Sitting of 4 July 1859

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—.For Ashton under Lyne, v. Right hon. Thomas Milner Gibson, President of the Board of Trade; for Wolverhampton, v. Right hon. Charles Pelham Villiers, Commissioner of Poor Laws.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Oxford University, Right hon. William Ewart Gladstone.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 1° Public Health; Clerk of the Council; Diplomatic Pensions; Law Ascertainment Facilities.
2° Law of Property and Trustees Relief Amendment; Criminal Justice Middlesex (Assistant Judge).

SALE OF SLAVES IN BRAZIL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. D. GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consul at Rio has exercised his authority to prevent a certain contract for the sale of slaves in Brazil, by the directors of a British Mining Company in that country, to one Santos, from being carried into effect, although such sale professed to be
  586
  under the sanction of the decision of a British Court of Law; and whether or not it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to support him in that course?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid he thought that this question had arisen from a misapprehension of the real facts of the case. At the end of the year 1857, Her Majesty's Consul at Rio informed the Government that there was an intention of selling the slaves of the Imperial Brazilian Mining Association to a merchant of Brazil, named Santos, and asked whether such a transaction would be legal. The Government referred this question to the law officers of the Crown. It depended upon the construction of two statutes, one the 5th of George IV., which made the sale of slaves felony, and another an Act passed in the year 1843, permitting the sale of slaves then in the possession of persons claiming to be their owners. The point, however, arose whether children born since 1843, not having been slaves at that time, could legally be sold. The law officers of the Crown were of opinion that they could not, and that the selling them by British subjects would be a felony. They added that although if the persons remained in Brazil they might be free from the penalty of the English law, yet if they landed on British ground, or went on board a British vessel, they might be prosecuted for a felony. They intimated, moreover, that it was desirable that this opinion should be known to the parties concerned. It was accordingly transmitted to Her Majesty's Minister at Rio, who informed the Consul, who by his direction communicated to these persons that they would, in certain cases named, be liable to the punishment of felony. The consul did not pretend to prevent the sale, or to interfere with their proceedings. He only gave them warning of the penalty to which they would be subject. He (Lord J. Russell) conceived that his conduct had been perfectly right, and that no objection could be taken to the course which he pursued.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid he rose to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India whether it was his intention before the prorogation to make to the House any statement upon the subject of Indian finance; and, if so, when he would be able to fix the day on which he would make it?
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied that he should have occasion to make such a state-

  587
  ment, but he was not then in a position to fix a day for it.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he would then give notice that he would repeat his question in the course of two or three evenings, with the view of having a day fixed at a period of the Session when there would remain in town a number of Members sufficient to discuss a question so important as that of Indian finance.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he was anxious to postpone this statement. [Mr. BRIGHT: Not at all.] He must necessarily-come before the House in a short time; but until he obtained certain information with regard to payments in this country and India for railroads he could not make such a statement as would be satisfactory either to that House or to the Indian Government.

  SAVINGS' BANKS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN DANIEL O'CONNELLsaid, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intended to bring in a Bill this Session for the better regulation of savings' banks?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was possible that some Bill might be passed with regard to one or two points of detail connected with the management of savings' banks; but he did not think the Session would last long enough to afford a reasonable prospect for the full consideration of any general Bill upon the subject.

  THE BOARD OF TRADE.—QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any alterations are being made in the office of the Board of Trade; and, if so, by what authority, and whether it is intended to submit an estimate to Parliament for them?
  MR. FITZROYsaid, that a day or two after he was appointed to the office which he now held he received a requisition from the Vice-President of the Board of Trade stating that there was such a want of light in his room as to prevent his transacting business, and requesting that some alteration might be made in the window. He understood that it was the general custom to accede to such requisitions from heads of departments, and as the gentleman was going out of town it seemed a favourable opportunity for making the alteration. He,
  588
  therefore, forwarded this request to the Treasury, and, in the meantime, instructed the surveyor to commence the works. Since then he had received from the Treasury permission to include the cost in the Estimates.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to remind the Government that no financial statement had been made to the House for fifteen months, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer Whether it is his intention to make any financial statement previous to the House going into Supply. He need not say that it was of the highest importance, and should be made as soon as possible, particularly as regarded the expenditure of the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is certainly my intention to adhere to the course usually followed on these occasions. On Friday next the representatives of the military and naval departments will be prepared to enable the House to proceed with these Estimates, and to make known to the House, as far as can be made known, the proposed expenditure for the year in connection with these departments. As soon as the House has disposed of these, the principal demands on the public purse, it will be my desire to fix the earliest possible day for the financial statement of the year, for I know it is very inconvenient to the public that it should be postponed longer than necessity requires. But it is not my intention to make any statement apart from the usual statement which combines the subject of the expenditure with the Ways and Means of the year.

ADVERTISING COLUMNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he wished to give notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a Bill to limit the power vested in Metropolitan Vestry and District Boards, of permitting the erection of advertising or ornamental illuminated columns in the carriage way of the metropolis. He also wished to ask the First Commissioner of Public Works, whether his attention had been called to the practice of obstructing the streets by the erection of certain illuminated columns, of very hideous and sometimes ludicrous form, whereby great crowds were collected in those parts where they were most likely to be run over, and

  589
  great discredit was thrown on the metropolis in point of taste; and he also wanted to know whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take any steps on the subject, legislative or otherwise, to remove or prevent this outrage on the good taste and common sense of the metropolis. If that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, he would not proceed with the notice which he had given.
  MR. FITZROYreplied, that his attention as that of the public, certainly had been attracted to the curious structure erected near Apsley-house, but he had no more control over such erections than any other hon. Member. He believed that the vestrymen of the parish in which he had the honour to reside were the real culprits. He understood that a French company had recently proposed to set up these columns as a new mode of advertising, and he was afraid that a great many applications had been granted by the authorities of metropolitan parishes for the erection of these structures in different parts. The only way to deal with the matter was to proceed in the way pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought he could not do better than leave it entirely in his hands.

MANNING THE NAVY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) had asked him on Friday night whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session to carry out the views and recommendations of the Government Commission on the Manning of the Navy. He had now to state, in answer to that question, that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill on that subject. He was not prepared to state any of the details of the proposed measure at the present moment, but it would be brought in as soon as possible. With regard to the Navy Estimates, he might add that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had informed him that the sum he proposed to ask from Parliament for the naval expenditure of the country would be the same as that which had been proposed to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would inform the hon. Gentleman that he left several Bills already drawn, and having reference to the recommendations in ques-
  590
  tion, in the office of the Admiralty, which might perhaps be useful to the noble Duke.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he wished to inquire whether a general Bill, with reference to manning the navy, would be introduced before the House was asked for a grant of money.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that it was impossible for the present Board of Admiralty to go into details with respect to this important measure between this and next Friday, when he proposed to bring in the Navy Estimates, but as soon after that date as possible the Admiralty would be prepared to introduce their Bills on the subject to the House.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, in that case he wished to give notice that upon the question of going into Committee on the Naval Estimates, he should propose that no grant of money should be made until the House had an opportunity of discussing a Bill having reference to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners for the better manning the Navy.

  THE REFORM BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any Bill to amend the representation of the people in Parliament during the present Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the hon. Member was not in his place on a former occasion when I had to make a short statement to the House on the business of the Session, and I then took occasion to observe, and I now repeat that, considering the advanced period of the year and the probable duration of the Session, it was not the intention of the Government to propose any measure to amend the representation of the people this Session.

LAW OF PROPERTY AND TRUSTEES RELIEF AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  MR. WALPOLE, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, said that it was a measure which had come down from the House of Lords, where it had received the fullest sanction of the law Lords, and it was of extreme importance that it should be speedily passed. The details of the Bill were of so technical a character that the House would hardly wish to got into

  591
  them on the second reading; he therefore proposed that the Bill should now be read a second time without discussion, and that the various clauses should be fully considered in Committee on that day week. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) had mentioned that he had some objections to the measure, but he (Mr. Walpole) was satisfied that if the Bill were read a second time, he could remove the objections of the hon. Member, or show that they were groundless.
  MR. DIVETTsaid that he was quite prepared to take the discussion of the points on which he objected in Committee.
  Bill read 2° and committed for Monday next.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE MIDDLESEX (ASSISTANT JUDGE) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [17th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, that when the Bill came before the House two or three weeks ago, he moved the adjournment of the debate, because he felt that in the absence of a Government the second reading of such a measure ought not to have been urged with indecent haste. It seemed to him that this was an attempt to tax the whole of the country for the purpose of paying the Middlesex Assistant Judge, who was neither more nor less than a paid chairman of quarter sessions, a higher salary than he had at present. If any county chose to have a paid chairman of quarter sessions, the expense came out of the finances of the county and not out of the Consolidated Fund. He did not Bee why an exception should be made for Middlesex. He did not at all object to increasing the salary of the Middlesex Assistant Judge from £1,200 to £1,500 a year, but he objected to the burden which ought to be borne by the rich county of Middlesex, being thrown on the country at large. Let the county of Middlesex pay the increased salary and not the country. If they passed this Bill they would be forming a most dangerous precedent, for they might depend upon it they would have as a consequence all the County Court Judges and many others in England applying for an increase in their salaries. He would remind the House, that in 1853 a similar
  592
  attempt was made to increase the salary of the Middlesex Assistant Judge, and the Bill was only thrown out on the third reading at the instance of his hon. Colleague, and no attempt had since been made to introduce it until now. While, however, he did not object to an increase of the salary of the present Assistant Judge if it were made out of the county funds, he could not help remarking that during the whole tenure of the office by his lamented friend the late Mr. Pashley, who had worked harder and had, in consequence of his being so good a lawyer, more appeals to decide than any one who had ever held the office, no attempt to increase the salary was made. In conclusion, he begged to move that this Bill be read a second time that clay six months.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, That the word "now" stand part of the Question.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that he was the individual who introduced this Bill, and he quite admitted that the present Government were in no way responsible for it. The House would, perhaps, permit him to remind them what were the circumstances under which the late Government thought it fair to sanction this increase in the salary of the Assistant Judge of the Middlesex sessions, from £1,200 to £1,500 a year. On the decease of the late Assistant Judge, he, as then holding the seals of the Home Office, received from the magistrates very urgent remonstrance, which were confirmed and strengthened by other gentlemen, against the policy of allowing so important an office as Assistant Judge to be held by a practising barrister. It was urged that it was treating that gentleman unhandsomely and often placing him in a somewhat degrading position. On one day he sat to determine a case, when the very day following he was in the position of an advocate, and liable to be called upon to advocate the cause in a higher court of the very person condemned by him; and although he (Mr. S. Estcourt) did not pretend to be conversant with law, that struck him as such a strange anomaly, that he could not help thinking, as a matter of common sense, that a gentleman who during many months in the year was engaged week after week in presiding in one of the courts of criminal jurisprudence in the metropolis, ought no

