Sitting of 24 April 1860

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Berkshire, in the room of Leicester Viney Vernon, esquire, deceased. PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Innkeepers Liability.
2° Census (England).
3° Public Improvements; Petitions of Right.

FRANCHISE STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOWESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  22
  Whether it is the intention of the Government to cause to be laid upon the Table any further Returns which may afford information as to the probable effect of the extension of the franchise proposed by the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People of England and Wales, or may throw light on the grounds or scope of the provisions of the Bill, and if so, when such Returns will be laid on the Table? He said his question was not intended to refer to any Return which might be asked for by an independent Member, but it solely referred to those returns which the Government might think lit to place before them.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Government had given the House all the Returns of which they were in possession, and he was not aware that they contemplated laying any further information before the House. The House must be aware it was utterly impossible to enter on a valuation of property for the purpose of ascertaining the rental of all the tenements in the kingdom with a view to statistical results. Even if such a survey were made, it would take many months, if not a year or so, to complete it. Therefore all the Government could do was to obtain an abstract of the rate-books, and it was open to the House to consider whether the rate-books represented correctly what they purported to represent.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can place any statement on the Table of the number of houses between £6 and £20 rental for which the rates have been compounded for?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not aware whether the Returns distinguished those houses for which the rates were compounded for from other houses. If the existing Returns made that distinction, there could be no objection to produce them.

HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, "Whether it is his intention to introduce Amendments into the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, in accordance with views expressed at recent public meetings by persons having a practical knowledge of the Fisheries of Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in regard to the general question it was impos-

  23
  sible to give an answer. Probably the best answer he could give was, that the object of the Bill was, as far as practicable, to prevent what was felt to be an injurious practice of trawling. He was quite prepared to adopt any provision that might be considered beneficial.

LAND IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, what day he intends to fix for the Second Reading of the Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure and Improvement of Land in Ireland; also, whether he can name an early day for the consideration of the other Bills having reference to the same subject, and which are now before the House?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was anxious to obtain a day for the consideration of the Bill relating to the tenure and improvement of land in Ireland, and had put it down for Friday. If he should not be able to bring it on then he would take the earliest Government day.

PROFESSORSHIP OF MODERN HISTORY, CAMBRIDGE.—QUESTION.
MR. STEUARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any special cause has prevented the filling up of the vacancy existing in the Professorship of Modem History for the University of Cambridge; and whether the vacancy will now be soon filled up?
SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied that as he had no official connection whatever with the University where the appointment was to take place, he could not answer the question of the hon. Member.

THE REFORM BILLS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it is intended that the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills be read a second time before the measure for the Re-presentation of the People of England and Wales is proceeded with in Committee?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas understaod to decline giving any pledge upon the subject.
MR. HOPEsaid, that the reply of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to the hon. Member (Mr. B. Cochrane) with respect to whether the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills would be read a second time before
24
going into Committee on the Reform Bill for England, had not reached him. He wished to know what it was?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the noble Lord had said that he could not give an answer to that question at present.

ARMSTRONG BATTERIES FOR CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAPILLONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What are the respective dates of the embarkation of the two Armstrong Batteries of Royal Artillery for China; of their arrival at Alexandria; of their disembarkation there; and of their re-embarkation at Suez; whether there is any truth in the statement that the Ammunition was seriously damaged, if not entirely spoiled, owing to the defective arrangements on board the Himalaya; and whether any steps have been taken in consequence to insure a sufficient supply of serviceable Powder by the time that the Batteries can be required for action?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that he had on a former occasion explained the cause of the detention of the batteries at the Isthmus. This was owing to unforeseen events interfering with the arrangements the Governor of Bombay had made for their transport from Suez to China. Lord Elphinstone had telegraphed a message proposing to send a vessel to Suez to meet the Himalaya, so as to take the 14th Dragoons; but the reply of the Government, though despatched next day, unfortunately, from an accidental circumstance, did not reach him until he had despatched the 14th Dragoons by sailing ships. Lord Elphinstone then undertook to send the steamer Auckland to Suez for one battery, and engaged with the agent of the Peninsular and Oriental Company at Bombay that one of their steamers should be placed at the disposal of Government at Suez for the other, and subsequently he despatched the Berenice to assist. The Auckland unfortunately broke down at Aden, and was obliged to return to Bombay, and the Peninsular and Oriental Company were unable to comply with their agent's requisition, so that the Berenice was the only vessel from Bombay which reached Suez until the Imperatriz, which had been employed in laying down the electric cable, was finally engaged through the exertions of the agent at Aden and our consul at Alexandria. Now, with respect to the dates. The two bat-

  25
  teries of Royal Artillery were embarked on board the Himalaya at Southampton on the 15th of January; the Himalaya reached Alexandria on the 29th of January; No 1 battery, 4th brigade, disembarked from the Himalaya on the 11th and 12th of February. The above battery, with three-fourths of its stores, left Suez in the Berenice on the 15th of February, which vessel arrived at Ceylon on the 15th of March all right. The remaining stores of this battery were despatched in the Simla on the 20th of February. The second battery and stores disembarked from the Himalaya on the 9th and 10th of March, and were placed on board the Precursor at Suez, there to await the arrival of the vessel that was to take them. The Imperatriz sailed with the above on the 5th of April. Captain Milward, who commanded the second battery, reported that on opening the limber boxes he found that damp had penetrated into them and damaged the powder; the fusees, however, were in a different part of the ship, and on inspection were found uninjured. The total amount of ammunition with Captain Milward was 112 rounds per gun. A portion of this might be so damaged as to be useless, but sufficient provision had been made against this by sending 812 rounds for each gun of the two batteries in the Khersonese screw steamer on the 26th of January last, which would arrive in China before the battery, in all probability. Independently, therefore, of ammunition already in China, or of what might be sent from Calcutta, whither Captain Milward had written for a fresh supply, there would be 924 rounds for each gun of the two batteries.

FORESHORES.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the rights of the Crown as connected with the foreshores, tidal rivers, estuaries, and bed of the sea round the coast of the United Kingdom, and the manner in which the Woods and Forests were dealing with the same. He said he had brought this question before the House on several previous occasions, both in the last and present Session, but had somehow always found his exertions rendered nugatory by a count out. This was more especially the case before the Easter recess. Such a result would have naturally made him draw the conclusion that the question was one of
  26
  little or no consequence, but as on the last occasion the Second Heading of the Re-form Bill stood also for discussion, and the count out was the act of Government, the inference he arrived at must be either that the Reform Bill was of very little or his own Motion of very great importance. As applied to both questions, he believed this to be a correct description, and therefore again ventured to obtrude this Motion again on the attention of the House. If, however, it was as insignificant as some supposed, he felt it was utterly out of his power to give it an importance which did not belong to it—to raise a mountain from a mole-hill—if, on the other hand, it involved such great interests as he believed, and embraced weighty questions of law, his embarrassment was not less enhanced at the heavy responsibility he had undertaken in attempting to deal with a subject to which it might be beyond his power to do justice, and therefore prayed the House kindly to extend him their indulgence while he attempted to unravel a matter necessarily involved in somewhat dry details and legal technicalities. A few weeks ago he presented a petition from a gentleman residing in Carmarthenshire, in Wales, named Rees, a magistrate of that county, who complained that he had been for many years exposed to a vexatious and expensive litigation with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in consequence of claims which had been made by the Commissioners to the foreshores. He said that he and his ancestors had had the advantage of this property for many generations without being interfered with in any way; and in 1838 he granted a lease to a company for the raising of coal upon this land. The land might be described as freehold property, and it consisted principally of marsh land adjoining the sea. About the year 1845 the Commissioners of Woods and Forests claimed this land as the property of the Crown, and they called upon him to point out the line and boundary of his property. Now he must here point out what an unreasonable demand this was on the part of the Woods and Forests. They had never been heard of before as claiming to be neighbours and to have an interest in property bordering on Mr. Rees's estate, and when they suddenly appeared in that character it was surely their part to name the boundary to which they claimed to be adverse possessors. Mr. Rees declined doing what was required, and the Commissioners appointed a Mr. Sop-

  27
  with, a surveyor, to set out what this line was. He laid down a line which Mr. Rees could not admit, and in consequence litigation was commenced, and had been going on ever since. In 1854 a decree was pronounced by Lord Cranworth which settled that the boundary line of the foreshores was to be the medium rise of the tides. The litigation, however, still continued, but he would not trouble the House with the various phases which the suit assumed, through other parties being joined in the same proceedings; suffice it to say, Mr. Rendel, the Civil Engineer, and on his death, Mr. Bidder, of Great George Street, Westminster, was appointed by the consent of all parties to set out the line by actual survey. This was given in by Mr. Bidder in 1858, fixing a line considerably seaward to that claimed by the Woods and Forests on Mr. Sopwith's Report. The Commissioners have declined to abide by Mr. Bidder's survey, and are still harassing Mr. Rees by further legal proceedings. Other landlords had compromised the matter, and Mr. Bees stated that if he had known the trouble and expense, he would have done so too. In these proceedings another step has been taken, since Mr. Rees's petition was presented, to which he particularly called the attention of the House. It was only last week the case again came on before the Chief Clerk of the Master of the Rolls, a Mr. Whiting. Mr. Watson, the solicitor for the Woods and Forests, objected to Mr. Bidder's line, on the ground that it ought to be fixed by some tidal observations which had for some years back been kept at the adjoining port of Llanelly. This Mr. Bees said he had no evidence ready to show ought not to be accepted as the guide, and asked for delay that he might be able to prove this. Mr. Watson pressed, however, for an immediate decision, and on the ground that Mr. Rees had presented a petition to the House of Commons complaining of the delays he had been subjected to. Now it was quite monstrous that any official of a Government Department should attempt thus to press hard on a subject, because he had done that which he had an undoubted right to do, to petition the House of Commons on the persecution he had endured in this protracted suit lasting fifteen years. The case of Mr. Bees alone was one of such hardships, that, in his opinion, it justified the appointment of the Committee. This interference with shore property commenced when Lord Morpeth became Chief Com-
  28
  missioner of Woods and Forests, and had been continued with vigour ever since. Between the years 1834–57, nineteen very important suits were instituted, but they were most of them compromised, so that the questions which they involved were not fully tried out. The most important of these were the suits connected with the Mersey, and that in respect of the Thames, in which he thought the City of London were very greatly to blame in not having fought that contest thoroughly out. The Woods and Forests, however, were enabled, by the apprehension of legal proceedings which those actions excited, to make a great number of bargains. In the ten years 1830–9 there were only four sales; in the next ten years there were eighteen; but in the seven years 1850–6 there were were no fewer than 117; making a total of 139. In 1858 there were thirty, and in 1859 there were thirty-nine sales, for which upwards of £170,000 was received. There had also been a great and an increasing number of leases for foreshores. Now, how was this money disposed of? It was entered into the capital account of the Crown lands, and went wholly to enhance the ultimate value of that property which the public only hold, as it is now the fashion to assert, during the life of the present Sovereign. Such payments, however, were almost entirely on account of interests given up by the public, which, like those of commoners in a Manor, are much larger than those of any Seignorial right that might vest in the Crown. A Return lately laid on the Table showed the interest of a mere Lord of a Manor not to exceed a 14th or an 18th in the waste, but in the sales of shores the Crown appropriated to itself the whole proceeds. It was only of late that these pretensions had boon put forward, for in former times it was always believed that the foreshores were vested in the Crown for the benefit of the public—that the Crown was, in fact, the trustee for its subjects. The language, however, now used claimed such as being part and parcel of the soil and territorial possessions of the Crown, in all respects the same as any other of the landed estates under the Woods and Forests. This doctrine is put forth in their Annual Be-ports, but still more strongly in certain documents laid on the Table at the close of last Session. These embrace a long correspondence relating to the Submarine Telegraph Company, well worthy on many accounts the attention of the House, as

  29
  showing how any party or company may be driven from pillar to post through the interference of different Government offices, and accordingly we have here first the Foreign Office, then the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Treasury, and more especially the Woods and Forests, all evoked to bully this company. Mr. Gore, one of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests uses this language—
  "Primâ facie the shores of the sea, between ordinary high and low-water marks, and of all navigable rivers as far as the tide flows belong to the Crown. … · With respect to the bed of the sea from low-water mark, I apprehend the Crown title is indisputable, and that it cannot lawfully be permanently occupied by a subject without licence from the Crown."
  He would ask whether even with licence such occupation could be given? Mr. Gore goes on to say—
  "As an illustration of the Crown's right to the bed of the sea, I beg leave to enclose "—what! one would suppose some ancient authority or statute or charter, but—"a copy of the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act, of last Session, which declares. … ·Mines below low-water mark belong to Her Majesty, as part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Crown."
  And to the same effect the Atlantic Telegraph of 1857 is also quoted. He had objected to the former Act when passing through this House on the ground that its provisions, though apparently only applying to Cornwall, would be found to affect similar interests throughout the kingdom, and such prophecy has thus been verified. In a subsequent letter Mr. Gore states that the Crown lands by Act 10 Geo. 4, c. 50, are placed under the management of Commissioners of Woods, thus asserting the identity of the foreshores as part of the same. He further instanced the Durham Palatinate Act, passed two years since, where this description of property in the bed of the sea, and sea-shores, was stated to be part of the Jura Regalia vested in the Bishop, and not as forming a portion of the soil and territorial possessions belonging to the sea, though in the subsequent part of the same Act they were transferred and declared to be in future part of the soil and territorial possessions of the Crown.
  Now in this rests the main question as to whether such is their true character and nature, and which, looking to all ancient authority and mode of dealing with this property, he altogether denied. Without going back to what is recorded in Magna Charta, or Bracton, or various ancient statutes, he would draw attention to Cal-
  30
  lis's work on Sewers in the time of Elizabeth. Here he would remark as to the meaning of that word sewer, which was very different to its more modern use. It really means sea-ware or sea-work, and the Commissions of Sewers were appointed under various Acts of Parliament from a very early period expressly to look to the repair and preservation of the sea-shores, which, had they been considered as part of the Crown Lands, would not have been necessary, as it would have been the duty of the officers having charge of such to have attended to these works. The shores were then also treated as highways. An Act passed in the 27th year of Elizabeth, providing for the repair of the sea-banks in the county of Norfolk, showed beyond all doubt that in those times the seashore was considered in the light of a highway, the repair of which devolved on the same authorities who were charged with the maintenance of the ordinary highways. Again, an Act passed in the 31st of Elizabeth, relating to the building of cottages, and providing that no cottage or house was to be built, unless with four acres of land attached to it, contained the curious exception that the Act was not to extend to any cottage erected within a mile of the sea, and giving power to the Admiralty—not any officers of the Crown Lands—to remove such. He quoted the opinion of Lord Hale, who compared foreshores to the waste of a manor; and he also cited Mr. Chitty's book on the prerogatives of the Crown, published some thirty years ago, and that of Mr. Phear, of recent date, to show that they were at variance with the pretensions of the Woods and Forests on the question under consideration. Certainly, the Crown had no rights which would justify their late endeavours to invite and almost compel persons in some instances to buy up these interests in the shores, as illustrated by the advertisements published for some months in reference to Hull citadel, and the foreshore of twenty-six acres adjoining. What right and object can the Woods Commissioners have to put up for sale property in which the public interests are so largely concerned without their previous concurrence? What, therefore, he wished to learn was, whether these foreshores were part and parcel of the possessions of the Crown; what was the interest of the public in this property; and what rights the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had over it? He hoped he should have these questions

  31
  fairly answered by the Attorney General, and that he should not be met, as he was on a former occasion, by an attack of a personal character. The learned Attorney General had thought fit on that occasion to allude to him (Mr. A. Smith) as holding some shore right—the facts being these: that whereas now all wrecks were taken possessions of by the officers of Customs, those officers had thought fit to make use of his property for the purpose of depositing wreck thereon, which practice he had complained of. He did not know whether the Attorney General had ever been on the seashore, but if he had, he must surely have known that the foreshore—that portion of the seashore over which the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours —was not precisely a spot that would be selected for depositing wreck upon. He begged to thank the House for the patience with which they had listened to so dull a subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the rights of the Crown as connected with the Foreshores, Tidal Rivers. Estuaries, and Bed of the Sea round the Coasts of the United Kingdom, and the manner in which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are dealing with the same."
  MR. MORRIS,as representing a part of the county (Carmarthen) where the lands in question had been on several occasions the subject of legal proceedings, begged to second the Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Truro accuse the Government of having on a former occasion, when he brought forward this subject, been instrumental in counting out the House. In this the hon. Member was entirely mistaken, and did the Government great injustice, but himself still greater, for he believed the House was counted out solely by the hon. Member's unassisted efforts. The Government regretted that the question was not then disposed of; and he was glad that it had been again brought forward, as heartburnings appeared to have arisen which it would be desirable to have at once removed. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of Mr. Rees, who had presented a petition to the House. He (the Attorney General) regretted that such a Petition should have been brought forward while the case was the subject of legal discussion. It had been heard before the Master of the Rolls, and was now awaiting decision. It was
  32
  an unseemly thing to make the House the arena for the discussion of a case which was at the time sub judice. But there was another and most conclusive answer to the hon. Gentleman. In December, 1837, Mr. Rees, for his own advantage, thought fit to demise to a company the coal mines under his property; and in doing so he included mines belonging to the Crown, and which he knew belonged to the Crown, for in May 1837, he addressed the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, requesting them to grant him a lease of the property he afterwards took upon himself to demise. In that application he stated that he was owner of lands adjoining the seashore; that he was going to work a seam of coals, and that he was desirous of working also the seams under the sand and foreshores. He, therefore, asked whether the Crown had already granted a demise of its mines, and if not, whether the Crown would grant him the right to work the coals under the shores. At that time it was impossible to give Mr. Rees a positive answer, because the extent of the rights of the Crown — in other words, what was the line of high-water mark on this part of the coast—was unknown. In 1845 it was found that his lessees were working the coal in the Crown land; proceedings were then taken against him, but he was informed that the extent of the Crown property had been ascertained, and an offer was made, based on the admission by him of that which the Crown claimed, and which he was then distinctly told comprised so much of the sea beach as lay below the mesne high-water mark. The offer was not accepted, and it was the duty of the Commissioners to vindicate their right. The question was heard at considerable length before the Lord Chancellor, assisted by two of the Judges, and the principle laid down by them was in exact conformity with the rule which the Commissioners had previously adopted, and with the offer made by them. Mr. Rees, therefore, had no one to thank but himself. If he had accepted the offer of the Crown, he might have been in possession of a valuable property. But he had taken upon himself to deal with the question; he had failed; and he might thank his good fortune that the Act of Parliament, enabling the Crown to recover costs, was not retrospective, otherwise, in addition to being compelled to account for the property of the Crown which had been illegally taken by his lessee, he would have had to pay

