Sitting of 25 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Poor Law Board Continuance.
2° Oxford University (No. 2); Ecclesiastical Commission, &c.; Union of Benefices; Admiralty Court Jurisdiction (No. 2.)
3° Tithe Commutation; Inland Bonding.

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY (SALARIES, &c.)—REPORT.
MR. CLIVEhaving brought up the Report adopted by the Committee of the whole House on the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill, with respect to salaries and compensations.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYremarked that in the discussion which had taken place on this measure a question arose whether any portion of the Bill affected compensations; and he understood the Attorney General to reply distinctly that there was not a word about compensation in the Bill from beginning to end. He (Sir Henry Willoughby) must say that he had read the Bill very differently. In order to fix a compensation on the Con-

935
solidated Fund it was necessary that they should pass a Resolution. The question now before the House was a Report on the Resolution; and he submitted to the House that it was not desirable to introduce the word "compensation" into the Resolution, which was worded very generally, because it affected any compensation in the Act passed in the present Parliament. Hon. Members would observe that a very large power of granting compensation was given by the Resolution, and the point he wished to submit to the House was this, that it was not desirable to increase the enormous amount of compensation which now rested on the Consolidated Fund—in other words, on the taxpayers of this country. The way in which compensations had increased of late years was something astounding. In one shape or another this country paid a million and a half in compensations, superannuations, and pensions; and there was nearly £300,000 under the single head of compensation and allowances. In 1856 a return was made to the House, from which it appeared that the Court of Chancery cost £171,000 a year, out of which £92,000 a year was paid in the shape of compensations. The expenses of the Court of Bankruptcy, with which they were more particularly engaged, amounted to £54,000, more than one-half of which was paid in compensation. That was a system which must be kept within some bounds. In 1846 Sir Robert Peel said, if the system was persisted in, no treasury could supply the funds, because they never could make an improvement of the law without appealing to the Consolidated Fund. He objected to compensation in bankruptcy being paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Bankruptcy compensations were ordered by statute to be paid out of a fund to be raised by fees; and what he wanted to know was what right the hon. Gentleman opposite had to transfer the charge for such fund to the Consolidated Fund. For his own part, he did not see why the original arrangement under which these salaries were made chargeable on fees should be departed from, more especially as it had been stated that when the revised scale of fees came into operation, an annual surplus of £15,000 was expected. Believing that upwards of £21,600 would be charged on the Consolidated Fund by the Bill as now framed, he begged to move the omission of the word "compensation."
First Resolution read 2°;—Amendment
936
proposed in line 2, to leave out the words "and Compensations."
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEinquired whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to fill up the vacant Commissionship of Insolvency while a probability or possibility existed of the Bankruptcy Bill being passed into law during the present Session.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it certainly was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to fill up the vacancy. Provision had been made for the temporary discharge of the duties of the office until the period at which he trusted the Bill would come into operation, which he hoped would soon be the case. He was not surprised at the alarm which the hon. Baronet had exhibited at the amount of compensation already given. No doubt it was exceedingly large, but the House would perceive that it was the penalty which the country had to pay for former errors. The present Bill, as he had stated, did not contain one word in relation to new compensations. Those which were referred to had been granted in 1831, when the former system for the administration of bankruptcy was put an end to, and under the terms of their appointment compensation had to be provided for seven Commissioners, besides a number of other persons discharging duties in connection with that Court. The aggregate amount of compensation then granted exactly represented the compensation referred to in the present Bill. It was, he might add, anticipated at the time that the administration of the bankruptcy law would undergo great improvement, that a considerable addition would be made to the business of the Court, and it was accordingly provided that compensations should be made from the fee fund. Unfortunately, however, the law was so little in consonance with the wishes of the community that the business of the Court underwent an annual decrease. Under those circumstances, the Commission which had been appointed in 1854, had recommended as an act of justice, that the compensations in question should not be charged on the fee fund. The practical result was that the suitors in the Bankruptcy Court were compelled for all time to come—at least till the compensation should determine—to pay this amount. But with what justice could they demand that creditors or bankrupts should contribute to the payment of a sum which the improvidence of a former Par-

937
liament had granted to others. It was an abuse arising out of the former administration of the law, but there was no justice in making the creditors who resorted to the Court of Bankruptcy pay for that abuse. In conformity with the recommendation of the Commission, therefore, the present Bill proposed to transfer the compensations mentioned in its 140th clause to the consolidated fund. Among the persons who received compensation he might mention Mr. Thurlow, the nephew of Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who for the loss of the office he held under the former system received a compensation of £5,700 a year. The former Commissioners of the Bankruptcy Court, and the clerk of the Hanaper Office, also received compensation. If these sums were paid out of the Consolidated Fund the Court of Bankruptcy would be relieved of a burden that was unjustly charged on it. The hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) expressed a desire on a former occasion to have a more detailed account of the state of the finances of the Bankruptcy Court, and he might take the present opportunity of stating from the balance-sheet which he held in his hand, that there would be a surplus of very nearly £14,000 a year, to be derived from the balance of payments to be made in the administration of the law, and the sums received as fees during that administration. With respect to the balance-sheet as between the present Bill and the consolidated fund, the state of the case would be that for a short period of time—so long as the compensations and retiring annuities lasted—they would constitute a charge on the consolidated fund, but it should be borne in mind that those who were in receipt of those allowances had already passed the ordinary limit of human life, and that as they died off so would the charge on the consolidated fund be diminished. The benefit which he expected would accrue to the consolidated fund in consequence of the improvements which he hoped the Bill would effect, would be independent of other considerations that its enactment would enable the Government to carry out—that change in the fees in County Courts which had been long recommended, and which, under the operation of the Bill, might, he thought, be very easily accomplished without any imposition of any additional burden on the country. He trusted that alter that explanation the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. BARROWsaid, that he hoped, on the contrary, that the hon. Baronet would divide the House on his Amendment. He had heard so much of compensations and retiring allowances that he was perfectly sick of the words, and he could not see on what principle the taxpayers of this country should be called on to submit to a burden which the framers of the Bill of 1831 had thrown upon the fee fund. If that fund were insolvent, of course the grant would cease, for the taxpayers were not bound to make it good. If the fund were not insolvent, if it was expected hereafter to yield the full amount, well and good; let the hon. and learned Gentleman pay the claimants with bills to be honoured when there should be funds in hand. But he saw no reason why the taxpayers should contribute to the compensation of persons whose offices, when they held them, were little better than sinecures, and he hoped that this further burden on the Consolidated Fund would be strenuously resisted.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he was of opinion that the House could scarcely be aware of the scope of the measure brought under their notice. Compensation had been given in a manner that he must characterize as most extraordinary, inasmuch as men in the prime of life had received compensation to the amount of three times their salaries. But he objected to the Bankruptcy Bill itself, and he wished to ask the House if they had read its provisions. It abolished the distinction between traders and non-traders, so that it would be in the power of a mortgagee to make his creditor a bankrupt, however large the estate might be on which the mortgage was held. It was said the Bill did not apply to Ireland, but though that was true in name it was not so in reality, for an Irish Gentleman contracting a debt in England would be subject to the operation of this law.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he did not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken with regard to the Bill, which, in his opinion, was one of the best measures of law reform which had been brought into that House for a long time. However, he had no sympathy with the persons whom it was proposed to compensate. Great credit was due to the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) for the care he bestowed on questions of the kind; and he (Mr. Hadfield) joined him in thinking that great injustice and wrong was done to the country by those enor-

939
mous sinecures. There was one gentleman who had been in receipt of the large income of £7,500 a year from 1831; and how long he he had received the public money before, he did not know—probably for half a century. But the question was, whether the Consolidated Fund or the bankrupt assets should pay—in other words, whether the misfortune of these enormous sinecures should be inflicted on the country, which had connived at the wrong, or on the suffering creditors. He wished he could join with the hon. Baronet in this Amendment; but he would join with him if he were to bring in a Bill to-morrow to put an end to those sinecures.
Question put, "That the words 'and Compensation' stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes 98; Noes 111: Majority 13.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, so amended, 'That the Salaries, Allowances, Remunerations, and Retiring Annuities, which may become payable to certain persons appointed under or affected by any Act of the present Session for amending the Law relating to Bankruptcy and insolvency in England, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.'"
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The whole of the Bill is founded on the proposition that compensation shall be taken from the Consolidated Fund, and it will be impossible, therefore, for me to go on with the Bill which stands next on the paper (the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill).
MR. MALINS: I much regret the division which the House has thought proper to come to, but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken the right course. Under the circumstances, it would neither be consistent with his own honour, his position, nor his duty to the country, after that decision, to proceed with the Bill, the principle of which was based on honour and justice I am quite satisfied that many hon. Members did not know for what they were voting. The question put to me since I came into the House most distinctly proved that to be so; and if hon. Gentlemen will take on themselves to decide questions vitally affecting the existence of a great measure—the introduction of which is a great honour to the Government—without taking the trouble of ascertaining what they are voting about, my
940
hon. and learned Friend has no other course to pursue than to throw up the Bill.
MR. BRIGHT.The hon. and learned Gentleman brings a charge against hon. Members of this House, which, if true in this case, is undoubtedly true in many others. But there is a remarkable unanimity amongst one section of the House—I mean that section which is represented by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, I am willing to believe that the hon. and learned Attorney General has been rather sudden in the determination to which he has come. I have seen law officers before who have not been able to carry all their measures, and other distinguished Members of Government who have been in a like position, but they have not thought it necessary to say that the Bill having been founded on an intimate connection with this or that particular clause, they thought it incumbent on them to withdraw the Bill. I should, therefore, recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the statement which he has just made, and, at least, give himself a day's consideration before he intimates to the House that he will not go on any longer with his Bill. I believe there, is a strong wish on the part of those who are most concerned—the commercial community—that this Bill, with some Amendments, should pass. At the same time there is a very strong opinion that the Bill provides for persons who are superseded compensations and pensions very much more than is necessary; and that whilst the lawyers have been attempting to do a great service to the mercantile community, they have not forgotten to do a little for themselves. I do not rise for the sake of going into a discussion of what has been passed, but merely to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman who I presume speaks for the Government, should not conclude the matter to-night, but should give himself at least a day's consideration before he adds to the disasters of the Session the withdrawal of this Bill, and thus inflicts a great disappointment on a large portion of the community.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: I venture to add my entreaties to those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that the Attorney General will reconsider his decision in this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had accused hon. Members of voting for what they did not understand. I deny the accusation, so far as I am concerned; but I believe many voted in the majority who did not think

941
the question material to the merits of the Bill. It will be trifling with this House and the public if, because we have expressed in an unmistakeable way our opinion against placing these compensations on the Consolidated Fund—a matter which touches only the fringe of the subject of bankruptcy—a Bill of so much interest to the mercantile community is to be withdrawn. If it had been true that there was no source except the Consolidated Fund, from which these compensations could be paid, then the public might have submitted to this charge in exchange for a great improvement of the law. But what is the simple fact? Why, that there is a large fund called "The Banker's Balance," belonging to the Court of Bankruptcy; that that fund amounts to a million and a half sterling, and that the interest upon it has for many years past met, and a great deal more than met, the cost of these compensations. The hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) only asked the House to say that they should be paid out of the fund from which they have been paid for thirty-five years, and I think the House has arrived at the right decision. I entreat the Government not to throw up in a pet, an important measure, which the commercial classes anxiously desire to see passed into law, merely because they have been defeated on a comparatively unimportant point.
MR. MOWBRAY: As one of those who have been censured by the hon. and learned Attorney General and the learned Member for Wallingford, I beg leave to offer a few words to the House. I happen to be in the position of knowing perhaps more of the nature of these compensations than any other hon. Gentleman, except the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), and it is because I know the enormous charge inflicted on the Consolidated Fund to the extent of nearly £130,000 by the Attorney General and the learned Member for Wallingford, who, although sitting on opposite sides of the House, combined to fix a heavy charge on the public Revenue for a number of years—it is because I have seen the practical working of a system which saddles the Consolidated Fund with hundreds of thousands a year for the benefit of persons in the prime of life who are perfectly competent to discharge any duties which may be imposed upon them—it is because I have seen the difference between the returns of the per-
942
sons who formerly received compensation to the income-tax, and their claims for compensation that I went into the same lobby with the majority on this occasion. I disclaim the ignorance of the subject which has been ascribed to us, and I shall repeat the vote I have given if the opinion of the House is again tested on this question.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I have not imputed ignorance of the subject to the hon. Gentleman. I have not opened my mouth to impugn the decision of the House, nor have I expressed any censure. If I give any censure at all, it will be to the inaccurate statement made by the hon. Member who spoke last. In the case of the former Bills of this kind I struggled against compensation. Who forced it upon me, and supported it on every division? Why, the hon. Member for Durham.
MR. MOWBRAY: I beg to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I say he will not find my name among those who voted for compensation.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It was through the efforts made upon the hon. Member's side of the House, and in spite of the reluctance shown on this side, that compensation was conceded. But another inaccurate statement has been made by the hon. Member for Birmingham. He tells me that this Bill creates compensation, and that there is a feeling in the country against it. Now, not a single shilling of compensation is created by this Bill. Sir, I should be most unwilling to throw away the many months' labour which this measure has cost mo; but, unless the recommendation of the Commission be adopted, it will not be in my power to give to suitors in bankruptcy the remission of one farthing of the fees to which they are now subject. In the confidence that this unanimous Report would gain credit with the House, all the calculations and arrangements set forth in the measure have been made upon the footing of this recommendation; and, unless this charge be transferred, the whole Bill must be re-cast and the arrangements entirely re-considered. If the House will pardon the expression, I will give it an opportunity, by not immediately withdrawing the measure, of reviewing its decision. The question before the House is that the Resolution as amended be agreed to, and I propose, Sir, with the permission of the House, to take a division on that question. If that division be in accordance with the