  593
  to devote himself to the profession of an advocate the rest of the time, but ought to be in such a position that he could not be called upon to appear as an advocate in a superior court. The hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, however, was not quite correct in his statement of the grounds on which the attempt to raise the salary of the Assistant Judge in 1853 was met. The question had now assumed a very different form to that which it presented in 1853, when the question was simply raising the salary of the Judge without changing his position or putting any restriction whatever upon him. The Judge would still have been allowed to practise in superior courts, and if the case had been the same now, the objection taken to the Bill would have been a valid one, and the argument that the county court Judges might with reason apply for an in crease in their salaries would be just. What he, however, maintained was, that there was a good and sufficient quid pro quo given in the condition that the Judge should no longer practice as an advocate at the bar of a superior court. As he understood the gentleman holding the office at present was willing to give up his practice, which was estimated at a low figure at £1,000 a year—he was willing to give that up, and devote his whole time and energies to the office of a Judge, if the House of Commons granted £300 more; and he (Mr. Estcourt) really thought that by consenting to that proposition he was obtaining a very great benefit to the country at an extremely cheap rate. For that reason he had no kind of hesitation in bringing forward this Bill, and he hoped that the Government would support it, looking at the wide difference which the case presented to that brought in in 1853.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he must repeat that he did not object to the increase of the Assistant Judge's salary, but to the increase being paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, he should support the Amendment, as he considered the principle of the Bill to be altogether anomalous, and he hoped the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be aroused to the dangerous precedent which passing it would create. In all other places, such as Liverpool and Birmingham, in which they had stipendiary chairmen of quarter sessions, the money was paid by the county, and why should not this salary be paid by the county of Mid-
  594
  dlesex? Some time ago the Surrey county magistrates were met by a similar demand, but they had avoided it and got on very well. It was not the increase of the salary that he cavilled about, but it was the principle of the measure to which he objected.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he considered the arrangement which had been made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) eminently beneficial to the country. The late Assistant-Judge, Mr. Pashley, was eminently fitted for the office, but its duties clashed with his practice at the bar, which was very considerable. The consequence was, that he was frequently very much inconvenienced, and he himself had told him that there must, in many cases, inevitably be a contest between interest and duty in the breast of a Judge who was also a practising barrister. Twelve hundred pounds a year was not sufficient to call upon a person in the situation of Assistant-Judge to give up practice; and however anxious a Judge might be to discharge his duty, it was perfectly vain to deny that if on any particular day on which his Court sat, an important cause in which he was retained as chief counsel was coming on in the Superior Courts, there would not be a contest between interest and duty which could not fail to be very injurious to the public service. The hon. Member (Mr. Locke King) however did not object to the amount of salary but to the fund out of which the salary was paid. But this argument went too far, because if an error were made in originally ordering the payment of this salary out of the Consolidated Fund, the hon. Member ought to move that the salary be taken off that Fund and paid from some other source. If, however, it were found that the duties could not be performed for £1,200, public justice and convenience alike required that such a salary should be paid as would insure the efficient and proper discharge of the duties of the office. With regard to Mr. Bodkin, every man in the profession would admit that, from his peculiar experience and high character, a fitter selection could not have been made. He believed that the learned gentleman was offered the appointment by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey). He had but a slight acquaintance with Mr. Bodkin, but he had, like every other lawyer, the most profound respect for him. Mr. Bodkin had given up his private practice to accept this appointment, and he had every reason to suppose that

  595
  an arrangement proposed by the Home Secretary would be adopted by the House. He was willing to consider, at the fitting time, whether it was proper that this salary should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but he trusted that the House would ratify what his right hon. Friend had done by passing this Bill.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that fourteen years ago, this officer was the Chairman of the Middlesex Quarter Sessions. The office was then contested for the honour of holding it. Mr. Serjeant Adams was the first who applied to the magistrates of Middlesex for a salary. They refused to grant it, and he then applied to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. For himself, he thought £1,200 a sufficient salary, though he did not wish to disturb the present arrangement. He certainly thought however, that the salary ought to be paid by the county. During Serjeant Adams' tenure of the office, Bills were brought into the House three times for the increase of the salary to £1,500 a year, and each time the Bill was thrown out, but he continued to hold the office for years after to the satisfaction of the public. The late Assistant-Judge, Mr. Pashley, never thought of applying for an increase of salary. He was glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and he would take the opportunity of calling his attention to the fact that before the passing of the Reform Bill the Civil Service Estimates amounted only to £4,200,000 a year, and that now they amounted to £9,100,000. The Question never came before the magistrates of Middlesex.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTobserved, that the Middlesex magistrates expressed to him their desire that the Assistant-Judge should not retain his private practice.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it never appeared on the business paper. He dared any some of the political friends of the Assistant-Judge wished to increase the salary, but it was better for that gentleman that he should be able to earn £1,000 a year by his practice, than to have his salary increased by £300 a year, and to be idle half his time. The Judges of the County Courts had a great deal more to do, and they were not allowed to practise.
  MR. BYNGsaid, he could corroborate the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt). He had received a communication from the chairman of the Middlesex magistrates,
  596
  showing that the administration of justice in the Metropolitan county was much less expensive than in other counties. For example, it appeared that, in 1856, the number of prisoners tried at various borough sessions was 3,774, at an average cost of £8 10 s. each case, while the number tried at the Middlesex Sessions was 2,065, at an average cost of £2 3s. 10 d. each case, and at various other County Quarter Sessions the cost of each case, was £10 1s. 4d. Unless the Assistant-Judge were prevented from taking private practice, it might happen that he would be found engaged as an advocate in appeals made from his own decision. These appeals were necessarily large, varying from £60 to £80 and £100 a year. He thought that an addition of £300 a year to the salary of the Judge, in lieu of private practice, was not an excessive compensation, and he believed that the proposed arrangement would be advantageous to the impartial administration of justice.
  MR. PACKEsaid, that as it had been stated that this salary ought not to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but that the Middlesex Assistant-Judge should be paid in the same way as the chairman of other Quarter Sessions, he wished to observe that the county rates were in no way chargeable for the payment of any chairman of Quarter Sessions, and he thought it desirable that the statement he had alluded to should not go forth uncontradicted.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought that the House would cordially agree to the principle of the Bill; that the gentleman filling the office of the Assistant Judge of Middlesex Sessions should not practise as an advocate. Any contrary course would be prejudicial to the public interests; for a Judge one day associated on the bench with the magistrates of the county might on the next day have to apply to them for a license for a victualler; or a case might be put to him for his opinion as counsel, and afterwards the same case might be argued before him as Judge, and he might possibly be obliged to pronounce an opinion as Judge contrary to the opinion he had given as counsel. With respect to the amount of salary he thought no lawyer in that House would express an opinion that any Judge was over paid, but with regard to payment out of the Consolidated Fund, he believed it originated in this way—the Middlesex magistrates applied to have their Judge paid out of the Consolidated Fund,

  597
  and the Home Office said that in that case it must have the appointment. That was agreed to, and so the matter had gone on ever since. He did not think the payment of £1,500 to a gentleman of eminence too much, and he should therefore vote for that sum. But the House should know that that sum was not the whole amount required for the administration of criminal justice at Middlesex Sessions. The Assistant Judge had a right to appoint a deputy, with the sanction of the Home Department, at five guineas a day. That deputy was almost permanently appointed. He did not object to that; because the sitting of two Courts diminished the expense of prosecutors and witnesses; but the House must not suppose that this sum was the whole expense. There ought to be some provision in the Bill in respect to this point, for if the principle were good that the Assistant Judge should not practise, it surely followed that the deputy, too, should not practise.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved that when the present Bill was brought in a previous Resolution was not moved, as was usually the case when charges were made on the Consolidated Fund. Consequently, the material clause was only printed in italics, and was not in fact, at present, part of the Bill. Therefore, in voting for the second reading, no Member gave a vote for any charge on the Consolidated Fund; and the only point the vote would decide would be the proviso that the As assistant Judge during his continuance in office should not practise as a barrister. The question as to placing the increase of salary on the Consolidated Fund could only be raised after the second reading, in the event of a Resolution being proposed as a necessary preliminary to the introduction of such a clause as was now printed in italics. He would now say a few words with respect to the merits of the Bill. In 1844 a Bill was brought in to give a salary to the Assistant Judge of Middlesex Sessions of £1,200 out of the Consolidated Fund. That Bill was sanctioned by Parliament and the sum had been annually paid since that time. Nothing, however, was then said as to the Assistant Judge not being permitted to practise; and the Assistant Judge was allowed to hold his office concurrently with any private practice he might receive. Mr. Serjeant Adams was the first Assistant Judge. That learned gentleman did not, in fact, practise, and therefore the question of the inconvenience
  598
  of allowing the Judge to practise, did not arise during his tenure of office. Mr. Pashley, however, had a considerable amount of private practice when acting as Judge, and considerable inconvenience was felt, he was informed, from the combination of the two functions; for it was open to any solicitor to lay before the Assistant Judge a case of appeal without a name, and thereby to obtain the opinion of the Assistant Judge, by which he might be guided in bringing an appeal or not. Any one could see that such a practice might lead to considerable abuse without any blame attaching to the Judge. Under these circumstances, when Mr. Pashley died, a deputation from the magistrates of Middlesex went to the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Southeron Estcourt) and represented to him the expediency of putting an end to such a state of things. The arrangement agreed to was that the right hon. Gentleman should propose an increase of salary to the extent of £300, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Mr. Bodkin, who he believed was admitted on all hands to be an eminent barrister, fully competent to discharge the duties of the office, accepted the office on the understanding of receiving £1,500 a year and giving up his private practice. That was the existing state of things. There was a distinct contract with Mr. Bodkin, which he felt to be binding on the existing Government. He had had an interview with Mr. Bodkin, and had ascertained the views he entertained with respect to the office and its duties, and the proposal he had to make to the House was that the salary of £1,200, payable out of the Consolidated Fund, should still continue. He expressed no opinion whether it was right that that sum should be charged on the Consolidated Fund. The charge was made in 1844, and continued ever since, and he was not now called on to express an opinion with respect to it. With respect to the future, he proposed that power should be given to the magistrates, if they thought it desirable that their Assistant Judge should be inhibited from private practice, to charge the county rates with an addition to his salary of not less than £300 a year. That was the arrangement to which Mr. Bodkin consented. Therefore, if his hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) was satisfied with this explanation, he would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn and the Bill allowed to be read a second time He would then undertake to propose in

  599
  Committee clauses in conformity with the understanding come to.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman removed the objection with regard to the financial portion of the Bill; but there was another point worth remarking on, namely, the relative positions of the Assistant Judge under the Bill and of the County Court Judges. The latter had to give up all private practice, and could not hold a seat in that House and he thought if £1,200 was deemed sufficient for them, that sum might also be considered quite enough for the Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions. Again, the principle of preventing a Judge from pursuing his private practice, if good for one case, was, in his opinion, good for all, and a Bill should be brought in to prevent Recorders from practising as Banisters. He admitted that the recent appointment to the Assistant Judgeship of Middlesex Sessions was one of the best appointments, but it was matter of question whether that functionary was not amply paid with £1,200, considering that police magistrates were only paid 1,000 a year.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad to hear that the Home Secretary did not intend to extend the principle involved in this Bill beyond the County of Middlesex, or to allow any further pull out of the Imperial Exchequer. Indeed he could not understand on what ground the Assistant Judge for Middlesex should be paid out of the public funds, any more than the stipendiary magistrates of Manchester, Liverpool, or other towns, He assented to the second reading of the Bill on the understanding that by so doing he merely expressed his approval of the principle which, he believed was laid down by this Bill, that the Assistant Judge should not engage in private practice. After what had been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone, (Mr. E. James), however, he thought that the House should receive some further explanation in Committee. It was stated that the Assistant Judge appointed a deputy Judge at five guineas a day, and that this office was a great advantage. Well if that be so, they ought to receive some explanation why the assistant Judge should receive at the rate often guineas a day for the 120 days he sat when the deputy Judge only received five guineas a day. These were matters, however, which could be better considered in Committee.
  MR. PALKsaid, he thought this Bill might establish a precedent which it would not be desirable to adopt; for if the magistrates of Middlesex were empowered to increase the salary now paid to the Assistant Judge of the sessions out of the county rate, a similar power might be demanded by the magistrates of other counties. At present he was not aware of any county in which the chairman of quarter sessions was paid by a county rate. The measure was, in his opinion, calculated to increase the discontent of the ratepayers, who already objected to the magistrates having the power of burdening the county rates with the salaries of certain officials.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Friday.

