Sitting of 10 March 1859

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Sussex (Western Division), Right Hon. the Earl of March.

THE REFORM BILL.—NOTICE.
MR. MILES: Sir, I beg to give notice that in Committee on the Representation of the People Bill, I propose "To move a clause giving to the electors of cities and boroughs now represented the right, as long as they themselves possess freeholds within such cities and boroughs for which they have qualified for a county, to retain the right of voting for such county provided their votes have been duly registered in the Register of Electors for the year 1858–9: Upon transfer by sale, or in any other manner of such freeholds, or by the decease of such elector, the freehold for which he has voted for the county to merge in the city or borough in which such freehold shall be situate."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I beg Sir, to give notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill I shall move as a Resolution—
"That this House is of opinion that it is neither just nor politic to interfere in the manner proposed in this Bill with the Freehold Franchise as hitherto exercised in the Counties in England and Wales; and that no readjustment of the Franchise will satisfy this House or the country which does not provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs than is contemplated in the present measure."

BOROUGH ELECTORS.—QUESTION.
MR. FOLJAMBEsaid, as it appears, by Parliamentary Paper No. 108 of last Session, that the Registered Electors of the borough of East Retford entitled to vote for the northern division of the county of Nottingham, are only eighty-six in number, whereas it appears by the County Register of Voters that the number amounts to 1,466, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an explanation of this difference; and whether the proposal to disfranchise the freeholders of boroughs in respect of their county votes extended to the cases in which hundreds are included within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have referred to the Par-

1619
liamentary Paper No. 108, and the entry that appears for East Retford is as stated by the hon. Gentleman; but this Return is made by the County Officers, and is not under our control; and I am quite at a loss to explain the remarkable inconsistency pointed out by the hon. Gentleman—no doubt, on correct local information—between the return and the County Register. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as to the disfranchisement of freeholders in boroughs in respect of their county votes, I would inform the hon. Gentleman that our proposal to disfranchise freeholders in boroughs in voting for counties, will not extend to those cases in which hundreds are included within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs; and I will take this opportunity of explaining, in reference to the notice just given by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London and of my bon. Friend (Mr. Miles) that it is not the intention of the Government to propose the disfranchisement of any borough freeholders, whether they exercise the right of voting in hundreds within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs or not. One of the principles of the measure which I had the honour to introduce the other night is, that no place and no person shall be disfranchised. The subject is under the consideration of the Government, and I intend shortly to place clauses on the table by which I trust we shall reconcile the main principle of the measure, which is the identity of the suffrage between counties and boroughs, with the recognized rights of the freeholders within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs. I shall propose clauses with this object when we go into Committee, and I will lay those clauses on the table before the second reading of the Bill:

PIERS AND HARBOURS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to introduce a Bill to facilitate the construction of Piers and Harbours, and, if so, when.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONreplied, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill of the description referred to by the hon. Member, but the introduction of that measure would be postponed till the Government had had an opportunity of considering a Report on the
  1620
  subject just presented by a Committee to the Board of Admiralty, and which would shortly be laid on the table of the House.

DISEMBODIMENT OF THE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROWN-WESTHEADsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what Regiments of Militia are to be disembodied, and at what time; and whether, when the number of Officers with a Regiment much exceeds the relative proportion of Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates, the Government will permit a limited number of Officers to return to their homes?
  GENERAL PEEL: Sir, the Regiments of Militia to be disembodied are the North Lancashire, Nottingham, North Durham, and Wexford, and that will take place before the 1st of April. There will be some Militia Artillery Regiments embodied at the same time. If the number of Officers in any of the Regiments are greatly in excess of the men, and desire to return to their homes, it is in the power of the Commander in Chief to grant them leave of absence. They will not be entitled to pay, and will be liable to be called out when their services are required.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to bring in a Bill for the adjustment of the question of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland, and when.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, in consequence of an application to him by an hon. Gentleman opposite, had asked him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), before he left recently for Ireland, to appoint a day for bringing forward the question. It was due to the House that the views of Her Majesty's Government, with regard to the question of Landlord and Tenant, which had been so long discussed, and respecting which the Government had announced its intention to bring in a Bill, should be known; and on the return of the Attorney General the Government would be ready to fulfil their engagement, and would endeavour to give him a day to state the policy of the Government before Easter.

  EXCHEQUER BILLS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the late funding of Exchequer Bills, preparatory to moving,
  "That in future no funding of Exchequer Bills, held by the Commissioners of Savings' Banks, be made without the special authority of an Act of Parliament."
  The words of that Motion were precisely identical with one of the Resolutions of the late Committee which sat last year, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He brought forward the Motion with no object of making an attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might be told that it was in consequence of the Act of the late Government, who possessed themselves of a certain amount of Exchequer bills, that this measure of funding became almost a matter of necessity. The operation which had taken place was this. There had been a new creation of funded debt to the amount of £8,456,239, involving a permanent charge of £254,000 a year, in lieu of cancelled Exchequer bills to the amount of £7,600,000, involving an annual charge of £160,000. He was not going to lay any stress on this difference between the charge on the Exchequer bills as compared with the charge on the 3 per cent Stock, because he was aware that the real charge on the Exchequer was the amount which the Government was bound to pay to the depositors of the savings' banks, and, therefore, it might be said it was a matter of but little difference whether the interest was more or less; but he did think that it was a matter of very great importance that this House should well consider any question which involved an increase of the funded debt on the country. The ordinary mode of dealing with savings' banks deposits was this: it was presumed that the deposits were invested as soon as possible in Government securities. That was necessary in order to prevent the waste of any money lying idle in the bank of England in the names of the Commissioners of savings' banks; but when the deposits were invested in that manner there was not necessarily any increase in the total amount of the funded debt. Supposing that these deposits were to be required again by the depositors, then if the stock had been bought in the open market, the stock could be sold again in the same way, and thus a fund would be provided out of
  1622
  which they could be repaid, and afterwards the funded debt of the country would stand precisely in the same way as before the transaction. But mark the difference that took place, if, instead of purchasing stock in the open market, the deposits of the savings' banks were invested in Exchequer bills; those bills, after a certain lapse of time, were converted into stock, and by being funded these Exchequer bills were cancelled, but the stock remained as a permanent charge. He was quite aware that the indebtedness of the country, as regards capital, was not altered by the operation; the country was still indebted for the amount of the savings' banks deposits; but it did appear to make a great difference if the repayments when required had to be made by the sale of stock, instead of by the sale of Exchequer bills, as in that case the funded debt remained the same. Now, the amount of Exchequer Bills of which he had spoken was obtained in this way. It was perfectly competent for the Commissioners of savings' banks to invest in any Government security. If they invested in stock he had stated what was the effect; if in Exchequer bills—to those bills if held merely as a temporary investment he had no objection—but if, acting on the power granted by the Acts under which all the savings' banks were now constituted, the Government turned those Exchequer bills into stock, that clearly involved a permanent increase of the national debt. And it appeared to be most desirable that the House should watch with jealousy any increase of the funded debt of this country. Well, some of these bills had been bought in the open market; but a considerable portion of those so bought were bought with funds obtained by the sale of stock. It was during the time of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—he believed in 1853 or 1854, during the late war—that the right hon. Gentleman found himself under what he probably considered to be a necessity to provide some fund which was not readily at his command in the ordinary course of the money market; and perhaps, indeed, the expenditure of the war was so enormous as to baffle every calculation. He took the power of obtaining money from this House. But there might have been difficulties in getting the money in the way he thought most advantageous to the country. He therefore took advantage of the provisions of the Act, and he sold about

  1623
  £4,000,000 of stock, and he bought Exchequer bills. The effect of that operation was that he took a certain amount of Exchequer bills out of the market, thereby tending to enhance the price of Exchequer bills, which were at a discount at the moment; and he was then enabled, by having a smaller amount of bills in the market, to replace those bills which he took out. He was enabled in some way or other to sell that amount of Exchequer bills. These bills, therefore, came into possession of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Commissioner of Savings' Banks. purely by the sale of stock. It appeared to him (Mr. Hankey) that it would have been wise, if possible, to have avoided the necessity of funding those bills, and thereby of increasing the amount of the funded debt. He thought it would have been quite possible. There was no difficulty at the time of selling Exchequer bills. He did not mean to say that it would have been possible or prudent to have thrown any large amount of Exchequer bills into the market; but if those Exchequer bills had been disposed of by degrees the stock might again have been bought, and the result of that transaction would have been no permanent increase of the National Debt. The transaction was in effect nothing more nor less than a pure war loan. It was owing, probably, to that arrangement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it expedient to carry out what he thought his predecessor would have done had he remained in office. He (Mr. Hankey) was quite aware that this was in strict conformity with the Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament, for what purpose he could not divine, seemed to have given large powers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to funding Exchequer bills. It would be strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to-morrow to find himself in this position, that in consequence of some sudden demand for money which raised its value, and placed Exchequer bills in the market at a discount,—it would he within the provisions of that Act for him to sell the whole of that £8,000,000 of the funded debt, and buy Exchequer bills, and therefore relieve the Exchequer bill market to that extent. The same operation might go on again, but limited of course by the amount of Exchequer bills to be bought in the market. It might go on for some time, and the result would be an increase
  1624
  of the debt, but made in a manner that appeared quite unnecessary. Including that £8,000,000, he believed that about £16,000,000 had been added within the last twenty years to the funded debt by such arrangements. He was not about to discuss at any length the provisions of that Act, though he believed there was a very strong feeling in the House that it would not be wise to continue them. He was not afraid at this moment of any abuse of that power by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he thought it a most unwise provision. It was a thing that Parliament ought to guard against under almost any possible eircumstances—an increase of the funded debt. That £16,000,000 involved an expenditure of upwards of £400,000 a year; and if even the whole of the Savings' Bank money were paid off by the sale of stock, the country would be left in this predicament, that it would be saddled with an extension of the funded debt to the extent of £16,000,000. He did not think that that was intended by the provisions of the Savings' Bank Act; but that the Commissioners of Savings' Banks were to place themselves in the position of the depositors themselves—be their representatives, in short—and as soon as possible invest the money in stock, and keep that stock in their names, the same as a banker would do to enable him to meet the requirements of his I customers. The Committee of last Session recommended in their Report that the funded debt of the country should not be increased by means of the money
  in the Savings' Banks. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had laid it down as a principle that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer always to take care that as much money as he could require was raised from the taxation of the year, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would support him in maintaining to the utmost the power of this House, and that the House would not consent to sanction, unless on occasions of great emergency, an increase of the funded debt. In bringing this subject under the notice of the House he was actuated by no party feelings whatever. His chief desire was to elicit the opinions of the House on the principles upon which the operations of savings' banks ought to be conducted; and if the house would agree with him in the Resolution he proposed, he believed the result would be to put an

  1625
  end to all such operations as he had now described.
  MR. PULLERseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That in future, no Funding of Exchequer Bills, held by the Commissioners of Savings Banks, be made without the special authority of an Act of Parliament."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he must complain that the hon. Gentleman had employed terms in speaking of this question which were calculated to mislead hon. Members not very familiar with it. He had described this operation as if it were one fur increasing the National Debt. The real state of the case, tracing it from its commencement, was this:—The savings' banks were institutions into which individual depositors placed their money, and received from the managers a certain rate of interest. The managers of the banks retained a part of that money to meet current demands, and placed the remainder in the hands of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, from whom they received a somewhat larger rate of interest than they themselves paid to the depositors. Thus they got enough interest to repay the whole of the interest due to the depositors, the expenses of management, and to assist in keeping up a balance out of which to meet the drawing accounts. Having these monies in their hands the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt in their turn did precisely for the savings' banks what the banks had done for their depositors; that was to say, they retained a certain amount of the monies placed in their hands by the managers ready to meet the demands of individual savings' banks they invested a portion, and to provide the interest for them. They must a priori therefore make the best use of the balance they had in hand. But here the law stepped in, and to a certain extent prevented this by compelling them to invest their balance in certain securities—the public funds, which ordinarily paid a rate of interest rather below that which the Commissioners were bound to allow to the savings' banks. The consequence was the Commissioners suffered loss rather than made a profit by the transaction; but inasmuch as the security of the fund was guaranteed by the public any deficiency which occured, as a matter of Course, would fall upon the public. It should also be borne in mind that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt were liable to another source
  1626
  of loss. If demands came upon them in excess of the money paid in, they must sell stock to meet them. Those demands usually came when the price of stock was low, and, on the other hand, the money usually came in when the price of stock was high. Therefore the money received was invested in the funds when they were high, and the Commissioners had to sell out when the funds were low. It was clear, then, that upon the whole transaction, which was one conducted for the benefit of depositors, the Government subjected itself to risk, and even to a moderate extent, to the certainty of some loss; but it was willing to incur sacrifices in consideration of the desirableness of encouraging savings' banks. This being the case, if the Government found that they were holding the money in a way that occasioned loss to them, and that it was possible, without diminishing in one tittle the security of the depositors or the profits of the managers, to make use of it in a manner that would be for the advantage of the public, surely it would be unreasonable to debar them from doing so. The hon. Gentleman said, that the practice of holding Exchequer bills for a time and then funding them increased the debt; that it would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he thought it desirable to keep up the Exchequer bill market, to take £8,000,000 of these funds, invest it in Exchequer bills, and after holding them some time to fund them, and so add to the permanent funded debt of the country. But that seemed to him (Sir S. Northcote) to be an extraordinary proposition. Say that the funded debt amounted to a certain sum, whatever that might be, and it was proposed to sell out £8,000,000 of it, and buy Exchequer bills. By doing that they would diminish the funded debt by £8,000,000, and increase the unfunded debt. [Mr. HANKEY: No, no!] That was hardly so, because, according to his understanding of the matter, the sale of Consols would reduce the funded debt, and the subsequent funding of Exchequer bills would only amount to a replacement. But, passing to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, he granted that was, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, one of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on Savings' Banks which sat last year, but then it was not fair to omit that it was one only out of a considerable number, amongst which there were some that would mitigate to a certain extent the loss which the Go-

  1627
  vernment at present sustained. For instance, one recommendation was that it should be legal to use a portion of the funds so coming into the hands of the Government, by investing them in other securities than the funds—placing them, for instance, in the hands of the Public works Loans Commissioners, where they would realize a larger amount of interest, and he thought it was not exactly fair to take one recommendation alone and press it, when the whole matter ought to be considered and the opinion of the House taken upon the subject of the arrangements connected with the savings' banks. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to a doctrine enunciated by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that you ought to levy as much money as you could by taxation; but as a countervailing principle he should also say that when they had to borrow they ought to do so as well as they could. The case they were then discussing arose, he believed, out of a considerable emergency. It was the emergency created by the Crimean war, and the state of circumstances was certainly difficult and peculiar. The borrowing took place to meet the demands occasioned by the war, and it was done with the sanction of Parliament; that was to say, it was found necessary in consequence of the extraordinary demands of the war to make further provision for the service of the year, and it was impossible, without breaking faith with those who had contracted for the loan previously raised to get money by further loan. It became necessary, therefore, to proceed by way of Exchequer bills. Two millions of Exchequer bills were issued, and they had now been funded; but it was substantially the same thing as if money had been borrowed on loan. The power, therefore, was one which enabled time Chancellor of the Ex- chequer, if he thought it desirable to borrow, to do so in the best and most economical way from the public, at no risk to the savings' banks, and with no addition to the debt of the country. It could not be denied that the interest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the same as that of the public, and that he would be guided by such principles as were conducive to the public interest. He trusted, therefore, that this Motion would not receive the sanction of the House.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) for having brought this subject before the
  1628
  House. Let the House observe how the matter stood. If they wanted to raise
  £7,600,000 at this moment, they would have to create £8,000,000 of stock at 95. But in this transaction what had they been compelled to do? Why, they were obliged to create £8,469,237 of stock. Therefore, at the first blush of the transaction, the public, who had to supply all deficiencies, stood £469,237 worse than otherwise they would be. This mode of doing business was, in fact, a most ruinous one. In the first place, it concealed from the House the actual state of the public finances, because these Exchequer bills were bought and held by the Savings' Bank Commissioners during the Crimean war, when the price of stock was low, and had been converted at low prices when the price of stock was high. In 1844, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), was compelled to engage in a similar transaction—that of buying Exchequer bills with savings bank's money, and the Government created £7,627,000 of stock. Since that time the system had been going on for a series of years, until, he believed, the funded debt had been increased by this means upwards of £16,000,000. He was surprised at the answer given by the Secretary for the Treasury to the charge of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the conversion of Savings' Bank stock into Exchequr bills, and their subsequent conversion into the funded debt, might go on indefinitely. That was time truth, and he hoped the House would now take steps to prevent it, which might easily be done by an Act of Parliament, consisting of only two short clauses, limiting the conversion of Savings Banks' funds to what the interest of the Savings' Banks required, and to that alone. Under the provisions of the law, when the Commissioners of the Savings Banks got Exchequer bills into their possession, and wanted to fund them, they were bound to do so within three mouths, and the average of their price for those three months was to be the rate of the transaction. But this was a new device altogether, by which the Commissioners might hold those Bills for years, and saddle the country with a larger mass of funded debt than was at all necessary. He therefore called upon the House to put an end to this system, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, along with the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank, might, at their pleasure, so convert Exchequer bills into funded debt. He hoped the House would support the hon. Gentleman