943
last, the result will be that the next Order of the Day must be withdrawn. That course I shall take reluctantly and mournfully—not out of any feeling of spleen or vexation. I have had no other object in framing the Bill but to meet the general wish of the mercantile community, who appear, I venture to say, to be almost unanimous in their approval of this measure. That was my single object, but if these arrangements are rejected by the House, I see no other alternative but to postpone the consideration of the Bill till a future Session, when I trust it may be re-introduced under happier auspices.
MR. ELLICE: I have heard with great regret the statement of my learned Friend, to whom the country is deeply indebted for the great labour he has bestowed on this Bill. But since I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have been particularly watchful of all encroachments on the Consolidated Fund. I have voted against the imposition of these charges on that fund in the case of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill and other measures; and, following the same precedent, I have voted to-night with the majority, not desiring that the persons whom it is now proposed to compensate should be deprived of compensation, but thinking that the fund which has already been found ample to meet this charge should continue to be applied to that purpose. I regret to hear from my hon. and learned Friend that if we persevere in our endeavour to protect the public purse we must submit to be charged as parties to the loss of this Bill. That is a situation in which independent Members ought not to be placed. It is a matter of little importance whether the public should continue to pay £20,000 a year in the shape of fees or that the sum should be placed on the Consolidated Fund, but I am shocked to learn that if we vote independently on an incidental point of this kind the Government are to sacrifice a measure of the greatest and most serious importance to the public. Nevertheless, I shall claim the right to exercise my own independent vote, voting again as I voted before, throwing upon the Government the whole responsibility of withdrawing this Bill, upon a ground which I think is utterly untenable and un-justifiable.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: I trust the House will bear in mind what is effected by its last vote. There is a charge amounting to £21,565, of which £9,000
944
is charged on a fee fund by the 1 & 2 of William IV., c. 127, and which always has been and will continue to be paid out of that fee fund. The other charge of £12,000 was also imposed by the 5 & 6 of Vict., on the fee fund. The House has not disturbed these arrangements, but has simply refused to transfer these charges from the fee fund to the Consolidated Fund. In taking that course it has done quite right, and I trust it will stand by its decision.
MR. COLLINS: I hope the House will not be influenced by the threat to withdraw this Bill. In 1857 the hon. and learned Attorney General brought forward an important Bill relating to the probate of wills; and my hon. Friend the Member for York moved the Amendment of a clause giving a local jurisdiction limited to £1,500 by striking out the words of limitation. My hon. Friend was successful in carrying his Amendment. The Attorney General said if the Amendment were insisted upon he would be obliged to withdraw the Bill, but he would give the House one more opportunity of reconsidering its decision. The House, however, was not to be bullied into establishing a limited local jurisdiction in matters of probate; and accordingly, on dividing again, it decided by a majority of two that the jurisdiction of the local courts should be unlimited as to amount. The Attorney General then said he would not proceed with the measure, but would give the House another opportunity of rescinding its decision upon the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. The debate was adjourned till another day, when the Attorney General moved that the clause be rejected; but the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) was fortunately in his place, and he said that the Bill was a valuable one, and that he did not think the particular alteration approved by the House at all inconsistent with its main principle. The Bill passed and became a most useful measure. I hope the House will act in the same spirit with regard to the present measure.
MR. HEADLAM: I can say with the most perfect confidence that the principle now struck at is one of the most essential principles of the Bill, because the one thing of all others sought by the commercial classes of this country is the diminution of the fees paid by suitors. I have no hesitation in saying that, as the principle was essential to the measure of last

945
Session, which was introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London and myself, and which, but for certain circumstances, would have passed into law, so it is essential to that of this; and without that principle it is impossible that the Bill should be proceeded with. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) says that it is wrong of the Government to place private Members in the position that they must either accept the Resolution, or lose the Bill for the Amendment of the law of bankruptcy. It does seem so in the first instance, but it really is not so. The two principles are so totally and entirely at variance with each other that it is impossible that any Government should combine them; and, therefore, the House must take either one or the other, not from any desire upon the part of the Government to press the House, but because the two cannot possibly be united.
MR. HENLEY: I rise to protest against the charges which have been made by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) against the Members who voted in the majority. He charged them with two things: first, he accused the whole majority of being ignorant of what they were voting upon.
MR. MALINS: Not the whole majority. I said that the matter had gone off in such a hurry that many hon. Gentlemen did not know what they were to divide about.
MR. HENLEY: My hon. and learned Friend followed it up by charging the majority with injustice. He does not intend to say that he did not use that term; indeed he employed a word which was stronger. I say he has no right to do that, because he would lead hon. Members who did not know what they divided about, if there be any such, to suppose that the majority want to take away compensation altogether. That would be an injustice, but no such matter was involved in the vote, which was merely to decide whether the sum required for its payment should continue to be provided from the source from which it is now raised, or whether the charge should be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. The assertion that this change in the law of bankruptcy, in which it is said that the public is so much interested, is to depend, whether for good or evil, upon the question from which source a sum of £20,000 per annum is to be paid, is, to me, incredible. If the public is to derive such vast advantages from the change of system, the provision of a sum
946
of £20,000 out of the fees raised upon this vast amount of business can hardly be fatal to the measure. I have voted as I believed to be right, and I shall vote in the same way again.
SIR GEORGE GREY: There is no doubt that the vote to which the House has just come has placed my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in a position of great difficulty as to the course which he should adopt with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill. Under these circumstances it is desirable that we should not be committed hastily upon a matter which requires some consideration. If the Resolution in its amended form should be absolutely negatived, that, after the vote which has been come to, would decide the salaries and charges of the Bill should be placed upon the Consolidated Fund. At the same time it is desirable that my hon. and learned Friend should, if upon consideration he feels in a position to do so, make some other proposal to the House which will enable him to remedy the serious inconvenience which has been inflicted by the vote of the House upon the future prospects of the Bankruptcy Bill. Under these circumstances I would suggest that this debate should be adjourned until Thursday, in order that my hon. and learned Friend should have time to consider the course which he will take with regard to the future progress of that measure. I move, Sir, that the debate be adjourned till Thursday.
SIR HUGH CAIRNS: After the proposal which has been made by the right hon. Baronet, to which I hope the House will agree, I should not think of taking up the time of the House with more than one observation. I do trust that upon consideration my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will not come to any conclusion which will lead him to abandon the measure for the Amendment of the law of bankruptcy. I think that a debt of gratitude is due to my hon. and learned Friend for the very great pains and trouble which he has taken with the measure which he has introduced into the House; and, speaking from experience, I can tell the House how much trouble and what care and anxiety is involved in dealing with the subject of bankruptcy. I speak quite sincerely when I say that, unless the House passes the present measure in some shape or other, I, for my own part, despair of ever seeing a Bankruptcy Bill become the law of the land. With regard to the

947
point upon which the division of the House has been taken—at which division I regret that I was not present, because I should certainly have voted with my hon. and learned Friend—I must remind the House of a circumstance which I do not think has been stated. It is not very many years since a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the whole question of the law of bankruptcy. Upon that Commission were men of the greatest eminence, both in the legal and commercial world, and one of its recommendations was, that that should be done with regard to this £20,000 which my hon. and learned Friend has proposed. And although my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) says that £20,000 is not a large sum of money, I must remind the House that £20,000, when taken in relation to the other costs of bankruptcy proceedings, is by no means an insignificant sum. Besides that, I do think that a case of greater injustice than this was never found in the course of the administration of the law. Observe what is done. Several years ago, a generation ago almost, you thought it right to abolish certain judicial officers in bankruptcy. Of course they were entitled to compensation, and you are now making the unfortunate persons who are obliged to have recourse to the Court of Bankruptcy, the present suitors, pay a sum to the fixing and disposal of which they have not been concurring parties. Therefore, if the vote is to be taken again, I shall support the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend, which I believe is founded upon justice, and I am extremely glad that he has been able to prevail upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to the transfer of this sum to the fund upon which it ought always to have been placed. I trust that, whatever course my hon. and learned Friend may take, he will not abandon the Bankruptcy Bill, which I am quite sure may now become the law of the country, and which, if it does, will redound very much to his houour and to that of the Government of which he is a Member.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

EXCISE AND ASSESSED TAXES ACTS.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  MR. LAING MR. LAING moved the following Resolutions:—
  (In the Committee.)
  "1. That, in lieu of the Duties now payable on Game Certificates in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, there shall be charged the following Duties of Excise:—
  For a Licence in Great Britain, or a Certificate in Ireland, to be taken out by every person who shall use any dog, gun, net, or other engine for the purpose of taking or killing any game whatever, or any woodcock, snipe, quail, or landrail, or any conies, or any deer, or shall take or kill by any means whatever, or shall assist in any manner in the taking, by any means whatever, of any game, or any woodcock, snipe, quail, or landrail, or any coney, or any deer:—

  £.

  s.

  d.

  If such Licence or Certificate shall be taken out after the 5th day of April and before the 1st day of November,

  To expire on the 5th day of April in the following year

  3

  0

  0

  To expire on the 31st day of October in the same year in which the Licence or Certificate shall be taken out

  2

  0

  0

  If such Licence or Certificate shall be taken out on or after the 1st day of November,

  To expire on the 5th day of April following

  2

  0

  0

  "2. That any person having the right to kill game on any lands in England or Scotland shall be entitled to take out a Licence to authorise any servant, for whom he shall be chargeable to the Duty of Assessed Taxes, as a Gamekeeper, to kill game upon the same lands, upon payment of the Duty of

  2

  0

  0

  "3. That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to Game Certificates and Licences to deal in Game."

  MR. CAIRDsaid, he should propose that the word "coney" be omitted from the Resolution, as he was of opinion that, according to the present wording of the clause, a certificate would have to be taken out to kill rabbits. Rabbits were most destructive vermin on a farm—more so than bats or rooks—and, therefore it was desirable that farmers should be allowed to kill them on their own land without a licence.
  MR. LAINGsaid, the only object proposed was to alter the amount of money to be paid for a licence, but not in any other way to affect the existing law. The words of the Resolution were a literal transcript of the words of the Act. None of the exceptions provided under the present Act would be interfered with.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that if the words were left in it would be imperative on every person killing rabbits to take out a game certificate. Now, it was well known to agriculturists that there was no nuisance to which the farmer was subjected equal to rabbits, and in many dis-

  949
  tricts it was necessary to employ men to keep them down; but this clause would render all persons so employed liable to a tax.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood the hon. Secretary to the Treasury to say that the only change proposed by the Government was an amended scale of duties. He supposed, therefore, that the Act of Parliament to be founded on these Resolutions would contain all the exemptions and exceptions contained in the existing statute. If that were so the Resolution appeared to him to be right enough, and it was not necessary to have these words left out, so that people might go into other people's land to shoot rabbits. The exemption would enable farmers and others to shoot rabbits on their own grounds, and there was nothing in the Act to render keepers liable. If the Secretary of the Treasury would undertake to bring the Bill in in that form, he thought it safer to let the words stand as they now did.
  MR. PALKsaid, he objected to importing words of dubious meaning into the Resolution, when by a slight alteration they could make it perfectly plain to the commonest understanding. He was also sorry to find that the Resolution was to be carried without discussing its principle, because he confessed that he saw no reason for altering the scale of certificates at all. He did not suppose it would bring in a larger revenue, and therefore he wanted to know what was the object of this Resolution. It was not very clearly drawn, because the hon. Gentleman opposite had found it necessary to explain that the words in the Resolution did not mean what they appeared to mean. The present style of legislation was not very easy to understand, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman or some supporter of the Government would explain why this alteration was proposed, and why, if it were actually necessary, it could not be put in a plainer and more intelligible shape.
  MR. LAINGexplained that an Act of Parliament to carry out these Resolutions would be necessary, so that the effect of passing the Resolution would not be to give validity to the alterations in the scale of licences. When the Bill was before the House it would be for hon. Gentlemen, who considered the existing exemptions did not go far enough, to move such Amendments as they might think proper. With regard to the objects of the measure, the Government had been advised by the offi-
  950
  cers of Inland Revenue that by making the proposed reduction in the charge facilities would be afforded to many persons to take out game licences, which they would be likely to avail themselves of, and that consequently a considerable increase in the revenue derived from game certificates might be expected, while the constant evasions of the duty which now took place, owing to the high rate imposed, would be to a great extent avoided.
  MR. DIVETTsaid, he had known persons fond of sporting who ran serious risks rather than pay £4. Many such would doubtless take out certificates under the new system. In his opinion the reduction might be carried further with advantage.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he understood it was intended that it would still be competent for persons to shoot rabbits on their own farms, and therefore he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment. It was said there was to be no alteration in the existing law, but there appeared to be some, because for the killing deer a licence was to be required for the first time.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEremarked that under the existing law no game certificate was necessary for destroying rabbits by the owner or occupier, or by his servants; but it was necessary to guard against persons going upon enclosed land, and, under the pretence of shooting rabbits, beating up for game, for which purpose persons so trespassing were liable to be proceeded against under the game laws. The owner of any enclosed land could give leave to as many persons as he pleased to kill rabbits, and no game certificates would be requisite, and he did not see, therefore, that it would make any difference if the word "coney" were struck out.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he held that it was essential owners and occupiers should have the right to kill rabbits either by themselves or their servants, on their own lands, but he was satisfied with the assurance that the exemptions in the existing law would be continued.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEobserved that he did not understand that any alteration in the existing Game Laws was proposed. The only question was, whether it was politic or not to reduce the rate of game licences. He thought it was; for there were many persons, as commercial men, clerks, and others, of unquestionable respectability, who were able, perhaps, to take only a short holiday in the year, and who would gladly take out licences to kill