DIPLOMATIC PENSIONS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNES, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to remove doubts as to the qualification of persons holding diplomatic pensions to sit in Parliament, said its object was merely to enable gentlemen who possessed extensive diplomatic experience to occupy seats in the House, and afford the advantage of their knowledge and sagacity in the discussion of foreign affairs. He believed that the objections which prevented gentlemen in the receipt of diplomatic pensions from sitting in that House were merely of a technical nature, and that their position differed in no respect from that of gentlemen in receipt of official pensions; but he would reserve a full explanation of the principles and details of the Bill, the introduction of which he found would not be opposed, until the second reading.
  Leave given.
  Bill to remove doubts as to the Qualification of persons holding Diplomatic Pensions to sit in Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONCK-TON MILNES and Mr. KINNAIRD.
  Presented and read 1°, to be read 2° on Monday next.

RIVER THAMES.

  AEDRESS AGREED TO.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he rose to move for the following Address:—For returns from the Metropolitan Board of Works, and from all district boards established under the Metropolis Local Management Act, and from the City (of London)

  601
  Commissioners of Sewers, of any and all operations performed by them between the 25th March last and the 18th June, with the object of preventing the occurrence of noisome effluvia from the River Thames, and particularly of the quantities of lime or other deodorizing agents day by day used for that purpose; specifying in tabular form when, where, and to what amount, such agents, or any of them, were respectively employed, and the sums of money expended on or about the use thereof. Tabular returns from the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Board of Conservancy of the River Thames respectively, of the daily or other ascertained quantities of fresh water which have passed into the tideway of the River Thames from the weir at Teddington Lock, and from other principal streams which discharge into the said tideway between Teddington Lock and Chelsea Bridge, and particularly of the daily quantities in the years 1858 and 1859. From all the Metropolitan waterworks companies of the daily quantities of water delivered by them respectively in the years 1858 and 1859. From the Astronomer Royal of the daily quantities of rain fallen at Greenwich, and at any other places within the drainage area of the Thames of which he possesses particulars, and of the daily mean temperature of the atmosphere at Greenwich, and of the water of the river Thames. From the Medical and other officers of Her Majesty's hospital ship Dreadnought, moored in the Thames, of any and all observations and experiments made by them, or under their direction, with reference to the condition of the river in the years 1858 and 1859. And returns from Her Majesty's Office of Works, and from the Metropolitan Board of Works, of any communications, resolutions, and measures of the years 1858 and 1859, in reference to the suggested improvement of the River Thames by embanking the same, and by forming low-level sewers within the embanked spaces.
  MR. FITZROYsaid, he must suggest that some alteration be made in the last paragraph with regard to the Office of Works. They had no returns to give.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to draw the hon. Member's attention to the paragraph referring to the Astronomer Royal, which omitted to specify any time.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wanted the return for the last three years.
  The Address, as amended, was then agreed to.

RIVER THAMES' PURIFICATION.

  METROPOLIS. LEAVE REFUSED.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would then, pursuant to notice, ask leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the prevention of the noisome effluvia from the River Thames within the metropolis. He believed there was no opposition to his Motion, and he would therefore reserve his statement as to the details of his measure until the second reading. He wished, however, to observe that in bringing in his Bill he did not mean to reflect upon the Metropolitan Commissioners, but he felt that the House had a right to demand periodical returns of what was doing by them from time to time to remedy the effluvia from the river, which was not only noisome in itself but destructive to the health of the metropolis. He was sure that from the simple and practical nature of his Bill no body of men like the Metropolitan Commissioners, in the performance of duties for which the public should feel grateful, could for a moment object to its introduction.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of objecting to the Bill, but to submit as this was a matter of general interest, that it would be very satisfactory to the House if the hon. Member would favour them with at least a sketch of what he proposed to accomplish by the measure. A very few words would satisfy his own curiosity; but for the sake of the House, he thought that an outline of its provisions ought to be given.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member had already spoken on the Bill, but the House could of course give him permission to make any additional observations.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he was quite ready to state that the Bill required the Metropolitan Board of works, and the various district boards, to make a monthly return of all they had done or were doing in regard to their sewage operations, and in placing the River Thames as much as possible in a proper condition. It might be said that those returns could be made without any compulsory enactment; but he felt that the matter was so important, and that the sanitary condition of the metropolis was so largely affected by the state of the river, particularly during the period

  603
  of the carrying out the larger works, that they would not he acting properly towards their constituents if they did not insist upon the obligation of the Commissioners to make their returns monthly. He did not mean to insist upon the Commissioners adopting any particular mode in their course of action; but it rendered the continuous deodorization of the contents of the sewers imperative. His Bill would not at all fetter the Metropolitan Commissioners in the measures which they might adopt— the responsibility would of course be left with them; but he wanted it to be shown that they were doing, as there was reason to believe, everything in their power to remedy the evil which was so greatly complained of. He had introduced a clause into the Bill giving them increased powers of taxation in case those which they already possessed were not sufficient with a view of enabling them to carry out any works that they might decide upon; and, of course, if their powers were sufficient, this clause would be inoperative. In the event of its proving that the state of the Thames did not require those measures to be carried out, he had also provided that, on communication with the Home Secretary, the powers with which they had been invested should be dispensed with. These were the main features of the Bill; and he repeated that in introducing it he had no desire to interfere with the Metropolitan Commissioners, or in any way to impute to them a dereliction of duty.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, after hearing the statement of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the measure, it had occurred to him that the title which he had applied to it was rather a misnomer. It did not appear to be, as it professedly was, "a Bill to provide for the prevention of noisome effluvia from the river Thames," hut a Bill to ask the Metropolitan Board for returns which nobody would ever look at. He would not offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill, but he wished to enter a caveat against the supposition that he acquiesced in the system of legislation which the hon. Gentleman appeared to contemplate.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the returns which his hon. Friend was anxious to obtain from the Metropolitan Board would doubtless be of a very expensive character, and he trusted that if the House agreed to the Bill they would also be induced to pay for these returns; for, as they were aware all the cost of their preparation,
  604
  as well as of everything relating to the purifying of the Thames, would otherwise be thrown on the inhabitants of the metropolis. Then, as regarded the power of rating, he believed his hon. Friend would find in the Metropolitan Local Management Act that ample power was given to the Commissioners. Any legislation on that subject, therefore, was quite unnecessary. He must protest, however, against the last observation which the hon. Baronet had made, to the effect that if the Metropolitan Board were doing anything which Parliament did not think right, or if they had done too much, that the Home Secretary was to have the power of stopping their proceedings. The object of the Metropolitan Local Management Act was to carry out the principle of local self-government, and they were bound to give, the Metropolitan Board time to see whether that principle had been fairly carried out by them. He must, therefore, protest against the Government having anything to do with measures which were paid for by the inhabitants of the metropolis.
  MR. TITEsaid, he wished his hon. Friend in his Bill had been fortunate enough to suggest some remedy for the gigantic evil against which the Board of Works had to contend. He would not discuss the provisions of the Bill, because, by a measure which the House had been good enough to pass last year, the Board had received the fullest powers of raising money, and therefore that portion of the Bill which referred to this subject was quite unnecessary. But the subject to which he desired to call the attention of the House was the steps that had to be resorted to pending the interval that must elapse before the improved sewerage system would come into operation. Last year no less than £5,000 had been spent in remedial measures, and this year they had spared no efforts to diminish the mischief arising from the state of the Thames, but which could only be cured by the great system of intercepting sewers which they were endeavouring to carry out. With regard to the contracts and the purchase of land for those sewers, he believed so much progress had been made that he might promise the House that a great deal of the evil would be remedied in the course of three years instead of five. One large sewer contract made in February of the present year was one-fifth completed. That was the high level sewer on the City side; and on the Surrey side of

  605
  the river another very large sewer was just about being contracted for. The first sewer would no doubt be finished by next June; it was in the quarter known as the Hackney Brook district, which was the source of enormous offence, and which would by this means be altogether removed. In his opinion the entire project was being carried out as successfully as it could possibly be by a set of business men. With regard, however, to the evil in its present shape, it was impossible successfully to encounter it. Some idea of its magnitude might he formed from the fact that apart from flood water 80,000,000 gallons of sewage water were poured into the Thames every day, containing 600 tons of mud or 200 tons of solid material. In hot weather this water was not only in a state of putrefaction itself, but was the source of putrefaction in the body into which it was poured. The Metropolitan Board had appointed two of the most eminent chemists in London Dr. Hoffman and Mr. Frankland to inform them of the best mode of deodorizing the sewage with regard to future operations. To meet the present evil they had appointed one of the most distinguished men in London, Dr. Miller, the chemist to the University of London, to report daily on the state of the river and the large sewers which emptied themselves into it. The Board had at the present moment thirty stations at which lime might be poured into the largest sewers; and they were doing all they could to deodorize their contents before they reached the river. In the present state of our knowledge he believed that deodorization by lime was all that could he attempted; but Dr. Miller was engaged in a series of experiments for the purpose of discovering whether other agents, more powerful though more expensive, might not be used for temporary purposes. However enormous the inconvenience might be, he was bound to state that no effectual remedy could be applied until the sewage system was completed; but he was endeavouring to show—though not in the least seeking to be the apologist of the Metropolitan Board — that they were doing all in their power to meet the difficulty by remedial measures. The House would recollect that the inconvenience did not manifest itself prominently before a much later period last year; but in May of this year the Board passed a resolution empowering Dr. Miller to make the experiments he had alluded to; and they had, in addition, proceeded vigorously with the operations
  606
  which he had described. He was aware that an opinion to the contrary was prevalent, hut he maintained that the aggregate amount of inconvenience must have been sensibly diminished by the measures which they had adopted. He ventured to promise the House that no agent which could be suggested—and in Dr. Miller's report last week agents had been suggested—for deodorizing the sewers would fail to be employed by the Board, whatever might be the cost to the ratepayers, because though, as was stated by the hon. Baronet, the expense must fall upon them, there was no doubt that until the main sewers were completed the state of the atmosphere might get worse. He hoped the House would feel satisfied that the Board were doing all in their power; and with regard to the Bill, he would only say that any legislation at present must delay, embarrass, and, to a certain extent, confuse their operations by leading to the impression that they were not doing all that they possibly could. With regard to the monthly returns, he could simply state that, if his hon. Friend required it, the Home Secretary should have a Return every fortnight, detailing the work done now or at any future time. The Metropolitan Board were but too anxious that their fellow-citizens should know that at a moment of extreme difficulty they were doing all that they could to abate this enormous evil.
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he wished to ask a question in reference to a report which was current to the effect that this high level sewer was to discharge its contents into Deptford Creek. He was quite sure the House would not take a narrow view of the question of the health of the metropolis, and that they would be unwilling to expose a large portion of a metropolitan district to so serious an evil as that of discharging so large a quantity of sewage matter without deodorizing it, as he understood would of necessity be the ease with the high level sewer. The question which he would venture to put to the hon. Gentleman was whether it was the intention of the Board to carry out the high level sewer at once, or whether they would consider the outfall first, and begin in the way that would be most complete, and which would conduce most to the general health of the metropolis.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, there had been a great many statements as to the good which was to result from the use of lime

