Sitting of 22 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Local Taxation Returns.
2° Railway Cheap Trains, &c.; Votes for Disqualified Candidates.
3° Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Exception for Boys between Ten and Twelve who have Certificates as to Education and School Attendance).
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he rose to move the insertion in line 10 after "Colliery" of the words "for any hours not exceeding ten hours," for the purpose of limiting the hours of labour for boys, As he was un-
846
able to carry what alone seemed to him to meet the necessities of the case—namely, the limitation of the hours of labour in the mines to eight hours a day for children under twelve years of age—he trusted the House would not refuse to limit their hours to ten. He needed not to recapitulate the arguments in favour of a limitation which in the factories had been found to operate so beneficially, but confined himself to stating that he was acting in this matter in accordance with the wishes of those engaged in the mines. He was convinced that those men who now absented themselves for two or three days at a time would, if the power of supplying their places by children's labour was abridged, be found willing to work more continuously; but, whether they would or not, on the ground of humanity he urged the claims of these children on the protection of the House, and he maintained that it was a principle of political economy to prevent the rising generation from becoming physically degenerate through excessive labour in infancy.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after the word "colliery," to insert the words "for any hours not exceeding ten hours a day."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Committee had already fully discussed and decided against the principle of a limitation of the hours of labour for children employed in mines. He thought that if his hon. Friend had proposed ten hours instead of eight, the division on the last occasion would have been identically the same. What weighed with the Committee, and he confessed with him also, was that if it were practicable, some limit should be placed on the hours of labour which boys should work in mines. The testimony, however, which had been laid before him by persons having every wish to improve the condition of labourers in mines was so strong, and almost unanimous on the subject, that he really did not know how to resist it. There were twelve inspectors of mines, part of whose duties it was to protect the children employed under-ground, and eleven out of those gentlemen had reported against the practicability of limiting the hours of labour. If his hon. Friend thought it necessary to proceed with his Amendment, and did not rest satisfied with having brought his views under the attention of the Committee, he (Sir George Lewis) should feel it his duty to vote against the Amendment.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he could assure the Committee that he had no desire to see boys overworked; but the Motion of the hon. Member would, in fact, regulate the hours of labour for the men working in mines. The hours might occasionally be rather long, but the labour was very light; it consisted chiefly in driving ponies from the place where the men worked to the bottom of the shaft; so that if the limitation proposed by the hon. Member was agreed to, it would be a direct interference with all the labour in the mine.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that when they were told that it was impossible to limit the hours of labour which a boy should work in a mine, he should like to hear some grounds stated in support of that assertion. He had heard none, and no hon. Gentleman connected with the mining interest had ventured to stand up in his place and to state to the House any ground which could lead any intelligent person to the conviction that it was impossible to limit the hours of labour of a child between ten and twelve years of age to ten hours a day. To say it was impracticable meant nothing more nor less than that it might affect the profits of coalowners, with whom this was a mere question of money. Was Parliament to say that those children should be kept underground and deprived of that opportunity of improving their health and mental condition which should be accorded to all the children in this country? He understood it was the practice of men employed in mines not to work one day and to do overwork the next. He did not think that the children should be subjected to that overwork, simply because the men, for their own gratification, did not choose to attend to their work regularly. He thought the Legislature should interpose to put down the abominable system of overwork one day and drunkenness the next, and to substitute for it a more regular and methodical working of mines. The warnings and threats about the interference with masters and the stoppage of trade had been thrown out in similar terms when the Factories Bill was under discussion, but experience showed that the masters were none the worse, and trade had not decreased. He should certainly support the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
MR. TAYLORsaid, he knew of no instance of boys having worked in mines longer than twelve hours in the day. He could assure the House that there was no disposition on the part of coalowners to
848
inflict hardship on those under them; but, on the contrary, everything was done to promote their education and welfare. He trusted the Committee would not accede to this Amendment.
MR. PEASEsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), in advocating his case, had carefully overlooked all precedent and fact, and had merely propounded his own theories. He had forgotten to remind the House that eleven of the inspectors had reported that the limitation was impracticable. It was the interest of the coalowners to take care of the boys, and such a limitation as was proposed would only have the effect of imposing a tax on the constituents of the hon. Member.
MR. CLIVEsaid, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets and his friends seemed to have an idea that all mankind, besides themselves, were in combination to persecute the boys that worked in collieries. If he (Mr. Clive) entertained the same opinion, he should use every effort to secure the passing of the Amendment. Practically, however, the condition of those lads was not so bad as had been supposed, while the opinion of the inspectors of collieries was against limitation. The House had already taken a large amount of labour from the mine-owners by declaring that children under twelve should not be employed in mines. Formerly the ages of children employed in mines ranged from ten to fifteen. In consequence of recent legislation they were now from twelve to fifteen. So that Parliament had deprived the mine-owners of two-fifths of the childrens' labour, of which they formerly had the advantage. If it were hereafter found that the number of hours was excessive, the House could interfere; but it would be rather hard on the mine-owners to add a limitation of the hours of labour so soon after the limitation of age.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, the coalowners and those who represented them altogether shirked the real question, which was, what was the proper number of hours for a child to be compelled to labour under ground. Hon. Members of the House of Commons did not want paid officials to tell them what number of hours children of tender age might be worked. Any man who had a child could feel that a poor boy of twelve years old ought not to be worked more than ten hours a day. He therefore hoped the House of Commons would not listen to the arguments of in-

849
terested parties against the dictates of humanity.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he should support the Amendment on the ground that the labour in mines was very severe for young children, and he knew that many mothers had a great objection to the long hours which their children were now compelled to work. He believed that many accidents took place in mines in consequence of the boys being overworked.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he had been always in favour of limiting the hours of labour, though he had not quite made up his mind in the present instance. At the same time, he might mention a fact within his own knowledge which might have some weight. He knew a man who had been working in a mine all his life. He was now thirty-eight years of age, and in the first colliery at which he worked there were forty boys. Every one of those boys was now dead. In the next mine at which he went to work there were thirty-seven boys employed. Those boys were all dead but three. Those facts showed that some legislative restriction was required.
MR. H. A. BRUCEcontended that much exaggeration had been used in stating the case of the colliery boys, and that the exceptional cases that had been at various times brought forward were of extremely rare occurrence. Indeed, if the illustration of the hon. Member were true, there would not be a collier of forty years of age alive. As to the unhealthiness of the employment, the boys were only employed in the open air ways, and they were not stunted in growth, morally and physically, like the factory children, on whose behalf Parliamentary interference had been very properly invoked.
MR. KINNAIRDasserted that there were instances in which boys were worked in mines fourteen and fifteen hours at a time.
MR. KENDALLsaid, he also would deny that the miners and boys employed in the mines of Cornwall were overworked, or that the occupation was of the unhealthy nature described.
MR. WEMYSSsupported the Amendment, as the hours of labour for children in mines depended upon the men employed, and that he greatly objected to.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYdenied that the children were overworked, or that their employment was of an unhealthy character.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 79: Majority 18.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he would then move the insertion of the words, "before the 1st of July, 1861," with the object of prolonging the time for six months during which children of ten years might be employed without a certificate that they could read and write.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment which merely amounted to the prolonging the notice to owners of mines and collieries.
The words were accordingly inserted.
MR. PAGETsaid, he rose to move as an Amendment, to leave out lines 11 to 19 inclusive, and insert,—
"In the second and every subsequent week during which such boy is employed in such mine or colliery the owner shall obtain a certificate, under the hand of a competent schoolmaster, that such boy has attended school for not less than five hours in each of two days (not being consecutive days, and on which he shall not have worked in a mine or colliery) during the week immediately preceding, between the hours of eight o'clock in the morning and five in the evening, exclusive of any attendance on Sundays."
He hoped the Committee would not be led away by the objections of hon. Gentlemen who had not visited the mines and examined the subject; but who would, nevertheless, assert that the plan which he proposed could not be carried out. There would be no more difficulty in carrying it out in the case of boys employed in mines than there was in carrying it out in that of boys employed in agricultural labour; and he could say, from experience in the latter case, that it was quite practicable. Parliament had already decided that factory children should have a certain number of hours for education. There was still more occasion for Parliamentary interference with respect to the education of children employed in mines. It was necessary, for the physical requirements of the children, that they should be brought into the light some other days besides Sundays. Notwithstanding what had been said by some hon. Gentlemen about the good health enjoyed by miners, there could be no doubt of the fact that their occupation was not one of the most healthy, for while the average of life in England was thirty-three years, the average life of miners was only twenty-seven. It might be thought that his proposition would allow too many hours above ground on each of the days on which the child was to receive schooling; but he believed it

851
was a well-ascertained fact, that, after coming up from a mine, children required some sleep before they were fit to receive mental instruction. Some little inconvenience might at first arise; but he trusted the Committee and coalowners would not on that account hesitate to adopt a system that would be beneficial to the children.
MR. EVANSseconded the Amendment.
MR. CLIVEobjected that the effect of the Amendment would be to lessen the number of boys by one-third, and if there were an unlimited amount of colliery labour, it might be done; but that was not so. It was necessary, moreover, that miners should learn their occupation at an early age.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought it inconsistent to expend large sums of money in the promotion of education, and at the same time to admit that they could not require boys of twelve years of age, engaged in mines, to be able to read and write. He would, however, suggest that the lime at school should be altered to "five hours on one day," instead of on two clays, exclusive of Sundays, and that, he thought, would meet the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, that the Amendment would suspend the labour of the boys for certain periods, and at the same time would suspend the labour of adults. He did not believe that the labourers in the colliery districts were inferior in education to the labourers in other parts of the country. He thought they might very well be content with the restrictions in the Bill, and therefore he should oppose the Amendment.
MR. JACKSONsaid, the coalowners found their profit in paying attention to the education and sanitary condition of the children, and might safely be trusted to do what was necessary themselves. The true interest of the master was to be on good terms with the operatives, and unless employer and employed went hand in hand together, no success could be achieved.
MR. NEWDEGATEargued, that to exclude children from employment because they were ignorant would be, in effect, to exclude them from education altogether. The Amendment, therefore, would operate more hardly upon those who were the poorest of the mining population than upon others, as the poorest were generally the most ignorant.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that, according to the provisions in the Bill, twenty hours in
852
the month were to be devoted to education; but that provision might be observed by devoting five hours on each Sunday to the purpose. The law might even be complied with by devoting ten hours on Sunday and ten hours on drunken Monday to educational purposes; but that would not be attended with useful results. He considered that the time should he so arranged that it should be distributed fairly over the month, and not confined to a few days. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would make an Amendment in the Bill to meet that objection.
MR. BRADYsaid, he trusted that the Secretary of State would accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley).
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would make this offer, which would, perhaps, meet the views of the hon. Gentleman—namely, to omit the words from line 14 to 19 inclusive, and to add these words—
"In the second and every subsequent week during which such boy is employed in such mine or colliery the owner shall obtain a certificate—under the hand of a competent schoolmaster—that such boy has attended school for not less than five hours in one day during the week immediately preceding, exclusive of any attendance on Sundays."
In that way the attendance of the boy for five hours on one clay of the week at school would be ensured, and an assurance would be thus given that the time allotted for educational purposes would be distributed evenly over the month.
MR. PAGETsaid, he would accept that proposition, and withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he objected to depriving children of employment if they could not satisfy an educational test for which they might not have had any opportunity of preparing themselves by previous instruction. Such a proposal was utterly subversive of every principle which had ever been acted upon, and would be injurious to the most destitute part of the community. In order to raise the question, he proposed to divide the Committee on omission of the words "the owner shall obtain a certificate under the hand of a competent schoolmaster," as that would raise the whole question.
MR. ROEBUCKremarked that the Factory Act was a precedent for an educational test.
MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the Factory Act did not insist upon an educational test

853
as an indispensable qualification for obtaining employment. He maintained that the effect of such a system as that proposed would be most injurious to the coal-owners, would diminish their supply of labour, and would in the end affect injuriously the persons to be employed. He was as warm an advocate of education as any one, and education was recognized by all intelligent mine-owners as an object as necessary for the outlay of capital as any of the mechanical appliances of the mine; but he thought education might be obtained in a manner less injurious to the owner. Nor was that humanity real which would turn boys out of the coal trade without a certainty that they could obtain employment elsewhere. He suggested that the amount of instruction should be five hours per week, and that it should not be in any one day, but spread over the whole week. He suggested that the clause should specify five hours per week, without the restriction to one day.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the provision in the clause went much beyond that in the Factory Act; all that was provided by the Factory Act was that children should receive education, but there was not a word about a qualification. The principle that children should not earn their bread if they could not read and write, even though they might not have had the means of education, was a principle which certainly had never been adopted before. He very much doubted its wisdom. It must be remembered that to a man earning 10 s.. or 12 s. a week, with four or five children, the wages of a lad between ten and twelve was 25 per cent of his whole wages. Again, in the case of a widow, the wages of a son of that age might make the difference between a home and being thrown on the parish.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), would perhaps be met by an alternative providing that, failing to produce the certificate of education, the child should receive education concurrently with his employment in the mine.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, the system now proposed had been found to work well in other branches of labour—factories of cotton and silk—and he did not see why it should not be applied to children employed in mines. He thought the labour of children should be kept down to its minimum, and that their education should be raised to its maximum.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must remind the Committee that there was no Question before it. They were now arrived at the word "obtain."
MR. MONSELLsaid, he would then propose to omit the words "obtain a certificate."
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, to leave out the words "obtain a certificate."
MR. CLIVEsaid, that to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick would be to undo what they had already done to provide education for these children.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he objected to any restriction being placed on the children of the poor in order that they might be educated, especially as Parliament had not instituted a free system of national education. If the clause should be agreed to, great hardship would be inflicted on the mining population.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the suggestion of the Home Secretary a fair compromise, and hoped the Committee would adopt it.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, however inconsistent it might appear, he should, on consideration, support the clause.
MR. VIVIANsaid, the clause would press hardly upon outcast children, and prevent their turning to a course of industry, by which they might obtain means and educate themselves. It was tyrannical to enact that such children should not earn an honest living, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would divide the Committee.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 69: Majority 62.
MR. H. A. BRUCEsuggested that the five hours should not be limited to one day in the week, but should be distributed over the week, according to the convenience of the parties.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he moved the insertion of the Amendment, which he offered in lieu of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham.
MR. JACKSONsuggested that the amount of instruction should be ten hours in a fortnight.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Bill as it stood required twenty hours in a month. He proposed to substitute five hours in a week, and he did not see the