  951
  game during that holiday, if they could do so at a moderate cost. He looked upon the proposal as a great boon to those classes, and should support it. If the word "coney" were omitted, it would, he feared, invite people of improper character from neighbouring towns to enter and trespass upon enclosed lands, under the pretence of shooting rabbits, knowing that they could only be proceeded against for the trespass.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that after the declaration which had been made on both sides, that there was no intention to afford any protection to rabbits, he thought the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Caird) would do well not to press his Amendment; because it might lead to misconception out of doors as to the feeling which actuated hon. Gentlemen in voting upon the question. He apprehended that the same facilities would be given for the destruction of rabbits, so far as they were considered noxious to agriculture, as under the existing law; and he hoped the hon. Member for Stirling would rest satisfied with that assurance on the part of the Government. With respect to the financial part of the question, the only fault he had to find with the Resolutions was, that they did not go far enough. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have derived a great financial advantage from reducing the certificates to one guinea, or, at all events, to two guineas. At present, a considerable number of gentlemen, who were in the habit of shooting every year, never dreamt of taking out a licence. The sum was very large, and, in the case of a gentleman with a numerous family of sons, it became a serious tax. He was satisfied, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain by making a uniform charge of one guinea.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, after the explanations which had been given, he felt constrained to join in the advice to his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he could not accede to the recommendation which had been made to him. As a practical agriculturist, he had seen so much damage done by rabbits, that he thought the Government would do well to offer a premium for their destruction.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he considered the wisest course to be to leave the law in the exact state in which it was. No change whatever was proposed. The only effect, so far as he
  952
  could see, of carrying the Amendment, would be to make it necessary for parties to take out separate 4l. certificates to kill rabbits. It was true that rabbits were destructive; but he thought that proper persons only should be permitted to destroy them.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, that under the third Resolution the laws relating to Game certificates might be so altered as to obviate the result stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nor could he agree in the opinion that no change was proposed, because it was "a Bill to Amend the Law," and the word "deer" was introduced.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact, that the names of all persons who took out certificates at present were advertised at a very heavy expense in the newspapers, and to ask whether they would continue to be so advertised when certificates were taken out two or three times in the season, and when it was expected that a much larger number of persons would take them out than at present.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had mentioned, at an early period of the Session, that a remission to the amount of nearly £50,000 would take place in the price of the certificates; but by the increase in their number, it was expected that there would be a gain to the revenue of perhaps £10,000 a year. He was not able to give any answer as to the publication of the names of the holders; but he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was a matter which required consideration: especially as the certificate might be for part of a season; and thus the question might arise whether the process of advertising should be repeated. There was always more or less of petty jobbing connected with the whole system of Government advertisements, and it was not easy to discover how this could best be remedied. It was obviously desirable that advertisements should not be inserted on behalf of the Government, for which there was no real necessity; but he was not able to say to what extent, under the new system, the Treasury would be able to dispense with the assistance which those publications were supposed to give. It was proposed to effect an important change with regard to Game certificates, which had hitherto belonged to the class of assessed taxes, and were under the jurisdiction, not of the magistrates, but of the

  953
  Commissioners of Taxes. By the Bill which he was about to introduce, they would be removed into the class of Excise duties, and from the much larger body of officers connected with that department, a more efficient and powerful supervision would be exercised; and he was informed that they would likewise be brought under the jurisdiction of the magistrates, and possibly in that way the system of advertising might be dispensed with. Another change which he had been led to propose, at the suggestion of a high authority, whose opinion was much respected in that House, was that, in the event of a person trespassing in pursuit of game, his certificate should become absolutely void. This would go far to counteract any injurious effects that might follow from reducing the price of certificates, which some persons urged would give increased encouragement to poaching of a certain description.
  In reply to Sir BALDWIN LEIGHTON,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his impression was that the existing Game certificates did not expire till early in July. Care would be taken to have the new certificates ready before the expiration of those at present in force.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, a person might trespass in pursuit of game unintentionally, and it would be too bad to deprive him of his certificate under such circumstances.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member is not called upon to pledge himself by this Resolution.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, the forfeiture of the licence, in addition to the penalty to which persons were liable for trespassing, would be viewed in Ireland with much disfavour.
  MR. DIVETTexpressed his approval of the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The present mode of issuing certificates was inconvenient and clumsy.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he apprehended the licence would only be forfeited in cases where persons were convicted of trespassing. He wished to know whether the privilege of selling game would be extended to persons taking out licences for the limited period.
  MR. W. R. O. GOREasked whether it was proposed to empower the county police in England and the constabulary in Ireland to superintend the new licences?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had communicated with the Irish Government, who were opposed to the employment of the constabulary in
  954
  that manner. He did not propose to make any alteration in the law with respect to the sale of game.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYasked whether it would be requisite for a landowner to take out separate certificates for each of the manors of which he might happen to be possessed, or whether, as at present, a general certificate would suffice?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he apprehended that one certificate would be sufficient.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c., BILL.—SECOND READING.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE. THIRD NIGHT.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [6th June.]
  "'That the Bill be now read a second time;' and which Amendment was to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. G. C. BENTINCKsaid, that he principally objected to the Bill because it proposed to transfer all Chapter property to the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, without making any provision for those whose claims were condemned unheard in 1840. Those claims were most just, and the Bill ought not to pass without their recognition, especially after what had taken place before the Cathedral Commission issued in 1852, under the Earl of Derby's Government, when those claims were fully considered and their equity satisfactorily established. It was in the knowledge of those who had paid attention to the question that many of the cathedrals of the country were not like those of the old foundation, but were Protestant establishments, founded by Henry VIII., and confirmed by Queen Elizabeth, for three distinct purposes. First, for religious instruction and the celebration of Divine worship; next, for educational purposes; and third, for purposes of charity, or for public works. For the first of those purposes—that of religious instruction and the celebration of Divine Service, there was a staff of dean and canons, prebendiaries, minor canons, and lay clerks. For the second purpose there were head masters

  955
  and under masters with a certain number of boys who were to be educated free of expense. For the purposes of charity there were a certain number of old men to be maintained; and comparatively largo sums were also set apart for public works. Regular stipends were allotted to the various officials, and on looking into the statutes he found that the head master, who was next in dignity to a prebendary or canon, was to receive two-thirds of a prebendal income; the under master was to receive one-half, and the lay clerks one-third. The college boys and choristers were to receive from four to six times the sum of a prebendal income to be distributed among them for their maintenance; for public works a sum was set apart ten times the prebendal income. But changes had taken place in the course of time, and though the property of the Dean and Chapter was considerably reduced, they were still in receipt of considerable incomes, while the minor canons, upon whom the duty of performing Divine worship mainly rested, scarcely received anything at all. Before the Act of 1840 the minor canons had been stripped of their emoluments to such a degree that they barely had the income of the poorest curate, while those at Westminster Abbey were reduced to live on the sums realized by showing the Church, and the painful spectacle might be seen of a clergyman standing at the door to check the numbers that went into the Abbey as if they were going to a concert. He believed that since, by a reduction of the number, the salaries of those who remained were now made up to £150 a year; but as the value of the cathedrals was at last discovered, and thousands flocked to hear Divine service performed there where only hundreds attended before, the reduced staff was inadequate for the performance of the additional duties. And yet if they were to apply to the Ecclesiastical Commission for an augmentation it was certain they would meet with a direct refusal. The next body who were entitled to consideration was the lay clerks, upon whom the solemnity in the mode of conducting public worship depended, and yet he believed there never was a class of men more ill-treated. They were entitled to one-third of a prebendal income, but they had been so plundered that they did not receive the pay of an ordinary menial servant, or a journeyman mechanic. In the cathedral church of Canterbury the lay clerks till very lately
  956
  received only £40 a year. The Dean and Chapter had recently made the munificent arrangement of allowing them £25 a year certain, with half-a-crown or three shillings for every day they attended, so that if they never missed a day through the whole twelve months, their income would be increased to about £70 a year. But that pittance again was fettered with the condition that they were bound to retire whenever called upon on an allowance of £25 a year. The case of the choristers, whom it was imperative on the chaplain to maintain and educate, was equally pitiable. A collegiate church, one of the most noble foundations in England, within a short distance of that House, gave £14,000 or £15,000 annually towards the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but all it could spare to the 15 or 16 boys who were upon its foundation was £130 a year. These lived in a distant suburb, and being obliged to attend morning and afternoon service, they had to spend the intervening time as best they could, and which certainly was not in a manner creditable to the Church. At Canterbury affairs were just in the same state, and the state of Westminster and Canterbury was that of every cathedral body throughout the kingdom. That was a scandal to the Church, and it was a scandal to the Ecclesiastical Commission. He did not blame the Dean and Chapter for it; the Ecclesiastical Commission had taken all power out of their hands. The educational purposes for which these foundations had been made were defeated in the same manner. All the cathedrals were bound to maintain and educate from forty to fifty boys, the most promising of whom were afterwards to be sent to the University. In such of the schools as still existed—for some of them had vanished altogether—those arrangements were shamefully set at nought. In Westminster School, where he was educated, as well as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, the head master, who ought to have two-thirds of a prebendal income, received only £39, and the under master only £15 a year. The consequence was, that the remuneration of the masters was a tax upon the forty boys, who, according to the statutes, ought to be maintained free of all expense. Westminster was the only one of the collegiate schools that had attained to any eminence, but at Canterbury there was a school for fifty boys which was founded by Henry VIII., and in which Charles I. took so

  957
  much interest that he ordained that in the election of boys for the Chapel Royal the boys from that school should have a preference. Yet the salary of the head master from the cathedral funds was only £100; the rest of his salary being a mere tax on the boys. He maintained that these schools, if preserved in vigorous operation, would be of incalculable advantage, more especially in the poorer parts of the country. The head master of the cathedral school of Carlisle, the Dean and Chapter of which, by the way, had surrendered all their property to the Ecclesiastical Commission, had made a touching appeal to that body on behalf of his school, and the advantages it might afford in the education of a poor district like that diocese, but that appeal had hitherto produced no results. He came next to the third purpose—the works of charity and public works. It was not, indeed, to be expected that the cathedrals should now pay the expense of public works. But there was also provision made for aged persons, chiefly for old soldiers; and many of these had vanished altogether, like the schools. Now in all these cases, if application was made to the Ecclesiastical Commission for augmentation, the answer was invariably that was not the proper place to apply—in fact, they would not entertain the proposition. He was told that the Ecclesiastical Commission was very liberal to those cathedrals that surrendered their property to them; but that was not always the case. One of the most remarkable instances of an edifice being suffered to languish from want of needful supplies from its own funds was that of St. Paul's Cathedral. The riches attaching to that foundation were proverbial, and one would be disposed to think the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would recognize it as an imperative duty to preserve the body of the church in repair. Mr. Penrose, however, the surveyor of St. Paul's, a gentleman much looked up to in his profession, had written him an interesting letter, in which it was stated that the total income of the cathedral for last year was £1,166, of which, after deducting the cost of fire insurance, with the salaries of clerk, organist, &c, only £827 was left to keep this vast building in repair in the trying atmosphere of London. That small sum would be wholly inadequate to arrest the progress of decay, if it were not for the most painful economy, which only permitted repairs to be undertaken at those points where they
  958
  were urgently needed. At least £500 additional would be requisite for the purposes of this building. Hon. Members would remember the fee of 2d. which used to be paid to the vergers for admission into St. Paul's. That question, which had given rise to many warm discussions at the time, was settled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who, in lieu of these fees, gave the vergers £100 a year each. He had lately heard, however, that the Commissioners were inclined to discontinue this payment, in which case either the 2d. admission fee must be reimposed, or the Dean and Chapter would have to supply the necessary funds from their own pockets. He thought that was a proper duty which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might take upon themselves. Again, what was called the "cupola money"—the fee charged for showing the whispering gallery and cupola of St. Paul's—now constituted one of the principal sources of income of the lay clerks and minor canons. Surely it was very improper that any portion of the cathedral authorities should be paid by show money; and he should be glad to see a proper provision made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for doing away with this scandal. Go to what cathedral they would, they generally found part of the church furniture falling into decay, and the reason given was, "We can get nothing from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners." That body paid their secretaries and surveyors handsomely, but were very averse from contributing towards objects of this kind. Now, nobody at the present day could deny the utility of cathedrals. The congregations in many cases were largely increasing, and with proper care the cathedral schools throughout the country might be made of the greatest use. But the Bill contained no provision for carrying out any of these objects. He did not wish that more money should be given to the Deans and Chapters, but he did want to see the cathedrals utilized and the schools improved, and he appealed to hon. Members who were anxious for the spread of education to aid him in endeavouring, if the Bill got into Committee, to provide for the expenditure of a reasonable sum in this way. It was a principle of English law to carry out the intention of founders, and faith ought to be kept with the dead as well as with the living. Therefore, unless such provisions as he had referred to were introduced, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill.
  MR. HOWESsaid, the argument of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn) on this question had been misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). His hon. and learned Friend urged that the duties and labours of the Ecclesiastical Commission had been so increased of late that it was not only unfair to them, but would be injurious to the public that those duties should be added to by the Bill. In support of this argument he adduced the fact, that the rentals of the estates vested in the Commissioners amonnted to £173,000 a year. That was not the full value of these estates, but was the sum mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners appointed in 1839. His hon. and learned Friend had also stated that the expenditure of the Commission in 1839 in law, surveying, and other matters amounted to £43,000, but he did not mean to convey, as the right hon. Gentleman had wrongly inferred, that this expenditure was in respect of estates the rental of which he quoted. With regard to the statement that there had been no audit for the last three years, the House and the public were certainly not aware of any efficient audit, as no mention of any such audit was made in the Reports for 1859 and the previous years. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had stated that the principle of the present Bill had been admitted, because a similar Bill had previously passed that House. The Bill referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was introduced in 1857–8, and failed in the House of Lords; but it should be borne in mind that in 1859 a Bill was brought forward omitting the very clauses which his hon. and learned Friend specially objected to. He wished to know on what authority that provision was embodied in the Bill which effected the involuntary transfer of the episcopal lands to the Commissioners, and that, too, within a short period. That enactment was certainly not founded on the recommendation of the Committee of 1855. He observed that there was to be a revision of the episcopal incomes on the avoidances of the several Sees, but with respect to Capitular estates he did not see that any provision for revision was made. That was an important matter, and required to be settled, if the present measure was intended to be permanent and final. He deemed it extremely objectionable that the Bill tended to confirm and perpetuate the stipendiary character of the incomes given to the
  960
  Bishops and to the Deans and Chapters; and the measure was liable to censure both for faults of commission and omission.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that he regretted that a Bill of such importance should have been pressed on that evening which, it was intended, should be devoted to other business, and when very few Members who took an interest in the question were present. With regard to the provisions: of the Bill he entirely concurred with the observations which had been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn), and he regarded the centralization contemplated by the Bill as a great evil. There was this inconsistency in the Bill, that while it enacted that all the property of Deans and Chapters should be vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, there was also a provision to the effect that at a future time some portion of it should be handed back. This was a most roundabout and ridiculous process. The plan to be pursued ought to be that of separating the lands according to their value, and then to hand over the proportion set apart for the Deans and Chapters, and let the Ecclesiastical Commissioners take the remainder. In principle, what objection could there be to that plan, for were not the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appointed for the purpose of distributing all the Church property? If the great accumulation of property in the hands of the Commissioners were to proceed, it would be impossible that any of the advantageous relations which ought to exist between landlord and tenant could have place between them and their lessees. He had listened to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for the county of Oxford (Mr. Henley) on a former occasion with anxiety, in order to discover the great public advantage which would be derived from concentrating all that property in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but had failed to discover any good grounds for doing so. Already the revenue of the Commissioners was estimated by his right hon. Friend at £200,000 per annum, and he asked how it was possible that the relations of landlord and tenant could be properly maintained when the property of the former was so large that the landlord could never visit it or even know where it was situated. In the case of the Deans and Chapters the property was generally small, and there was no difficulty in the tenant communicating with them. He could