  607
  in deodorizing the sewers. But on Saturday night the smell that proceeded from the place where lime was put down at Charing Cross for the purpose of deodorizing the sewers was most objectionable, and was worse, in fact, than anything he had before experienced in London. It continued during the whole night, and he could assure the House that it was exceedingly offensive in every room in Morley'a Hotel. He did everything he could to ascertain the reason, and somebody told him that the sewer into which the lime was put must have been left open.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, that the best return which could be made to the House as to the state of the river was the stench which entered the Committee rooms. That morning, he, as well as his colleagues, were greatly inconvenienced by the noxious effluvia that came from the river on the rising of the tide. It was so disgusting that they were obliged to keep the windows closely shut, and some Gentlemen were compelled to leave the room in consequence. If it continued it must endanger the health of hon. Members as to his knowledge had been the case last year.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he was of opinion that the expensive experiments upon deodorizing the river were almost worthless. No permanent benefit would, in his opinion, result from them; neither did he approve of the system of drainage, which was, in his opinion, founded upon a wrong principle.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he was the only Member who last year objected to the measure proposed in a great hurry by Her Majesty's then Advisers for the purpose of handing over all responsibility connected with the river to the Board of Works, and he now asked what had since been done by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Board diverted every stream of water that was not particularly offensive from the Thames, and carried it off to some place far away below London Bridge. By this means they reduced the stream of water, and the filth carried into the Thames by the sewers was left to stagnate much worse than before. He had not yet been able to discover the utility of this Metropolitan Board of Works.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he had made inquiries as to the smell complained of by the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. M'Cann); and he found from the men employed in superintending the lime operations that it answered very well so long as
  608
  it was kept at work; but on Saturday they left off pouring in the lime water. It appeared to him that no plan of main drainage would answer unless the river was also embanked, and the area of the water greatly compressed. It was found that the smell was worst when the tide began to disturb the mud banks; a circumstance which showed that the removal of those banks was even more required than new drains. At any rate the two processes ought to go on together, but it was not competent for the Board under their present powers to embank the Thames.
  ALDERMAN CUBITTsaid, the Board of Works had been proceeding with all possible despatch ever since they had received their new powers; but it must be remembered that those powers were not conferred upon them till late last Session, and that time was needed to prepare their plans. All that was now required was a little patience; for it was impossible that great works like these could he carried out in a few months. He hoped, however, that in three or four years the scheme would be completed, and that the noxious effluvia of which they had now to complain would be removed. He begged to state with reference to the high level sewer that it was never intended that it should empty itself into Deptford Creek. The Board had merely taken Deptford Creek as a point to which it should be constructed until proper machinery could be constructed to convey the sewage lower. As to the smell at Charing Cross on Sunday, that had arisen from the sewer having been accidentally left uncovered.
  Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the prevention of noisome effluvia from the River Thames within the Metropolis," Motion negatived.

PICTURE GALLERIES.

  ADDRESS MOVED FOR.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he rose to move for an Address for Copies of all letters and memorials addressed to the Committee of Council on Education or the Trustees of the National Gallery with reference to the admission of the public in the evening to the Turner and Vernon Galleries of Pictures, and of the answers thereto. Three collections of modern pictures had lately been given to the nation, and policy as well as gratitude required that they should be made accessible to all classes. The

  609
  Sheepshanks' collection which had been entrusted to the Department of Science and Art, was placed in a room well adapted for exhibition by night as well as by day; but the Turner and Vernon collections were placed by the Trustees of the National Gallery in rooms where no provision was made for exhibiting them by artificial light. It was especially incumbent on that House, when a generous boon had been conferred on the public, to see that the wishes of the donors were faithfully carried out and that the public were insured the enjoyment of it to the fullest possible extent; and he contended that a picture gallery, to be really enjoyed by the public, must be accessible in the evenings. Largo numbers of people were in the habit of visiting the Sheepshanks' collection in the evening,— probably as many as 200,000 in the course of a year. These persons, and especially artisans and workmen, would be prevented from seeing pictures which were visible only during working hours. Busy people worked in the daytime, and sought their recreation in the evening. Persons visiting the metropolis on business had no other time than the evening for visiting these galleries. One reason assigned on the part of the Trustees of the National Gallery, for not opening the Vernon and Turner Galleries in the evenings was, they must follow the same rule as the National Gallery. But the desired similarity might be secured by opening all, as well as by closing all. He did not believe, in the present state of science, the slightest risk could arise from lighting the National Gallery with gas from the ceiling. The House had only to lift their eyes to the ceiling above them and see how easy it was to light a lofty and spacious apartment without any of the products of combustion entering into the room. Such an arrangement, applied to the National Gallery and to the Turner and Vernon Galleries, would, no doubt, involve some additional expense, but he was sure the House would find no difficulty in devoting a reasonable sum of money to secure to the public the benefit of a full access to them. The advantage of thus diffusing a taste for beauty of form and colour, and of providing gratuitously a rational and elevating amusement would be quite worth the cost of the gas. The Trustees of the National Gallery were persons eminent for love of art and liberality of feeling, and he could not believe they would advisedly exclude the working classes from the enjoyment of these pic-
  610
  tures. They had probably not fully considered the reasons for departing from the old customs; and if these papers were laid upon the table the attention of the Trustees would be specially drawn to the injudicious manner in which the trust confided to them was being discharged.
  Motion agreed to.

CLERK OF THE COUNCIL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he also had to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the authentication of certain Orders of the Privy Council in the absence of the Clerk of the Council in Ordinary. It was not the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy in the clerkship of the Privy Council occasioned by the resignation of Mr. Greville; but it was necessary to take some step to prevent the stoppage of public business in case the remaining clerk should become incapacitated. The Bill would enable Her Majesty to appoint, during Her pleasure, some person to perform the duties of the Clerk in Ordinary.
  Leave given.
  Bill to provide for the authentication of certain Orders of the Privy Council in the absence of the Clerk of the Council in Ordinary, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOWE and Sir GEORGE LEWIS.
  Presented and read 1°, to be read 2° on Thursday.

MILITARY ORGANIZATION.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee—
  To inquire into the effects of the alterations in military organization regarding the War Office and Board of Ordnance which were made in the year 1855; and also to inquire whether any changes arc required to secure the utmost efficiency and economy in the administration of military affairs.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he had given notice of a somewhat similar Motion, but, as the subject was now in better hands, he should withdraw it. The object of his Motion was merely to inquire into the civil organization of the War Department, which was in such bad order and so unworkable that it would be impossible to go to war until it was altered. He did not wish to interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown or the administration at the Horse Guards, but merely to secure the efficiency of the civil department of the War Office.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that he could not agree to the description of the state of the War Department given by his hon. and gallant Friend. It would be better if his hon. and gallant Friend had waited for the Report of the Committee before he made such statements. If the country were obliged to go to war, he believed the War Office would be found to be in the best possible condition for performing their duties to the public satisfaction.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he wished to suggest that at this late period of the Session it was not likely the Committee could terminate their inquiry in any satisfactory manner. Was it worth while, then, to appoint the Committee during the present Session?
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he believed that the Secretary for War might make any ameliorations and improvements without waiting for the Report of the Committee.
  MR. MONSELLobserved, that he perfectly agreed with the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) that it would be well to postpone this Committee until next Session. The subject was very large and of the greatest importance, and a Committee appointed on the 8th or 10th of July could not go fully or sufficiently into it. It would he impossible for them to do more than commence their inquiry, and all they would be able to elicit would be the existing state of the Department. Seeing that there would not be time to hear the well-considered views of persons on both sides who were competent to give an opinion, he recommended that the Committee should begin to sit at the commencement of next Session.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he must acknowledge that the arguments of his hon. and right hon. Friend in favour of a postponement had had a contrary effect upon his mind. It was because the subject was very large and of great importance that he wished the Committee to begin immediately, that they might the sooner come to a conclusion. He did not hope or expect that the Committee would finish their labours this Session, nor did he propose that they should come to a conclusion upon insufficient evidence. But he was very anxious to know what defects existed in our military administration, in order that he might know what remedy ought to be applied. It was very late in the Session, no doubt, to appoint such a Committee, but they might have at least eight sittings, in which they might examine many im-
  612
  portant witnesses on each side, and enable hon. Members to come to a mature opinion during the recess. By appointing the Committee at once they might come to a decision, and make a report early enough next Session to enable the Government to act upon their recommendations.
  COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he did not think that the military element was fairly represented in the Committee of last Session. It was not fair that such a Committee should be almost entirely composed of civilians. He agreed, however, that it was desirable they should commence the investigation at once.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he trusted the House would consider the question before they agreed to the proposition of the Government. His own impression was, that we should attain little advantage by appointing the Committee at once. Look at the language of the notice. "Select Committee to inquire into the effects of the alterations in military organization regarding the War Office and Board of Ordnance which were made in the year 1855." Now, the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have had an opportunity of making himself master of the changes which had occurred in the office over which he presided in consequence of those alterations. But, since 1855, very considerable alterations had been introduced by his right hon. and gallant Friend near him (General Peel), and many changes had been ordered which had not yet come into operation. He thought, then, that greater progress would be made if the Committee were postponed till the next Session. He should not, however, press that opinion of his own against any strong opinion that might be entertained by the Government; but he did hope that the Government would well consider, or reconsider, the proposition before the House. With regard to this being a large subject, that therefore no time should be lost, and that there was probably an opportunity of having some eight sittings on the subject during the present Session, this might not improbably lead to the not uncommon, but the inconvenient consequence, of no inconsiderable body of evidence, all of one complexion, being circulated amongst hon. Members before the inquiry was completed. Now, if the Committee were to be appointed, and there were to be only eight sittings, he thought they should examine into the opinions of at least what might be called the two schools on the subject. But considering the large

  613
  number of alterations which had been adopted since the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department gained his experience in office, the important alterations introduced by his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel), together with other changes which, as he had said before, had been ordered, but had not yet come into operation, he thought it would have been as well if those changes had been allowed to be completed before the Committee were called upon to consider them. Again he would repeat that he would not press his own views against any strong notions which might be entertained by the Government on the subject; still his own opinion was a strong one, and if the Committee wore postponed till the next Session he thought the House would arrive at a more satisfactory result.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the weight of argument was in favour of the immediate appointment of the Committee. He had the honour of serving on this Committee before the dissolution, and in their sittings they took a great deal of evidence, which it would be exceedingly important for the House to know. There could during the present Session be, at all events, eight sittings and probably more; and in those sittings they might place on record evidence on both sides, applying to changes which had been made; and with regard to any alterations which the right honourable Gentleman who had recently filled the office of Secretary of State for War might have ordered, and which might be still in progress, the Committee might be re-appointed next Session, and then the inquiry might be resumed and completed. But he hoped that the House would not lose what remained of the Session with put commencing the inquiry. To do so might be regarded as shelving the investigation, and he therefore hoped that the Committee would not be postponed till the next Session.
  Select Committee appointed.

CONTRACTS (PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS).