  33
  the costs of the suit. The claim, therefore, ought not to have been brought before the House. It was a claim obstinately and ignorantly brought forward, after the Crown had recovered judgment against him.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH: In his petition Mr. Rees says, all that he granted was as far as the high-water mark. He did not grant anything below the high-water mark.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The question was, what was the line of high-water mark. The shore in that part of the country was excessively flat, for he the (Attorney General) had been by the sea side; and the shore being exceedingly flat, it was, of course, a question of very great importance, what was the line of high-water mark. Mr. Rees contended that it was to be determined by the neap tide, whereas the Crown contended that the average of the ordinary tides throughout the year, that is, the average between the spring and the neap tides, should be the line. A very considerable extent of land, in some cases running even as far as a mile or a mile and a half, was the difference between the high-water mark claimed by one and the high-water mark claimed by the other side. Mr. Rees took upon himself to say that the line he had laid down was the right line, and he granted a lease accordingly; whereas it turned out that the line of high water was far higher up inland, and that therefore the minerals in the intervening space belonged to the Crown. Another case had just been alluded to, namely, the case of the Submarine Telegraph Company, but the facts had not been stated. In every case where a great public benefit was involved the Commissioners of Woods and Forests acted in a liberal spirit, and made the rights of the Crown, of which they were the trustees for the benefit of the public, subservient to the interests of the public. Accordingly the Submarine Telegraph Company obtained the use of the seashore for laying their wires. The question at issue really was whether a private individual was to take land, the rents and profits of which belong to the Consolidated Fund, and to appropriate it. He trusted that the House would be of opinion that the complaint was not only ill-timed but was utterly and absolutely unfounded. A great principle was involved in the Motion, for the House was asked to grant a Committee to "inquire into the rights of
  34
  the Crown as connected with the foreshores, tidal rivers, estuaries, and bed of the sea round the coasts of the United Kingdom." Why was the House asked to examine the rights of the Crown? The rights of the Crown were as much a settled thing as the rights of the subject. The House would only inquire into any right of the Crown when there was any doubt or uncertainty about it, or when it intended to modify the enjoyment of that right. Did the hon. Member propose to do anything so unconstitutional as to alter the right of the Crown. That right was the foundation of private right, and the House would not make a private right the subject of inquiry. The other part of the Motion, the manner in which the Woods and Forests had discharged their duty, came, he admitted, within the scope of Parliamentary inquiry. The rights of the Crown had been placed under charge of the Commissioners, for the benefit of the public, during the life of the Sovereign, in consideration of the grant of the Civil List; and if any case were established which would show that they had discharged their trust in an improper manner, it would be the proper subject for a Parliamentary inquiry. But from the Reports before the House it was apparent that the Commissioners had been faithful public servants, and had been eminently successful in the attempts they had made to recover the property of the Crown for the benefit of the public. He held in his hand a Return which extended to the close of the year 1857, from which it appeared that during the twenty-seven years preceding that date, twenty-nine suits had been instituted on the part of the Crown to recover property—partly mineral—which belonged to the Crown. Of those twenty-nine suits twenty-two had terminated successfully or had been settled amicably. Three were now pending, two were discontinued, and in two suits only had there been adverse decisions. The value of the property recovered was about £190,000, and in consequence of their rights being established the Commissioners had been enabled to make other grants of land amounting to about £130,000, so that the public had been directly benefited by these suits to the extent of about £224,000, less £15,000 costs incurred. Some of those suits had been instituted at the instance of individual proprietors of land, who appealed to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to decide the disputes arising on

  35
  estates bordering on the seashore. He trusted that the House would be of opinion that the Commissioners had been faithful stewards for the country. In every single case brought before the attention of the Commissioner they had consulted the law officers of the Crown, and had acted under their advice. The hon. Member had embarrassed his mind by the perusal of law books full of technical language, which he did not apparently comprehend, and was entirely mistaken in his view of the right of property in the foreshores, He had entered into a lengthened argument, which, if it led to anything, led to this: that all our great lawyers for the last three centuries were totally ignorant, totally uninformed, as to the title of the Crown to the foreshore and the beds of our navigable rivers and estuaries; and that what they called the property of the Crown was, in point of fact, the property of the landowners. A greater mistake could not be made. The seashore was always held to be vested in the Crown. It was a part of the landed property of the Crown, that had never been granted by the Crown; and whatever property was not granted by the Crown still remained in the Crown. The public at the same time had certain rights; they had a right, for instance, to embark and disembark on the shore, and they had a right to demand that it be left free for the general purposes of navigation; and accordingly it was not competent for the Crown to fence off any portion of the seashore to the general detriment of the public. Whatever was done in that way amounted to a public nuisance, which could be suppressed at once by an indictment or information at the suit of the Attorney General. But whatever might be taken from the seashore, or from underneath the shore, consistently with the full enjoyment on the part of the public of the rights he had described, remained as part of the property of the Crown. When a railway company or any other body of private individuals were desirous of obtaining a portion of the seashore for purposes of private speculation it was the duty of the trustees of the Crown to take care that the rights of the public were not infringed, and that the company paid for as much of the shore as they were allowed to take possession of. But when a portion of the seashore was wanted for any public work, for the general benefit of the country, and not for the profit of private speculators, it was in-
  36
  cumbent on the Commissioners, and it was their invariable practice to grant the portion of the shore required for that purpose upon liberal terms. Over the seashore the Crown had, through the Admiralty, the rights of jurisdiction, but could only enjoy its right of property therein to an extent that did not interfere with the privileges of the public. From the earliest times that had been the principle of the law, and he did not think the House of Commons would now be disposed to alter it. The hon. Member appeared to retain a somewhat irritating recollection of the view he had expressed as Attorney General last Session. When attacks were made upon the conduct of the Commissioners, and the question was raised whether the property intrusted to their charge could be more usefully vested in any other body of men, it became both proper and desirable to contrast the conduct of the Commissioners with that of private individuals who had obtained leases of the foreshores. And he believed the opinion which the House would most readily express on this matter was that the Commissioners ought to abstain from granting leases of the foreshores to private individuals, who employed the rights of ownership in such a manner that if the Commissioners had done the same they would have been justly exposed to the observations of the hon. Member. It was for the purpose of instituting that contrast, and not of casting any personal reflections on the hon. Gentleman that he adverted to his being in the habit of claiming a right over the foreshores of the Scilly Isles.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he expressly stated that the charges were not made in regard to the foreshore, but in regard to ground far above the high-water mark.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sorry if he had misrepresented the hon. Gentleman's claim. From his Bill of charges it appeared that if any person happened to drop an umbrella, or any trifling article, upon the sands between high and low-water mark, he would be charged 6d. or 1s. by the agent of the hon. Gentleman for the lodgment of the article. And the hon. Gentleman in his letters to the Board of Trade, when he was remonstrated with, insisted upon his right to do so. It was unfortunate, he thought, that the hon. Gentleman had not, before bringing forward his Motion,

  37
  been more accurately informed as to the rights of the Crown, and as to the suits which had redounded so greatly to the benefit of the public and the credit of the Commissioners. It was also to be regretted that he had thought fit to bring before the House what formed the subject of a pending suit. He thought the House would agree with him in thinking that the hon. Gentleman had no reason to complain either of the conduct of the Commissioners or of the law under which they acted.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that, having been counsel in a similar case, he did not think the Attorney General had quite fairly stated the claims of the Crown in the suit with Rees. Instead of claiming from the ordinary high-water mark, the Crown claimed from the ordinary high-water mark at spring tides. As usually happened in doubtful cases, each party claimed rather more than it was able to make good.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 134: Majority 17.

ROYAL PROCLAMATION (PIETY AND VIRTUE, &c.)—REPLY TO ADDRESS.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Viscount PROBY)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
I have received your Address, praying that I will cause the Royal Proclamation for the encouragement of Piety and Virtue, and for the preventing and punishing of Vice, Profaneness, and Immorality, issued at the commencement of My reign, to be revised:
And I have given directions that the Proclamation shall be carefully considered, with a view to its revision.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire how far and in what way it may be deemed desirable to find increased space for the extension and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and into the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of Science and Art. Last year he moved for the appointment of a similar Committee, which obtained
  38
  the sanction both of the Government and of the House. He would, therefore, not recapitulate the statements he then made, as every argument for an inquiry which had force last year was of even more force at the present time in support of a similar proposition. It was well-known that, owing to the over-crowded state of the British Museum, many of the valuable collections which it contained were of no use whatever to the public. Professor Owen had stated that, owing to the want of space there were specimens of natural history which could not be exhibited; the keeper of the ornithological department had stated that the most valuable parts of the collection were completely hidden from the public, and that many of them were actually perishing. The magnificent collection of prints, purchased at great expense, were completely shut from the public view; the interesting collections from Carthage were hidden in the cellars in the packing cases in which they had arrived; and those from Budrum were stowed away in the unsightly conservatory in front of the Museum. Every single evil he had then alleged as existing, had, if possible, become aggravated: every addition had left the British Museum in a more hopeless state of congestion than it was before. He, therefore, thought it was absolutely necessary for the credit of the country that some remedy should be provided. For the purpose of illustrating the mischief that resulted from the present state of things, he could not give a better instance than the well-known fact that in many instances persons who would willingly contribute by gift or bequest collections of rare value and interest to the Museum, were deterred from doing so by the knowledge that justice would not be done to their munificence, and that their gift would not receive that consideration which it deserved. When he had brought forward this subject last year it was objected that his Motion, which was for the re-organization of the British Museum, was too extensive. Perhaps such was the case, and he had therefore modified the terms of his Motion this year, and it was now precisely the same as the one which had been then accepted by the late Government. The course which he proposed should be adopted by the Committee he asked for was, that an inquiry should first be made as to whether there should be a separation of the collections, and what that separation should be. If the Select Committee which he proposed

  39
  to be appointed were in favour of separation, then the opinion of the Committee should be pronounced on the point whether the separation involved the removal of the collections from the present site; and, should the Committee decide that there must be a removal, then they ought to inquire what would be the most proper place to receive the portion removed. The second portion of the inquiries of the Committee would have reference to the structural arrangements and alterations of the Museum; first, in the event of the collections remaining on their present site; and, secondly, in the event of removal. He thought it absolutely necessary to have an inquiry into this subject, because he found that there was the greatest difference of opinion between the persons connected with the British Museum and the trustees. He would state his reason for making this assertion. The trustees desired their architect, Mr. Smirke, to prepare a plan for the enlargement of the Museum. Mr. Smirke accordingly prepared a plan, which was presented to the late Government, without a single one of the heads of departments in the Museum being consulted upon the subject. Surely, if those gentlemen were fit for the offices they held they ought to have been consulted. They had not, however, been permitted to express an opinion upon it, and the consequence was that Mr. Hawkins, the head of the antiquarian department, presented a protest against the plan of Mr. Smirke, proving incontestably that it was founded on error, and contravening every position laid down by that gentleman. Professor Owen had also prepared a plan, which he sent to the trustees, embodying his notion of what would be the most advisable course to pursue; but the trustees, although it was at that time supposed that the Government were making every inquiry into the subject, had not even deemed it worth their while to send the report of Professor Owen to the Government. He wished, therefore, that witnesses should be examined with respect to the future structure and arrangements of the Museum. He would also like to have further information upon the subject of lectures. Since he last brought this question before the House, he had given much consideration to this part of the subject, and he confessed that it was surrounded by greater difficulties than he at first supposed could exist; but when he saw the great anxiety that existed on the part of every class to
  40
  obtain information such as could be imparted through the medium of the specimens and books in the British Museum, when he considered the numbers that came from long distances to attend the geological lectures delivered at the institution in Jermyn Street, and when he considered the evidence given by Professor Owen before a Committee of that House to the effect that in not being a medium of instruction as well as of exhibition the British Museum was not performing the functions which the public had a right to demand it should discharge, he thought it would only be a proper deference to public opinion if the Committee should, at least, inquire whether the difficulties attending the establishment of lectures were insuperable, and what those difficulties were. Another point upon which he should like some further information was the law as it now stood. At present none of the specimens could be removed except by sale or exchange. He should like the opinion of scientific men to be taken upon, the question whether it would not be advisable to draught specimens and books not required at the British Museum to district libraries and museums, where they would be most thankfully received and be of considerable value. He knew a strong feeling existed upon this subject, particularly at the east end of London, where there was a total absence of any such source of rational amusement. Duplicate books and specimens might thus be got rid of with advantage. Having thus foreshadowed the principal objects he sought to attain by the appointment of the Committee in question, he might add, that he did not hesitate to state his own opinion to be decidedly in favour of separation, but adverse to any removal of the collections. He believed that on the present site increased space might be found, and that it was infinitely better in every respect than the site to which it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as appeared perfectly clear from the printed papers, to remove the collections. A paper was presented to the House the other day, from which it appeared that Mr. Smirke was requested by the trustees to draw up a comparison of the expense attending fresh buildings at Brompton, and buildings close to the site of the Museum; and it appeared that the saving on the side of South Kensington was £212,500. He supposed that this must be the economical reason why the

  41
  trustees resolved, by a majority of one, that the collections should be removed. The decisions of the trustees naturally had weight; but, in this instance, he did not regard their decision as entitled to weight, for out of the nine in favour of removal, six were Cabinet Ministers whipped up for the occasion, seldom attending on other occasions; and the majority of one was secured by the lucky arrival of Lord Granville. The decision in favour of the removal to Brompton was the opinion of trustees who rarely showed their faces at the Museum; and was at the same time entirely contrary to the feeling of the working staff of trustees, and did not therefore carry the slightest weight to his mind. Last year the Natural History sub-Committee of the trustees expressed themselves, in the interests of science, adverse to the change; and the memorial, signed by a large number of scientific men, protesting against the severance of the collections, ought to have made the Government pause before they decided on this course without any inquiry. In this document, after giving six reasons against the removal, the memorialists stated that, if the removal was to any considerable distance from the present central site, it would be received with extreme disfavour by the mass of the inhabitants of the metropolis, especially when it was remembered that by far the larger number of visitors to the Museum frequented the halls containing the Natural History collection. They enlarged on the advantages which at present accrued from having collections of scientific objects ranged around a library illustrative of their contents; and a gentleman occupying a high position in the Museum recently mentioned to him an instance of the appreciation of this advantage shown by intelligent foreigners. The gentleman in question was congratulated by some French visitors on the superiority of the British Museum over foreign collections in this respect. "At the Jardin des Plantes," they said, "when we want information on any specimen, we have to run to the Bibliothèque Impériale; so at the Louvre, when inspecting the collection of antiquities; while here you have all your collections together." And when his informant declared that the Government were thinking of foregoing this advantage by the removal of the Natural History Collections his French friends could hardly believe that he was in earnest. The only reasons which could influence the Government in
  42
  making the removal, must arise from motives of economy. But would it, in fact, be an economical transaction? In the first place the enormous expense, inconvenience, and risk which would attend the removal of these fragile collections to such a distance, must be considered. In the next place, it was to be remembered that, if they were established at Brompton, it would be necessary to have a library of Natural History there, and that the library, with the salaried staff which would be necessary, would cost a considerable sum. Then, again, although there might be a difference of £212,000 in favour of the Brompton site, a large sum must be paid down for the construction of the requisite Museum, whereas, on the present site, they need not purchase at once the whole extent of land required, but might take what they wanted when they thought proper, paying for it accordingly. Moreover, it was well to consider the unbounded ideas which unbounded space gave. It was but natural that the heads of departments should make large demands, but in his opinion it was not well to be encumbered with enormous collections. It was better to put a restriction upon the space to be filled, and to have a well-assorted collection of objects, rather than an immense extent of ground and an immense number of specimens, many of which might not be required. He did not think that the Government could undertake a more unpopular task than that of transferring these collections to a distant district. It was notorious that the Natural History collections were the most popular portions of the Museum, the obvious reasons being that persons in a humble position of life were able to understand the objects contained in them, and did not require the special education which an assemblage of Egyptian, Assyrian, and Roman antiquities demanded for their appreciation. Besides, there was a strong feeling abroad that a kind of filtration was going on towards Brompton, and a feeling, also, was gaining ground that some portion of the rivulet of public generosity should flow to the eastern as well as the western part of the Metropolis. On this point he had received a letter from a clergyman (the Rev. Mr. Hewlett), who referred to the East India Museum, the only one east of Temple-bar, and said that in ten months upwards of 200,000 persons had visited this Museum, which was only open two days a week, giving an average of 2,500 a day; and that during

  43
  this time no article had been damaged, and only one was missing. Mr. Hewlett complained that not a fragment of this Museum was to be loft within the reach of these persons, and claimed for his parishioners a participation in the advantages which these collections afforded in other parts of the Metropolis. He (Mr. Gregory) hoped that the Government would acquiesce in the necessity of inquiry; that they would feel that the stop proposed was contrary to the opinions of the working staff of trustees, to the opinions of the whole scientific world, as well as to public opinion; and he hoped by the appointment of the Committee, that effectual, though tardy justice, would be done to this magnificent national collection. He begged to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire how far, and in what way, it may be desirable to find increased space for the extension and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and into the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of science and art.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that, having served on the Public Institutions Committee, it seemed to him that there was sufficient evidence to show the necessity of the inquiry now asked for. There would be many and grave objections to the removal of the collections from the Museum, which ought, at least, to be fully considered. But the greatest anxiety had been expressed that the duplicates now lying there, which could not be lent under the present regulations, should be made available for the use of district museums in the east and in other parts of the Metropolis. The Committee had also unanimously reported in favour of the experiment of lighting up in the evening a part of the Museum—especially the lower portion. This would be very feasible, and not very expensive, and it would place within the reach of the working classes the same means of innocent recreation which they now enjoyed at Kensington. And as lectures had been found to be very popular even at the Museum in Jermyn Street, where payment was required, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that it would be useful to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galway upon that point.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he did not rise to object to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which was agreed to last Session, but which was prevented from lead-
  44
  ing to an actual inquiry by the premature dissolution of Parliament. He, however, differed from the hon. Gentleman in the conclusions, to which it appeared from his remarks that he desired to lead the decision of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had attempted to draw a distinction between a separation of the collections of the Museum and the removal of a portion of them. He (Sir G. Lewis) could not understand what was meant by a separation of a collection, unless a portion was to be removed. If the existing Museum was to be enlarged—if a large purchase of land was made in the immediate vicinity of the Museum, and a new building erected contiguous to the old one, it was a mere play upon words to call that a separation. Of course, a fresh distribution of the collections might be made in that enlarged space, but it would not be what was generally understood as a separation of the collections, which implied a removal to another place. After having attended many meetings and committees of the trustees, and given the matter full consideration, he entertained a strong conviction that it would be greatly to the advantage of the management of the Museum that a removal of a portion of the collection should take place. It was also his conviction that a large addition to the site of the Museum could not take place except at such an expenditure as the House was not likely to sanction. This, therefore, very much resolved itself into a question of expenditure. If the British Museum were maintained by endowments of its own, if it had revenues such as some of the hospitals had, arising out of land and other sources, it would be reasonable that the opinions of the family trustees and of some of the elected trustees should be almost exclusively looked at, but it was not so in a case where the public purse supplied the funds. He must differ from the hon. Member when he asserted that the Members of the Government, who were trustees, never attended the meetings of the trustees. He (Sir G. Lewis) had attended many meetings, and so had other Members of the Government, and he maintained that, as the British Museum was supported by grants of public money, the Members of the Government were entitled to a very full hearing upon a question relating to future expenditure for an enlargement or improvement of the Museum. It was simply an appeal to vulgar prejudice to say that the Members of the Government