  1629
  (Mr. Hanley) in his endeavours to put an end to this system, though he doubted whether the Resolutions which the hon. Gentleman proposed would be sufficient for the purpose, but that a short Act of Parliament, as he had suggested, would be found necessary. As matters stood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not only transfer the unfunded to the funded debt, but could actually create new debt without the intervention of Parliament, which had actually been done by former Chancellors of the Exchequer. He hoped the House would interfere to prevent such proceedings for the future.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, the hon. Member for Peterborough has done good service to the House in calling its attention to the recent funding of Exchequer bills. I myself heard in the beginning of the Session that it was understood in the City that this operation had taken place. I therefore put a question to the Government on the subject, and found that the report was true. A return giving an outline of the facts was subsequently moved for, and is now in the possession of the House. The hon. Member has accompanied his statement with an abstract Resolution that in future no funding of Exchequer bills held by the Commissioners of Savings' Banks should take place without the special authority of au Act of Parliament. That Resolution he submits in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee on Savings' Banks which sat last Session, and which suggested that no sales, purchases, or exchanges of stocks or securities held by the Commissioners should be made, except as required for the purposes of the Savings' Banks themselves, and that no funding of Exchequer bills held by the Commissioners should in future take place without the special authority of on Act of Parliament. In consequence of successive issues of Exchequer bills, some of which took place during the late war, and all of which, let me observe, were made under the authority of an Act of Parliament, and therefore received the attention of this House at the time, the Exchequer bills on the 1st July last amounted to £20,889,000. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) in speaking of Exchequer bills, and their conversion into funded debt, talked of increasing the National Debt, and seemed to regard Exchequer bills as of a different nature in respect of public obligation from funded debt. It is quite true that, according to the theory of Exchequer
  1630
  bills, they are charged only upon votes in Supply, and they may be paid off at certain short periods; but we know that practically the Vote for the renewal of Exchequer bills is taken annually as a matter of course, that Exchequer bills are just as much a portion of the permanent debt as Consols, that precisely the same public obligation applies; and that, although there is a power of varying the interest, we should for all practical purposes regard Exchequer bills as being as much a portion of the National Debt as the Three per Cents. The amount of Exchequer bills on the 1st of July last was undoubtedly large, but it was not larger than the unfunded debt had been in previous times, even with the addition of £4,000,000 of Exchequer bonds. Let the House bear in mind, however, that a large portion of the Exchequer bills—namely, £7,600,000 were held by the Commissioners of Savings' Banks. Practically, therefore, they were withdrawn from the market—they were in the hands of the Government, and they did not influence the market rate of Exchequer bills. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the exercise of a discretion which he possesses under an Act of Parliament, and which had been often exercised in previous times, but not, I think, until last January since 1853, funded £7,600,000; and the point which I was desirous of hearing explained by the Secretary for the Treasury was what was the motive of funding that amount, because I am not aware that any advantage accrued either to the Government or to the Commissioners of Savings' Banks from that operation. The Commissioners held a large portion of stock; they also held a large amount of Exchequer bills; they could have sold either the one or the other according to the state of the market; and, therefore, although I do not dispute the legal power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and although that power had been exercised by many of his predecessors, including some of our best financiers, I do not clearly understand at present wherein the benefit to the Commissioners of Savings' Banks, or to the Government, consisted in the operation which took place. The Exchequer bills were at a premium of 37 s. per cent., and therefore the Commissioners could, by going into the market, to a certain extent have realized their bills at a premium. If Exchequer bills had been at a great discount, there might have been a stronger primâ facie case for the exercise of the power possessed

  1631
  by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, seeing that the Commissioners held a large amount of stock—much more than sufficient to meet any demand by depositors—which they could at any time realize, and seeing that Exchequer bills were at a high premium in the market, I cannot understand, without further explanation, what was the motive of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in funding the entire amount of the Exchequer bills held by the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman, when addressing the House on the previous occasion, seemed to think that he was following out a policy which I had commenced during the war. It is true that during the war, when money was raised by the issue of fresh Exchequer bills, it was found advisable that some of them should be taken by the Commissioners of Savings' Banks. That I believed at the time was an operation advantageous to the Government, to the public, and not less so to the Commissioners; but I did net, while I held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, resort to any funding of Exchequer bills in the hands of the Commissioners, and I am not aware that anything occurred until January last to render such an operation expedient. It is one thing that the power exists, and another that it should be exercised without any apparently sufficient reason. With respect to the Motion of my hon. Friend, that is a general question, going beyond the particular operation under our consideration. This power exists at present by Act of Parliament, and I apprehend that the fact of the House acceding to this Resolution would not repeal the provision of the existing Act. It would merely amount to the expression of an opinion on the part of the House, and the Government would then find itself armed with a legal power, which in point of law it was justified in exercising, but would scarcely know whether its discretion was fettered by the Resolution of the House. On account of the form of the Resolution, I shall not be able to support the Motion. If the question were to be brought under the consideration of the House with a practical view, the proper course would be to bring in a Bill to repeal the provision I have alluded to, and deprive the Government of the power it now possesses by statutory enactment. But that raises the question as to the expediency of this power, and to decide that question we must look to the Report of the Committee of last Session containing the recommendation.
  1632
  The main object of that Committee was to investigate the administration of the savings banks, and incidentally the Committee considered the financial questions involved in the management of the money of the savings banks, and the powers with which Government is invested. Though I fully admit the value of the opinions of this Committee on the general question of the management of savings banks, I must, with great respect for the hon. Members who composed it, express some doubt as to the consideration they gave to the financial questions involved in their Report, and to show my reason for distinguishing between these two parts of the Report I would call attention to one remark made by the Committee, which seems decisive as to the fact that they had not carefully considered the financial part of the question. In page 6 the Report states that during the period from 1828 to 1844 there were large transactions in the purchase and sale of Exchequer bills by the Commissioners of the Savings' Banks, and then it goes on to say that it appears that the money of the savings' banks was frequently employed in the purchase of Exchequer bills, when they were at a discount, and that such purchases continued for a considerable period of time. I take it that the meaning of this part of the Report is that the Savings' Bank Commissioners abused their trust, because they bought Exchequer bills when they were at a discount. Now, it must be quite obvious that if the Savings' Banks Commissioners bought Exchequer bills when they were at a premium, they might have made a bad bargain for the public; but if they bought them at a discount, they bought them at a time when the purchase was most advantageous to the public. Therefore, that very circumstance, which this Committee point out as proving the disadvantageous nature of the transactions of the Commissioners and the abuse of their trust, is the clearest proof that they made an advantageous bargain, and understood better than the Committee the nature of their trust. I therefore think that the Committee did not very carefully consider the financial bearings of the question, and on that account am the less disposed to place any very great value upon their recommendation in respect to this part of the subject. Just let us look at the two branches of the recommendation of the Committee. They recommend that no sale or purchase of Exchequer bills, stock, or securities in the hands of the Commis-

  1633
  sioners, should be made except as required for the purposes of the savings' banks. Practically speaking, the Government is the banker for the savings' banks. The money paid over by the depositors in the saving's banks is employed by the Government as an independent banker. The Government is debtor to the savings' banks, and acting as a banker for them it is reasonable that it should have the power to vary its securities and to sell stock and buy Exchequer bills, or sell Exchequer bills and buy stock, according as the state of the market renders either operation advantageous. There is nothing out of the way of a banker in these two operations, and the recommendation of the Committee would deprive the Commissioners of the Savings' Banks of that power. It is also proposed that with respect to the funding of Exchequer bills the hands of the Government should be tied up. I am not prepared to say that there is any very great value to the Government in the possession of that power. It is possible, however, that circumstances might arise in which the power of funding Exchequer bills may be of importance. I confess it does not appear to me that it is a power liable to be serionsly abused. I cannot see any material difference between the funded debt and the unfunded debt. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to think that there is something more easy to discharge or light in pressure in the unfunded debt than in the funded debt. I apprehend that any belief of that kind is a complete delusion, and that the unfunded debt is just as much National Debt as the funded debt. Therefore this power, which sounds so alarming, of funding Exchequer bills does not very much frighten me in reference to its exercise; but whether that power is of any essential use to the Savings' Bank Commissioners or not, I think it most essential that they should have the power of varying their securities, and a satisfactory reason ought to be alleged why the Government, being the banker for the savings' banks, should not possess the ordinary powers of a banker to vary its securities, to sell stock and buy Exchequer bills, or sell Exchequer bills and buy stock. With respect to this ulterior power, I do not believe it is liable to any serious abuse. With regard to funding Ways and Means bills, no doubt that in that respect there would be a very serious abuse, and I quite agree that means ought to be taken for guarding against that misapplication of power. Practically the funding of Ways
  1634
  and Means bills does undoubtedly amount to a creation of funded debt without the authority of Parliament; but the House must clearly understand that when Exchequer bills are funded no debt is created without the authority of Parliament. Exchequer bills are just as much debt as Consols, and whether the form is transferred or not from unfunded to funded, the debt is still national, and as binding on the nation. The doubt, which I confess I entertain, is whether any advantage accrues to the public or to the Savings' Banks Commissioners from the power of funding Exchequer bills. Possibly some advantage may arise, and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to state an adequate reason for the operation.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he would not hare troubled the House with any observations on this occasion had he not been a Member of that Committee, which was referred to in not very complimentary terms by the right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis). The right hon. Gentleman thought that a Committee appointed to inquire into the application of the money of the savings' banks—to see whether that money was properly secured—had no business to inquire into the mode in which that money was invested.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he must beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had never questioned the power of the Committee. What he said was that, judging from the Report, it appeared to him that the Committee had not inquired so carefully into one branch of the subject as into another.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he thought it was certainly within the power of the Committee to inquire into the way in which these funds were invested. Why, the Government was the banker of the savings' banks; and a very safe banker it had been. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that one great question for that Committee to consider was, to what extent Government had tampered with the money, and whether successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had always placed the money entirely to the advantage of the savings' banks. He had not the official paragraph before him on which the right hon. Gentleman had commented, but the impression made upon his mind in Committee was this, that those changes in the securities which in themselves were legal, had not always been employed for the benefit of the savings' banks, but to aid a needy Chau-

  1635
  cellor of the Exchequer in his financial operations. That was the ground on which the Committee had recommended that some limit should be placed on the powers of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; for those Commissioners meant, after all, nothing more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now, he said it was the duty of the Committee to represent what was the view which they entertained upon that subject. They might, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, have been totally undeserving of any attention on the part of the House; but they had only performed their duty when they had recorded their opinion as to the propriety of continuing the powers vested in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Motion before the House would not carry with it the weight which would be desirable. It would be a mere Resolution which no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be bound to follow; and the proper mode of effecting the proposed object would be to pass an Act of Parliament which, during its progress through the House, would afford an opportunity of fully discussing the whole question. He confessed it had always appeared to him to be a most objectionable arrangement that any man should have the power secretly, without the cognisance of the public, and without that notoriety which was essential for the credit of the country, of transferring the unfunded into the funded debt, and thus throwing a mass of funded debt upon the market without notice. That was a power which he had no doubt had always been conscientiously exercised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which at times must be a source of considerable convenience to that Minister; but he did not think that convenience was a sufficient compensation for a proceeding of so irregular a character as that of entrusting any man with the power of secretly adding to the funded debt. He did not say that the transfer of Exchequer bills into Consols was an increase of the debt of the country; but it was, at all events, an increase of one portion of that debt without giving any notification upon the subject to the public. They had by that system a sort of mill into which Exchequer bills were thrown, and from which they came out funded debt, and that process could be carried on to any extent that might suit the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed that,
  1636
  however honestly and scrupulously such a power might be exercised, it must by its indirect influence be injurious to the credit of the country.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman opposite has proposed a Resolution to limit, in a particular point, the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the guardian of a very large mass of public money placed in his hands, and to provide that no funding of Exchequer bills held by the Commissioners of Savings' Banks be made for the future without the special authority of an Act of Parliament. The discussion which I have heard leaves upon my mind the impression that, whatever may be the merits of the particular transaction under review, the reasons for adopting which have net as yet been fully stated, the whole subject is one on which it would be in expedient for the House to come to any practical conclusion, unless it were founded upon a more thorough investigation of the subject than has yet taken place. It is quite plain that the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the keeper of the public money, are enormous. I don't hesitate to say that, in my opinion, they require review and reconsideration, and that in some important particulars they ought to be limited. Undoubtedly, however, if there be any one point of special danger to the public created by those powers, it is not that which is raised by the Motion of the hon. Gentleman; but it is the power which the Finance Minister possesses of creating new public debt by the funding of deficiency bills, or, in other words, of meeting deficiencies in the revenue of the country from year to year by the creation of new debt, without the authority of Parliament. That is an enormous power, and it is not merely speculative in its character; but it is a power which has been used in a manner highly detrimental to the public interest; and if the House is to go into the matter at all, it should direct its attention to that, which is by far the more serious part of the subject. With regard to the more limited question opened by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I agree that that also deserves the attention of Parliament, and that the state of things at present established by law is not altogether satisfactory. For the most part I concur in the views and observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis.) At the same time, I think that the House has not had sufficiently under its view the various questions that are involved in these great

  1637
  monetary transactions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chance for of the Exchequer is the greatest banker in the country, and I believe, also, that he is the greatest operator on the Stock Exchange in London. I don't enter upon the question of whether that should be so or not. I believe that it would be injurious to the public interest that you should altogether deprive him of his power in this respect; but, undoubtedly, he ought to act under rules and on principles that have been maturely considered and deliberately adopted by the House of Commons. Instead of that, we have a system which has grown up from time to time in great degree by haphazard. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is frequently in a difficulty to know how far he is justified in using the powers with which the law invests him, and it would be greatly for his advantage, as well as for the satisfaction of the public, that it should be determined by the House in what manner, and on what principles, he was to proceed. But the chief object which I have in rising is to notice what has been said by my hon. Friend behind me, (Mr. T. Baring) on the subject of savings' banks funds, because we are at issue on a point which it ought not to be difficult to settle. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) thinks that the funds in the hands of the Commissoners of the National Debt are the funds of the depositors in savings' banks. In my opinion there cannot be a more gross delusion. They are not the funds of the Commissioners of Savings' Banks any more than £50 remaining in a banker's till belongs to me if I happen to have deposited £50 with him. It does not belong to me, it is his money, to use it as he thinks fit, subject to its repayment to me. To say that the depositors in savings' banks were to place their money in the hands of a public body, and were to be responsible for the prudent use or gross misuse of their funds by that body, would be doing them anything but a kindness. It would be impossible to lay down a rule that would be more ruinous to the depositors themselves. What do you do? You take the money of these depositors, and you give them the entire security of the public for their money. They cannot have a better security, and if you give them that they have no interest in the employment of the money; it does not signify to them if you fling it to the bottom of the sea. So long as the Treasury of the country is sound, it does not matter one rush what
  1638
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer does with the money. If he invests it well they are no richer, and if he plays all the tricks of the mountebank, or disposes of it with the artifices of the swindler, they are none the poorer. The depositors in savings banks have nothing to do with the question, and it is only weakening and impairing their position to make them depend upon the prudence of the Minister instead of upon the credit of the British public. I do not entirely follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis), when he says that there never can be an increase of the public debt from a transaction such as that which recently occurred. With regard to that transaction I give no opinion. I know no more than he the reasons which led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt it; and I only speak, therefore, of the general principle. It does not appear but that there might be an increase of the public debt under the exercise of this power by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Commissioners for the Reduction of the Public Debt are the holders of £1,000,000 in Exchequer bills, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer funds that £1,000,000 at a rate that will expunge the assets of the Commissioners to that amount, replacing them by £1,100,000 of stock, the first impression of the transaction is that it is a more matter of account, and that the public is neither more nor less indebted than before, because the £1,100,000 is a portion of certain assets, the property of the public themselves; and if the public are, on the one hand, creditors, they are, on the other, debtors to that amount. But contingently the transaction may add to the public debt; for whereas before, by means of the £1,000,000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have gone into the market, and, by selling that amount, made the public really debtors to the buyers by £1,000,000, he has now the power of going into the market and selling £1,100,000; therefore, to the extent of the difference of £100,000, there might be a creation of new debt by a transaction of this kind. I would suggest, whether it would not be useful, while leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer the powers he now possesses, with regard to this exchange of securities—for that is really what is meant—to provide that all such transactions shall, as a matter of course, be brought under the review of a Committee of this House. I do not pretend that this should stand in the place of