855
advantage of the medium of ten hours in a fortnight.
Amendment proposed,
"In line 14, to leave out from the word 'secondly' to the word 'preceding,' in line 19, in order to insert the words 'In the second and every subsequent week during which such boy is employed in such mine or colliery, the owner shall obtain a certificate under the hand of a competent schoolmaster that such boy has attended school for not less than five hours in one day during the week immediately preceding, exclusive of any attendance on Sundays"
—instead thereof.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"
Put, and negatived.
MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, as the clause then stood, it appeared that the hours of education were to be five hours in one day in each week. He should move that the words "in one day" be omitted from the proposed Amendment.
Question proposed,
"That the words 'In the second and every subsequent week during which such boy is employed in such mine or colliery, the owner shall obtain a certificate under the hand of a competent schoolmaster that such boy has attended school for not less than five hours in one day during the week immediately preceding, exclusive of any attendance on Sundays,' be there inserted."
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "in one day."
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 84: Majority 22.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4, (5 & 6 Vict., c. 99, s. 8).
MR. RIDLEYsaid, he would move to leave out the word "eighteen" in order to insert the words "sixteen." As the clause now stood it would provide that no lad under the age of eighteen should have charge of the engine; but a boy who had received an education and been employed in a mine might be quite competent to take charge of it at sixteen.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the age of eighteen had been determined upon by a majority of the Government inspectors of mines as the lowest age at which a boy should be left in charge of machinery.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, that lads were more docile at sixteen than when they were older.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not think it too much to require that the person on whose care greatly depended the lives of all the men employed in the mine should be at least eighteen years of age.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CLIVEsuggested that the insertion of the word "sole" before the word "charge" would render unnecessary the alteration in the limit of age.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, before the word "charge," to insert the word "sole."
MR. CLAYsaid, he objected to the Amendment, as it would have the effect of compelling owners of mines to employ two boys of sixteen years of age instead of employing one, which he infinitely preferred. After some discussion across the table,
Question put, "That the word 'sole' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 31; Majority 101.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.
On Motion "That the House at rising adjourn till Monday next,"

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.—QUESTION.
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there would be any objection to the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords being laid daily upon the Table of this House. As he wished to obtain the opportunity of making a few observations, he would, to put himself in order, move that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next. The production of Minutes of the House of Lords would not only contribute to the more satisfactory despatch of business, but would prevent a repetition of the absurd farce which took place about a month ago, when the noble Lord moved the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of searching the Journals of the House of Lords to see what had been done in reference to the paper duty, when every man, woman, and child in the kingdom knew four days before what had taken place. It was formerly quite right that search should be made in the Journals of the Lords at a time when mystery surrounded the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament. It was then a breach of privilege to publish the debates, whereas

857
now the press was officially recognized in that House, and reported the proceedings with an accuracy, expedition, and a fidelity which were the envy and admiration of surrounding nations. Strangers now were admitted to the galleries, and were no longer removed during divisions. Formerly hon. Members did not leave the House, but divided to right and left of the chair, and were counted by two Gentlemen, and it was a breach of privilege to publish anything in relation to the division. But now the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons were published to the world, and the House of Lords had a copy of those proceedings on their table, and openly referred to them, and discussed them in their debates. The House of Commons, however, if they wished to obtain an official knowledge of anything that had taken place in the other House, were obliged to appoint a Committee to search their Journals, though it was true the Minutes of the Lords' proceedings were in the library, where they were of no use whatever. He thought it would tend materially to the despatch of public business if these were officially laid on the table of the House, and if hon. Members possessed the power of referring to them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend will recollect that there are two sources from which documents are received on which any action by this House can take place. One of these is from the Crown when papers are presented by command or are officially laid on the table; the other source is when they are furnished in obedience to the order of this House for the production of certain documents. Now the Journals in which the proceedings of the House of Lords are entered are not in the possession of the Crown, which has no more cognizance of them than we have, and therefore cannot order any responsible Minister to lay these papers on the table of this House. I apprehend it would be contrary to all the reciprocal usages and mutual privileges of the two Houses for either to order the other to furnish its proceedings. Therefore in neither of these modes, which 1 imagine are the only channels by which official records reach us, can the proceedings of the House of Lords be laid on our table. But my hon. Friend is probably aware that by reciprocal courtesy the Minutes of each House are communicated to the other. About sixteen copies of the Proceedings of the House of Lords are daily transmitted to this House—one
858
copy for the library and the others for distribution to different officers of the House, and it will be perfectly easy if it should be thought more convenient to have one copy laid upon the table, instead of in the library. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend says, that the House of Lords have founded Resolutions of their own on the records of this House, which were laid upon their table, and we might undoubtedly pursue the same course. But, generally speaking, I apprehend—and you, Mr. Speaker, will correct me if I am wrong—it is not the habit of the House of Commons to found proceedings except on documents that are officially in our possession. My hon. Friend says the proceedings of the House of Lords are well known to everybody, from being reported in the newspapers, and that no doubt can exist as to what has taken place. But that remark applies much more extensively than to the proceedings of the House of Lords. There are various matters of which all of us have personal cognizance, events of public notoriety, which are recorded in the newspapers; but with regard to these before any formal Act of this House can be taken we require to have some written document officially and responsibly put on the table, either in answer to an Address from the Crown or by the order of the House, directed to those persons who are bound to obey our directions. I therefore very much doubt—even if an arrangement could be made by which one copy of the proceedings of the House of Lords would be laid on our Table, either instead of or in addition to that already in the library—whether the House would be disposed to make it a foundation for any serious measure. I think it would be a departure from our ordinary course, and I confess I do not quite perceive the value of the difference which it would produce in the expedition of our proceedings. My hon. Friend says we ought to dispense with the formal appointment of a Committee to search the Journals of the Lords. But that course is a very easy one; there is no difficulty in the way; it is a question merely of a short period of time, and I do not see that we should gain anything in point of expedition by substituting for the authentic report of the Committee a copy of the Journals of the House of Lords. On the contrary, I think the step would lose some portion of its weight; for, although everybody would know that the printed paper was an accurate transcript of the Minutes of Proceedings in the other House,

859
yet, as a foundation for legislative action, I think it would be more satisfactory to have the extract taken from the Journals themselves. Having stated what the practice is, I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, there will be no difficulty, under your directions, in having a copy of the Minutes of the House of Lords placed on the table of this House, for the information of hon. Members, in addition to that which may be consulted in the library. I think the House, probably, will be disposed to leave the matter in your hands, and will feel that you will make such an arrangement as may be satisfactory to all.

TRANSFER OF LAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLY, referring to the proclamation or police notice, whichever it might be, which had been recently issued by the Government in Ireland, said he had been asked how to evade an unjust law as to which a similar proclamation was recently issued in Ireland, declaring it illegal to enter into a lottery for certain charitable purposes, and he had mentioned the name of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office (Lord John Russell) as an authority that the best way to avoid an unjust law was to break it, inasmuch as he had heard the noble Lord state that he had formerly subscribed towards the prosecution of a revolutionary movement in a foreign state—Greece—a proceeding which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Homo Department, after what fell from him in that House, must regard as a breach of the law. When he was lately applied to in Ireland for advice in a similar instance, he said he never advised a breach of the law; but as the noble Lord had stated that he had broken the law without being prosecuted, perhaps they would follow his example. He told the parties, however, to be sure not to quote him as their adviser. He had a question on the paper which he wished to put to the Attorney General for Ireland. Before putting it, however, he would say, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury, that he could see no possible objection to the proceedings of the House of Lords being laid on the table daily. He wished, in the next place, to know how the Rag Committee on Paper Duties were getting on. They did not seem alive at all. They were very mute; they had now been appointed four or five weeks, and
  860
  they had heard nothing of their proceedings. ["Question."] His question related to the transfer of land in Ireland. That was, perhaps, the most important matter that had been or could be discussed this Session. ["Question, question!"] While he made jokes for the amusement of the House hon. Members gave him a very attentive hearing, but the moment he began to talk rational common sense he was met with cries of "Question." He would not trouble the House further. ["Go on, go on!"] He was in the hands of the House. ["Question."] He would, then, defer discussion until the Attorney General brought forward his Bill. The notice with reference to that Bill had been on the paper twenty times at least. He did not say this in any unfriendly spirit to the Attorney General. He knew the difficulties he had to contend with, having regard to the business of the Government. ["Question."] He would not ask any question, but with an apology to the Attorney General for having given him the trouble to attend, he would now yield to these unseemly interruptions, and resume his seat.

ANNEXATION OF NICE AND SAVOY TO FRANCE.—MINISTERIAL POLICY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Before the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary replies, I shall be very glad to have the opportunity of putting a question to him; and, before doing so, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his kind consideration in being present, so as to be able to return an answer; and I hope it is an earnest that for the future the noble Lord will endeavour to be present in this House to defend the policy which the Government are following with respect to foreign affairs. I said last night, and I now take the opportunity of reiterating in presence of the noble Lord, that in my belief there is a general opinion throughout the country that the noble Lord is endeavouring to shirk the responsibility vested in him by the office the duties of which he has undertaken to discharge. It may not be the case, but such is my impression. We so seldom receive any information from the noble Lord with respect to foreign affairs that when any is obtained the feeling of the House generally, I think, is rather one of commiseration for the noble Lord at being any longer unable to conceal the intelligence than of gratification at the tidings which he has been obliged to con-

  861
  vey. We have had some experience of the manner in which the noble Lord conducts his policy, and I am sorry to say that I conceive it to be far from satisfactory. For many months the noble Lord has had charge of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I am bound to declare in my place in Parliament that I believe that policy to be both weak and vacillating. I recollect the noble Lord was sometimes very indignant with other Ministers when they did not pursue a straightforward policy. I remember perfectly well, when the noble Lord sat on these Benches, with what indignation, and how, with the mien of an exasperated patriot, he fulminated against my noble Friend the Prime Minister for what he called his mean and humiliating policy. I do not know whether the noble Lord recollects the expressions which he then made use of against the Prime Minister, but, if he does not, I will recall them to his memory. The House will recollect that in 1858 the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government introduced into this House a measure known as the Conspiracy Bill, which a large number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, from the first resisted most strenuously. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was then sitting on the back benches, and, in a spirit of strong indignation—he was then, no doubt, anxious to replace his noble Friend—denounced the measure. The noble Lord, on the occasion to which I am alluding (the 9th of February, 1858), said—for the noble Lord at that time was very violent against the Prime Minister, although matters have since been made up between them—that the Government yielded to a demand from France; that it was not a strong Government; that it was about to introduce a Bill which he should feel it a shame and a degradation to support. "Let those who will support it," said the noble Lord, "in that humiliation I, for one, will not share." Loud cheers followed that announcement, and, of course, the noble Lord obtained credit throughout the country for being a very spirited and exasperated patriot. I must, however, say that I am afraid the noble Lord's present policy is very shameful and humiliating to the nation. The despatch which, if what I read in the newspapers be correct, has just reached the noble Lord from M. Thouvenel I look upon as an insult to us and our councils in the eyes of the nations of Europe, and as degrading to the prestige and character of
  862
  England. M. Thouvenel appeals to the good faith of the policy of France, and says that, although the Court of France asks Europe to sanction the act of annexation which has just received its final consummation, yet that the Court of the Tuileries will not consent to any lessening of the Savoyard territory in favour of Switzerland. Now, I regard this, after the repeated declarations which have been made on the subject by the French Emperor, as a most serious and dangerous position of affairs. Upon three separate occasions—the 10th of February, the 1st of March, and then on the 6th of the same month—distinct assurances were given on the part of France that the Powers of Europe would be consulted before the contemplated annexation was carried into effect. Now, the expressions used were very singular, and if any faith is to be placed in the statements of public men, some importance ought to be attached to the report which on the 10th of February last was made by Earl Cowley to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when he wrote as follows:—
  "I saw the Emperor yesterday, and had some conversation with him on the subject of the annexation of Savoy. The Emperor entirely disclaimed all intention of proceeding to make the annexation without consulting the great Powers. I asked His Majesty if I might repeat this assurance to your Lordship, and permission to do so was most graciously and cordially given."
  Now, that word "cordially" seems to me to possess a charming piquancy, because the Emperor of the French must have known perfectly well that when he gave the assurance in question he did not mean to act upon it. There is also another despatch, No. 17 in the books, in which Earl Cowley says that M. Thouvenel had again t assured him that the Emperor intended to abide by the statement which I have just mentioned. On the 6th of March the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs wrote to Earl Cowley in the following terms:—
  "I wish your Lordship to ascertain from M. Thouvenel in what manner the promise of the Emperor that the great Powers of Europe shall be consulted is to be carried into effect."
  Now, I wish the House to bear in mind that from the date of that despatch—the 6th of March—to the 21st of June, no answer whatever to that question, with respect to which the noble Lord expressed a wish an explanation should be obtained

  863
  by Earl Cowley, has been returned. That is, I contend, a very lax way of conducting the foreign affairs of the country, particularly in reference to a question affecting in so important a degree a State whose neutrality England as well as the six other great Powers of Europe had guaranteed. I will not at the present moment enter into a full consideration of this question, because I believe we shall at a future time be furnished with an opportunity of having with respect to it ample discussion. I cannot, however, allow this day to pass without entering, in the name, I will not say of Switzerland, but of every man who is desirous of seeing the principles of honour observed in the conduct of public affairs, my protest against the policy which the Emperor of the French has in this matter pursued. We must recollect that the neutrality of Switzerland is absolutely at an end from the present moment. The Cantons de Vaud and the Genevois can no longer deliberate in safety. Not only was the neutrality of Switzerland guaranteed by the great Powers, but it was distinctly laid down no troops whatever should enter into the neutralized province of Savoy, whereas, under present circumstances, not only are the troops at Chambery, but the Pont de Beauvoisin, St. Jean de Maurienne, Albeville, and Moutier will forthwith receive detachments. On the other hand, troops are going to Annecy, which is situated in the neutralized provinces. The garrison of Annecy will furnish detachments to Thonon and Evian, on the Lake of Geneva, in the Chablais, at Bonneville in Faucigny, and at St. Julien, the principal military station in the Genevois; so that you will have troops in that very district in which their maintenance is strictly opposed to treaty engagements and inconsistent with the due protection of Switzerland. There are troops on the very limits of the Lake of Geneva in direct opposition to the distinct understanding of treaties, and the distinct and reiterated protests of the Republic of Switzerland.
  I would ask the House, in dealing with this question, not to lose sight of the important fact that the King of Sardinia, when the Treaty of Turin was framed,—base and iniquitous as it was on his part,—to sacrifice what I may call the berceau of his family, distinctly stated that, although he assented to the cession of Savoy to France, yet Sardinia reserved to Switzerland her co-operation in the steps to be
  864
  taken on the subject of the neutralized provinces. Now, without entering more at length into the question, I maintain that Switzerland has not been consulted in this matter, and that if the Government of this country have been consulted, they have given an opinion with respect to it without the consent of the House of Commons. I believe I am in a position to state positively, and upon high and important authority, that in the month of February an offer was made to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the effect that France was prepared to cede those portions of territory adjoining the Lake of Geneva, in the hope that by means of that proposal arrangements might be quietly made for the cession of the rest. Now, the cession of Nice and Lower Savoy to France is a matter which perhaps does not materially affect us. One Power may cede to another, there being a mutual understanding on the subject, a portion of her territory without an infringement of the laws of nations, but when such a course is taken with respect to a territory whose neutrality has been guaranteed by Seven Powers of Europe in a most sacred and solemn manner, as is the case with Faucigny, Chablais, and Genevois—I say it is degrading to the councils of this country, and an insult to the character of England, to allow such a policy to be carried out without entering against it a serious and determined protest in the name of the English people. I hope the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, will be able to stand up in his place to-night and to state that he has received no communication such as that to which I have alluded; but, in order to refresh his memory on the matter, I would refer him to a despatch written by Earl Cowley on the 9th of February, in which he distinctly tells the noble Lord that the Emperor of the French is prepared to cede the territory in question, in the hope that the annexation of Savoy and Nice might be amicably arranged. The noble Lord will find that passage in a long despatch of Earl Cowley, of the date I have mentioned. I regret that I have felt it to be my duty to trouble the House with these observations; but, as hon. Members are probably aware, I have been recently in the locality of which I am speaking; and I can assure those who have not, that we in this country can scarcely realize the feeling of the inhabitants of those provinces when they see an enemy at their gates, and their rights and liberties being wrested from their grasp. These