  45
  did not discharge their duty in seeking to inform themselves on questions of this sort, and in attending the meetings of the trustees to give their votes on questions of this kind involving a great prospective expenditure of the public money. He could not, therefore, by any moans submit to the censure of the hon. Gentleman against the Members of the Government who attended on the occasion referred to. He was not present at that meeting himself, but if he had been he would undoubtedly have given his vote with the majority. He wished to express his opinion, founded on inquiry, that it was not expedient for the interest of the management of the British Museum that an attempt should be made to purchase land in the immediate neighbourhood, but rather that a portion of the collection should be removed. He would say nothing as to the site to which that removal should take place. The hon. Gentleman, it appeared, thought that Kensington was too far to the west of London. If a more eligible site could be found in the eastern or northern portions of the metropolis, the hon. Gentleman had only to indicate it and it would be fairly considered. But wherever that site might be, he felt satisfied that it would be acquired at much less cost than would attend the purchase of land in the immediate neighbourhood of the Museum. He thought too, that the hon. Gentleman had somewhat exaggerated the danger attendant on the removal of some of the collections. It had been suggested that an additional story should be placed on the existing building which would render an enlargement of the site unnecessary, but on an examination of the plans great difficulties were discovered. All the collections in the top floors would have to be removed to other parts of the Museum, and that would necessitate the closing of the whole of the collections for several years. On the whole, therefore, although the trustees were favourably disposed towards the plan, it was considered that it would be impracticable. The hon. Gentleman adverted to the question of duplicates. He had proposed that duplicates should be removed from the British Museum to district museums to be established in different parts of the country. That also was a question which resolved itself into one of additional expenditure. If that House chose to found a number of district museums, and send the spare specimens in the British Museum to them, it was of course open for them to do so; but it would
  46
  necessarily involve a considerable expenditure of public money. He thought the House would be mistaken if they supposed they would derive any great advantage from the duplicates of the British Museum. He did not believe from what he had heard that there were any number of duplicates in the natural history collection. With regard to the books, it was his belief that the custom had been to sell what were, strictly speaking, duplicates, of which there was not a great number, except when the King's collection was added to the Museum. No doubt what ordinary persons would call duplicates were not so called at the British Museum. If a person had ten copies of Shakspeare or Milton in his library he would call them duplicates; but the British Museum did not consider copies of our classical authors of different dates as duplicates. It was well known that an old copy of Shakspeare was the most valuable of the whole, and nobody would think of soiling that. If, therefore, district museums wore founded they would have to be provided both in the natural history collections and in books by fresh purchases. With regard to the question of lectures, that also was a question which resolved itself into one of expense, and he was not aware of any institution like the British Museum, either in this country or abroad, at which lectures were regularly delivered—so as to render it a place of education as well as a place of exhibition. If the House wished to engraft on the Museum an institution for lecturing it would be necessary to build lecture-rooms and employ persons competent to deliver lectures, in addition to those already employed. No doubt, gratuitous lectures, assisted by a fine collection, would be attractive and beneficial, but it was a question of expenditure. It would be system of endowed education, and he was not at all blind to the advantages it would confer, but he said again, it was a question of expense. As far as his own personal tastes were concerned, he thought such expenditure should be incurred, but he was bound at the same time to have regard to the state of the public revenue and expenditure, and he would remind them that they already voted £1,000,000 annually for science and art, in addition to the expenditure on the British Museum, an amount that would have to be largely increased. With these remarks he should offer no objection to the Motion.
  MR. TURNERsaid, the right hon.

  47
  Gentleman the Home Secretary had properly observed that this was in a great measure a question of expense. It was just on that ground that he (Mr. Turner) took a different view of the matter from the right hon. Gentleman. On the 21st of January last, at a meeting of the trustees of the Museum, a resolution was passed by a majority of one that it was expedient that the natural history collection should be removed, inasmuch as that removal would cost considerably less than by enlarging the Museum by erecting buildings in immediate contiguity with it. He found it had been calculated that the cost of 5½ acres of ground surrounding the Museum, and of the necessary additional buildings, would be £807,000; and that if ground to a similar extent were purchased at Kensington, the expense, with the requisite erections, would amount to £594,000. Now, he submitted that the House and the country were not by any means prepared to incur either the one expense or the other. Though they might commence with the idea of expending nearly £600,000 at Kensington, he believed the cost of removing the collection of objects and of making all the necessary arrangements consequent on, such a change would exceed that sum enormously. He had a tolerably practical knowledge of the working of the Museum from the great interest he took in the institution, and he had ascertained that the cost of the removal alone of the natural history collection could not be estimated below £20,000. The transfer of the fittings containing the specimens, and which were in a measure part of the building itself, could only be effected by enormous additional expense. He believed £30,000 more for that item alone would be a moderate estimate. Then there would be the interval, lasting perhaps for a couple of years, in which the necessary changes were being made, and in which the Museum would be closed to the public. There was the danger, besides, of removing such a vast number of delicate objects, a great many of which were perfectly unique, and injury sustained in those cases would be irreparable. He had been looking to the question of expense, as well as the Home Secretary, and he believed that all that was necessary could be accomplished by purchasing one row of houses on the south-east of Montague Place, the expense of which would not be very great; and on the site so obtained a building could be erected, on the ground
  48
  floor of which all the heavier articles of antiquity could be placed, while the minor articles in that department might be accommodated in a story above. He believed the idea that immense additional space was required for the natural history collection was an exaggerated one. The larger and bulkier subjects in that department were already represented. That department presented great attractions to the working classes; and, being there, those classes before leaving the Museum were gratified by the sight of other objects, by which their tastes were expanded and elevated. But, separate the collections, and the good resulting in that sense from retaining the Museum in its present neighbourhood would be to a certain extent defeated. Talking of natural history, the governing body was almost fossilizing the superior officers of the Museum by starving them. He was ashamed to think on his visits to the Museum that men of such promise and attainments as the assistants were so miserably remunerated. He was gratified that the Government had conceded the Committee, believing, as he did, that its tendency would be beneficial, and that the result would be to retain the Museum on its present site, without any very great cost to the country.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he held it to be the duty of a great Country to offer facilities for mental culture to the public at large. The cost might be considerable; but so it ought to be, seeing that the object was to elevate and refine the minds of the community in general. Museums ought always to be planted in the centres of great populations, where they could be most easily accessible to the largest numbers. The British Museum was so situated, and he submitted that if the natural history branch was to be located in one part of the metropolis, the library in another, and the antiquities in a third, the usefulness of the institution to the public would be sensibly impaired. Again, he thought that Museums should be open at night, in order to be available to the labouring classes, who could not go to them by day, and he hoped the Committee would recommend that course. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he never heard of lectures given at museums, but they were constantly given at Kensington, and, he understood, were well attended. It was of great importance to have museums in the midst of dense populations. The East India House Museum was in the midst of a

  49
  large population, and had been attended during the last two years by 200,000 persons. That museum was perfectly unique, being, in fact, a type of all India in its manufacturing, social, ethnological, and physical features, and comprising specimens of all its raw produce; but he regretted to say that it was being broken up, waggon-loads of the natural history departments having been removed to the British Museum, he feared to be buried in its cellars from want of space. He believed that to break up the natural history department of the British Museum would be very injurious, and he hoped that project would not be carried out.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I agree with those who have said that this is entirely a question of expense. It turns on that alone, and its being a question of expense sufficiently accounts for that difference of opinion which my hon. Friend who introduced the subject criticised as having taken place at the meeting of the trustees to which he referred. Though an official trustee I am not able very frequently to attend the meetings of the trustees; but, understanding that a matter of importance was likely to come on, I thought it my duty to attend on the occasion referred to, not only on behalf of the Government but of the public. And when my hon. Friend draws a contrast between the opinions of the working members of the trust and those who are members of the Government, I wish him to bear in mind this distinction, that the working trustees have no interests to consider except those of the Museum, and what will best accomplish the purposes for which the Museum is established, while the Members of the Government are responsible to this House and the country for any measures that may involve a large expenditure; and we should have been forgetful of our duty if, knowing that a question was likely to be discussed involving great additional expense to the public, we had not attended for the purpose of hearing what arguments might be brought forward, and stating our opinion why such expenses could not properly be incurred. I agree with the hon. Member, that if the question simply were, will you maintain in the present 'Museum everything that is there congregated, and add to it on the spot all the additions that from time to time are collected, and if that can be done without any expense to the public, it would be preferable-to continue the collection and all the additions that
  50
  may be made on the spot where they now are. No one would propose unnecessarily to subdivide and remove the collection or any part of it to another place. But we were informed that the building as now constituted does not adequately hold the collections on the spot, and therefore will not be sufficient to hold these that from time to time may be added. In point of fact there are various portions of valuable collections sent to the Museum that are stowed away where they are not accessible to those who wish to see them. Then the question arises, if you are to remove some portions of the collection, what portions ought, and what portions ought not to be removed. At the meeting I attended, we came to the conclusion that the books and the antiquities formed that portion of the collection that ought not to be removed. It then followed, as a matter of course, that the portion to be removed must be the natural history collection. The next question was, how can additional space be best obtained. Could it be obtained in immediate contiguity to the present building no doubt that would be better than securing it in some more distant locality. On that occasion we had calculations before us to prove that the difference of expense between getting that space which was assumed to be necessary in immediate contiguity to the present building, and obtaining a site in the suburbs would be upwards of £200,000. Now, no person at all responsible for the expenditure of the public money could hesitate in giving an opinion adverse to an arrangement that would involve an unnecessary expenditure of £200,000. I have no objections to the appointment of the Committee now asked for. I think, on the contrary, that it will be a useful Committee; and if it will show that adequate space can be obtained for the extension of the collection at the Museum, and for accommodating those collections that are not now seen, at a less expense, in the neighbourhood of the Museum than elsewhere, the question will receive due consideration from the House when their Report is made. I cannot think, however, considering that the ground in immediate contiguity to the Museum is covered with large houses, and must be very valuable property, that any given space in that quarter can be as cheaply purchased as the same space elsewhere where the ground is not covered with houses, and, consequently, not so valuable. As to the calculation made by the hon. Member for Manchester

  51
  (Mr. Turner) that a building at Brompton suitable to the purpose required would cost £590,000, that goes upon the assumption of a building of a very expensive character being erected on the spot. Such a building need not be taken as an absolute necessity, and I do not see that it will be required. A building may be erected there for the reception of the smaller and lighter articles which need not be so expensive. No doubt, it is for the House to consider whether an expense of the magnitude pointed out by the hon. Member ought to be incurred. So also, if Parliament is willing that the crowded state of the Museum shall continue, and that a great portion of the valuable articles shall remain where no one can see them, that is open for them to determine. With regard to the application of these collections at the Museum to purposes of general instruction, I am much inclined to agree with my hon. Friend who made the Motion, that if it could be shown that arrangements could be made, without expense to the public, by which those collections might be made the foundation for instructive lectures, that would be a most desirable object. How far that is possible I cannot say. The observation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should not be lost sight of, that those persons who are now charged with the care of those things, and have to show them to the public, can hardly be expected to become instructors by giving lectures. Moreover, you cannot get lectures with any advantage unless you have rooms in which the people can be accommodated. That, however, is a proper subject for inquiry by the Committee. I hope the Committee will go into this inquiry with a proper sense of the duty incumbent on them not to recommend any unnecessary expenditure of money, and I am at the same time convinced that if they recommend any such unnecessary expenditure it is not very likely that the House will adopt their suggestions.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that whilst advocating the maintenance of the Museum as a great national establishment, he strongly objected to any of the expense now contemplated being thrown upon the country generally. He concurred in the opinion that the officers of the Museum were badly paid for their services. He thought it was a disgrace to the country that they should be so badly remunerated, and he hoped that they would be better paid for the future. He did not, however, think he was
  52
  called on to vote away the money of his constituents in buildings to adorn the City of London. By a small rate, under Mr. Ewart's Act, they maintained an institution of a cognate kind, and the metropolis by a small rate was quite able to pay the expense of any enlargement of the British Museum.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could only say, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Turner) in respect to the payment of the officers of the Museum, that he was unwilling that it should go forth uncontradicted that those persons were paid in a manner that constituted a grievance and a hardship. He differed altogether from that doctrine; and was prepared to dispute, point by point, and inch by inch, the proposition laid down by the hon. Gentleman. He contended that, considering the duties they performed, that the persons alluded to were as well paid as any other class of public servants similarly employed. If that doctrine of the hon. Member for Manchester were to prevail, and a great and sweeping increase in the salaries of these officers were made, lie warned the House that the increase must be extended to a multitude of other departments, whose claims were quite as good. He did not hesitate to say that the offices in the Museum were exceedingly agreeable in kind, and the duties to be performed exceedingly moderate in amount. Those points were always taken into consideration in determining the question of supply and demand of this description of labour. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle-undor-Lyne (Mr. Jackson), if that hon. Gentleman could ensure that none of those charges would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be most willing to leave the question of the salaries of the officers alluded to, to be settled between themselves and the ratepayers. And he thought he knew pretty well how bodies of ratepayers would settle that question. But the upshot would be, that half the hon. Gentleman's scheme would be adopted, and the other half would fall to the ground. The increase of the salaries would take effect; but the proposal to pay the salaries by local expenditure would fall to the ground.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire how far, and in what way, it may be desirable to find increased space for the exten-

  53
  sion and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of Science and Art."

INNKEEPERS LIABILITY BILL.

  LEAVE.—FIBST BEADING.
  COLONEL SMYTH,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to limit the liability of innkeepers, said, that the statute law which now regulated the liability of innkeepers dated from the reign of Queen Elizabeth. By an Act passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, an innkeeper was rendered liable for the goods of his guests infra hospitium, but not in the field or adjacent premises. By the common law innkeepers were bound to receive any guest who presented himself, and if they refused accommodation they were liable to an action and indictment. This enactment had borne heavily on innkeepers who had severely suffered from its provisions. In former days, when travelling was more tedious and disagreeable, when the roads were frequently infested with highwaymen and robbers, too often acting in concert with innkeepers, travellers were proportionately few, the dangers of the road were great, and the liability of innkeepers was only reasonable. But at the present day, when an innkeeper's house was filled night after night and for hours in the day with fresh guests, all strangers to him, it was not, he thought too much to ask that an innkeeper should only be responsible for goods above a certain value, which were actually placed in his charge. His attention was drawn to this subject by a trial at the assizes in the north of England, consequent upon a robbery committed at one of the inns in York. A considerable amount of property was taken from the bedroom of a traveller by a person supposed to have been concealed under his bed. The suspected thief escaped early in the morning, and was apprehended some weeks afterwards, but was not indicted for the robbery, as the evidence did not make a conviction probable. The owner of the lost property, however, brought his action against the innkeeper for restitution. The defence set up was that the innkeeper was not liable so long as the owner had personal control over his property. The law was, however, differently, and doubtless correctly, laid down by the learned Judge who tried the case, affirming the liability of the innkeeper, who had to pay a sum of £200, besides the value of the lost pro-
  54
  perty—about £500 or £600. It appeared to him that an innkeeper should only be liable for goods exceeding a certain value actually placed in his custody or delivered to his charge. This limitation of liability was recognized in almost every other business. Common carriers by the 11th of George IV., and the 1st of William IV., obtained exemption from unlimited liability. Railway companies had obtained a similar exemption, and it must be borne in mind that such limitation did not supersede, but confined within certain limits, the common law liability. He now sought to apply that principle to innkeepers. He proposed to make them liable, as at present, for goods up to a certain value, say £40. So far the present law would be unaltered; but lie proposed that the value of goods above that amount should be declared to the innkeeper, and, if necessary, deposited with him for safe custody, in order to make him liable for any loss. Such a system worked well at the railway stations, where luggage was deposited in a safe place, and a ticket given for it during the absence of the owner. Some such arrangement was quite practicable at inns or hotels, and would be advantageous both to the traveller and innkeeper. The traveller would obtain safe custody for his property, and the innkeeper would be relieved from liability beyond a certain amount unless he bad actually charge of the property. He had added a clause giving summary jurisdiction to a magistrate in cases where meat, drink, or lodgings had been obtained without the means or intention of paying for them. This fraud could now only be punished by indictment, and was a serious hardship upon innkeepers. He, however, attached the greater importance to the other portion of the Bill, by which he hoped to secure to the traveller the safe custody of his goods, and to the innkeeper partial relief from his present liability. He would conclude, therefore, by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law respecting innkeepers and to prevent certain frauds upon them.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Law respecting the liability of Innkeepers, and to prevent certain frauds upon them ordered to be brought in by COLONEL SMYTH, Mr. ROEBUCK, and Mr. EDWARD EGERTON.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

DOCKYARDS.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  MR. JACKSON,in rising to move for a Royal Commission to inquire into the man-

  55
  agement of the dockyards, said it would be in the recollection of the House that in the early part of last Session the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) had, in a speech of great ability, in the course of which he stated that in his opinion a considerable sum might be saved annually in the expenditure of the Royal dockyards, intimated his intention of moving for a Committee on this subject. But a change in the Government took place, and the very evening on which the noble Lord was to have brought on his Motion found him seated upon the Treasury Bench as Secretary to the Admiralty. He put a question to the noble Lord whether he intended to ask for a Committee as he had proposed. The noble Lord replied that Her Majesty's Government would endeavour to carry on the important business of the shipbuilding Department with due regard to economy, but that he was not prepared to move for the Committee. Not being satisfied with that reply, he gave notice that he should on an early day move for a Committee of Inquiry, but he had no opportunity of bringing on his Motion last Session. He had now determined to ask, not for a Select Committee, but for a Royal Commission. He had sat up stairs for three Sessions on a Committee for inquiring into the Weedon frauds, but it was found that a Royal Commission was necessary to examine the books and witnesses with any prospect of success. He now felt satisfied after this experience, that no efficient inquiry could be made into the dockyard system except by parties upon the spot. If a Committee of that House sat for five years they would never get at the truth, as would be done by a Royal Commission empowered to examine parties upon the spot. It was with surprise he had heard the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget) charged with having, when he brought forward his Motion with regard to dockyard expenditure, spoken against Sir Baldwin Walker. The noble Lord never uttered a word against the gallant Baronet, than whom there was not a more meritorious officer in Her Majesty's service. He wished it to be clearly understood that in asking the House to adopt his Motion he had no intention of attacking any individual connected with the dockyards. He did not complain of the men but of the system. No one could read the Report of the Committee appointed by the late Government to inquire into dockyard economy, and the 3,800 ques-
  56
  tions which the Members addressed to witnesses, with the answers obtained, without being satisfied that the system was exceedingly defective, and that the work was done in a very imperfect and unbusiness-like manner. That was the conclusion he had himself arrived at, not only from what he had heard, but from what had come under his own observation. He was convinced that a thorough inquiry into the system was essential to its reformation, and he believed the country would not be satisfied unless it took place without delay. The great difference in the cost of shipwrights' labour in building ships in various yards was notorious. In some cases it was £2, in others £4 and £6 per ton; and there was also a great difference in the number of workmen employed and the proportion of officers appointed to superintend them. If any private person were to conduct his business after the fashion of the dockyards, he would soon find himself in difficulties. It was stated in the Report of the Committee that when the First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty went down to the yards, the amount of time lost in assembling the men for inspection cost the country no less than £1,800 per visit. In one place, he was informed, that there was one officer to every ten men; in another two officers to every ten men. The men who were employed to measure the timber received a profit in proportion to the quantity consumed by the workmen; and as there was no check upon their measurements, the temptation to which they were exposed was obvious. Captains and admirals in want of places were appointed superintendents in the dockyards; but generally they had no sooner learnt to discharge the duties of their respective offices than they received promotion and were removed. All the experience they had acquired was thus lost to the country; and new men were appointed to learn the duties. The sooner this mode of conducting the business of the dockyards was looked into and improved the better for the country. A late Member of the House, Mr. Morrison, used to say that whatever talent might cost, he would have it; and Mr. Morrison died an uncommonly wealthy man. It appeared to him (Mr. Jackson) that the country might act with advantage on the same principle. The Government, he felt bound to say, had from the first expressed their desire to meet his wishes in regard to this inquiry, and had consented to the appoint-