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the principle adopted for making contracts for the Public Departments, and the effect which the present system had on the expenditure of public money. The Committee had already sat several Sessions,
  614
  and it was desirable that its inquiry should be completed. Already a great mass of evidence had been collected, and he hoped that during the present Session the Committee might conclude its labours.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he would confine the inquiry to any particular class of contracts. Its object was very extensive; it had sat several years; some of the original Members had disappeared from the House, either by the will of the electors, or by removal to another world; and there was no prospect of the Committee reporting.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not propose to extend the inquiry beyond naval und military contracts. As for the Committee reporting, he did not believe they would ever be able to do that; for they could not report until the accounts at Weedon were made up, and he did not believe that any man living could make up those accounts.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath.—Several Lords. The Right Hon. Robert Vernon Smith, having been created Baron Lyvedon—was (in the usual Manner) introduced; The Right Hon. Sir Benjamin Hall, Baronet, having been created Baron Llanover— was (in the usual Manner) introduced.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Petty Sessional Divisions Vexatious Indictments.

COURT OF DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, be rose to call their Lordships' attention to a very important subject—namely, the working of the Court of Divorce and Matrimonial Causes, which had come into operation at the beginning of last year. They now had the experience of last year, and part of the present year, of the working of that Court, and it was highly expedient that their Lordships should direct their attention to the result. If an error in legislation has been committed either by going in a wrong direction, or by going too far, or by not going far enough, in any measure of law improvement, it became them to relax their speed, or to quicken it, or to alter their course, and seek to move in the right direction, and no shame should ever be felt to acknowledge an error. He rejoiced, however, to say that the result of the experience in that Court was not, that any error whatever had been committed in establishing the new jurisdiction, and all that was predicted by those who maintained the experiences, and even the necessity of that transfer of the power of divorce and of the power of judicial separation to a judicial tribunal had proved to be true, and the Court had been productive of great relief to many persons. He did not mean to say there were no defects in the working of the Court—quite the contrary—he was, indeed, about to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, and of their Lordships, to certain defects which had an unfortunate tendency, though happily they might be easily remedied. The amount of business in the Court tended to show the necessity of an increase of the judicial force. The present arrear of business possibly might not be permanent —it might have arisen in a great degree from the non-existence until recently of a competent tribunal. Those who required the remedies which the Court now afforded had, before its establishment, no opportunities of obtaining them except by the cumbrous and ruinous treble process of a suit in the Ecclesiastical Courts, an action for damages at law, and afterwards a Bill passed through Parliament. In such circumstances many of these persons, who were entitled to the remedy, were utterly incapable of obtaining a divorce, and they all naturally availed themselves of
  560
  the establishment of the new Court. That of course had the effect of producing a large amount of business, at first, brought before it. But it was impossible to say whether this accumulation was the sole cause of the excess of business. The Returns showed that during the fifteen months ending March last the number of petitions presented to the Court for dissolution of marriage was 288, and for judicial separation 105; making in round numbers 400 cases. The result was that 43 cases of divorce were disposed of, in which 37 divorces were granted; and 51 cases of judicial separation were disposed of. It was said that in Scotland, where time out of mind a divorce by judicial proceedings existed, the greatest number of cases of this nature in any one year was 20; so that in proportion to the population of the two countries the number of divorces granted in England ought to be 120 instead of 37, in order to verify the adverse predictions made when the Court was established. Inasmuch, however, as owing to a want of judicial force a number of cases remained undetermined, it did not follow from the fact that 37 divorces were granted during the fifteen months ending March last that this was the number of divorces that would otherwise have been granted within that period. There were 288 petitions for dissolution of marriage on the list; of these only a small number had been disposed of, and there was an arrear waiting for trial of upwards of 100 cases. Their Lordships were aware that the Court was composed of the Lord Chancellor, the three Chiefs of the three Common Law Courts, the three senior puisne Judges of those Courts, and the Judge Ordinary of the Court, his excellent friend Sir Cresswell Cresswell. It had been found hardly possible for the Lord Chancellor or any of the Judges of the Common Law Courts to give their time and attention to the Divorce Court, and the consequence was that the Court had got greatly into arrear. No less than 35 petitions were presented to that Court during the last month, and it was therefore undeniable that a great increase in the judicial staff was desirable, either permanently or temporary. He, therefore, strongly recommended his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to adopt some temporary remedy in order that the present arrear of business might be diminished. If it should be found that the arrear was not owing to accidental but to permanent causes, he hoped that no delay would take place in

  561
  increasing permanently the judicial force of the Court. There was another subject to which he wished to allude — not related to the mode in which the business of the Court was conducted, arising from the rules of practice which had been laid down with the view of saving expense to the suitors. The rules required great conciseness in the documents presented to the Court. The petition was reduced to the standard of a declaration in an action at law. He could compare it to nothing but the common counts in a declaration. The facts to be set forth were only the marriage of the parties, the date of the marriage, the act of adultery, or other acts upon which the dissolution of marriage was prayed, and the time when the knowledge of the adulterous intercourse was first obtained. To spare expense and to avoid prolixity, particulars which he thought ought to be stated in the petition were not required— he thought a far wider scope ought to be given to it. For example, the petition ought to state whether there had been a separation between the husband and wife, under what circumstances it took place, whether it had continued, whether there had been more than one separation, and what interval elapsed between the separation, and the acquaintance with the paramour commencing,—and many other particulars which it was needless for him to go over, but which would readily occur to any one familiar with the judicial proceedings in their Lordships' House, and in divorce Bills while the remedy was administered here. In those proceedings there was a full inquiry into all the circumstances; but the cases in the Divorce Court stood in this peculiar position that as 99 out of 100 of them were practically undefended, there was the greatest opportunity for collusion between the parties, and no facility of inquiry into the nature of that collusion. The husband desired a divorce against his wife, and the wife desired a divorce against her husband. Both parties equally wished for it. Then the paramour, who was co-respondent, wished it in many cases as much as the husband and the wife. Now, in such cases they might have the three parties interested all in league to deceive the Court, and therefore it was highly necessary to make such an arrangement in their rules of procedure as would tend to bring out all circumstances of suspicion. He felt that there ought to be in every case the presence of the Attorney General or some
  562
  one representing him on the part of the Crown and the public, and not only on the part of the public, but on that of the friends of the parties minded to prevent the divorce. Many cases had occurred within his recollection of intimation being given to their Lordships by the friends of parties, which prevented their passing a Bill of Divorce; but no such intimation could be given to the Court of Divorce under pain of imprisonment for contempt, He remembered a case which came before their Lordships, in which they were informed that the paramour was so far in league with the husband that he paid the expense of the application for divorce. They were apparently hostile parties; but their Lordships, having their suspicions awakened by information that reached them, elicited sufficient by the cross-examination of witnesses produced, and the examination of other witnesses, to satisfy themselves that there was no real opposition, and the application was refused. Such a course, however, could not be taken by the present Divorce Court, because no person could intimate his suspicions to the Judge without the chance of being committed. Yet it so happened that he himself knew that a similar case was pending in the Divorce Court, and that the same kind of intercourse was believed to exist between the paramour and husband. If the Attorney General appeared for the public the Court would become possessed of the knowledge of that fact, and might possibly have it proved in evidence. In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council there had long been a rule that no petition should be entertained for the extension of a patent without the Attorney General or his representative, on the part of the public, being present. In most cases of extension of patents the whole of the facts were before the Court, and therefore the Attorney General was not so clearly necessary as in cases of divorce, in which facts might be concealed by the collusion of the parties. He was inclined to think that there ought to be a peremptory rule for the examination of the petitioner in every case. In the return of the cases up to March last he found that in no instance—neither in the thirty-seven cases in which divorce had been granted, nor in the six in which it had been refused —had the parties been examined. It ought to be the general rule to examine the petitioner, although there might be many cases in which the other parties ought not to be

  563
  examined. As an example of the advantage of having the petition extended, he might mention a case in which the Judge Ordinary objected that the petition was not according to the standard of conciseness, which the rules of the Court required, and it was, therefore, referred by the omission of a great mass of statement. But the Judge having read the petition and taken a note of the particulars, he afterwards committed these to the full Court and then called on the husband to be examined, and soon disposed of the application. There was another circumstance which required very great consideration— namely, the system of service, or means whereby notice of the proceedings of the Court was served. The first thing that should be attended to was that all parties concerned should be properly served with the petition. To this time no sufficiently stringent rule had been laid down, and consequently parties might be divorced without their knowing anything of the proceedings. No security was taken that there should be actual personal service. That, in his opinion, ought not to be the case, and the same certainty of personal service as now prevailed in those instances in which the non-obedience of the parties served rendered them liable to attachment, might, he thought, with advantage be required. The last circumstance to which he wished to call attention was this; he had been anxious to know whether there was any foundation for the rumour that the Court had disposed of twenty-seven causes in one day, and he was glad to find that it was a great exaggeration. Though it might be true that some proceedings in connection with twenty-seven cases had been disposed of in one day—the largest number of divorces actually decreed within that time was nine. Still it was a startling fact that the new Court should have granted in one day as many as, under the old system, had been granted by Parliament in three or four years. Indeed, he believed that for a period of three centuries only 365 divorces had been decreed altogether. But, notwithstanding the change which had since taken place, he felt assured that the greatest possible care and attention were bestowed by the learned Judges who presided in the Divorce Court in coming to a decision on the cases which were brought under their cognizance. The subject was one, however, the importance of which was of so transcendental a nature that it ought to be fenced
  564
  round with all the securities which the Legislature could provide. In the vast proportion of cases of judicial separation he found the wife took the initiative, while the husband was the prime mover in the great majority of cases of divorce; but whether in suits of the one description or the other, it was highly expedient that the question brought under the consideration of the Court should be thoroughly investigated. He could not close his observations without bearing testimony to the distinguished merits of the learned Judge, Sir Cresswell Cresswell, who presided in that Court, and who discharged the laborious duties which devolved upon him with the greatest efficiency. His learning, his acuteness, and his indefatigable industry were above all praise. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving,
  "That the Account of the Number of Causes, Matters, and Things heard and disposed of in the Divorce Court, from 1st January to 1st June 1859, distinguishing the Number of Cases of Judicial Separation, of Dissolution of Marriage, and of all Matters relating thereto other than Sentences (laid before the House on Monday last) be printed."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble and learned Friend had done good service in bringing under the notice of the House the subject to which he had just called their Lordships' attention. Its importance could not be exaggerated, and he had for some time been so strongly impressed with that feeling that he had, previous to the dissolution of Parliament, deemed it to be his duty to ask his predecessor on the woolsack whether he was prepared to introduce a Bill to remedy the defects which existed in the working of the Divorce Court. He was informed in answer that such a Bill was in course of preparation; and as the duty of dealing with the subject had since devolved upon his own shoulders, he had directed to its consideration his most anxious attention. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend in the opinion that the present Court had upon the whole worked well, and was perfectly ready to bear his testimony also to the untiring energy and consummate ability which the Judge Ordinary (Sir Cresswell Cresswell) had brought to bear on the discharge of the duties of his office. There was, however, notwithstanding that energy and that ability, a want of judicial strength in the Court which rendered it incapable of getting rid with sufficient despatch of the business which came before it. The Legislature, he was nevertheless

