Sitting of 24 May 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° County Rates and Expenditure; Smithfield Markets, Streets, and Improvements.
2° Sir John Barnard's Act, &c, Repeal; Locomotive; Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment.

INDIAN TARIFF.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the Report be correct that the Tariff value of Cotton Goods on importation into India has been raised from £100 to about £150; and whether the previous Duty of five per cent on £100 is to be raised to 10 per cent on £150, thereby fixing a Duty of 15 per cent in place of 5 per cent; and, secondly, if the Report be correct to ask if this excessive scale of Duties will be sanctioned by the Council of India?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could not take upon himself to answer exactly the questions of his hon. Friend, as he had not himself received any account of the tariff arrangements which had been entered into. He was not, therefore, prepared to say what would be the effect of the changes made on the various descriptions of goods; but he might state generally what had been the course proposed by Mr. Wilson. It appeared that Mr. Wilson had found that there were different rates charged on the admission of manufactured goods into Calcutta, some being charged 5, some 10, and some as high' as 20 per cent, and he had thought it right to fix the whole at a uniform rate of 10 per cent, the effect of which would be to lower the rate of duty on some goods and raise it on others. But he (Sir Charles Wood) understood the question of his hon. Friend to refer not so much to the rate of duty as to the valuation, which was in some cases found to be too low and had been raised. He had had the honour to receive a deputation of manufacturers on this subject, who complained a good deal of the effect of the rate of duty as not sufficiently approximating to an ad valorem rate. His hon. Friend was of course aware that there existed a long standing controversy as to the comparative merits of fixed rates and ad valorem duties. It had been represented to him that there was considerable hardship in the proposed arrangements, and the manufacturers whom he saw had sent him samples of goods, ac* companied with a statement showing the inequality of the proposed duties. These samples, with the explanations, had been sent to Calcutta by the first mail which left after they had been received at the India House, with directions that the Indian Government should take such measures as would make the rates bear as fairly as possible on all descriptions of goods, and no doubt that injunction would be complied

1653
with. Indeed, they knew by a telegraphic message that the question was at that time under the consideration of the Government there.

TAX BILLS.—THE PAPER DUTY BILL.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to ask the permission of the House to propose the Motion of which I have given notice, as to the appointment of a Committee to search the Lords' Journals. I understand that the usual course is to move for such a Committee even without notice. If the House has no objection, I will move now that a Committee be appointed to search the Lords' Journals with the view of ascertaining what was done by the Lords with reference to the Bill sent up to them for the repeal of the Excise Duties on Paper made in the United Kingdom.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed,
"To inspect the Journals of the House of Lords with relation to any proceedings upon the Bill to repeal the Duty of Excise on Paper made in the United Kingdom, and to make a Report thereof to the House."—Viscount PALMERSTON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir GEORGE GREY, the Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. BYNG, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. CLIVE, Mr. LAING, and Mr. BRAND.—To withdraw immediately.—Three to be the quorum.

SLAVE TRADE PAPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there would be any objection to the Slave Trade Papers of each year being published at an early period of the year following?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the papers were not received by the Government in sufficient time to enable them to produce them at the commencement of the Session. But there would be no objection to have the information made up to the middle of each year, and laid before the House when Parliament met at the beginning of the following year.

SICILY.—NEAPOLITAN REFUGEES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, on or about the 11th of April last, a fugitive from the Neapolitan troops at Palermo, the Cavaliere Luigi Villarosa, applied for refuge to one of the English Ships of War anchored in the harbour, that he was repulsed by the Captain, al-
  1654
  leging that his instructions only allowed him to extend his protection to British subjects, and that he was received and protected on board a Russian vessel; and, if so, whether such transaction was previous to the date of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs' late Instruction to the Admiralty, and whether the officer in question is now informed of the directions of the Government on the subject?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, no such information as the hon. Member referred to had been received at the Foreign Office, and be had made inquiry at the Admiralty and found that no such information had been received there.

  SAVINGS BANKS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN O'CONNELLsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the protection of depositors in Savings Banks this Session; and, if he is aware that there is a sum of money in the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the Trustees of the late Tralee Savings Bank; and, if so, whether they would take steps to have this money paid to the depositors?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was no doubt desirable that some legislation should take place for the more effective protection of deposits in the Savings Banks and the interest of depositors, but the state of the public business forbade the Government from entertaining any hopes that it could be passed during the present Session, and therefore they should abstain from introducing it. With regard to the second part of the question, he was quite aware that a sum of money was in the hands of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and credit was given to the Trustees. That sum was in the National Debt Office, and could only be withdrawn legally by the Trustees. The Government had no control over that money and no power of acting, while on the other hand the Trustees had shown no willingness to act. He suggested that an application should be made to them on the subject.