  961
  speak from experience of the Dean and Chaper of Westminster, under whom he held property in Worcester, and he assured the House that no landlord could better manage his property than did that corporation. He was one of those who held that there were great disadvantages in such large properties that the possessors could not know all about them, but was forced to leave them to the care of subordinates. He had been recently engaged in a cause where it turned out that the landlord had not visited his estate for twenty-five years. Now, there was a great disadvantage in a man not being able to visit his estate for a quarter of a century. How was the relation of landlord and tenant to stand in such cases? Why, it became a mere question of local agents—surveyors and land stewards. Should persons come to London to see the Commissioners they would be received with courtesy, and every one knew the kindness of his hon. Friend the Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes); but, as a matter of necessity, and in the nature of things, they would go to men who were entire strangers to the property with which they had to deal. What then were the advantages of that centralizing system of which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Selwyn) complained, and of which he (Mr. Malins) also complained? What advantages were the public to gain by this Bill? He (Mr. Malins) believed all the advantages sought by it would be attained if the Dean and Chapter were allowed to receive the whole income of their estates, some machinery being devised by which the whole of the surplus might be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. A petition had lately been presented from Chichester, in which the petitioners set forth that great evils would arise from the system of accumulating large estates in the hands of a central and undying Board, most prejudicial to the interests of the public. He entirely agreed with the petition of the inhabitants of Chichester, that there would be great disadvantages if these lands were invested, to use their own words, in undying central bodies, with no other change than a change of men composing them. But there was another point in the Bill which, in his opinion, was open to objection; he alluded to that portion of it which provided that in the case of renewable leaseholds the interest of the lessee should come to an end in 1884. Was there any public
  962
  necessity for this? It was true that the lessee had no right to enforce a renewal; but if the Dean and Chapter refused to renew they lost their fines every seven years, and therefore, practically, they never refused to do so. Bishops' lessees frequently sold their leases, and, in fact, they had become the subject of sale and settlement so much that the Court of Chancery had always compelled trustees to provide for the payment of the accruing fines. If, then, that renewable right was become the subject of property recognized by the law of the land, what public necessity existed for changing the lessees and destroying the rights of the present owners? The only pretext on which it was proposed was that this description of lease was an impediment to building and improvement, but was that a reason for depriving people who held that kind of property of their interests in it, and perhaps reducing their children to beggary? He should not object to some reasonable arrangement which would provide for the improvement of this property, but it was not because a particular tenure of property was inconvenient that it was to be confiscated. He thought that if they secured to the Dean and Chapter the amount of the reserved rent and the value of the renewable fines they would derive all the advantage they sought, and would put the lessee in the position of a permanent instead of a precarious holder. He protested against confiscation of the property. What they wanted was some system that would make it compulsory on the lessor to sell the reversion, throwing on him the compulsory obligation to sell his interest to the lessee, or to make the lessee sell his interest at a fair market value to the lessor. The objects of the Bill were to be obtained without confiscation: and unless that objection could be removed he should certainly vote against the second reading. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners only held the property for sacred and religious purposes; but if they acquired it by means which beggared families how could they apply it properly? The lessees had just as much right, after paying renewal fines, to look upon this as their own property as landed proprietors had to their own estates. If the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge that he would provide some machinery for the transfer of the property on equitable terms he should not object, but at present they took away all the rights of the lessee and gave him in exchange a terminable lease

  963
  for twenty-four years, and the unfortunate lessee would find that property wrested from him which he expected to hand down to his family. He implored Parliament not to permit such an injustice as that. If they were determined upon vesting all this property in one great public body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would certainly fail in the performance of their duty as landlords, at all events let them do it on fair principles, and not, because it was for public convenience to change a certain description of tenure, discard the principles of public justice. On these grounds he should oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I did not intend to take any part in this debate, and I will not now enter into a discussion of any of the details of this measure. I think the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), when this Bill was last under discussion a few days ago, sufficiently answered the objections stated to it by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken, however, has put forward some principles from which I cannot forbear to express my dissent. He has put out of sight the original object of these measures. That object was out of the largo incomes of the Bishops in some cases, and out of the estates of Deans and Chapters in others, to make some provision for the augmentation of the smaller livings, and for the relief of the spiritual destitution of those populous districts which the ancient distribution of Church property left either insufficiently provided for, or not provided for at all. For that purpose it was necessary to consider in what manner this property was distributed, and how its distribution might be improved. For example, it was found that the Bishop of Durham had formerly £23,000 a year. The Ecclesiastical Commission thought that sum was excessive, and that £8,000 a year would suffice. The Commissioners also felt that as the Bishop was only to receive the reduced income of £8,000, it would be an absurd arrangement that he should have the management of the whole £23,000. Then you have the proposal of the Bill as it stands, with an alternative, which is this, that the £23,000—or rather the £21,000, for £2,000 a year was previously taken—should go to the Ecclesiastical Commission; that lands to the amount of £8,000 a year should be settled on the
  964
  Bishop of Durham, and that the remaining estates should be at the disposal of the Commissioners. So, likewise, with regard to the Chapter estates. The hon. and learned Gentleman takes the case of Ely, in which four-fifths are to remain with the Chapter. But in the case of the Chapter of Durham, there being twelve canons, four only were to remain; eight parts were to be devoted to the increase of smaller livings, and to the relief of spiritual destitution. It would be absurd to leave the whole twelve parts at the disposal of the Dean and Chapter, when eight out of the twelve, or two-thirds of the whole, were to be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commission. It was, therefore, a reasonable and practical proposal that the income of the Dean and Chapter should form four parts out of the twelve, and that the eight parts should be in the hands of the Commissioners. The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "But what an immense amount that makes in the hands of a centralized body." Now, you are to consider to what purposes these funds are to be applied. You find a clergyman with £75 or £80 a year, and you add £50 to his income. In another instance you create a new benefice, with £150 or, perhaps, £200 a year attached to it. It would be absurd to divide large Church estates, so as to assign small pieces of land to each benefice, with a view of raising these small incomes. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be a general management for this purpose.
  Then the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to the great question of all, namely, whether it would be just to make an alteration with respect to the tenure of Church property; and instead of leases lasting for a certain number of lives, to change them into a fixed term not exceeding, for the present, the limit of twenty-two years. The hon. and learned Gentleman—I will not say misrepresents, but misapprehends the principle on which these estates rest. He says that the representatives of the Church, that is, the Bishops, Deans and Chapters, have no other right over this property except to receive fines on the renewal of leases. Formerly the case stood thus:—It was supposed in the time of Elizabeth that a life equalled twenty-one years, and Church estates were leased by ecclesiastical bodies for three lives. The lessees could not put in a new life when a previous one expired, and therefore the absolute right was not

  965
  in the lessee but in the Church, and it depended on the merest accident whether or not a lessee had a property nearly equivalent to a freehold, or an interest of a very limited nature. For example, where an old Bishop died a Prime Minister might recommend a very young man, of twenty-five or thirty, to succeed him. The new Bishop, on succeeding to the see, finds a lease in which there are three old lives of seventy or seventy-five. He is asked to put in a new life; he refuses, preferring to take his chance of running his life against the three named in the lease. In the end, if he outlives, he has a most valuable lease, which he can give to his own family for three lives, actually enriching himself or his relatives. Or when the first two lives dropped he might set his life against the third, and refuse to renew except at an enormous fine, which he knew would not be given. This shows that the right is not in the lessee but the lessor, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that in several cases, by an abuse of this power, bishops in former days allowed old lives to expire, and gave a lease of three young lives to members of their own family. Having rendered Church property of very little value for the next sixty years, they next obtained an Act of Parliament by which, for a small sum, they transferred the estates from the Church to the lessee, defrauding the Church of its property. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish that system to be restored? He proposes that instead of the right being in the lessor, as it always has been, it should be transferred to the lessee, and instead of the lessee being entirely at the mercy of the Bishop, or of the Dean and Chapter, that he should have an absolute right secured to him, actually as good as a freehold. This is what I should call confiscation, for it would take away the right from that body in which it exists, and transfer it to another who has only a limited right which at a certain period must expire. The hon. and learned Gentleman's plan, therefore, is to confiscate the property of the Church for the benefit of the lessee. What was the case formerly with land the property of the Crown? A great many of the Crown estates were held in the same manner as those belonging to the Church. They brought little to the revenues of the Crown, because the leases were usually renewed, and the tenants favoured. In this state of things, what did Mr. Pitt do? Did he
  966
  transfer the whole right in the property to the lessees? On the contrary, he claimed for the lessor the entire benefit, giving the lessee no more than his actual right. Thus by a beneficial Act the whole of the income derived from a rack-rent was received by the Crown. But in the case of the Church which, not being so powerful as the Crown, and having no such patron as Mr. Pitt who could thus deal with its property, the general arrangement has been this:—The Church offered the lessee his choice, either to sell to the Church the whole of his interest in the unexpired term, or to buy the property, and pay to the Church the value of the reversion. That was the proposal made in the Committee of the House of Lords—I need not enter into the precise terms as they have nothing to do with the Bill before us—and it was a perfectly fair one. A great deal of property was held during the whole of the last century under the disadvantage that, although a man held the property, and expected to renew the lease, he had no such security for building and planting, as if it had been freehold, and very often, besides interfering with building and planting, he was unable to dispose of it as he wished. A great portion of that property has become freehold, and is now held in fee by country gentlemen, yeomen, farmers, and other proprietors, and the property itself is improved to an extent which never would have been the case if it had been held under the old tenure. This is the general intention of the Bill, and, as I believe it to be a perfectly fair intention, I really think the House ought to read it a second time. With regard to particular clauses, into which I shall not enter now, it may be quite possible to propose improvements in Committee. I do not deny that the Bill may be susceptible of Amendment, but I believe that it is based on sound principles, and that it will effect improvements beyond those which have already taken place. For my own part, I have always thought it desirable in every way, that the Bishops and Deans and Chapters should hold landed property. I have no doubt that if the whole of their landed property were sold and the money paid into the funds the Bishops and Deans and Chapters would have a more certain income for the time, but they would not have such a thorough dependence on the landed property of the country, nor so fixed a status, and I should be very sorry to see that change. That a body managing

  967
  £200,000 of landed property may commit many mistakes is possible, and that they do not see the property very often is no doubt an inconvenience, but I believe that to be inseparable from any great scheme. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) has himself said he was concerned in a case in which a private gentleman had not seen a particular portion of his property for twenty-five years, having estates, I presume, in various counties; but no one will argue that private gentlemen should not possess large estates. The hon. Gentleman said it was an inconvenience to be regretted. I say the same thing with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that it is an inconvenience that they cannot visit each of their estates; but when a large scheme is proposed, if not for a final settlement, for a settlement of the general principles, I think the House should either assent to or dissent from the plan upon those general grounds.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the noble Lord who had just addressed the House had put the measure in as fair a light as possible; he had shown the House what could be said in favour of the Bill, and he had also made admissions and held out expectations which might succeed in modifying some points of objection. At the same time he was sorry that a measure of so much importance should have been accidentally, and in consequence of an unexpected alteration in the proceedings of the House for the evening, brought forward while many hon. Members who were interested in the question were absent. The importance of this Bill was great, whether they considered the amount of property involved, or the mode in which they were called on to deal with it—that was to say, contrary to the wishes of the reputed owner and occupier—or to the manner in which the estates were in future to be managed. They were not dealing with the whole of the property that belonged to the Church, and he should not raise the question with respect to that portion of property disposed of by previous arrangements. The real point for consideration was whether they should proceed in the same course as they had already proceeded in with respect to the estates of the Bishops—whether they would act in the same way with reference to the estates of the capitular bodies? It was obvious, however, that Bishops and Chapters did not stand on the same footing. The Ecclesiastical Commission comprised several
  968
  Bishops, and they had a substantive voice in all the operations of that body; they enjoyed the opportunity of speaking their sentiments; but the House was called upon to deal with the estates of gentlemen who had never been consulted in the matter, and respecting whom he thought he might venture to say that their sole object, as it was declared to him when they waited upon the Government of the day, twelve months ago, was not to ask that Government to withdraw their hands, but merely to give them an opportunity of telling their own story. All that was asked, then, was that they might be put in communication with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They said, "We have a story to tell, and we want an opportunity to tell it; hold the hands of Parliament till we have had that opportunity, which we promise we will not abuse." From that time, however, the opportunity, not unfairly asked, had never been afforded to them. One of the main grounds of objection he had to this Bill was that it proposed to make use of the machinery of the Ecclesiastical Commission, not merely for the sale, but actually for the future management and possession of these estates. It could not be disputed that they proposed to take powers within a certain time to sell the estates belonging to the capitular bodies, and out of those estates, or the money received from them, to re-endow at a subsequent time the Chapters with a certain portion of landed property. There was a great deal of force in what the noble Lord said as to landed property. There were good reasons why Chapters and Bishops should be in possession of landed estates. There was a greater stability in the possession of land than of money in the funds, and he did not like the idea of a Bishop or a Chapter being reduced to the position of mere salaried stipendiaries of the State. If it were proposed to deal with the property of any private individual as was now proposed in regard to the property of the capitular bodies, a cry of confiscation would at once be raised. What was the distinction between a lessee who held under a capitular body, and one who held under the corporation of a municipality or college? Yet municipal or college property had never been treated in the manner proposed in the Bill. The manner in which the estates belonging to the Church were formerly managed was far preferable to the modern system. He believed the holding of land by such a

  969
  body as the Ecclesiastical Commission to be much more objectionable than the holding of land in mortmain by Bishops or Chapters, impolitic as that mode of possession had always been regarded. Since the time of Queen Elizabeth, whenever ecclesiastical corporations had had occasion to let out their property they had done so on easy terms, and the lessee had practically fulfilled the duties attached to ownership. But if these estates were now let out at rack-rent, the total annual value would, of course, be required from the persons who held them. How was hospitality to be exercised, charity administered, and schools or other benevolent institutions maintained, unless the lessees held the estates on easy terms? His right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) would say, no doubt, that the Commission were not to exercise the rights of ownership permanently, but only in transitu, and that they would have to sell a portion of the property and re-endow either the Bishops or the capitular bodies with so much land. But that was the great defect of the Bill. It did not state definitely the manner in which the change was to be effected. The question of Bishops' property had been dealt with, but not in such a manner as to inspire great confidence for the future. There never arose a discussion with respect to the Ecclesiastical Commission without fault being found with the administration of the funds arising from the Bishops' estates. He had no doubt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom he entertained the highest opinion, would endeavour to avoid future mistakes; but Parliament was called upon to grant them, not only a prolongation of, but an addition to, their powers. That was the third time they had had the Bill under discussion. He was of opinion that the House would think that those who had something further to say upon the subject, as was his own case, should postpone further observation till they got into Committee. Perhaps his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn) would permit him to suggest that it would be well not to press for a division at that time, but reserve his objections for a future stage in Committee, when those who objected to particular clauses would have the opportunity of calling them in question. He should reserve any further remarks till the next stage, though he could not express his approval of the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, the House had been
  970
  taken by surprise by the Bill being proceeded with that evening, and he felt that under the circumstances it would be useless to press the Amendment. He would therefore withdraw it.
  Amendment withdrawn; Main Question put and agreed to; Bill read 2° and committed for Friday.

  MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Mines to which Part 2 of Act is to extend. Interpretation of Terms).
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the object of the clause was to bring under inspection iron as well as coal mines. He proposed to move an Amendment, excluding all iron mines except those worked in connection with coal. There was no peculiar danger connected with the working of iron mines, and no case had been made out for their inspection. The loss of life, as compared with the number of tons of ironstone and rubbish taken out of the iron mines, was so small that he was satisfied these mines, when unconnected with the coal measures, did not require the special interference of the Government. In a mine with which he was connected there had been only one death to 498,000 tons of ore raised. There was this difference also, that accidents in coal mines occurring in consequence of want of ventilation involved the death of many persons, while accidents in mines not subject to explosion only endangered the life of the awkward or careless workman upon whom some mass of rubbish might fall. He should, therefore, move, instead of the words "or coal measures" to substitute the words "associated with coal and worked in connection therewith."
  MR. CLIVEsaid, the hon. Gentleman was, like many other persons—he thought inspection a very good thing when it was applied to all his neighbours, so that it did not touch himself. A system of inspection was imperatively required for those iron mines which were included in the clause. It was the unanimous opinion of the inspectors of coal mines that inspection ought to be applied to all iron mines. He had, however, yielded to the representations made to him that inspection was not wanted where the iron was not connected with coal measures, and the words of the clause

  971
  had been, in fact, suggested by the owners. The workmen in iron mines took great interest in the establishment of a system of inspection, in proof of which he might refer the hon. Gentleman to the Mining Journal, in which the inspection was warmly advocated on behalf of the miners. The inspectors of coal mines in many districts found the coal and iron so blended together that it was almost impossible to separate them in their inspection. He believed that the great majority both of owners and men were in favour of the Bill. The deaths in Great Britain from accidents in mines were 1 in 64,000. In Durham the deaths were only 1 in 114,000; in Scotland they were 1 in 95,000, while in South Wales they were 1 in 47,000. This greater proportion of deaths in South Wales showed that the accidents were more frequent where coal and iron were mixed together. He had now, he thought, shown the Committee why the Amendment ought not to be adopted.
  MR. TAYLORsaid, he wished to exclude those cases only in which iron was not worked in conjunction with coal, and he thought that not an unreasonable proposition.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, he thought the clause was exactly framed to meet the case suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Taylor), and that there was no necessity for the insertion of the words proposed by him.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, it was true that the accidents in South Wales exceeded the average for the whole country, but they occurred for the most part in colleries where coal was simply worked for exportation.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he would then move the omission of the following words from the clause descriptive of a class of works to which the Act should extend—
  "And every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level or inclined plane in the course of being driven for commencing or opening any such mine, and all the works belonging thereto respectively."
  MR. CLIVEopposed the Amendment, which was negatived without a division.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Power to Secretary of State to appoint Inspectors of Mines).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would propose an Amendment to the effect that sub-inspectors should be appointed as well as inspectors, so as to provide for a more efficient inspection, which it was natural to suppose would be gained by the sub-in-
  972
  spectors performing the main portion of the duty under the superintendence of, and subject to the report of, the superior officer and inspector. He would move to insert the words "or sub-inspectors" after the word inspectors.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought the scope of the clause was sufficiently extensive to enable the appointment of officers of different grades, which would compass the object the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) had in view.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he thought they should have some assurance from the Government that the inspection under the Bill would be of an efficient character. At present the number of pits which each inspector had to visit were so many that a considerable interval elapsed between his visits, and it was at those times generally that accidents took place. He did not want that the sub-inspectors should be men of great scientific attainments, but he considered that it would be an advantage to have a class of officers connected with the inspection with whom the pitmen could frankly and easily communicate.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the best course would be for the hon. Gentleman not then to press his Amendment, but to let it stand over until the bringing up of the Report.
  Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 9.
  Clause 10 (General Rules to be observed in Coal and Iron Mines).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he proposed in line 22 to add, after the word "places," "and all other accessible places," in order that the proprietors of mines might be compelled to ventilate places which were not being worked, but which became reservoirs of foul air in communication with the workings where men were employed.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, after the word 'places,' to insert the words 'and all other accessible places where possible.'
  MR. KER SEYMERsuggested the addition of the words "if possible" to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, that this was one of the most disputed portions of the Bill. He was bound to say that the Commissioners had recommended the Amendment, but he was told that there would be a difficulty in applying it in all instances. He had, therefore, thought it best to make the clause run as it did.
  MR. AYRTONsuggested, that it must

  973
  surely be possible to stop off those places which were difficult to ventilate, and which if left open might admit gas in quantities large enough to endanger the miners.
  MR. CAYLEYsuggested, that the words "where possible" might get rid of the difficulty.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would accept the suggestion.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, there were circumstances in which an attempt to ventilate might be dangerous, because the gas was only explosive when mixed with more than three times and less than fourteen times its own bulk.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 18: Majority 167
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that accidents were frequently caused through the tramways in mines being too narrow. He would, therefore, propose as an Amendment on rule 8, that places of refuge should be provided at intervals of not less than ten yards, or that the drift or passage for the tramways should be made so wide as to allow room for men to pass the trucks, which ran down with great rapidity.
  MR. H. H. VIVIANsaid, he thought it undesirable to take the responsibility of avoiding accidents off the owners or workers of mines. Serious accidents had to be reported to the Secretary of State, and that of itself was a great safeguard. If the drifts were widened there would be greater danger of the fall of the roof—a most fruitful source of accident. He thought it desirable to have places of refuge, but not at shorter intervals than twenty yards. A wide drift without refuges would be highly dangerous.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had no objection to twenty yards.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he next moved, that instead of the words "cover overhead," in rule 9, there should be inserted the words "covered safety cage." That was an ingenious mechanical contrivance for saving the lives of the workmen as they ascended or descended the pit. They had been adopted in several well-regulated mines, and he thought the others ought to be made to use them.
  MR. H. H. VIVIANsaid, he had found from repeated experiments that "safety cages" were a fertile source of danger. Every mechanical contrivance of this sort was likely to get out of order He believed
  974
  all cases of this kind to be impracticable, but, even if they were practicable, they would probably lead to a false security, arising from mistaken economy. Less attention would be paid to the due inspection of the state of the ropes. He thought to pass a law in favour of safety cages would lead to increased injury and loss of life. He must deprecate discussions on details of a practical character in the House of Commons.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he also objected to the Amendment as impracticable.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he was astonished to hear it laid down by the hon. Member (Mr. Vivian), that the House of Commons was not a fit arena for the discussion of points affecting the lives of thousands of operatives. On the contrary, he maintained that it was the only place to which they could carry their appeal for protection, the House of Lords and the Courts of law alike having laid it down that a workman by the terms on which he entered into the service of his master deprived himself of his remedy at law for any accident which he might suffer while in that employment.
  MR. H. H. VIVIANsaid, he never said that. What he said was that that House was not the arena for discussing practical points of mining detail.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he must protest against, the crude statement of the law which they had just heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was true a man obtained no right of action against his master for an injury which he suffered from his fellow-workman, provided his master had exercised care and diligence in the selection of those in his employment; but, on the other hand, a master was undoubtedly liable for any accident arising from his negligence in not having provided proper ropes and machinery.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, that the question of the safety cages had been very carefully considered, and he hoped the Committee would consent to adopt the use of the overhead cover.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEhoped that the Committee would not force upon miners the adoption of this plan. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire and other hon. Members who had tried it were of opinion that in some cases, at least, it would not be suitable.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he acquiesced in the view taken by his hon. Friend (Mr. James) of the law affecting the subject.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that "safety cages" had been adopted in a great number of mines, and he thought where the expense was comparatively trifling, they ought to be generally used. His hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Craufurd) had, doubtless, in view, in the statement he had made, the Scotch law on the subject, for certainly it would surprise employers in England to be told that they were liable for damages to their workmen.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would recall to the recollection of the hon. Member for Ayrshire a case tried on the Home Circuit, which was brought by a labourer against Sir Charles Fox for having an improper rope at the construction of one of the towers at the Crystal Palace. The case was reserved for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer, and the law was distinctly laid down that, inasmuch as the plaintiff was a labouring man, he had taken the risk of the work, and Sir Charles Fox was therefore not responsible.
  MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, he thought it was preposterous that the House of Commons should force on practical men the further trial of an experiment which they had found to be unsuccessful. The Inspectors and the Committee had given it as their opinion that no particular rule should be laid down in this case, but that it should be left to the mine-owners, who were responsible for those they employed, and were anxious for the safety of the men's lives to use the safest and best means for securing the safety of their workmen.
  MR. KINNAIRDobjected to the doctrine that the House was to have its decision in the matter fettered by the decision of a Committee.
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he would advise his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment to give way to the opinion of other Members with greater practical knowledge, and not attempt to enforce on all parts of the country a contrivance which might perhaps answer only in a certain district, lest the result should be to destroy life instead of saving it.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the cage was in general use in the mines. ["No, no!"] He asked his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department whether that was not the fact.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, that those cages were in general use; but he recommended his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he wished to move in line 5 of the same rule, after the word "shaft" to insert the words "except upon occasions when repairs are being effected," the object of his Amendment being to dispense with the use of the cover over the cage when repairs were being effected in the shaft.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word 'shaft,' to add the words 'except on occasions when repairs are being effected.'
  MR. CLIVEsaid, it appeared to him that the use of the cover might be more necessary at the time during which the hon. Member proposed to dispense with it.
  MR. H. H. VIVIANsaid, he thought that its use was not necessary during repairs.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 127: Majority 80.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to move the insertion into the clause of an additional rule requiring a proper weighing machine or measuring apparatus to be placed at the bank of every mine, for the purpose of accurately testing the quantities of coal, ironstone, or other material brought to the surface. He understood that false weights and measures were sometimes used, to the detriment of the workmen, who were thereby deprived of the full amount of their earnings.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he saw no objection to the adoption of weighing machines, but he could not understand how measuring machines were to be used with respect to iron-stone. He had never heard of their application to such a purpose.
  MR. AYRTONexplained that his object was to secure to the workmen payment for all the ore or coal that was brought to bank.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, he hoped the claim would not be objected to by the Government. In the two Committees which had sat on the subject, no point was more insisted upon than the necessity of having weighing machines as between the workmen and the employers.
  MR. H. H. VIVIANsaid, he did not see any objection to that fair and just regulation, but he thought that words should be introduced by which the gauging of barges should be excepted.
  MR. CLIVEsaid, he understood that the proposition was permissive, but he would suggest that it should be deferred until the

  977
  Report. It could do no harm, but he believed it had been tried, and it had been found that the workmen did not avail themselves of it.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought it important that there should be a weighing machine easy of access.
  MR. KINNAIRD MR. KINNAIRD moved that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
3a Plea on Indictment.

SLAVE TRADE—MOZAMBIQUE.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD STRATHEDEN: My Lords, in rising to move your Lordships to Address the Crown in favour of appointing a Consul at Mozambique, the capital of the Portuguese dominions on the Eastern coast of Africa, I will not detain the House by a statement of the circumstances arising in the other House of Parliament, which induced me to submit the Motion. But I should wish, in passing, to observe that it has been postponed from the 4th June to the present moment, because it must have

  909
  otherwise come on in the absence of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), who presided over the Committee on the Slave Trade in 1850, and that noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), whose zeal upon these questions has been known for more than half a century. It seemed to me that their attendance was the firmest guarantee that your Lordships would not be led to a mistaken judgment on the point which I desired to bring before you.
  My Lords, in 1854 the Government of that day resolved to send a Consul to Mozambique. In December, 1856, the Consul left this country. In July, 1857, he reached his destination. In May, 1858, the Portuguese authorities, not being able to defend him against a violent conspiracy of slave dealers, in the absence of our cruisers at that time called away to India, the Consul left his station for Mauritius. In the autumn of 1858 a great controversy took place between the Governments of France, Portugal, and Britain, on an event to which his consulship gave birth. Since that time the Consul has had no successor.
  My Lords, remarks may be made as to the form of the present Motion, and I shall by and bye, with your permission, touch upon it. But as the vital question is, whether the Government are bound to re-appoint a Consul at Mozambique, I shall best consult the natural impatience of the House by asking them at once to weigh the two obvious and necessary points into which that question is divided: namely, whether the appointment was originally justified, and whether, if it was, the grounds which justified it have been confirmed by subsequent events, and still retain their power.
  As regards the grounds which justified the Government of 1854 in sending out a Consul—if I state them far less precisely than I wish to do, it matters little since I am speaking in the presence of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary at that time, of the noble Lord the President of the Council, then a Member of the Cabinet, and of the noble Lord then, as now, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who can do that justice to their policy which I may fail to do. In the year 1850, after long inquiries and debates, a strong resolution was displayed in the country and in Parliament to maintain British cruisers on the coast of Africa against the slave trade, even at a cost of half a million pounds a year. It was amply proved by
  910
  evidence collected at that time, that the squadron could not be effective for its purpose, unless supported by consular establishments on land to furnish information to the naval officers, and to promote the lawful commerce by which the slave trade is reduced. On the Western Coast of Africa, our squadron was supported in this manner. Besides the British settlements of Gambia, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast, we had consular authorities at Lagos, at Fernando Po, Monrovia, and Loanda, the capital of the Portuguese dominions of Angola. There was no equivalent upon the Eastern coast between Zanzibar and Natal, a sea-board of above twelve hundred miles. Our Commissioner of the mixed Court and our Consul at Loanda had secured the concurrence of Portugal, with the operations of our squadron on the Western Coast. It was essential by new means to obtain the same concurrence on the Eastern coast. The Governor General of Mozambique was far more in want of British countenance and shelter in resistance to the slave trade than any other viceroy. He had the strongest possible temptations to engage in the forbidden traffic on account of the wants to which an insufficient salary exposed him. The feelings, interests, and habits of the colonial circle which surrounded him—threatened with the gravest penalties the slightest effort upon his part to restrain a system of which all enjoyed the gains, and none were sensible to the dishonour. About twenty years before one of these viceroys had been driven from his government in consequence of having assumed too bold an attitude towards the slave dealers. But, since 1854, the Governor General, if he meant to do his duty, had to resist the influence of France in forms of menace or persuasion. The French free-labour system had begun, and it involved an urgent demand for slaves along the sea-board of Mozambique. Against all this adverse pressure the Viceroy could not be sustained even by his Goverment at home without a British Consul to animate his zeal, to second his exertions, and should the occasion come, to reprimand his slackness. A further ground for the appointment of the Consul was that Britain had acknowledged the sovereignty of Portugal from Cape Delgado to Delagoa Bay, conditionally on observance of the treaty to arrest the slave trade, and that the presence of our representative was called for to ascertain that so long as she maintained her