  565
  of opinion, had acted with perfect propriety in not, in the first instance, establishing a set of Judges whose time should be exclusively devoted to the discharge of the business of that Court, inasmuch as it was impossible to predict what might be its amount. Parliament ought, he thought, to proceed tentatively and experimentally, even now, in dealing with the subject; for although there had been a great influx of business into the Court since its creation, still, as yet it was impossible to say what the steady course of its business might be. He should not, under those circumstances, advise their Lordships to appoint new and permanent Judges to preside over the Court, but should, as a temporary remedy for the defects to which he had referred, propose that all the fifteen Judges should be members of the Court, and should make arrangements whereby two of them might by turns sit with the Judge ordinary to constitute a full Court and dispose of the business which might be brought under their consideration. That course being-taken for the present, their Lordships would, he trusted, before long be in a position to ascertain what judicial strength was required for the fulfilment of these duties. He also concurred with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that there was not, under the existing state of the law, a sufficient safeguard against collusion, although he believed that not a single instance of such collusion had as yet occurred. He thought, however, it should be made more difficult than it was, and he concurred with his noble and learned Friend that some functionary should be employed who should investigate the circumstances of each case before it came on in Court; while it might also be not undesirable so far to change the rules of procedure as to require a more circumstantial statement from the petitioner of all the circumstances of his case, with a view to the investigation being conducted in a more satisfactory manner. That, he thought, might be done without levying any additional burden on the public revenue, because it was but fair that the expense of the proceedings should be cast on the petitioner in the first instance, to rest on him permanently in case of the failure of his suit; if he succeeded, on the adulterer, by whose misconduct the investigation had been rendered necessary. Beyond that there were some improvements which might be immediately adopted; and one of those was that the Court should be
  566
  authorized to sit in camera, as was the case in Scotland and France, and whenever the details of a case were of an objectionable character to exclude the public. So in all cases of domestic quarrels it would be advisable, with a view to future reconciliation, to hear the case in private, and not to allow all the details to get into the papers. There was another point of great importance. As the law now stood, nothing could be done with regard to the custody of the children except by the full Court, but it was desirable that the Judge Ordinary should have power to dispose of them. These and other points would be dealt with in the Bill, which he hoped in the course of a few days to lay upon the table.
  LORD CRANWOUTHadmitted, that it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this subject; but he must say that he regretted that the notice which his noble and learned friend had given was not one which was calculated to call attention to this subject. Looking to the terms of the notice (which was "to move that the Return No. 44 in the Minutes of 9th June, and delivered on the 27th June, be printed") he had not the remotest notion what it was about. He said this in justification of his being little prepared to give an opinion on the subject, which, however, was of the less importance that the subject would probably be fully discussed on Thursday next. In many of the observations of his noble and learned Friends he concurred. When the Bill constituting the Divorce Court was originally brought forward, he proposed that the Judges who should form the full Court should be the Judge Ordinary—sitting with either the Lord Chancellor or one of the Chief Justices, or the Chief Baron, of the Common Law courts — which Court alone should be competent to deal with cases of divorce "a vinculo matrimonii." That provision was so far modified as to include the senior puisne Judges of each Court. It was, however, found extremely inconvenient to secure the attendance of the Chief Justices or the senior puisne Judges, and he thought that his noble and learned Friend was quite right in proposing to empower all the puisne Judges to sit in the Divorce Court. Whether that provision would be sufficient he could not tell, for the whole process of dealing with this Court must be tentative—he thought that there was great reason for believing that it would suffice. He had had a conversation with

  567
  the Judge Ordinary on the subject, and had asked him to put his opinion in writing for the purpose of its being used by him on the coming on of the Motion on the subject of which notice had been given. In the opinion of the Judge Ordinary, if he could have the assistance of all the Judges for the purpóse of forming a full Court whenever it was required there would be no arrear of cases—for the cases, though important, rarely occupied much time. It was said that there was not sufficient provision against collusion, and he should be happy to assist in framing any means by which that could be prevented. He rejoiced to hear from his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, that Sir Cresswell Cresswell had stated that not one case of collusion had occurred, and in the strict sense of the term it was not likely that there would be one ease a year; at the same time it was right that every precaution should be taken to prevent its occurrence. His noble and learned Friend seemed to think that some public officer ought to investigate the cases before they went into Court; but he thought it certainly doubtful whether such a plan would succeed; for, if they could not be thoroughly investigated in Court, how could they be better investigated by a public officer? Still, he was open to conviction. Having introduced the original Bill constituting the Court, and having been once or twice twitted with the number of cases of divorce which had arisen, he had answered that that was the greatest proof of the propriety of the measure; not one of the cases which had been brought before the Court, if they had been brought to their Lordships' bar, but would have passed, which was a proof of the efficacy of the measure in extending relief to the poor as well as the rich.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he could not allow the conversation to terminate without addressing a few remarks to their Lordships. They would remember the strong opposition which he gave to this measure during its progress through Parliament; and he must say that every one of the fears he then entertained upon the subject had been realised by the consequences that had followed the passing of the Act. With regard to the statement that no divorce had been granted by the new Court which would not have been granted had the case come to their Lordships' bar, he begged to draw attention to one point which was referred to in the
  568
  Returns, namely, the immense number of applications for divorce by wives against their husbands. It was well known that it was rarely the practice of this House to grant a wife a divorce from her husband; but upon consulting the Returns he observed that in the course of the present year, forty-two divorces had been granted by the new Court on the application of husbands, and nineteen, or nearly one-half that number, on the application of wives, not one of which nineteen would have been granted had the applications been made at their Lordships' bar under the old system. Again, at the commencement of this year, 184 petitions had been presented by husbands, and 104 by wives; and under the former law he believed that in almost every one of those 104 cases divorce would have been refused. So far as the question of collusion was concerned, their Lordships would recollect that the most dangerous cases of collusion were those which came upon petition from the wife against the husband. When a man seeks a divorce, the proof of his wife's adultery destroys her character, and she forfeits her position in society. No woman would deliberately incur this disgrace for the purpose of being divorced, and thus in the case of the husband's suit there is seldom collusion between the parties in regard to the act on which the divorce is founded. But where the woman comes as the injured person, and obtains a divorce on showing that her husband has been guilty of adultery coupled with two years' desertion without reasonable cause, both of which facts he may admit without altogether forfeiting his position in Society, there is a great chance of collusion in cases when both are mutually tired of each other, and desirous of forming new engagements. These cases required the greatest possible watchfulness on the part of the Court; and the facts he had stated, proved, he feared, that great moral injury would probably be inflicted upon the community by the facility which had been given for applications of that sort. Motion agreed to.

CHURCH RATES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he had been anxious on several occasions this year to bring the question of which he had given notice before their Lordships' attention, but hitherto he had been disappointed in consequence of the unsettled

  569
  state of public affairs; and in doing so at this advanced period of the Session he feared that the consideration which their Lordships would be able to give to it would not be such as a question of such importance deserved. It was thought in some quarters, that inquiry having already taken place in the other House of Parliament, and the subject of church rates having been so fully discussed, and received so large an amount of attention, it was scarcely possible to collect any further facts, and that the appointment of a Select Committee for the purposes which he now proposed was not likely to be followed by any practical results. He thought, however, that a few considerations which he wished to offer to their Lordships would show that there was still subject-matter which might be inquired into, and inquired into with advantage. In the first place the Commons' Committee of 1S51 did not fairly represent the feelings and views of that great body which was most interested in the question of church rates—he meant the Church of England; for, looking at the composition of that Committee and the nature of the evidence that was brought before it, he must say that the investigation appeared to be of a very partial character. He found that twenty-three witnesses were examined before that Committee, of whom fifteen were thoroughly opposed to church rates, both in principle and in practice; nine of them being Dissenters. Of the remaining eight, two were clergymen of the Established Church, in whose parishes, most unfortunately, disputes had arisen respecting church rates, and who, consequently, whatever their views as to church rates in the abstract might be, could only speak to the lamentable circumstances which had occurred in their own parishes. There were, therefore, only six witnesses examined before the Committee who could be fairly said to represent the views which were likely to be entertained by the Established Church on the question, although their evidence comprised a digest of the law upon the subject which was of a most useful character. Considering, then, the importance of the question, and the immense magnitude of the interests involved in it, he thought he might ask their Lordships to grant him a Committee whose object should be to collect and present to them a fair and an impartial view of what were the opinions entertained by persons of experience in the ministry and practical working of
  570
  the Church of England, who would be able to say how the church-rate system operated in their several parishes, and who fairly represented the views and desires of the Church. There was another reason why his motion should be adopted. Their Lordships would remember that when the Committee of 1851 was moved for in the other House, the question of church rates occupied a very different position from what it did at the present moment. At that time most unpleasant disputes had been raging in the parish of Braintree. The well-known Braintree case originated in the churchwardens of that parish endeavouring to raise a rate in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the vestry, and in the next place, after a decision had been given against the churchwardens on that point, the vestry met together, and when the majority refused a rate the minority took the question into their own hands and proceeded to assess the rate. The case then came by appeal to their Lordships' House against the decision of the Judges; and it was an opinion expressed by witnesses before the Committe of 1851, that if the decision of their Lordships should be that a rate could be legally imposed by means of the vote of a majority of the vestry only, such a decision would of itself go far to settle the question, and prove satisfactory to the public at large. Well, their Lordships decided the law to be that a majority of the vestry must determine whether the rate should be assessed or not—the very decision to which the witnesses pointed as one that would be permanently satisfactory to the public; yet from that time to this the endeavour to overthrow church rates had been prosecuted as strongly and as virulently as ever. He thought then, that it was a matter of great importance that their Lordships should have the opportunity of inquiring into the working of the law in its new and altered form, and that they should be enabled to see how [he question had practically worked in many parishes which had been the scene of church-rate contests, and whether from the very fact of that decision having been brought into effective practice much of the evil and grievances which had previously existed had not ceased. There was yet another reason why he thought an inquiry ought to be instituted in reference to this subject. He believed that, as a matter of privilege, it was not competent for their Lordships to originate a Bill connected with taxation and send it down to the Lower House.