  1639
  a consideration of further and fuller measures on the subject; but the House does entertain a certain amount of jealousy of these operations; in the City of London, also, the operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are regarded with considerable jealousy, because they interfere with the regular transactions in stock, and the House would be exercising its constitutional jurisdiction if, by some special organ, it assumed a periodical review of all operations of this kind. It is well worth the consideration of the House whether it should not make some provision that would prevent it depending on any individual Member inviting attention to the subject—whether there should not be some regular and fixed machinery by which operations of this kind could be brought under the consideration of Parliament, and regulated beforehand. It would be dangerous to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall not exercise this power, because the advantage of an operation might be lost by the necessity of making an application to Parliament; but it is quite another thing to provide the means of a more rapid submission of the operation to the audit of the House of Commons.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had brought this subject under the attention of the House when the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the House did its duty, it would not allow this Act to remain on the Statute-book. Such powers ought not to be intrusted to any Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had never known them exercised without the public sustaining a loss by it. He trusted, therefore, the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and bring in a Bill to repeal the existing Act.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that a statement had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), in which he could not altogether agree. His right hon. Friend had stated, that in all those transactions no injury was done to the savings' bank depositors, and that they had no interest in that question. Now he (Mr. Henley) was perfectly ready to admit that the savings' bank depositors had the best possible security in the guarantee of the State, and that it did not matter to them how their money was disposed of. But his right hon. Friend should recollect that there was something besides the principal of those depositors involved in the matter, and that was, the interest which they received. A com-
  1640
  plaint had frequently been made by gentlemen representing the Government, that that interest was excessive; but such a complaint could not be put forward if the capital in that case were judiciously invested, and in that way the depositors had an interest in the mode in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with their money.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I will recall the attention of the House to the question really before it. I will not enter into collateral questions, which are, no doubt interesting, but really do not concern the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. His Motion is,
  "That in future no funding of Exchequer bills held by the Commissioners of Savings' Banks be made without the special authority of an Act of Parliament."
  For the last funding of such bills I am responsible, as it was done by my advice Consequently the hon. Gentleman asks the House to agree to what I must regard as a vote of censure notwithstanding his courteous expressions, for as the House is called upon to legislate in consequence of that operation it implies a disapproval of that operation. I have been called on by the right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis) to state why the Government funded an amount of £7,600,000 in Exchequer bills. I will tell the House the reasons that induced me to take that course. In the course of the autumn my attention was very much called to this subject, by complaints on the part of the Commissioners of Savings' Banks that they were losing on the securities in their hands—that they did not receive that interest on them they would receive from another form of investment. It may be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt are the same parties, but that is not so. There are two accounts—one of the savings' banks, the other the general account of the country. Not wishing to see a loss regularly occurring in the savings' bank account, although it diminished the immediate charge upon the Exchequer, we avoided it altogether by changing the security. But, although that was a reason, I candidly admit it was not the only reason, which induced me to sanction tins operation. My attention was called to that to which no person in my position could be insensible,—namely, that a very delicate state of the Exchequer bill market might occur, in consequence of the great

  1641
  amount of Exchequer bills in existence; and I had to consider what might be the effect if a necessity should arise for placing so large an amount of Exchequer bills in the market. I naturally inquired what was the reason that the Savings' Bank Commissioners were in possession of so unusually large an amount of Exchequer bills as between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000. Perhaps the House would like to know how very rapidly that amount has accrued. At the close of the year 1854 the Commissioners held only £200,000 of Exchequer bills. It is very true that they had £1,600,000 of Exchequer bonds, which made altogether of unfunded debt in their possession £1,800,000. On the 5th of July, 1855, between bills and bonds the amount was £3,315,000. At the close of that year the amount was £4,886,000; and on the 5th of July, 1856, it was £6,875,000. The amount having reached between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000, it appeared to me that that was a very dangerous state for us to be placed in. The Exchequer bill market being naturally from the unsatisfactory character of the security a very delicate market in times of financial pressure, it appeared to us advisable to fund a portion of the Exchequer bills to prevent the possibility of our being compelled by the demands of the savings' banks to sell them in the market at a moment when there might be a great scarcity of money. Suppose such a state of affairs as prevailed at the end of the year 1857 had suddenly arisen at a time when the Exchequer bills were advertised for payment, the Minister would have found that the savings' banks could not give him any assistance, inasmuch as their resources would have been entirely absorbed and clogged by their holding these £7,000.000 or 8,000,000 of Exchequer bills. That state of things was very unsatisfactory, not only to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to the Commissioners of Savings' Banks themselves. It was thought necessary to sanction a change which would put an end to that system, but that sanction was not hastily given. My hon. Friend the Member for Hunting-don talked of needy Chancellors of the Exchequer who availed themselves of these changes for their own benefit; but I would impress on the House, and remind that in this instance the change was made for the benefit of the savings' banks themselves, because the National Debt Commissioners, instead of holding a security which
  1642
  yielded them a less interest than they paid to the savings' banks, received for that a security which avoided a loss to the fund. And that is the real reason which prevailed with me in sanctioning the funding of this large amount of Exchequer bills held by the savings' banks. I believe I took a course very much for the advantage of the savings' banks, but in it the Government were really not at all interested, because these Exchequer bills were not floating in the market. They were practically in the possession of the Government. I was obliged to look to the circumstances which had arisen from this rapid increase of Exchequer bills in the hands of the Savings' Bank Commissioners, and it appeared that these circumstances had arisen in a very legitimate and proper manner. I do not for a moment question the propriety of the course which occasioned them, but they arose in consequence of a very exceptional and extraordinary state of things—namely, the occurrence of a war, to carry on which this House voted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might raise money by the issue of Exchequer bills. Well, that transaction was closed. I looked upon the funding of these Exchequer bills as a virtual completion of the transaction and I have no hesitation in using a phrase used by the hon. Gentleman opposite,—no doubt it was the virtual completion of a loan which the country had obtained to carry on the war. But the transaction was completed legally, and also most satisfactorily to the Savings' Bank Commissioners. If the assertion of the hon. Member for Lambeth that Chancellors of the Exchequer have never interfered in transactions of this kind, except for their own benefit, be correct, I can assure him that at least this transaction was of no advantage whatever to the Government beyond the advantage that must always accrue when funds of this kind are in a satisfactory and healthy condition. This is the real reason why this funding took place, and I believe the operation was necessary, and strictly in consonance with the law. I will not touch the various collateral topics which have been introduced into this debate. I deprecate the adoption of this Motion. I think the subject could not be dealt with at all satisfactorily by acceding to it. But I am perfectly willing to admit, as I have admitted on a previous occasion that the state of our unfunded debt is by no means satisfactory. I do not think that Exchequer bills, as an instrument of

  1643
  security are adapted to the times in which we live. The shortness of their date, the possibility of a large amount becoming due upon them at a moment when there is a great strain upon the money-market, and even when there is a great panic in the public mind, is highly disadvantageous; and I think it quite possible that the wisdom of the Administration and of Parliament may some year or other substitute some instrument to carry on the conduct of our unfunded debt more effectively than by any instrument which at present exists. The whole subject of Exchequer bills is and has been for some time under the consideration of the Government, in consequence of the recomendations contained in the report of the Committee on public moneys. I regret very much that circumstances have prevented me from bringing any of the recommendations of that Committee before the House, but I hope I shall be very shortly able to do so. I can then speak more definitely than would be convenient at present on the subject of Exchequer bills. I hope that, for the reasons I have stated, the House will reject the Motion of the hon. Member.
  MR. WILSONsaid, so far from the Exchequer bill market being in a delicate state he found by the returns that when this transaction took place Exchequer bills were at a premium of from 34 s. to 37 s. But there was another point. The transaction took place in January. Parliament was to meet in a few days, and the question might easily have been left to its determination. When the Exchequer market was in a delicate state on a former occasion the then Government had funded £5,000,000 with the authority of Parliament, but the Exchequer bills on that occasion were not in the hands of the Government, but were purchased in the open market. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Exchequer bills funded were in the hands of the Government, and his funding them therefore could make no difference to the money market. He had, however, greatly increased the permanent public debt by this measure. If they had not been converted he would have had to provide for interest the sum of £160,000 for the Exchequer bills, but the effect had been to swell that to £240,000 as the interest payable on the consols thus created. He had volunteered to make a sacrifice of the difference of the interest for the purpose of relieving the Commissioners; but in the long run the Savings'
  1644
  Banks Commissioners, being liable for the interest, would be in precisely the same condition. He defied any man to show that there was any saving to the Exchequer or the Savings' Banks Commissioners by this transaction. But there was this difference, that as long as they kept this obligation in the form of unfunded debt they must come to the House, year by year, for authority to receive the Exchequer bills, to discuss the question; whereas, when it was once funded, it was taken out of the cognizance of the House. Moreover, as long as the amount was in the shape of Exchequer bills, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could take advantage of the variations in the rate of interest in making his periodical exchanges, which he could not in the case of the funded debt. He denied that it was the same thing to ask the House for a loan as it was to ask for permission to issue Exchequer bonds. The amount of the Exchequer bills was stated by the right hon. Gentleman to be very large, but £20,000,000 of Exchequer bills was not a very large amount to be floating, the average of the last few years having been £18,000,000. He did not pretend to say that any immediate loss had accrued to the public from the operation to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred; though in its ultimate results the transaction might be attended with some loss.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he would withdraw the Motion.
  Motion by leave, withdrawn.

MILITARY ORGANIZATION.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the effects of the alterations in Military Organization regrding the War Office and Board of Ordnance which were made in the year 1855, and also to inquire whether any changes are required to secure the utmost efficiency and economy in the administration of Military Affairs. It was needless to point out the increased security for the preservation of peace and the goodwill of its neighbours which a great couutry must derive free the completeness of its military organization, and its capacity to meet the requirements of any sudden exigency. The Count de Montalembert, in his pamphlet entitled Un Dêbat sur l'Inde, had told them that England had lost her military prestige in consequence of certain events

  1645
  which took place in the Crimea. If this were true—and he had no intention now to dispute the dictum of so high au authority—this result was not due to any degeneracy on the part of the British soldier, or to any declension in the Anglo Saxon race. The Alma and Inkerman gave the lie to any such assertion, to say nothing of the great deeds of valour and endurance daily performed by our countrymen, amid circumstances of the most incredible hardship, in the trenches before Sebastopol. The real cause was that our system was not equal to our material. The sum to he expended for the maintenance of our army during the ensuing year was, according to the estimate of the Secretary of War, about £12,000,000 sterling, and the same right hon. and gallant Gentleman had told the House they could not hope to see the number of our troops materially reduced. It was there-fore most important that they should satisfy themselves whether the military establishments, for which so heavy an outlay was incurred were efficiently and economically conducted. He understood that no opposition would be offered by the Government to the proposal for inquiry, and he should have left the question there were it not that certain erroneous notions were entertained respecting the object of his motion. It had been said that he sought to do away with the functions of the Commander-in-Chief and to transfer to the hands of civilians all power over our military departments. Nothing could be further from his intention. On the contrary, he should be glad to see more military and practical knowledge introduced into the administration of the army; and certainly he should not have chosen this particular moment for casting such a slur upon an honourable and gallant profession, as to say that no administrative talent was to be found among soldiers. Not only by his services in the field, but by the ability which he had shown at the Horse Guards, the Commander-in-Chief had commanded universal respect. The civil departments, too, were presided over by a general officer whose diligence and zeal were acknowledged by all; nor could he forget the services of such men as Sir Henry Storks, Colonel Lefroy, Major Marvin, and many other military men. He did not wish to trench on the authority of the Commander in Chief; but he maintained that if they had two high functionaries, independent of each other, and of equal authority, the one responsible to Parliament, and the other irresponsible, they could not
  1646
  expect to have harmony between the two departments unless they defined their relative duties and relations towards each other. Any change in this respect did not necessarily involve any curtailment of the power of the Commander-in-Chief, nor was that at all his object. On the contrary, if the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief were only defined, he should be glad to see that officer invested with even greater powers than he now possessed, so as to enable him to decide many questions as to which it was now necessary for him to confer with the Secretary for War. These views were in accordance with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert), who, in a memorandum which he left in the War Office in 1854, proposed to constitute for the transaction of business between the Secretary of State, the Military Departments, and the Civil Departments a Board to be composed of the Secretary of State, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Master General of the Ordnance, of which the Secretary of State should be president, and one of the Under Secretaries secretary. This plan had been partly carried into effect by the present Secretary of State; because he understood that once a week a meeting took place at the War Office, at which the Commander-in-Chief, the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and the two Under Secretaries were present, and at which various questions of detail were discussed and settled vivâ voce, which formerly gave rise to long and sometimes to unpleasant correspondence. If that system worked well let it be adopted as part of our military system, and not allowed to depend upon the caprice of the Minister for War. He should not, however, have referred to these matters but for the purpose of removing the erroneous impression that had got abroad with regard to his motives in bringing forward his present Motion. The Committee he asked for was one to inquire into what was the present condition of military administration, for it could not be disputed that at present it was so very deficient that in the event of another great war it would entirely break down. He knew his right hon. and gallant Friend was making great changes, and had no doubt that when inquired into they would be found of a very efficient character; but a great deal remained to be done. He could give one or two illustrations of the system existing at present in the War Department, which would, he thought, show that, were any

  1647
  great strain to be made upon it, the greatest confusion would result. For instance, he would describe the journey of a letter addressed to the War Department. No doubt some hon. Gentleman might have had occasion at times to communicate with that Department, and might probably have felt surprised at the length of time that elapsed before they obtained any reply. First of all the letter went to the office of the central registry. The average number of letters to the War Department daily was about 1,200; therefore the person whose duty it was to read the letter and refer it to the branch to which it belonged would not have very much time to do so; and it very often happened that he sent it off haphazard, perhaps to Whitehall-yard, instead of to Pall Mall or to the Horse Guards. But supposing it reached the branch to which it was directed, then the junior clerk would read it, and make a minute upon it of his opinion of the contents; the head of the room would make his minute; and the head of the branch would make his minute. Those Minutes would very often not agree, and perhaps it would be necessary to refer some question to some other department; but eventually it would come to the Under Secretary of State, who would put upon it, "I concur;" then, perhaps, Sir Benjamin Hawes would add, "I agree;" and, lastly, the Secretary for War would endorse the letter, "I approve." But by that time it would be so covered with Minutes that it became a matter of doubt to which the approval referred. Then if a question had to be referred to the Admiralty, the delay was still greater, and indeed many complaints were made of the dilatory replies given by that department. As an example of this, he would relate the following circumstance that occurred only a day or two ago. An officer was ordered on foreign service; he applied to the proper quarter for his passage. After three weeks' delay he obtained an answer, dated the 24th of the month, ordering him to sail in a ship that had started on the 22nd. Many such instances might be narrated. Some time ago a requisition was made for some oats to be sent to the Cape of Good Hope. He was not going to colour this story in the slightest degree, but simply to relate it as it actually occurred. It was, he thought, a tolerably good sample of circumlocution business. The officer, whose business it was to dispatch the oats, applied for information as to how they should go. A
  1648
  junior clerk with considerable zeal immediately took the matter into his consideration, and having read the question, after mature reflection, put a Minute on the letter to the effect that they should go in sacks. But it happened that he had a rival in his room, who, wishing, perhaps, not only to show equal zeal, but superior judgment, endorsed another Minute, giving it as his opinion that the oats should be sent in tubs. The head of the room then took the matter into his consideration, and he was for barrels. It then became the subject of discussion by the Director of Stores and his clerks, and eventually was brought under the attention of Sir Benjamin Hawes, who held that sacks were decidedly the best medium. In the mean-time, however, the requisition for the oats was entirely forgotten, and nobody heard any more of it until six months afterwards, when a letter came from the Cape, asking why they had not been sent. He would not weary the House by multiplying suck illustrations as these; but he contended, that in the present uncertainty as to the maintenance of peace we ought to look into our military organization, and so arrange it that we might not again witness the spectacle of a magnificent army sacrificed to the defects of a system.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, the Government had determined from the first to grant the proposed Committee, and certainly there was nothing in the very able and temperate speech of the hon. and gallant Member which could induce them to alter their resolution. The hon. and gallant Member had not attempted to cast censure upon, or express want of confidence in, the heads of the military Departments, nor had he seized upon the present occasion to make a display of party spirit. His object seemed to be to inquire, not whether the existing system of military Government was properly administered, but whether the system itself could be improved. [Captain VIVIAN: Quite so]. To that the Government had, of course, no objection. They not only admitted that improvements had been and might be introduced, but he, himself, had authorized great changes, many of which were now in course of being carried out. The present Motion of the hon. and gallant Member was different from that which he submitted last year. The latter concluded by asking the House to resolve that a divided responsibility existed between the Minister for War and the Commander-in-Chief, and that greater efficiency would be