  865
  people are brave, and love freedom. They are anxious to enjoy the popular institutions which they have; but they know perfectly well, from the teachings and experience of history, that the progress of France on that side of Geneva is fatal to their aspirations, and that if she once obtains possession of the Lake of Geneva—I do not say the independence and integrity of the Confederation will be greatly endangered, but its very existence will be absolutely and permanently annihilated. It was only last night that I saw at a meeting in the City of London the whole colony of Swiss over here, I myself, perhaps, being the only Englishman who was present on the occasion; and I can assure the House I could not help responding from my heart to the sentiments which animated those men, when they saw the standard of Switzerland floating over the chair of the president, and heard from the lips of their Minister that the greatest danger threatened their country. I addressed to them a few simple words, but I could not, I repeat, help feeling from my soul the greatest sympathy with those men—Savoyards and Swiss—whose rights are now, to my mind, permanently menaced by the cruel hypocrisy of France.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In answer to the question of the hon. Baronet, and to his statement that I was not here last night to answer questions, I believe I am generally in the House almost every day at a quarter past four o'clock. Perhaps the hon. Baronet himself is not here quite so frequently or so punctually as I am. Every one at all acquainted with the Foreign Office must know that at times questions arise of considerable urgency, which take up time at the very moment one is preparing to do some other business. It so happened yesterday, just as I was about to leave the Foreign Office to come down to this House, I was consulted by the Under Secretary of State on a question of great importance respecting papers to be laid before Parliament, and I remained discussing the matter with him till past the hour when questions are generally answered. The only question that was on the Notice Paper was that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlow (Sir John Acton) who has just spoken with respect to the Correspondence of 1856–7. That was not a very urgent matter, and I desired a notice to be sent to the hon. Baronet that he might have the papers if he would move an Address to the Crown, the form of Motion for which I also sent
  866
  him. The hon. Baronet does not seem to have correctly understood that message; but he may move any day for the papers. It has taken some time to collect them, being parts of a correspondence with a former Secretary of State; but they are now in order, and the hon. Baronet can have them whenever he likes to move for them. With regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, I can only say, if he has any question to ask which he thinks urgent with reference to Foreign Affairs, his correct course is to do as other Members do, and to give notice of his intention to put such a question. The hon. Member might have had the courtesy to send me a note to say that he was going to ask his question, and then I should certainly have endeavoured to attend in my place to answer it.
  Well, omitting all matters relating to the Conspiracy Bill, which has hardly any bearing on any subject now before us, it appears that the hon. Baronet has seen a report in the newspapers that a note has been transmitted to us from M. Thouvenel, containing, among other things, a very strong hint that France would not submit to any diminution of the territory of which she is now in possession, namely Savoy and Nice. Sir, I could not have answered the hon. Baronet on that point yesterday, because I had then no knowledge of any note from M. Thouvenel; but at half-past three o'clock to-day I saw the French Ambassador, and he placed in my hands a copy of a French note; and as to any such intimation as that stated in the newspapers, namely, that France would not consent to any diminution of that territory, there is not a word of that kind in the whole despatch. The purport of the despatch is to this effect:—It is stated in the Treaty of Turin that France will come to an understanding with the other Powers of Europe with respect to the neutralized portions of Savoy; and, according to the view of the French Government, that understanding is to be arrived at by endeavouring to reconcile the Second Article of the Treaty of Turin with the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna. The French note then proceeds to say that this may be done in one of these three modes:—Either the Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna may meet in conference with the French Foreign Minister, or identical notes may be exchanged, the French note stating that France is ready to take upon herself the whole of the obligations by which Sardinia has been

  867
  bound during the time she held Savoy. And here I may mention, in answer to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Cochrane), that the despatch says that France is ready to make this neutral territory part of the neutral territory of Switzerland in the same manner as Sardinia did. The third mode would be by leaving it to France and Switzerland to effect such a substitution for the former engagements as France and Switzerland might mutually agree upon. The note then goes on to say that if there should be a conference, most of the Powers have already said they think that Paris would be a convenient place in which to hold it, and that it should meet on the points I have mentioned. Such, Sir, is the substance of the note we have received only to-day; and of course Her Majesty's Government have not yet answered it. It remains for them to answer it in such terms as they may think it requires.
  But it appears to me the whole question rests upon this,—that the Great Powers of Europe were willing to agree on a guarantee at this portion of Savoy being left neutral and to its being held like the other parts of the country by Sardinia. Sardinia was a State with whom the Allied Powers were ready to agree upon such terms, and they might, at all events, be quite sure, when they had engaged with Sardinia upon those terms, that Switzerland was safe and that these obligations would be binding upon Sardinia. But the case is very much changed when a great Power like France comes into possession of the territory that was held by Sardinia. And it is not the same thing—although it is so represented by France, and although, indeed the words are the same, the technical engagements exactly the same—for France to say, "We will undertake to fulfil the obligations of Sardinia, and to place this neutralized territory in the same position as it stood in before." That is the answer which we have urged more than once to this proposal. Really, the hon. Baronet, who speaks frequently and with great ability on these subjects, should endeavour to be more accurate; because, be it observed, the engagement of the Treaty is not that there should be no troops at any time in the neutralized provinces. On the contrary, the specific engagement is that the Sardinian troops, in the case of war with the neighbouring Powers, shall evacuate this neutralized territory, thereby implying very clearly that during peace the
  868
  Sardinian troops are at liberty to occupy it. This, therefore, is the position of the question. We have an opinion—and it is a very decided opinion—as to the mode in which, supposing France to have obtained, as she has done already, the cession of Savoy. a substitute should be provided which would, as I believe, be an efficient substitute, and one that would be satisfactory to Switzerland, for the engagements which have hitherto subsisted. But I am sorry to say that at no time, in any of our discussions, has France shown any disposition to adopt that substitute which seems to us to be the only one which would be an equivalent, in point of efficiency, to the security which the Treaty of 1815 created. It would be impossible for us, therefore, to state that we shall be satisfied with or shall accept the Treaty of Turin as affording an equivalent security to Switzerland for that which she has previously enjoyed. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet really means to say that we should not have given any opinion on the subject without obtaining the sanction of this House. ["No, no," from Sir Robert Peel.] That is certainly not the usual way of carrying on such correspondence. The Cabinet must obtain the consent of the Crown to such despatches and communications as they may feel it their duty to prepare, and on afterwards presenting the papers to this House their authors must submit to any opinion which the House may think fit to pass upon them. In this case the papers are rather voluminous; but I hope very soon to place at least a portion of them, bringing the correspondence down to this time, upon the table. For France having now, according to her own view, accomplished the annexation, and French authorities and French troops having taken possession of Savoy and Nice, as far as that point is concerned we have at length reached the stage at which it is fitting to produce to this House the correspondence which has passed on the subject.
  With respect to the offer to which the hon. Baronet alludes—namely, that the French Government would give up Chablais and Faucigny if we would consent to the cession of the rest of Savoy to France, I can only say that the French Government has never made any such offer to the British Government. I do not think it would have been becoming in us to accept it, if such an offer had been made to us. But what has taken place has been accurately represented by the hon. Baronet,

  869
  that in the early part of February the Emperor of the French and his Ministers declared that they were ready to yield Chablais and Faucigny to Switzerland. But in a very short lime afterwards the Emperor declared to a deputation who went to Paris that he should not consent to what he called the dismemberment of Savoy, and that Chablais and Faucigny could not be separated from the rest of the annexed provinces. Earl Cowley spoke to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject, and was told that the Emperor had been willing—if the population of these territories had consented to such an arrangement—to cede them to Switzerland; but that there had been such a strong disinclination, and repugnance even, evinced to being parted from the rest of Savoy, that the Emperor found himself obliged not to proceed with that cession. Earl Cowley likewise said he did not think that the engagement to come to an understanding with the Powers of Europe had been fulfilled. M. Thouvenel stated that he thought Earl Cowley was not very reasonable, that all the other Power3 of Europe seemed to think the despatches which had been written by France were satisfactory on that point, and that the engagement had been amply fulfilled. I have now, Sir, answered the question of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet, always presuming upon certain facts without ascertaining whether they are correct, goes on to make some comments. He says, that if the French Government have made a communication to us in the terms which he has seen in the newspapers, it is very insulting to the British Government, and ought to be protested against. But, as he is wrong in his facts, his inferences fall to the ground with them. The remaining question for the Government to consider, I must say, amounts to little more than this:—how we can best use our influence to maintain the neutrality of Switzerland, and whether there be any terms which Switzerland is likely to accept that can now be proposed. But if there be no such terms—if France offers nothing further than that she will undertake the same engagements towards Switzerland and towards Europe, which were undertaken by Sardinia, Her Majesty's Government can only say—and they will say so in the strongest and most formal manner—that they do not think the engagements of the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna, and the 2nd Article of the Treaty of Turin, can in that way be reconciled.

THE ARMY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM,

  OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he rose, according to notice, to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the present state of the Army in the United Kingdom, and he thought he might do so very appropriately after the conversation that had just occurred, and especially so as they would very shortly be engaged in a discussion upon the question of fortifications. He did not intend to impute blame to any department of the State; but he thought it was right that the House and the country should be informed as to the exact number of troops at present quartered in the United Kingdom. In the course of the Session an erroneous statement, which he had taken upon himself to contradict at the time, had been made to the effect that we had only an army of 30,000 men, for which we paid£15,000,000 yearly, or at the rate of £500 for every soldier. According to a Return which had been furnished to the House during the last week, the numbers were as follows:—The regular army, including all arms, 102,080 men; embodied Militia, 15,911; disembodied Militia, 52,899; Yeomanry Cavalry, 15,002; enrolled Pensioners, 15,000; Volunteer Rifle and Artillery Corps, approximate number, 122,367; making a grand total of 323,259 men. We ought, however, only to consider as the army of the United Kingdom the 102,080 regular troops. The embodied Militia he looked upon as doomed to dispersion within a month or two, and they, the disembodied Militia, the Yeomanry Cavalry, the enrolled Pensioners, and the Volunteer Artillery and Rifle Corps could only be looked upon as a reserve whose assistance could be counted on in case of emergency. No man was more willing than he was to give credit to the Volunteers, of whom, indeed, the country ought to be proud; but he did not think that in calculating the strength of our military defences we ought to reckon 122,367 men as the available addition to the army in the shape of the Volunteer Corps. They had taken great pains and had advanced very rapidly in their training, but it was impossible that they should always drill so constantly as they had done during the last few months, without producing great inconvenience and causing a serious disturbance of business. Already he had heard complaints from tradesmen who were willing to pay any necessary amount for defence; but

  871
  who were anxious that their business should not be interfered with by their being required to close their establishments, as they were now, in order that the young men in their employment might attend to their drill. Of course if war broke out every man would stand to his regiment, and in time the Volunteers would become as efficient as any other force, but at the present moment we ought not to consider them as part and parcel of the army of the country. That left us with 102,080 men who formed the standing army at present quartered in the United Kingdom. Of these 4,080 were officers, leaving of the really working rank and file only 98,000. From that number was to be deducted 6 per cent, or 6,000 men, who were sick, leaving 92,000. The depot battalions and depots of regiments at home, in the Colonies, and in India included 33,302 men. Considering that they had to supply recruits for 35,000 men in the Colonies and 66,000 men in India, it was but fair to assume that one-third of their number, or 11,000 men, might be looked upon as untrained and unfit for any purpose of war. That reduced the number to 81,000. The absentees from the army on account of desertion, on leave, or from other causes generally equalled in number the sick. Assuming that they amounted to only 5,000, that would leave a really effective force of 76,000 men. An army of 76,000 men might appear a very respectable force if we were actually in a time of peace, but would it be sufficient to meet the emergency for which, from the Estimates and the talk of fortifications, there seemed to be a lingering idea that we ought to be prepared? It became, therefore, necessary to inquire how these 76,000 were disposed of, and it should be recollected they included every branch of the service. He found that there were in garrisoned towns 7,574 Artillerymen, 1,000 Engineers (there being in all 2,089 Engineers), and 1,000 Cavalry. He did not consider the depôt battalions useless; deducting their sick they would number 32,500, and they might be made to do garrison duty. It would be necessary to have 15,000 at least in Scotland and Ireland; there were at present in Ireland 20,000. Then there was the army hospital corps, 6,000 men; these could not be called fighting men. Deducting, therefore, all these latter numbers, amounting in the gross to 57,760 men, from the 76,000, left a manœuvring army of 18,240 only. Now, the Commission upon fortifications had re-
  872
  ported that if the fortifications of which they recommended the erection were constructed 70,000 men would be required to man them. Of course, if those fortifications were not agreed to, we should require a still larger number for the defence of the country. These 70,000 men might, no doubt, include Volunteers, enrolled Pensioners, and Militia, but among these irregular troops they ought, in order to make them efficient, to have a certain number of regulars. 20,000 regular troops, backed by 100,000 Militia, would do much more than 200,000 Militia without regular troops to support them. Therefore, he thought that the House would agree with him that although we had an army which was superior to what was usually supposed, and which, in time of peace, would be sufficient for any purpose, yet, looking to the vast works which we were about to under-take, the state of affairs throughout the world, and the possibility of an outbreak upon the Continent, a large number of men was required to support the dignity and maintain the safety of the country. He thought that if they were to raise 20,000 additional men, which would give them a manœuvring army of 40,000 or 50,000 men, they would be in a condition to meet any sudden emergency that might arise, and that number of men could be raised without any very great increase of expenditure. Without adding to the number of regiments, but rather increasing the number of men in the regiments that now existed, 20,000 men might be raised at a cost of about £600,000 a year. They were about to spend a large sum of money on fortifications, but what would be the use of those fortifications if they had not men to defend them? If he had to choose between laying out money on improved arms and fortifications, or on men, he would say, "Give me the men without the arms and fortifications, rather than the arms and fortifications without the men." He would therefore urge the augmentation of the regular army by a force of 20,000 men. He saw by a return he held in his hand that the quota of the disembodied Militia was put down at 113,801, and that the whole number of effectives was 52,899. That corroborated a statement he had formerly made, that we could not depend on more than one-half of the disembodied Militia if they were suddenly required for active service. He also thought the Militia should be put on a different footing. They should be able to depend on 50,000 Militia,