  571
  They were, therefore, in this position— that, unless they adopted the course he now proposed, they could only indulge them-selves in a barren discussion of the question, without any chance of getting at a practical result, or they would have to accept or reject any Bill which might be sent to them from the other House. He need not remark all the inconveniences of year after year rejecting Bills which wore sent from the Mouse of Commons. True, those Bills might go further than many of their Lordships deemed to he prudent or politic; yet they might contain principles which in a modified or an amended form, their Lordships would approve of. If, however, they partook of the nature of money Bills, the only alternative was that they must be accepted or rejected. Undoubtedly there were many subjects of grievance which were connected with church rates, and which ought to be redressed. In the first place, it appeared that rates had been voted for improper purposes; expenses had been included in the rate which had no business to be included in it; provision had been made by means of the rate for many things of an expensive nature for the service of the Church; and when these things were looked into, they undoubtedly formed a ground of grievance to those who, though inclined to look upon the Church as a national establishment, were not prepared to go to the extent of voting not only of necessaries, but he might say luxuries, for the use and maintenance of the Established Church. The cost of litigation formed another grievance which required consideration. In one case the recovery of the sum of 3s. 4d. occasioned an expense of £250 in law costs. Again, every time that a distress was levied upon the goods of a Dissenter, the public mind was inflamed against the system of church rates. Dissenters said, they contributed towards their own places of worship, and regarded it as a hardship that they should be made to pay for the support of a Church from whose doctrine and discipline they widely differed. Another cause of complaint was, that an unpopular clergyman sometimes created great ill-will by the harsh and violent manner in which he sought to enforce the law; while, on the other hand, where a conciliatory disposition and a desire to meet the feelings of all parties were displayed by the minister of the parish, church rates were often freely granted and paid without a murmur from any. These, then, were
  572
  the main grievances to which Dissenters were subject, and he thought they were all capable of being removed by careful legislation without destroying the principle of church rates itself. The next question was, what was the best measure to be adopted for removing these grievances, and placing the entire question on a satisfactory basis;—and when he said what would be the best measure, he must add that he knew of no subject on which so many measures had been proposed, and so little resolved upon or carried out. No fewer than seven different measures had been proposed, each differing from one another, in the mode of settling the matter. He himself believed that an easy means might be arrived at for the amendment of the law that would be satisfactory to the public at large. The measures that had been proposed resolved themselves principally into two different sections; one contained a proposition for charging the rate upon fixed property, while the other proposed to levy the church rate on those who constituted a church vestry, and those who occupied pews and sittings in the church. Now, the charging the rate upon fixed property did away with a most important principle—the voluntary principle—the great principle upon which Christian, conduct ought to be established, and in which a great truth was involved. It was one of the most important accompaniments of religious worship, and was the principle upon which alone, in the opinion of the Dissenters, Christian worship ought to be conducted. But if church rates were made a fixed charge on the land, this great principle would be lost sight of, and with it the system of leaving the majority to decide whether a certain sum should be voted for the maintenance of the common church. The decision by a majority would have the effect, when enforcing the rate, of reminding many, who would otherwise not be reached, of their religious obligations in respect of the Church. The other proposition, that of levying a church rate on those who constituted a church vestry, or who occupied pews and sittings in the church, would be virtually to proclaim that no person was in communion with the Church until the vestry was formed, and those who were already members of the Church would, under this arrangement, be invited to place themselves de novo under its ministrations. Now, however, the law as established looked on every person as a member of the Church of England, and considered that

  573
  every person in this country was entitled legally to call in the parish minister to perform the rites and offices of religion according to the ritual of the Established Church. If then they were to establish this new system, and constitute what was called a Church vestry, they would only be doing that which the Dissenters in this country were endeavouring to carry out, namely, the placing the Church of England in an isolated and sectarian position. Moreover, the effect of this proposal would be prejudicial in another respect. A large number of persons did not attend the Church of England, and there were a large number who. though nominally members of the Church of England, but who unfortunately were not habitual attendants upon public worship, and who would not be called on to contribute to the expenditure of their common church, while they could not justly claim exemption on the ground that they contributed to any other peculiar place of worship. As to the plan for throwing the maintenance of the Church upon pew rents, the principle of the Church was, that the seats should be as free as possible; and, though the system of pew rents might work very satisfactorily as far as concerned the rich, yet it would entail very grievous hardship on the poor, who regarded the Church as their common property, and were entitled to have the privilege of sitting there and enjoying the ministrations of the Gospel free of charge. Another measure that had been suggested was the simple and unconditional abolition of church rates. This would involve so serious an infraction of the rights of the Church, and strip it so entirely of any provision for the maintenance of its fabrics, that he trusted not to see the day when their Lordships would sanction it. Another remedy that had been proposed was, the specific exemption of Dissenters. To this Dissenters themselves objected, but not with very obvious justice. Not satisfied with being exempted as a body from an impost of which they complained, they rather unreasonably asked that the whole system of church rates should be abolished. Several measures had from time to time been proposed for the exemption of Dissenters, and yet they had all failed. In the year 1840 Mr. Duncombe proposed to exempt Dissenters on signing a declaration that they were not members of the Established Church, and that was represented as the best and most satisfactory mode of settling the subject
  574
  The declaration required them to-state that they were not in communion with the Church of England, and that they objected to the payment of church rates, not on pecuniary grounds, but on the score of conscience. But it was found that an exemption, coupled with a condition of this kind, met with a large amount of opposition, and he did not regret it. There were a large number of persons who, although they dissented from the Established Church, were not entirely Dissenters. They held an independent principle, which made them dislike the discipline and practices of the Church of England; but still there was a latent desire amongst them not to be entirely excluded from her, or to be without her privileges. There was, moreover, a large class in this country who would not be content with mere exemption, and who would accept nothing short of an unconditional surrender and abolition of Church rates; and this raised a question of such deep importance that it was their Lordships' duty, even at this late period of the Session, to institute a searching inquiry into the subject, so that remedies for all the inequalities and inconveniences of the system, if there were any, might be devised, and the latent objects of its opponents, if possible might be laid bare. The real fact was that the question of the abolition of church rates was put forward by a large and influential party in this country as a blow aimed at the existence of the Established Church, and as a means of carrying out the object they had in view — namely, that of disuniting the Church from the State, and the secularization of those vast endowments that now belonged to the parochial clergy of this country. Mr. Bright, a few years ago, speaking of the exemption of Dissenters, and on the subject of legislation on the Established Church, said he could never consent to Dissenters, because they were Dissenters, being shut out from any future participation in the distribution which might hereafter be made of the Church endowments— the time might arrive when it would become a question what would become of the funds in which the State were now interested belonging to what was called the National Church, and he could not consent that Dissenters, as such, should be dispossessed of their share, whatever course was adopted. These were views from which Mr. Bright and those that he represented were not likely to depart. They were doubtless the principles that still actuated and guided

  575
  them, and which only showed their Lordships and the public what were the real motives and principles of the opponents of church rates. Further than this, he would call attention to the proceedings of a society called the Liberation Society, established for the avowed principle of promoting the liberation of religion from State control. At an Annual Conference recently held it was proposed by one gentleman to add to a Resolution this rider:—"That at the same time this Conference expresses an earnest hope that the executive committee will find it practicable to bring the great question of Church and State before the Legislature at an early day." But Mr. Miall, a member of the conference, was too experienced a tactician to permit this. He opposed this proposition, showing that there was a difference of opinion among the members of the conference as to the best mode of accomplishing the object. "My hon. Friend," he said, "wishes to take up a fagot bound—we wish to take it up stick by stick." This explains the policy and objects of the opponents of church rates. The sticks in question were to be represented and enumerated under the following heads:—The abolition of church rates, which was the first stick in the fagot; the common use of the churches, the question of University tests, endowed grammar schools, the Scottish University test, the annuity tax (Scotland), and the common use of burial-grounds; and it was stated that a gentleman of intelligence and practical knowledge would shortly bring before Parliament a Bill to enable Dissenting Ministers to make common use of burial-grounds. All these subjects were to be taken up separately. He therefore thought that it was a matter of the very highest importance that their Lordships should by calm and impartial inquiry ascertain whether there were the means of removing the actual grievances which might be proved to exist with respect to church rates, and endeavour, in their report to show what might be done to set the question at rest, and thus give confidence and security to the members of the Church throughout the kingdom. There was one point which had often surprised him, and to which he would direct their Lordships' attention. The gentlemen who composed the Liberation Society had put forward a circular addressed to the various parishes, in which they say—"They have issued this useful little manual by means of which any ratepayer who wishes to prevent the assess-
  576
  ment of church rates in his parish may learn how to proceed, and may perceive that it is hardly possible to levy a church rate where the ratepayers think proper to use the existing law." And yet they called on this and the other House to abolish the existing law as an intolerable nuisance. If their Lordships granted this Committee he was sure that they would do much to relieve a vast amount of anxiety which existed in the country. It had been proved that there was not more than 5 per cent of parishes throughout the country that objected to church rates, and that upwards of £250,000 was annually collected under that head. It was said that if church rates were abolished there would be voluntary contributions which would prevent our churches from falling into decay; but he must remind their Lordships that voluntary contributions already existed in conjunction with church rates, and if church rates were abolished by law he believed that the means of maintaining the churches must certainly fail. Though the remainder of the Session was short, he was sure that before the Session terminated the Select Committee for which he moved would obtain a certain amount of information which would be of the highest importance in the settlement of the question; and even if the matter were not concluded this Session, still a further opportunity might be given for continuing the investigation on a future occasion. Their Lordships had long been the guardian of the liberties of the people, and by settling this question they would show that they were the best defenders of the surest safeguard of an hereditary monarchy—namely, an Established Church. The noble Duke then moved,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present operation of the Law and Practice respecting the Assessment and the Levy of Church Rates."
  LORD TEYNHAM, (who was almost inaudible, was understood) to say, that the Established Church had been represented to be the poor man's Church. That might be so; but it was emphatically the rich man's Church. The rich and mighty of this world would not enter so lowly a place as a meeting-house. Politically our churches were of immense value. They told us facts in English history; they spoke of the manners and habits, and off times of the lives and deaths of our ancestors. He thought that if the Committee calmly and impartially considered the extent and effect of the strife originating in church-rates,

  577
  they would recommend their Lordships to abolish them in the manner which should seem best. But he rather feared that the Committee would be used as an instrument for defeating any measure which might be sent up from the other House on the subject. On the other hand the subject was of such importance that if any new facts could be elicited by inquiry, it was fitting inquiry should be made. If only 5 per cent of the parishes objected to church-rates, was not that enough to render it desirable that the source of bitterness should be removed? He believed it was a fact that under the existing law voluntary contributions exceeded the amount raised by church rates, and it would be for the Committee to inquire whether there was anything special in the parishes where voluntary contributions were raised to lead to the inference that the same liberality would not be shown if church rates were abolished. There was one further fact which might be deduced from the returns to Parliament,—that the condition of the churches where no rate was levied was equally as good as where church rates were collected. Heartily desiring that the edifices should be maintained, he thought the best way to secure that object was to abolish church rates, but, at the same time, he had no objection to the appointment of a Committee.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I feel that we owe a great amount of debt to the noble Duke for the Motion which he has made this evening. I think that this House is equally indebted to him; for this House will soon be called on to legislate on the subject, which involves consequences not anticipated by many who, if they have not promoted, have not opposed the measure of abolition, but consequences well perceived by the agitators who promote it. Therefore, the subject requires the utmost deliberation, which it has never yet received, for, although a Committee was held on the subject in the lower House, no report was returned from that Committee, The subject, my Lords, is of much greater importance than in the view of many persons it seems to be. I fully believe that if it were clearly seen how great would be the danger to important interests if the Church be attacked upon the point now under consideration, the opinion of many persons would be changed, and we should never have again before us such a measure as was brought before us last Session, and
  578
  which your Lordships were fully determined should not be carried without some substitute being found for church rates. It is for the purpose of finding a proper substitute for church rates that I think it desirable that the Committee proposed by the noble Duke should be appointed. The noble Lord who has just Eat down hoped for inquiry, because he thought it would prove the inconveniences that existed. We, on the other hand, desire inquiry, because we believe that the instances to which the noble Lord alluded were anomalous, and that inquiry would establish that fact. My Lords, there are two objections to the present system of church-rates; one, which I will call the conscientious objection, originating in Dissenters from our Church, who complain of being taxed in support of a church to which they do not belong, and the doctrines or discipline of which they disapprove. The other objection proceeds from Churchmen themselves, in those large towns where the parish church is surrounded by numerous chapels, frequented by those who support them, but who are rated to the mother church, from which they receive no benefit. In the northern part of England, with which I was formerly well acquainted, the opposition to church rates had this origin. My Lords, it is right that these objections should be considered, and, as far as they are just, that a remedy may be provided for them such as may be proposed in Committee. The remedy need not be the extreme measure of releasing property from an obligation to which it has been always subject, and subject to which it was received by all its present holders, and that wholly at the expense of a Church of which I may fearlessly say that it never was more anxiously desirous to fulfil the duties belonging to it, and to provide for the spiritual wants of the increasing population. I trust, therefore, that the noble Earl the President of the Council will not object to the appointment of a Committee.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that no one was more impressed than he was with the importance of a speedy settlement of this vexed question; and he believed that if any of the propositions which had been referred to during this brief discussion had been agreed to years ago, a settlement might have been arrived at much more satisfactory than was now, perhaps, to be anticipated. From what had recently taken place upon the hustings, from declarations

