form were not, he thought, very conclusive; and with respect to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the proviso for registration, there had been some misapprehension of the point. As the House knew, there was at present in Ireland a Registry Act, under which every deed was registered which represented a transaction for the sale, transfer, or settlement of land; but what the clause provided for, was neither a sale, transfer, not settlement, but was a declaration made by the Court that a man who was not selling or transferring had proved a good title, and that could not be registered under the existing Act. There was no doubt a distinction between registration of assurances and titles, but the Committee which sat and recommended that there should only be a registration of titles, had said that an efficient plan for that purpose would be the first step towards a registration of assurances. He had now answered the objections of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he trusted he had shown that they were not sufficient to justify them in hanging up this measure by sending it to a Select Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the House would address itself to the consideration of the Bill on a fitting occasion, and that they might be enabled in the present Session to pass this measure, which, if wisely guarded, would confer a very great boon upon the landed interest of the country.
SIR RICHARD BETHELLsaid, he was quite willing to admit that the principle of the Bill was a good one, and he thought it was creditable to the Attorney General for Ireland to have adopted the principle laid down by the former Government. He should, therefore, be extremely sorry if any course were adopted by the House which would bring in peril the passing of this Bill during the present Session. Still the subject was unquestionably one of the greatest possible importance; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could be satisfied with an assurance by all those whom he might select to sit on the Select Committee that they would give their most earnest attention day by day to the matur-
1554
ing and considering of this Bill, then he, for one, should be exceedingly glad if the propositions of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) were adopted. The great difficulty he felt on the subject was that of creating a great co-ordinate jurisdiction, which, nevertheless, had not a jurisdiction co-extensive with that of the tribunal from which it would borrow most of its powers, and, therefore, being co-ordinate but not subject, and not having co-extensive jurisdiction, conflicts would undoubtedly arise between the two tribunals. It was in the sincere hope of being enabled to arrange the Bill, so as fully to express the nature of the authority to be exercised under it, that he proposed to send it to a Select Committee, where matters of detail could be discussed with more satisfaction, and with more likelihood of arriving at a just conclusion than in the House, where they must remain subject to all the emergencies of the public business. Three distinct courses might be adopted to effect the objects of the Bill, which were to make the title of land secure and to procure its easy transference. One was to have a department possessing only administrative functions similar to those exercised by the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, connecting it for judicial purposes with the great tribunals either of law or equity. Another plan would be to give administrative powers to a tribunal already existing—as, for example, to the Court of Chancery. And a third course would be to create a new tribunal armed with all the powers of the Court of Chancery and of the Incumbered Estates Court combined, delegating to it the special duty both of jurisdiction and of administration. Still, however great the power of the Court might be, it would be limited in its jurisdiction as regarded the subject matter, and cases would often arise in which there were questions affecting partly land and partly personal property, and this new Court would deal with the land question, while the ordinary Court would deal with the question of personalty, and thus they might have a conflicting jurisdiction. This was the mode now proposed; but it was open to great objection, and required the most careful consideration, which could not be so well given in the House as in a Select Committee, of whom eminent lawyers would form a portion. In point of fact, if the matter were discussed in the House, and only those hon. Members took

1555
part in the discussion who were acquainted with the legal points, they would be in reality the Select Committee on the subject. That was not, however, his sole reason for advocating the appointment of a Select Committee. Contemporaneously with the introduction of this measure, Lord Cranworth brought forward in the House of Lords a Bill for facilitating the sale and transfer of Land in England. That Bill having come down to that House, it was his intention to move that it be referred to a Select Committee, and as it proposed to give to the Court of Equity in England precisely the same functions and powers that were delegated by the Bill before the House to a distinct and independent tribunal in Ireland, he thought it desirable that the two Bills should be considered by the same Committee. There was another subject which was undoubtedly of very great importance, and on which a measure had been prepared, which he (Sir R. Bethell) would not introduce during the present Session lest his doing so should have the effect of embarrassing the right hon. Gentleman; he referred to the general registration of titles. That was a subject which had engaged his attention for a considerable period, and his views were embodied in a Bill, which would, he thought, command the attention of those who were most interested in the matter. With respect to the question of registration, if these two Bills passed into law, they did not contain any machinery for registration, and he thought that when a satisfactory mode of settling the title had been arrived at, some machinery ought also to be provided for registration. That, however, was a very large subject, which they could hardly be expected to deal with at this late period of the Session. He agreed in the interpretation of the meaning of the 50th section as laid down by the Solicitor General, but it was important to observe that the Bill gave power to any owner of an estate, however limited his interest in it, to apply to the court. It would be difficult, in the first place, to ascertain the reality of the ownership if the Act recognised a limited ownership. The 38th section gave the Court power to ascertain the rights of all persons in any land in respect of which the application was made, and therefore the owner of any limited interest might bring the estate under the notice of the Court, which was to define and declare the rights of the ownership. But that would tend to much litigation, and to the raising
1556
of questions which could only be properly settled by the established tribunals, both of law and equity. They might create subordinate tribunals, to facilitate the transfer of land, but it would be the height of imprudence to create a tribunal, which, inferior in itself, would have all the responsibility attaching to the highest courts of law or equity in the kingdom. It was on these grounds he should like to see the measure referred to a Select Committee, but he would press nothing that would endanger the passing of the Bill this Session; and if such a reference would threaten the measure with inevitable delay, neither he nor those on his side of the House would press such a course, it being their greatest desire to give every support to the principe of the measure.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALhad heard with great satisfaction, though not with surprise, his hon. and learned Friend's (Sir R. Bethell) assent to the main principle of this Bill; but he thought the effect of referring it to a Select Committee would be greatly to endanger the passing of it during the present Session. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland, that it was impossible to be too cautious in dealing with such a subject as this, involving, as it did, the security of the landed property of the kingdom; but when the Bill went into Committee he (the Attorney General) thought it would be made efficient for all purposes, and all safeguards could be then introduced which could be considered essential. It must not, however, be forgotten that they were legislating in this case by the light of experience, and that no evil had hitherto resulted from the working of the Incumbered Estates Court. In considering the question whether they should proceed at once with this Bill, he could not help reflecting on the great and mighty benefits which would accrue to Ireland, and in the end to England, if they could succeed in establishing a court with enlarged jurisdiction and adequate functions, under which the titles to land might be effectually registered, and which might be made the foundation of a general system of transferring land. The benefits which might be expected to arise from that scource were incalculable. His attention had long been directed to that subject, and he also inferred from the signature of the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell) to the Report of the Commission on the Registration of Titles that

1557
he would approve the establishment in this country of a system for the complete registration of titles and easy transfer of land. It was quite idle to say that the Court which dealt with an incumbered estate could not also deal with the same estate when unincumbered. So satisfactory was the working of the Incumbered Estates Act that fictitious incumbrances had been made for the purpose of bringing estates within the jurisdiction of the Incumbered Estates Court, and thereby acquiring unimpeachable titles. The Government, therefore, thought it would be well to put an end to such a state of things, by establishing, a court which could deal with unincumbered as well as incumbered estates. And when they were threatened with the danger of conferring so great a jurisdiction on a court to be created, he thought that they had only to consider what might now be done indirectly in the Incumbered Estates Court, and directly, both in England and Ireland, by means of the Court of Chancery; and those dangers and difficulties would entirely disappear. The power of the Court of Chancery in suits for specific performance was analogous as to any difficulty which might be apprehended. To show how great were the inconveniences of the system for which the Bill proposed to find a remedy he might observe that if a gentleman in this country had 1,000 acres of land, upon which he desired ten times in the course of his life to raise money by mortgage, or to otherwise enter into transactions affecting his title, ten times over must he incur the expenses of investigating the entire title of that estate. In many cases where the estate was not large, but the title somewhat ancient or complicated, it might be found that the whole value of the estate in fee simple had been spent during the lifetime of one man, in repeated investigations of the title. So again, if a gentleman desired to sell two acres out of 2,000 he must go through the whole expense of investigating the title, the same as he would incur in selling the fee simple of the entire estate. If a person during a portion of his life should sell on several occasions several portions of his estate, he would incur on those several occasions the complete expense of investigation of the title, and it was impossible to say how much of the fee simple would be wasted in that investigation. Whereas if it were done under this Bill it might be done by a single investigation of the title, on which a
1558
declaration of title would be given by the Court, so that the owner from that date got in effect a new title, and when, from that time forth, he should desire to mortgage, even over and over again, or to part with it by selling it in several small portions, there would be this declaration of title affirmed by the Court, which would enable the owner to deal with the property in every variety of transaction, as long as that declaration should endure. As to the dangers by which it was said the working of the Bill would be beset, he should merely say that the principle which it involved was carried into effect in the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, while it was in the power of the Court of Chancery to give as secure a title under a decree in a suit for specific performance. His hon. amid learned Friends opposite had raised several objections to the jurisdiction of the court proposed to be established, but the chief objections he had heard appeared to him, when carefully considered, to answer each other. One objection raised by his right hon. Friend, who proposed a Select Committee (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) was that this Court would have power of directing issues of fact or a trial by a jury in some distant part of the country, while on the other hand the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethel]) raised a difficulty that, in order to give a good title, the Court would usurp or invade the functions of the Court of Chancery, and we might have a conflict of jurisdictions. He thought that these objections were more apparent than real. In the Probate Court which was established under the auspices of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself they had as here, a second and distinct court, in which questions of magnitude and importance might arise; and the Divorce Court was another instance, in neither of which had any conflict of jurisdiction arisen. If a question of fact arose in reference to the title of a large landed estate, which might come under investigation in this new court—a question, for instance, as to the competency of a testator to make a will—there was a proviso under which the Judges of the court might direct an issue to be tried by a jury, or an action to be brought in the same way as an action of ejectment brought to recover the land, and disposed of in the same manner. It was said that there would be a conflict of jurisdiction with the Court of Chancery, and a conflict of decisions, but the Bill provided an answer