  873
  whom one-third should be embodied for three or six months at a time, each regiment in its turn. In this way every regiment would be embodied and thoroughly trained in due course, and they would be saved the expense of the useless training now given for a short time every year to a large body of men who never would be found when wanted. A retaining fee should be given to the men in their disembodied state, and they should be obliged periodically to present themselves at head-quarters. With 15,000 embodied and 37,000 disembodied Militia, which could always be found, they would on any sudden emergency start with a certain force of at least 50,000 or 60,000 Militia, which could be increased, within a month or six weeks, to any extent that might be required, since that time was known to be long enough to drill the working man into a soldier sufficiently for manning fortifications. He made these suggestions for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. Everybody must be impressed with the necessity of making our army system more efficient, when all that was taking place around them proved that there was a lurking suspicion in men's minds that the state of peace could not last, and that this country might be suddenly called on to interfere in contests abroad, or to defend our own shores. On this subject he could not do better than quote the language of Lord Overstone, in his reply to the inquiries put to him by the Royal Commission on National Defences. He said—
  "We have every inducement to make our system of national defence complete and effectual, because the calamities and misery which a successful invasion of England must produce would be far more serious than any of which the world has yet had experience. We have ample means for self-defence, in accumulated wealth and productive energies, sufficient to support all necessary expenditure, in mechanical skill and appliances, and in abundance of mineral products, which properly applied, must render us predominant in all the scientific machinery of modern warfare; in a people proud at heart of their country, attached to its free institutions, and whose courage and self-devotion have never been found to fail in the hour of trial. Negligence alone can bring about the calamity under discussion. Unless we suffer ourselves to be surprised, we cannot be invaded with success. It is useless to discuss what will occur, or what can be done, after London has fallen into the hands of an invading foe. The apathy, be it of the Government or of the people, which renders the occurrence of such a catastrophe possible, will not afterwards enable the country, enfeebled, dispirited, and disorganized by the loss of its capital, to redeem the fatal error. In short, we have a
  874
  stake at issue in the property, the happiness, and the free institutions to be protected, in the plunder, the misery, and the degradation to be averted, which may well call forth all our energies. We have means of defence of every kind; national wealth, engineering skill, personal courage, amply sufficient to secure our safety. We have warning more than enough to awake our vigilance. If we prove too apathetic to take the necessary precautions, to make the requisite efforts, or too shortsighted and selfish to submit to the necessary sacrifice, we must bow to the fate which the whole world will declare that we have deserved."
  In calling the attention of the Secretary for War to this subject, he wished to point out the condition of the Militia Artillery in our garrison towns. They were so many nights on guard that they had little time to attend to their drill, and did not therefore attain that efficiency which it was desirable they should have. Besides, the duty in which they were engaged had a deteriorating effect upon the constitutions of the men. There were more men in hospital in garrison towns than in other towns, chiefly in consequence of the night duties they had to perform, and, therefore, even as a matter of economy, this was a matter that called for the consideration of the Secretary for War. There was a feeling in some minds that a large standing army was inimical to our liberties. The time might have been when, with monarchs fond of despotic sway, a large standing army might be made to control the liberties of the people; but, as matters were now constituted—with a Sovereign who reigned not by her power only, but through the love and affection of her people—who so truly knew and understood her position—considering the constitution under which we lived, and the constitution of the army itself, he asked if it was possible that danger could accrue to the liberties of this country from increasing the number of the standing army? His sole object in directing their attention to this subject was that the House might be induced to make our army sufficiently strong to enable us to maintain our honour and influence abroad, and to preserve at home the inviolability of our shores.

  HIGH SHERIFFS FOR CITIES AND BOROUGHS (IRELAND)—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the fact that, since the appointment of High Sheriffs for Cities and Boroughs in Ireland became vested in Government in 1842, the Roman Catholics of the city of

  875
  Waterford have been excluded from that office, and to ask whether he is prepared to take the necessary steps for remedying a grievance which has hitherto been remonstrated against without success? As this appointment rested with the Government, it was their duty to inform themselves of the most competent persons to discharge the office, and to see that they were appointed. The high sheriffs were chosen from a list furnished to the Judges by the outgoing sheriff, but he had reason to believe that the high sheriffs for the city of Waterford never did return the name of a Catholic for that office a native of the city, except in one instance; and it must appear to the House a monstrous injustice that in a town where Catholics numbered four-fifths to one-fifth of Protestants, Catholics should have been systematically excluded. The right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, say that he knew of three cases in which Roman Catholics had been appointed to that office; but that did not take from the statement which he had made, that no Roman Catholic of the city of Waterford had been appointed, because those gentlemen did not belong to the city. He might refer to his own case. He had been mayor of Waterford three years in succession, he had been president of the Chamber of Commerce, and he had been twice returned a Member of Parliament, and yet he had never been selected for the office of high sheriff. And this was the case with regard to the Roman Catholic gentry generally. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would direct the attention of the Judges of assize to this matter. He had spoken to the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) on the subject, but there had been no change; and he now appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, who had always shown himself so ready to do justice in Irish matters. He would also direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the manner in which the law was openly evaded in Ireland with regard to the appointment of sub-sheriffs. The law provided that no person should hold the office two years in succession, under a penalty of £100. The law, however, was constantly evaded in this way. As soon as the sub-sheriff was appointed a second year in succession a nephew, or clerk, immediately went to the Government and gave information, and the fine of £100 was paid, but immediately handed back to the sub-sheriff. It was a singular fact that, since the reign
  876
  of James II., no Roman Catholic but one, who belonged to the city, had filled the office of high sheriff of Waterford. Since 1842 twenty high sheriffs had been appointed in Waterford, of whom seventeen were Protestants and only three Roman Catholics, and these not gentlemen of the city. He, therefore, begged to suggest to the Chief Secretary that whenever lists were returned by the outgoing sheriff of persons to fill the office, that care should be taken to see whether the names of Catholic citizens of Waterford appeared, and, if not, to inquire whether there were any such eligible for the office.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT:—In reference to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Dickson) I have no reason to complain either of the tone of his speech or the spirit in which it was made. It did at first alarm me when I saw the notice, as the object was not very clearly stated, but I thought the intention of the gallant Officer must be just what it has proved to be. In the first place, he says that he has seen it asserted that we have but 30,000 soldiers in England, and that that is the result of the large Estimate of 15 millions that have been moved in this House. Now I do not hesitate to say that never was there a calculation more absurdly unfair than that. I do not know that it is at all proper to make a rule of three sum of the number of men voted and the amount of money granted by this House, because obviously the two things have no close connection. You may have in one year a larger number of men than another, at the same time with smaller Estimates, because the Estimates depend upon the state of your stores, your equipments, and even your navy; but even assuming that mode of comparison to be a fair one, and supposing that we set against the private soldier the cost of the whole establishment, even including the non-effective branch, I find that in 1835–6, when the Army Estimates were lowest, the cost of the soldier was then £81, while now, notwithstanding the many improvements that have been made in barracks, in clothing, and various other ways, and with an increase of pay in all ranks, the cost is only increased to £94. Still, I do not think that practically that point is of any real importance. The gallant officer spoke of the Volunteers, and does not think that movement can go on.
  COLONEL DICKSON: I said that they could not be expected to continue so atten-

  877
  tive to their drill as they have been, for it would interfere with the ordinary business of life.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Well. I concur with the gallant Officer. It is singular how the conduct of the Volunteers has disappointed the prophecies that were made about them. It was said that they would never attain any great proficiency, as they would never submit to the drudgery of drill, but I think they have proved their willingness to submit to drill, and to do everything in their power which is calculated to render them effective soldiers. They have fully shown that they are not mere holiday soldiers, but under great disadvantages they have applied themselves steadily to the duties which they have taken upon themselves. One of the disadvantages with which they have had to contend may seem trivial, but it was calculated greatly to influence the attendance at drill—I mean the weather. Now, the Volunteers have hardly got home with a dry skin the whole of the last spring, but still they have not been discouraged, but have mustered well at drill. I quite agree, however, with those who think that we ought not to take the Volunteers into too great account in estimating the force of the country. The first thing is to reckon the regular forces. The Militia when embodied, with the efficient colonels which they now have, become almost as good as the Line; but they ought, I think, to be in a disembodied state, acting as a reserve. The gallant Officer says, and I know it is a favourite theory of his, that the Militia ought to be kept disembodied, with the exception of a certain proportion; that they ought to be trained for three months together once every three years, and that that would be better than a month's training every year. But I doubt whether that mouth's training is, as he says, useless, especially as the gallant Officer also says, that in six weeks you may make a soldier fit for garrison duty. Of course, if you can get a man who has been drilled for three months, he will make a much better soldier than a man who has received only a month's training. But would the gallant Officer sooner have a man who had been drilled three months three years ago, or one who had been drilled a month a year ago?
  COLONEL DICKSON: I suggested that they should be drilled for three or six months, and one-third at a time.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: But then
  878
  comes the question,—are they disembodied Militia, and is it not likely that by such a mode of drill you will not take so much from the labour of the country as to excite dissatisfaction among employers? This is a point of no little importance. The object should be to interfere as little as possible with the labour market; but if you take men from their work for a long period you do interfere with the labour-market seriously, and are likely to draw down much opposition on the part of employers.
  With regard to the number of troops, the gallant officer has stated them very accurately. At this moment the number of regular troops in this country is as near as possible 80,000 men. Of course, you must make deductions for sick and absent, though the absent at a time of emergency would be almost nil. The number I have given, too, includes all ranks. It is as well in these calculations to reckon the non-commissioned officers, but if we deduct the officers the total number will be reduced by 3,000 or 4,000. The House must remember that this is not a fixed number, but that, in the natural course of things, it is a growing number. Last year there were 64,500 regular troops in this country; this year we have got 80,000 making an increase of about 17,000 men. I am speaking now of purely British regiments, and am not including the depots of Indian regiments. The number, I repeat, has increased from 64,500 to 80,000, and we have seven battalions of infantry on the seas and now coming home—one from the Mauritius and six from India, with one regiment of cavalry. Next year, I hope, will see a further accession from India, and it must he borne in mind that at this moment we have diverted from their proper position no fewer than 10,000 Queen's troops, who are now in the China seas. Then, again, I mentioned at the commencement of the Session, when I moved the Estimates, that I looked upon this as an exceptional year, when it was necessary to make enormous efforts for the purpose of adding to our stores, providing a large supply of rifled muskets, and otherwise improving our matériel. We are thus spending our money rather upon matériel than upon men; but when once we have got this matériel our expenditure on this head will of course be diminished, and upon the same outlay we may, if we choose, maintain a larger force at home. I am much obliged to the gallant Officer for the manner in which he has discussed this sub-

  879
  ject, pointing out, as he has done, the absurd exaggerations which have been spread abroad respecting it. The expenditure, I admit, has been large; but I have shown why it has been large. At this moment, with the number of troops now in England, we are short of barrack-room. If the men had allotted to them the space which is properly their due, we should be short of accommodation for 25,000 men. We are adding to this accommodation as cheaply as possible, and I hope next year that we shall be able to show a decided improvement, both in the number and the condition of the force at home.
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), said, the facts had been very accurately stated in the main by the hon. Gentleman. What had happened was—the Judges of Assize uniformly prepared for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant a list of three persons, and, although they were doubtless assisted by the sheriff and the under sheriff in the preparation of the list, most distinguished Judges, including some of the Roman Catholic Church, had stated that they could not be governed by any such representations; but that, having themselves knowledge of the position and standing of gentlemen in the neighbourhood, they would not think it right to exclude any one from the panel merely because he was not placed upon it by the sheriff. Thus there was security that the panel would be impartially constituted, and no man passed over because of his religious opinions. The Lord Lieutenant almost invariably selected the first name in this panel, and in the list of sheriffs appointed during the years to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, that course had been pursued in every case, except where the gentleman thus selected himself desired to be excused. The Judges therefore, had, in point of fact, selected year by year the gentleman who had served the office of sheriff for the city of Water-ford, and they would continue to make such a selection as they thought reasonable. It was true that the Lord Lieutenant was really invested with the power and the responsibility; but the system now pursued was a wholesome one, from which it would be unwise to depart. It was better that these appointments should be made by the Judges acquainted with the locality than by persons of political leanings, whose selection, if it did not lead to real abuses, would yet fail to command public confidence.
  Motion agreed to; House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENTS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask whether it was competent to him to move, as an Amendment in Committee, that the Savings Banks Fund should be entrusted to five persons without first moving it as an "instruction" to the Committee. If so he should withdraw the Motion for the instruction of which he had given notice.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was no doubt competent for the hon. Member to move the Amendment of which he had given notice in Committee, and if it should appear that it went beyond the present title of the Bill it was possible to amend the title in conformity with the alteration.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he believed that this was about the fifteenth time that the Motion had been put down for going into Committee on the Bill, and he was afraid that even then many hon. Gentlemen interested in the matter were engaged elsewhere. He thought it right, however, to call the attention of the House to the principles of the measure; and he was the more induced to do so, because he was aware that a Select Committee was two years previously appointed by that House to inquire into the whole matter of the savings banks, and the names of the gentlemen who sat on that Committee showed that it was a very able one. They sat twenty-one days and examined witnesses, and collected a most important body of evidence, and made a very important Report; but from that day to the present not the slightest notice had been taken of any of their suggestions; and certainly the Bill before the House, which had been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which related to only one branch of the question, was in direct opposition to the suggestions of the Committee. That was one of the main reasons which induced him to trespass on the indulgence of the House, with a view of persuading them that it would be wise and proper to follow the suggestions of that Committee. He could name several im-