  1649
  obtained by placing the two departments under one head. On the present occasion the hon. and gallant Member, although he might retain his opinion unchanged, did not ask the House to come to any such resolution, but simply wished that the subject might be referred to a Committee. The hon. and gallant Mover had shown by the illustrations he had given, that he knew more about internal arrangements of the Department than he (General Peel) did, for he had never heard of the great controversy about the barrels and sacks. Of course the 1,200 letters spoken of could not receive the individual attention of the Secretary of State for War, and indeed there were ninny questions besides those of the "barrels and sacks" that had to be decided without his interference. He could only say, for his own part, that if any beneficial change could be introduced, he should be happy to see it carried into effect. There was no intention, he hoped, to submit the undoubted prerogative of the Crown to the consideration of a Committee, or to subject the discipline and command of the army to any greater control than that which the House now justly exercised by having a Minister directly responsible for every shilling voted by Parliament for the military service, and, at the same time, indirectly responsible for the manlier in which the duties of Commander-in-Chief were performed. He would not follow the hon. and gallant Member into all the details which he had submitted to the House, but he could not admit that the prestige of the British army had deteriorated, or that if it should ever be our misfortune to be engaged in another war the existing system would be found so utterly defective as the hon. and gallant Member seemed to suppose. The system to which the hon. and gallant Member had alluded was that which existed during the Crimean war. It had been completely altered since, and the question as to whether any further improvements could be introduced, he, for one, would gladly leave to the decision of the Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONremarked that if the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin (Captain Vivian) would be kind enough to furnish him with the particulars of the cases of mismanagement which he alleged had taken place in the navy, he would take care that they should receive full and prompt attention.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he could not but express his satisfaction at finding that the
  1650
  Government were disposed to acquiesce in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin. He could not speak from any personal experience to any of the circumstances to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred, but he knew there was a very general and wide-spread feeling that the great advantages which were expected to flow from the consolidation of the military Departments had not, as yet, been realized, nor had the new machine, as far as the information of the public went, been found to work with the simplicity and case which some persons had anticipated. He did net know to what causes that might be attributable, but he, for one, did not believe it was owing to any shortcoming on the part of the Minister of War, who had devoted himself with rare assiduity to the duties of his office, from which he had seldom, if ever, been absent since the first day of his appointment. The Motion which the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin brought forward last year was open to many serious objections, but the present was one of a simple, practical, and temperate character, and as such he would have great pleasure in recording his vote for it, hoping that the labours of the proposed Committee might be productive of benefit to the public service.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he fully agreed with the right hon. and gallant General, and with the noble Lord, when they remarked with satisfaction upon the altered tone of the hon. and gallant Member's notice as compared with that of last year. He thought that the tendency of that inquiry would have been to place the Commander-in-Chief more under the civil authority than lie was at present. But he (General Codrington) could not see that it was competent to the House to interfere in the disposition of the Queen's forces; and therefore he hoped the two questions would be kept separate. The Commander-in-Chief ought to be responsible for the condition of the army to the Queen's Ministers. That was a necessary part of the constitution of the country, and he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had given his consent to the appointment of a Committee, which might place the necessary powers more fully at his disposal and within his control.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he fully concurred with the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding, that there were circumstances connected with this important topic, which required investigation by a

  1651
  Committee, and he was glad that the Government had assented to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin. The hon. and gallant Member for Bodmin Lad spoken of the departments of the army as though, from the highest to the lowest, they had all been admirably administered—he eulogized all the heads and even subordinates of departments; and yet discovered that ludicrous mismanagement had occurred. But there were points on which he (Sir De L. Evans) desired to say a few words. The hon. and gallant Member had varied the terms of his Motion, and said he now desired to augment the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. The discipline and control of the army must undoubtedly remain with the Commander-in-Chief; but there was a question of patronage to be considered, which stood upon an entirely different footing, and seemed to be at the bottom of most of the disputes between the military and other departments of the Government. He was not at all desirous that the patronage at the disposal of the Horse Guards and the Commander-in-Chief should be increased. It was intended, he trusted, to invest the Parliamentary representative of the military forces of the country with additional power. He thought that was a course which ought to be pursued. His responsibility was, or ought to be, to that House in all military questions, whether in time of peace or war; then he ought to have practical power, how otherwise was he to be responsible? That was certainly the opinion of the public and of Parliament. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken, he believed, of the deterioration of the scientific branches of the army. The changes which had taken place had been at first popular among Ordnance officers, because they felt that there were at the Horse Guards prejudices which were injurious to them professionally, and that those prejudices had originated in the Horse Guards not having unlimited control over the Ordnance Department. They thought that if the Ordnance Department were placed under the control of the Horse Guards, they would obtain their share of staff appointments. That, however, had not in the least been the result. During a long course of years the Artillery and Engineers, whilst under the Board of Ordnance, had been kept in a high state of efficiency; though whether the matter was managed with as much economy as it might have been, he was not prepared to
  1652
  say. Since the change there seemed to be scarcely any head of the Artillery. They were both under the immediate authority of the Horse Guards. He had perfect respect for the gentlemen at the Horse Guards, but he must say he believed that none of them were intimately acquainted with the Engineer or the Artillery Department. There was an officer of great experience still on the staff of the Engineers, but there was no such officer at the head of the Artillery, though the force numbered 24,000 men. Formerly there was a Director General of Artillery, and also an Adjutant General, both officers of rank and experience, and capable of contributing greatly to the efficiency of that arm. Both these offices bad been abolished; and they had got a lieutenant-colonel or a colonel, he did not recollect which, who was a good officer, but who wanted experience, and whose rank was not sufficient for his position. Whether time Ordnance Board were restored or not, he should like to see a Director General and Inspector General of Artillery restored. He hoped that the expediency of giving to this part of the army staff officers of competent rank and experience would be considered. How did it happen that the small force of 6,000 men who composed the Foot Guards had an Inspector General, an Assistant Adjutant General, an aide-de-camp, &c. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Hill did not think it necessary that there should be an Inspector General of Foot Guards; they directed any superior officer at the Horse Guards who could spare an hour or two now and then to inspect the Guards. He should recommend the Secretary for War to abolish the office of Inspector General of Foot Guards, and then, without additional expense, he might place an Artillery officer of rank on the staff service of that arm. The result of the changes which had taken place in the Artillery and Engineers might not be appreciated at once, but in the course of a few years the consequence of the neglect might be seriously felt in every part of the empire where the Artillery and the Engineers were required. The general feeling was, that there was at present a species of anarchy in the War Department, and it had grown into such monstrous dimensions that he was not surprised that there was a little difficulty in arranging its affairs. Everything depended upon this Committee being well chosen, and upon witnesses being summoned who were able to

  1653
  elucidate the truth, otherwise the whole proceeding would be of no utility whatever.
  CAPTAIN VIVIAN,in explanation, said, that what he had stated this evening was not very different from what he had said last year. He should not object to the hands of the Commander-in-Chief being strengthened if his duties were strictly defined.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed—
  "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 are required to secure the utmost efficiency and economy in the administration of Military Affairs,"

  CHURCH RATES—RESOLUTIONS.
  SIR ARTHUR ELTONsaid, he rose to move the Resolutions of which he had given notice with respect to Church Rates. He was anxious to explain to the House what he meant by these Resolutions, and also what he did not mean. He did not mean to place himself in any antagonistic position to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) for he considered the principles of these Resolutions were quite compatible with the Bill which the hon. Baronet intended to carry into effect; but, he wished that those principles should be thoroughly discussed and ventilated in that House to enable him or some Member better qualified, to base on these Resolutions a Bill, having for its object, not merely the abolition of church rates, but due provision for the maintenance of parish churches throughout the country. It gave him pain to vote yesterday against the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), because he entertained the highest respect for him—a respect which he believed was shared by the whole House, and by no means diminished by recent events. He put every faith in the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity in bringing forward the measure in question, but the more he examined the provisions of that Bill the more he was satisfied that it was calculated to do harm instead of good; that it would open the door to fresh strife, and, instead of closing the wounds caused by church-rate contests, would rather tear open wounds which were already half healed. His own opinion was that the abolition of church rates must form the main ingredient in any Measure brought forward upon this subject. The ground had been so often travelled over
  1654
  that it would not be becoming in him to trespass long upon the House, but he did desire to place before them the reasons why church rates should be abolished, for the sake of the peace of society and the welfare of the Church, as soon as possible. He based his reasons for that proposition, first, upon the continuous strife caused by the impost, and secondly upon the great difficulty of making and levying church rates. During the recess there was a great meeting at Cheadle in Cheshire upon the occasion of its being proposed, after two or three years' discontinuance of church rates, to levy a rate. The meeting having been called, 2,000 or 3,000 persons assembled, and when the Church authorities, struck by the appearance of so great a multitude, proposed to make the rate voluntary, they were treated with contempt, and the meeting adjourned sine die. The people afterwards went round the place in omnibuses and other conveyances, with bands of music playing "See the conquering hero comes." At Woolwich, a churchwarden, whose duty it was to uphold the Church, had himself voted against a church rate, an example which of course had a demoralizing tendency. Upon the ground of the strife caused and the injury done to the welfare of the Church, he strongly advocated the abolition of church rates. There were four ways in which a church rate might be frustrated—by electing for churchwarden a Dissenter, pledged not to levy a rate; by throwing out the proposition in vestry; by disputing the legality of the rate in the Ecclesiastical Court; and, lastly, by persons preferring to go to prison rather than pay the rate. It might be asked, why should they not allow the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) to pass purely and simply without making any provisions for the maintenance of the Church at all? But upon that point he contended that Churchmen had a right to be heard. It appeared to him that in that House Dissenters were treated with a great deal more civility and patience than were Members of the Church of England. He had great respect for the Dissenting body; they formed a most useful and important body in great towns; but they ought not for that reason to ignore the feelings and rights of Churchmen. Therefore, while the first of the Resolutions which he should submit to the House, set forth that church rates should be abolished, the second Resolution provided the machinery, which he thought of the greatest importance for giving free scope to the libe-

  1655
  rality of the laity when the compulsory system was abolished. He was sorry to perceive that in some quarters there was an unwillingness to meet Churchmen's feelings on this subject. He appealed to all fair-minded Dissenters whether it was just that they should deprive the Church of the compulsory means of raising funds for the maintenance of the parish church, and at the same time insist on fettering Churchmen when they desired to act with due liberality towards the Church. The object of his second Resolution was simply to improve the existing quasi corporation consisting of the churchwardens; and to render it a corporation with a common seal, by which means they would be able to bind their successors—an important matter when the management of property was concerned—and property bequeathed to one set of churchwardens would descend, not to their natural heirs, but to their successors in office. Great objection was made to tying up the property of the country, but the endowments which he contemplated were no new things, but existed in many parts of the country, and were, no doubt, found to be very useful, and much preferable to church rates. He did not propose to go as far as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) proposed by the Bill which was thrown out yesterday. He did not propose that tenants for life should have power to saddle their property with charges for the benefit of the Church, for that appeared to him to be an extravagant notion. He considered that the Mortmain Law should be relaxed to a certain extent, but not to the extent of there being an unlimited power to grant or devise land for Church purposes. He only proposed that there should be such a reasonable licence as the Church might fairly expect. Some people seemed to think the Mortmain Law a natural state of things, whereas it was an artificial restriction, and a restriction which ought to be removed when they deprived the Church of the legal means of procuring support which it had when this Mortmain Law was imposed in George II's reign. It would be no injury to the Dissenters to relax that law, and that being so, it was unreasonable that a measure which would benefit the Church should be rejected by those who did not belong to the Church. He would rather, however, rely on the spontaneous benevolence of the parishioners than upon any charges by landowners upon their land. In St. Matthew, one of the districts of Bethnal Green, there was a very poor popula-
  1656
  tion, consisting of about 10,000 persons, of whom 1,000 went to church; yet this population contributed sufficient funds to defray all the expenses of maintaining the fabric and of Divine worship. The people who earned 12 s. or 14 s. a week contributed small sums quarterly for that purpose. There was one instance of two poor men who sold mats about the streets, and who each contributed 6d. a quarter. This afforded encouragement for relying for aid for supporting the Church upon the benevolence of the parishioners. In his third Resolution he proposed that the payment of a certain sum should give a seat in the church vestry; and he thought that a low figure should be named, for the Church would get more by that means. The vestry or Committee should audit the accounts of the past year, determine the amount of outlay for the next, and generally co-operate with regard to the raising of the necessary funds. This church vestry or committee would not necessarily exclude Dissenters. Any Dissenter who might choose to contribute the small annual sum which might be fixed, would be free to become a member of the vestry, and join in the management of the parish church. But when he was told by Dissenters that they looked on the National Church as national property, and that they had a right to enter the vestry and take part in its proceedings, he could not understand why Dissenters should in that case conscientiously object to pay for a church any more than for a road, a bridge, or even for the House in which they were then assembled, or any other national purpose. However, he met this by proposing that all who chose to show their interest in the parish church, by paying the small sum necessary for its repairs, should belong to the body which regulated the disposal of the money. It would be manifestly unjust that any man should have a share in the management who had contributed nothing towards the fund. In his last Resolution he proposed that churchwardens should be chosen exclusively from the members of the church vestry, and that their purely secular duties be performed by the overseers. He relieved the churchwardens of their secular duties. Those duties were nearly obsolete. Churchwardens seldom acted with the overseers, except as a matter of form. Their other secular duties, such as receiving fines for drunkenness, heating parish boundaries, and so on, were obsolete. Their ecclesiastical duties were of a most important character. They not only took charge of the

  1657
  fabric of the parish church, but they had to maintain order during service, provide necessaries for Divine services, see that the clergyman did his duty, and in the event of the living becoming vacant, take care of the glebe. But he did not object to a Dissenter being a churchwarden, if the church vestry thought proper to elect him. He wished the parishioners to meet, and put shoulder to shoulder, to provide the funds which were now raised by the clumsy and ineffective machinery of the law, but which he believed would flow in more abundantly from a sense of duty and from the impulse of zeal and liberality. Any Bill which would embody the principles he had thus imperfectly enunciated might properly contain other provisions of a more or less useful and practical character. The question of pews was a difficult one, and required thorough investigation. In many parts of the country the pew system had been grievously abused, and had led to a large increase of dissent and a breach of good feeling between family and family. In the parish of Thornbury, in Gloucestershire, Sunday after Sunday, during the recent recess, there was a squabble in the parish church arising from a strong-minded lady who insisted on going every Sunday early to church and taking her position in a pew that was claimed by some one else; and the result was that the churchwarden had, Sunday after Sunday, to take her by the shoulders, sometimes probably with more violence than was agreeable, and walk her down the aisle and to the outside of the door. As an instance of the evils of the pew system, when abused, he might refer to the blue book of the Lords' Committee on "Means of Divine Worship." A clergyman went into one of the metropolitan churches and inquired what portion of the seats were free. The churchwarden replied that, according to the Act of Parliament, one-third of the seats should be free. The clergyman looked round, and seeing none, asked the churchwarden where they were; and the churchwarden looked round, too, and confessed that he did not see any either; but at last he pointed with his stick to a little flap fixed to a pew door, and said, "That is a free seat." The clergyman inquired if it was used, and the churchwarden replied that he used it to put his hat on. Now, these were evils of the pew system. It was a fact, however, that in some parishes, families preferred sitting together in a pew
  1658
  to being scattered abroad among the congregation. This was the feeling we must all respect; it was an English feeling; but, at the same time, there were parishes in the country where any attempt to introduce the system of letting pews would be highly objectionable. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock whether he did not think that those who most earnestly desired the abolition of church rates ought to approach the subject in a more conciliatory spirit than they had hitherto done? He wished to ask those hon. Members, who desired to secure the abolition of church rates, whether there was the smallest probability of their abolition being effected unless they sent up to another place a Bill which, whilst it provided for the abolition, should not refuse to take into consideration the just claims of Churchmen? He was convinced that those who desired to see a speedy settlement of this painful question should meet the members of the Church of England in an equitable and just spirit. He was supported in his Resolutions by many clergymen and friends of the Church of England, who were ready to give up the rates if only they were given some reasonable machinery to enable them to bear the burden which, after the abolition of church rates, would devolve upon them. And knowing this, he felt it to be his duty to bring the subject forward for discussion in that House. It was most important that means be taken to secure the passage of a Bill with this object safely through "another place;" and he was convinced that there would be more delay, year after year, unless the House of Commons sent up a Bill which should protect—he would not say merely Churchmen, but all those who contributed towards the funds of the Church—from interference on the part of those who did not contribute. This was the great principle he had at heart—that those who contributed to the parish church fund should be protected in the distribution of that fund. This was the principle on which he set the greatest store; and by the side of which he did not consider the other provisions of his Resolutions of equal importance. He asked hon. Members, therefore, of, whatever party, to consider whether they ought not to take into account the wishes of Churchmen on this subject. Granting the abolition of the church rate, ought they not to concede what Churchmen thought reasonable as a sort of substitute for the rate that was taken from them? He had felt