TAX BILLS.—THE PAPER DUTY BILL.

  REPORT.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbrought up the Report of the Committee appointed

  1655
  to inspect the Journals of the House of Lords with relation to the proceedings on the Paper Duty Repeal Bill. The Report was as follows:—The Committee appointed to inspect the Journals of the House of Lords with relation to any proceedings on the Paper Duty Repeal Bill, have inspected the said Journals accordingly, and found the following entry:—
  "Die Luna, 21 Maii, 1807. Paper Duty Repeal Bill. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, and for the Lords to be summoned, read, moved that the Bill be now read a second time. Objected to, and an Amendment moved to leave out the word 'now,' and insert the words 'this day six months.' After a long debate on the question that the word 'now' stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative, Bill to be read a second time that day six months."
  Report to lie upon the table.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I beg to give notice that to-morrow I shall move for the appointment of a Committee to search for precedents with regard to the practice of the House on such questions.

REFRESHMENT-HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL.—CONSIDERATION.
On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, it was—
Ordered,
"That the first fifteen Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Order of the Day for the Consideration of the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill, as amended in the Committee."
Bill as amended, considered.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would move the insertion of a clause, of which he had given notice, the object of which was to place parties applying for wine licences under the same obligation with regard to notice as was at present incumbent upon public-house and beerhouse-keepers.
Clause agreed to.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he rose to move,
"That, from and after the passing of this Act, section seven of the statute of the fifth and sixth years of William the Fourth, chapter thirty-nine, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
Great inconvenience had arisen from the operation of the Act in question. Many theatres were carried on more as ginshops than places of public amusement. The magistrates had no power over those places, and the announcement that drinks were to be obtained appeared in the playbills in
1656
characters as large as the names of any of the actors. A theatre, of course, was not established for the purpose of selling liquor, but of ministering to the entertainment and improvement of the people.
Clause brought up, and read 1°; Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would admit that the law was at present in a very unsatisfactory state. Last year the provision of the Act of Parliament was suspended by a Treasury Minute, which was issued a short time after the passing of the Act. Afterwards the Minute was withdrawn, in his opinion on sufficient grounds, and the provision of the Act put in force. It was certainly desirable that legislation should take place on this subject. Some licence ought to be granted by the magistrates to theatres, or power should ^be given to the Lord Chamberlain to regulate the sale of liquors in such places. It was contrary to the practice in all countries but our own that spirits and wines should be consumed in theatres. He entertained a doubt, however, whether this question was at all germane to the Bill under consideration, and whether the introduction of such miscellaneous subjects might not be apt to create a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. He would, therefore, suggest that his hon. and learned Friend should bring in a separate Bill to dispose of this question, and he would undertake, if he did so, to give him the best support he could, provided he concurred in the general provisions of the measure.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTre-marked, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed the clause had this excuse, that it had as much connection with the present measure as the provision it was intended to amend had with the Act in which it was inserted. As the right hon. Baronet, however, had promised that a separate measure, on the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would receive the support of the Government, he would recommend the withdrawal of the clause.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not withdraw the clause. If the somewhat prophetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman should be realized, the clauses introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were much more likely to induce a dif-