1559
to that. The Bill said that when any difficult question arose, a case might be stated for a court of law, and gave an appeal against the decision of that court, which appeal at last might be carried to the House of Lords. There was another objection which he confessed he had heard with considerable surprise. It was said that if this court were established, it would have the effect of drawing away from the Court of Chancery a great deal of its business. Such an argument ought rather to be used in support than in condemnation of the measure, as, in his opinion, it would be the greatest praise which could be bestowed on it, to say that all who wanted to investigate title would find it convenient to go to this court instead of to Chancery. If the House would consent to go into Committee he was sure that with the able and sincere assistance which his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) would derive from hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, any necessary corrections in the details could be made then, and that there would be no difficulty in providing all necessary safeguards. If his right hon. Friend should be successful in carrying this Bill through Parliament he would confer a great and lasting benefit upon the country.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he rose not to enter into the details of the Bill, but to make a few observations on the mode of proceeding with it, and as to the general principles involved. The hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethel]) had fallen in with the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. He had listened to him while he gave his reasons, and it appeared to him that as there were some great principles in the Bill which it was necessary that the House should decide, he could not think that it would be satisfactory to the House that this Bill should go to a Select Committee, without reserving the power of deciding on those principles. As to the framing and wording of the Bill he doubted whether in a Select Committee there would be greater agreement between his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) and the Attorney General for Ireland than there would be in the House. As regarded the origin of the Incumbered Estates Court he thought that the learned Attorney General for Ireland had hardly done justice to his right hon. Friend, the Master of the Rolls, to whom great gratitude was due in reference
1560
to this subject. Sir Robert Peel had in contemplation a measure of a different character, somewhat similar to the Ulster Settlement; but it did not resemble the measure which was afterwards proposed, and Sir Robert Peel's renown was already so great that it could gain no additional lustre from giving it credit for that to which it was not entitled. The original measure originated with Sir John Romilly, although the question involved was one which had been entertained for a very considerable time, and he remembered that Lord Cottenham could not be persuaded for some time that there would be any progress in reference to incumbered estates, unless the persons who had incumbered estates gave their assent to proceedings. Sir John Romilly, however, proposed a measure which was afterwards carried, with the assent of Lord Cottenham. Consequently the legislation that subsequently followed in this direction was to be traced as the consequence of the Act passed by Sir John Romilly. He (Lord J. Russell) was glad to find that although apprehensions had at first naturally enough been entertained with reference to the success of so novel and sweeping an innovation in the law, that learned Gentlemen, who had seen its effects, and to whom complaints would have come if any real grounds of complaint existed, were so well satisfied with the working of the principle that they were now prepared to give it perpetuity by fresh legislation. When he came into the House that evening he was disposed to think that the learned Attorney General for Ireland had carried the principle of the Bill somewhat too far. In the beginning it was a very strong measure, and though they might take a certain course as to incumbered estates, it was a doubtful matter whether they could carry that principle out in reference to other species of estates. He himself was satisfied that they could carry the principle somewhat further, so as to make it apply to estates for sale; but he thought that the learned Solicitor General had proved very clearly that they could not stop short there either in law or practice, and that other estates, which were neither incumbered or for sale, would be brought by their owners, by some species of evasion, within the compass of this court, and that, therefore, it was better to do directly that which otherwise would be done indirectly. He did not think it followed, however, that when they were very much enlarging the sphere of this court that they should

1561
choose that moment for making the number of judicial officers of the court smaller than it had hitherto been. He thought that the proper course would be to keep up the three Judges which they had hitherto had, and that it should be declared that in case of a vacancy it should not be lawful for the Crown to fill up the vacancy without having recourse to Parliament. He thought it seemed unwise, without discussing the hardship in any particular case, that it did seem unwise that Mr. Hargreave, who had been for many years in the exercise of his judicial functions, and had succeeded in overcoming the prejudice against the Act, and giving great satisfaction, he repeated that it seemed unwise, instead of giving that gentleman a sufficient salary to do the work for which he was competent, to give him a very considerable retiring pension without requiring any services whatever. He hoped that the author of the measure would consider this matter. His right hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald) had argued that persons would get their estates disposed of at so small a cost in this court that they would no longer go to the Court of Chancery; but it seemed to him that this was not so much a reason against this measure as it was a reason for diminishing the expenses and solemnizing the forms of the Court of Chancery, rather than clipping the wings of this new court. He should readily give his vote for going into Committee on this Bill without having a Select Committee. He trusted that in establishing a court, which he had no doubt would be very useful to Ireland, it might hereafter be useful to England; and he must say he was glad that the Government was giving attention to so very important a measure with the view to carrying it this Session.
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought that there could be no second opinion as to the merits of the principle of this Bill; and the only question was, whether a measure involving such complicated details should be referred to a Committee of the whole House, or a Select Committee. No doubt a Select Committee would embrace most of the practical men in the House; and if they could insure their attendance constantly, he should feel inclined to concur with the proposition of the right hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald). But although there would be many advantages in the adoption of such a course, the discussion would be one in which lawyers
1562
alone would engage, whereas in a Committee of the whole House it would be joined in both by lawyers and laymen—men of information and sound sense—who would act as assessors, and whose opinion would be of great value. He therefore thought the proper course to adopt would be to discuss the Bill in a Committee of the whole House. As to the general principle, he concurred in the universal opinion that the Incumbered Estates Act had been of great advantage to Ireland, and he thought that the same principle should be extended to unincumbered estates. After all, however, it would be found that unincumbered estates were not very numerous. He did not mean by this to infer that estates were incumbered up to the hilt; but, practically, very few were without an incumbrance of some kind. With regard to the details of the Bill, its effect would no doubt be, looking at the important and extensive jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court, to take away a great part of the business of the Court of Chancery. Now, instead of setting up a new Court, with independent functions, he would suggest that it should be made a branch of that older Court, the jurisdiction of which was exercised so beneficially for the public. He was surprised to find in the 38th section, the power was given to this court which had been taken away from the Court of Chancery. He alluded to the power of sending a special case for the opinion of a court of law. With respect to land generally, there were more mortgages than sales of estates, and therefore ho did not see why the mortgagee should not have a Parliamentary title as well as a purchaser. He believed that a great number of the estates purchased under the court had been mortgaged immediately after. There were other objections which he entertained to the Bill, but these were of such a nature that they could not be discussed in the House, and therefore he would support the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair. He was for at once proceeding to a Committee of the whole House, and for rejecting the proposal for sending the Bill to a Select Committee.
MR, BUTTsaid, he had certain objections to the Bill, which he felt could not be properly discussed in the House, and therefore he was in favour of sending it to a Committee up stairs. With all the principles contained in the Bill he fully agreed, and because he agreed with them, he regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not gone further, and. made