  911
  rights, Portugal fulfilled her obligations. Beyond this it was established that while twelve hundred miles of the eastern coast remained unwatched, it was idle to attempt to control the slave trade on the western coast. The stream went on, although the channel might be altered. The whole system of exertions Great Britain had been forming through the world against the slave trade since she reached her glorious position of 1815, was liable to failure, so long as this extensive chasm in her policy was open. On these grounds and others, doubtless, which escape me, the Government of 1854, appear to have been justified in making the appointment.
  But did events belie the calculations which had led to it? Were the exertions of our Consul found to be superfluous or nugatory? What were his adventures? During his sojourn at the Cape, where he was long detained, Soares, the prime agent of the French slave trade in Mozambique, became informed as to his mission, travelled to the Cape, endeavoured to gain his confidence, by well-deserved invectives against the traffic he was guilty of; and almost persuaded him of his fitness for the office of Vice-Consul. So was Mr. M'Leod, by the best authority, initiated in the secrets of the region he was destined to. The frigate which took our Consul from the Cape to Mozambique was nearly all the while engaged in the exciting chase of the Minnetonka, a large vessel from Cuba, endeavouring to ship slaves along the eastern coast. It did not effect the capture, but a new light broke upon the Consul when it discovered a collusion between this vessel and the Zambesi, a Portuguese ship of war, under the control of an ex-governor. Mr. M'Leod, on his arrival at his station, found the French free-labour plan in active operation, and had the strongest proofs of its being neither more nor less than compulsory traffic in the negroes. Soon after he arrived an insurrection of the natives against Portugal broke out, from indignation at the attempts of the Portuguese authorities to meet the French demand, and to revive the evils of the slave trade. Amidst the violence which followed, the British Consul was secure; because he was alone regarded as the friend and champion of the Africans. But this very circumstance provoked the hatred of the persons who depended on the slave trade for their profits. The settlers of Mozambique conspired against him. They endeavoured to deny him any kind of habi-
  912
  tation in the city. His supply of necessaries was impeded; all service was cut off from him; his home was violated; and his life in danger. The new Governor-General, who arrived after our Consul, with the best intentions was unable to protect him. Although these persecutions would not have occurred, had it not been for the unwonted and temporary absence of our cruisers, they afford the most decisive testimony to the value of a British Consul at that station. For what could have excited them, but the strong and well-founded conviction of the slave dealers, that between them and him no compromise could be arranged; that their gains must fall, or his authority be ruined? But it is worth while to recollect what he accomplished in a career so short, so troubled, and so full of incidents to abate his zeal, and to confound his operations. Two vessels containing British property, and engaged in lawful trade, one of which had been irregularly, the other practically seized, were given up to his remonstrances. He was not, therefore, useless to the commerce he was sent out to encourage. The Marie Caroline, the Maris Stella, and the Charles et Georges, by his efforts were prevented from taking slaves away upon that coast. At his instance the governor of Ibo, a minor settlement of Portugal to the north of Mozambique, was superseded for something worse than mere collusion with the slave trade. But far more, he did stimulate the new Governor-general into a course of energetic opposition to the traffic. He did induce that elevated person to face and to resist the French demand, by which, in that very year, upwards of 5,000 Africans, under the title of free labourers, had been torn away from Mozambique. It is not too much to say that the presence of the British Consul at this station for the first time engaged Portugal in that dignified and strenuous resistance to the slave trade, which for years past British statesmen had vainly urged her to pursue. It is too well known, at least, that Portugal became before the world a martyr to the principles so long impressed, and so reluctantly adopted. It is also certain that the labours of our Consul, after eliciting from the Viceroy of Mozambique conduct which reflected honour on his country and himself, were the means of drawing from the Emperor of the French a formal manifesto against the compulsory traffic which France had too long defended as legitimate. The manifesto may have led to

  913
  no improvement, but at least it gives the British Government a vantage-ground in all remonstrances with France against the system she was led in language to renounce and even stigmatize.
  But what followed the departure of our Consul from the eastern coast of Africa? Did anything occur to supply the plea for leaving the post vacant? Can it be said that what he did is adequate and final, and that there is, therefore, no occasion to perpetuate the office? On this point Major Rigby is a seasonable witness. Major Rigby was the agent of the East India Company at Zanzibar, the capital of the territory which stretches to the north of Mozambique. His despatches are contained in a Parliamentary Return delivered to the House of Commons on the Motion of Mr. A. Kinnaird, March 7th, 1859. On August 15th, 1858, three months after our Consul quitted Mozambique, Major Rigby informed the Government of Bombay that to the south of Zanzibar the slave trade had acquired dimensions and a vigour previously unknown in consequence of French arrangements, He informed them that vessels were sent from France on purpose to convey negroes from the eastern coast of Africa. He informed them that a large American ship under Spanish colours, had just left Mozambique with twelve hundred slaves on board. On August the 20th he wrote that two French ships of war had entered Zanzibar, bringing a letter from the Governor of Bourbon, to exhort the Sultan to permit a negro exportation, and that the Sultan was prevailed upon by Major Rigby to refuse it. Could any circumstance illustrate more precisely the vigour of the French demand, and the efficiency of our consular authorities? On the 13th of September, 1858, he wrote that the French merchant ship Anna left the island of Comoro, with four hundred negroes—that in eighteen hours the negroes armed themselves with fire-wood, overpowered the crew, and permitted them to escape in boats to Zanzibar. Was this the voluntary embarkation of free labourers? The Major wrote also that the price of slaves to the south of Zanzibar had doubled, and that so great were the profits of the trade that all lawful commerce was in danger of extinction. The last volume on the slave trade issued by the Foreign Office did not go much into the year 1859, but it was full of valuable lessons. It showed that on the eastern coast nothing was accomplished. It showed
  914
  that on the western coast the squadron had been met by unprecedented obstacles. The tone of the commanders was a tone of gloom, if not of despair. The impression which the volume made was that we must now aim rather at preventing the embarkation of the negroes than at seizing ships in which they were embarked. It tended to raise the value of our consular establishments. But the establishments of this character on which it threw the most brilliant light, were those in the Portuguese dominion of Angola, upon the western coast—and the inference was clear as to Mozambique upon the eastern coast. The volume abounded with proofs that the French free-labour system had revived, and was prolonging, in the interior of Africa, the disorders and the horrors against which we had been waging war for half a century. It showed distinctly that the French colony of Bourbon, or Réunion, was not less intent on negro labour than before. It suggested no conclusion upon which the vacancy at Mozambique could be defended. If it were asked what was the precise evil for which the vacancy must answer, it was as follows:—Other Powers have been arrayed against the slave trade by Great Britain. And, were it not for her voice, they would at once suspend their opposition to it. But we are silenced towards these powers so long as on the eastern coast of Africa we allow a negro traffic to continue without the greatest efforts to restrain it; above all, when we fell back from a measure we have recently adopted, and of which all nations have witnessed the results and been led to recognize the value. But if we are not silenced towards Spain, towards Brazil, or towards the United States—as far as possible to limit the position—we are silenced towards France and towards Portugal. Unless we have a Consul to watch the eastern coast of Africa, from Cape Delgado to Delagoa Bay, we have no authoritative ground on which to reply to any version France may give of the proceedings in those waters. We may be convinced, but we have not the power to refute another Government contending with us. As regards Portugal, it was evident, from Mr. M'Leod's experience, that nothing but a thorough reformation could clear Mozambique of the slave trade. Until the leading slave dealers were banished, as in Angola they were banished—until new officials had replaced them—until the Governor-General received such a salary as would make him independent of the traffic

  915
  —a system so inveterate and powerful would flourish. But this effective reformation could only be produced by British influence on Portugal. Except at British instigation, Portugal has never yet and never can advance a step against the slave trade. Until we had a consular authority to guide us, we could not urge the Government of Portugal about it. Like France, Portugal might answer that we had no authoritative evidence. But it might argue further, that, until we re-established our consular authority, our zeal was not apparent in our policy. Beyond this it might reply that, however just our views, and genuine our language it had not the power to effect a reformation at Mozambique until our Consul was replaced, because the Governor-General under no imaginable change could do his duty in the absence of a British representative. And the truth of this was incontestable. Last of all, Portugal might argue—if not in words in thoughts—that as her Government in 1857 and 1858 did adopt our counsels, did incur sacrifices, dangers, and embarrassments, by doing so—did expose her capital to menace and her courts of justice to aggression, in our cause, and at our instance—she ought not a second time to tread this arduous path while Great Britain suffered an eclipse upon the very scene on which we asked for a renewal of her hazardous exertions. What were the objections to the Consul being replaced, if the grounds of the appointment were something more than adequate, and if experience had only added to their cogency? Her Majesty's Administration would scarcely dwell upon expense as being the hindrance. They were now in possession of an unanticipated income from the vote of the House of Lords upon the Paper Duties, after strong arguments, to show that the income was superfluous. The Estimates might not have provided for a Consul at Mozambique, but further estimates were not a rare occurrence in this country. At least the disposition of our people to make pecuniary sacrifices to eradicate the slave trade could not be denied. If even £2,000 a year were necessary for this consulship it would be a prudent outlay, since it went to save from inutility a squadron which cost £500,000 a year. And when the Estimates had reached the height of £70,000,000, it was not the moment to haggle about a puny cost to us for an immeasurable benefit to Africa. The Government might far more prudently enlarge
  916
  on the defencelessness of our Consul in 1857 and 1858, and on the outrages to which that defencelessness gave rise; but it must never be forgotten that that defencelessness arose from the necessary absence of our cruisers. Had four cruisers been stationed in the waters of Mozambique, as in common times they would be stationed, he would not have been defenceless, and he would not have been attacked. The Indian mutiny, by absorbing our ships, occasioned all the difficulties against which he was not able to maintain himself. To anticipate them more completely for the future, it had been thoroughly explained, that any new Consul should be provided with a vessel, and move from time to time along the sea-board between Cape Delgado and Delagoa Bay. In this manner his efficiency would be increased, because his sphere of vigilance would be extended. He would have a refuge and a home in the event of serious commotions in Mozambique. His crew would be sufficient to protect him against violence; but he would still reside enough on shore to communicate habitually with the Viceroy—to watch the sources and accomplices of negro traffic—and to gain that information which never had and never could be gained by a detachment of the squadron. Perhaps the Government might urge that, although there ought to be a Consul in those parts, delay was immaterial. A more unhappy plea could hardly be selected. The great and radical reform at Mozambique, essential to a better state of things upon the eastern coast of Africa, could only be effected—even by the union of Great Britain and of Portugal—on the advent of a new Governor General. It was only at such a moment that so complete a change of system could be imagined—much more brought about. It could only be accomplished while the Viceroy was more under the influence of his Government at Lisbon than of his colleagues at Mozambique, while his ardour to control the traffic was uncorrupted by example, while the climate had not yet begun to enervate his vigour, while he had not yet incurred the taint or sunk on the proclivity which scarcely any of his predecessors had avoided. The present Viceroy having reached his Government in the autumn of 1857, and having been appointed for three years, would naturally quit it in the present autumn. The moment, therefore, was at hand when the voice of this country towards Portugal ought to be strong and irresistible. He

  917
  had shown that it could be neither, in the absence of a Consul at Mozambique. Unless, therefore, Government immediately appointed one, they sacrificed the point of time when this essential reformation upon the Eastern coast might be effected. There was one argument upon which the Government would be too cautious to enlarge, but which, perhaps, would weigh with some Members of the House more than any other. It cannot be denied that at the French island of Réunion a strong interest desires negro labour, or that, within France itself, that interest has powerful supporters. It could not be denied, therefore, that while we had no Consul at Mozambique, collision between France and England on questions of the slave trade was less likely to occur. And it might therefore seem, at first sight, that the alliance of the countries gained by such a vacancy. But this view was superficial. The alliance could not be maintained by any understanding of Governments and crowned heads if it was revolting to the people of this country. And it was certain to be revolting to them as soon as they had reason to suspect that our policy against the slave trade was endangered or arrested or relaxed by it. The series of events which had in some degree estranged the public mind from that alliance had not as yet been able to subvert it. In spite of all that passed in 1858—in spite of the aggression upon Portugal in the autumn of that year—in spite of the gigantic estimates which France imposed on this country—the British public so clearly understood the gain which all the world derived from the alliance, that no invectives against the despotism of the French Government at home, or its rapacity abroad, had yet detached them from it. Let it once be known, however, that it demanded an essential part of our policy against the slave trade as a sacrifice, and its day was over. Engagements, statutes, treaties, the recollection of our greatest men, the moral and religious feelings of the country, besides its honour and its pride, would then become arrayed against the union of France and Britain, in irresistible remonstrance. And if it should be so, reason would not seem to be at variance with sentiment. The alliance with France, or any other Power, could only be regarded as an instrument of policy. The deliverance of Africa from the oppression of the slave trade was among the highest ends which, as a nation, we pursued. The alliance might be replaced
  918
  by other international relations, but no atonement could be offered for the breach of our engagements towards Africa and the world at large. He had pointed to the suppression of our influence upon Portugal as the worst practical result of the vacancy in question. But how much more complete was that suppression if France were thought (unjustly it might be) to keep our efforts on the eastern coast of Africa suspended? Portugal was far more entitled than this country to look on France with apprehension. Portugal had found that to oppose a negro exportation in those parts was to incur the anger of that formidable Power. Could she be exhorted to resist it when deference to France appeared in the remotest way to act upon our councils. If that consideration touches Britain with a feather, Portugal must sink under its weight. Portugal might yield to it at least without so great a sacrifice of faith, or so deplorable a treason to the lesson she had not presumed to teach, although she was conditionally learning it. But he had no desire to push the case too far. He readily admitted that, if the arguments of those who ten years ago endeavoured to re-cal the squadron were accepted, it would be logical and just to appoint no Consul at Mozambique. But if in the House of Lords those arguments had never been submitted to—if the spirit which prevailed in 1807, when the slave trade was abolished; in 1810, when it became felony; in 1824, when it was stigmatized as piracy, still obliges our Government to maintain the squadron upon the coast of Africa, it becomes the House to see that the ships which still remain shall not be useless in those waters. Either let our consular establishments have all the vigour we can give them, or else withdraw our cruisers into seas in which they may increase the safety of our coasts, and raise the tone of our policy. By any other course we waste the national defences of the country. By any other course we make an unrequited sacrifice of life and of revenue. My Lords, there is nothing further to remark except as regards the terms of the present Motion. It was open to me, no doubt, to have proceeded in a different manner. A question might have been put to the Government about the reasons of the vacancy. Such a course would not have been irregular, but it did not seem to be the most considerate or friendly. It might have drawn from the Government a statement of intention before the case had been