  1659
  reluctance in trespassing on the House, because he was sure that hon. Members must be wearied by the discussion which took place yesterday on the same subject; but he was in a manner pledged to bring it forward, and he should, whether sucessful or unsuccessful, feel that he had done his duty as far as it lay in his power to do so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this House, considering that Church Rates are productive of frequent strife and litigation, and have ceased to be levied in an increasing number of parishes, deems it advisable that they should be wholly discontinued, except for payment of existing charges thereon, and that the maintenance of the Fabric of the Church should be confided to the zeal and liberality of the clergy and laity."
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he was willing to give the hon. Baronet full credit for having acted with a sincere desire to discharge what he felt to be a duty. No doubt he had proposed his Resolutions from a desire to mitigate a calamity which be believed to be impending over the Church, but he did not think the time for introducing them was well chosen. As he understood them, the Resolutions proposed to effect by an abstract declaration that which at a later period of the evening it was proposed to do by means of a Bill. The hon. Baronet assuming that church rates were abolished, thought it desirable to provide some machinery by which the benevolent contributions of Churchmen might be gathered and distributed. But that was assuming what as yet had not been ratified by the voice of that House. He (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) did not know whether he might not hereafter, if the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) succeeded in obtaining a second reading for his Bill, propose to do so in Committee. If the total abolition of church rates should be agreed to he would be thankful to any one who would propose some machinery for providing those funds which it would be necessary to obtain from Churchmen. But he would submit to the hon. Baronet that he was rather putting the cart before the horse in proposing those Resolutions at present. The hon. Baronet no doubt desired to point out the machinery he thought would best answer the purpose in the event of such a calamity—for so he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) must regard it. The hon. Baronet had had the opportunity he sought, and had discharged what he considered to be his duty in a manner that must have given
  1660
  equal satisfaction to himself and the House, but looking at the state of the paper, and the fact that the previous day had been occupied by a debate upon the very same subject, and bearing in mind that the Resolutions if agreed to could have no practical effect, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) hoped the hon. Baronet would be content with having brought his propositions before the House, and would not press them further.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the hon. Baronet had done well in propounding a complete scheme for systematically organizing the voluntary maintenance of churches. The House was evidently advancing towards the total abolition of church rates. It must be total, but it need not be unconditional. Before they agreed to the abolition, they were bound to consider whether the voluntary principle could have free scope amidst existing institutions; and what conditions must be admitted in order to secure to it liberty of action. He had no doubt that if the maintenance of the fabric of the Church of England was thrown on the voluntary zeal and liberality of Churchmen there would be a satisfactory and efficient response to that appeal, and that few churches would fall into decay, at least in places where they were needed. But if a Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock for the total abolition should pass in its present shape, how could it be expected that a parish church would be maintained by persons who did not know to whom they were to entrust their contributions, who did not know how the money was to he spent, who had no machinery by which their zeal could attain the desired object. The hon. Baronet suggested a plan by which the parish churches in England, could be placed on an equality, and have the same advantages as the chapels built under trusts, whether belonging to the Church of England or to Dissenters. And such a plan as he bad sketched out was calculated to attain the object. It would secure a permanent corporation, with perpetual succession in every parish, and would give to persons who took sufficient interest in the Church to contribute their money to its maintenance—the security that their money would be spent under the control and by the direction of those who contributed it. But under present circumstances he joined in the suggestion that had been made, that the hon. Baronet would not attain any useful object by persevering in his Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that as a very humble member of the Church of England, he wished to express his concurrence with what had fallen from the right hon. Member who had just spoken. In fairness to the members of the Church of England, who valued the Establishment, which afforded accommodation to all who chose to avail themselves of it, he begged of the hon. Baronet to leave their hands free to provide what was necessary, if it should be the will of Parliament to alienate without compensation the provision hitherto made by the law for the service of the Church. The hon. Baronet, unintentionally no doubt, would place a limit on the really liberal feeling of Churchmen. He (Mr. Newdegate) valued the Church as a national Establishment, and as such he humbly tried to support her. He did not wish to confine the government of that Church to those who professed themselves to be Churchmen; but, trusting that she would continue to be the national Establishment, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not try to restrict the Church of aid from voluntary sources. He merely wished to enter his protest against what appeared to him to be a limit on the charitable benevolence of individual Churchmen which he was sure the hon. Baronet did not intend, but which might still be inferred from his Resolutions.
  SIR ARTHUR ELTONsaid, he should deal with the question of church rates very differently from what he had done if it were now before the House for the first time. But as a Bill for the repeal of the rates had been carried in that House last Session by a large majority, he had presumed that the House was in favour of the abolition of church rates; and he, there fore, taking that as a starting point, proceeded to examine what reasonable machinery might be provided to aid and encourage Churchmen in maintaining the fabric of their churches. He had no wish, as appeared to be supposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate), to prevent Dissenters from contributing to the church fund, as many had already done, and as many would, in all probability, continue to do. He did not wish to absolutely prohibit Dissenters from attending church vestries. He conceived that a Dissenter would be justified in contributing the small annual sum he proposed to fix, just as a Churchman might, on the ground that it was a national Church, and that therefore he was interested in its maintenance and
  1662
  welfare, and that the money he paid was not compulsory but voluntary, and was intended to give him the right of attending the church vestry. He had no intention, he repeated, of excluding Dissenters. On the contrary he contended that the vestry ought to be open to any one who would contribute to the expenses of the parish church. He begged further to say, in explanation, that the Resolutions were intended simply as a basis on which to proceed hereafter, that they contained the elements of a Bill, and were not intended to interfere with the Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistock. He would not, therefore, press his Resolutions upon the House. He had done his duty in bringing them forward; and if he had succeeded in directing attention to this important question he should feel amply satisfied.
  Motion by leave, withdrawn.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the subject of the Newfoundland Fisheries, and of moving the notice which he had placed upon the paper in relation thereto. The subject, he was fully aware, was a delicate one, and required to be handled with some caution, inasmuch as it involved questions of international law—questions, moreover, that were in dispute with a near ally of this country—and he trusted the house and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) would believe that he had brought it forward in no spirit of hostility towards the Government or of enmity towards that ally, but simply that it might be ventilated in this House as a subject of very grave importance. It was notorious that the French had made great demands in Newfoundland in respect of these fisheries. It was equally notorious that those demands had been met, of late years especially, by great concessions on the part of England; and the object of his Motion was to learn from the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) upon what principle the negotiations which were now taking place were based. He had been told that the papers he was about to move for could not be granted, because the question was at present matter of diplomatic correspondence, and that that correspondence would in some measure be incommoded if his Motion were complied with. But this question had been matter of diplo-

  1663
  matic correspondence ever since the year 1713, when by the Treaty of Utrecht, the Island of Newfoundland, was ceded to this country. It was well known that the concessions made by the English Government had not been carried out to their full extent, and that in consequence of the non-fulfilment of our engagements the French had stated publicly that they intended to enforce the provisions of existing treaties and the rights of which they were in possession by those treaties to their fullest extent. The result of such a mode of procedure would naturally be a collision between the French and the subjects of Great Britain in Newfoundland. The fact was that diplomacy had got us rather into a fix. Protocols had been framing for years upon the subject, treaties made and negotiations carried on in Newfoundland and at Paris; yet, after all, we found ourselves in the midst of a state of things that was at least exceedingly inconvenient to the country. The object of his Motion was to inquire of the Government on what basis they were now prepared to treat; whether they were prepared to enter with the French into the question of what existing treaties placed in their power, or whether they were prepared to enter into new treaties; whether Commissioners were to he employed in Newfoundland to investigate the question, or whether our Ambassador at Paris was to settle the matter with the French authorities there? By looking at the position on the map, it would be seen that Newfoundland was separated from the main land by two straits; on the north by the narrow straits between it and Labrador, and on the south by the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The southern passage was already in the power of the French, and if by Treaty the northern passage were also placed in their hands, any one might foresee that it must lead to complications that would prove inconvenient in every point of view. The question might be divided into three heads:—First, how the fisheries were now carried on; secondly, how they would be conducted if the Treaties now existing were carried out to their full extent; and, thirdly, the demands made by the French, and the French view of how the fisheries ought to be carried on. The way in which the fisheries were now carried on was this:—They had possession of part of the shore on the west side, and also on the north-east side they had a concurrent right with the English, for the purposes of drying their fish. The
  1664
  Newfoundland fishery was, however, the great nursery of the French navy, and, encouraged by a system of bounties, that concurrent right of fishing had virtually become an exclusive right by employing some 300 or 400 boats of 150 tons, each manned by eight or ten men; their headquarters were the Islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre, whence all their operations were directed. The whole of these fisheries were regulated by treaties, and it was remarkable that every one of the treaties was framed at a time when England was issuing from a state of war, anxious to obtain peace almost at any price, and naturally did not look with the accuracy she would otherwise have done to the interests of a distant dependency lying on the other side of the Atlantic. In the first treaty, that of Utrecht, there was nothing whatever about exclusive rights such as were now asserted by the French. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 referred to the Treaty of Utrecht, and gave to the French the power and authority they had enjoyed under its provisions, and ceded to them the two Islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre, but upon condition that they should not raise any fortifications thereon. The Treaty of Versailles, at the close of the American war, in 1783, placed France in the same position as under the Treaty of 1713. Thus matters stood until 1814, when the Treaty of Peace placed France in the same position as she occupied in 1792, at the breaking out of the war; and upon referring to papers to ascertain what that position was, he found that it was described to be exactly the same as in 1783, under the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, by the last ratified treaty, that of 1814, the French were replaced in the same position in regard to the fisheries that they occupied in 1713 by the Treaty of Utrecht. It was the latter treaty, then, which regulated the fisheries, subject only to one clause in the treaty of 1763, which ceded the two Islands already referred to. The rights under that treaty were these:—The right to catch cod fish alone, conjointly with the subjects of England, within certain limits on the shores of Newfoundland; the right to land and dry the fish also within certain limits of the shore; and the right to erect temporary buildings for the purpose of the fisheries within the same limits. But the demands which had been made by the French ever since the year 1814 went far beyond those rights. They claimed not only the

  1665
  exclusive right of cod-fishing within those limits, but the exclusive right of going on shore for the purpose of their fisheries, removing the English settlements, and prosecuting fisheries of all kinds. The French demands continued to increase until, in 1857, when the Colonial Office, seeing the inconvenience of these constant demands on the part of France, set on foot a treaty, yielding all the demands that she had made, and a great many more besides, for it granted her the exclusive right of fishing on the coast of Labrador, and gave her a footing upon the south shore of Newfoundland, which no treaty had ever done before,—nominally for the purpose of taking bait, although no doubt the right would have been used for other purposes. That treaty, however, very fortunately was never carried into effect. There was a clause in it, the purport of which was that the Legislature of Newfoundland was to have a veto on the treaty, and if they found it was incompatible with the rights of the people of Newfoundland it should be regarded as a mere protocol, and treated as so much waste paper. Well, that treaty, as he had observed, was not carried into effect, and the reason was that it met with the unanimous opposition of the Legislature of Newfoundland. Upon their refusal to ratify the treaty, the French said to the English Government, "If you cannot put us in possession of the rights which you, by treaty, have granted to us; if the opposition of a colony is sufficient to upset a treaty which you yourselves have made, we will assert, to the fullest extent, the rights which we now possess." In pursuance of that determination, he found, when in Newfoundland a short time since, that the French had given notice to the inhabitants of St. George's Bay, an English settlement of about 1,100 people, that in the approaching fishing season they would turn them out of their holdings and take possession of the shore, as they would have been entitled to do under the treaty of 1857. If that were done collision would be inevitable, and if a blow were once struck it would be impossible to say what the consequence might be. The English settlers, too, would suffer much more by this proceeding than under the treaty of the right hon. Gentleman, because under the treaty they were to receive compensation, while in the present circumstances they would receive none. As the French had expressed their determination to exercise the rights conferred upon them by treaty,
  1666
  it was important to inquire what those rights were. The rights of the French in 1792 amounted to this—liberty in common with the British, to fish on the coast between Cape St. John and Cape Ray. The treaty provided that they were not to be disturbed in that right by the competition of the British, or, as afterwards explained, they were not to be molested by the British in their fishing. That conclusively recognized the presence of the British there. The manner of fishing also was prescribed, and the treaty said that it should not be deviated from by either party. If the British were not to fish there concurrently with the French, what was the meaning of "either party?" And in no treaty was the term "exclusive" or any synonym of that term used. It appeared from a decision of Lord Chief Justice Campbell, that by the law of nations a right of fishery was not lost by discontinuance. He (Viscount Bury) maintained that the French had only liberty to take codfish, because the word "fishery" in Newfoundland signified only cod-fishery. The Court of Newfoundland decided, in a case of fishery, that in that colony fish meant exclusively codfish. Treaties, it was universally acknowledged, ought to be construed according to the lex loci as gathered from the usages of the places to which they referred. The French had a right to land and dry fish. Now, cod was the only kind of fish that was cured or dried in Newfoundland, and, therefore, no fish but cod was implied. In several treaties with America "fish of every kind" were the words used, and this again showed that where "fish" or "fishery" only was used the treaty was confined to cod or cod-fishery. Till within the last twenty years the French never thought of claiming a right to any but a cod-fishery. If the treaties were carried out the French would be obliged to demolish their fortifications on the island of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and to fish, not with long lines containing an enormous number of hooks, but in accordance with the Treaty of Utrecht and with the usages of the last century, which were still adhered to by the Americans and the British. If the French would merely assert the terms of the treaties they would be in a worse position than now, and he therefore wished to know on what principle the diplomatic correspondence now going on between England and France was conducted on the part of England. Did Her Majesty's Government intend to inquire

  1667
  into the existing treaties, and to insist that the French should have nothing more than what was given to them by those treaties? Were they going to employ Commissioners in Newfoundland to investigate the subject with the local and the French authorities? Were they going to employ our Ambassador at Paris to negotiate with the French there? He should prefer to see the negotiation carried on in Newfoundland, for he thought that hitherto the French Plenipotentiaries had been rather too much for the English Plenipotentiaries. The French had lately got pretty much what concession they liked; but he hoped that on this subject the rights of the people of Newfoundland would not he given away for any State purpose whatever.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence between the English and French authorities in Newfoundland, or between the Governor of Newfoundland and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or between the English and French Governments, which may show the construction placed by the French authorities upon the Treaties which now regulate the Newfoundland Fisheries."
  SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON: Sir, I can assure the noble Lord that I highly appreciate the temper as well as the ability which he has shown on this subject; and, so far from wishing that he had not interfered in the matter, I am, on the contrary, glad to think that we may secure so able a defender of the rights and interests of the colony of Newfoundland, of which I myself am, as it were, the professional advocate. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, I think, will see before I sit down that I am positively precluded from entering in detail into the question he has raised. It is a subject to which I have devoted great attention, and on which I have formed a very decided opinion; but, as the noble Lord has truly stated, it is one that involves very subtle points of argument and some serious ground of danger. I hope, however, that the disputes may be settled and the danger may be prevented by amicable negotiation. I will not follow the noble Lord through his able historical disquisition, but will simply admit that it is perfectly true that for the last thirty years negotiations have been begun, have been dropped, and have been resumed with the French, with regard to their alleged right of fishery in Newfoundland. The late Government, believing that a mutual understanding between the French and the English Governments as to their re-
  1668
  spective rights could not be arrived at by negotiation, attempted a kind of compromise—namely, the Convention of 1856, by which France was to cede a portion of her pretensions on the coast of Newfoundland, and to receive admission to a share in the fishing at Labrador with certain facilities to insure them a supply of bait. I cannot concur in the noble Lord's opinion that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) neglected the cause of Newfoundland in this matter, and for this reason:—He made the assent of the Legislature of Newfoundland requisite to the operation of the Convention. The assent was withheld, and the Convention fell to the ground. The noble Lord spoke of the traditionary policy on which he imagines every Secretary of State is to act; but I must remind him that during the ascendancy of that political party with which he is connected, there were no less than eight successive Secretaries for the Colonies in one single year. If each of those Secretaries of State had followed out a policy of his own, you would have had eight different policies for the British Colonies in one year; and I would then ask the noble Lord how many colonies we should have left to us at the end of eight years. I think the noble Lord asked me whether I approve of the Convention of 1856. I will venture to assume that, whether I approve or disapprove of what was done in that year, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton were put now in office, he would not make in 1859 the same propositions as he made in 1856, partly because of the rejection of them by the Newfoundland Legislature, and partly because further evidence on the subject has been furnished to the Government. Having considered that evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the refusal of Newfoundland to concur in the Convention was justified. When this Convention was rejected by the Legislature of Newfoundland, the French Government expressed a determination to maintain its existing rights under treaty; but it is only within the last twelve months that they have declared, through the French Naval Commandant off Newfoundland, that they would enforce those alleged rights, the noble Lord asks what those rights are. The French Commandant summed them up in a sentence "the treaties; nothing more—nothing less." For my part, I have no objection to that—let them, have nothing less than the treaties, so long as they do not have something more,