1563
the title to land as easily transferable as title to stock. In ordinary cases there was great difficulty in doing this, but Ireland possessed unusual facilities for the purpose, because in the Ordnance map the smallest plot of land could be identified, while this Bill would give every present proprietor an indefeasible title to his land. All that the right hon, and learned Gentleman would require to do, therefore, was to provide that every proprietor should have his name registered in a book, so that he might be easily identified, and where the sale of his land could be recorded. He, therefore, did not see why the present desirable opportunity should be allowed to pass for making a most important piece of legislation complete. A great defect in the working of the court was the expiration of the Parliamentary title with the first purchaser. When the property was purchased in the court, the title was declared to be indefeasible, but if at the end of ten years the purchaser wished to sell, he was obliged to go through all the expensive searches and delays of the old system. Why not allow this indefeasible Parliamentary title to be transferred with every transfer of the property? He had also complaints to make of the machinery proposed, which, with an increased amount of work, was to be very much diminished in numerical force and efficiency. To give an indefeasible title to parties who chose to submit their title deeds for the inspection of the Court was the most responsible thing in the world. In the cases where a property was to be sold at the instance of an opposing creditor, there was some security for an accurate examination. The Judge had the advantage of hearing parties on both sides, while in a mere declaration of a title the Court might declare against the rightful parties in their absence. Now, what was the machinery to accomplish this? Why, with this additional and most delicate duty added to the other business of the court, it was proposed to reduce the Judges from three to two. He further objected to the proposition of giving this power of examining titles to a Court that had what was called contentious business at all. The practical effect would be, that the more showy business, the litigation, would attract all the energies of the Judge, and that he would carry the abstracts of titles, he was called on to examine, home with him in the evening; where he would go through them with jaded spirits in a careless and perfunctory manner. He also was persuaded that if
1564
they left the Conveyancing Counsels clause to stand, it would end in the authority being practically thrown into the hands of the counsel, instead of, as it ought to be, entirely exercised by the Judges. These were the objections he entertained towards the Bill. As he had said, he thought they would be better discussed up stairs, but, should the House be of a different opinion, he was ready to discuss them at once.
MR. ADAMSsaid, that as he had heard no objection raised to the principle of the Bill, he would confine himself to the question whether it should be referred to a Select Committee, or should be considered in a Committee of the whole House. He doubted whether it would be desirable to refer it to a Committee to be composed altogether of members of the legal profession, especially as it could not be expected that those hon. Gentlemen whose presence would be most desirable would attend so continuously as to make much progress during the present Session. He feared, too, that each Member would go into the Committee room with the intention of carrying out his own particular views. There were many points in the Bill that did not require the exclusive attention of members of the legal profession. The subject was well understood; it had been much discussed. There had been a Royal Commission on the question, which had published a most valuable Report in 1856, so ably and plainly drawn up as to be intelligible to any one who applied his attention to the subject. An objection had been raised to the reduction of the number of Judges, but it must be remembered that when the Incumbered Estates Court was first established there was an enormous accumulation of business, such as was not likely to occur in future. If the number of Judges now fixed should be found insufficient for the business to be transacted, it would be easy to appoint another; but if a third were originally appointed, it would not be so easy to get rid of him if his services were not required. It had been objected that there would be no saving of money. That was a mistake, for there would be a saving of £1,000 a year in the salary of the Judge, and also the entire expense of a third court. The question, however, was not one of £1,000 a year, but of public efficiency; and by two Judges sitting separately the business would be got through satisfactorily. He should, therefore, approve of the appointment of two Judges in the first instance, reserving

1565
to himself the right of concurring in the appointment of a third Judge the moment it should become necessary. He did not believe that there would be, as had been stated, more difficulty in dealing with un-incumbered estates, than was experienced in dealing with incumbered estates. In fact, even fictitious incumbrances were got up for the purpose of obtaining the Parliamentary title. They were not about to establish a new principle, but merely to extend the application of a principle that had been eminently successful. They had the machinery ready to their hands—a machinery which had been found efficient in carrying out the experiment which had been made. The great difficulty in the way of increasing the number of small independent freeholders in Ireland—a class which formed a most valuable portion of the population of this country—had been the expense of making out the title, especially where incumbrances existed, the cost of which, when the property was divided into small holdings, being sometimes equal to the value of the land. But when once a good Parliamentary title was obtained to an estate small portions of it could be sold without these heavy expenses, by a simple reference to the Parliamentary title. This would have the most favourable result in facilitating the sale and acquisition of small properties. Again, if no difficulty had been experienced in cases where there was likely to be contentions, could they imagine that there would be more or so much difficulty when they had to deal with cases where no contention was likely to arise? A suggestion had been made that the court should form part of the Court of Chancery. He hoped that that would not be so, for the Court of Chancery had not been such a very great favourite in Ireland as to render it desirable to confer all these additional powers upon it. It would be better to have a tribunal with all the powers of the Court of Chancery, and not to adopt a form which would be objectionable to many. He hoped that this measure would be a forerunner of a similar system for England, when the means for adopting it were supplied; and that the Session would not pass without the machinery being supplied for the introduction of a similar system. In conclusion, he hoped that they would go into a Committee of the House on the Bill.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had referred to the question of the salaries of the Judges as an un-
1566
important matter. It was not so, however. He agreed that the Court of Incumbered Estates had been the most successful experiment in the way of law reform that had been passed in this generation. But what were the grounds on which the Court had become so popular? He attributed its success mainly to two causes,—first, that the learned Commissioners had administered all the work of the Courts themselves, and had referred nothing to clerks, masters, or examiners; and, secondly, that they had adopted most simple, rational, and philosophical rules of procedure—one of which ought to be inscribed in letters of gold over every court, to the effect that no informality should affect the suitor, but that justice should be done in every case to every individual. The Attorney General for Ireland, instead of this satisfactory court, was going to constitute a court of the same magnitude and importance as the other courts of the realm. He was going to raise the salaries of the Judges from £2,000 to £3,500 a year. If they raised the salaries of the Judges beyond what was necessary to secure efficiency, they would run into great danger, and the result would be that the clerks and conveyancing counsel would do the duties which the Judges ought to perform. It was most desirable to have the salaries as low as at present, and in that way they could increase the number of Judges as occasion required. On these grounds he did not think the plan of the right hon. and learned Gentleman a sound one. It would be far more economical to keep the three gentlemen on their present salaries than to pension off one of them on his full salary, and these views he would urge upon the Committee when the Bill reached that stage.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he should be unjust if he did not express to the Attorney General for Ireland his opinion of the great debt of gratitude which that country owed him for the introduction of this admirable measure, which he trusted would be proceeded with speedily and with as little alteration of its fundamental principles as possible. There was nothing he should deprecate so much as that it should be referred to a Select Committee, particularly one of lawyers. The Bill was too good a one for Ireland to render it desirable that the risk of its reference to a Select Committee should be run. He thought, however, that there should be three Commissioners instead of two; and he objected to the appointment of conveyancing counsel.

1567
But these were points of detail which could be perfectly well discussed in a Committee of the whole House.
COLONEL GREVILLEsad, there could be no doubt that the working of the Incumbered Estates Court had been most beneficial to Ireland, and the time had now come to extend the benefit of an indefeasible Parliamentary title to unincumbered estates. After the experience of the eight years' working of the Incumbered Estates Court, he thought that the House was perfectly able to deal with this Bill without referring it to a Select Committee, He must say that he thought it would be exceedingly injudicious to dispense with the services of Mr. Commissioner Hargreave, who had been engaged in the working of the Incumbered Estates Court since its foundation; had assisted in drawing up its rules; and was one of the ablest of the Judges who had presided in it. His withdrawal, moreover, would lead to a delay in the disposal of the cases which were at present pending before him. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General for Ireland, would reconsider this point, and would assent to the retention of the services of Mr. Hargreave in this court. The 15th clause was open to objection, because, the Court being permanent, he did not see what object the proprietor could have in obtaining the Parliamentary title until he wanted to sell his estate. He objected also to the levy of a duty on the sale of Estates, which was contrary to the recommendation of the Commissioners who had inquired into the working of the Incumbered Estates Court. These, however, were all matters of detail which could be settled in Committee.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had received communications from all parts of Ireland on the subject of this Bill, and in no one case was any opposition expressed to the principle of it. It was true he had at first thought that the Court of Chancery might transact all the business of the proposed Landed Estates Court, but happy was the man who could say that he had never changed his opinions. He had since thought it unadvisable to bring into the Court of Chancery all the arrears of the Incumbered Estates Court; and he had arrived at that conclusion in company with the hon. Members for Carlisle and Oxford University. When the present Government came to consider this question they found ready to their hand, to assist them
1568
in arriving at a conclusion, three Reports of great value—one of a Commission which sat in 1846, another of a Committee of that House at a subsequent period, and the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the registration of titles in this country. They had, moreover, the experience of the working of the Incumbered Estates Court for eight or nine years; and the present Bill was to the subject, the result of the best consideration they could give with these aids and appliances at their command. There were, as the right hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) observed, several verbal inaccuracies in the Bill, but these it was his intention to have corrected, and the Bill would be reprinted for that purpose. He found that several eminent Chancery lawyers were afraid lest the Bill should create a second Court of Chancery; but were they sincere in their alarm? The principle of the Bill was, that without the intervention of a Chancery suit, a contract for the sale of land should be submitted to this Court, so that what would be done circuitously and badly in the one case, should be done cheaply and expeditiously in the other. Objection had been taken to the clause having reference to receivers. He did not approve receivers, but as such officers might in some cases be deemed necessary, it was thought better to allow the Court to decide when they ought to be appointed. He was not, however, wedded to that clause, and if the House when in Committee, however, was of opinion that it should be omitted, he would be quite willing to do so. An objection had also been taken to the employment of conveyancing counsel. Here, too, if the House was of opinion that this part of the Bill was unadvisable, he would most readily bow to its decision. He had put in the clause relative to conveyancing counsel, not to shift the duties of the Judge over upon them, but because it was thought that it would be advantageous to have the assistance of three eminent men approved by the Lord Chancellor, and who would be prohibited from practising in the Court in the investigation of the abstracts of titles. It had been asked, what provisions there were against fraud. Now, independently of the three Reports upon the table, a series of questions had been drawn up at the instance of the Lord Lieutenant, and submitted to the Chief Commissioner. One of these questions was, whether any additional check would be required in making out a title, or giving an adjudication upon