  57
  ment of a Royal Commission, to consist of five Members. Two of the Members who would be appointed were sound practical men, one was connected with the navy, and all five were competent men. He was confident the inquiry would be efficiently conducted. As he understood there was no opposition to his Motion, he would not longer detain the House. He begged to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the system of control and management of Her Majesty's dockyards, the purchase of materials and stores, the cost of building, repairing, altering, fitting, and refitting Her Majesty's ships.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the system of control and management of Her Majesty's Dockyards, the purchase of materials and stores, the cost of building, repairing, altering, fitting and refitting Her Majesty's Ships."
  MR. KINNAIEDseconded the Motion.
  MR. CORRYsaid, that as the Government were not about to oppose it he should not make many observations on the Motion. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member who had brought it forward did not mean it to imply any want of confidence in the Committee of Inquiry into Dockyard Economy appointed by the late Government. [Mr. JACKSON: Certainly not.] He was glad to hear that denial, as he thought that their Report embraced almost every feature of dockyard economy, and contained many valuable suggestions which he should be glad to see adopted by the present Board. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the practical ability and experience of the five gentlemen who were to constitute his Commission; but he (Mr. Corry) doubted whether they could possibly excel the five who composed the late Committee. The chairmanship of that Committee was offered to Admiral Smart, a gallant officer, who was extremely conversant with the steam navy. Another gentleman on it was Mr. Chatfield, a most distinguished member of the School of Naval Architects. Next came Mr. Laws, the storekeeper at Chatham Dockyard, who had been employed in the dockyards for upwards of forty years. Then there was Mr. Andrew Murray, the chief engineer at Portsmouth, who had formerly been in the service of Mr. Fairbairn, of Manchester. He (Mr. Corry) had not been able to ob-
  58
  tain the services of any private builder, but the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. W. S. Lindsay) had recommended him a gentleman—Mr. Bowman, an experienced civil engineer and shipbuilder, who had been employed by the hon. Gentleman himself. Altogether, the Committee was such that, however well the Commission might be constituted, it could hardly be better qualified. He believed considerable misapprehension prevailed as to the difference in the cost of building ships in the Royal and private yards. The prices in the dockyards were no doubt higher than those charged in other yards; but he thought in making the comparison due regard was not paid to this fact that the scantling used in the naval dockyards was much larger; that the material generally was of a larger description, and also the work turned out was of a better and more durable character. It was with surprise and regret that he heard the noble Secretary of the Admiralty the other night repeat the assertion which he made last year, that £5,000,000 of the dockyard expenditure could not be accounted for. That statement had been distinctly disproved by a paper which had been laid on the table of the House from the Surveyor of the Navy. A calculation had likewise been entered into last year by his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, from which it appeared that the quantity which could be built by one shipwright in the course of the year was eight tons. Estimating the cost of labour at only £2 12 s. a ton, it would be found that the wages of shipwrights at this rate would be little more than £20 a year; whereas they knew that their actual earnings were nearly three time that amount. This would go far to account for the difference referred to. So far from private dockyards being able to build cheaper than those which belonged to Government, Mr. White of Cowes, on being applied to before the commencement of the operations in China to construct two vessels, refused to do so unless an advance of 12½ per cent were made upon the Admiralty price. He had been always of opinion that the subject of dockyard expenditure was deserving of inquiry, and it was partly at his suggestion that the Committee was last year appointed; but he confessed, judging from the result of their labours, he did not entertain any very sanguine expectations as to the results which would follow from the Royal Commission at present moved for.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) did not appear to have hit the nail so completely on the head as he usually did, for he had confessed that a Committee would not answer his purpose—indeed, he was inclined to think that Committees of the House of Commons in nineteen cases out of twenty answered no purpose beyond that of wasting time; and he believed a Royal Commission would still less accomplish the objects which the hon. Member had in view. He had fallen into the common mistake of endeavouring to deal with the effect without ascertaining the cause; he had made no attempt to improve or even to investigate the system which he complained of. The subjects of his hon. Friend's inquiries ought to be referred to a properly constituted Board of Admiralty and not a Royal Commission. Assuming that all the grievances complained of did in reality exist, and some of them no doubt did exist, the only way in which they could be effectually removed was by the action of a properly constituted Board of Admiralty. Reference had been made in Committee of Supply to the cost of building ships in the dockyards, as compared with the cost of building them in the yards of private builders. He himself believed that numerous faults existed and that extravagant expenditure took place in the dockyards; but, as far as he was able to see, the fault did not lie in the cost of building. At any rate he doubted whether that cost was so great as had been represented by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He thought his hon. Friend had been misinformed on the subject; but, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry) had observed, when comparisons were being made, the heavier scantling and the better work in the dockyards ought to be taken into account. Since the House had last been engaged in discussing the Naval Estimates he met accidentally a gentleman whose name was well known, not merely to the Admiralty, but to every one who had taken an interest in naval subjects—Mr. J. White, of Cowes. Some conversation had passed with reference to the former debate, and Mr. White had been good enough to write him a letter, bearing directly on the subject of comparative expenditure in dockyards, in which he expressed his firm conviction that in the item of labour, under proper supervision, there could not be much difference between the Royal dockyards and merchant establishments. The
  60
  class of vessels built in each was totally different—not that private builders were unable to produce efficient men-of-war—but if the stimulus of competition were laid aside, very different estimates would be sent to the Admiralty, as well as to merchant shipowners. With regard to the allegation that £2 8s. per ton for labour was the ordinary cost of vessels fitted for sea, Mr. White answered this by stating that on the despatch gun-vessels and corvettes built by his firm for Her Majesty's navy during the last six years the amount actually paid for shipwrights' work was £3 19 s. a ton, and for sawyers, caulkers, joiners, &c, £2 13 s. 6d. a ton, making a total for labour of £6 12 s. 6d per ton. The gun-boats just completed for Her Majesty's service had been constructed at the more moderate outlay of £4 0s. 6d. per ton; and Mr. White did not believe it possible that they could be built for the lower sum stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Jackson), or that any practical shipbuilder would bear out his views. The writer expressed his opinion that, with due attention to "conversion," men-of-war could be as cheaply constructed in Her Majesty's building-yards as in any private establishment, and concluded by bearing testimony to the zeal and integrity of the inspectors with whom he had been brought officially into contact. This statement, from a most reliable authority, the House would perceive, bore directly on the point to which he presumed the inquiries of the Commission wore to be directed; and he did not believe that they were likely to receive more trustworthy or practical testimony. [Mr. JACKSON: It is no authority to me.] Mr. White was a gentleman who had built ships largely for all kinds of service; he had no object but to afford the most reliable information, and he did not think the hon. Member would find many persons to agree with him in the manner in which he had rejected that authority. Mr. White further believed that a certain amount of waste took place in the process of converting ships, on which the same amount would not be expended if the money were drawn from the pocket of a private individual. This was easily intelligible, and he had no doubt some control over the department of the works might advantageously be established, though he did not believe that a Royal Commission was the most suitable machinery for the purpose. For that and other abuses he had all along been of opinion that the only remedy

  61
  would be a properly constituted Board of Admiralty. By the present system the controlling power was vested in the hands of men who were only beginning to acquire a knowledge of their business, when at the end of two or three years they were turned out to make room for others equally ignorant as they had been, while the subordinates did practically what they pleased, knowing that they were subject to no responsibility. All attempts to go to the root of the evil would be ineffectual till a Board was appointed which should no longer be subject to the caprices of fortune that befell Administrations, but should be composed of men practically conversant with the duties which they were about to undertake, and above all, with a man at their head of character, professional knowledge, and established ability, whose responsible position should be the best voucher to the country for the conduct of those establishments. Entertaining those views, he should have embodied them in the form of an Amendment to the Motion, but it had been suggested to him that a Royal Commission was not a tribunal of such a character as could most fittingly deal with the reconstruction of the Board of Admiralty.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down was continually finding fault with the Board of Admiralty. He (Mr. Lindsay), however, thought that any hon. Gentleman, before he condemned the system, was bound to state that he was prepared to propose a better. But he could not call to his recollection that the hon. Gentleman had ever stated what he would propose as a substitute for the present Board of Admiralty. He supposed the hon. Member wished that the Lords of the Admiralty should not go out of office with every change in the Administration. [Mr. BENTINCK: Hear, hear!] Then we should have all the evils attendant on life appointments; and it was a question whether those evils would not be greater than the present system of appointing fresh Lords on each change in the Administration. He inferred also that the hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the First Lord should be a naval officer. [Mr. BENTINCK: Hear, hear!] He would offer no objection to this. He thought it would be desirable that the First Lord should possess a considerable amount of nautical knowledge. But it should be remembered that the duties of the First Lord were not confined to the construc-
  62
  tion of ships and checking the expenditure of the dockyards. He ought to be, in every sense of the word, a statesman able to give an opinion at any moment on the various questions of domestic and foreign policy brought under the notice of the Cabinet. Persons combining these different qualifications were rarely to be met; but if such a man could be found amongst seamen he would be preferable as First Lord of the Admiralty to a landsman, although he must say that those landsmen who had filled the office since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, had done so with considerable ability. He wished to say a few words in reference to an erroneous impression that had got abroad in regard to a statement he had made the other night as to the ships built in Her Majesty's dockyards. He was of opinion that they could be built for less. And what he stated to the House was, that the Committee appointed by the Admiralty, after twelve months' inquiry, deliberately reported that the cost of building ships in Her Majesty's dockyards far exceeded what the cost of building would have been in private yards; and he did not find that this charge was met by the counter-report of Sir Baldwin Walker and other officers, who had reported on the subject. The statement, therefore, was not his. It was the statement of five gentlemen appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the condition of the dockyards. If a Royal Commission should be appointed he hoped they would go to their work in earnest, and not shelve the question, as had been done before where Committees had been appointed. There was a feeling prevailing in the House, growing in the country and spreading every day, that the public were not getting value for their money in Her Majesty's dockyards. If this Commission was to be appointed, he trusted that there would be some clear and definite points laid down for inquiry. The Committee to which he had referred had made grave charges. The naval authorities, with Sir Baldwin Walker at their head, had made counter-statements, and he trusted that the first thing the Commission would do would be to give the charges and the counter-statements a full consideration, and satisfy themselves whether it was a fact or not that the cost of labour in Her Majesty's dockyards was a great deal more than it was in private dockyards, and whether or not it was the fact that the cost of labour in one of Her Majesty's dock-

  63
  yards far exceeded the cost of labour in another dockyard. Having done so, he hoped they would look into the nature of the evidence by which such differences were established. His noble Friend (Lord C. Paget) when out of office stated that there was a sum of £5,000,000, the expenditure of which it was impossible to trace by the accounts laid on the table of this House. He was very desirous, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman who moved for the Royal Commission would, with the permission of the House, consent to add to his Motion the words, "And the best mode of keeping the accounts thereof," that was, the accounts of Her Majesty's dockyards, so that they might have every year a specific account—he did not mean a detailed account, but a specific account of the leading points of how this vast sum of £13,000,000 was expended. He had a strong impression that the cost of repairing old ships and the cost of building new ones were so jumbled up together in the accounts that the cost of one or the cost of the other could not be discovered. He would like to see them kept separately. The effect would be that if a frigate were building at Chatham, and a similar frigate were building at Pembroke, there would be a competition between the two dockyards to produce a ship of good quality at the smallest cost. Then the surveyor's office was approached by a kind of sealed door. He would like to see the Commission walk into his office, and that a thorough tumble over of the books should take place, in order that it might be known what he did, what were his powers, and under whose control were the final orders for the vast and costly alterations which were continually being made in the shape and structure of Her Majesty's ships of war. Then he would have an inquiry into the mode in which the men were employed in the dockyards, whether the task and job were the best and most advantageous mode, or whether the piece or the day work. These were the leading points for the inquiry of the Royal Commission; and if the Commission would go thoroughly into the investigation, determined to arrive at the bottom of everything, he was strongly of opinion that £11,000,000 of money might be made to go quite as far as the £13,000,000 the House was about to vote this year.
  MR. SPEAKER: Do you move an Amendment?
  MR. LINDSAY: Yes, an Amendment in the form of an addition.
  Amendment proposed at the end of the Question to add the words "and the best mode of keeping the accouuts thereof."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he was exceedingly glad to perceive such a general feeling in favour of the inquiry which had been proposed, and he saw no objection whatever to the addition proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland. It would be generally conceded that public opinion in this country had been much given of late to discuss the question of expenditure in the dockyards; and he thought it wise of the Government to agree to an inquiry to be conducted by perfectly independent persons as to the mode in which these vast sums of money were expended. The question in the House seemed to be whether the inquiry should be by a Royal Commission or by a Committee. He had thought a good deal upon the subject, and he admitted that there were many arguments in favour of a Committee. But, bearing in mind that the inquiry could not be confined to the Admiralty, but must necessarily be accompanied with visits to dockyards, and personal inspection of the works and the system of accounts in those dockyards, which would not be within the powers of a Committee—bearing in mind also that already a considerable portion of the Session had passed, and that no Committee could arrive at a report this year, whereas a Commission might continue its labour during the recess, he was now very much in favour of the inquiry being conducted by a Royal Commission. He did not mean to say a word against the Committees organized by the Admiralty with a view to an inquiry into the state of the dockyards and steam departments last year; but certainly there was one part of the duties of such an inquiry which those Committees were not empowered to undertake. The Committees, both that on steam machinery and that on the dockyard economy, were appointed solely and wholly with regard to dockyards; but for general amelioration of the system of ship building in this country, and for a cool, valuable consideration of it, with regard to the public interests of the country, it was necessary that the inquiry should extend to the fountain head. And inasmuch as neither of those Committees had any reference whatever to that department of the Admiralty, which was at the head of all the ship building for the navy, that of itself was sufficient to justify the hon. Gentleman in moving for a Com-

  65
  mission, even though those Committees had been so recently appointed. One of the most important duties of the Commission would, no doubt, be to ascertain by examining the members of the Board of Admiralty and the Comptroller whether the strength of the Comptroller's Office was sufficient for the enormous duties which were imposed upon them. When it was considered what were the duties which were embraced in that Comptroller's Office, and what the staff of that office was composed of, he thought it would be found that some addition must necessarily be made as a matter of economy. The Comptroller, first of all, had the management, under the responsibility, of course, of the Admiralty, of the whole of the ship building, the repairing of ships, and the fitting of ships in Her Majesty's dockyards; he had the control over the system of contracts for marine engines; he had the purchase of all the vessels—and there were now a great number—which were built and building by contract. Besides this, he had an immense field of labour and consideration in the promotion and the appointment of all the officers and workmen in the dockyards and steam factories. These formed some of his duties. But he had another duty, which was increasing daily, owing to the great advance of enterprise in this country—namely, the consideration of the numberless inventions daily brought to his office for the construction of vessels, of engines, and, in fact, of every detail connected with vessels of war. This alone took up much of his time, to such an extent that it was physically impossible that he could perform a most important portion of his duties—namely, visiting the dockyards with a view to a personal inspection of the vessels in the process of building or undergoing repairs. And why? Because he was imprisoned in his office in London by the vast amount of business which accumulated upon him. An inquiry into all these things would be a most important duty which the Royal Commissioners would have to perform. So strongly did the present Board feel the necessity of relieving the Comptroller of the Navy of some of his duties that they had actually decided on appointing an assistant to him; they had not, however, quite made up their minds whether assistance should be given in the form of a professional shipbuilder, or a scientific officer of the navy. And as the notice of his hon. Friend was on the paper, his noble Fiend (the Duke
  66
  of Somerset) thought it wiser to defer the appointment till a Report had come from the Royal Commission. Another question which had presented itself to the Board had been the great and increasing work in the dockyards and the several systems of payment of wages. He could not but hope that this was only temporary. He never could believe that there was a necessity to go on in the enormous ratio in which we were now progressing in reference to ship building. He sincerely hoped that the present was only an exceptional state of things. But it would be a portion of the duties of the Royal Commission to inquire whether it would not be conducive to economy if there was some assistance granted to the superintendents at least in the larger dockyards. Another important duty for the Commission to perform was that alluded to by his hon. Friend, with a view to which he had proposed to add some words to the Motion. He did not think those words necessary. He thought the instructions to the Commission would embrace the subject of keeping the accounts. One cause of the growing idea of the public that they did not get their money's worth for their money, arose from the inability of any Admiralty, be they who they might, to give complete and detailed information to the House with regard to the cost of each and every ship in the navy. He blamed no individual. He felt it, however, so strongly that many years ago he suggested to the Admiralty that they should present to the House the cost of each ship. He had the honour of coming back to this House in 1857, and the very first time he addressed the House afterwards he offered his earnest advice that every year there should be laid on the table an account showing the cost of every ship, showing, in fact, the way in which the money had been spent during the past year, and by a clear statement showing how the money to be voted was to be expended. That advice passed unheeded. In 1858 he again called the attention of the House to the utter want of information possessed by the House of the cost of the ships of the navy. He stated, not as an attack on the First Lord of the Admiralty but as his deliberate conviction, that it was due to the public that they should know how these vast sums were expended. Upon that occasion he used these words:—
  "What had passed that night proved more than ever the justice of the complaint so often made, that those Intimates were not drawn up in such a

  67
  way as to enable professional men to analyze them with effect. There were two mysterious Votes, Nos. S and 10, which seemed to depend upon each other, the two forming, indeed, one Vote, and it was to that part of the Estimates he wished particularly to allude. The two Votes amounted, in the revised Estimates of the Government, to £2,326,063; but he defied any one to say how that money was to be expended, or to give a professional opinion as to whether the expenditure was such as would combine economy with efficiency."—[3 Hansard, cxlix., 929.]
  And last year he again called the attention of the House to the large expenditure, of which no account had been given; and he wished to take the present opportunity of saying a few words on that subject. His right hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Corry) had expressed his great regret that he (Lord C. Paget) should have thought it right to adhere to a statement he had made last year, that there was a sum of £5,000,000 he could not account for. Now, that was not what he stated in the House. The gallant Officer the Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) asked him in rather an ungenerous spirit—and he must add that he thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) also alluded to the matter in an ungenerous spirit—they accused him of having made rash and loose statements which he had not been able to verify, and which had been completely upset by the Comptroller of the Navy. Now what he (Lord C. Paget) said the other night was this. He said he did not regret—nor did he now regret—having called the attention of the House to this vast expenditure. He never held the opinion that the Comptroller of the Navy was responsible. He never questioned for a single moment but that he had authority for it, and he said it was the Admiralty who were responsible for the expenditure. He never said that the whole of the money could not be accounted for. On the contrary, he said he was sure that the Admiralty could account for every shilling; but that his object was to get an account which the House of Commons had never been favoured with since the year 1819. He had made his own estimate of the expenditure during the last eleven years, and he stated that it was an estimate of his own. He had certainly been of opinion that there were five millions expended over and above what he could account for, after carefully making his own estimate of the cost of building and maintaining the fleet during the past ten years, and his
  68
  statement had produced an official account in which he admitted there were sums of which the House of Commons from the yearly Estimates had no knowledge whatever; for instance, upwards of a million in repairs, &c. to foreign men of war. He was, however, bound to say, without wishing to give offence, that he still thought duo economy had not been practised in the shipbuilding department of the navy. Such was his opinion; but if the Commission about to be appointed should report that he was wrong, there was no Gentleman in the House that would rejoice more than he would, as he stated last year. He had troubled them with these few personal remarks, as he could assure the House it was very painful to him to hear hon. Gentlemen rise up night after night and accuse him of making personal attacks upon individuals for whom he had the highest esteem, when he was only desirous to discharge his duty. The present Board of Admiralty was anxious to out down all needless expenditure. The hon. Member who made the Motion complained of the loss sustained through the workmen having a half-holiday whenever the Lords of the Admiralty visited a dockyard. He believed that arose from an old usage of mustering the men to see that the proper number were employed, and after the muster the half-holiday was granted. But the necessity for the muster had become obsolete, and when the Lords of the Admiralty visited the dockyards last year they did not muster the workmen, and the rule had now become obsolete; but it was thought right and fair to continue the half-holiday. With respect to the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Jackson), all he could say was that the Admiralty would give every possible facility to the Royal Commission to look into every department. He had no objection to the Motion nor to the words suggested by the hon. Member for Sunderland. As to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk for an inquiry into the composition of the Board of Admiralty, he objected to it, not that he feared inquiry, but because he was sure that the Commission had already sufficient employment in the terms of the Motion.
  MR. JACKSONreplied, that while he did not intend to attack any one, he must adhere to his opinion, that a ship could be built 20 per cent cheaper in a private yard than in the Government dockyards. He had no objection to the words proposed by the

  69
  hon. Member for Sunderland, but he thought them wholly unnecessary.
  Motion agreed to.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the system of control and management of Her Majesty's Dockyards, the purchase of materials and stores, the cost of building, repairing, altering, fitting and refitting Her Majesty's Ships, and the best mode of keeping the Accounts thereof."