1657
ference of opinion between the two Houses. This Bill, under the pretence of being a wine-licensing Bill, repealed the law, and laid down a totally different system of magisterial interference, and was, in fact, a species of compendium of the licensing system.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, what his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid down was, that the clause was worthy of favourable consideration; and, in order that it might have such consideration, he proposed to give the hon. and learned Member an opportunity of obtaining it. That was the position in which they stood, but if the clause were pressed they should deem it their duty to meet it with a negative.
MR. SPOONERsaid, under the law, as it now stood, there was no limit to the consumption of spirits in theatres, or to the days and hours on which they were sold. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of a private Member, would bring in a Bill himself.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsuggested that as they were all agreed that something ought to be done, and as it would be very difficult for a private Member to pass such a Bill through in the present Session, it would be very desirable that the Home Secretary should himself introduce a Bill on the subject.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was, with the consent of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, quite willing to introduce a Bill to effect the desired object.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, on that understanding, he would consent to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause withdrawn.
Another Clause (Fee to be paid on application for a Licence to sell Wine to be consumed in a Refreshment House), brought up, and read 1°; 2°, and committed; considered in Committee.
[No Report.]
Another Clause (As to costs of proceedings), brought up, and read 1°
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to move the insertion of a clause prohibiting persons who took out licences under the Bill from selling wine to children under sixteen
1658
years of age. It was not the first time that the question had been brought before the House. The Commissioners of Police were so convinced of the evils which arose from inducements to intoxication being held out to children that a clause in its wording, similar to that which he now proposed, had been introduced into the Metropolitan Police Act. At that time, however, the sale of spirits was the only thing which was contemplated, whereas the wine containing 40 per cent of spirits which was now spoken of would be fully as intoxicating in its effects as the diluted gin sold in public-houses. The desire of filling the coffers of the Government should not be suffered to operate as a motive for inducing young persons to drink wine, and he believed that the cause of morality and sobriety would be promoted by the course which he had suggested. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of the following clause:—
"Every person licensed to deal in Wines who shall knowingly supply wine to any boy or girl apparently under the age of sixteen years, to be drunk upon the premises, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 20 s.; and upon conviction of a second offence shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 40 s.; and upon conviction of a third offence shall be liable to a penalty of not more than £5."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the only objection he felt with regard to the clause was as to the difficulty of carrying it into effective operation. But as a similar clause was contained in the Metropolitan Police Act he should not object to its introduction into the Bill.
Clause brought up and read 1° and 2°.
House in Committee.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to point out that the clause of the Metropolitan Police Act was not co-extensive with that proposed by the hon. Member, inasmuch as its operation was confined to the Metropolis. In boroughs throughout the country the sale of spirits was regulated by municipal bye-laws, which could equally be applied to wine and sold under the new system.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not think it fair to the municipal towns that they should be called on to revise their bye-laws because a new Act had been passed by the Legislature, In manufacturing localities there was quite as great a necessity as in the Metropolis to impose restraints on young girls and boys. They began to earn wages at a very early age, and there was reason to fear that the money was dis-

1659
sipated in the worst practices. There was no necessity for increasing the facilities they at present enjoyed, and he therefore could not consent to the proposed limitation.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know with what operation the Act would be attended in the case of children going with their parents into a refreshment shop; or if the hon. Member for Greenwich, for instance, entered a confectioner's with a young lady of sixteen who wished to have a glass of wine. Was it intended that under no circumstances a person under age should obtain a glass of wine?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there were reasons why spirits ought not to be sold in the Metropolis to a child to be consumed on the premises, but it was quite a different question whether the rule ought to be made general throughout the country and applied likewise in the case of wines. It would certainly seem hard to punish a shopkeeper for selling wine to a child, even though it might be accompanied by its father. The effect of the clause, if carried, would be that, where no bye-laws to the contrary existed it would not be penal to sell spirits to a child under sixteen, although it would be illegal to sell it a glass of wine.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was clear the operation of the clause must be confined to the Metropolis; otherwise, in the country a child going into a public-house to get a glass of wine would be refused by the owner on the ground that by supplying it he would become punishable, but he would add, "I can sell you something that will answer your purpose better," and would then sell a glass of gin.
MR. AYRTONsaid, his only concern lay with the Metropolis, and if the representatives of the country did not desire the benefits derivable from his clause he would not press that portion of it upon the House.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that adhering to the statements which he had previously made, he believed the clause was superfluous, as there was already a provision to the same effect in the Metropolitan Police Act, and that the Bill would be much better without it.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, as in his opinion it would be entirely inoperative.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he was unable to distinguish the difference in prin-
1660
ciple between Liverpool and the Metropolis. Legislation, he thought, would be looked on as ridiculous which would prevent a father who might bring a fine boy of fifteen up to town from giving him a glass of wine with his sandwich.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that on the part of the Metropolis, he must disclaim the advantage which the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was anxious to secure for it. The clause referred in no way to the presence of parents or guardians, but made it penal under all circumstances to sell wine to a child under sixteen years of age. If his hon. Friend therefore went to a division he should feel compelled to vote against him.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he must deny all intention of preventing parents who might think proper to do so from obtaining suitable refreshment for their children. The cases which had been supposed would not arise upon the construction of the clause.
SIR ROBERT BOOTH SIR ROBERT BOOTH moved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
Motion agreed to. House resumed.
[No Report.]
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would then move the insertion of the following clause: —
"That it shall be lawful for the owners and ratepayers of any place which, by the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1858, is entitled to adopt that Act, and for the owners and ratepayers of each parish within the Metropolis, as defined by that Act, to determine, in the manner prescribed by the said Act, that the provisions of this Act shall not be adopted within the limits of such place or parish; and thereupon no Licence shall be granted under this Act for or in respect of any house, shop, or premises within the limits of such place or parish."
The object of the clause was to enable the owners of property and the inhabitants of any district to prevent the opening of wine-shops in certain cases. If the Bill were so good as was described the inhabitants of no district would take steps to repress it, but, on the other hand, he thought that they should not he compelled to take any action for its acceptance.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Local Government Act of 1858 was quite different in its object from that which the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. The object of the Act was to introduce certain local regulations of a municipal character, and was not intended to interfere with the general laws of the country. It could not, therefore, be applied in such a case as the present.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that however nicely it might be concealed, the Amendment was neither more nor loss than an attempt to impose the Maine Liquor Law without the authority of Parliament. Such a course would be against all public policy, and he could not suppose that his hon. Friend was serious in proposing the clause.
MR. NEWDEGATEconfessed that he sympathised with the views of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets as set forth in the clause. Without some such provision the inhabitants of a district who were opposed to the introduction of those houses would be left wholly without a remedy against what they considered to be a great evil. If the hon. Member pressed his clause he should certainly support him.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would not press the clause. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was certainly not prepared to assent to the introduction of the Maine Liquor Law into this country, particularly in regard to wine-houses, when the houses of licensed victuallers were allowed to go free.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would then propose a further clause:—
"That no Licence to be granted under this Act shall be deemed or taken to confer any right or beneficial interest whatever in any person, so as to interfere with any restrictions being hereafter imposed by Parliament on the sale of Wine."
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
Clause 36.
MR. HOWES MR. HOWES moved the addition of words empowering justices and magistrates to order the payment of fees, allowances, and expenses; to be recovered according to the provisions of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 43.
Amendment, after short discussion, agreed to.
Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