1569
the title of an owner in fee simple, and the answer was, that there would be no necessity for any extra check. His great object was so to simplify the sale and transfer of land, that when an owner had once obtained a title, he might, whenever he chose, sell or lease small portions of the land, and have the power of doing so without the aid of a conveyancing counsel. The number of Judges in the Court was, no doubt, worthy of serious consideration. When the late Government introduced their Bill, they proposed that two Vice Chancellors of the Court of Chancery should be created, who should perform all the business of the Incumbered Estates Court, who should bring up all arrears, and sit in the Court of Chancery. His proposal was to have two Judges, who should not be called upon to do the business of the Court of Chancery, but who should sit in this particular Court, the petitions for sales in which had been diminishing until in the last three months there were only seventeen petitions per month. The time of at least one Judge had been saved by making the two Judges sit separate and apart, each having supreme jurisdiction in his own Court. An appeal would lie against the decision of each Judge, and they would thus be enabled to get through more business than three Judges on the existing system. By the Bill this country might have the benefit of Mr. Hargreave's services, and it would be provided that he would lose the compensation granted to him when he obtained an office under the Crown of equivalent or superior value. The other officers who might be displaced would also be dealt with by the Treasury in a liberal spirit. He trusted that the Court, under the new Bill, would be self-supporting. In that case the country would be relieved from an annual charge of £18,000, while the titles of property would be simplified, and sales would be facilitated. He believed that the measure had given, and would give, unfeigned satisfaction, and he would now move that the Bill be committed pro formâ.
MR. FITZGERALDsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
House resumed; Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 105]; recommitted for Thursday next.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee. Mr. FitzRoy the Chair.
(1.) £79,275, Salaries and Expenses of British Museum.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL, who spoke in an indistinct tone of voice, said that there was a considerable increase in the amount of this Vote as compared with the Estimates for previous years. An increase had taken place in the salaries of £2,820; house expenses, £600; purchases, £3,450; bookbinding and cabinets, £5,200. There were also some increased charges for catalouges, the whole increase being £12,800. The Treasury had deputed Sir C. Trevelyan and Mr. Arbuthnot to inquire into the re-arrangement of salaries rendered necessary by some recent changes. They went to the British Museum several times, and proposed to the Trustees a plan of remuneration by salaries which had been considered and adopted. The sum for purchases had been much increased, especially in the department of books and drawings. For some years the Estimates for books had been below the usual amount because there had been no room in which to place them, and it was only since the new reading-room had been completed that the requisite space had been found. In 1846 the sum proposed by the Treasury for printed books was £10,000. For several years, however, the Estimate had been a good deal below that sum. It was now proposed to restore the vote to its former amount of £10,000. Less would not suffice, because there were books published in series which had not been supplied in consequence of the reduction of the Vote. The increase of books had caused a good deal of bookbinding, and there was also an increase under this head. The charge for printing catalogues had also increased, because a new catalogue had been prepared as a general guide to the Museum. He was happy to state that the Museum had been more generally useful to the public that in any former year. The new reading room, which bad been projected many years ago, according to the original suggestion of Mr. Panizzi, had been found exceedingly successful, and bad given general satisfaction. The number of readers had greatly increased. For several years the average attendance was 180 persons. Last year the number increased to 200, but since the reading-room opened on the

1571
18th of May of last year the number had increased to 400 a-day. The number of persons attending the Museum in 1856 was 361,714, and in 1857, 621,034. A great number of early-printed books were now kept in show-cases—in a manner that had never before been done. Arrangements were also in progress by which many valuable engravings would be shown which hitherto bad not been accessible. In this manner the collections contained in the Museum would be made more profitable and more easy of access than they had yet been. It was, however, to be regretted, that there was still a want of room in the establishment, in consequence of which a number of valuable marbles were obliged to be placed in the portico. This was an eye-sore, and it was also very unsuitable to the marbles themselves. The noble Lord concluded by moving that a sum not exceeding £79,275 be granted to Her Majesty to pay the salaries and expenses of the British Museum.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYasked the noble Lord whether he would encourage the principle of allowing the British Museum to be opened on the Sunday afternoon after Divine service?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not think that the Trustees had any power in the matter; and even if they had, he did net think they would be at all disposed to make any such regulations.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, there were numbers of people who could only visit the Museum on Sunday afternoons, and he did not think it would injure the morals of society if they were admitted after Divine service, as at Kew and Hampton-court.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was hardly reasonable on the part of the hon. Baronet to make his application to his noble Friend the Member for London, as one of the Trustees of the British Museum. The question of opening places of amusement and recreation, or places of secular instruction on Sundays, was a great question of public policy. Whatever might be the private opinions of the Trustees, they could not be expected to take on themselves to open the Museum on Sunday afternoons. It was rather for the hon. Baronet and those who thought with him to make a proposal to that effect in the House, and they knew pretty well what the fate of such a proposal would be. The
1572
responsibility of settling the question was in the hands of the House of Commons and the Executive Government, and certainly not in the hands of the Trustees.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he intended to appeal to the House of Commons.
LORD ELCHOsaid, there was a great want of space in the British Museum, and the collections of drawings, engravings, prints, marbles, antiquities, and manuscripts were almost inaccessible. He had been moreover informed that there were some valuable marbles at Halicarnassus belonging to the Museum which could not be removed there for want of space to receive them. The Government ought to boldly face the question of room by endeavouring to methodize and subdivide the various collections. The merit of the archæological collection was that it was a complete historic series, and whether it remained in the Museum or was removed elsewhere it could not possibly be divided. Mr. Newton, in a letter to Mr. Panizzi, suggested that a distinct line should be drawn between Pagan and Christian art, and that while the British Museum retained the Pagan, the Christian part should be combined with the national collection of pictures. He thought that suggestion well worthy the attention of the Government, and when they were considering the demand for space they might also inquire whether it was not desirable to remove the collection of Natural History. The public money need not be wasted in making collections in duplicate, and even in triplicate. There was a mineralogical collection in the British Museum, and another in Jermyn Street. There was a botanical collection at the British Museum, and another at Kew. There was a collection of portraits in the British Museum, and they were making another in George Street. There was a collection of mediæval art in the British Museum, another at South Kensington, and a third in Jermyn Street. What was wanted was a methodizing of these various collections, and bringing them into order and arrangement. Great increased accommodation was required for the marbles, which rapidly accumulated. The Government was in full possession of evidence upon the subject; and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without further inquiries, for a commission to take steps to methodize the various collections belonging to the public.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he concurred in the observations of the noble Lord as to the want of space, and the possibility of obtaining it by a new arrangement of the Museum. It was absolutely necessary in order to keep pace with the progress of the age that lectures should be given at the Museum explanatory of the varied treasures which it contained, to which the middle classes might be admitted. By this means those who were unable to purchase the catalogues would be enabled to appreciate the value of the collections there assembled. Professor Owen had given a very strong opinion in favour of such a plan, and there were gentlemen in the Museum quite competent to deliver most instructive lectures. In another year he should certainly move that such a system of lectures be established.
MR. DUFFsaid, he was afraid that the secondary officials at the Museum—many of whom were men of European reputation—were not sufficiently well paid. This was not by any means an economical system, for though first-rate men were now working at the Museum at very low salaries, there were not wanting indications that in the course of ten or fifteen years it would be quite impossible to obtain men of equal abilities at so low a rate. He quite agreed that to the present duties of these gentlemen might be added that of delivering a certain number of lectures. There were many officials at the Museum competent to deliver most instructive lectures, and such an obligation would be a very good test of efficiency to attach to all future appointments.
SIR PHILIP EGERTONsaid, that the trustees had not the power, and he believed they had not the disposition, to open the Museum on Sundays. They were willing to give every facility on the week days to the working classes, and had accordingly opened the Museum in the summer months at an early hour on Saturdays. He did not agree with the noble Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), nor did the scientific world agree with the hon. Member in the views which he had expressed. Want of room was a bugbear which had been made a great deal too much of. They had it in evidence that any extension of the collection in the next ten years might be amply provided for, if a light cast-iron gallery was put round the room in which the collection now was. A storey might also be added to the first room for the use of the officials, as for want of private
1574
studios they now had to occupy one of the finest galleries in the Museum, to which of course the public were not admitted. He hoped a Vote would be taken for the purpose of providing accommodation for the officers.
MR. TITEsaid, he thought it pretty well settled that the pictures must remain at the National Gallery, but that the gallery must be enlarged. The natural history collection at the British Museum might go the Linnean Society. With regard to the question of room he thought that much space might be gained at very small expense by taking in the houses on the north side of the Museum. He wished also to ask of the noble Lord whether something could not be done to make the bequests which ever and anon were made to the British Museum a matter of greater notoriety, as, for example, the Temple collection. He might also remind the Committee that the fine archælogical collection of the Marquess de Campanella at Rome was now to be disposed of, and it might be an object worthy the attention of the Government to endeavour to secure it. The question of lectures was a large one. If they were established he did not think there would be room enough in the Museum for the people who would flock to hear them. With regard to the remarks made to the salaries of officers, he thought that question must be left in the hands of the honourable men who undertook the management of the affairs of the Museum.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsuggested that arrangements should be made by which on three days of the week the working classes might have an opportunity of inspecting the Museum in the evenings after working hours; and that on Sundays a large room in the Museum might be set apart in which objects illustrated by Scripture history might be viewed by that class of the population.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL, who was at times inaudible, was understood to say that the question of opening the British Museum on Sundays had been brought before the House on a former occasion. It was not one that the Trustees could properly entertain; but if the House were to decide that the Museum should be opened on Sundays the trustees would have simply to bow to that decision. The archæological collection of the Marquess de Campanella having been mentioned, he might state that his right hon. Friend near him, when Chancellor of the Exchequer,