  919
  explained, and before others had been heard upon it. The Motion is so framed as to demand a step, without inculpating the Government for not having yet adopted it. It does not even recognize the fact that an established office has been vacant. It takes no advantage of the circumstance that it is still upon our list of consulships. It uses terms which might have been employed if we had never had a Consul at Mozambique. And I am ready to admit that many circumstances go to vindicate the Government in having left the post unfilled, which will not, however, vindicate them should they any longer do so. The Motion only aims at a distinct and satisfactory assurance from the Government of their intention to despatch a Consul to Mozambique in time to meet the coming Viceroy of that settlement. Should such distinct and satisfactory assurance be withheld, the other House of Parliament will probably elicit it. And even if the other House of Parliament fails in its exertions on this point, a case so strong, and bearing on their deepest obligations, however feebly explained, will hardly be forgotten by the press or by the people of this country.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, if he was compelled, on the part of the Government, to object to the Motion of the noble Lord for an Address to the Crown for the appointment of a Consul at Mozambique, he could assure him it was not that they were insensible to the great importance of the question. It was true that the appointment of a Consul was only one small portion of the arrangements that were made for preventing an extension of the slave trade; but that appointment naturally brought the whole question of the slave trade on the east coast of Africa under the consideration of the House, and their Lordships always must take a deep interest in all matters connected with that question. The noble Lord had correctly stated the circumstances that led to the appointment of a Consul at Mozambique at the time that the noble Lord below him (the Earl of Clarendon) was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Consul proceeded to his post and remained there until 1858. He was sorry the noble Lord had thought it necessary to enter into detail relative to the conduct of Mr. M'Leod, because—although he had not the least wish to enter into the circumstances that led to his leaving his post—he did not agree with the noble Lord in thinking that the proceedings of Mr. M'Leod were so wise and dis-
  920
  creet as he represented. He fully recognized in Mr. M'Leod an active and a zealous person, impressed with the deepest sense of the iniquity of the slave trade, and that he used his best efforts to prevent and suppress it; but he was bound, having carefully read his despatches and the book he had published, to add that he did not think his conduct on all occasions was characterized by judgment, which was quite as necessary as zeal in one whose duty it became, as Consul, to remonstrate against the slave trade in that district. He did not consider it necessary to refer to the particular circumstances that led to the vacancy, further than to say he thought the noble Earl then at the head of Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Malmesbury) was justified in not sending back Mr. M'Leod to his post. He had no wish to disparage the character of Mr. M'Leod as an agent of the Government, but he certainly did not think that gentleman's qualities rendered him peculiarly suited for the post he filled. The question naturally arose, should the Consul at Mozambique be reappointed? The noble Lord had stated that he thought it absolutely essential for the support of the representations that Her Majesty's Government had to make to the Portuguese Government, and for the support of the Portuguese Government in Mozambique, that there should be a British agent stationed at the capital of the Portuguese possessions. Those of their Lordships who had read the papers that had at various times been presented on the subject of the slave trade on the eastern coast of Africa were probably aware the circumstances attending the possessions of Portugal in that quarter were very peculiar. In point of fact the Portuguese possessed only three or four points upon the coast. The sovereignty they had on that coast had been acknowledged by treaty concluded in 1817 between this country and Portugal. Now, in order to prevent the slave trade from being carried on, it would not only be necessary that the Portuguese authorities should exert themselves, but it was also necessary that those authorities should be in a position to enable them to act with more effect; because it was a matter of fact that the Portuguese Government exercised extremely little control over the native population along the coast; and even though they had the will to prevent the slave trade—and he would not say they had not the desire, for the Government evinced a desire that the slave trade should

  921
  be stopped—even though they had the will to make strenuous exertions to suppress the slave trade, they would not be able to effect that object. Under these peculiar circumstances it had been a matter of serious consideration in what manner the slave trade, which undoubtedly did prevail to a great extent on the eastern coast of Africa, should be prevented; and he was convinced that the only manner of really suppressing it was by leading the natives who lived in the interior of the country at some distance from the coast, and by whom the slaves were brought down to the coast, to engage in lawful commerce instead of in the slave trade. In order to promote that object, it was necessary to familiarize them with those matters of trade with which we were acquainted, to make them see the advantage of turning the fertility of the soil to account, and to show them that they might drive larger profits from the pursuits of lawful commerce, than from the illicit and infamous commerce of the slave trade. All these objects were sought to be accomplished by the expedition of Dr. Livingstone. He was happy to think that Dr. Livingstone, as was known to the public from his letters and journals, had met in his enterprise with considerable success; and although he could not say so sanguinely that all his anticipations could be fulfilled, yet he thought that what he had done gave very great promise for the future. Under these circumstances the Government thought it was not possible to do better than to encourage and develop further the efforts of Dr. Livingstone, and for that purpose they had this year proposed to the House of Commons, a largely increased Vote in connection with the Livingstone expedition. From the Estimate he found the figures to be as follows:—The present annual expenditure to this year for this expedition had been £3,000. The proposed additional annual expenditure for three years was £2,500; and the extraordinary and temporary expenditure proposed for the present year was £6,000; making a total of £11,500. A portion of that extraordinary expenditure, or about £5,000, was for the construction of a suitable vessel. With this additional aid to Dr. Livingstone's efforts, combined with the attempts to lead the natives to engage in lawful commerce, there would be a fair chance of success; and he thought they should wait to see what were the results of this large expenditure, and of these promising efforts of the Livingstone expedition, before they
  922
  made further arrangements for the suppression or prevention of the slave trade. He did not say at all that a Consul at Mozambique might not be a very useful assistant in putting down this detestable traffic; but at the same time, working as the Government were in another direction at the present time, and which they thought promised better fruits, he did not think, and the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office did not think, that it was desirable to re-appoint a Consul at Mozambique. He did not say that at some future time it might not be desirable to take such a course; but at present this country had two separate agents there, both holding consular authority, and Dr. Livingstone also holding a consulship, and the appointment might lead to confusion, and rather defeat than promote the object in view. He could not help repeating, that as on the east coast so upon the west, and where-ever the slave trade flourished on the continent, the only real way of putting down the slave trade was to make the natives see how greatly it would be to their advantage to engage in ordinary commerce. Prevention by means of cruisers could never be completely successful; but let the natives, as they had already to a great extent, really feel the advantages of lawful commerce, and the foundation of the ultimate suppression of this odious traffic would be securely laid. The real root and source of the evil, however, he might be permitted to say, was to be found on the other side of the Atlantic; and so long as the Spanish Government did not act by their solemn engagements to prevent the slave trade in Cuba—engagements which if they chose they might with perfect facility perform—so long, he grieved to think, our best efforts to prevent and suppress that most iniquitous traffic must fail. He grieved to add that the most recent accounts that they had from Cuba showed that there was a great development in the traffic in slaves, and that it was carried on upon a largely organized scale. That was now the only spot in the world in which the slave trade was carried on upon a large scale, the rest of the world being practically free from it. It was a matter of deep regret and concern to all interested in the question, and who had a spark of humanity, that Spain had not acted by her engagements, or put an end to a traffic that was a disgrace to humanity, and which he believed in the long run would not further her own interests. Upon the grounds he

  923
  had stated he hoped that his noble Friend would not persevere in his Motion. The subject commanded the best attention of the Foreign Secretary, and whenever his noble Friend thought it would be desirable to re-appoint a Consul at Mozambique he was prepared to do so.
  LORD BROUGHAMentirely concurred with his noble Friend in his view of the necessity of cultivating those commercial and agricultural relations with the east coast of Africa, from which, above all other things, the best hope of extinguishing the slave trade arose. But, instead of considering the Motion of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Stratheden) inconsistent with such an object, he believed that the appointment of a Consul was essential for its accomplishment. What prospect was there of inducing the natives to engage in commerce and agriculture if there was a body of Portuguese official agents of high rank and great influence, who, over the whole 1,200 miles of coast, themselves engaged almost openly in the slave trade? That was the fact. The salary of the Governor of Mozambique was paid in such a way that he had a direct interest in this trade. He received a trifling salary of £900 a year, which was greatly less than his necessary expenses, and all the rest was paid by the council, if, indeed, even that poor salary was not so paid, which he believed it was, and the council was composed of notorious slave-traders and their agents. Of the present governor he did not speak, but his predecessor certainly took an active part in the traffic. He was paid so much a head upon all the negroes shipped, and his agents up the country were paid so much a head, in proportion to the success of the slave-traders there. The native slave-traders were suffered to carry on their execrable traffic, by paying to these agents a certain per centage upon the negroes brought down to the coast; and then the agents, their salaries from the Government being insufficient eked thorn out by the profits of the slave trade, and were, therefore, themselves almost avowedly concerned in these guilty courses. Portugal had engaged to put down the slave trade, but the agents interested in it continued these illegal practices, and there was no vigilance exercised over one side, and no comfort or assistance given to the other. The extension of agricultural and manufacturing knowledge was undoubtedly of the greatest importance as calculated gradually to extinguish the slave trade; but in the
  924
  mean time it must be recollected that the profits of selling men were far greater than the profits of selling cotton. So long, then, as men were allowed to be sold in the interior, the native chiefs, as was found on the west coast, would not only lend no encouragement to, but would prevent the development of the agriculture of the country, and of the little manufacturing knowledge already possessed by the natives, for they to a certain extent span some of the cotton which they grew. Until the Portuguese honestly and fairly performed the obligations they undertook in respect to the slave trade, so long would the development of the resources of the country be checked. However, it was not merely of the Portuguese Government that complaint had to be made, for there was still more reason to complain of the Spanish Government, against which the case was strong and irresistible. From the papers laid before their Lordships, it would be found that in 1858, according to the statement of the Commissary Judge at the Havannah, fifty slave-traders had left Cuba in two months in that year for the coast of Africa. The average of slaves on board each of these fifty vessels was 600. The number varied from 450 to 1,000, but taking the average at 600, it would appear that in the course of two months vessels were despatched to Africa for the frightful amount of 30,000 slaves. He did not mean to multiply that number by six, and to state that the result would represent the amount of slaves for whom vessels were despatched in the course of the year, for he knew that no such calculation could be made; but it appeared plain that in the course of two months 30,000 slaves were shipped from the coast of Africa. It was stated by Commodore Wise that the slave trade was taking a frightful extension on the coast of Africa; that new and formidable combinations of capitalists and joint-stock companies, called expeditions to Africa, were formed, and so openly, that on the Havannah Exchange the shares of these joint-stock slave trade companies were openly advertised, and the price was 1,000 dollars a share. Thus this infernal traffic was reduced to a system. The way in which it was carried on appeared to be this:—A vessel cleared out from the United States with a crew of naturalized Americans, who, being really foreigners, were not subject to the American law declaring the slave trade piracy. These men aped the manners of the Americans as well as spoke their language, so

  925
  that the commander of an American cruiser was deceived by them, and could not discover that they were foreigners; but when the same commander visited the vessel for the purpose of stopping it, then, of course, the crew suddenly became foreigners. They then proceeded to the Havannah, got a fresh set of papers there, the market price of which was £5 or £6, and after obtaining all the requisite fittings up of a slave trader, steered to the coast of Africa. The extent to which the exportation of slaves from Africa was carried was atrocious. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in making a statement on the subject, that 35,000 to 40,000 were imported into Cuba yearly, gave vent to his feelings, and his predecessor in the Foreign Office, in a despatch to the British Minister at Madrid, Mr. Buchanan, observed that if Spain honestly performed her treaty engagements, the traffic in human beings would cease, and that the flagrant violation by the Spanish authorities of the engagements contracted with this country must tend seriously to impair those friendly relations which it was so desirable should be maintained. How it was said, could Spain put a stop to the slave trade? He would answer that question by putting another. How could Brazil put a stop to the slave trade? The Spanish Government had as much power over the authorities of Cuba as the Brazil Government had over its own authorities, and Brazil, to her infinite honour, had completely abolished the slave trade. The number of condemnations in the Vice-Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone before 1851 was sixty. Since 1851, when Brazil abolished the slave trade, the number came down to twelve, and at last to three. In short, as far as captures and condemnations on the coast were a test, the Brazil traffic had ceased. The Brazilian Government and people had showed great kindness and consideration for the negro race, and he thought their example might well be imitated in other parts, particularly in the North. In Brazil a man, be he of ever so sable a colour, provided he was emancipated, was capable of enjoying any public trust, and was in all respects, and in legal relations also, on the same footing as a white man. When he mentioned this, he wished he could read to their Lordships a letter which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had lately received from a negro gentleman in Liberia. The gentleman's name was Edward Bryden, and the Consul of Liberia
  926
  informed him that his respectability was undeniable. He was engaged in the honourable office of teaching, and his quotations from Latin and Greek showed that he had, as he represented, devoted himself to the study of the ancient as well as the modern languages. It was to be hoped that his right hon. Friend would be prevailed upon to give that letter to the public, and it would then be admitted that a better composed or better reasoned letter was never written. It was addressed to his right hon. Friend as a testimony from the author of the respect which he felt for those qualities for which his right hon. Friend was so distinguished, for his eloquence, for his statesmanship, and for his great classical attainments. He concurred in every word of eulogy addressed to his esteemed Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had no doubt that in common candour every one who read the letter would feel as he felt as to the ability of the writer, and the justice of his tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's great merits. This was not the only instance. A negro gentleman, who had been educated in this country, at Cambridge, was a distinguished public speaker; and another negro gentleman who came from Cambridge, in the United States, was equally distinguished for the same quality. He had also had the pleasure of receiving a letter from a mulatto gentleman in the island of Barbadoes, which did him great credit for the composition as well as the sentiments which it contained, and that gentleman was in this country, making his way to be called to the bar. When he saw the great prejudices which prevailed in some parts of the world upon a matter of colour—he particularly alluded to the United States of America—he was put in mind of an anecdote which his Friend Lord Lyndhurst as well as himself could mention. There was a Louisianian gentleman of great ability, who was the envoy of the United States, first in the south of Europe, and afterwards at the Hague. In consequence of an acquaintance made abroad, he met Lord Lyndhurst at his (Lord Brougham's) house, and he told them that he had made a tour in Cuba, and having become acquainted with a negro country gentleman, who lived in a magnificent house, was entertained sumptuously for three days. He said to his host, "I am very much obliged to you for the hospitality which I have received, and I thank you for it." The negro Cuban gentlemen replied, "I am a person above