LONDON CORPORATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would move the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would beg to represent to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, that many of his hon. Friends, who had been instructed to state to the House their views upon this Bill, had left under the impression that it would be impossible to bring it on that night. Under these circumstances he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill ought not to be postponed.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOUETsaid, that the Bill had already been postponed some half-dozen times, and, if it was postponed now, he did not know when it would ever be discussed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee, with instruction to inquire into and report upon the charges and taxes on the metropolis, and the expediency of constituting the metropolis a county of itself for all purposes of local management, and for the administration of justice. He wished, however, at the outset to say, that it was much to be regretted that the Government placed their Orders of the Day on the paper in such a way that no man could tell what would come on and what would not. A hon. Member expected that a question early on the list would be brought forward; he waited in the House and was disappointed. Another that was interested
  70
  in a question low down in the list went away under the impression that it would not come on, and he was disappointed too. Why could not the Government conduct their business as the late Government did. When the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, he never observed that there was any of that difficulty and perplexity which were now constantly taking place. But the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department seemed to take delight in the confused manner in which he placed the Orders on the paper. He (Mr. Ayrton) was, how-over ready to take his part in the discussion of the present Bill, and to submit the grounds on which he proposed it should be dealt with by the Resolution he was about to bring before the House. He could not but express his surprise that a liberal Government should be introducing to the notice of the House a Bill to set up anew, as it were, the Corporation of the City of London; or should devote one hour's labour in the vain attempt to make such a Corporation useful for any practical purpose. The time was past when the Corporation could render service to any portion of the metropolis, though unfortunately the time was not past when it could be a great obstruction and inconvenience to the large body of inhabitants who resided about the boundaries of this petty municipality. The City occupied an exceedingly small area—something like 700 acres in the midst of the 78,000 acres which constituted the area of the metropolis; and its population was 113,000 in the midst of a population now amounting to 2,500,000. The population of the City instead of increasing rather diminished, because every year the habitations of men were becoming converted more and more into storehouses for goods. The population of the rest of the metropolis, on the contrary, was constantly on the increase, and required arrangements to be made commensurate with its great necessities; but the Corporation stood in the midst of it, incapable of progress, and dealing in no way with the great interests by which it was surrounded. This municipality was originally really a metropolitan Corporation. It was not a narrow municipality for the benefit of a small area, but it was established for the advantage and convenience of what was then the whole metropolis. The present citizens claimed as the founder of their City Brutus, the great-grandson of the brother of Æneas; but,

  71
  however that might be, it was certain that the municipality was originally one which comprised the whole of the inhabitants. It rested on a double basis. First, there was a local situation and a local limit; and, in addition, there was a trading corporation, which embraced all the great branches of trade existing not only within this limit, but all around it, in connection with the commerce of the Port of London. Every trade had a separate guild, and each guild was connected with the general Corporation. Before any man could become a member of the Corporation he was required to be a member of these trade guilds. It was necessary that he should be a freeman of a City Company before he could become a member of the Corporation aggregate, and in the time of Edward I. the power of electing the Common Council was vested, not in the mere local inhabitants, but in the several trading Companies of which the Corporation was thus composed. Many changes then took place, regulating the mode of appointing the governing body of the Corporation. Afterwards the City was divided into wards, and these wards elected members of the governing body. At first the wards were to select according to the position of the councillors as members of the particular trading guilds. Disputes, however, arose between the inhabitants on the one hand and the Companies on the other, and various arrangements were made, but all on this footing—that the guilds formed the basis of the municipality, which had its action and its seat of government within the limits of the City. When the compactly-built houses reached the old walls, a locality indicated by the names of Ludgate, Aldgate, and Newgate, the Corporation, not being tied down to a certain area, extended its limits according to the necessities of those days. The Government then possessed an intelligence in which the present Ministry seemed rather deficient, and, perceiving it to be necessary for the convenience of the inhabitants that the area of the Corporation should be enlarged, extended it to an outer ring now defined by bars, as Temple-bar, Holborn-bar, and Smithfield-bar. Again, when abridge was built across the Thames, and Southwark was connected by a solid passage with the City, the Corporate limits were once more extended, and were made to embrace that suburb. But the citizens, always selfish and exclusive, would never give to Southwark a complete share of municipal ad-
  72
  vantages. They obtained from the Crown dominion over Southwark, but at the same time managed to keep the district in a state of bondage. There were other indications of a desire on the part of the Crown in those days not to narrow the Corporation down to the mere area within its walls. The Corporation obtained a grant of all markets within seven miles of the City; and entire jurisdiction was given to them over the Port, extending from Staines to the mouth of the Thames—a jurisdiction of which they were only deprived two or three years ago. Thus the Corporation originally was not local, but metropolitan; it had not the character of narrowness into which it had subsequently degenerated, and with which the present Bill sought to invest it as a final settlement of the question. But, unfortunately, the citizens came to be regarded by the Court as rather a troublesome and malignant body. London was a place into which all men who offended Ministers were in the habit of flying, not perhaps for protection, but for consolation and support. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) apparently took a deep interest in the preservation of the Corporation, because the barons after signing Magna Charta hid themselves behind the City walls, were feasted by the citizens, and were thus withdrawn from the power of the Crown. That was the relation long maintained between the City and the Court. Every man who became unpopular at Westminster became, as a matter of course, popular at Guildhall, and if frowned upon by the King, the citizens delighted to do him honour. The case of Mr. Wilkes was only an illustration of the state of things for a considerable period, and during two centuries the Crown used to appeal to Parliament to pass laws for the purpose of preventing the building of any more houses within a certain distance of the City, in order to keep down the great, dominant, and growing power of so great an assemblage of people within one centre of action. In these endeavours the Crown, of course, failed. Houses were built, but still the system of repression was steadily pursued. The Crown would recognize no increase, discouraged it, and made it penal to enlarge the area of the City. At length, in the reign of James I. or Charles I., the system was finally broken down, and those who desired to build houses between London and Westminster became at liberty to do so. The metropolis began to extend its

  73
  limits. Temple Ear was no longer the boundary of the habitable district. First one nobleman's estate and then another was built upon, until London assumed double its old dimensions. But though the City was thus allowed to enlarge itself, it did not grow in favour with the Court. In former days every Lord Mayor of London when presented to the, Crown received the honour of knighthood; but when the City presumed to comment upon the eon-duct of the Administration the Government advised the Crown to pay no more respect to the Corporation, and from that day to the present no Lord Mayor was knighted except as a special mark of favour. He might add that the general character of the Corporation in connection with the trading companies continued perfect until the year 1835, when the Common Council made a rule that it should be no longer necessary for those who elected them to continue connected with the City Companies, and by a simple resolution deprived the freemen of the City Companies of the right which, they had enjoyed for several centuries. In the whole history of this country there was no more impudent act than the resolution by which the Common Council excluded from corporate advantages all those traders in the metropolis who did not dwell within a certain very limited area. From that time the Common Council assumed a mere local character, not increasing in importance, and becoming less worthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. When they were connected with the City Companies they hold an exceptional position, but then they became a municipality with 100,000 inhabitants, inferior to Liverpool, Manchester, and many other towns. After the House of Commons was reformed one of its earliest efforts was to examine into the affairs of the municipalities of England. Everywhere they had become subservient to the wishes of a few designing persons, and a general law was passed reforming those bodies in harmony with the idea of the present time. But why was not London included in the Reform? The only reason which lie had heard assigned was, that it was so exceptional in its circumstances that it was impossible to bring it within the scope of general regulations. The Corporation, however, with great sagacity, saw the prospect of future Reform, and wisely considered that the best way of obtaining a well-regulated Reform according to their own estimation was to be re-
  74
  presented in the House of Commons by the leader of the Reform party, and they had since enjoyed the full results of their wise and judicious proceeding. They had returned to that House the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs as their Member, and although repeated promises had been since made of reforming the Corporation, those promises had never been fulfilled. Some attempts had been made, but they were not of a character to commend themselves to the approval of Parliament. There had been small measures to make the Corporation more convenient for its own ends, to alter the number of the Common Council, to make arrangement for a voting list in the City, and to alter the mode of electing the Lord Mayor, just such as might be expected from local corporators who were anxious to increase their own importance, without regard to the just claims of the other inhabitants of London. After much perseverance, however, steps were taken to divest the Corporation of its peculiar and useless character. Two Commissions were appointed by Government, when the cry for Reform became loud, and in the Reports of those Commissions were paraded the shortcomings and the inutility of the Corporation; but there had been a power of vitality in that body which had enabled it to survive every exposure and condemnation of its faults and shortcomings. One Reform, however, did take place which was worthy of notice. The trade of the port of London had grown to such magnitude that it could no longer bear the fetters of the City Corporation, and the Government, yielding to the demands of public opinion, introduced a Bill divesting the Corporation of its main attribute as Conservators of the River Thames. There was one Member of a former Government, presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who applied his mind to the consideration of the wants of the metropolis, and brought his great intelligence to bear upon the construction of a municipal system suited to the requirements of the metropolis. That right hon. Gentleman (Sir B. Hall) had been since called up to the other House as a reward for his services in that direction—at least, so he (Mr. Ayrton) supposed, for he knew of no other services the right hon. Gentleman had performed. That was an encouragement to all metropolitan Members. The municipality then formed had shown itself able to deal with questions of great magnitude,

  75
  and had fully justified the expectations of its founder. At the same time it had dispelled the oft-repeated and unsound observation, that it was impossible to frame any sort of municipality for so great a body of persons as resided in the metropolis. The metropolis was now divided into wards, with an admirable provision for their rearrangement according as changes might take place, and the qualification of electors and elected had been defined. The late Government had placed the question of drainage freely in the hands of the Board of "Works, and the result would be that, instead of having thrust upon us the most transcendantly extravagant and nonsensical scheme which was ever imagined—which would have been the case had the matter been left in the hands of the Government—the metropolis would be treed from the inconveniences which had arisen from its sanitary mismanagement under the auspices of the Crown, and that this municipality would justify the predictions of its founder, and would do credit to the judgment of the Government which intrusted it with this power. Would it not be better now to utilize the new corporation they had established than to endeavour to resuscitate the old one which was dying? Could they by any possibility restore life to that antiquated institution; and was it not easy to give vitality for all purposes of municipal Government to the now body which had been created, and which was based upon election by the whole of the inhabitants? He did not mean to assert that the new municipality at present possessed all the powers which would be necessary for general purposes. Hitherto it had been intrusted with only one work; and if it were to be intrusted with the general government of the metropolis, its powers must be increased and its numbers enlarged. At present there were but forty-four members of the Board of Works and 200 of the Common Council, which latter body had nothing to do but to ape the proceedings of that House, and rendered no service to any one. These, however, were details which might properly be left for consideration by the Committee for whose appointment he was anxious. There was another important point which he was anxious should be considered. According to the original constitution of the Corporation of London, the aldermen and common councillors of each ward were, for certain purposes, a municipal body, and governed the affairs of that ward. He
  76
  thought that the spirit of that institution might be adopted in regard to any new municipality which was to be created. Great dissatisfaction had often been expressed with the present qualification of electors, and it had been urged that the multitude overbore the influence of the owners of property and the possessors of intelligence. This objection might be met by allowing persons possessing a small qualification to vote in the election of councillors, and requiring a larger one on the part of those who were to elect the aldermen; but this again was a question for the consideration of the Committee. He was anxious, however, to put an end to the pothouse intrigues which at present influenced the elections in the City. It was very desirable that gentlemen of station and position should go into the council and give the inhabitants of the metropolis the advantage of their leisure, their superior knowledge, and of their social station. Unfortunately, it was a matter of common knowledge that at present in the City of London men of station and position absolutely disqualified themselves from holding offices, the filling which would, they thought, disentitle them to the respect of their fellow-men. It was a subject of deep regret to see how many hundreds and thousands of persons of independent means and perfect leisure there were in the metropolis who were rendering no useful service to society, but who might find an admirable field for the application of their experience and knowledge in watching over the many branches of municipal administration. There were many subjects, among which was the supervision of the gaols, in which the criminality of 2,500,000 persons was confined, and the lunatic asylums where so many unfortunates were detained which ought to be confided to persons having a common interest with the inhabitants. There were also the various topics that from time to time engaged the attention of that House, owing to the want of a local governing body such as he had described. For example, there was the construction of bridges over the Thames. The Government had to make one bridge, and they applied to Parliament for the necessary means and powers; the City of London made another; a private company made a third; and a barrier was put between the one-half of London and the other, so that persons passing to and fro between them had to pay tolls that were a scandal to the age. Bridges were built

  77
  that would not stand, and people only asked when they were to tumble down. All this came of leaving these matters to haphazard management, and always would be the case when they were confided to bodies remarkable only for incapacity to deal efficiently with any matter they took in hand. A notable instance of this was that a department of the State was found so incapable for such duties that it could not even clean out a small piece of water like the Serpentine. How could a body like that regulate the metropolis? A complication of parishes, vestries, municipalities, and Government offices, all meddled with affairs with which they could not adequately deal, sacrificing the real in forests of the inhabitants, who had nothing for it but to pay heavy charges which a little foresight and intelligence might have spared them. The evil was gradually in creasing in magnitude, and the time had come when it should be grappled with. He therefore hoped the House would consent to an inquiry such as he had suggested. Session after Session Bills were brought in and Commissions appointed with respect to municipal subjects which ought to be dealt with by a properly constituted municipal body, responsible to the inhabitants and ratepayers, who would at once remove them from office if they mis-conducted themselves. The establishment of a municipality would involve serious consequences. Assuming that they would have such a governing body, of course they would have committees appointed who would superintend the different departments. They would deal with the whole area, and the now subdivided different bodies would then become united together. The City of London was a county of itself. Let the metropolis, according to ancient precedent, unite also in itself the institutions of a great city with those of a separate county. Then they would get rid of the preposterous pretensions of the Commission of Lieutenancy in the City of London which now enabled a number of portly people to dress in red coats and ape the costume of field-marshals in the army. The county of the metropolis might have its Lord Lieutenant like other counties; or, if it was thought advisable to gratify the vanity of a group of persons, the Crown might, as at present, put the lieutenancy in commission, when the position might be filled by men better qualified for it than aldermen, bank directors, and persons highly respectable in the eyes of the citizens and
  78
  on 'Change, but destitute of the distinction suitable for the occupants of such important posts. London aldermen equipped like British general officers were the laughing stock of the Boulevards of Paris, and brought contempt on the City and the country to which they belonged in every foreign capital they visited. Then the City also had its sheriffs. The inhabitants of all Middlesex were treated almost as the property of the London Corporation, the shrievalty of that important county—a situation which might be an object of legitimate ambition to its gentlemen of station and fortune—having six centuries ago been assigned and bartered away to that ancient body for money by some corrupt statesman or improvident Sovereign. That abuse ought to be swept away, and an end put to the absurd claims of a little area of one square mile and 100,000 people, who not only had their own sheriffs obstructing the administration of justice in the entire county, but arrogating to themselves the headship of the rest of the metropolis, whom they affected to spurn and excluded from any share in corporate rights. These, relations must be restored to a rational footing, when many gentlemen of distinction would be found ready to act as sheriff for the county of the metropolis, whereas at present everybody with a character to maintain rather shrank from the office lest he should be carried about as a mere pageant for the amusement of the London apprentices. Then, again, there were other offices, like those of the Recorder, the solicitor, or the architect of the Corporation, with salaries from £3,000 to £2,000 a year attached to them, and which might command, as they now did, a great amount of ability and intelligence, although, unfortunately, those qualities were not now turned to account, as they might be, by reason of the very limited field to which they were restricted. Another obstruction consisted in the City police. An admirable police force had been organized some years ago for the rest of the metropolis, but they were not allowed to enter within the bounds of the Corporation, where a separate establishment was still maintained, apparently for no other object but to put everything in confusion, and offer facilities to roguery and crime. That was a state of things he desired to see abolished, for he was satisfied that the amalgamation of the two bodies of police would be a work of great public usefulness and economy. Again, there was no police magistrate