1575
made an offer for its purchase. That offer, however, was thought inferior to the value of the collection, and no answer was returned. Since that time the Papal Government had come into possession of the collection, and if it should be sold, the Trustees of the British Museum would have power to make an offer for it or for some part of it. Every year there were proposals by hon. Members to remove some parts of the collection; the parts of course in which they took no interest. He did not, however, believe that any one of the great branches of the Museum—he meant the libraries, the antiquities, and the archæological collection could be removed with benefit to the public; and he hoped when the Government came to consider the whole matter they would not consent to the removal of any one of these three great branches from the Museum. By purchasing property towards the north the building might be enlarged in that direction, at an expense which had been estimated at £150,000; but he did not think the Government would be justified in proposing the expenditure of such a sum, without looking into the whole subject. As to opening the Museum in the evenings for the benefit of the working classes, that was a question which had been carefully considered by the Trustees, and he thought they were all of opinion that there would be great danger of fire from such an arrangement, and they felt it to be their duty, while endeavouring to make this great national collection committed to their care as much as possible available to the community at large, to take every precaution to secure its preservation.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the working classes took a great interest in the collections, and it was odd that they should be denied the privilege of visiting the Museum on the only day on which their avocations admitted of their seeing it. He believed the great majority of that House were disposed to concede them that privilege, but many hon. Members declined to take part in a question which was not altogether palatable to certain portions of their constituents. It was fashionable to talk of giving the working classes a half-holiday on Saturdays, but such a proposition was simply absurd, unless employers would consent to give a full day's pay for half a day's work. What could be the object of denying that class of the population the opportunity of seeing the Museum on Sundays? They contributed towards its maintenance by the
1576
taxes they paid. They worked from morning till night throughout the week, and Sunday was the only day which was left them for recreation, and that day, by the legislation of Parliament, they were compelled to pass in a manner that was not satisfactory to their well-wishers nor agreeable to themselves. The noble Lord last year had said that the question of opening the Museum on Sundays was not a matter for him as a Trustee to decide, but was one upon which the House of Commons should pronounce an opinion, and that opinion he (Mr. Locke) hoped they would now pronounce.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Locke) was quite right in saying it was the business of the House of Commons to pronounce an opinion upon the question of opening public institutions on Sundays, but he must have forgotten that the opinion of the House upon that subject had been formally challenged two years ago, and was pronounced in a most decisive and emphatic manner. That opinion was confirmed by so vast a majority that although it did not prevent the hon. and learned Member from again raising the question, yet it did excuse the Executive Government from taking any different course than they had taken. It was quite open to the hon. and learned Member to challenge another discussion upon the subject. With respect to the discussion that had taken place as to the intermixture of the establishments of the Museum, and the still greater question of the space at present afforded for the collection and the demands for additional space continually accruing, those were more pressing subjects for consideration. One hon. Gentleman complained of the inadequate remuneration of the lower officers of the British Museum. Perhaps the hon. Member had not noticed, and if not it would be gratifying to him to know that the Trustees had recommended, the Government had adopted, and there was now proposed in the present Vote a considerable increase in that remuneration. As to the great questions of the accommodation afforded by the British Museum, and that alluded to of the methodizing of the collections, they were much too large for discussion upon the present occasion. That discussion must be taken in connection with other questions, themselves considerable in importance,—as to the site of the National Gallery, the disposal of the ground

1577
at Burlington House, as to the disposal of the great estate at Kensington, clearing Marlborough House of the pictures, and comprehensive arrangements for the vast wealth of the public in collections of art, science, and objects of natural history. He would not enter upon that subject, but he felt bound to reiterate the opinion, that a proposal for a large increase in the space at present occupied by the British Museum, with a view to keep together the whole of the collections in that establishment for a considerable or indefinite period, was hardly to be expected. He did not believe those collections could always be kept together. The time must come when the question of separation would have to be met. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had spoken of £150,000 that would be required for the purchase of houses now occupying land to the north of the British Museum in order to carry out a suitable enlargement, but the noble Lord did not intend to convey to the Committee the idea that any such sum would go far in that direction. And that was his (Mr. Gladstone's) belief. If it was the intention of the House that, for any considerable period—for the next generation—the collections of the British Musuem should be kept together, then they must be prepared to spend upon the spot a much larger sum of money. He could not as a Trustee, or as a Member of Parliament, recommend that the Government should make a demand upon the House of Commons for the purpose without considering what the public had been doing towards providing accommodation in other quarters. In 1852 no less than £140,000 was paid for the site of Burlington House, and in 1853 and subsequent years £180,000 was paid for portions of the Kensington estate. Thus, something like £320,000 had been laid out by the public in the acquisition of sites for this purpose. One of those sites was the great quantity of land—something like 100 acres—at Kensington, affording an immense amount of accommodation for objects of the nature now under discussion, and of which, up to the present time, only a small fraction had been applied to that purpose—namely, the small portion upon which the new Museum had been erected. Although only a small portion of that site had been applied to the purpose for which it was originally intended, yet the application of that small portion had been followed by most gratifying results. Both as to the number of persons who visited the
1578
Kensington collection and their demeanour the result had been far beyond what the most sanguine had calculated upon. At the present moment he would not go further than to express his opinion that they must look not only to the question of the extension of the British Museum upon its present site, but they must also be prepared to confront the very difficult question as to the separation of the collections of that establishment. What separation there should be he was not prepared, nor was he the most competent person to decide. He knew what would be the feelings of his hon. Friend the Member for Cheshire if anything were said about the removal of the collections of objects of natural history, and yet he had a suspicion that when the question was raised it would be that portion of the collection in the Museum to which public attention would first be directed. He would go no further at present; but as to the fact that a separation must take place he felt sure, and he thought it would be unreasonable and unjust to call upon the public for large sums for increased accommodation until that question had been fnlly considered.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that the time would come—indeed, he might say had come—when they must consider the question of how the public collections of this country could most effectively be arranged. That was a question which could no longer be avoided. He was not at all prepared to say that the consideration of the question should be postponed. Committees and Royal Commissions bad fulfilled their tasks; all the information required upon the subject was in the possession of the House, and what was wanted was a determination to avail themselves of that information, in order to act upon it. He felt it was the duty of the Executive Government not to shrink from the question of the British Museum, as that would probably be the first establishment that would compel them to come to some solution of the difficulty. It was in the various, almost the universal, character of that collection that the difficulties which the House had now to contend with found their principal origin, and he was afraid they would not be able to encounter the obstacles in their path until they simplified the contents of the Museum. If they maintained the various collections of which the Museum