  927
  all prejudices. When I find a man like you—well educated, well bred, and well principled—I hold out the right hand of fellowship to him, if he be ns white as that table cloth." He hoped and trusted that their friends in the United States would some day adopt the same liberal opinions as this negro country gentleman, and that they would hold out the right hand of fellowship to every well educated, well principled, and well bred man, if as black as the hats on their heads. He knew that some time would elapse before that happened, but he lived in hopes that a gradual improvement would take place. We might fear they were far from it when we read the astounding decision of the Supreme Court, in the United States, in the case of "Scott v. Sanford," commonly called the Dred Scott case. If he had not read the report with his own eyes he could not have believed it. It had actually been laid down as law, that what was called the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional, and not to be attended to, consequently that the province of Illinois was not to be considered a free state, notwithstanding that compromise. It was also broadly asserted that no African, having once been a slave, or his descendants, however remote, could have the privileges and rights of a native citizen. Their Lordships would hardly believe it unless he read the words of the decision, which he did, from the able Work of Mr. Edge, entitled "Slavery Doomed." The Chief Justice, giving the opinion of the Court, laid it down—
  "That neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were acknowledged as part of the people; that they had for centuries been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and were altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; that so far inferior were they, that they had no rights which a white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for the white man's benefit."
  It was on this doctrine, so execrable as to be almost incredible, that some of the States had last year come to a resolution that persons of colour should cither be reduced to slavery or driven from their homes. It was in vain to expect any very active cooperation from the United States in the abolition of the slave trade, while they entertained such prejudices. Something they had done. They had made a few captures, but they were very few indeed. They had declared the slave trade to be a
  928
  capital offence, and if they would really carry the law into effect, all those fraudulent representations as to naturalization, by which offenders generally escaped, would vanish. Let them only bring the captain or some of the crew on board of any of the slavers to trial, and they would very soon discover by previous investigation, that the whole system of fraud was of no avail to them, and that they were in reality American subjects. He by no means desired to see capital punishment resorted to; but one or two sentences, dealing with the prisoners according to the terms of the municipal law, and inflicting the severest punishment short of death, would at once put an end to all frauds. A correspondent had sent him some information as to the slave trade in Cuba. The thing which chiefly attracted his attention, and filled him with horror in that traffic, was the determination of the Cuban planters not to continue the race by breeding, but, for the sake of economy, to work them out. Accordingly, they brought few or no women from Africa. Another thing which struck him very much in the letters he had received, was, that vessels of great value were thrown away, as if of little consequence, after the slaves were disembarked. Owing to the immense profits of the trade, they could afford to lose a ship if they had landed the human cargo. It was calculated that the profits of this detestable traffic amounted to £1,400 per cent on the capital invested. If anything were wanting to increase their horror of such a trade, it would be such an account as he had recently seen reported. A slaver was run ashore in stormy weather to avoid our cruisers. The crew quitted the ship, and when the captain of one of our vessels went on board of it, the sight that met his eyes was, he declared, fearful and heartrending in the extreme. The slaves, escaping from the noisome abode in which they had been confined, rent the air with horrid yells, and flung themselves by hundreds into the sea, so that it was with the utmost difficulty that out of the 1,200 who formed the cargo, 340 or 350 were saved, and of these, forty died in the course of twenty-four hours from the hardships they had suffered. So that 900 miserable beings out of 1,200 were thus sacrificed to this infernal traffic. He remembered only one case worse than that which he had just cited, and that happened upon the East Coast. A vessel full of slaves was chased, and on the point of being taken. The atrocious miscreant

  929
  who was captain, and his crew got into their boats and left the vessel, after having first set fire to it, with the intention of destroying the poor wretches who were at once the witnesses and victims of their crime. It was a subject of poignant regret that the attempts which had been made to put down the slave trade among our allies, the Portuguese and the Spaniards, should have proved so entirely unsuccessful in alleviating the miseries of the slaves. Atrocities, it was to be feared, were now committed in consequence of the attempts to stop the traffic that exceeded even the horrors of the middle passage. If we had forfeited much of the influence which we might have employed for the suppression of the slave trade, there was at least one influence which it was in our power to exert in regard to the Spaniards. They were entitled by treaty to have their wines and other goods admitted to our country on the footing of the most favoured nations; but they were also bound to abolish the slave trade, and we might very properly refuse them the benefit of the treaty if they did not fulfil their engagement as to the slave trade.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDconfessed that he had heard with very great disappointment the announcement made by his noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that it was not considered fitting at present to appoint a Consul at Mozambique. The grounds which he assigned for that decision did not carry conviction to his mind. His noble Friend dwelt principally on the circumstance that at this moment Dr. Livingstone, in the neighbouring quarter of South Africa, was endeavouring by opening up a legitimate commerce to produce the same effect which the residence of a Consul at Mozambique was expected to accomplish. No man felt more than he did the great importance of Dr. Livingstone's efforts, and the singular capacity of the man for bringing them to the most successful issue. But he was convinced, from his own study of the question, that unless Dr. Livingstone's efforts in the interior and up the rivers of that part of Africa were backed by the Consular influence of England at the port of Mozambique, they would practically be almost neutralized. Until Dr. Livingstone had discovered the southern branch of the mouths of the Zambesi, the Portuguese Government had kept us in ignorance that there was a free passage that way, and had sent the whole flow of the slave trade through that channel, and the immediate result of
  930
  that discovery had been the establishment of a Portuguese Custom-house, as if to impede the flow of legitimate traffic in that direction. It was as plain as possible that the representatives of the Portuguese nation in that quarter desired nothing so ardently as to prevent the rise of any legitimate commerce, knowing that free commerce and the slave trade could not co-exist. Therefore, unless there was an authorized representative of the British Government at that critical point, Mozambique, there was no doubt whatever that the Portuguese would be able to defeat our efforts for the abolition of the traffic. His noble Friend said it should be taken into account that the Portuguese Government had, comparatively speaking, little power to check the efforts of the native chiefs to carry on the slave trade, and that therefore it must not be assumed, from the extent of the trade, that the Portuguese Government were really not anxious to put it down. He feared, on the other hand, there was too much reason to believe that it was the direct influence of the emissaries of Portugal that led the native chiefs to maintain the slave trade. They had refused to do so until officers in the Portuguese uniform went up with the slave dealers. The whole settlement of Mozambique was made ancillary to the slave trade. The line of coast was provided with signals, which were said to be sometimes repeated by the fort of Mozambique itself, giving warning of the approach of the English vessels that were cruising to capture the slavers. There was no doubt the rise of a legitimate trade would be more productive than the unlawful trade, but a strong temptation presented itself to uneducated and unprincipled men of getting large and immediate profits upon the export of slaves; which temptation was further strengthened by the great facilities and encouragement given by the agents of the Portuguese Government to the traffic. It might be that the Portuguese Government at home were kept in the dark; because the only inducement that he could see for continuing the pre sent system was that it enabled that Government to give miserable salaries to their representatives, who made it up by winking at the slave trade. If, however, a representative of the British nation were stationed at Mozambique, these enormities would be exposed in the face of Europe. The Portuguese Government would then send men of higher honour to this coast,

  931
  and the moment this was done the efforts of the slave traders would be paralysed. If this were done along with the opening of a legitimate traffic through Dr. Livingstone's efforts, the two might, by God's blessing, deliver that part of Africa from the curse of the slave trade. We wore now like a man who, in putting out a fire, was content to tread out one patch of flame, which was instantly rekindled from another quarter. The Government were asked for no expensive armaments—for no alteration of policy, for nothing that would endanger our alliances; but on that coast, and for an object for which Great Britain was spending such large sums and lavishing so many lives, Her Majesty's Government were asked to place a consular representative, who might bring to bear upon Portugal these claims of humanity which Portugal had acknowledged in treaties, but which she suffered her governors to set aside. He believed that the material interests of Portugal itself were deeply at stake in this evil being remedied. What had ruined Mozambique itself? Why had there not been poured into Portugal from her African settlement riches far greater than she had obtained from Brazil? Because the slave trade wasted the resources of the country. It was, therefore, as much the interest of Portugal as of any other Power to put a stop to the present system. The English people had incurred a vast and peculiar responsibility in having mainly enabled the Portugues to keep their almost nominal hold of that coast through the assistance which this country had given them. But for that there would have been revolt against the Portuguese Government; the power now in the hands of the Imaum of Muscat would have spread down the coast; and it would have been a blessing to the natives that a Mahomedan Potentate should be their ruler rather than a Christian Prince. He trusted that the resolution of the Government, as announced by the noble Lord (Lord Wodehouse) would not be final; that it would be reconsidered; and that so great a boon to humanity and justice would not be refused in this critical day of the attempt to ameliorate the condition of the African.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETfeared that the eloquent speeches which their Lordships had heard would unfortunately have very little effect in those quarters where only they could be of use; and if treaties and negotiations could have put an end to the slave trade it would have ceased long
  932
  ago. He wished to set the House and the public right on one point that had been much dwelt upon. The right rev. Prelate had attached an exaggerated value to the appointment of a Consul at Mozambique, and had spoken as though that were the only great thing required to put an end to slavery on one side of Africa. But that was an entirely mistaken view. He had seen reports from many officers, and had conversed with others who had arrrived both from the East and West Coast of Africa. He regretted to say they agreed that the slave trade had been increasing on both the coasts of Africa. As long as our cruisers were not able to visit vessels that carried all the appurtenances of the slave trade, because they carried the flag of some Power that claimed exemption from the right of search, the vigilance of our squadron was frustrated. When the American flag was hoisted our cruisers could not touch a vessel and the captain defied them. As long as this went on was not the right rev. Prelate deceiving their Lordships and the public by saying that what was wanted was a British Consul at Mozambique? The cast coast of Africa was becoming almost as bad as the west, and the slave trade was almost as rife there as it once was at Sierra Leone. Emigration and other questions of a somewhat delicate character had arisen, and if he went into them he could show the House that the slave trade was in various shapes as rife as ever. The only effectual way of stopping it was at Cuba. Until that was done French and American flags would be hoisted, and our cruisers would be set at defiance. He did not say that these vessels were French or American, but they were nominally so. In many cases they obtained the rights of American citizens in order to carry on their horrible traffic. With these facts established it was idle to attach so much importance to the establishment of a Consul at Mozambique. He did not say that hereafter a Consul might not he appointed on that coast, but the best hope he entertained was from the cooperation of the Americans. They had lately sent out steamers to this coast, and an earnest desire had been expressed on the part of the American Government to co-operate with our cruisers on the west coast, and to deal with the false American vessels that assumed the American flag. If the officers cordially carried out this desire great advantages would result.
  LORD BROUGHAMwished to call at-

  933
  tention to a circumstance which had recently occurred, that the captain of a Cunard steamer—a line of mail packets that had, from first to last, received something like £500,000 of the public money—had positively refused to receive any first-class passenger who had the slightest tinge of African blood. A lady in whoso face he (Lord Brougham) could detect no trace of African lineage was lately refused a first-class cabin by the captain on the ground he had stated.
  EARL GRANVILLEtrusted that his noble Friend (Lord Stratheden) would be induced to withdraw his Motion after the explanation that had been given by his noble Friend (Lord Wodehouse). The question was one which might be left to the discretion of the Executive Government, especially with reference to the time at which a Consul should be appointed. He was unwilling to negative in express terms the Motion of the noble Lord, as it might give an erroneous impression that there existed lukewarmness on the part of the Government with reference to the suppression of the slave trade. No one, he was sure, could doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister or the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in their desire to put clown that traffic; and he hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would consent to withdraw his Motion.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he hoped his noble Friend would not assent to the proposal of the noble Earl. The utmost which that House could do was to express its opinion on the question, and if they did so, the country would take it as an expression of the opinion of their Lordships that the appointment of a Consul to Mozambique was a step that should be taken at once. He did think that the evils of introducing subjects of this importance without adequate results were very much aggravated by their being withdrawn without a division. He, therefore, trusted that the noble Lord would press his Motion.
  LORD STRATHEDENsaid, no Member of the Government had employed language which could lead him to hope that the appointment of a Consul to Mozambique was contemplated as a step likely to be soon taken, and no attempt had been made to show that the slave trade could be checked on that coast till a Consul was appointed. He protested against the version which the noble Lord the Under Secretary had given of his (Lord Stratheden's) opinion, when he endeavoured to treat this as a question
  934
  of the merit or demerit of our former Consul at Mozambique. He had never raised that question. There was not one remark of the noble Lord which did not point to the dispersion of our naval squadron, and the withdrawal of our Consular Establishment on the African coast, and he could not help expressing his astonishment at the language which had fallen from the noble Lord. He felt that he had no course left to him but to divide the House.
  On Question their Lordships divided:—Contents 11; Not-Contents 6: Majority 5.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Minto, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Cashel, &c., Bp.

  Dunfermline, L.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Stratheden, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  De Grey, E. [Teller.]

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Granville, E.

  Wodehouse, L.

  House adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.