  881
  portant Select Committees which had made most elaborate Reports, and yet their suggestions had been entirely passed over, and it was worthy the consideration of the House whether such recommendations should be so set aside. With regard to that Bill, the suggestions of the Committee were very clear, and were summed up in two important recommendations. One was that there should be a bonâ fide Commission of five Gentlemen, namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the governor or deputy governor of the Bank of England, and three gentlemen to be appointed by the Crown, one of whom should be paid. The second recommendation was that the whole of the savings banks money should be treated as a trust, for the purposes of the savings banks and of the savings banks only, and that the money should not be used for state purposes; but above all that the Finance Minister should not have power to use any of the funds for the purpose of operating in the bill and stock markets of the kingdom, unless authorized to do so for a special purpose by an Act of Parliament. On the 20th November last, the amount of money invested in the savings banks was £41,180,000, and the account of the assets, taking the stock and bills at the market price, showed that there was only £37,700,000, so that there must be a deficiency of £3,500,000, if they were called on at once to pay every depositor his money.
  He wished to call attention to the view which the trustees and managers of savings banks throughout the kingdom took of this Bill. A short time ago a similar Bill was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman, on the same principle as the present, but varied rather in its proportions. There were 250 petitions presented against it: nearly every leading bank in the kingdom petitioned against it. The same course had been followed on the present occasion. Nearly 100 petitions were now on the table of the House, and he believed all, without exception, pressed very much upon the attention of the House the absolute necessity of placing the funds in a bonâ fide Commission, and treating them as trust funds. They did not want to take a farthing from the State in any way; for if their funds were treated as trust funds they believed that not only the present rate of interest but all the expenses of the Commission could be paid; and they believed also that there might even be a better rate of interest. Down to 1828 a higher rate of in-
  882
  terest than at present was paid; and in 1828 there was no deficiency, but a surplus. In 1828 the interest was lowered from £4 11 s. to £3 15 s., and the interest had now fallen to £3 5s., while the amount paid to the depositors did not average more than £2 18 s. per cent. He could not concur in the dictum which he believed he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer express, that the trustees, managers and depositors had no interest in the way in which their money was treated when it passed from the banks. It was perfectly true that the trustees and managers and depositors had an undoubted statutable right to be repaid every shilling that had been paid into the savings banks and handed to the Government; but he could not concur that therefore they had no interest in the way in which their money was treated, because, at all events, they were very much interested in the rate of interest not being lowered, and there was very considerable fear, which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would dispel, that there was some intention of reducing the rate of interest.
  The existing law pointed out distinctly what was to be done with the money belonging to savings banks. That money was to be sent up to the Banks of England and Ireland, where it was to be placed in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, who were directed to make regulations as to the investment and employment of the monies for the benefit of the Savings Banks' depositors. But there was not a single word in the Act about the use of the money for any other purpose. The parties who were really interested in the settlement of the question were the taxpayers of England; for although the depositors might suffer, in the first instance, by any hocus-pocus in fiscal transactions, the taxpayers would ultimately be required to make good any deficit that might arise in regard to this money. The importance of the present measure could not be overestimated; for this was the first time the House had been invited to legislate with regard to the investment of the money of savings banks. Under it a power greater than he already possessed was placed in the hands of the Finance Minister, who, as an ex-officio Commissioner, was entrusted with the power of selling and purchasing stock to the extent of several millions. It was competent to the House to confer this power on the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

  883
  but it ought to be done directly, eo nomine. At present the Financial Commission consisted of men of great ability and commanding position; but their important duties elsewhere prevented them from giving attention, or even in some cases attendance, as would be evident from the fact that the most distinguished Members of the Commission were the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Accountant General of Chancery, and the Master of the Rolls. Nothing could be more unwise than to repose powers of such great extent in an ex-officio Commission, as it necessarily followed that it must be exercised by somebody else. Sydney Smith used to say pleasantly that "Boards were often made use of only to make screens;" and, in the present instance, the Select Committee which inquired into the subject, had distinctly expressed their opinion as to the impolicy of imposing such responsible duties on an ex-officio Commission. It was ascertained that for many years the funds of the savings banks had been mainly, if not entirely, vested in the purchase of stock on the order of the Accountant General, an honourable and high-minded public man, Sir Alexander Spearman. The power of selling the stock was exercised on a written order by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it was no disrespect, either to the Accountant General, or to the Finance Minister, to say that this was a power which was not recognized by the Act of Parliament, and ought only to be admitted with the utmost caution. It rested on the evidence of Lord Monteagle and Sir A. Spearman, that the money had been used on many occasions for what was called "State purposes"—namely, in the purchase of Exchequer bills, to keep these at a fair price in the market. Were they prepared to give to the Finance Minister the power of dealing in stock, without the knowledge of the House, to the extent of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000? Would anybody contend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who knew precisely what was the state of the Treasury, and who was acquainted beforehand with the measures to be brought forward, ought to be allowed to operate secretly and silently in the market, thereby affecting the property of every individual who had made investments? Above all things, he thought that they ought not to place such a power in the hands of an ex-officio Commission. They ought rather to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee,
  884
  and place the control of the funds in a bonâ fide Commission, to be named by the Crown, and to be composed of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England, and three other gentlemen. It was a curious fact that, for many years the silent operations of the money of the savings banks on marketable stocks, were not known. The country owed the knowledge of the fact to the late Mr. Goulburn, who, acknowleding the danger of the system, placed upon the table of the House a voluminous document containing the whole history of those transactions, from which his information was derived—transactions extending from the period of 1828 to 1844, and amounting, he thought, to about 6,000 in number. The Legislature had authorized the Government in some instances, particularly in the days of Lord Auckland, to use the savings banks' monies. Looking at the whole of those accounts, however, from 1828 to 1844, there were only three years in which the balance was against the savings banks, and then only for small amounts; but, on a close analysis of the accounts, after making allowance for all demands on draughts, and treating the subject, as he hoped the House would now be disposed to do, as that of a trust-fund, it would be found that nearly £2,000,000 ought to be added to the account. It was a bad system that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the use of vast sums of money not in the stock market, should be able to carry on operations which would be otherwise impossible. For some years it was denied that the funds of the savings banks were made use of for the purpose of increasing the funded debt, and the observations which he from time to time had addressed to that House had not received all the credit to which they were entitled. But it had now been established conclusively, according to the evidence of Lord Monteagle, that there had been periods in which the bonâ fide debt of the country was increased through the medium of the Consolidated Fund; that no less than £3,000,000 of the unfunded debt were converted to funded debt between 1828 and 1860. Did the House mean, then, to make the savings banks' money a means of increasing the public debt? If not, it ought to place the powers necessary for the control of the funds of the savings banks in the hands of responsible people, and guard their exercise with vigilance.
  With respect to the Bill introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped

  885
  that the House would be told the precise object of it in the course of the discussion. It was a grave operation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. At the present moment the savings banks possessed about £36,000,000 or £37,000,000 stock, Three per Cents Reduced, and £25,000,000 Exchequer Bills. He gave great credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for grappling with the difficulty arising from a deficiency in the funds to satisfy the claims of the savings banks. It was proposed to place the sum of £31,000,000 to the credit of an account to be called the "State Deposit Account, No. 1," with interest at the rate of 3 per cent. This, he presumed, created a sort of book-debt to that extent, and he should like to know whether it was to be divisable and saleable, or in what manner it was to be treated. The 3 per cent interest, which the sum was to bear, was not the rate of interest at present prevailing, and he did not see why property should thus be arbitrarily dealt with. He should therefore certainly object to that portion of the Bill. It was a great question, too, whether the Legislature should lay hold of this property of the savings banks, cancel the existing securities, and by a sort of conjuring process create fresh securities. No doubt, the faith of the country would be pledged to repay the money of the savings banks, but he considered that the trustees and managers of savings banks and the depositors in them had already a right to their money by statute, provided they acted according to law. Therefore he did not see that their situation was improved in that respect. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would explain what would be the operation of Clause 4, for it appeared to give for the first time by statute a power to deal with stocks and securities to an extraordinary extent. In addition to the £10,000,000 remaining of the savings banks' money there would be the current balances, which would raise the amount to about £12,000,000. Now, he wished to know the various securities in which that sum of money would be placed. Those securities would be absolutely under the control of the Finance Minister of the day. It was specially provided by the Bill that such Minister might buy and sell stock or other securities, so that it would give him now, for the first time, by statute, that absolute power, as the avowed and sole organ of this Select Commission. The right hon. Gentleman, as well as the legal adviser of the Commission, appeared
  886
  to have lost sight of the 25th Clause of the 3 and 4 William IV., c. 14. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to produce the statute by which the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt could buy and sell stock and bills, and purchase other stock and bills. The 9th George IV., for the purpose of savings banks, gave distinct powers for the handling of stock for the use of savings banks. But there was not the shadow of right to use what he might call the jobbing power. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain to the House how the matter really stood. The fourteen Gentlemen who sat upon the Committee in 1858 had not a shadow of doubt that those funds should be treated as trust funds, and should be only invested in the best mode so as to secure the money for the savings banks' funds. There was no reason why those institutions should cost one shilling to the United Kingdom. He should impress upon the House the anxious desire of the trustees and managers of savings banks that the laws relating to these institutions should be consolidated in one Act. Through mismanagement, between the years 1820 and 1844 the savings banks' fund had been diminished to the extent of £1,820,000. In conclusion, he might state that what he wished for was a bonâ fide Commission; and he felt certain that if that were granted the trustees and managers and the depositors would be perfectly satisfied with the interest which their funds obtained; and that at the same time the public would have the advantage of these glorious institutions without being put to one farthing of loss. He thanked the House for the attention with which it had listened to the statement he had felt called upon to make.
  MR. HANKEYrose to state the reasons which induced him to believe that the Bill before them did not provide the proper mode of dealing with the subject of savings banks. The Bill unsettled a great deal and settled nothing. It did not contain any provision for the satisfactory settlement of the question, and it introduced many very novel principles that deserved the serious consideration of the House before they consented to sanction them. It set out on the principle that there was some sort of apprehension on the part of depositors, and that it was necessary to provide a fund to secure at all times the repayment of deposits. That was a laudable object, but the depositors in savings banks were safe

  887
  beyond dispute. They had no apprehension that they would not get their money when they chose to call for it, and on the part of the depositors generally there was no necessity for the Bill. To effect his purpose, it was proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should cancel a certain amount of stock, and create in its place a book debt. That was a novel mode of proceeding in their history, so far as any deposit of the kind was concerned. The proper way of treating the money was to place it out on proper security, taking care that too large an amount of interest was not paid, and that the money was always forthcoming. It was not necessary to invent the machinery proposed by the Bill to effect that object. The real thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to do, was to provide for the interest, and how did he do that? He provided for the payment of 3 per cent to the Government, while he gave the depositors 3¼ per cent. That was not an intelligible way of satisfying their minds that they would at all times be secure; but he repeated there was no apprehension that they would not be paid. The only advantage that could be gained was in saving the expense of management, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have little difficulty in arranging that point in half an hour with the Governor of the Bank of England. Another objection was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not create a sufficient amount of book debt to pay the whole amount. A deficiency was left unprovided for, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to create a fund out of which the savings banks' money was to be paid, he should create a fund for payment of the whole. The right hon. Gentleman merely created a book debt, equivalent to a certain amount, the remainder being left entirely at his disposal. He (Mr. Hankey) objected to the power given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the remainder of the money. He understood the Chancellor of Exchequer expected to effect a large amount of saving by the Bill—as much as £40,000 or £50,000 a year. The percentage now paid to the Bank would be, of course, so much money saved; but what saving was to be effected upon the remainder of the capital? He was afraid that only a small portion of it could be more profitably invested than at present. As the Bill originally stood it reserved a power to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fund a certain amount of Exchequer bills. That clause had, happily, been withdrawn,
  888
  for it did nothing more or less than empower the Chancellor of the Exchequer to create an additional amount of national debt without the knowledge or sanction of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a certain portion of stock at his command, and could buy and sell Exchequer bills; but he did not think it desirable the right hon. Gentleman should be in the position of one who "rigged" the market, for when the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the price of Exchequer bills being depressed—went into the market and bought, a rise was created, but not on the sound principle of supply and demand. He might add that in the Bill before the House pains seemed to have been taken to ignore the Resolutions, twenty in number, of the Committee of 1858, and he (Mr. Hankey) did not think that that was a fair way to treat the results of their labours. He (Mr. Hankey) did not agree with all the recommendations of the Committee, but there were many valuable recommendations offered by them, and their resolutions were sound and deserving of the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They treated the funds of the depositors as a trust fund, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it was a fund with which he could do what he pleased. If the change were to prove advantageous to the nation, so much the better, but who was to be the judge of that? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely to decide upon it. It was a question about which the House know nothing, and which was not brought under their notice. However, he would give the right hon. Gentleman credit for having attempted to grapple with the subject more effectively than any Chancellor of the Exchequer had done for many years past. Many savings banks Bills had been prepared, but he was not aware that any one of them had been seriously discussed while he had the honour of a seat in the House. He objected to the Bill because it ignored entirely the objects which the Committee had in view; it treated the matter in quite a different way to that in which trust property should be treated; it did not grapple with any of the difficulties which surrounded the question as far as details were concerned, and it instituted a perfectly novel principle for giving greater security to depositors, for it did not create a sufficient stock nor a sufficient charge upon the Consolidated Fund, to pay 3¼ per cent per annum, which was the rate the Government had undertaken to pay the depositors.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he might very well have left the question where it was after the able statements of the hon. Members who had preceded him, but as he had been Chairman of the Committee that sat to consider the subject in 1858 he felt bound to say that they brought to its consideration an amount of pains, trouble, and careful consideration which entitled their conclusions, at least to the consideration of the House, and as he had been prevented by illness from being present at the second reading of the Bill he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words with respect to the Report of that Committee. It was very true that the Bill dealt only with the subject of investments in savings banks, and for that reason he presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government thought they had not treated the Committee with discourtesy. He gave the right hon. Gentleman and the Government full credit for dealing with the subject in the present Session. When he saw that they were going to bring in a Bill upon the subject of savings banks he hoped they were approaching the settlement of a long-agitated question, on which the minds of people in the country had been more exercised than on almost any other question. Four or five different Bills with respect to it had been brought in by Chancellors of the Exchequer, but one after the other had been withdrawn; every one of those Bills threw some doubt on the security enjoyed by depositors, so that they acted, perhaps, rather to the prejudice than in support of the excellent institutions with which they dealt. He had hoped that the present measure would remedy that state of things, inasmuch as the way for legislation had been smoothed by the labours of the Committee which sat two years ago; but when he saw the Bill he had experienced considerable disappointment. In the first place, he found that it dealt with only portion of a great subject which ought not in his opinion to be dealt with piecemeal. It had reference only to investments, and he should under these circumstances be glad to know what chance other questions connected with savings banks more immediately and vitally affecting them had of being settled within any reasonable time? It might be said the Committee had taken no notice of these interesting points. But they dealt with them in the only way that was open to them—they had suggested the appointment of three Commissioners, in
  890
  addition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank, to be looked upon as the guardians and trustees of the different savings hanks, and the 14th and 15th Resolutions of the Committee specially provided that the Commissioners should have the power to frame Resolutions as to the mode in which the accounts should be kept and audited. These questions were most interesting to local savings banks;—the question as to the best mode of establishing and enforcing an audit, of producing uniformity of accounts and determining how the usefulness of savings banks might be extended—how they could prevent defalcations such as those which had agitated the country from one end to another—how they should deal with the expenses of management—whether there should be a Government treasurer or leave the matter as at present—the question of the surplus of interest not paid—the question whether they should absolutely prohibit any bank being established other than a savings bank eo nomine under the provisions of the present law—the question of passbooks—the question as to the accounts and trusts of minors—the question of the liability of the Government, whether they should or should not transfer the deposit of any individual into the public funds when it had reached a certain point—and the most important question as to the liability of the trustees, Parliament having relieved them of all responsibility whatever—for this whole congeries of questions vitally affecting the management of local hanks, and vitally affecting the character of the law and Parliament, no provision whatever was made in this Bill. The Committee of 1858 did make provision for them, and if Parliament passed them over unnoticed now he did not know that another opportunity would offer for dealing with them. He should therefore prefer that the whole subject should stand over until it could be fully dealt with. So much for points omitted in the Bill; now for a few words on what he thought objectionable in the Bill itself. He might have left this to what had been so well said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham, who had treated the subject with an ability that showed he might well aspire to the post of Financial Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that the property should be regarded in the light of a trust. His (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt's) impression was that