1579
consisted in a manner to preserve their character as first-rate collections, it was impossible that they could keep them under the same roof. The only condition under which they could keep them under the same roof was, that they should become second-rate collections, a conclusion which the nation would not readily sanction. Allusion had been made to the frequent and munificent efforts which the country had made at intervals to obtain proper sites. Without space nothing effective could be done, and it was the want of space that had been the cause of the scattered position of our collections, and of our being unable to effect that convenient arrangement which was so necessary for the public accommodation. A great effort was made six years ago, when he proposed that the House of Commons should vote a sum of £180,000 in aid of a sum of equal amount, which was the balance left from the receipts obtained at the Great Exhibition of 1851. With that united sum, amounting to upwards of £300,000, an extensive portion of land at Kensington was purchased, with the idea that there would be an opportunity, not only of relieving the Museum, but of finding a home for our scattered collections, where they might be seen and studied to greater advantage by the public. That site had been held by the Royal Commissioners on behalf of the public; but it was useless to disguise the fact that the expectations which the House indulged in when it voted £180,000, had been entirely disappointed. The partnership between the Exhibition Commissioners and the House, though conceived in a right spirit, had not been fruitful of results. Objections had been raised to the site itself, as being at too great a distance from the centre of the metropolis; other causes had operated in the same direction, and the result had been that, though a considerable period had elapsed since the purchase of the Kensington estate, few of the great objects contemplated had been accomplished. Indeed, the only one had been a temporary museum of science and art, but the success of that establishment bad not, as might perhaps have been expected, induced the public generally to change their opinion upon the main question. The question now was, what, under these circumstances, was best to be done? He had to state that the Exhibition Commissioners had made a proposition to the Government which he thought deserved
1580
the attention of the House. It was to dissolve the partnership which had been so barren of results. The Commissioners called upon the Government, in the first place, to assist them in carrying out the original scheme, but the Government did not find themselves in a position to do so, and then the Commissioners proposed that they should repay to the country the suns of £180,000 voted by the House of Commons six years ago, with a moiety of all rents received during the interval. On the part of the Government, he had assented to that proposition, subject, of course, to the approval of the House. He believed they would find it a prudent and advantageous arrangement. The Royal Commissioners would thus become the sole proprietors of the land at Kensington, and would be able to devote it to the purposes of science and art. There would be an end of all those jealousies which had so long prevailed, and all intention or power of placing the National Gallery at Kensington would, of course, be given up. If the House agreed to that arrangement, which it would soon be his duty to bring more formally under their notice, they would then have to consider the question of the National Gallery without reference to the site at Kensington-gore. Thus would terminate an old and painful controversy. He trusted that the discussion which had taken place would convince the House and the country of the necessity of encountering difficulties which could no longer be procrastinated, and that some satisfactory arrangement would soon he made for the accommodation of the highly interesting and valuable contents of the British Museum, National Gallery, and our other national collections.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he joined with bins in expecting good results from the arrangement he had mentioned. As to opening these institutions on Sundays he should vote in favour of it, and he also referred to the uniform good behaviour of the working classes when visiting the national institutions, and urged that the British Museum should be kept open till eight o'clock on Mondays and Saturdays in the summer months. There would be no greater danger from fire than at present. It was advisable to afford the working classes the fullest opportunity of visiting the national institutions.
MR. COWPERsaid, he should strongly condemn the proposition for opening such places on Sunday, which was against the wish of a large portion of the working classes themselves, who were apprehensive that if this principle were once admitted, it would not be long before their employers would take the hint, and deprive them of their day of rest. It was a mistake to say that Sunday was the only day on which the working man could visit the Museum. The working men of London seldom worked the whole of the six days, and the experience they had had of the South Kensington Museum proved that they could spare time of an evening to visit public institutions. He thought, therefore, that the Museum might be kept open later in the evening, and that the apprehensions with respect to fire mooted by the noble Lord the Member for London were groundless. He also suggested, that inasmuch as the Museum possessed several duplicate works which they would be anxious to sell if they had power, Parliament should empower them to present such works to local libraries in the various towns of the kingdom. The same might be said with reference to duplicate portions of the collection of rare and curious articles.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not wish to enter upon the subject of opening the British Museum on Sundays, as it had been decided by a large majority that it should not be opened. But he desired to state that all the inhabitants of the metropolis would hear with very great satisfaction that we were going to get rid of the Kensington-gore establishment. He believed that the minds of all people would be greatly relieved when they heard that the consideration of that question was to be no longer embarrassed by the peculiar ideas of some people in relation to that property. But he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take care that he should not be overreached in the bargain. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well, before he concluded the bargain, to call in some person cognisant of the value of land in the neighbourhood in question, in order that the public might receive full value before they relinquished their part of the property. He hoped that care would be taken to secure to the public, payment not only of the principal, but of the interest that had accrued. He was glad that the question of the National Gallery might now be discussed irrespective of that particular estate.
1582
He had no doubt that a desirable site would be easily found in the centre of the metropolis for the erection of a National Gallery.
MR. JACKSONsaid, he hoped the Government would inform the House distinctly as to the terms on which the partnership in the Kensington property was to be dissolved.
MR. KINNAIRDobserved, that he believed that the land in the immediate vicinity of the plot of ground in question had this year increased at least three times in value. He trusted that nothing would be done to alter the vote to which the House came against the opening of the British Museum on Sundays, but that it would be opened during some of the other days of the week at such hours as would enable the working classes to visit it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that it would be better to refrain from going into details upon the Kensington property until he introduced a measure upon it. He might, however, observe, with respect to the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kinnaird) as to the increase in the value of land in the neighbourhood in question, that that increase had taken place with regard to land for budding purposes; but the land purchased by the Royal Commissioners could only be used for the original corporation—namely, for the purposes of art.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he did not wish to reopen the Sunday question, but he would submit that the British Museum ought to be opened to the working classes five or six days in the week instead of merely three as at present. The state of the Museum might truly be said to represent the state of our civilization and mental culture. No one who walked through the thoroughfares of the metropolis and saw the frightful monuments of our celebrated men could help regretting that those who had to decide upon the erection of those monuments did not take the trouble to visit the Museum and inspect the wonderful ancient monuments there. Had they done so, they could never have sanctioned such solecisms and deformities as were to be seen at Hyde Park-corner and in Trafalgar Square. It was with some satisfaction that he heard that the Brompton scheme had been given up, because he was instrumental in preventing the removal of the pictures in the National Gallery beyond the reach of the inhabitants of the metropolis. If the Royal

1583
Academy were removed from Trafalgar Square the National Gallery would be large enough to contain all those pictures for which there was now no room. In the Estimates it was proposed to take a Vote of £10,000 to enable the trustees to purchase pictures during the current year, upon which he intended to divide the Committee, unless the explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the removal of the Royal Academy from the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square should prove to be satisfactory.
LORD ELCHOremarked, that if any justification were needed of the observations which had fallen from him in reference to the British Museum, it was to be found in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might also be permitted to say that he was extremely glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there was an end of the long-debated question of the site of the National Gallery. He also thought that the question of the removal of the Royal Academy from the building in Trafalgar Square ought to be considered at an early period.
Vote agreed to: as were also
(2.) £26,887, for New Buildings, and Fittings at British Museum.
(3.) £5,000, Purchase of Objects for ditto.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
MR. FITZROYbrought up the Report of the Committee of Supply.
On the question that the first Resolution, granting a sum of £46,375 for Solicitors' Charges, including Mint Prosecutions, be agreed to,
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he wished to take that occasion to state,—several questions having been put to him in reference to the balance of those Votes now lying to the credit of the different services in the Exchequer—that, as a member of the Committee upon Public Moneys, he entirely approved the suggestions which it had made. It would no doubt be desirable to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee on Public Moneys as soon as possible, but there were great practical difficulties in the way of doing so, and more especially in reference to those Votes which were taken not in accordance with the actual sum spent during the year. In certain Votes that were taken the sum voted became chargeable
1584
for the service for which it was voted, without any reference to time, so that where there was a surplus in one year the sum asked for in the next year did not represent the sum expended. It was not so with the Votes for the Army and Navy, for the sums voted for those services were restricted as regarded the time for which they were voted to one year, and any balance which there might be was returned to the Exchequer, and before the recommendation of the Committee could be carried into effect the same system which prevailed with regard to the Navy and Army Estimates ought to be extended to the Civil Service Estimates. Another difficulty was that the Civil Estimates were voted after the expiration of the financial year, and therefore it was necessary to provide for the period between the end of the financial year and the time when the Votes were taken. There were six Votes in which the estimated cost for the current year differed from the Vote to be voted. With regard to five of them, the sum estimated was fully set forth, as well as the sum to be voted. With regard to the first of these Votes, namely, that for the sheriffs of Scotland, the Estimate was £50,000, and the suns to be voted was £25,000. The next Vote for the law charges of Scotland, No. 27, was £51,629, as estimated; the sum to be voted was £26,620. The Estimate of No. 46, being for the cost of prisoners and convicts, was £430,000; the sum to be voted, £380,000. The Estimate of Vote 47 was £190,000, the sum to be voted £140,000. The Estimate of No. 48, being for the transport of convicts, £44,000; the sum to be voted, £24,715. With regard to all these Votes there were balances in the Exchequer from last year, and therefore they only asked the difference between that balance and the amount required for the present year. This was the principle on which these Votes had been usually calculated, but he considered the system an objectionable one. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in the course of the present Session, introduce a measure by which at least a portion of the recommendations of the Committee on Public Moneys would be carried out, and the Civil Service Estimates placed on the same footing as the Naval and Military Services; that was to say, the Votes would be taken for the service of the year, and the balance, if any,