  79
  within the area of the City, as in other parts of the metropolis. That defect, however, it appeared, was about to be remedied, but in a way that harmonized with the aspirations of the Home Office, which preferred to have magistrates of its own selection, and it was said that "Whigs never lost an occasion for grasping at the exercise of patronage. There was also the important question of taxation. The Corporation had for a long time assumed an exceedingly anomalous position and power in reference to the metropolis in that respect. Whatever might have been the powers of the Corporation over the purses of the inhabitants in times long past, those powers were consistent with the relations subsisting between the inhabitants and the Corporation. But hon. Members knew that there existed at present a grievous impost of 1s. 1d. on every ton of coals that came into London, which extended not only over all the inhabitants, but over a radius of twenty miles beyond the metropolis. It was naturally asked how the Corporation obtained that singular power of levying taxes on their neighbours; but whenever any one attempted to discuss that question with them they took refuge in the mazes of antiquity. They referred to a multitude of charters, many of which had no longer any existence. He rejected all these pretences however, as he found an intelligible explanation of the origin of the tax in the statute book. In the time of James I. a metage of coals was granted to the Corporation as appertaining to the conservancy of the Thames and the port of London; and so long as they acted as conservators and regulated the import of commodities it was reasonable that they should receive a consideration for the discharge of those functions. The sum allowed them in that reign was 8d. a ton for weighing and delivering coal. In the reign of Charles II., after the fire of London, it became necessary to consider how the consequences of that great calamity could be alleviated, and it seemed to have entered the mind of the Corporation to tax coal as a means of carrying on the work of reconstruction. A statute was therefore passed in that reign imposing a tax of 1s. a ton on coals entering the Thames, for the creation of a fund with which, as the Act expressed it, "to rebuild London as the imperial seat of His Majesty the King." Subsequently there was a further grant of that duty for widening the streets, building prisons, and
  80
  embanking a portion of the Thames. In the reign also of Charles II., there was a grant of a tax for the building of public market places and for churches. These grants were all temporal; but the Corporation had discovered the tax upon coals to be a convenient resource, and they seemed resolved never to let it go. An incident occurred before the Revolution, called the shutting up of the Exchequer, by which the Corporation was placed in financial difficulties. That was done at the instance of the Crown, and the Corporation happened to have a considerable sum of money deposited with the Exchequer at that time. They alleged that the money so locked up was not their own, but belonged to the orphans of the City of London. On the Restoration they applied to the Government to have that money repaid, and eventually, on the allegation that it belonged to the orphans of the City, they obtained an Act empowering them to levy a tax of 4d. a ton on coal coming into the port of London; and that was the charter on which they now took their stand, though the orphans must have long ago got back all their lost money. There was a time when the mention of that statute had so surprising an effect on the Speaker of the House of Commons that he was suddenly seized with a complaint which compelled him to leave the chair. When inquiries were made as to how that statute had passed it was discovered that it was the result of a contrivance on the part of the Corporation, a handsome bag of gold having been given for the purpose to the Speaker, to the clerk at the table, and to a Minister of the Crown. The Speaker, however, never recovered from the fit that seized him until he was voted out of the chair as unworthy to fill it. Yet this was the title of the City of London to the tax, this plunder upon the rest of the inhabitants. Prom that time to this the Corporation had never lost sight of the coal tax. Special Acts had been passed by which it was increased from 4d. to 1s. 1d. per ton. He thought the House would be disposed to ask whether an Act obtained under such a pretence was to be allowed to remain on the statute-book, and whether it had not been a great scheme on the part of one class of the inhabitants of the metropolis to plunder the rest. He had hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department was prepared to fulfil the pledge he had given, to the effect that he would endeavour to pass a law this

  81
  Session for the settlement of that financial question. There was another tax, worthy of mention, on the metage of corn, yielding about £14,000 a year. This was one of the incidents of a former state of things which had no relation to existing circumstances. If the Act depriving the Corporation of the conservancy of the Thames were examined it would be found that in the spirit, if not in the letter, the metage was to be levied for the benefit of the navigation of the Thames, not for the purposes of the Corporation. He might here also refer to the tax levied by the Government on hackney carriages in London. That tax was legitimate enough, no doubt, when first imposed, when only fine gentlemen got into coaches; but it was a monstrous thing now to levy £70,000 a year on cabs, while local taxes had to be imposed to pay for the repair of the roads which they were constantly engaged in cutting up. And he would call on those hon. Members who objected to a shilling of public money being laid out for metropolitan purposes to help in adjusting these matters of taxation between the citizens of London and the Exchequer Another point of vast importance to the people of London, and even of all England, was that of the administration of justice in the metropolis. That was the third branch of the inquiry he proposed with a view to the introduction of considerable improvements. With regard to the criminal part of the question he had been anticipated by that great law reformer, Lord Brougham, who many years ago abolished a most indecent system of administrating justice, carried on under the patronage of the City of London, and established the Central Criminal Court. The operation of that Court had shown the advantage of a uniform system. It had worked so well that it required no defence on his part. He desired to see that system enlarged and improved, for at present the relations of the people of London to the justices of Middlesex, Kent, and Surrey, and all the injustice they committed, were most inconvenient and harassing. It would be infinitely better than the present system to have a commission of the peace for the whole metropolis, and a body of justices selected from the inhabitants, who would necessarily take a deeper interest in the questions submitted to their judgment. There should be a uniform system for the whole metropolis, which might be divided into convenient wards, suitably arranged
  82
  for purposes of polling. In each ward there should be petty sessions, presided over by a recorder or deputy-recorder, when small offences could be tried in the immediate neighbourhoods in which they were committed. This would be a great convenience to the inhabitants, and the police would not be withdrawn from their own districts to attend trials in which they were engaged. This would all result from the metropolis being made a county of itself. But he would have arrangements for improving the civil as well as the criminal administration of justice. The House would scarcely believe the amount of trouble, vexation, and annoyance to which the inhabitants of the metropolis were put by the manner in which civil justice was administered in connection with the highest courts of the country. From a Return made up to the end of 1856, being the latest made, it appeared that out of all the causes tried in that year before the Judges of the superior courts at Westminster with juries there were entered for London and Middlesex 2,608; while for the whole of England, except London and Middlesex, the number was only 1,329. The arrangements for trying civil causes were of the worst possible kind. They had not only Courts sitting in London and Middlesex, but after that they had sittings at Guildford, Kingston, and Maidstone in connection with the assizes. What a monstrous thing it was that a man living on the south side of the river, when he had a dispute about his house, should be taken to Maidstone or Guildford, as the case might be, in order to have the case disposed of! On the north side there was experienced the great inconvenience of three Courts sitting at Westminster at the same time to hear causes with juries; and the same thing took place in London, to the great detriment of a right administration of justice. Instead of this antiquated contrivance, he wanted to have a central civil court for the trial of causes at nisi prius. That Court should be constantly sitting, so that if a man commenced his suit at the beginning of a month he would have it tried before its close, instead of having to wait for several months. One Judge from Westminster Hall should sit week by week in rotation, finishing the business before him, or, if not finished at the end of the week, the remanet should be disposed of at an extra sitting. Every man would thus know when his case was to be tried, and could insure

  83
  the attendance of his counsel, and justice would be economically and satisfactorily administered. It was absolutely necessary with reference to the trial of civil causes that the system of juries should be rearranged. The jury list should be made co-extensive with the whole metropolis. Juries instead of being summoned to Maidstone or Guildford, ought to be required to give their services at some central court for the benefit of the whole community. He believed a step was now being made in that direction, and if ever the system came into full operation they would have a system for the administration of justice which would be economical, expeditious, and at the same time equally convenient to the suitors themselves and to the jury. But the subject was one which required careful investigation, inasmuch as it involved a number of important details both of legislation and of action. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Homo Department would see the absolute necessity of breaking down the imaginary but at the same time roost ridiculous barrier of the City boundary, of putting an end to the partition which now existed, and of forming the whole of the metropolis into one county, for the purpose of having justice rightly, conveniently, and expeditiously administered to the entire body of the community. Before concluding his remarks he wished to say a word or two upon the minor civil courts of London. There was in existence a court called the Mayor's Court, but he confessed that he was unable to see why they should set up a little court like that in the midst of London, with a peculiar system of administering justice, unless it were to add something of dignity to the Corporation. This was a state of things that could not be continued. They had another court called the Sheriff's Court. The only distinction between the two courts that he knew of was this, that the one had an unlimited jurisdiction which was never exercised, because every cause of importance was transferred to Westminster Hall; while the other had a limited jurisdiction, and conformed to a certain extent to the ordinary procedure, the practice in the Mayor's Court being to get a man into a parlour and commit him to prison in private. The sooner that system was abolished the better. Yet they had actually introduced into the other House of Parliament during the present Session a Bill containing 228 clauses in order to reform the Sheriff's Court! What must be the abuses
  84
  of a court which required an entire code of laws to get rid of its errors! When he was told of that enormous Bill he said to one of the parties, "I think you only want one clause to make it a much bettor measure—a clause that, instead of reforming, would abolish your court and substitute a county court." The country had exhausted its intelligence in framing a system of local jurisprudence and summary justice for all the inhabitants of England; but this Corporation, being under the protecting ægis of its great representative in that House, continued the petty pretence of these antiquated courts. Why, the Corporation did not even pay those who presided in its courts a fixed salary; common councilmen practised there, gave themselves the airs of the masters of the Judge, or officers whose salaries they could canvass when next pay-day came round. Yet this indecent proceeding was tolerated by Government when they proposed to reform the Corporation! Could the right hon. Gentleman with such a Bill call himself a reformer of this miserable municipality? He had stated enough with reference to these little courts to lay the ground for investigation and important reform in this respect. If a Committee were appointed, and this Bill sent to it with the view of being made worthy of the occasion, the result would be that they would get a useful institution, based on recognized principles, harmonizing the Corporation with the necessities of the metropolis, and really useful to the inhabitants. If there was anything interesting in the old Corporation—the Lord Mayor's show, Jack-in-the-Green, and Guy Fawkes—by all means let them preserve it, but let them reform the Corporation itself on wise, comprehensive, and yet Conservative principles. For that purpose he desired that a Committee should be appointed; he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to that Committee, and suspend the progress of the Bill in the meantime. In point of form he believed he could not put his Motion until the Bill was read a second time; he did not care whether it was read a second time or not if he understood that the whole subject was to be investigated fully and effectually; but he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give the House the assurance that, if read a second time, the Bill should be referred to a Committee. In that case he had no doubt from the inquiry would evolve a measure which, on the authority of the Committee, the right hon. Gentle-

  85
  man might introduce next Session, at once really creditable to himself and to the Government with which he was connected.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that this Bill was the third Measure for the reform of the Corporation brought in since the Report of the Commission, and in his opinion it was by far the most inefficient. In point of fact, it effected no reformation at all. The object of such a Bill ought not to be confined to a twentieth part of the metropolis, but ought to be extended to the whole. The cost of administering the Corporation was much more than would be sufficient for all the expenses of a Corporation for the whole of the metropolis. A very remarkable report was made by a Committee of the Common Council about 1836, in which there was an exhibition for the first time of the vast expenditure and extravagance of the Corporation. A Commission was appointed, he believed, in 1852, consisting of the right lion. Baronet the Home Secretary, Mr. Labouchere, now Lord Taunton, and Mr. Justice Patteson. If the recommendations of that Commission had been carried out they would have produced an efficient reform; but every important feature recommended by the Commission was omitted in the Bill. Nor had any of the valuable features of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) been preserved in the Bill before the House. The Commission recommended that a new charter should be issued, containing all provisions in existing charters of the Corporation, and all other customs of the City which it might be deemed expedient to preserve. No notice of that provision was taken in the Bill. It was recommended that the Lord Mayor should be elected from persons qualified to be common councilmen. By the Bill he was to be elected from the aldermen. The Bill proposed that the aldermen should be elected for life, although in Liverpool and other great towns they wore only elected for six years. The Bill proposed to create 20 wards, having 20 alderman and 120 councilmen; although in Liverpool, which had a population of over 400,000, while the City had only 128,000, there were but 16 aldermen and 48 councilmen. Several privileges and monopolies, which were a great nuisance, in London wore left unnoticed by the Bill. It would be better that the system, with all its abuses, should remain as at present, until they had a Government which could take a comprehen-
  86
  sive view of the question. The corruption of the Corporation affected the whole of the metropolis. It was more extravagant, wasteful, and corrupt than any Government which had ever existed in the world, municipal or national. In the year to which the evidence taken by the Commission referred, its revenue was £406,851. Twelve of the principal officers of the Corporatin received in one year £2,955 more than the twelve Cabinet Ministers. 246 officers received £74,000 in fees never accounted for at any period before, and of which the Council were not aware. Indeed, the common councilmen were not themselves aware of anything like the corruption which existed until the discoveries made by the Common Council in 1836. There were twenty-eight lawyers, receiving £22,843. The present Bill contained no provision to remedy any such expenditure, however shameless. In the year referred to the Corporation received £155,000 for taxes on coal, corn, salt, &c. The expenditure of the Corporation during the year, to which the returns he held in his hand referred, was £2 12 s. 8d. per head, whilst the expenditure of the British Government was only £1 17 s. per head of the entire population of the United Kingdom. He should be glad to see the Bill rejected altogether rather than to sec a measure of so absurd a character passed into a law—a Measure which did not propose to correct any of those abuses to which he alluded, and of which the public had been for so many years complaining. He ventured to say that if the question were left to the Corporation themselves they would have proposed a much better Bill than that framed under the authority of a Government that called themselves Reformers. He should not, however, oppose the second reading, as he felt in the present state of the House he should be unable to obtain a satisfactory result to such a Motion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I think, Sir, that no sufficient reason has been given to the House for withholding its consent to the second reading of this Bill. I do not think it necessary to follow the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in his historical sketch of the City of London from the time of William Rufus, but will content myself with stating what has been done since the Reform Bill of 1832. One of the first consequences of that Bill was a reform of the municipal corporations of the country. A Commission was accord-

  87
  ingly issued, which took a comprehensive view of the question, and presented a Report. That Report, being laid before Parliament, was the foundation of the Municipal Corporations Act. From that Act the Corporation of London was excluded, upon the recommendation of the Commissioners, mainly because the City Corporation was based upon popular principles. Whatever may be said in a disparaging tone of the constitution of the London Corporation, it was a model of popular municipal government, and it was on that ground excepted from the general measure. A few years afterwards a Report was made by the Municipal Commissioners upon the City of London, That Report contained very few recommendations of reform, and the Commissioners confined themselves to a general statement of the constitution of the City, supported by documentary evidence. For some years the Corporation of London was unaffected by legislation, but, complaints having been made that Reform was needed, in 1853 a Royal Commission was issued, composed of Mr. Labouchere (now Lord Taunton), Mr. Justice Patteson, and myself, our duties being to inquire into the Corporation of the City of London, and by what means it could be reformed. The question referred to that Commission was not the general and more extensive question which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets has raised, whether municipal institutions for the entire metropolis should be established, but what reform should be made in the constitution of the Corporation of the City of London. The Commissioners investigated the subject, and, after full consideration, made a series of recommendations. I retain unchanged the opinions I then formed. At the end of that Report the Commissioners apologized for not considering the subject of extending municipal institutions to the metropolis generally, which they did not treat as within the scope of their Commission. They did not advise that municipal organization for the entire metropolis, not upon the ground, which has been alleged, that such a municipal institution would overshadow the dignity of the Crown. They thought, on the contrary, that if the attempt to include the whole metropolis by a wider extension of the present boundaries were made, the utility of the present constitution would be destroyed, while a municipal administration of excessive magnitude, and ill-adapted to the wants of the inhabitants of
  88
  the metropolis, would be created. They recommended the establishment of a Metropolitan Board of Works—such board to be composed of a limited number of members deputed by the council of each municipal body including the Corporation of the City. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said I had not sufficient breadth of intelligence to enable me to grasp so extensive a subject as a municipal institution adapted to the whole metropolis, but that he rejoiced Sir Benjamin Hall had proposed the plan of a Metropolitan Board of Works and carried that great measure through the House. I have not the least objection to any compliment being paid to Lord Llanover, to whom, I think, we are much indebted for framing and carrying the measure in question; but I wish to remind the House that the principle of the Bill was first proposed by the Commissioners, whose Report Lord Llanover himself acknowledged to be the groundwork of his scheme. The reason why the present Bill does not give effect to many of the recommendations of the Committee which were adopted in the measure of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is, that they were excluded from the latter by the Select Committee of the House to whom it was remitted. I do not think I should have acted fairly towards the House had I adhered to the opinions I had formed as a Commissioner, and disregarded the conclusion of the Select Committee. I believe the Bill is useful as far as it goes, and trust the House will not reject it because some hon. Gentlemen think it does not go far enough. Those who think that the Bill should have dealt with the finances of the City, and the nisi prius jurisdiction of the superior courts, may propose separate measures for those objects; but the existence of such questions, which are quite independent of the constitution of the Corporation, ought not to interfere with the adoption of this Bill. It will not be in my power to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to remit the Bill to a Select Committee. I do not understand how any practical plan can be devised for transforming the entire metropolis into a county, and I am not aware that any great advantage would arise from it. The proposal is an entirely novel one, and does not appear likely to receive general public approval. For my own part, I see nothing to recommend its adoption. In the first place a difficulty

  89
  would be experienced in settling the limits of the new county, which would embrace portions of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent. Then, is it likely that any advantage would arise from the appointment of a Lord Lieutenant or the establishment of a militia or yeomanry, or the re-adjustment of the gaols? Could a single assize suffice for two and a half millions of people? Many plans, of course, may be proposed for placing additional funds at the disposal of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I should be glad to see the administrative functions of that body enlarged, and I am not blind to the various anomalies which exist in the Corporation of the City. It appears to me that the only legitimate conclusion to be derived from the speech of the hon. Member is that we ought completely to sweep away the Corporation of the City, and distribute its revenues among the different districts of the metropolis. That is a proposal which has never yet been suggested to the House and as the present Bill, in whatever change it proposes, goes in the right direction, I trust there will be no opposition to it in its present stage.
  MR. JOHN LOCKE MR. JOHN LOCKE moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, as there would be ample opportunity for further discussion on going into Committee.
  Mr. AYRTONsaid, it was his intention to take the sense of the House on his Motion after the second reading.
  MR. ALBERMAN CUBITTobserved, that he was authorized to say, on behalf of the Corporation of the City, that they wore desirous the Bill should be second time, but reserved to themselves the opportunity of proposing some Amendments in Committee. He hoped, therefore, hon. Members would permit the Bill to be read a second time at once.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISwould undertake to postpone the division on the Motion for a Select Committee to another evening if they would agree to the second reading.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he thought it would be more convenient if the questions of enlarging the area of the Corporation were discussed on the second reading. He submitted that no time would really be lost by the adjournment of the debate. He was not disposed to abandon his Motion.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets could not be discussed till the Motion now before the House was disposed of.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 82: Majority 45.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. ROUPELL MR. ROUPELL moved the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he could not exactly see what was the object of these repeated Motions of adjournment, after what he had stated in respect to the intentions of the Government. If the House would let the Bill be now read a second time he would on a future day move that it be committed to a Committee of the whole House, and then the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) might make his Motion as an Amendment to that proposition.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the course suggested might be adopted if they had any confidence in the manner in which the Government conducted the business of the House. But the way in which the business had been conducted had created a total want of confidence, and the best way to deal with the Government was to give up nothing. What they wished was that a Bill of such importance should be fixed for some certain day, and brought on that day. They had never been able to tell when the Bill would come on. They had been brought down, to the House day after day for twenty days and subjected to every kind of annoyance. The right hon. Gentleman should fix some day for taking the discussion and abide by it.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISdenied that he had ever shown any want of good faith to the House. The Bill had been taken that night because he had felt himself precluded from bringing on the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill and the Highways Bill, in consequence of an error in the printing of the notice paper. He would fix a reasonable day for making the Motion to which he had referred, and if he was unable on that day to go on with it, he would give fair notice of the postponement.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, whatever opinions Gentlemen might entertain as to the conduct of public business, or whatever want of confidence they might

  91
  feel towards the Government, he must say that he had never found the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Lewis) wanting in consideration for what was due to the House, or to the just claims of those who opposed the Government measures. Indeed the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman then found himself had been in part caused by his scrupulous regard for the convenience of hon. Members, who had quitted the House not expecting that certain important business would be brought forward. If the right hon. Gentleman consented to fix a night when the discussion could be resumed, he thought the hon. Member opposite might fairly withdraw his Motion for adjournment.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the vast number of Bills which were put down on the paper each evening rendered it impossible to know when any particular measure would come on. On the understanding that a day would be given to the discussion of this Bill, he had no objection to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. HANKEYsaid, he thought it was desirable that the Bill should receive further discussion, and in consequence of the very long speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets many hon. Members had been prevented expressing their opinions with regard to the Bill.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he understood that all that was wanted was an assurance that there should be an opportunity for full discussion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read 2°.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he proposed to adjourn the further stages of the Bill to that day fortnight. If it should not be likely to come on then he would give notice a few days beforehand.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to move his Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman then moved the Amendment he would not, on the resumption of the debate, have an opportunity of making a speech.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday, 8th May.