  891
  between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any individual savings hank, the trans, action was a banking one; but as between the Government and the whole body of savings banks it was a trust. If the Government overlooked that distinction they would probably come to a defective conclusion. It was admitted on all hands that, as between the tax-payer and the Government the money was held as a trust. The main principle of the Bill went to the conversion of the security of savings banks now held in Consols into what was called a book debt, for which a fixed amount of interest was to be paid, and what was the consequence of such a conversion? At this moment there was an apparent deficiency between the sum the State was liable for, if every depositor were paid, and the amount of assets held by the Commissioners, as the result of the whole transactions since savings banks were established, of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000. That was not an absolute sum, but depended on the price of the stocks. For the purpose of covering a deficit they were about to inscribe in their books a debt which must be paid in full to an extent much larger than he thought was absolutely required. Whenever a large demand was made upon them they would be obliged to sell at the price of the day, and according to that necessity they would either gain or lose Further, the Bill would create a fixed and permanent interest to be paid by the Government on the debt, while the interest accruing from the investment of the deposits would be continually varying. The only saving would be in the sum paid for the management of the debt. Did the right hon. Gentleman hope to gain a sixpence more than that from any other source under his Bill? The right hon. Gentleman might say he was going to inscribe this debt in a large book, and to give an indefeasible title to it by a clause in this measure. But, on the part of the savings banks, it could be answered that they would rather keep the security they had than accept the right hon. Gentleman's clause. Nobody disputed the liability of the Government for the money it received from the savings banks, and therefore the effect of the arrangements under the Bill would be to diminish the security while retaining the old management. The mode recommended by the Committee was to adhere to the present security and alter the mangement, and of the two suggestions that of the right hon.
  892
  Gentleman was the one least deserving of adoption. In money transactions where there was no dispute as to the security afforded up to the present moment it was impossible to make any change without giving the country the impression that those who made it had some other object in view than the one that was apparent. He must again advert to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the labours of the Committee. One could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman should disapprove all their proceedings, and as Finance Minister should think it his duty to assert the right of the Government to control this matter; but it would have been well to treat with some consideration the Gentlemen who devoted so much of their time, and worked extremely hard at this subject. They came to their Resolution nearly, if not quite, unanimously, and from no party spirit; and their Report contained an amount of valuable materials which would be of the utmost assistance to those who came to deal with this question. He was very sorry the right hon. Gentleman had brought the question forward in this shape, as he must vote against his Bill, because, even if it were a good scheme as far as concerned investments, they ought not to legislate on the subject piecemeal. They should satisfy the public upon points on which it was entitled to satisfaction, and should deal with the question as a whole. If they allowed the present opportunity to slip they might not very soon have another. The action of these excellent institutions was now very much impeded, and their sphere of operation greatly circumscribed. There were not above 600 savings banks in the whole country, whereas they ought to ramify every parish, and even every village in the kingdom. If the House passed this measure they would throw away a golden opportunity of placing these institutions on a better and more expensive footing, as well as of setting our whole law relating to them on a satisfactory basis.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had hoped and expected that this question would have been solved by the Committee which sat to inquire into it some time ago; but in that hope he had been disappointed. Their recommendations had not been attended to, and for aught that appeared in the Bill the Committee might as well not have sat at all. Indeed, the labours of many Committees were thrown away in the same manner; those of the Committee

  893
  on Harbours of Refuge for instance—and it seemed to him that the only way in which they could make the labours of Committees fructify, would be to require that the Chairman of every Committee should bring its Resolutions before the House in a substantive form, If that had been done with respect to the Committee which sat upon the subject of savings banks, the House would not have heard such expressions of dissent with respect to the Bill, and which he was afraid would be fatal to it. He hoped and trusted that something would be done in future to give a useful result to the labour of Committees. The great principle to be adopted in legislating with regard to savings banks was that the property of depositors in them should be considered to be a trust, and a trust alone, and should not be used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a factitious value to Government securities. When Exchequer Bills lost their value the Chancellor of the Exchequer sold out a great quantity of savings bank money, possibly at a loss, and went into the market to purchase those securities in order to give them a factitious value, and deceive the mercantile world. This practice should be put a stop to.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he had for many years given his attention to the subject, and in June, 1857, he called to the notice of the House the injury which was inflicted upon public credit in consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what might be vulgarly but with strict accuracy called, rigging the market by means of the funds belonging to the savings banks. He entirely agreed with every word which had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham in the course of his luminous speech. These funds ought to be regarded as a trust, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be allowed to use them for the purpose of buying Exchequer Bills at a discount, and thus giving them a fictitious appearance of value. The court in which he passed so much of his time continually held respectable men liable for trust money which they had employed in the purchase of shares in companies to which they belonged in order to raise their value in the market; and now that this Bill was before them it was the imperative duty of the House to provide that that should not be done by the Government which a Court of Justice would not permit on the part of an individual. It was also important that there should be a real body
  894
  of trustees, men who would make it their duty to attend to their business, instead of such officers as the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Speaker of that House, and the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, not one of whom had an hour to devote to the business.
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I sincerely wish, Sir, that it was in my power, consistently with the respect which is due to the House and to the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, to release you from the position you have occupied for so many hours during the last twenty-four. Unfortunately, it would not be respectful or just with respect to the subject that I should not, at any rate, make some remarks, in which I will endeavour to bring to a head the principal points in regard to this Bill which have been referred to by the different speakers. First, I must thank all who have taken part in the debate for the spirit in which they have approached the subject. I cannot say that it has in every case been regarded from the true point of view; but nothing could be more kind and considerate than the remarks which have been made. I will begin with what fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Estcourt), because the complaint which formed the burden of his speech can, I think, be easily got rid of. The main objection of the right hon. Gentleman was that the measure did not contain a set of provisions to regulate the ordinary management of savings banks, and he enumerated a multitude of points with respect to that which he thinks ought to be settled by law. Now, I admit that it is most desirable that we should have a Bill for the management of savings banks; but it is a subject of great difficulty, and has no relation to the mode in which the moneys are to be invested and used. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say it is a valid objection to a Bill for dealing with the investment of savings banks' moneys that it does not deal with the totally different subject of the management of these banks and the liability of trustees—a subject upon which half a dozen Finance Ministers have in vain endeavoured to legislate, and all this at so advanced a period of the Session as the 22nd of June, when so much business of importance yet remains to be disposed of? I feel confident that the House will not refuse to proceed with the Bill on such a ground as that.

  895
  I now come to a point on which much has been said. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) complained that I had ignored the labours of the Select Committee of 1858, which, he said, at least deserved consideration at my hands. But how does he know that I have not considered the Report of that Committee? Consideration does not necessarily involve adoption. A man may consider and adopt, or consider and decline. It was my unfortunate condition, after most carefully considering the recommendations of the Committee, that I was, in a great number of instances, compelled to decline them. My hon. Friend, however, is in error when he says that no trace of the recommendations of the Committee is to be found in the Bill now before us. There are two most important recommendations of the Committee embodied in the Bill. One is the limitation, or as I may rather call it, the abolition of the power of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to add to the funded debt of the country without the authority of Parliament. The other is the power which is conferred by the Bill of varying securities, within certain limits, in order to increase the income that would be derivable from the proceeds of these moneys when invested. I must say a word, however, as to the proceedings of this Select Committee. The instruction which it received when appointed was to inquire into the Acts relating to savings banks and the operation thereof, and I, for one, at once concluded that the management of savings banks was to be the chief subject of inquiry. I cannot, therefore, express the astonishment with which I found, when the Report of the Committee was issued, that not a tenth part of the whole inquiry related to the question of management, and that the investigation mainly turned on the financial questions connected with the investment of moneys received from savings banks. Those questions were, perhaps, within the terms of the reference; but I had not the smallest conception that they would form the subject of their labours. How did that Committee proceed? There were then in the House five Gentlemen who, during the course of twenty years, had, as Chancellors of the Exchequer, been invested with the sole responsibility of the management of these moneys. With the exception of these five Gentlemen and the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), there was scarcely a Member in the House at
  896
  the time who had paid any attention to the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. Not one of these Gentlemen either sat as a Member of the Committee, or was examined as a witness. Under these circumstances, no one can be surprised that the investigation of the Committee proved imperfect and unsatisfactory.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT: Lord Monteagle was examined before the Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Lord Monteagle retired from the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer twenty-four years ago, and could not, therefore, be expected to give a sufficient account of all the operations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli); my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring); the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood); the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis); or myself, during the twenty years between 1839 and 1858. [A MEMBER: Sir Alexander Spearman was another witness.] Sir Alexander Spearman—yes. But who is he? A very able and excellent public servant, but not the responsible officer from whom the House should seek to know the grounds upon which the Finance Minister of this country has proceeded.
  The main questions that have been raised for the consideration of the House are two: the first is the doctrine that the funds ought to be managed by what is termed an independent Commission, entirely different in composition from the present one; the other is the doctrine that the moneys ought to be dealt with in the same manner as private trust moneys. Before going into these two questions, I may state for the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Evesham, that no provision has been inserted in the Bill with the view of reducing the rate of interest allowed to depositors, and that no such intention is entertained. Indeed, I apprehend it is indubitable that the fund from which the interest is payable will be larger under the operation of this Bill than under the present law. But to return to the two questions. It is said that the Commissioners for the reduction of the national debt are not the proper persons to manage these funds, and that there ought to be an independent Commission. Now what is meant by an independent Commission? It is, of course,

  897
  very agreeable to a gentleman in my position to contemplate the creation of additional patronage, and I have to thank my hon. Friend for proposing the creation of a new paid office. Of the new and independent Commission which is proposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be one member with the Governor of the Bank of England and three others, one of whom is to be paid. The real meaning of that arrangement is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to have one vote among five. Now, I do not at all dispute that if we were about to constitute a trust like that recommended by the hon. and. learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) it might be desirable to render it wholly independent of Parliament. On the other hand, however, if you hold that these moneys ought not to be regarded as trust moneys at all, but that the public is strictly a banker and nothing else, then it is obvious that it would be absurd to constitute an independent Commission to manage moneys which are, in fact, the moneys of the public, and which ought, therefore, to be kept under the close and immediate control of the House of Commons. If, as contended by the hon. Member for Evesham, this money is the money of the depositors, and ought to be managed by the public as trustees, you ought to look at the character of your trust, and separate it from the immediate control of Parliament. But the doctrine has always been that this money is not the money of the depositors, and on this principle it has always been held and managed. And the vital question now at issue is, are we to hold this money as trustees or as bankers? The obligation of a trustee is to act in the interest of those for whom he holds the trust, and when he has so acted to the best of his judgment, with integrity, and reasonable discretion, his liability terminates, and the persons for whom he is trustee are liable for any loss they may suffer.
  MR. MALINS: If he acts within the limits of the trust.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I assume as much when I suppose that he acts with integrity and to the best of his discretion.
  MR. MALINS: But he might invest in other funds than the trust allowed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That would certainly not be acting to the best of his discretion.
  MR. MALINS: I beg your pardon—it might be so in some cases.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: I have never heard it propounded before that a trustee who travels out of the limits of his trust may be held as acting with integrity and discretion. I repeat, a trustee must act with integrity, and use a reasonable discretion, and having done so, the persons interested in the trust are liable for any loss. But will the House legislate on that principle for the depositors of savings banks? If so, you must reconstitute the fund entirely, and begin de novo. The principle upon which all past legislation has been founded is that this money is not the property either of the depositors or of the trustees, but the property of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National debt. Instead of that you wished to make it the property—of whom? Either of the trustees of savings banks or of the depositors. I do not think you will declare it to be the property of the trustees as they themselves are irresponsible. But if you declare it to be the property of the depositors you must hand over to them the sum you have received. You must therefore find a sum of about £3,000,000, and place it in the hands of those gentlemen. You have certain liabilities towards the trustees of savings banks on behalf of the depositors. There are certain assets to meet those liabilities, and the assets are of less value by £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 than the amount of those liabilities. It will be a breach of faith which I feel confident this House will not entertain, if, when you have the fact established beyond doubt that the assets of the Commissioners are not equal to their liability, you hand the money over to a Commission as trustees without enabling them to discharge every shilling of liability. Such a course cannot be contemplated for a moment. But I contend that the proposition is unreasonable and undesirable in the interests of the depositors themselves. The property in question is subject to fluctuations of value. It would be a bad view to hold this out to the depositors in savings banks, "instead of a regular and fixed amount of interest you are to take the chance of the funds going up and down, and four or five gentlemen are to be appointed as Commisioners, who are to do the best they can for you." These gentlemen must soil when the funds are low, and buy when they are high. The difference between the rate of interest paid and received and the necessity of selling out at a time when the funds are low have

  899
  been the main cause of the loss on this money. Now would it be for the benefit of the depositors to place them under all the fluctuations that result from the system proposed by the hon. Member for Evesham? The fact is, this doctrine of a trust is a vast legal change in the tenure of a vast amount of property. At present property is vested in the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and their absolute proprietary right is balanced by the obligation to pay back the trustees the whole sum invested, with interest at 3 per cent. The basis of the present law is, that the Commissioners are in the position of bankers. The savings banks' money is their property, but they hold it subject to the repayment of the principal and a fixed rate of interest. The proposal of the Committee would be the breaking up of that system, and I declined to enter upon a task that I knew would be hopeless, of attempting to persuade this House to undo all the policy and retrace all the steps it had taken for the last forty or fifty years, even if that change had not been accompanied with the necessity of handing over to the Commissioners a sum of £3,000,000 of the public mouey.
  Something has been said of the constitution of the present Commission, which is, I apprehend, analogous to many other Boards and Commissions which Parliament has thought fit to establish. I was for many years prior to 1858 a Member of the Indian Board of Control; and so also was my noble Friend at the head of the Government, and I do not know whether down to the period of its abolition my noble Friend has ever—for myself at all events I can say that I have never—attended a single meeting or took any share in its proceedings. I have also been a member of the Board of Trade, over which my right hon. Friend so efficiently presides, but I have never troubled him in the discharge of his business. The practical working of such a system is that his responsibility is full, absolute, and undivided. It may be a question whether we should keep up the umbra of a Board, but the responsibility which thus falls upon the adviser of the Crown and the head of the Department is unquestionable. In like manner, the responsibility of the Minister is absolute in these savings bank transactions, for there can be no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he alone, is the person whom the House of Commons would call to account. I do not say that the machinery
  900
  is perfect for securing the control of the House of Commons, but this I do say, that no effectual control can be obtained by tying the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How will the House ensure his acting well? By ensuring an effectual review by the House of Commons of his transactions, I contemplated the formation, under the highest authority, of a Select Committee of this House who should sit from year to year and carry out an entire audit of the public money. This would, of course, include a regular revision of all the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the management of this money.
  From the speeches delivered to-night it might be supposed that some dreadful Bill had been introduced enabling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into his hands a number of exorbitant powers which hon. Members were endeavouring to prevent. But there is not a power given to him by the Bill which he does not already possess, except one or two minor provisions that do not enter into the substance and purpose of the Bill. On the other hand, the surrender of powers that he does possess is very large. He has at present the power of funding deficiency Bills, Ways and Means, and other Bills, which is done away with by this measure. A large portion of the Stocks under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are placed beyond his control by this Bill. Above all, while I propose to limit his powers, I also propose to provide by the appointment of this Committee that the whole of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proceedings shall be under the review of this House. We are all agreed in this, that the main question we have to settle is in what capacity these moneys are to be managed—are they to be managed by us as trustees for private persons or as bankers? It is clearly impossible we can manage them as trustees. The time for that is past. If a trust was to be constituted, it should have been constituted when the savings banks were first taken in hand; but Parliament adopted a totally different system, and I think it did so wisely. But the financial purposes to which these moneys are applied are purposes of such a magnitude that I think the mode of dealing with them is of a character far beyond being settled by the Report of any Committee, and must be reserved for the discretion of this House. Those funds have been used for purposes of great importance. At times, when it has been