1585
carried to the credit of the Consolidated Fund.
MR. WILSONsaid, that he would not at that late period of the night go into the question, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken in supposing that the Estimates had ever been presented in that form before.
Resolution agreed to.
On bringing up the Vote of £14,118 for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Register House, Edinburgh,
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he would move the recommittal of this Vote. The Vote, as passed by the Chairman last evening, had certainly been unchallenged by inadvertence, and he felt confident that, if the Committee had had the opportunity of judging of the case from the papers which since then had been laid on the table, they would have arrived at a different conclusion. The effect of striking off the £1,000, as the Committee had determined last evening, would be to destroy a most important office in Scotland connected with the transfer of land; and he would therefore move that this Vote be recommitted to the Committee of Supply.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Resolution be recommitted."
SIR JOHN TRELAWNY SIR JOHN TRELAWNY moved the adjournment of the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexpressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would not throw any obstruction in the way of public business.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he did not wish to do so; but he understood one item, that of the salary of the Lord Clerk Register, was open to immense objection, and he wished to stop it.
MR. WILSONobserved, that the only way in which the Vote could be fully reconsidered and discussed was by assenting to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hamilton).
MR. COWANsaid, he had had the opportunity of reading the papers of which mention had been made, and he begged to assure the House that he did not shrink from the responsibility he had assumed last night in moving the reduction of the Vote. He hoped the Government would consent to the production of other papers, besides those now in the hands of the printers, particularly of a communication from Mr. Henderson, the Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland, who, it was alleged, had advised the suppression of the office in question two or three years ago.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYadded, that he could not regard the decision on this Vote last night as an inadvertence. It was a distinct victory achieved over the Government in their attempt to perpetrate a job.
Motion for adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  MR. PALKsaid, he must complain that a Bill of so much importance should be placed in such a position on the paper that it could not be considered until after one o'clock.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that morning sittings would commence very soon, and the hon. Gentleman would then have a full opportunity of discussing any measure in which he was interested.
  Bill considered.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 106]; recommitted for Friday next.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing; Property Qualification.
2a Sale of Poisons, &c.; Stamp Duty on Passports.

SALE OF POISONS, &c.
THE EARL OF DERBYin moving the
1508
second reading of the Sale of Poisons, &c., Bill, said that it was intended to carry into effect that which had been the object of both Houses of Parliament for some time, and to inquire into the best mode of obtaining which their Lordships appointed a select Committee in the last Session of Parliament. That Committee had gone very carefully into the consideration of the whole question, and had made a Report. The Bill was founded on that Report with some alterations, which had been made in the following manner: He took the Bill as it came out from the Select Committee of last year, and referred it to the Pharmaceutical Society for their observations and suggestions with respect to it. They sent back the draft amended as they proposed. He then sent both the first draft and the amended draft to the College of Physicians, and where he found that the suggestions made by the College of Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Society concurred he adopted the amendments which they considered desirable. Where he found those bodies differed, he adhered to the original draft of the Bill. The object of the Bill was to guard against three inconveniences, to say the least, which resulted from the present system. The first object was to increase the difficulty of obtaining poisons for criminal purposes, and to give facilities for conviction by enabling proof to be given of the delivery of those poisons. The other objects were to prevent, as far as possible, the occurrence of those lamentable accidents which partly arose from the ignorance, and from the carelessness of those who exercised the business of selling drugs and poisons. With regard to the first object, there was a clause in the Bill containing stringent provisions as to the manner in which certain poisons specified in the schedule to the Bill were to be sold. They were not to be sold to any person unknown to the seller, except in the presence of a witness of adult age, known to the seller; and to whom the purchaser is known, and who should sign an acknowledgment to his having witnessed the sale. No such poisons were to be sold to any other than a person of adult age, except on the presentation of a certificate signed by a householder known to the seller; and all these circumstances were to be entered in a book by the person selling the poisonous drug. These stringent provisions were applied to a considerable number of poi-

1509
sonous substances enumerated in the schedule to the Bill. There were other substances equally poisonous, but the sale of which could not be subjected to the stringent provisions contained in the first clause without destroying trade and preventing the transaction of legitimate business. Amongst these were opium, laudanum, tartar emetic and chloroform. The sale of these substances was, however, subjected to some restrictions, principally directed to prevent their sale in a careless manner or by incompetent persons. Evidence had been adduced to an immense extent before the Committee of last year, that the sale of poisons was carried on by persons who had not the slightest knowledge of the properties and dangerous quality of these poisons, and who were utterly unfit by education and training to deal with such dangerous materials. A provision had been introduced into the Bill to provide for the future a remedy sanctioned by the Committee of last year. It was proposed to be enacted that for the future—and saving the right of those persons who might prove that they had been in the habit of selling poisons—no person, after the passing of this Bill, should be permitted to sell any poisons, either of the first or of the second class. without having a licence, which licence should only be granted on an examination by a properly qualified board of examiners, consisting of three examiners, one selected by the Pharmaceutical Society, another by the College of Physicians, and the third by the Society of Apothecaries. Those persons who were engaged in the sale of poisons before the passing of the Act were to have a licence to carry on their business for five years; but, after the expiration of that time no licence was to be renewed without examination. There remained the evil of carelessness, on the part either of the buyer or of the seller, to be dealt with. To meet this the Bill required that all poisons of whatever description should be labelled and distinctly marked with the word "poison," should be kept separate and distinct from all other drugs, and that the examiners, or persons nominated by them, should be permitted at all reasonable times to enter and search the places where drugs were kept for sale, in order to ascertain that the provisions of this part of the Act were complied with. Pecuniary penalties, increasing with the repetition of the offence, were imposed for this breach of the provisions of the Bill; and it had been considered absolutely necessary to provide that if a penalty were in-
1510
curred by any servant or apprentice of a chemist or druggist the employer should be responsible. There was also a special provision with respect to arsenic, providing that it should be kept mixed with soot or indigo, excepting in cases where it could be proved that the purposes to which it was intended to be applied would be defeated by such mixture. Some persons might desire some more stringent provisions than these which were contained in the present Bill; but in his opinion it was better for the Legislature in a matter of this kind to carry with them the general feeling of the country, and not, in endeavouring to obtain a more perfect security against evils against which they could not obtain an absolute security, run the risk of exciting public opinion against the Bill; but on the contrary, by acting in accordance with the views of the medical profession to ensure that willing co-operation which was necessary to carry the measure into beneficial operation. He should propose, if the House assented to the second reading, to go into Committee pro formâ on Monday, in order to have the Bill reprinted with some Amendments.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that no doubt the difficulties of the question were great. H thought the noble Earl had taken a judicious course in consulting both the Pharmaceutical Society and the College of Physicians, and he should not be disposed to dissent from their suggestions when they concurred. He thought it would be desirable to enact the provisions with respect to the mixture of arsenic with colouring matter in regard also to other colourless poisons. And he also doubted whether it would not be desirable that the Crown should have the power to appoint one at least of the examiners, who would be free of the peculiar interests which might to some extent influence the two medical societies. He thought that a very few alterations in the present Bill would make it at all events a great step towards the solution of the problem with which it dealt.
LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his approval of the Bill, stating that in his opinion it would not be desirable at the present time to attempt to pass a more stringent measure.
After a few words from the EARL OF HARDWICKE and LORD AVELAND, who were understood to support the Bill,
Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

INDIA—THE GOVERNOR GENERAL AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.