CENSUS (ENGLAND) BILL.

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, that no single improvement had been adopted in the mode
  92
  of taking the census in England since 1801, and suggested that some of those which had been effected in the Irish census returns should be imported into those made for this country; especially that colums describing the size of the dwelling-houses and the relative amount of acreage under crops of different kinds should be included, with the view of obtaining particulars with respect to the size of dwellings as well as to agricultural statistics, &c. He did not wish to press the subject, but he suggested that it would be well to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, to consider these points and report upon them.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he would like to know whether it was intended to conduct the census on an uniform plan for the United Kingdom. One point which he wished to recommend was, that the plan adopted should be as much resembling the former one as possible, and then that it should be conducted on an uniform plan. He differed from the hon. Member who had just spoken, when he said that no varieties had been introduced since 1801. The census of religious worship was an important alteration; and he earnestly hoped this inquiry would be continued on the present occasion. He noticed that it was proposed to ask respecting the "religious profession" of every person, and the answer was to be given under a penalty. He objected strongly to an inquiry of this sort being made under a penalty. Many persons would object to answer, under a penalty. It would be remembered that at the last census a very painful revelation was made of the number of persons, no less than 5,000,000, who did not attend religious worship at all. He feared that amongst this class either no answer, or even indecorous answers might be given. Not a few of the answers would also be ambiguous. Amongst the Presbyterians there were many subdivisions; there were also sections among the Methodists. Many persons would also return themselves simply as Dissenters, and thus difficulties would arise. In the last census year the arrangements were as nearly satisfactory as could be attained; and if they had the same information as was obtained before, he thought it would be amply sufficient. He recommended that the words he had referred to should be omitted, and, above all, that there should be no penalty.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he thought that those details would be better

  93
  left to the Committee. However, he would answer the question with reference to taking a uniform census. On former occasions England and Scotland had both been included in one Bill, but since the last census a Registrar General had been appointed for Scotland, and it was thought right to give him the superintendence of the census of that country. A separate Bill would be introduced therefore for Scotland, but the forms of census would resemble each other. With regard to Ireland, the census there had always been taken by the constabulary; and, as it caused no additional expense, the information had always been much fuller. The same plan would be adopted on this occasion.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

PAPER DUTY REPEAL BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Beading read: Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, in answer to Mr. WARNER, that the passing of this measure would not fetter in any way the discretion of Parliament as to the imposition of any Customs' duty on paper. He was willing that the third reading should be postponed.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Law and Equity; Marriages (England and Ireland).
LAW AND EQUITY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORin moving the second reading of this Bill, said that he was well aware how distasteful such a subject must be to the majority of their Lordships, but he felt it his duty earnestly to implore them to give their attention to the arguments he had to offer in support of his Motion. It appeared to him that we had arrived at a crisis in law reform, and the question now was, whether there should be any further fusion of law and equity. Her Majesty in the Speech delivered from the Throne at the commencement of the Session recommended the subject to the careful consideration of Parliament, and invited their Lordships and the other House of Parliament to resume their labours in the cause of law reform, and to consider whether it was not practicable
  2
  to effect a further fusion of law and equity, so as to enable the Courts, whether of Common Law or Equity, finally to determine in a satisfactory manner any case which might be duly brought before them. There prevailed in this country what he believed was unknown in any other civilized State—a distinction between the law administered in one tribunal and the law administered in another. This had arisen from what he must call the narrow-minded and technical decisions of the common law Judges in former times. Justice having been denied to the subject in the Courts of common law it became necessary to seek for some other tribunal. Another tribunal was therefore constituted, from which the most important advantages had been derived by the country; he meant the Court of Chancery. The great men who had presided in that Court had constructed a most beautiful system of jurisprudence, which was the admiration of the whole world. But in many respects it differed from the system which prevailed in the Courts of common law, and there had for several generations been a conflict going on between the Courts on the one side and the Courts on the other of Westminster Hall, Lord Mansfield made an

  3
  attempt to bring about some reconciliation. But that great Judge and jurist incurred great obloquy for his endeavours, because it had unhappily teen the practice of the two classss of lawyers to consider their respective rules of judicature to be absolute perfection, and to look with horror upon any attempt to alter them. He remembered, indeed, that when he himself entered the profession the equitable doctrines of Lord Mansfield were sneered at and contemned in the Courts of common law. Thus things continued with little alteration until fortunately a Commission was appointed by Her Majesty to consider what improvements could be made in the Courts of equity. The Commission consisted of eminent men — namely, Sir John Romilly, Lord Justice Turner, Sir William Page Wood, Mr. Justice Crompton, Sir Richard Bethell, Sir James Graham, Mr. Henley, Mr. J. Parker, and Mr. W. M. James. Their recommendations, as far as the Courts of equity were concerned, had been almost entirely carried into effect; but he was sorry to say that in the Common Law Courts much yet remained to be done. The Commissioners took the most enlightened view of the subject and offered most valuable suggestions. In the Report which they presented to Her Majesty in 1852 they stated:—
  "The mischiefs which arise from the system of several distinct Courts proceeding on distinct and, in some cases, antagonistic principles, are extensive and deep-rooted. These mischiefs, we believe, have arisen in part from the different principles by which the different Courts are governed, and the different systems of law from which those principles are derived, and in part from inherent defects in the powers of the several Courts.… It happens that, in many cases, parties in the course of the same litigation are driven backwards and forwards from Courts of law to Courts of equity, and from Courts of equity to Courts of law. A defendant in an action at law, who has a just ground of defence, is often obliged to resort to equity to control the decision of a Court of law, or to restrain the plaintiff at law from proceeding to obtain a judgment which cannot in equity be permitted to be available.… Again, Courts of law have no powers for the preservation of property pending litigation. A Court of equity has such powers; and parties suing in Courts of law are thus frequently driven into equity for the preservation of the property pending the suit at law."
  The Commissioners laid down principles which he wished to see adopted. They said,
  "It is obviously most desirable that in every case the Court which has the cognizance of the matter in dispute should be able to give complete relief."
  4
  Having then discussed the various remedies which had been suggested, they continued:—
  "We have arrived at the conclusion that without abolishing the distinction between law and equity, or blending the Courts into one Court of universal jurisdiction, a practical and effectual remedy for many of the evils in question may be found in such a transfer, or blending of jurisdiction, coupled with such other practical amendments as will render each Court competent to administer complete justice in the cases which fall under its cognizance. We think that the jurisdiction now exercised by the Courts of equity may be conferred upon Courts of law, and that the jurisdiction now exercised by Courts of law may be conferred upon Courts of equity to such an extent as to render both Courts competent to administer entire justice without the parties in the one Court being obliged to resort to the aid of the other."
  In this Report of the Commissioners the principle was laid down on which the present Bill was founded,—one cause and one Court. It was not proposed that a suit should be brought in the Court of Queen's Bench against a trustee for breach of trust, or that an action for assault and battery should be brought in the Court of Chancery; but that legal rights should be enforced in the Courts of common law, and, if equitable questions arose incidentally, that those Courts should have power to dispose of them without entailing on the parties the necessity of going to another tribunal, employing another set of counsel, and thus incurring infinite delay and expense. His hon. and learned Friend Sir Richard Bethell, who was not only a great advocate, but a profound jurist, in an address which he delivered at the inauguration of the Juridical Society in 1855, said:—
  "For above a century this country has exhibited the anomalous spectacle of distinct tribunals acting upon antagonistic principles and dispensing different qualities of justice. It is the rule and duty of the one set of Courts frequently to refuse to recognize the real right of ownership, to ignore defences and claims founded on the best established rules of justice; and the prevention of gross injury committed in the name of law is made to depend upon the other Court being quick enough to overtake and arrest the first in its career of acknowledged injustice, and prevent it from deliberately committing wrong."
  Afterwards Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the subject of common law procedure, and the country was deeply indebted to them for their labours. Whatever might be thought of their suggestions respecting the equitable jurisdiction, their recommendations for amending the pleadings and process of the Common Law Courts were universally admitted to have

  5
  been of infinite benefit to the country. He found from a Return that in the twelve months before the Common Law Procedure Act of 1852 came into operation, the number of rules granted by the Common Law Courts was 38,009, and that in the nine months after that Act came into operation the number was reduced to 3,081, although a greater number of actions were brought and depending. The Common Law Commissioners were Chief Justice Jervis, Chief Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice Willes, and Baron Bramwell. In their second Report, in 1852, the Commissioners stated:—
  "We think we shall not outstep the limits of our commission by so far expressing our opinion, upon what is commonly called the fusion of law and equity, as to say that, whether or not it may be thought conducive to despatch of business and satisfaction in the administration of justice to do away altogether with the present division of labour between the Courts of law and equity, so far as that division arises out of the diversity of the subject-matters over which either class of Courts exercises an exclusive and complete jurisdiction it appears to us that the Courts of common law, to be able satisfactorily to administer justice, ought to possess, in all matters within their jurisdiction, the power to give all the redress necessary to protect and vindicate common law rights and to prevent wrongs, whether existing or likely to happen unless prevented."
  They then went on to recommend specific improvements, on which the present Bill was partly founded. On the recommendation of the Commissioners jurisdiction was given to the Courts of common law in all cases where there was an equitable defence; but the Courts of equity held that suitors were not bound by the judgment where there was power to set up an equitable defence; so that, if judgment were given against them, they might go into a Court of equity, file a bill, and have the whole case tried over again. Sir Hugh Cairns, a great ornament of the profession, had brought in a Bill which did give to the Courts of equity the powers that were required to do full justice to suitors who came before them, whereas formerly it was necessary, when a legal question arose, to go into a Common Law Court, directing an issue directed to try the point. Sir Hugh Cairns's Act enabled the Court of equity to decide legal questions arising in an equitable suit; but he was sorry to say that the equity Judges were very reluctant to avail themselves of the power, and it was often necessary in an equitable suit to resort to an action in the Common Law Courts to enforce a legal right, and to incur great additional expense by employing two distinct sets of counsel. In their third
  6
  Report the Common Law Commissioners, Cockburn, Martin, Willes, Bramwell, and Walton, pointing out the evils and remedies, said:—
  "It is our intention and wish that the result of what is proposed should be ingrafted upon and become part of the common law, and that the distinction between common law and Chancery law should be so far abolished. If, in addition to this, the Court of Chancery is prohibited from interfering in cases where Common Law rights are thus rendered capable of complete vindication in the Courts of common law, and in which, therefore, its interference will have become useless, the greater part, if not the whole, of the field of conflict will be done away with by confining the operation of the courts respectively to subject matters peculiar to each. Thoroughly to effect this it is necessary to confer upon Common Law Courts power to give, in respect of rights there recognized, all the protection and redress which at present can be obtained in any jurisdiction, and it is upon this principle that we have acted in our suggestions. If they be carried into effect there will no longer be the spectacle of jurisdictions imperfect in themselves and clashing with one another, but each Court will be armed in itself with exclusive jurisdiction over the subject-matter within its cognizance, and with full power to give all the protection and redress which the law at present affords by means of a plurality of suits. The conflict of jurisdiction will be done away with, because the occasion for it will no longer exist. We have only to add that we have give our best attention to the question whether it is necessary to adopt the procedure of the Court of Chancery in cases where it is proposed to borrow from its remedies; and we have arrived at the conclusion, strengthened by an experience of the working of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, that the desired object can be attained as effectually, and with less expense, by means of the ordinary proceedings of the Common Law Courts."
  This Report having been presented to Her Majesty, no time was lost to carry it into execution. The Bill of which he now moved the second reading had been framed entirely and exclusively on the suggestions of those eminent lawyers the Commissioners. The Bill, for which he took no merit, was drawn by Mr. Justice Willes, one of our soundest lawyers and ablest jurists, who had long distinguished himself by his earnest desire to assist in the amendment of the law, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had introduced it without altering a single line. It had been perused and approved of by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, Mr. Baron Martin, Mr. Baron Bramwell, and all the common law Judges. A copy of the Bill and of the Report of the Commissioners had been submitted to the equity Judges; but those learned personages he (the Lord Chancellor) regretted to say disapproved of the Bill, and had even—including the Master of the Rolls, and the

  7
  Lords Justices Knight Bruce and Turner —presented a memorial against it. They thought that nothing more should be done to bring about any further fusion of law and equity. He had no desire to ask their Lordships to pass the present measure without affording an opportunity for minutely and dispassionately considering the objections raised by the equity Bench—it was but reasonable that such a course should be taken—and with that view what he proposed was that their Lordships should give the Bill a second reading, and refer it at once to a Select Committee. In taking such a step he felt bound to state that the Common Law Commissioners were of opinion the objections of the equity Judges were untenable, and that Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had expressed a willingness along with his colleagues to answer the memorial of the Equity Judges. He would not enter with any minuteness into the provisions of the Bill, but would simply state that its object was to enlarge the powers of the common law Judges by enabling the Courts of law finally and completely to settle all questions of equity which might arise in the course of actions at law. He trusted their Lordships would consent to the second reading. All objectionable points could be fully discussed when the Bill was before a Select Committee.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he was wholly opposed to the principle and object of the Bill, and should oppose the second reading. The Bill purported to be a Bill for the further fusion of law and equity; but so far as it tended to alter the present system of legal proceedings, it might be characterized as a measure calculated rather to promote the confusion than the fusion of law and equity; for it would give to one Court powers which could far more properly and far more effectually be exercised by another. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had given to the House his opinion of the merits of the Common Law Commissioners and their recommendations; but he had altogether omitted to state the objections that were urged against the measure by the equity Judges. He should in the first place draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Commissioners had not been authorized to report in reference to equity jurisdiction, inasmuch as the order of reference had directed them to inquire into the principles of pleading in the Courts of common law; the manner of conducting suits before these tribunals and
  8
  other circumstances connected with their procedure. The Commissioners had therefore gone beyond the scope of their powers, in reporting that it was expedient to give to the Courts of common law all the material functions which were now discharged by Courts of equity. And this without the slightest necessity. By this process it was supposed by some persons that the two different systems would be amalgamated; but it would have no such operation; they were leaving equity where they found it, and law where they found it; all it would do was to take equity from the Courts that understood it and from persons competent to administer it and give it to Courts that did not understand it and to persons who were not competent to administer it. If there was to be a real fusion of the two systems, they must have a code of law blending together those two branches of the law, and so make the union an absolute and complete one. As the law at present existed, no man had ability enough to execute both common law and equity. The legal system of this country was ancient and complicated, and had hitherto worked well. Let them consider a moment how the Courts, the machinery of both systems, stood. As to the machinery, the several Courts of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellors have chief and other clerks, who admirably carry on the important business entrusted to them, and without such assistance, from the nature of equity business, justice would not be administered. There are registrars and other officers skilled in the framing and in the knowledge of the operations of the orders of the Court. The machinery works well, but Courts of law have no such machinery. They have only aid enough to carry out their own judgments. Is the country to be at the expense of unnecessary establishments to enable Courts of law to attempt to accomplish what is now perfectly executed by Courts of equity? The division of labour has been found to operate beneficially in various departments. As the law itself stands, this division between the Courts of law and equity is of great advantage. The object of this Bill is to put an end to that division. To try this proposal by a familiar instance, let the House suppose there to be two workshops, both supplied with adequate machinery and skilled workmen, but each confined and appropriated to a portion of the work — the machinery of the one inadequate to the work of the other; the workman skilled

  9
  in one but utterly incompetent in the other branch. What should we say to a law compelling the manufacturer—for no sane man would do it without compulsion—to direct one division to execute the work of both without removing either the requisite machinery or the skilled workmen from the department whose duties it was proposed should be performed by the division to which they did not properly belong. In such cases it is not a question whether originally all the operations should not have been carried on together, but whether, being divided, you can without creating a new establishment by a real union of the divisions, effectually confer on one department the functions of the other. Now, as to the Judges, there were seven in the Courts of equity—the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, two Judges of Appeal, and three Vice-Chancellors. How they had answered the purpose intended was proved by the fact that in no country was a system of equity law ever so well, or so certainly, or so cheaply administered as in England at present. The Lord Chancellor sometimes sat separately; the Judges of Appeal were always sitting, sometimes with the Chancellor, but generally without his aid; the Master of the Rolls and the three Vice-Chancellors were always sitting. There were fifteen Judges of the Common Law Courts, who had already as great an amount of business before them as it was possible for them efficiently to transact. Why, then, was the proposed transfer of jurisdiction to take place? Only a few evenings since the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack asked their Lordships to agree to the Bill for increasing the powers of the Judge of the Divorce Court, on the ground that the common law Judges were too much occupied to be able to sit as assistant Judges in the Court of divorce. And yet this important duty was part of the functions with which the Legislature had entrusted them. Then, how was it possible to ask their Lordships, without necessity, to transfer the duties of the Courts of equity, which they were perfectly competent to execute, to the Courts of common law, that could hardly do all their own work? They were quite inadequate to discharge the new duties required of them, or undertake the amount of business that now occupied the six equity Courts and their seven Judges. The consequence of the change would be that the equity Courts would not be fully occupied, and the Courts of common law
  10
  would be encumbered with too much work. The machinery of the two systems as at present constituted enabled each division to discharge its own duties. But he thought, with all respect to the common law Judges, that they were rather too fond of making cases brought before them the subject of reference to arbitration, which was not the case in the Courts of Chancery. And this Bill particularly provided for a reference to arbitration. It would be found impossible to transfer the business of one set of Courts to the other. It was inevitable that the common law Judges could not be learned in the law of equity; yet it was proposed to transfer to them a system of procedure they had never studied, and in which they had not had the practice indispensable to form an equity lawyer. The consequence of referring equity cases to the Courts of law must be confusion and a mass of conflicting opinions. He had the greatest respect for the learning of the common law Judges in their own line, but common law lawyers themselves would be ready to admit that they were not equity lawers. They had no practical knowledge of the details of equity law and they would be overwhelmed by any attempt to bring its rules into practical operation. Then, if there existed a want of capacity in the Judge, insufficient time for dealing with these questions, and a want of adequate machinery for executing the decisions which might be made, with what prospect of success, he asked, could it be proposed to confer equitable jurisdiction on Courts of law? By taking on themselves to act under the provisions of this Bill these Courts would frequently be forced to take charge of the money belonging to suitors. In Chancery this portion of the duties of the Court had been reduced to a perfect system. All monies were paid in to the Accountant General, whose office was one of long standing, and who had under him a large staff of clerks; while in the Bank of England there was a large department appropriated to the Court of Chancery, with a view to insure the security of the funds and their due application. Was it intended that there should be a similar large establishment for the Courts of common law, or were they to have a repetition of what had happened in early times, where a suitor coming to claim his money found that it had been misapplied by the person to whom it was intrusted? In the case of a fraudulent or improvident trustee the person entitled to the equitable estate would