  1669
  and the gain, in practice, will not be upon their side. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government inquired whether the Government of France was disposed to re-enter into a consideration of the dispute in order to ascertain what are the rights claimed by the French, and the manner in which those rights have been exercised. If the treaty gives certain rights to France it imposes at the same time certain restrictions, in conformity to which those rights should be exercised. As France has given notice of her intention to enforce her rights, Her Majesty's Government have also given notice of their intention to enforce the rights of this country. We have proposed the appointment of a mixed Commission to investigate the facts on the spot, and to inquire into the manner in which the provisions of the treaty are observed by both parties. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that if, as alleged, restrictions have been imposed on French fishermen to which they ought not to be exposed; so, on the other hand, there have been encroachments and deviations from the treaty on the part of the French fishermen, which Her Majesty's Government are fairly entitled to resist. The French Government have replied to this proposal in a most friendly spirit. The Commission will be appointed, and proceed to make its inquiry in the beginning of May. I think I may venture to hope that there need be no immediate fear of a collision between the two parties arising out of the state of affairs in Newfoundland; for it is understood on both sides, that during the ensuing fishing season, and while inquiry by the Commission is in progress the English and French commanders are to exercise all necessary forbearance with regard to any occurrence that may lead to a dispute; and all measures of repression on the part of the French Government will be suspended. The Government of France, in acceding to our proposal, at the same time expressed a hope that its having done so would be accepted as a fresh instance of the friendly and conciliatory spirit by which it is actuated in its dealings with England. And at this stage of the proceedings I trust the noble Lord will acknowledge that it is neither wise nor prudent to publish papers bearing on the very points in dispute, which we hope are about to be examined in a spirit of friendly inquiry. There is no positive objection indeed on the part of the Government to publish the
  1670
  correspondence, or extracts from the correspondence, that has passed between the two Governments on this question of the Newfoundland fisheries if the noble Lord choose to move for them; but I do not advise him to do so. With regard both to those and to other papers, I think, as we shall have the Report of the Commissioners themselves in a few months, that will be the natural time to produce them. And I cannot but hope that if mutual moderation and forbearance be exercised, this Commission will pave the way to a final settlement of all the matters in dispute.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, there is no question on which forbearance in discussion, and, of course, in the production of papers, is more important. It has undoubtedly been a source of much irritation between France and England for some years, and it is very desirable a satisfactory conclusion should be arrived at. I do not clearly understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether these Commissioners are to be empowered to conclude a new treaty or convention, or only to ascertain the extreme rights and the extreme duties of both parties under the treaties now existing. [Sir E. B. LYTTON: They are to inquire how the terms of the treaty are carried out by both parties.] I am not disposed to be captious in my criticisms on any course the Government may think calculated to bring these disputes to a satisfactory conclusion; but I do not see how the Commissioners are to find out what are the extreme claims—which are tolerably well known already—and the extreme rights of both parties. The French fishermen have extremely strong notions of what are their rights, and our fishermen are quite as positive about theirs. But, under these circumstances, both French and English have to their credit for a long time acted on a system of mutual forbearance, and the business of fishing has adapted itself in a wonderful manner to this state of things. Consequently there has been much less practical inconvenience than could be supposed possible, considering the variety of points in dispute. This has been fortunate, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the time has arrived when the state of things between France and England should not rest on this mutual forbearance, but be defined by some diplomatic arrangement. The truth is, that as my noble Friend (Viscount Bury) observed—and here I may remark that I am glad that my noble Friend (Viscount Bury), who has

  1671
  spoken with so much ability on the matter, is devoting so much of his attention to colonial subjects, subjects on which his practical experience gives him so good a right to speak in this House—the truth is, the stipulations of these treaties and conventions were made at a time when Newfoundland was a very different place from what it is now; it was long the policy of this country to consider it as a mere fishing station; agriculture was discouraged; the business of the colony was managed by a few merchants from England, and the people were considered mere agents of the fishery. This country did not imagine it made much sacrifice when it gave to France the right to 300 miles of the best part of the coast, to the exclusion of our own fellow-subjects. It was a most awkward concession, and it is most desirable that the dispute, as to the right of settlement on this part of the coast, should be cleared up. My noble Friend has complained that the question has not been taken up in the colony rather than in this country; but a Commission, of which Mr. Thomas, a merchant in Newfoundland, was the member representing English interests, and an officer of the French navy the representative of their rights, in vain attempted to settle the question. Two Commissions which sat in Paris proved equally unsuccessful, and when I had the honour to hold the colonial seals I also attempted to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Mr. Merivale, of the Colonial Office, and an officer of the French navy, on my suggestion, inquired into the matter, and the result was a convention between the two Governments upon the subjects; but before entering upon that convention I expressly stipulated that it should be of no effect unless it received the sanction of the Legislature of Newfoundland. When it went out to the colony it did not receive much approval there, and eventually fell to the ground. I am bound to say, however, that the French Government never made any complaint of that circumstance, and far from the people of Newfoundland complaining, though there was undoubtedly much irritation at first when it was supposed that we had not reserved their rights, yet when the truth came to be known, we received the expression of their thanks for the manner in which we had reserved their right to be consulted on the question. I am not anxious to defend that Commission, as it never had any validity, but there is another
  1672
  reason for my abstinence. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that negotiations were about to be renewed between the two Governments, and it would be improper to raise a discussion now on these points which may hereafter come under discussion. There are, however, one or two points of my noble Friend's speech on which I am tempted to say a word. My noble Friend said that the treaty would have given to the French the command of the St. Lawrence. I can assure my noble Friend that so far from that we did not yield a single acre of land to the French which they did not before enjoy by treaty. They had only fishing rights, and as to fortifying the mouths of the St. Lawrence, I can only state that in all the treaties there was the stipulation that they should not remain there over the winter, but only in the fishing season. [Viscount BURY: They are fortifying Miquelon and St. Pierre.] These islands are held under different tenure, but if the French are fortifying them they are doing that in defiance of treaty. With respect to the fortifications, the matter was complained of when I was in office, and my right hon. Friend the then First Lord of the Admiralty sent to inquire into the matter, when it was found that the works were of the most trifling description. If since that period they have become more considerable, that may become a proper subject for remonstrance, but the French derive no right to do so under my convention. It ought also to be remembered that the subject has become greatly complicated in consequence of the reciprocity treaty entered into with the United States, with the full consent of the Newfoundland Legislature, by which the United States obtained the same rights of fishery that we ourselves possess. This has greatly complicated the business, and rendered the French more difficult to be dealt with. The question, however, is now being discussed with the Government of France, and I should think myself very culpable if I said a single word that would embarrass the negotiations. I heartily wish they may be successful; but I do not think the Government will arrive at an amicable solution without cutting the knot. I think both France and England will have to abandon some particular rights; I think the people of Newfoundland should have clearly secured to them the right to cultivate and build upon their own territory. At present the French, by some of the stipulations, have

  1673
  the right to pull down and dismantle buildings erected on certain parts of the coast; no doubt any such Act would cause great irritation. I hope there will be no wish to retain the terms of treaties that are utterly inapplicable to the present time. As to other differences between the fishermen of the two countries, one arises from the large bounty given by the French Government; but I do not think the French fishermen are really so much benefited by this large bounty as they are generally supposed to be. There is sufficient in the waters of Newfoundland for everybody; and no doubt our fishermen, in competition with their French brethren, will conduct their trade hereafter, as they had done hitherto, in a profitable and successful manner.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had received many communications lately in reference to this question. He was quite as much impressed with the great importance of using forbearance in discussing this question as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), but he should take leave to say that he thought the difficulty of carrying out the last convention on this question arose from the awkwardness of entering into a treaty with France, without giving notice to the Colony of Newfoundland. The Newfoundland Local Legislature, who had upon every constitutional principle a veto upon any such arrangement between England and France, had not been consulted previously on the negotiations which had been going on, and when the treaty was concluded between England and France the Local Legislature of Newfoundland unanimously rejected it. It appeared to him that when the rights of a third party were concerned, and negotiations were going on between two other countries on those rights, that third party ought to be consulted, in order to ascertain how far the arrangements in progress would meet with their assent. If that course had been pursued in this case, the awkwardness of entering into a treaty with France on the subject of the Newfoundland fisheries, and then abandoning it, would not have occurred. What had happened ought to be a warning to us against dealing with the rights of our fellow subjects in Newfoundland without coming to a previous understanding with the local authorities. The Minister of the Crown had no warrant for ceding the right of this country or of a colony to any foreign Power without the consent of Parliament and of the Colonial Legislature. The Committee of the New-
  1674
  foundland Assembly stated that for years previous to this treaty being entered into there had been perfect harmony between the French and English fishermen. An unarmed schooner had been found sufficient to take care of the Labrador fisheries, and a single boat's crew stationed at St. John's had contrived to keep the fishermen of the two countries within their respective boundaries. When all was going on thus quietly, why was it necessary to disturb so satisfactory a state of things by commencing a treaty with France? And where was the prudence of surrendering to a foreign Power the privileges of the people of Newfoundland, without first ascertaining that their local Legislature agreed to the bargain? The treaty with France was, moreover, very onesided, yielding up to that country most important British rights without any adequate equivalent, or indeed any equivalent whatever. The relinquishment in favour of France of the exclusive right for fishing purposes of a large portion of the Newfoundland coast would have rendered it necessary for very many English settlers on the banks of the different salmon streams to give up a valuable property and leave the homesteads in which they and their ancestors had long supported themselves and their families in respectability and independence. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite, however, had stated that Commissioners were about to attempt a settlement of this question between England and France, the noble Lord would do well not to press his Motion to a division.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he knew that the people of Newfoundland were willing to make great concessions, and he trusted therefore that if a mixed Commission were appointed more than one individual would be chosen to represent each side. The Legislature of Newfoundland should be invited to select a delegate to sit on the Commission, whose acts should he binding upon the people of that colony. This would lead to an arrangement that was likely to give satisfaction to all parties.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he wished to be allowed to add one or two questions to Ids previous statement, which had been suggested to him in the course of the debate. The people of St. George's Bay were warned off from fishing by the French authorities at the close of the last season. Those people amounted to about 1,100; they had always obtained their winter supplies from. St. John's on the credit of the fishing of

  1675
  the ensuing year. But last year they were told they would not be allowed to fish, and they would have starved if the people of St. John's had not sent them relief. He wished to ask the Government if those people of St. George's Bay would receive any compensation for the loss they had sustained, and if they would obtain leave to fish next year? He was told that Commissioners were to be appointed to inquire into the Newfoundland fisheries; but he wanted to know what these Commissioners were to do, or what orders they were to receive. Were they to investigate treaties already existing, or to settle the preliminaries of another treaty.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he would not enter into the merits of the convention signed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), but this he must say, that it was not open to the charges brought against it by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson). The right hon. Gentleman had shown himself as unwilling to sacrifice the rights of the people of Newfoundland as any gentleman could be, because he had inserted an express article in the convention making it of no force whatever until it had received the assent of the Newfoundland Legislature. The right hon. Member for Ashton said that the fishermen were acting harmoniously. That might be true, but it was beside the question. The noble Lord had asked whether any negotiations were at present going on between the French and English Governments on this subject. In reply he had to state that the French naval authorities last year gave notice that they were determined to insist on their extreme rights under the treaty. Commissioners were therefore appointed to ascertain as nearly as they could what were the exact rights of both sides under existing treaties. They were to ascertain how far those rights had been exceeded—if they had been exceeded at all—either on the one side or the other; but they were strictly precluded from entering into any discussion whatever by which the rights of the parties should in future be bound. He believed that that was all the noble Lord asked for, and he would, of course, rest satisfied at hearing that those orders had already been given by the Government. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) suggested that there should be associated with the British Minister a Commissioner who should have the confidence of the Legislature of Newfoundland. He (Mr. Fitz-
  1676
  Gerald) was happy to say that that hon. Member's wish had been also anticipated. There were two Commissioners to be appointed on each side. And so far as the Commissioners for England were concerned, one had been already appointed by the Government at home, and one was to be nominated upon the recommendation of the Legislature of Newfoundland. He should guard himself, however, by observing that Her Majesty's Government had sent out a despatch in which they said they should be happy to nominate a Commissioner at the recommendation of the Legislature of Newfoundland; but no reply had as yet been received from the Colony to that communication. Although no negotiations were going on at the present time, Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the necessity of protecting the interests of our fisheries. Negotiations would probably take place at a future time, and he apprehended therefore that under the circumstances the noble Lord would not persevere in his Motion for these papers.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he thought it not too much to say that large tracts would have been preserved to this country which had now been lost, through carelessness or ignorance on the part of the British authorities, if in former Parliaments there had been some individual as well acquainted with the subject as the noble Lord. As instances he might refer to the cession of 500 miles of the coast of the Pacific, known as Russian America, the island of Java, and various other places.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he rose to move an Address for a copy of any correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Hudson's Bay Company with reference to the charter or to the licence of trade of that company, since the 22nd day of February, 1858, being the date of the last returns upon the subject. He believed the time had come when that information could no longer be withheld.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Hudson's Bay Company, with reference to the Charter or to the Li.

  1677
  comic of Trade of that Company, since the 22nd day of February, 1858, being the date of the last Returns upon the subject."
  SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTONsaid that an important letter had recently been forwarded by the Foreign Office to the Hudson's Bay Company, that he expected to receive in a few days the reply to it, that he believed that would bring the correspondence to a close, and that he should then be ready to produce the whole of the papers.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to lay the papers before the House as soon as they should be ready, without rendering it necessary that any Motion should be made upon the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as soon as the papers were ready they would be laid on the table, by command.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS LILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Punishment of persons guilty of personating Voters).
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he would propose the insertion of words extending the Clause to those who should induce others to personate.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTasked bow the hon. Member proposed to detect and prove the delinquency against which he wished to provide?
  MR. RIDLEYreplied that he would proceed in the same manner as in a case of subornation of perjury.
  MR. CROSSsuggested that the word "suborn" should be substituted for "induce."
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he would adopt the suggestion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would move an Amendment to the effect that cases of personation should be tried, not by the justices of the borough in which the offences were committed but by those "of the county in which the borough was situated." In many cases the justices in boroughs were political partisans.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he did not think justices in boroughs were more subject to political influence than justices in counties.
  MR. SALISBURYtrusted the Commit-
  1678
  tee would not sanction au Amendment, the effect of which would be to throw a reflection on the borough justices.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he thought it would be most objectionable to throw on one set of justices duties which ought to be performed by another set.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to; as was also Clause 12.
  Clause 13, Penalties for Bribery at Elections.
  MR. DIVETTsaid, he thought the proposed penalty of 40 s. for bribery far below the offence. He would therefore move to insert "£50" instead of "40 s."
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 1, to leave out "40 s." and insert "£50."
  MR. CROSSremarked that if the penalty should be fixed at £50 the clause might as well be left out of the Bill. The present penalty was £50, and was so high that nobody thought of putting it in force. The object of the clause was to make the penalty small but certain. Besides the pecuniary penalty, the party offending would be disfranchised for six years. The greater part of the persons to whom the penalty would apply were poor, and to them 40 s. was a serious sum. The rich would have to pay 40 s. for every person whom they might bribe.
  MR. DIVETTsaid, that these who bribed were usually rich men, who would not be deterred by a penaly of 40 s.
  MR. SALISBURYsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. His attention had been called to the penalties which had accrued under the Act, and he had been informed by a deputation which waited upon him that the Act could not be put in force in consequence of the penalties being so heavy. He believed that if the present Bill should pass there would be no difficulty in putting an end to the bribery which at present existed in Chester and other places.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that the object of the clause was that every instance of bribery should be punished, and they were far more likely to arrive at this result by imposing the penalty of 40 s. The penalty of £50 would not be felt by a rich man in a pecunary point of view. That class of persons were deterred by the degradation and exposure.
  Question put "That 40 s.' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 261; Noes 13; Majority 248.
  Clause agreed to.
  The remaining clauses were then agreed to.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid he wished to move the addition of a clause reducing the period of residence within a borough necessary to qualify a man to vote as a burgess at municipal elections from three years (as at present) to one year, as in the case of Parliamentary elections.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he must oppose the proposition. He had taken great pains with the Bill, and would suggest that it should pass as it stood. He had found that bribery and corruption in municipal affairs prevailed more or less all over the country, and he did not wish any clause inserted that would tend to cause political discussion and imperil the passing of the Bill this Session.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman in his Bill had not gone the right way to cure the evils complained of, and was of opinion that municipal electors were in as much need of protection as the great body of Parliamentary electors throughout the country.
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided.
  The Tellers being come to the Table, Mr. Gilpin, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, stated that Mr. Arthur Kinnaird, Member for the City of Perth, had not voted, though he had been in the House when the Question was put; whereupon the Chairman directed the Honourable Member for Perth to come to the Table, and asked him if he had heard the Question put. The Honourable Member having stated that he had heard the Question put, and having declared himself with the Ayes, the Chairman desired his name to be added to the Ayes.
  The Tellers accordingly declared the Numbers:—Ayes 97; Noes 187: Majority 90.
  MR. FOXsaid, he would propose the insertion of a clause to repeal that provision of the existing Act which rendered the possession of a certain amount of property in real estate, or being rated at a certain annual value, requisite qualifications for the office of mayor, alderman, or councillor of a borough. The House had wisely repealed the property qualification for Members of Parliament, and he now asked them to do the same for municipalities. It was desirable, no doubt, that persons of pro-
  1680
  perty should be amongst the members of municipal corporations, and should exert their due influence in local affairs; but it was also desirable that the corporations should include men of ability and character belonging to different classes of society. It did sometimes happen that the interests of private property were at variance with the interests of the community. The wealthy alderman who resided in a suburban villa might perhaps feel indifferent to questions of sewerage and sanitary regulation, which would be matters of life and death to the poor inhabitants of the closer and more crowded districts of the town, and cases had even been known in which the inspectors and officers of health were afraid to lay an information against some wretched cottages or other dangerous nuisance because the owners of those buildings were members of the corporation, and they were their servants. It was not, however, from the poorer classes themselves, nor was it from any ambitious demagogues who wanted to get into municipal offices, that this demand for the repeal of the property qualification now proceeded; but one corporation after another had petitioned the House of Commons to that effect—the corporations of Rochdale, Oldham, and Sheffield had lately done so, and if the corporation of Leicester had not actually petitioned, it had joined in expressing the same desire. These corporations wanted to be allowed to avail themselves of the talents and energy of men in every rank of society who might be found willing and competent to serve the borough, and whom the electors might think fit to be chosen.
  Clause brought up and read 1o.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he hoped it would not be thought that he had cured all the existing evils. The Bill had been drawn for one certain object, and he did not see how the proposition before the Committee could prevent bribery and corruption at municipal elections. Property qualification was a subject upon which different opinions existed, but upon the same ground as that which induced him to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, he should oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham.
  Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 181: Majority 73.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would now bring up a clause relieving Dissenters from