  QUESTION.—MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF BREADALBANE, in rising to put a question to Her Majesty's Government as to the Relations in Military Matters between the Governor General of India and the Commander in Chief in that country, said it appeared to him to be extremely desirable that the separate functions of those who were in positions of authority in distant dependencies of the Crown should be clearly defined; and that if it were expedient upon general grounds that such should be the case, it was of still greater importance that it should be so in those instances in which the civil came into contact with the military power. Taking into account the vast military operations which were now being carried on in India, he felt assured their Lordships must feel deeply convinced of the necessity which existed for maintaining the principle for which he contended. Now, he regretted to say that rumours prevailed to the effect that there had been interference in the case of the civil authorities in India with respect to the conduct of military operations in that country. He did not know to what degree of credit those rumours were entitled, but he could not refrain from observing that the interference to which he referred could not, if it actually took place, fail to be otherwise than most detrimental to the best interests of the country. Surely their Lordships could not wish to go back to the days of the Aulic Council, when campaigns carried on in the north of Italy were planned in Vienna, and to allow the views of non-professional to override those of professional men? One of the causes of the present rebellion in India was, he believed, to be found in the injudicious interference of the civil with the military power. Now, as he had said before, he did not know whether the rumours to which he had alluded were or were not correct, but their Lordships would perhaps permit him to read an extract from a letter from India, in which statements corroborating those rumours were made. The letter was dated Camp Kamalgunge, April the 24th, and contained the following paragraph:—
  "It must not be supposed that the Governor General's share in the operations against the enemy is small or unimportant. On the contrary, he takes a large and active part in directing the movements of our troops, and in indicating the direction in which our efforts should be exerted. By frequent electric telegrams and letters he communicates his ideas and wishes as to the conduct of the war, leaving, of course, the Com-
  1512
  mander in Chief to carry them out in detail, or to modify them in accordance with military considerations; but on all questions of general policy the will of the Governor General is decisive, and if any mischief has been caused by the delays at Futtehghur, at Cawnpore, or at Lucknow, it is not to be attributed to the Commander in Chief. The last expression of the Governor General's opinion is understood to be that General Roberts ought to disperse the Banda rebels, but that gallant officer has not moved from Kotah, and was, according to the last account, still there in the position he took up on the 15th of the month. Indeed, it is very likely that he will return to Neemuch, unless he is ordered not to do so by the Commander in Chief. Again, the Governor General would, if he commanded the army, prohibit Brigadier Jones's advance towards Bareilly till he had swept the Bijnore district. I merely mention these circumstances in order to show that the Governor General plays an important part even in the disposition of the troops in the field, and that the Commander in Chief of the army is by no means the sole commander of the army, so far as the plan of the campaign is concerned."—The Times' Special Correspondent.
  It was impossible to say whether this statement was overdrawn; but if it was not overdrawn, and if such interference really existed, he could not help thinking that we lost the ability and experience of the distinguished Officer commanding our armies in India, of whom any country in the world might be proud. He was under the deepest conviction that military operations must be conducted without interference; and where such interference had been attempted, disaster had generally been the result. He would conclude by asking the noble Earl at the head of the Government the question of which he had given notice as to the relations in Military Matters between the Governor General of India and the Commander in Chief in that country; and perhaps it might be desirable that he should move for a Copy of any Instructions given by the Governor General to the Commander in Chief respecting Military Operations in Oude and elsewhere.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have heard various causes—some of them without any foundation whatever—assigned for the outbreak of the unfortunate mutiny in India; but I confess it is now for the first time I have heard that one of the causes of the rebellion has been the interference of civilians in matters of a purely military character. There may have been acts of indiscretion committed by civilians in the way of interference with military men, and which may have produced mischievous consequences—acts on which military men might have been with advantage consulted—but I have never heard of any interference by the civil authorities with the military authorities in India upon

  1513
  purely military matters, or that any such circumstances had led to those evil consequences which unhappily exist at present in that part of our empire. I was anxious to hear the particular paper for which the noble Marquess wished to move. As I understand it is for a copy of the instructions issued by the Governor General to the Commander in Chief. I think, however, I can have no difficulty in answering the question put to file by the noble Marquess—namely, "what are the relations at present existing between the Governor General of India and the Commander in Chief in respect to military matters." My Lords, there can be no doubt that the Governor General in India does possess and must have absolute supremacy in the country. That supremacy must extend over all matters, military as well as civil; although undoubtedly it is the natural policy of the Governor General to leave purely military operations entirely to the management of the military authorities. I have no doubt, my Lords, that that is the course which has been pursued by the noble Lord who now administers the office of Governor General in India. Nevertheless, the noble Marquess must see that there are many cases involved in military operations which ought not to be decided by purely military authorities. But there may be many cases in which military operations must be guided by considerations not purely military, but in which political consequences of the greatest magnitude may be involved, and which may render it necessary to depart from a scheme which, viewed strategically, seemed to be preferable. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance in all those cases that the Governor General and the Commander in Chief should have the freest and most confidential intercourse with each other, and that each should know at once what are the particular reasons for the other's movements. I have, no doubt, my Lords, that the freest and most confidential communications have taken place between the present Governor General and the Commander in Chief on all occasions; and I think it is possible that on some occasions, in regard to certain military movements, at first thought desirable by Sir Colin Campbell, that that Commander in Chief, upon his consultation with the Governor General, may have been overruled by weighty considerations of political importance, and that a different course was taken promising much greater advantages than any that could be derived from the carrying out of the original proposition, My Lords, I
  1514
  think it is of the greatest importance that this confidential intercourse should not be in the slightest degree interrupted. I am sure that the noble Marquess did not intend by reading anonymous extracts from a newspaper to raise any question calculated to create a difference between the Governor General and the Commander in Chief. I have, my Lords, every reason to believe that Lord Canning and Sir Colin Campbell are acting together in the most confidential and cordial manner; and while upon purely military matters Lord Canning, on the one hand, is willing to defer to the superior experience of Sir Colin Campbell, so, on the other hand, Sir Colin Campbell knows his duty too well not to defer to the Governor General as having supreme authority upon all questions, not only affecting military movements, but involving political considerations of the deepest interests to the tranquillization and pacification of India. It appears to me impossible to lay down any absolute rule as to where the authority of the one ends, and that of the other begins. As I have before observed, the Governor General's authority must be supreme. In all military matters it is, no doubt, his bounden duty to consult the Commander in Chief; and it is necessary to the interests of the public service that between both the most confidential communications should exist, and that the opinions of each should be freely and confidentially exchanged upon all questions of importance.
  THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEthought, that nothing could be more clear than the definition given by the noble Earl of the relations between the Governor General and the Commander in Chief, and he had heard with great satisfaction the assurances just offered as to the good understanding which prevailed between Lord Canning and Sir Colin Campbell. There was no doubt that rumours of a different character had been abroad, which he was glad to hear now so directly contradicted; because it would be a matter of the most serious gravity if it were true that there had been any undue interference on the part of the Governor General with the Commander in Chief, situated as Sir Colin Campbell at present was. That gallant officer was a man of distinguished ability, and was engaged conducting a war with a small army opposed to ten times its numbers, and having to deal with a hostile and insurgent population. Any such interference was much to be deprecated, especially in the case of an officer of such high

  1515
  military character—an officer who had always shown himself chary of the blood and labour of his soldiers, but was ever prodigal of his own. He did not know whether it was generally known, but it was a curious fact that in every action in which Sir Colin Campbell had been engaged he had received a wound, though fortunately for the service they were all of a slight character. As to the relations between the Governor General and the Commander in Chief there were distinct precedents. Warren Hastings never once thought of interfering with Sir Eyre Coote; and when, in 1803, the Marquess of Wellesley was engaged in a war with the French and the Mahrattas he not only abstained himself from interfering with Lord Lake and the Duke of Wellington, but placed the civilians under military authority. Another distinguished soldier (Viscount Hardinge) also gave an example of the manner in which a Governor General should act towards the Commander in Chief, for although a superior officer to Lord Gough he put himself under his command and fought under him in two engagements.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am extremely glad to have heard from the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government a denial of the reports which were alluded to by the noble Marquess, Such reports ought to be received with extreme caution; but as they have been referred to on the present occasion, I cannot help calling your Lordships' attention to the disposition which seems to exist among correspondents in India—who no doubt mean well, but are certainly incapable of forming correct opinions on what is passing—to give information which may tend to mislead the public. I have no knowledge on this subject, but this I know, that all the rumours which, soon after Lord Canning went to India, were attempted to be circulated there as to differences existing between the Governor General and the Commander in Chief were upon subsequent inquiry proved to be entirely false and unfounded. I do not say that this is the case with the rumours now mentioned; I do not know from what quarter they proceed; but it is my confident belief, from ray knowledge of the two distinguished persons in question—of the Governor General in his civil, and the Commander in Chief in his military capacity—that, besides the many virtues and eminent qualities which both possess for the important situations they hold, there
  1516
  are no men gifted in a higher degree with that greatest of all civil and military qualities,—I mean discretion. I am sure that neither would, if a difference arose between them, unnecessarily reveal the grounds of that difference. I am certain that, whatever may be the foundation (if there be any) for these rumours, no communication of any kind, either from Lord Canning or Sir Colin Campbell, can have laid the ground for this publicity. Such publicity, I feel confident, must have arisen from rumours which no conduct of theirs could have prevented. Deeply impressed with the importance of maintaining secret and inviolable what, from regard to the public interests, ought to be secret and inviolable—namely, confidential communications which pass between two men to whom the most important interests of the country are intrusted, I hope your Lordships, in common with the public, will receive with the greatest caution any communications, or any presumed reports, propagated in this manner.
  LORD BROUGHAM.said, that as some reference had been made to his late lamented friend, Lord Wellesley, it ought to be known that that noble Lord actually left Calcutta and established himself at Madras for the express purpose of maintaining close and speedy communication with the great commander under whom his brother the Duke of Wellington was then serving, and with whom he was allied in carrying on the Mahratta war.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn,
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.