  579
  made by men who had heretofore taken a moderate course, that they would scarcely even venture to support a rate for maintaining the fabric of the church—he could not but fear that much further delay in the settlement of this question might lead to a collision between the two Houses of Parliament, although he hoped that such a result might be prevented by the deliberations of this Committee. He trusted that the Committee in entering upon its investigations would not be actuated by that spirit of antagonism which he thought the noble Duke had indicated somewhat too strongly, but would rather be influenced by the calm and considerate spirit which characterized the suggestions of the most rev. Prelate. He (Lord Portman) did not think they could hope to continue, with the goodwill of the great body of the people, n rate for supporting the fabric of the church if the proceeds of the same rate were applied to the maintenance of the services of the church and for other purposes, as well as of its fabric: for if attention were directed to the way in which church rates were levied, and to the purposes for which they had been levied, it would be found that the great objection to church rates was attributable to the abuses which had taken place in their application, such as paying rent of cottages for paupers who are thereby kept out of the workhouse, paying for the destruction of vermin, all sorts of illegal fees and items that could pass no account that is audited. If consideration were given for a moment to the abuses existing in the present system, it would no longer be a matter of wonder that church rates were objected to. There was no provision made for the auditing of churchwardens' accounts, and after the money was spent there was no means of calling the churchwarden to account for any abuse he had sanctioned in the shape of irregular payments. He had been told by many influential Nonconformists that they were quite willing to contribute their quota to the maintenance of the fabric of the Church —that they considered the Church as a monument of their religion—and that they only objected to the application of their payments to the services of the Church. He thought this subject deserved the careful consideration of the Committee, with the view of ascertaining whether some separation might not be made in the contributions for these objects. It might be that such a separation could not be effect-
  580
  ed, or that it would be an unwise course to pursue; but the information he had gathered on the subject led him to form a different conclusion, and to believe that it was perfectly feasible. It appeared to him that there was something incongruous in the term of a "voluntary rate." There was the greatest possible difference between a voluntary payment and a rate, and he could not conceive how a rate imposed by the vote of a majority binding a minority could be called a voluntary rate. It had been stated that under the existing state of things the voluntary contributions for the maintenance of churches actually exceeded the amounts obtained by rate. The most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) inserted in a Bill he introduced on this subject a clause providing that in every parish in which no church rate had been imposed for two years the rate should cease. He (Lord Portman) had inserted a similar clause in the Bill he had laid upon the table, not upon principle, but because, as it had been suggested by the most rev. Prelate, he had no doubt it must be founded upon sound reason. He thought it most unfortunate that although some two or three years ago there had been an indication from the right rev. Bench of an inclination to endeavour to settle this question, so long a time had been allowed to elapse without the introduction of any practical measure with that object. He believed that if the right rev. Bench could agree upon any plan which might be discussed in an open Committee of their Lordships' House, an opportunity would be afforded to the Members of the other House, many of whom were anxious for the settlement of this question, to propose some measure which, originating in the other House, might meet with general approval. He observed that a right hon. and personal Friend of his, although a political opponent—the late Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt)—had told his constituents that he was prepared to submit to Parliament a measure for the settlement of this question. He (Lord Portman) could only express a hope that his right hon. Friend's change of position would not lead him to relinquish his intention, for no man was better acquainted with the general feeling which prevailed throughout the country, and no man was more warmly attached to the Established Church. He would suggest, that one subject which deserved the serious consideration of the Committee was

  581
  the grievance to which many members of the Church were exposed in being subjected to a double payment for ecclesiastical purposes—the payment of rates to the mother church of the parish, besides contributing to the support of the churches in the districts in which they resided. This double charge had led to a great deal of opposition to church rates, and the position of the new churches would hereafter be very bad unless some better system is established by Law. He (Lord Portman) had ventured to lay a Bill on the table to carry out the objects to which he had alluded, and he had made provision for an endowment to be entrusted to the Queen Ann Bounty Board, which he believed would be useful and efficient. He did not presume to think that his Bill was complete, as he could not be vain enough to believe that any one person could prepare a complete measure; but he felt he was pledged to this House to make a trial, and to do his best and meet the views of the two great parties who contend on this subject. He offered his scheme as a contribution towards the final discussion in the House that some earnest and determined effort would be made to legislate at once, and to remove this cause of discord from the parishes of the kingdom.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I feel it necessary to notice one or two observations which have been made during the discussion of this question. It has been continually said—and it was said or hinted just now by the noble Lord— that if the right reverend Bench had only done their duty, and had produced a measure to solve this problem, we might have been rid of this question of church rates long ago. But I rather think your Lordships will agree with me that no great encouragement has been given to any one, in what has hitherto occurred, to take upon himself the solution of this question by the production of a Bill. We have heard how many Bills have been proposed, and that all have been successively rejected; and I believe that the noble Lord himself who has to-night brought in a Bill will form no exception to the general rule. I think, therefore, that the right rev. Bench have perhaps pursued a wiser course in not committing themselves to undertake the solution of this question, but rather in praying your Lordships' House to appoint this Committee, that it may be gravely, calmly, and impartially considered in all its various aspects. If your Lordships would allow me
  582
  I would notice two points which, I think, ought to weigh very much with all persons in considering this question. We have heard it said, on what was represented to be good authority, that at the present moment there is only one-third of the population of England that belongs to the Established Church. I look in vain for the grounds on which that proposition rests. The only possible grounds, so far as I know, on which it can be supposed to rest is this, that the Established Church supplies accommodation for that proportion of the population of England. What an extraordinary conclusion to arrive at and to pronounce in the most public manner that, therefore, only one third of the population of England belongs to the Established Church. I hold in my hand a statement, to which, perhaps, your Lordship will allow me to refer. There are other modes of estimating what proportion of the population of England belongs to the Established Church than this, which seems to me to be illogical. I find it stated in the publication which I hold in my hand as to the education of the poor, that 83 per cent of the existing schools for the poor are in connection with the Church of England; and that of the 2,000,000 of children between the ages of three and fifteen, in course of education, 78 per cent are in connection with that Church. I find also, when we turn to the marriages contracted in England and Wales, that 84 per cent of the whole number are solemnized by Ministers of the Church of England, 11 per cent by clergymen of the Romish Church, by Ministers of the Protestant Dissenters, and Jews, and 5 per cent at the Registrars' offices. I think, my Lords, that those figures lead us to suppose that those who have made the statement that only one-third of the population of England and Wales belongs to the Established Church have jumped to a conclusion not justified by the premises. The noble Lord who spoke last but one deprecated (and none can be more ready to deprecate than the right rev. Bench) those feelings of rancour which are supposed to have arisen in all parishes where there have been disputes about church rates. But if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think he is referring to a bygone state of things. Why, there are disputes—if disputes they are to be called—I should rather say there are questions as to church rates raised one day in the year, and every person who has anything to say against church rates or the

  583
  Church has an opportunity of saying it; and, in my opinion, this is rather a safety valve than anything else against these rancours and heartburnings which I think exist in the imagination only, I will not say of the noble Lord, but of those who wish to make a great deal more of them than there is any foundation for. In a word, the mode of settling any dispute with regard to church rates is the common mode of settling disputes in this country with regard to any other subject. The matter is fairly put to the vote, and if carried, the minority of course are a little dissatisfied, but in the course of three or four days they forget all about it; and though in former times, while there were many difficult questions existing about church rates still unsettled, there might be these heartburnings and rancours, I do not believe they exist any longer. It does seem to me a most extraordinary conclusion to arrive at, that because in 500 parishes in England the matter has been put to the vote as to whether there should be a church rate, or no, and the majority have rejected it, therefore it is your bounden Christian duty to say that in 11,000 parishes and more you should abolish church rates altogether. I cannot see the connection between the premisses and conclusion. Then as to the parochial system and those churches which the noble Lord (Lord Teynham) is so anxious to have preserved. I give him the utmost credit for the sincerity of his wish to have them preserved; but I am quite sure that your Lordships must think it is a curious way of preserving them to do away with that legal support by means of which they are preserved. It is not very likely, for instance, that in remote places in Cumberland the churches will be kept up unless there be some legal means provided by which they are to be maintained. It is quite a fallacy to say that the most beautiful churches are those which are provided by voluntary contributions. Why, the noble Lord might as well refer to that beautiful structure which has been lately erected in London at the expense of private individuals, costing, as some people say, £100,000, and say, "If you only give the voluntary principle full sway, you would have in Cumberland another edifice that would rival its beauty." There is, in short, no connection between the position of a rich and populous district where a number of persons are to be found almost anxious to spend the wealth which they possess in the erection and maintenance of churches, and that of the remote parts of
  584
  the country, where perhaps church accommodation is still more needed. I had thought that the fallacy of the voluntary system had been long since exploded. It has, indeed, been said by a great authority that the questions of education and religion ought to be dealt with in accordance with the ordinary politico-economical principles of supply and demand; but it has, nevertheless, in my opinion, been distinctly proved that to those questions the principles of political economy cannot be applied. Instead, for example, of the supply of education being greatest where it is most needed, the contrary is almost invariably the case. Thus, too, it is with religion. Some men are completely torpid on the subject, and require something from without to imbue them with more earnest feelings; and that something is not always at hand. I would under those circumstances, earnestly impress upon your Lordships the expediency of granting the Committee which has been moved for. A great many unfounded statements on the subject of church rates have been spread throughout the country. These statements require to be distinctly tested, and I know of no better mode of testing them than through a Committee of this House. The Dissenters themselves ought to be anxious that such an inquiry should be instituted. The noble Duke who opened the discussion has read to your Lordships some extracts from the speeches of persons who I feel assured do not represent the sentiments of the Dissenters of England. I do not, however, feel quite so sure that they do not represent the sentiments of the Dissenting interest in "another place," whose voice has hitherto been most regarded in reference to the question of church rates. I am anxious to ascertain what the opinions are which the religious and not the political Dissenters of England entertain; the opinions, in short, of those Dissenters who feel as much as members of the Established Church themselves, that great moral and social interests are involved in its maintenance. I would undertake to say there are thousands of Dissenters in England who would deem it a dark and miserable day for the community at large on which the existence of the Established Church should be endangered; but it is quite certain that this class of Dissenters is not the most powerful in returning Members to the other House of Parliament.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should not

  585
  enter into the details of the important subject under discussion. He was, however, strongly of opinion that the Committee which had been moved for was not required, and would be found to be productive of no useful results. The great difficulties which beset the question of church rates arose, not from the want of adequate information with respect to it, for Committees of Inquiry on the subject had been multiplied, and blue-books accumulated upon blue-books until the result had been rather to confuse than to enlighten. Neither was there any absence of schemes on the subject; and he would undertake to say that the number of such schemes which had been submitted to the noble Earl opposite, during his tenure of the office of Prime Minister, amounted to something considerable. But, although such were the views which he entertained, he did not deem it to be consistent with his duty, after what had fallen from the noble Duke and the members of the right rev. Bench, to oppose the appointment of the proposed Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.