  1681
  the necessity of taking the oath not to use their office to the prejudice of the Established Church.
  MR. CROSSsaid, he must repeat the answer he had given to the previous proposal.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to propose a clause providing for the votes at municipal elections being taken by Ballot. He considered that the arguments he had adduced on previous occasions remained unanswered, and when he contrasted the small talent of which he could boast with the great ability with which he was opposed, he could not but attribute his succes to the goodness of his cause. Those hon. Gentlemen, however, who advocated open voting at Parliamentary elections would naturally advocate it at municipal elections, which were also liable to bribery and intimidation. It was impossible to overrate the mischief that arose under the present system. There was but one remedy for intimidation, and that remedy for intimidation was the Ballot. He would not trouble the Committee with many cases, but would cite a few to show the cases of tyranny by the employers to the employed, for in those municipal elections the stronger put the screw upon the weaker. There was a case of a man employed at a mill at Staleybridge who was employed there twenty years, and one morning he was told he might go home, because he had voted for a candidate to whom his employer was opposed. Cries of "Divide!"] That was the way the wrongs of the working classes were received by the House. He had before him thirteen cases of persons brought to ruin in that way. He would read them if they liked. He could bring cases of that sort from every corporate town in England, The only protection against this was secret voting, and as he should bring the subject of voting Ballot for Members of Parliament before the House this Session he should leave the matter now in the hands of the Committee.
  MR. STEUARTsaid, he wished to point out, that the Committee had already decided in the 16th Clause, that the mode of voting should be as heretofore; and he must, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether it was competent now to bring forward a clause which would upset the previous decision.
  Mr. FITZROYsaid, that the clause would be inconsistent with the 16th Clause, which had been agreed to.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would submit to the dictum of the right hon. Gentleman, but would, perhaps, introduce an Amendment on the Report.
  House resumed; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 70].

CHURCH RATES' ABOLITION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Sir JOHN TRELAWNY Sir JOHN TRELAWNY moved, that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he must appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press the Bill at that late hour. If he did not accede to his request, he must move the Adjournment of the debate.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he had given up Wednesday to the Bill of the Government. He might also point out that the question had been under discussion for twenty-five years. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had admitted that all modes of settling the question had been exhausted, except that proposed by this Bill. Last year the other House had complained of the "indecent haste" with which a similar measure had been sent up to them, which, consequently, they said they had not time to consider. That Bill was passed in the Commons last year, after full discussion, and believing that that circumstance would have due weight, he should press the second reading.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 173: Majority 65.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could assure the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill, that he appreciated fully the good temper, forbearance, and courtesy which he had uniformly exhibited in dealing with this most difficult question, and it was to these feelings that he now desired to make an appeal. He perfectly understood the views of the hon. Baronet; but there was a large minority in the House who felt strongly upon the subject. The hon. Baronet had urged as a reason for proceeding with the second reading to-night, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had failed in producing a satisfactory measure; but that seemed to him (Mr. Bentinck) to

  1683
  be hardly sufficient grounds for persevering at that hour with the reading of a Bill of such importance, and he thought that those who felt strongly respecting it, would not be justified in sanctioning that course of proceeding. He begged to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet must see that, upon a question of this importance, he could hardly expect that those who were strongly and conscientiously opposed to his views would allow those views to be adopted without debate; and it was manifestly impossible to debate the subject properly at that advanced hour of the night. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Baronet would act in accordance with the courtesy which
  1684
  had hitherto characterised his proceedings throughout, and not detain the House by useless Divisions.
  MR. FOXremarked, that the Motion of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) was not that the Debate, but the House should now adjourn, and if that were carried, it might oust the Bill altogether.
  SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, that not wishing to act discourteously towards hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should have no objection to the Adjournment of the debate until this day.
  Motion and original Question, by leave, withdrawn. Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  House Adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Manslaughter; Indictable Offences (Metropolitan District); Convict Prisons Abroad.
2a Manor Courts, &c. (Ireland).

SINGAPORE—PETITION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYpresented a petition from the Bankers, Merchants, and Residents at Singapore, in the Straits of Malacca, praying that English interests in those settlements may receive full consideration in the Re-organization of the Executive Government of India. The petitioners expressed the satisfaction with which they had seen the termination of the Indian mutiny, and the transference of the Governor of the Company to the Crown, called attention to the growing importance of the trade between Singapore and Great Britain, which was now greater than that between Singapore and the East Indian possessions. The whole amount, of exports and imports into Singapore exceeded £12,000,000, greater than the whole trade of the Dutch in those seas, and next in importance to Bombay after Calcutta and Madras. They prayed that in consideration of the amount of British capital involved in the settlement of Singapore, with a view to its more efficient protection, and to counteract the encroachments of the Dutch, Parliament would consent to transfer the rule of that settlement from India to the Imperial Government, and that a governor of Singapore and of the Straits Settlements might be appointed, with extended powers similar to those of the Governor of Hong Kong and the Superintendent of British trade in China. and they asked that this Governor should be enabled to negotiate treaties with the Native Powers for the extension of our trade, and to see that our engagements with the Dutch and other Powers in those seas were duly observed. The petitioners considered this imperatively necessary for the safe protection of British trade in the Archipelago. They also called attention to the circumstances under which the settlement of Sarawak, on the mainland of Borneo, and at no great distance from Singapore, had been formed by Sir James Brooke, and begged that the claims of the British residents and settlers in Sarawak might be taken into consideration, and that Sarawak might become one of the British Colonies, or at all events taken under the protection of the British Crown. The noble Lord said that, taking into view the magnitude of the commerce of Singapore, aid its vast increase since it was originally established by the forethought and sagacity of Sir Stamford Raffles, this was a request not hastily to be refused. Singapore was the emporium of all the British trade with

1603
the Indian Archipelago, Java, Siam, and Cochin China. That trade, taking imports and exports together, now amounted annually to £12,000,000 sterling. Singapore was also the port where every steamer or sailing vessel engaged in the trade with China, which was now so greatly on the increase, must pass; the vessels going to the China seas must call at Singapore to obtain their coal or other supplies, and through Singapore must pass every line of electric telegraph that might hereafter be laid down to connect us with any point in the Eastern Archipelago. It should be observed that other European nations were now making great efforts to establish or extend their own settlements in that part of the world; the Dutch were spreading themselves more and more throughout the Indian Archipelago, and endeavouring to exclude the British merchants from a participation in the trade; the French were about to establish themselves in Cochin China, and New Caledonia, and the Spaniards were extending their possessions from the Philippine Islands to the Sooloo Islands and the neighbourhood of Borneo. It was, therefore, most important that a British Governor and Superintendent of Trade furnished with competent authority should be stationed at Singapore to watch the proceedings of foreign nations, and to protect our own interests in those seas. Hitherto the government of Singapore had been under the authority of the Governor General of India. One matter of which the inhabitants of Singapore complained, and not without reason, was, that the place had been made the depôt of the convicts from India; and not only that, but they were obliged to expend large sums for the maintenance of those convicts; and they expressed the gratification which they felt that on a recent occasion the Indian mutineers were not transported to Singapore, as was at first intended, but to the Andaman Islands. He did think that if it were still deemed necessary for India that convicts should be sent to the settlements of Singapore and Malacca, at any rate the expense of maintaining them there ought to fall entirely upon the Indian revenues. He (Lord Stanley) thought it was of great importance that there should be at Singapore an officer, authorized to protect British interests in those seas, and to negotiate treaties with the Native Powers. Another point to which the petitioners called attention was the importance and facility of making Singapore a great naval
1604
arsenal. We had no place in those Indian seas where ships could be repaired or refitted; at Hong Kong, he believed, there was no accommodation for the purpose, but Singapore was admirably adapted for that purpose; it was a place where every vessel on her way must touch, and the port was considered very good, and the absence of storms rendered it a safe anchorage for shipping. He understood that the revenues of Singapore were amply sufficient to pay the expenses of its civil government, though of course the military expenses were another matter; hitherto they had been defrayed by the Indian Government; but if the Government were transferred to a Governor sent from England, it would be a question whether they should not fall upon the Imperial Exchequer. He thought it would be necessary to station a body of European troops there; and as the Navy Commission had recommended that an additional force of 5,000 English marines should be levied, there was no place more suitable for a portion of them than Singapore, where they would protect the great highway of commercial intercourse between India and China, and would be ready, if required, to render valuable assistance on board ship, as there ought always to be a force of gun-boats stationed in the waters of Singapore. He therefore trusted he should receive from Government an assurance that they were not unfavourably disposed to entertain this question of transferring Singapore from the Governor General of India to the Government at home, and appointing a Governor of the Straits Settlements with competent powers. He had also to ask for information of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the settlement of Sarawak. He had seen with regret that, in the autumn, a deputation which waited upon Lord Derby with respect to the claims of Sir James Brooke, and with a view to urge that the Government should take possession of that settlement and establish it as a British colony, received very little encouragement, or rather an answer which rendered their request almost hopeless. He would not now discuss the question of establishing a British colony there, or of granting any pecuniary compensation; but British settlers had gone there, British money had been invested there, the Government had established a bishopric there, and missionaries had gone out; and it would be a serious thing if that settlement was to be entirely deserted. The imme-

1605
diate consequence would be that it would be taken possession of by the Dutch; they would extend their dominion over the whole seaboard of Borneo, thus entirely excluding us from the trade of that vast island as well as the rest of the Indian Archipelago from which their intrigue and unjust usurpations had already driven us; but much of which might be regained and preserved by the exertions of an authorized Superintendent of British Trade established at Singapore with adequate power and authority.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord as to the great importance of the Straits Settlements and their commercial relations, as the great intermediate station between the East and West, and an emporium where we had a trade now amounting to £12,000,000 or £13,000,000, and where, but forty years ago, Malay pirates were the only inhabitants. Application had been made to Her Majesty's Government by the residents of the Straits Settlements, who requested that the government of those Settlements should be transferred from the Indian Government to the direct control of the Government at home, namely, to the Colonial Office. This was a new fact in the history of the Colonial Office—that a body of European settlers should deliberately and spontaneously come forward and ask to be placed under the management of the Colonial Office. This was a very great contrast to the feelings with which, as must be remembered, the Colonial Office in Downing Street used to be regarded. The Government, however, knowing the existence of that wish amongst many of the English residents, were naturally anxious to accede to it. But a question arose with regard to the expenditure which would be incurred by such a transfer of the Government; and there were some considerations to be taken into account which had made it necessary to obtain the opinion of the Governor General of India, under whose control those Settlements now were. That step had been taken, and an answer was shortly expected, and it unquestionably would be satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government to find that the Report was a favourable one, and that they should he able to find it consistent with the interests of India to bring those settlements under the direct control of the Crown. It was not the occupation of any fresh territories that was contemplated, but rather a change in the distribution of the government. It was necessary, however, that before accepting an impor-
1606
tant change which would entail fresh charges on the Imperial revenue, the Government should consider what prospects there were of providing for it. This matter was under consideration and he was disposed to think, from the growing prosperity of Singapore, that the revenue of the island would be sufficient to meet the expenses of the administration. There was no rule of greater importance than to insist, as far as possible, upon every settlement or colony being self-supporting. It was not fair, on the other hand, that the colony should have to bear any charges of an Imperial nature, and the system of sending convicts there for exclusively Indian purposes, and charging the whole expense of them upon the colony, was one which could hardly be maintained; but there were certain expenses of a local nature which ought fairly to be defrayed by the colonial revenue.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it appeared that there was a wish on the part of the merchants and inhabitants of Singapore that they should be placed under the immediate superintendence of the Colonial Office. Now if they were to be placed under the authority of any Secretary of State it appeared more reasonable that they should be placed under the Secretary of State for India than under the Secretary for the Colonies. Singapore was no doubt a place of great importance. It was a port to which all troops going out to China necessarily went, and in the event of War in China there must be a Government Commissariat depôt there. The question of erecting batteries and forts had occupied the attention of the Indian Government. Whatever might have been our successes hitherto in war with China, it was impossible not to look forward to some new necessities arising which would compel us to rely upon that place in a future war for such assistance as we had hitherto received from it. The troops to form the garrison must be furnished from India. There must be at least two companies of European artillery at Singapore, which might be sufficient, with a Native regiment supplied from India, to provide for its defence; but it would be at all times desirable that the troops there should be beyond the natural demand of the place itself, on account of the probable demand from China, and there ought always to be one regiment at Singapore available for service in China. He should wish one point to be well considered—the establish-

1607
ment of closed batteries of very heavy guns. The sea was very shallow in that quarter. Indeed it would be very difficult to bring a gun to bear on the usual anchorage there. We had not the power of throwing shot into the place where merchantmen lay. There had, no doubt, been some improvement effected, but still the defences of the place were not what they ought to be. Unless he was much mistaken he had had something to do with the change in the government of the colony. The former system had been extinguished, because it was found to be an enormous job. He could not say that the Indian Government had time to give all the attention that was desired to all the questions appertaining to the interests of the colony. It might indeed be necessary that the affairs of Singapore and the adjoining islands should be placed under a separate Secretary in the Government of India, in order to secure due attention to their interests. The affairs of India were, however, so mixed up with the affairs of Singapore, as the great port in the route to China, that very great difficulties would result if the administration were with-drawn from the Government of India. So far from acquiescing in changing the jurisdiction his disposition would be to extend the power of the Secretary of State for India to Hong Kong. There was no one so interested in the preservation of peace in China as the Governor General of India. The greater part of the commerce of India was commerce with China. The revenue from the trade in opium was derived from China. The great exports of India were those of cotton. The trade did not depend upon the direct exports of British manufactures. The direct exports from England in 1857 amounted only to £2,500,000, whilst the imports into China in the same year amounted to £11,500,000. The whole of that difference was supplied by the exports from India. It would be consistent, in his opinion, with public convenience and advantage to unite under one head—for India—all our concerns in the East connected with the great trade to India. He differed altogether in the opinions expressed by the noble Baron. If the noble Baron would but look a little back he would see that the former Government of Singapore was an enormous job, and that it was put an end to on that account. He took no credit to himself for having, during the short term he was in office, paid especial attention to this sub-
1608
ject; but he was certainly of opinion that it was absolutely necessary that Her Majesty's Government should look carefully into all the bearings of the question before they assented to the change suggested by the petitioners.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not expect when the noble Baron gave notice of his intention of asking a question relative to the existing Government of Singapore, and to suggest the propriety of its being placed under the direct government of the Colonial Office, that he intended to put an equally important question with reference to Sarawak. He hoped the noble Baron would allow him (the Earl of Derby) to defer his answer to a future time, because, although he was then prepared to answer the noble Baron's inquiry generally, he should like to give him a more definite explanation upon the points referred to. The noble Baron was quite correct in saying that he (the Earl of Derby) had not long since received a deputation of gentlemen interested in the navigation and trade of Sarawak. This, however, was by no means a new question. The noble Baron knew there was nothing very novel in it. Some new facts had been brought before the Government, which were still under consideration; and among other difficulties which beset the case, one was the strong doubt that existed whether Sir James Brooke had any right to dispose of Sarawak. It was now believed that the coal of Labuan was more accessible than that of Sarawak. It appeared that Sarawak had been the principal coal depôt in that part of the world. The latest attempts, however, to increase the supply of coal had resulted in failure, and the coal of Labuan had been found to be superior.
EARL GREYsaid, at the time when Sir James Brooke first went out it was distinctly understood that it would be the policy of the Government that there should be no territorial settlement on the mainland of Borneo:—we knew very well by experience that if such settlements were established—if British power was once founded on a small part of a great territory—that that kind of dominion had an inevitable tendency to spread further and further. It invariably happened that in our relations with those barbarous Eastern Princes they entered lightly into treaties and broke them equally lightly. We thus got involved in difficulties by engagements of that kind, since we were compelled either to submit to the dishonour of allowing them to be