CIVIL SERVICES.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. LAING, in moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, said it might be convenient that he should explain the difficulty which had led the Government to ask for a Vote on account
1662
for Civil Services, and the extent to which they intended to ask the House to vote money on account. The House was aware that the system of keeping the accounts for the Civil Services was essentially different from that of the army and navy. In the case of the army and navy, where there were only a few large Votes, the Votes were taken for the service of the current financial year and if at the end of the year; there was a balance in hand it must be handed over to the Exchequer, but if there was a deficiency it must be met by a further Vote within the year, power being vested in the Treasury to transfer a surplus from one account to meet a deficiency in another. In the case of the Civil Services, where the Votes were much more numerous and of a more miscellaneous character, that system had never been adopted. In fact, where the Votes extended, as they did last year, to so large a number as 197, it was impossible to adopt such a system, especially as the House never found it perfectly practicable to pass the Votes for Civil Services previous to the close of the financial year, on the 31st of March. Those services had been conducted by having a balance in the case of each particular Vote, for as respected them no power was vested in the Treasury, similar to that which obtained with regard to the naval and military services, of transferring a surplus from one account to make good a deficiency in another; therefore in the case of the Civil Services, when there was a deficiency in any Vote in consequence of circumstances that increased the expenditure after the Vote was taken, recourse must be had to the House for a supplemental Vote, although there might be a surplus in hand on some other Vote, which, however, could not be transferred to meet that particular deficiency. The present was not an exceptional or isolated case. It would have occurred about this time last year if the Votes had not been obtained at an earlier period. The course practically had been to have recourse, when occasion required, to the Vote for civil contingencies; but that Vote had been limited to £100,000, and was not sufficient to meet the deficiency that frequently occurred in carrying out the numerous objects involved in the miscellaneous service. The necessity had arisen during the last five or six years of obtaining either a large sum of money on account, or of taking up and considering the various Votes at an early period of the Session. Last