  901
  thought right to lighten the burdens on property by reducing the interest on the public debt, these funds have afforded the means of doing so by enabling us to make the proper provision for that purpose. I doubt whether, if it had not been for the possession of these funds, Mr. Goulburn would have been able in 1844 to effect that great operation which saved this country £1,200,000 a year. And during the Crimean war could my right hon. Friend the Member for Radnorshire (Sir George Lewis) be blamed because he largely used these funds to enable him to borrow with advantage and with a saving to the country, in order to bear the expense of the war? If he had then been compelled to borrow in stock—the demands for the war being uncertain—he would have had to borrow a larger sum than was wanted, and would not only have withdrawn from the demands of commerce money that was necessary, but have entailed upon the country considerable expense.
  Then as to the objects of the Bill. There is at this moment no positive title in law to the deposits in savings banks. I have been told that it is alarming to the depositors to say so; but I think that opinion has been set afloat by certain officers of savings banks—the persons, in fact, who have got up the petitions. But if it is true that alarm will be created, I ask would it be wise or right to conceal from the depositors what is the fact? The legal position of depositors is this—they have a perfect and absolute title to all assets held by the Commissioners, but none beyond that. This Bill gives them a title to all the money held by the Commissioners, a title secured on the State Deposit Account, and it insures the trustees of savings banks in the funds of the State itself. The next object of the Bill is to give a true account of the National Debt; no one has ever seen a true account of the National Debt. No such thing has ever been laid before this House; but the Bill aims at arriving at as true an account of the National Debt as we can, and of rectifying that account once every year. An hon. Gentleman has said I ought to go bowing to the Bank of England to ask more favourable terms from them in respect of these funds. The Bank of England is entitled to £300 a year for the management of every million of stock created by these funds, and I am asked, as Finance Minister, to go to them and petition to have the charge lessened; but I do not think that that is a position in which
  902
  the Finance Minister of this country ought to appear. In conclusion, I have to repeat that this Bill completely establishes the legal title of depositors; limits the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—cutting off the means by which he exercised his power, and which, I am free to admit, has in past times been abused; increases the income derived from these funds, and makes provision for bringing all the proceedings connected with them under the cognizance and control of the House. I believe, therefore, that the Bill will receive the sanction of the House.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, that as a Member of the Committee he could not overlook the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—that the Committee was composed of individuals not one of whom knew any thing of the question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I never said anything of the kind. I said that none of them had been conversant in the slightest degree, as responsible persons, with the question to be considered.
  Mr. T. BARINGsaid, he did not apprehend that the Committee professed to know more than other Members; but when the right hon. Gentleman said the Committee contained no Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would ask under whose administration was that Committee appointed? It was formed under the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, now the Secretary for the Home Department. Why did that right hon. Gentleman exclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He (Mr. Baring) did not know his sentiments on the subject; but it was only reasonable to suppose that, as a fair and honest Minister, he thought the inquiry ought to be conducted by a Committee wholly distinct from the existing or any previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of objecting to that Committee as not being a fair Committee, but he did nothing of the kind. It was also in the power of the Chancellors of the Exchequer to whom reference had been made to ask to be examined, but no one did so; and when reference was made to Sir Alexander Spearman, a man more conversant with savings hanks than perhaps any other man in the country, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he was not an efficient, because he was not a responsible witness in such a question as this. If he were to be again a Member of that Committee he would say, "Examine Sir Alexander Spearman, who is the man

  903
  most conversant with the affairs and the conduct of savings banks." But the Chancellor of the Exchequer also said the Committee took the benefit of the letter of their Commission and overstepped the spirit of the inquiry. The spirit of the inquiry was—first, to see whether the management of the funds was conducted with security to the depositors, and next, whether the loss which was apparent arose from the savings banks' system itself, or from the system of control and management being vested in the hands of the financial Minister of the day. The result was that, as the funds were at the disposal of the financial Minister of the day they were made use of, no doubt, from most conscientious intentions and with perfectly clear views, but the operations were conducted not for the interest of the savings banks, but for the purposes of the Government and the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that himself, for he asked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being had not had the control of the savings banks' funds, how could Mr. Goulburn have effected a reduction in the rate of interest, and how could we have managed in the Crimean war? But when complaints were made of the cost of the savings banks, the House ought to know whether that was traceable to the operations of the savings banks themselves, or the employment of the funds for national purposes. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that no depositor in any savings bank was not sure of his money.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I said as far as the Government were concerned.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he did not want to draw any distinction, but he was glad to hear the Minister charged with that department tell the country that the depositors were perfectly safe. But the real question was whether the Government in employing the money belonging to depositors they considered the interests of the depositors or the advantage of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that the control over those moneys must be vested in the individual at the head of the finance department, and instanced the Board of Control. But those systems were not analogous. The Board of Control in former times had the Government of a great empire, distinct from this country, and were responsible for it; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible to the country for the finances, and he had placed
  904
  under his control the deposits of individuals which had not in their origin any connection with the finances of this country, except that they implied an obligation on the part of the country to repay them. But then came the question whether that control was always wisely, judiciously, and safely exercised. Undoubtedly it was so under the right hon. Gentleman. Nothing could be more safe, judicious, and wise than his management. But there would always exist a doubt whether there might not be some financial operation which the minister of the day might wish and be able to carry out with these funds which might terminate in a loss to the depositors, although beneficial to the country. The establishment of savings banks had been one of the best institutions ever conceived. It had encouraged saving habits and stimulated the industry of the poorer classes. But the late Mr. Hume used to say they were a great loss to the country; but then came the question of how that loss arose. The evidence before the Committee showed that if there was any loss it did not arise from the employment of the funds in due course, but resulted from their being used for the temporary purposes of the Minister of the day. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill was to make everything more secure, but he (Mr. Baring) could find nothing in it to benefit depositors. It was, in fact, a great financial measure, and should have been introduced as such. He wished to enter his protest against the measure, as he did not believe there was any necessity for it, and he would be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman consent to withdrew it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, as a Member of the Committee, he rose to protest against the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee had confined its inquiries to financial policy, and had not devoted much consideration to the conduct of savings banks. The Committee had examined Sir A. Spearman, and did not call for Chancellors of the Exchequer, therefore it was clear that the Committee had devoted their inquiries to the proper subject. They only entered into the operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as to ascertain that those operations, however advantageous they might be to the national finances, had actually diminished the funds in the hands of Government on account of savings banks. The objections to the Bill were twofold—that it did not contain many of the recommenda-

  905
  tions of the Committee; and, next, that what it did contain was unsatisfactory. To accomplish two simple objects the right hon. Gentleman had taken a most complicated course. To cancel a portion of the National Debt and turn it into a book debt with the Treasury, was a most dangerous operation, and, he should have thought, inconsistent with national faith. But what was the use of it? Why begin a new system of National Debt? The only reason he could discover was to save the money paid to the Bank of England. There was no necessity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer going cap in hand, as he had described, to the Bank; but if he had made proper representations to the Directors of the Bank, they would no doubt have surrendered the payment for the national benefit without the necessity of this complex legislation. The right hon. Gentleman said that if he did not do this he must create some new fund, but that was what he was doing by this complicated proceeding. Every hon. Member with whom he had conversed on the subject asked, "What can be the meaning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill?" If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of trifling with the character of the National Debt, had created some £3,000,000 of new debt in the shape of Consols, people would have thanked him for a satisfactory adjustment of the deficiency which had been created by forty years of mismanagement, and which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had shrunk from disclosing. He doubted, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposal with regard to the interest was a safe one, or whether it would sustain close investigation in Committee. It would have the effect of diminishing the fund which existed as a guarantee against mismanagement or malversation in certain banks. If, instead of creating a new book debt, as he called it, he had made the original deficiency good in Consols, the interest would have been secured in the same way. But the right hon. Gentleman had destroyed his Consols; and if any claim were made by the savings banks he would be confined to the Exchequer Bill market, instead of having the advantage of the Consol market, where the field was larger and money more easily got. Any one acquainted with financial transactions must admit that a more inexpedient proceeding could not have been suggested.
  MR. COLLINSobserved, that no one had spoken in favour of the Bill except
  906
  the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it was opposed by the great majority of savings banks. He objected to Members being brought down night after night by the Bill appearing on the paper when there was no chance of their making any progress with it, and he thought he was justified in moving that the Bill be committed that day three months.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee'"
  —instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 65: Majority 24.
  MR. TURNERexpressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might yet be induced to withdraw this Bill. Except the right hon. Gentleman, not a single Member had said one word in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Committee who had inquired into this subject had not discharged their duties quite satisfactorily. No Committee, however, could be more determined to investigate the question in every way, and, though they had not examined Chancellors of the Exchequer, they did examine an officer whom they thought more competent to give an unbiassed opinion than even Financial Ministers. The Manchester and Salford Savings Bank, the deposits in which exceeded £1,000,000 had petitioned against the Bill, calling attention to the Report of the Committee, and the Report was, in his opinion, approved by the leading banks throughout the country.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not withdraw the Bill, for it contained a provision of the greatest importance—namely, a clause preventing the conversion of Exchequer Bills into stock without the authority of Parliament.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 (Stock to be cancelled).
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to take the opinion of the Committee with respect to the formation of the Commission, and he would therefore move that the clause be postponed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that such a course would be inconvenient. He could not see any

  907
  connection between the object of the hon. Baronet and the course which he proposed to take. If he wished to raise the question of the constitution of the Committee, he ought to propose a new clause.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he regretted that his Motion did not meet with favour in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who rarely gave his assent to anything; but he must contend that the object which had led him to give notice of a Motion to postpone the first three clauses was perfectly intelligible.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, that the Bill, so far from extending, appeared to him to limit the power of the Treasury to operate with the funds of savings banks.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHECHEQUERremarked that the sum of £31,000,000, at present subject to the control of the Finance Minister, would be removed from his power by this Bill.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid the sum of £10,000,000 and the current balances would still remain.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the principle of the Amendment was to overset the Bill; and that being so, therefore the propositions in the measure should be taken in the order in which they arose. The first proposition was to cancel a certain amount of stock. We did not owe the total amount which had been named, but only interest upon it, though we did owe the difference between the amount of securities and the debt.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had made his Motion bonâ fide, and he thought that he had pursued a course which was a proper one. The governors were trustees, and Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right suddenly to get up and say, "I will change the whole nature of the transaction, and alter the kind of securities." He should persist in his Motion, because he believed that a Commission should be appointed to manage this fund, and it was necessary to an Amendment of that kind that the three first clauses should be postponed. He hoped the clause would be postponed.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not impute to the hon. Baronet any unfair attempt at postponement, but the Amendment moved would prevent their proceeding with the Bill. The only question upon the first clause was as to the stock in which the money should be invested; and the usual course would be to discuss that question only upon the clause. The mere fact
  908
  of changing the security was no breach of faith at all, as seemed to be supposed, for the parties investing had the security of the nation still.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, if it was the desire of the House to do a certain thing, the first thing they should determine was, who was to do it, and on these grounds he supported the postponement of the clause.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, the real thing for the Committee to decide was, whether they would vest power in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or whether they would adopt the recommendation of the Committee. He therefore thought his hon. Friend was quite right in taking the sense of the Committee as to whether the clause should be postponed, in order that they might determine whether they would adopt the recommendation of the Committee.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDinsisted upon being informed who the Commissioners were to be that were to manage these funds before they proceeded further.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 1 be postponed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes 49; Noes 73: Majority 24.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Local Boards of Health, &c; Local Government Supplemental. 3a Fisheries (Scotland).
LAW AND EQUITY BILL.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in rising, pursuant to notice, to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said their Lordships had now to determine what course to take upon this very important Bill, which they had read a second time without a division. He ought, perhaps, to apologize for the delay which had oc-

  835
  curred in again bringing the Bill under their Lordships' notice; the delay had arisen from a communication he had received from the Lord Chief Justice of England and two of his learned brethren, who acted as Commissioners to inquire into the practice and procedure of the Courts of common law. The equity Judges had presented a memorial, which at the request of the noble and learned Lord who sat near him (Lord St. Leonards), he had laid before their Lordships, in which they expressed their disapproval of the Bill. He hoped be need not assure their Lordships that he had a sincere and profound respect for the equity Judges—a respect which, if possible, had been increased since he had the honour of being associated with them. They were most learned, honourable, and devoted public functionaries, and he rejoiced that he had always been able to act with them with the most perfect harmony. But their opinions being hostile to the opinions of the common law Judges, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, it was impossible that he could act upon the recommendations of the Commissioners, without giving every possible opportunity for the full consideration of the provisions of the measure, The objections of the equity Judges would be found in the memorial which he most earnestly implored their Lordships to read, since it was written with great ability, and deserved their deepest attention. The question was whether any further equity jurisdiction should be given to the Courts of common law? He trusted that their Lordships would have no objection to the course he proposed, which was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, consisting of all the law Lords and as many lay Lords as would do them the honour of assisting at their deliberations. He regretted to have received from his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) notice that he intended to oppose his Motion—on what grounds he could not easily conjecture. A monstrous misapprehension existed on this subject. People supposed that the Bill was meant to destroy the Court of Chancery, that it established a new and dangerous innovation, and would lead to fatal consequences. This was as far as possible from the fact. The principle was laid down by the Equity Commissioners, that equity jurisdiction should be given to the Courts of common law, so as to enable them to bring to a conclusion the causes that legitimately originated in those Courts. The principle briefly might he expressed in the
  836
  words "one Court for one cause." If an equitable defence arose in a Court of common law the Bill proposed to give that Court the power of deciding the question, so that the parties might not be put to the expense of going before another tribunal, of engaging another staff of counsel, and of being subjected to the expense and vexation of a double litigation. From an early time a portion of equitable jurisdiction had been conferred upon the Courts of common law, which had always been exercised beneficially. So long ago as the reigns of William III. and Queen Anne, an equity jurisdiction was given to the Courts of common law with respect to actions on bonds with a penality for the performance of contracts. In the reign of George II. this equitable jurisdiction was further extended; and whereas there used to be no mode of obtaining a discovery from either party in an action at law, save by filing a Bill in equity, the parties by recent legislation were mutually examined, and an inspection of all material writings was granted, so that the necessity of appealing to a Court of equity for those purposes had been entirely obviated. It was the aim of the present measure to give a further equitable jurisdiction to the Courts of common law. The Bill extended to Courts of law the jurisdiction enjoyed by Courts of equity in cases of forfeiture from non-payment of rent. By the Act of George II., the Courts of common law had a right to grant relief before trial: After trial, however, they had no right to interfere, the forfeiture took place, the lease had been broken, and the tenant might be ejected. The Court of equity had jurisdiction in similar cases for six months after the trial. Why, he asked, should it be necessary to appeal to the Court of equity when the action had been brought in the Court of law, and when that Court was as well able to form a judgment on the case as the Court of equity? There was another ground for extending the jurisdiction of the Courts of law of the greatest importance. There was at present no protection to property during litigation, and it might be destroyed or rendered useless by one of the parties, without the Court having power to interfere. It was necessary to apply to a Court of equity in such cases. But by the Bill it was proposed to give the common law Courts power to protect the property during litigation. It was further provided that injunctions might be granted in cases where