1609
broken, or else to punish the violation of treaties by hostility in which we were drawn on little by little to a very inconvenient extent, and entailing perhaps a heavy burden on the country. No man admired more than he did the character of Sir James Brooke, and no one had taken a greater interest in the success of his enterprize; but when it was agreed in 1846 that the Government of the day was to give him assistance and support, the arrangement was to the effect that we were to take possession of Labuan as a separate colony, which might be useful for commercial purposes, and which, from being a small island, was not likely to entangle us in private quarrels. But with respect to Sarawak, it was most distinctly understood that Her Majesty's Government was to have no concern whatever, and that Sir James Brooke was to act entirely as a private individual. The Government was only to assist him so far as to prevent piracy on those coasts—which in the general interests of commerce it could properly undertake to do. Beyond that protection against piracy, it was understood that Sir James Brooke had no other claim on the services of the Government. He believed that it was sound policy to adhere to that understanding. He (Earl Grey) wished to see a native State established there, and under Sir James Brooke there was a fair prospect of the spread of civilization in that country; but he did not think it was British dominion, or that British dominion should be extended to those regions. He quite concurred in the present petition as to the extreme importance of Singapore. He thought its interests should be watched over by the Government; but he hoped great caution would be observed in extending the power of the Governor of that settlement to enter into treaties with native Powers. The whole of his (Earl Grey's) experience led him to the conclusion that nothing was more dangerous than to enter into diplomatic relations with those barbarous Powers; and he thought the Governor of Singapore ought not to be entrusted with powers of that kind, except under very stringent restrictions.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that all he wished to ask from the Government was, what was to be done to protect British interests in Borneo? He was glad to hear that it was in contemplation to appoint a Governor with greater powers at Singapore.
Petition to lie on the table.

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT) BILL—GRAND JURIES.

  BILL PRESENTED—FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrose to call the attention of the House to the question of criminal charges and presenting indictments to grand juries in the metropolitan police districts. He said that a few evening since, when his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice of England, moved the second reading of his Bill for the prevention of vexatious indictments, he (the Lord Chancellor) expressed his entire concurrence in the principle of the Bill, but said that he thought it did not go far enough. His noble and learned Friend, acting on his experience with respect to certain classes of misdemeanours, in which the system of grand juries was made use of for purposes of extortion and oppression, proposed that parties charged with these offences should not be put on their trials without preliminary examination before a magistrate. He (the Lord Chancellor) could state from his own experience that in various other criminal charges, beyond those stated by his noble and learned Friend, grand juries were made use of for purposes of extortion. He expressed his opinion the other night that it ought not to be in any one's power to bring any charge against any person by means of a secret tribunal. He thought that in the metropolitan districts, at least, there should in every case be a preliminary inquiry before a magistrate. But he then said, that if it was so determined, it would be necessary to inquire whether there need be any further preliminary inquiry before a party was put on his trial. As far as he understood the feeling of their Lordships they concurred, and he had accordingly turned his attention to the subject, and had prepared the bill which he now offered to the House. The first subject to which he had directed his attention was this. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend applied to a scandalous abuse of grand juries, by persons going behind the backs of others, accusing them of offences, and converting that tribunal into an engine of extortion. He (the Lord Chancellor) proposed in his Bill that the object of the Lord Chief Justice's Bill should be confined cases to which only it proposed to apply it, but should be extended to all criminal charges. His noble and learned Friend had mentioned cases of persons who had used grand juries for the purposes of malice and extortion, and he (the Lord Chancellor)

  1611
  had mentioned other cases. He thought it contrary to the spirit of our laws, that charges should be made in secret, and that any person should be put on his trial without knowing who was his accuser, who were the witnesses, and what was the distinct charge against him. He proposed in his Bill that no charge against a person in respect of an indictable offence should be preferred or tried at the Central Criminal Court or at any General or Quarter Session within the metropolitan police district, unless the charge had been previously investigated by a police magistrate or a justice of the peace. If that part of his Bill were accepted the next step was almost inevitable, for he could not believe that their Lordships would agree that all criminal charges should be subjected to previous inquiry before a magistrate, and that after that any other preliminary inquiry should interpose between the trial. It was hardly possible to believe that in a civilized country, and with the enlightened ideas we were supposed to possess, such a system of criminal justice could exist to the present time. We had in the metropolis a body of magistrates of great legal experience, accustomed to dealing with evidence, sitting daily in open court to examine into all criminal charges preferred; the accused was brought face to face with his accusers; he heard the witnesses, who were open to cross-examination, and was allowed to make any explanation or defence he chose; if there was any doubt or difficulty the magistrate did not decide in haste, but adjourned the case for further inquiry; and all this was done, not to inquire into the guilt or inocence of the party accused, but only whether there were sufficient grounds for sending him for trial. The depositions were prepared with great care; they were read over to the witnesses in the presence of the accused, were signed, and sent to the court where the trial was to take place. The Judges were assembled, and one would suppose that everything had been done preliminary to the trial; but before that could take place, the case was filtered through another tribunal in order that it might be presented to the court for trial. The grand jury assembled—an irresponsible body—in a secret chamber were sworn to secrecy, the accused was not brought before them, the witnesses were called in one by one, and all this was done to ascertain if the magistrate had judged rightly in sending the party accused for trial. It was not to be wondered at that, under such an arrangement, many
  1612
  bills should be ignored, to the astonishment of the committing magistrates and of the parties themselves, because it afforded ample opportunities for tampering with the evidence. A witness might suppress or vary facts which he had sworn to before the magistrate, or suggest doubts and difficulties sufficient to induce the grand jury to throw out the Bill; and there was no fear of an indictment for perjury, because the proceedings before the grand jury were secret. But if the case went direct from the magistrates to the court, it was impossible for any witness, without danger to vary his evidence, as he would be corrected by the depositions. He was told that Mr. Clark, the late Clerk of Arraigns at the Central Criminal Court, used to call the grand jury the hope of the London thief. A pamphlet had been lately published by a gentleman of great experience, who gave a list of the bills ignored by the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court in six months in 1852. They were twenty-two in number, and he gave the evidence relating to twelve of them, which showed that the party accused ought to have been put on his trial, and that a conviction ought to have ensued. In a case which he mentioned to their Lordships on the previous occasion the grand jury threw out the bill, and a fresh one was sent up either to that or another grand jury, which was found, and the accused pleaded guilty. He (the Lord Chancellor) would now refer them to a case which had occurred in his own experience, and which was familiar to the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Shaftesbury). Two or three years ago a patient in a lunatic asylum near London struck the medical officer, who ordered him to be placed in a shower-bath for half-an-hour, and after that that a dose of tartar emetic should be administered to him; and then the medical officer left the asylum for the day. The patient was placed in the shower bath for twenty-eight minutes, was taken out shivering, the medicine was administered, and in ten minutes after he died. He (the Lord Chancellor) was consulted by the Commissioners of Lunacy, and he expressed a strong opinion that they would not discharge their duty unless a public inquiry took place. That inquiry did take place, before one of the most able and careful of the police magistrates, Mr. Henry, who came to the determination to send the case for trial. The matter had made a great impression on him (the Lord Chancellor), because he came from a considerable dis-

  1613
  tance to conduct the prosecution. There was no doubt on the minds of any one concerned but that the case would come on, but, to the astonishment of every one, the grand jury threw out the bill. He made no remark on the innocence or guilt of the party implicated, but it was a case for inquiry, and if the individual was innocent, as he was bound to presume he was, it would have been more satisfactory to him if he could have proved his innocence by a public trial, than to have had the inquiry thus stopped short. The grand juries themselves in the metropolitan district had been from time to time so satisfied of their helplessness and uselessness, that they had been in the habit of "presenting" themselves as useless at various sessions of the Central Criminal Court, hoping that a measure for their abolition, which would be for the benefit of the public, would be introduced; but latterly, finding no prospect of such a measure being brought forward, they have ceased to present. These presentments were generally to the effect that the labours of grand juries were unprofitable; that the time had arrived when they ought to be done away with; that in the preliminary inquiry before a magistrate there was ample opportunity for securing a due administration of justice, and that that inquiry superseded the duty of grand juries, which were worse than useless, and ought to be abolished as bringing the administration of justice and the law of the land into contempt. He was anxious to give their Lordships not only his own experience, but that of men more practically acquainted with the subject, and he would refer to a charge delivered by Mr. Stuart Wortley, when Recorder of London, in which he said that with regard to the cases which had undergone preliminary inquiry, he concurred with the grand jury in thinking that their services in that district were useless, caused loss of time, increased the expense of prosecutions, and enabled persons to cause injustice by tampering with witnesses and preferring unfounded charges against innocent persons. He would quote another authority—that of Lord Denman, who was not one likely to give up anything which was connected with the liberty or protection of the subject. Lord Denman said that it was difficult to see the effect and use of the functions of the grand jury; for when they found a bill they only echoed the decision of the magistrate; and if they differed from him and ignored a bill, that could
  1614
  not clear suspected character, and might do irreparable injustice. There were other evils attendant on the system of grand juries in the metropolitan district. Every session a great many witnesses, prosecutors, and friends of accused persons, assembled at the Central Criminal Court, and it was calculated that about 1,000 persons of all ages and sexes were gathered together at each sitting of the Court. There was no accommodation provided for them; it was uncertain when their cases were to come on, and they had to attend day by day. Evidence was given by the present Lord Mayor before a Committee of the House of Commons as to the demoralizing effect of such a congregration of so many persons of perhaps indifferent character, and it was easy to imagine what the position of respectable persons who were prosecutors was in such an assemblage. When a bill was found by the grand jury, it was still uncertain when the case would come on, and the parties connected with it must remain. The expense of prosecutions was thus made enormous, and though that alone was not a sufficient reason for getting rid of grand juries, yet it was worthy of attention as showing a way in which a considerable saving might be effected. If informations only were required, arrangements might be made to prepare lists of cases for different days, and the parties need only attend on the days when their cases were likely to come on. All this he thought would satisfy their Lordships that what he was about to propose was very desirable. By the second clause it was provided that when a party was committed, or bound over on his recognizances to appear to take his trial, by a magistrate at the Central Criminal Court, or within the metropolitan police district, no indictment shall be preferred or found in respect of such charge; but the officer of the Court shall file an information charging the person with the offence, which information shall be in lieu of an indictment found by a grand jury to all intents and purposes, and shall be followed by all its consequences. The result of this arrangement would be, that solicitors would know exactly the position of the different cases in the list, and that all the parties concerned would know on what day to attend. Various attempts had been made to effect a change in the present system. In 1846, when he (the Lord Chancellor) was Attorney General, he made a

  1615
  report to the Home Office on the criminal law generally, in which he recommended that grand juries should be abolished in the metropolitan districts. In 1849, a Bill was brought in by the Government of the day for the same purpose, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the subject. Six witnesses were examined—men of great practical experience—namely, Mr. Clark, the Clerk of Arraigns at the Central Criminal Court; Mr. Humphreys, an attorney of great experience in criminal cases; Mr. Alderman Wire, the present Lord Mayor; Mr. Mirehouse, the then Common Serjeant; Mr. Puckle, Chairman of the Surrey Sessions; and Mr. Bennoch, a merchant of London; who all gave the strongest possible evidence in favour of
  the abolitiou of grand juries. The Bill, however, was dropped. In 1852, when he (the Lord Chancellor) was again Attorney General, he brought in a Bill for the same purpose, which failed in consequence of a change of Government. In 1857. with the sanction of the late Government, he introduced a similar measure, but owing to the press of public business he was unable to proceed with it. Under these circumstances he hoped that their Lordships would agree that there was no proposition involved in his measure which had not been maturely considered, and which was not desirable. Provision was made in the Bill for cases where parties were committed and bound over to take their trial; but he had further to provide fur the fears of a noble and learned Friend (Lord Wensleydale), who was of opinion that it was the right of every subject to put the criminal law in force according to the established law. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not altogether adopt that doctrine, but it appeared to him to be one of the strongest arguments against the establishment of a Public Prosecutor he had ever heard. He was aware that the Lord Chief Justice considered that when the evidence before the magistrate was not sufficient to justify the committal of the accused, the accuser should have the opportunity of applying to a Judge or some other tribunal in order to put the party upon his trial, if sufficient evidence could be adduced. He had provided for such cases, and he trusted that he had, in the measure as it stood, met all objections, and he might almost say all prejudices. He did not propose to dispense
  1616
  with grand juries altogether, but the fourth clause provided that when the magistrate thought there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the putting the accused person on his trial, the party bringing the accusation might prefer an indictment at the Central Criminal Court, or other Court, and the same proceedings should be had thereon as was now the law in similar cases; provided he gave notice in writing to the magistrate who had heard the case his intention to do so within two days, and also gave notice of the Court to which he intended to carry the case. There would be no great inconvenience in such a course, as the accused would know who was the prosecutor and who were the witnesses. Then he proposed that the grand jury of the Central Criminal Court should assemble three times a year, and that the grand juries at quarter sessions four times a year, when charges of this nature should be received and determined. He further proposed, that upon the notice being given the depositions should be sent to the Court, before which the trial was to take place, and if any indictment in respect of such charge be preferred to the grand jury, the officer of the Court is to deliver to them these depositions. These were the general provisions of a Bill which he thought would accomplish important objects. It would get rid altogether of secret accusations—it would get rid of the absurdity of a second imperfect investigation of a charge after a complete, full, and satisfactory examination before the magistrate—and it would provide for what some persons thought the accuser ought to have—namely, the opportunity of going before a grand jury, and pressing his accusation in cases where the magistrate considered the evidence insufficient.
  Bill to make better Provision concerning the Procedure against Persons charged with Indictable Offences within the Metropolitan Districts presented.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYgave their Lordships an illustration of his own personal experience of the uselessness and inconvenience of the system proposed to be remedied by the noble Lord on the woolsack. On one occasion he had his pocket picked, but he gave chase to the light-fingered fugitive, captured him and introduced him to the Rhadamanthus at Marlborough Street, where the whole case was fully investigated, and the case sent for trial by the magistrate; but notwithstand-

  1617
  ing that, he was compelled to be two days in attendance at Clerkenwell Session-house, waiting the deliberation and decision of the grand jury; and, after all, the operation of finding a true bill did not occupy five minutes. Had he not been an idle person, but a man engaged in urgent business, the inconvenience and loss of time would have been exceedingly great. Nothing, moreover, could be worse than the accommodation given, for he and the public had to pace about on the cold stones, and there was not the accommodation of even a single seat.
  LORD CRANWORTHexpressed his entire concurrence in the measure propounded by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. He had two days ago received a letter from a person with whom he was not acquainted, but who appeared to be an intelligent person, suggesting, with reference to the Bill of the Lord Chief Justice, that it might be the proper occasion to remove what the writer considered an anomaly, involving an unnecessary expenditure of public money, of presenting indictments in cases of manslaughter and murder after a coroner's inquest had been held. He thought that his correspondent was mistaken on that point, and that there might be a difficulty in laying it down that the inquest by the coroner should be the only preliminary charge on which the accused person should be tried. It often happened that very valuable evidence was given after the coroner had held his inquest.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwould turn his attention to the point, but observed there was a clause in the Bill which exempted proceedings upon coroner's inquisitions, when a verdict of murder or manslaughter has been found. The Act also was not to affect ex-officio informations by the Attorney General, or the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen's Bench.
  LORD WENSLEYDALE,while admitting that some alteration of the law was desirable, thought the rights of prosecutors to put the criminal law in force should be preserved; but the clause introduced by his noble and learned Friend removed much of the objection he had expressed on a former occasion upon that point. He regarded the grand jury as a constitutional and a useful institution, and should be sorry to see it abolished in all cases.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.