  11
  have little difficulty, and would incur comparatively trifling expense, in causing the property to be conveyed into proper hands; but before the common law Judges a fraudulent trustee would be able to make out a much better case; and under the provisions of this Bill the owner, he contended, would be compelled to make good his equitable right as against the trustee before it would be competent for the Judges to decide on the evidence. The result of the measure, if passed, would be that the equity Courts would sit inactive, while the law Courts, with insufficient machinery, time, and information, would be engaged in the attempt to execute imperfectly and ineffectually the business which it was sought to withdraw from the proper channel. As for amending the Bill in Committee, there was but one thing which could be done with it, and that was to run a pen through all the clauses relating to the equitable jurisdiction. The third Report of the Common Law Commissioners proposed that certain equitable powers should be given to the Common law courts, which were accordingly conferred upon them, but those Courts had refused to exercise them, on the ground that they had not sufficient jurisdiction. It was not, however, a want of power on the part of the Judges, but a want of determination to execute that power, which prevented them from doing so. The Judges found—and nobody was better acquainted with the facts than the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack— that they were unable to deal with the subject, and they refused to assume the authority which the Act of Parliament had conferred on them. Now, it was proposed, in so many words, that they should have the power which they had before declared they were unable to execute. The Bill directed that in cases where the Judges found they were not able to do justice they should let the party go to equity. Was ever such a provision heard of? It was proposed, as an improvement on the existing system, that powers should be transferred from the Court of equity to a Court of law; and, if the latter found itself unable to deal with the cases brought before it, the remedy provided was, that they should be sent back to the very Court to which, at the present moment, they belonged! He maintained, as he had often done, that the tendency of modern legislation was to drive suitors from the uncertainty and conflict of jurisdictions into an arrangement of their suits by way of arbitration. The Bill proposed to give
  12
  to Courts of law power to enjoin Courts of equity not to give relief, and a more monstrous proposition he had never heard. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the example of America, where the equity jurisdiction was at one time in a most unsatisfactory state. The remedy applied was to enable Judges of the Courts of law to sit also as Judges of equity; but that was not a fusion of law or equity—it was a mere confusion of Judges. The Judges of the Court of Exchequer here had at one time an equity jurisdiction; but the result of their being both law and equity Judges was, that the equity jurisdiction was administered so unsatisfactorily, that an end was put to it by Act of Parliament, by the unanimous assent of all men, at a vast expense in the way of compensations and retiring allowances. And yet Parliament was now asked to sanction the re-establishment of a system with regard to all the Courts of law which had already been tried and failed signally. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had acted with the utmost fairness in regard to this Bill. When the Bill was produced it had thoroughly astounded him, and he had no hesitation in saying that his surprise was shared by every lawyer in and out of Parliament; and he suggested to his noble and learned Friend to refer it to the working Judges of the Courts of equity—since the Report, of which it was the echo, was drawn up entirely by common law Judges. That was done, and the Report of the Master of the Rolls and the three Vice-Chancellors was now on the table, condemning the Bill on every ground. To every word of that Report he thoroughly subscribed. The Lords Justices had not been included in the reference, but they had also expressed their opinion in communications addressed to his noble and learned Friend in strong condemnation of the Bill. Therefore the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack—new to the Court, to its law, and to its practice—stood alone against the other six Judges of the Court whose lives had been spent in it. A more important question had scarcely ever come before their Lordships, and whether an attempt should be made to refer the Bill to a Select Committee or not, he should certainly take the opinion of the House in the present stage.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the subject now under consideration was one of preeminent importance. Whether it should be referred to a Select Committee or a

  13
  Committee of the Whole House was a matter upon which, at that moment, he would not offer any opinion. He thought, however, that it was of great importance that the Bill should not be crushed at once, merely on account of certain parts of it that might appear objectionable, for on the other hand there were certain parts of it which ought to become law. He hoped their Lordships would not accede to the objections of his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards). The object of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack was to enable all the Courts of equity and at common law to completely and satisfactorily decide every question brought before them, so that the suitors should not be bandied backwards and forwards from one Court to the other. That that was a most desirable object no one could doubt, and no one could doubt that every case ought to be decided cheaply and quickly, and, if possible, before one tribunal. In the object in view, therefore, he entirely concurred, although he must express his opinion to be that he felt great reluctance against passing a large portion of the measure. He objected to some but not to all the equitable clauses. He was disposed to agree to some of them, as he thought they would be eminently useful. He thought it, for instance, of the greatest utility that pending an action for ejectment the Court of common law should be able to restrain parties from committing waste or cutting down timber; whereas persons who brought an action of ejectment in a Common Law Court were now driven to a Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain waste. So, again, in cases of forfeiture for non-payment of rent. If rent was tendered within a certain period the Court of common law ought to be in a position to stop the action in the same way as the Court of Chancery would now do. What objection could there be in such cases to giving the Courts of law larger powers? Last Session his noble and learned Friend, Lord St. Leonards, introduced similar clauses in reference to insurance. In the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854 there were for the first time introduced what were called equitable defences at law, and the Commissioners had recommended a greater extension of the system, to enable Courts of law to deal with equitable subjects. He would not go into the question of the original distinction between equity and law. They must deal with the matter as an accomplished fact—they found it so. There
  14
  were certain cases called equitable, and others of common law. Then why not fuse, so far as they could, the two together, and say the Courts should administer justice in all? The reason why it could not be carried out generally was this—that in one class of cases the subject matter in litigation required one sort of machinery and another class another kind; and the Courts of law and equity at Westminster had not the machinery which was required for the two classes of cases. If all had the same jurisdiction, they must all have the same machinery. Suppose, for instance, a person died indebted, the executor was the person whom the creditor must sue, and he could bring his action at law and obtain judgment. But a Court of equity said that was not perfect and complete justice, and what was required was, that all the assets should be got together, so that all the creditors might come in and prove their debts, and the estate should be distributed rateably among them. The Courts of common law could not possibly deal with such a case, because they had not the machinery whereby full justice could be done. They required the machinery of the Accountant General's office connected as it was with the Bank of England, and the assistance of officials to issue advertisements and take accounts. If they had not this machinery attached to the Courts of law, what would be the consequence? why, they would stop parties from bringing their actions, and then would not be able to give them complete redress. He would not go into the question as to the Judges of either Court being equally competent for both classes of business, no doubt the common law Judges either were already or would very soon become fully competent. But this would be of no avail because if they had not competent machinery all the learning and intelligence in the world would not be of any service. On the other hand, there were cases in which it was unjust for the plaintiff to sue at all; and in which no special machinery was required, yet the defendant could not stop the action without going to the Court of Chancery. It was to meet this state of things that provision was made in the second Common Law Procedure Act, whereby parties were allowed to plead equitable defences if the Court did not feel incompetent to deal with the matter. In the first year after the passing of that Act two cases arose which completely illustrated the necessity of the alternative which enabled the Courts of

  15
  common law either to admit or refuse an equitable plea. In the first case, an action was brought in which the equitable defence depended on the defendant executing a proper surrender and doing other acts which the Courts of common law had no means of enforcing. In that case, therefore, the plea was not allowed. In the second case an action was brought to recover the value of machinery in a mill. The equitable defence was that £10,000 had been paid for the mill and machinery, but by a mistake the machinery was not mentioned in the bought and sold note. The Court of common law could deal with such an issue as that, and the plea was admitted. By this Bill it was proposed to enact that a party should be able to obtain an ex parte injunction upon what was called a summons from a Judge at chambers. At present such injunctions were only granted by the Court of Chancery to prevent irreparable mischief, upon a bill and affidavit disclosing all the circumstances both for and against the party applying. No such security would, as he understood the Bill, be obtained under the present measure. More than this, it was obvious that an injunction granted with the view of preventing irreparable mischief to one person might cause an equal injury to him against whom it was granted. Accordingly, it was essential to justice that there should be an immediate and ready means of getting rid of it. Under the present system the Court of Chancery was in theory, and to a great extent in practice, always open; but if injunctions were to be granted by Judges at chambers during vacation it might be several weeks before parties considering themselves aggrieved had an opportunity of applying to a Court of common law for their dissolution. He thought he was bound injustice to their Lordships, and to the Court with which he had so Ions; the honour of being connected, to state his views upon the measure, in order to show why he could not concur with his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) in the opinion that the defects of the Bill afforded any ground for not reading it a second time. He objected to such an extreme course, because he believed that the larger half of the Bill contained provisions to which no objection could apply.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that dry as the subject was, and unintelligible as it must necessarily be to the majority of their Lordships, he spoke with sincerity when he said that a Bill more important in its con-
  16
  sequences had not often been laid upon the table of their Lordships' House. Its effect would be, whether wisely or unwisely, to subvert the system of law which had prevailed in England for upwards of 200 years, and to introduce into the administration of justice a confusion and uncertainty to which the nation hitherto had happily not been subjected. The distinction between law and equity arose from the circumstance that any system of jurisprudence which pretended to effect justice must apply different remedies to the assertion of different rights, and to the redress of different wrongs. The evil which was proposed to be remedied by this Bill, and which the Report of the learned Commissioners suggested needed a remedy, was not that the system administered by the Court of Chancery required to be altered, not that it was wrong, not that it failed to do justice, but that it would be more efficiently applied by Courts other than those to which its administration was now intrusted. It was contended that as the law was one, the same Court ought to administer it; but it might be said with equal force, that the same department of the State ought to conduct the Naval as well as the Military business of the country. That a colonel ought to command a ship and an Admiral to lead an army. The science of medicine was one, but nobody insisted on a physician proposing an amputation or on a surgeon attending through a fever. The only important question was how could the duty be performed with the greatest efficiency and at the least expense. The provisions of this Bill, instead of diminishing delay and expense, would largely increase them. The effect of the Bill in its present shape would be to empower an adversary, when a right was asserted in the Court of equity, to transfer the jurisdiction from that Court which understood the subject, and which was provided with all the machinery for administering the law, to another Court which was ignorant upon the subject and which possessed no such machinery. The question was not whether some improvement might not be made in some particular items, but whether the general change proposed by the Bill, and which was termed the "fusion of law and equity," was desirable; and if so, whether this Bill was calculated to carry out the object sought. He gathered from what was stated in the Report of the Commissioners, that upon a former occasion his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth)

  17
  had objected to the proposals which were again submitted to their Lordships in this measure. If that were really so, he must be permitted to say that it was one of the many unacknowledged or ill-acknowledged obligations which the country owed to his noble and learned Friend, who, while he held the Great Seal, unostentatiously discharged its duties in a manner which might challenge comparison with the ablest and most distinguished of his predecessors. With the permission of their Lordships he would, for a moment, invite their attention to the course of procedure that would be rendered necessary in granting injunctions in the event of this Bill becoming law. In the first instance, an application was to be made to a Judge of the Court, and if granted, exparte, of course, it might be reheard. If either party were dissatisfied they might appeal to the whole Court; if a Court could be found sitting—and during a great part of the year the Court would not be sitting. The Court might direct a special case to be stated, or an issue or issues to be had, or reference to such person or persons, as the parties might agree upon. But the matter was then by no means settled. After it had passed through all these stages, which might occupy years, it might be brought before a Court of Error, which in many cases could have no means of forming a judgment on the matter After having passed through all these forms, whether it was to be brought by a writ of error before their Lordships' House, or their Lordships were to be deprived of their jurisdiction, he was unable to say—but after it had passed through all these stages, after the opinion of all these Judges had been given, after the case had been argued, the issue tried on the point of fact, and the case had found its way into the Court of Error by way of appeal, the Court of Error might say, "We can make nothing of it. Go your ways to the Court of Chancery." He was told that the Bill was founded upon the Report of the Commissioners, and that it carried faithfully into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners. He regarded with the utmost respect the names which he found attached to the Report. The first was that of a most distinguished individual—at the bar the most eloquent of advocates—the most accomplished of gentlemen, and who, he believed, in his high office of Chief Justice, discharged its duties in a manner which gave general satisfaction. The other names were those of excellent common lawyers, but none of
  18
  those learned persons ever had any experience of the course of procedure in Courts of equity. He confessed that he had heard with considerable astonishment his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General cited as one of the supporters of the measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quoted, in support of the principle of the Bill, his address to the Juridical Society.
  LORD KINGSDOWN: Knowing the precision and accuracy of the Attorney General, it was impossible for him to persuade himself that his learned Friend had ever given his high sanction to one single clause in this measure. Judging only from the internal evidence of that document, he must say that no man in the slightest degree conversant with the doctrines and practice of a Court of Equity could suppose that the provisions of the Bill gave to the Courts of law, with respect to injunctions only, the same authority which was now exercised by Courts of equity. While professing to confer this jurisdiction on Courts of law, instead of confining it as it had been confined by Courts of equity, the Bill actually extended it to every possible case in which actions for breach of contract or other injury might be brought. Any action—the most important or the most trivial—might be the subject of these injunctions. Looking through this Report, as he was bound to do when told it was the foundation of this Bill, he had met with a passage which had rather surprised him, and which he was utterly unable to comprehend. It spoke of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery "to entertain Bills technically called Bills for new trial." He must say he had never heard of such Bills. He should apologize to their Lordships for entering into these details, but it was important that the matter should be fully discussed. A good deal had been talked of the fusion of law and equity, but he could not help thinking that there ought to have been a fusion of equity and common law Judges on the Commission. He had no apprehension that this Bill, or anything like it, could ever by possibility pass into law. He had not much apprehension that this Bill would go to the other House of Parliament in its present shape. There was another and much more important point which was not necessarily involved in that discussion, and that was whether it was or was not advisable in a different mode to attempt that which was called a fusion

  19
  of common law and equity. He confessed he distrusted all attempts to tamper with the existing legal institutions of the country. If that doctrine, which he believed was first propounded by the eminent individual to whom he had referred (the Attorney General) was capable of being reduced to a system, he (Lord Kingsdown) had no doubt it would be laid before the other House of Parliament with every advantage which the greatest ability could confer. Our judicial system was like our legislative system; they were both of native growth— the growth of England; they had grown with the growth of the people, and had been accommodated gradually to their wants; and though they may contain many irregularities, and may display some want of symmetry—yet with all these apparent defects they have conferred upon this country a greater share of order, freedom, and prosperity, and a purer administration of justice, than was ever enjoyed by any other country under the sun. He did, then, trust their Lordships would pause before, under the notion of making a theoretical improvement, they adopted an alteration which was calculated to impair the usefulness and endanger the security of such a system.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he entirely agreed in the panegyric pronounced by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack on the various Commissioners who had considered this subject. Many improvements had been made in the law in the course of the last few years. In 1850 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the law, and through its labours great simplification had been introduced into the system of pleading, as well as other most useful alterations in the common law system. They were embodied in the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854, and were eminently useful. The latter statute gave the Courts of common law, on the one hand, equitable jurisdiction, to give plaintiffs the full effect of their judgments by injunction, and, on the other hand, to grant defendants relief, by injunction, from judgments against them, for which they would have otherwise been obliged to apply to a Court of equity. The Court of Exchequer, when he had a seat in that Court, decided that they could only give relief to a defendant in cases in which a Court of equity would have granted an unconditional perpetual injunction; and their decision was, I believe, approved of and constantly followed in the other Courts of law. Those Courts have not officers capa-
  20
  ble of working out the details necessary in conditional and limited injunctions, with which Courts of equity are familiar, and new officers would be necessary. Looking back to the last fourteen or fifteen years, be had seen that one certain result of most alterations of the law, had been the appointment of a great number of new, and often the pensioning off of a number of old officers, the expense of which to the country had been enormous. He entirely objected to the part of the Bill which gave original jurisdiction in equity to the Courts of common law, beyond that which the statute of 1854 gave them. But other parts of the Bill might be useful. He therefore entirely agreed with the noble Lord who first addressed their Lordships in opposition to this measure as to the impropriety of extending the jurisdiction of Common Law Courts to all cases of injunction. The noble and learned Lord concluded by observing that he could not therefore concur with his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) in objecting to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he entirely concurred with his noble and learned Friends by whom he had been preceded in their opposition to the Bill, and added, that when the question which it involved came on for discussion again, it would be desirable that the House should consider whether it was desirable, when a measure of such a character was introduced, proposing to effect, as the greater portion of this Bill did, important alterations in the jurisprudence of the country should be adopted, so far as its reference to a Select Committee was concerned, because it contained certain clauses which were in themselves unobjectionable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in reply, said, that as the Bill was about to be read a second time without opposition, he should not enter into a discussion of the various objections which had been urged against its adoption. He could not, however, help expressing the great surprise which he felt at the statement which had been made by his noble and learned Friend who had left the House (Lord St. Leonards) to the effect that he regarded it as an act of great presumption on the part of the Common Law Commissioners that they should have dared to meddle with the subject. His noble and learned Friend, indeed, seemed to look upon the conduct of the Commissioners in that respect as the right rev. Bench might be supposed to view a proposal for

  21
  the amendment of the Ten Commandments. But he would remind his noble and learned Friend that the Commissioners had been authorized to examine how far the Courts of common law might be improved, and that they had come to the conclusion that a great obstacle to that improvement was the want of equitable jurisdiction. The having made a Report in accordance with the authority with which they were invested, then, constituted the head and front of their offending, and he could not help adding that the objections to the Bill which were founded on that Report seemed to him to be based on an entire misapprehension of its meaning; for it did not propose that suits, of whatever character they might be, might be brought indiscriminately before either equitable or common law tribunals, but that if, incidentally, a question of law arose in a suit in equity the equity Courts might be empowered to deal with it, and vice versa. Any Amendments in the Bill which might be suggested would, he need hardly say, receive his most careful consideration.
  In answer to LORD CHELMSFORD,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would lay the Report of the equity Judges upon the Bill before their Lordships; and when they had had an opportunity of reading the opinions on one side and on the other, he would move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He stood in a neutral position between law and equity, and he hoped there would be no contest among lawyers on the subject, but that they would continue to work harmoniously together.
  On Question, agreed to; and Bill read 2a accordingly.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Four o'clock.