  837
  a wrongful act was committed or begun; and there was also a provision by which the Court in which any action was commenced was empowered to grant conditional relief in any case where a Court of equity would grant similar relief against further proceedings in such actions. Various other changes were proposed which he hoped would meet the approbation of their Lordships. He believed that all the powers given to the common law Courts by the Bill could be safely and beneficially conferred upon them. It was objected that if this Bill were to pass all equitable rights would be brought into the Courts of common law; but that would not be so; for it was only where legal rights were sought to be recovered in a Court of common law that the provisions of the Bill would come into operation. Another objection was taken to the form of appeal; but there would always be the ultimate appeal to the House of Lords, and their Lordships would have an ample opportunity of reviewing any decision that was brought under their notice. The last objection of which he had any knowledge was, that the common law Judges were not competent to dispose of questions of equity. That was a very delicate point; but Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and two of his learned brethren had declared their belief that the suggestion of incompetency was perfectly unfounded. Those learned Judges had no interested motives; they had quite enough to do at present, but they were willing and able to administer the law in an extended shape, All these however were subjects that could be better discussed in a Select Committee than in the Whole House, and therefore he should propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD LYNDHURST: I apprehend the only question before your Lordships at present is, whether this Bill shall be referred to a Select Committee or not. I cannot understand how it is possible to put a negative upon the Motion. I object to many parts of the Bill; but what do I find is its present position? It has been read a second time. The subject-matter of it has evoked from the equity Judges opinions adverse to the Bill. We have also upon the table the opinions of common law Judges in support of the Bill, and in answer to the objections of the equity Judges. Before we can take any further steps we must discuss these different opinions, and
  838
  we cannot discuss them in this House. The question is too difficult, too complicated to be dealt with here, and we must of necessity refer it to a Select Committee. Let that Committee be composed of the law Lords with whom some lay Lords may also be associated. I most strongly recommend your Lordships to accede to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend upon the woolsack.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, it had been his intention to divide the House upon the question of the second reading; but having been prevented from doing so, he wished to take the present opportunity of taking their Lordships' opinions upon the principle of the Bill. If their Lordships were prepared to say that the equity jurisdiction should be extended to the Courts of common law, then there could be no objection to referring the Bill to a Select Committee, in order to frame clauses that would best carry out that intention. But if the House should be of opinion that the equity jurisdiction ought not to be extended to the Courts of law, then there would be no necessity for a Select Committee. The Bill came before them in an extraordinary shape. It had been referred to the Master of the Rolls and the three Vice-Chancellors, who unanimously reported against it; and the two Lords Justices, although it had not been referred to them, had written a letter condemning the Bill in strong terms. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack then referred to the Common Law Commissioners. The Commissioners were four in number. Three of them who at the time of their appointment were eminent counsel at the bar had since become Judges—one of them Lord Chief Justice of England. The fourth Commissioner was Mr. Walton, the senior Master of the Court of Exchequer. These four gentlemen made the Report to which his noble and learned Friend had referred; and these three of them, who were now on the bench, had made the communication referred to; Mr. Walton, the fourth Commissioner, not being a party to it. The fact was that the common law Judges had not the knowledge which was necessary to enable them to discharge these duties. Equity differed from the law in this respect. An equity lawyer must make himself partially acquainted, at all events, with a great portion of the common law, especially with that affecting property. He must do so because, according to the familiar maxim, equity followed the law,

  839
  and gave relief against and moderated the rigour of the common law. But as you must necessarily know what a thing was before you could give relief against it, so it would be found that there was no first-rate equity lawer who was not imbued with a fair knowledge of the common law. The common law Judges, however, had only to administer the common law; and, that being so, equity was to them utterly unimportant, except as a science which they might perhaps wish to know something about; they had not to found themselves upon the principles of equity; they had not to give relief against any rigour in the application of the rules of equity; and he hoped they would take no offence when he said that they were not and could not be expected to be, good equity Judges. Yet their Lordships were asked to transfer a great mass of equity business to the common law Courts. At present, if a man sold an estate, stipulating that the purchaser should be prepared with his conveyance and his money by the 10th of July, and if difficulties arose in consequence of which the purchaser was not prepared by the 10th of July, the seller could immediately bring an action in a court of law and recover damages; for time, in law, was of the essence of the contract. In equity just the reverse was the case, and unless it was expressly declared that time should be of the essence of the contract, or unless it could be shown that the purchaser had been guilty of unnecessary and wanton delay, equity would stop the action at law, decreeing specific performance of the contract between the parties. But if this Bill passed, and the vendor brought his action, a Court of common law must first decide, according to its I own rule, that time was, and afterwards must decide that time was not, of the essence of the contract. It would decree a specific performance without having the slightest means of carrying it into effect, and it would inevitably break down in the attempt. The Legislature had already confided to the Courts of law, every equitable power which they were competent to administer; but with this they were not satisfied. The Common Law Commissioners, in their Second Report, asked for all the jurisdiction which it was proposed to confer by this Bill; but the Legislature hitherto had only given them that which they could fairly exercise. Parliament would now have to decide whether it would give them a jurisdiction, which it had de-
  840
  nied them before, and whether it would interfere with a jurisdiction which worked so admirably as that of the Courts of equity. In equity there was now no delay; there were six courts, and seven Judges constantly sitting to decide the cases which came before them; and would Parliament be doing well to take away the jurisdiction of these excellent Judges and give it to the common law Judges, who already complained that they had not time to perform their present duties? He was strongly induced to take their Lordships' opinion on the principle of the measure; but, as it was unusual to do so on a Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, he should on this occasion refrain from pressing for a division.
  LORD BROUGHAMconcurred with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) in thinking that, there being a division of opinion between the common law and equity Judges, the proper way was to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The design of the Bill was to extend still further the equitable jurisdiction which the common law Courts now possessed. It was said by many that this measure would operate to the restriction of common law and the extension of equity jurisdiction; and the objection of his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) was, that the principle giving the common law Courts an equity jurisdiction was a bad one. Now, in his opinion (and he had been a sincere friend to what was termed law amendment for many long years), there could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that a general fusion, as it was called, of law and equity was possible in this country; and any attempt to effect such general fusion would only be productive of mischief. But what the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack said, was, that in many instances a certain equitable jurisdiction had been given to the Courts of common law, particularly of late years, and that this jurisdiction might be advantageously extended. Now, the principle of the present Bill, as he understood it, declared that where there was a legal right, and where that right was sought to be obtained in a Court of common law, it was better that Court should be empowered to deal with the whole subject matter; and if in the course of the inquiry any equitable objection should arise on one side or on the other, the parties should not be put to the expense, delay, and vexation consequent on being sent to a Court of equity,

  841
  but that the common law Court should have the power of dealing with the equitable matter. His noble find learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) who opposed the Bill stated three objections to the decision to which the common law Judges had come on the subject—namely, that the common law Courts were overworked, that they had not the proper machinery, and that they were not competent for the purpose. From his noble and learned Friend he appealed to those Judges themselves, who declared that in point of time and labour they had no objection to the proposition now made; that they had abundance of time, and were not overworked, but were capable of taking this small fraction of addition to their labours. He could not help referring those who entertained objections to the proposed change in the proceedings of the Courts to that Report of the common law Commissioners in which the history of amendments in the law was traced with great accuracy, and where it was shown how matters, deemed at one time wild and dangerous innovations, had gradually, by the improvement of men's knowledge on the subject, become the law of the land. As a remarkable proof of this, they mentioned the changes effected in the law of evidence, by his (Lord Brougham's) Act of 1851, which had been found to work admirably, and to contribute greatly to the efficient administration of justice.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he hoped that the Bill would be very much altered before it was passed into law. There ought, in fact, to be two Bills, and, notwithstanding the authority of the common law Judges, his objection to many parts of the first portion of the measure was not in the slightest degree lessened. He was bound to say, at the same time, that the opinion of their Lordships upon the principle of the Bill ought to have been tested when the Motion was made for the second reading. That stage had been allowed to pass without opposition, and, inasmuch as there had been a rather sharp encounter between the equity and common law Judges, it was impossible for their Lordships to make up their minds on the subject without carefully considering the statements and opinions on both sides. Of course, that could not be done in the House itself. It would be infinitely better to refer the matter to a Select Committee, and when the Bill came out of the Committee their Lordships would be able to decide whether it should be passed into law or not.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that having carefully read the Memorial transmitted to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack by the Common Law Commissioners, he must say that their observations had not removed, or even in the slightest degree affected, the strong objections which he entertained to the present Bill. The Bill had two objects entirely distinct, which should properly form the subject of two different measures, but which, unfortunately, had been united in one. One portion of the Bill gave what he believed was in principle an entirely new jurisdiction to the Courts of common law. The other was confined to amending the proceedings in matters which properly came under the jurisdiction of those Courts. To the latter, if brought forward in a Bill by itself, there could be no objection; but the case was very different with respect to the former. If the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, the objections entertained by many noble Lords to its first portion, consisting of no fewer than thirty clauses, would continue to exist in precisely the same force. The only difference would be that those clauses, if the Committee should not approve them, would be expunged; or, if the Committee should approve them, they would be the subject of a hostile Motion on the third reading of the Bill. To the latter portion of the measure there could be no objection whatever, except in so far as Amendments might be thought desirable in the details. He could not help looking with considerable apprehension to the course about to be taken. If the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, it must, of necessity, occupy some time in its consideration there. It must occupy some further time in its discussion in the House after it came out of the Committee; and, supposing their Lordships should ultimately give it a third reading, at what period of the Session was it likely to go down to the other House? What might be its fate there he would not, of course, presume to say; but at present, at all events, the omens were not auspicious. The consequence would be that we should lose, for this Session at least, the whole of the Bill, the portion which was desirable as well as that to which the strongest objections were entertained.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that there had not been a single observation made to show that any one of the powers proposed by the present Bill might not be safely conferred upon the Courts of

  843
  common law. The common law Judges believed that without these additional powers they could not in a satisfactory manner administer justice in their Courts. He had no objection to add to the Motion as suggested by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), the words "and that the opinions of the learned equity and common law Judges be also referred to the Select Committee." He proposed that the Committee should consist of the same Members as those who sat on the Consolidation of the Criminal Law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill referred to a Select Committee accordingly.
  The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Four o'clock, and to appoint their own Chairman; and the
  "Observations on the Law and Equity Bill," presented to the House on the 23rd of March last, and also "Memorial of the Common Law Commissioners respecting the Law and Equity Bill," presented to the House on the 21st of May last, referred to the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Cranworth.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. St. Leonards.

  V. Hutchinson.

  L. Wensleydale.

  V. Eversley.

  L. Belper.

  L. Lyndhurst.

  L. Chelmsford.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  L. Kingsdown.

  L. Abinger.

  L. Egerton.

  L. Overstone.

  EMPLOYMENT OF ENGLISH SHIPWRIGHTS AT CHERBOURG.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, who had given notice to call attention to the reported employment of English shipwrights in the French dockyards, said, that since he had placed that notice on the paper, circumstances had occurred which rendered it unnecessary that he should put the question, and had placed the whole matter in a satisfactory point of view. He had put the question on a former day; and the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had stated that his information was not correct as to a number of English shipwrights being employed at Cherbourg, and that the wages there were much lower than here, namely, four francs a day; and it was certainly very remarkable that on that very day three persons should have appeared at the Thames Police Court, stating that they had had an interview with the French Consul, who had told them that he would not advise them to go to Cherbourg, as they would certainly not get employment there. It was still more extraordinary that a few days subsequent to that period other work-
  844
  men should have applied at the Police Court for passports for the same purpose. But since that, only three or four days ago, one individual, who had been over to France, appeared before the magistrate, and said he considered it his duty to state, for the sake of others who might be tempted to go over, that upon his arrival he found that no employment was to be had there, that he fell into great distress and want, and had only been able to reach home through the kindness of the British Consul. In consequence of this statement he did not consider it necessary to press his Question, or to trespass on their Lordships time with any further observations, save that it was with very great satisfaction that he had heard that statement.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that he had received another letter from the British Consul, at Cherbourg, stating that no British subjects were employed in the dockyard there. Some British shipwrights had gone over to Cherbourg in consequence of the statement which had appeared in the English newspapers; but not being able to obtain work had fallen into a pitiable condition, and bitterly repented their credulity. The Consul had sent them home again, and told them to warn their countrymen of the real state of the case. The highest wages given to shipwrights at Cherbourg was three francs a day, or not quite 2s. 6d. for twelve hours' work, the workmen not being allowed to leave the dockyard to take their meals. Besides that, the Consul informed him that no additional shipwrights were required at Cherbourg, some of those in the dockyard having lately been discharged, and the only vessel which was now being constructed there was a transport. It appeared to him (the Duke of Somerset) to be desirable that that statement should be made publicly known, in order that any unfounded expectations which might have been entertained in reference to that matter might be completely dispelled.

MILITIA AND CONSTABULARY. (IRELAND.)

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving for certain Returns with regard to the Irish Militia and Constabulary, said it was a question deserving consideration whether a large armed force, such as the police of Ireland, ought not to be brought under the operation of the Mutiny Act,

  845
  and enlisted for a certain length of time. At present they might quit the service, he believed, at the shortest notice. He was anxious to know on what system the embodiment and disembodiment of the Militia was conducted. He defied any one to discover any uniform principle which regulated the proceedings of the War Office in this respect. It was impossible to make a regiment of Militia effective in twenty-eight days' training, and it was therefore unadvisable to leave any regiment too long in a disembodied state. If 20,000 or 25,000 men were always kept embodied in rotation, and the Staff of the other regiments were kept up, it was clear that within a certain number of years there would be a force of 100,000 upon which reliance could be placed on an emergency, and which would be kept up at a cost of only 25,000 or 30,000 men. The noble Marquess then moved for—
  "Return of the Number of Men assembled for the last Training of each of the disembodied Regiments of Irish Militia, stating also the full Amount of Establishment of each Regiment; Also,
  "Return of the Periods at and during which each of the Regiments of Irish Militia have been respectively embodied since the Month of October 1854: And also,
  "Return of the Number of Policemen of the Irish Constabulary Force who have resigned their Employment since the Commencement of the present Year.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.