1663
year the difficulty which then arose from the dissolution was got over by a sum of £1,854,000 being taken in March. In the previous year a sum of £1,952,000 was taken in April; in May, 1857, when the dissolution occurred, there was taken a sum of £1,500,000 on account; in 1856 and 1855, the large sums of £5,194,000 and £4,867,000 were taken also on account. This year it was known to the House that, owing to the state of public business, no money had yet, though they were near the end of May, been obtained for the Civil Service. The consequence was, that the balances of many of these Votes had become exhausted, while in others they were nearly approaching to a state of exhaustion. It became necessary, therefore, either to obtain a Vote on account, or to do that which was objectionable —overdraw particular accounts, and thus intrench on the provisions of the Appropriation Act. He had asked the heads of departments to go carefully over the various Votes, and to ascertain the outside amount that would be required to prevent the overdrawing of accounts, supposing the Session to be protracted to an unusually late period, and the Estimates not voted by the House of Commons till a very late period, as was the case last year. The result of their calculations went to show that a sum of £1,468,000 was required to prevent that course being taken on the supposition that the regular Votes were not passed till the month of August. There were several precedents for taking a large Vote on account in the way now proposed. Some of them he had already mentioned. In 1848, when the Committee on the Estimates was sitting, a Vote was taken on account, as it was not thought desirable to go on with the Estimates till that Committee reported. A similar Committee was now sitting, and therefore what was done in 1848 might so far be taken as a precedent; but the strongest authority for the course now proposed was to be found in the Report of the Committee on public moneys, which recommended that in difficulties similar to the present, a sum should be taken on account for such services as had been sanctioned by Parliament in a previous Session. When a sum was taken under that limitation the control of Parliament was to a great extent preserved, because, one the one hand, no new service would he begun under such a Vote, and on the other hand the Vote for the old services would never be more than was necessary to carry
1664
them on for the current quarter. In the Estimate now submitted to the House this principle was strictly acted upon. No Vote for any new service was introduced, and no more was asked than was required to carry on the service for the current quarter. The Government felt that there were considerations in the State of the public business this year which might render the present an expedient time to moot the larger question whether this system should be introduced as a general rule in future. They therefore limited the Vote to such a sum as was absolutely necessary to carry on the public service till after the Whitsun holidays. The Estimate had accordingly been accurately revised with that view, and all that the Government asked from the House was a sum of £400,000, which would be distributed over ten votes. These Votes were, on account of printing and stationery, £30,000; County Courts, £35,000; Irish constabulary, £82,000; Education in Great Britain, £100,000; consuls abroad, £54,000; prisons, &c, £20,000; sundry temporary commissions, £12,000; slave trade, £ 12,000; civil contingencies, £54,000; Dublin police, £7,000. On a close investigation of the accounts this amount was found to be indispensable in order to prevent the confusion that would arise from overdrawing the accounts during the holidays. He trusted there would be no objection to the House going into Committee of Supply.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he very much regretted the Government proposed to take that Vote, as he greatly objected to the system of taking money on account. Complaints had been made in former Sessions that the Estimates were delayed; yet notwithstanding all that had been said as to the propriety of laying the Estimates on the table at an early period of the Session every Government that was in power adhered to the practice of bringing them in late in the Session, so late that it was impossible to give them the attention which they deserved. Her Majesty's Government should recollect that the Estimates were not to be considered as a reason for voting the money required as a matter of course. He should feel it to be his duty to oppose the Motion for going into Committee, and he should take the sense of the House on the subject.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he agreed that the Government were taking a most objectionable course, for when a sum was once taken on account any discussion upon

1665
the Vote afterwards was useless. That I was quite a new practice, which had only obtained within the last three or four years. A few nights ago the Government obtained a large sum on account for the Army Estimates, and now they asked for another sum on account for the Civil Service Estimates. He thought that as the Government knew at the commencement of the Session what the requirements of the service were, they ought to be prepared to bring forward the Estimates at a period sufficiently early to prevent any such contingency arising as the present. He should support the hon. Gentleman in opposing so objectionable a course as that proposed, although it would, perhaps, be better to do so in Committee. The House ought certainly to express its opinion in respect to so objectionable a practice.
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I trust that the House will feel it to be its duty to give a strong expression of its opinion on this subject; but whether that expression shall be made on your leaving the chair, or when we get into Committee and know the particular reasons for proposing these Votes on account, I am not able to say. I think we had better go into Committee, but I am alarmed at the grounds put forward by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury for going into Committee of Supply with the view of voting this money on account. This is an entirely new proceeding on the part of the Government. The reasons given by the hon. Gentleman appear to me to be insufficient. The only precedents are two. One of them was made with the knowledge of the House when a great hiatus was likely to occur in the proceedings of the House in consequence of a dissolution. The other occurred when the House determined to take upon itself to examine the Miscellaneous Estimates, and when, therefore, the Government could not with propriety proceed with these Estimates until that examination was over. But what is it we are now asked to do? By the notice of Motion in the Supplementary Estimate recently circulated, the House was led to suppose that the Government was about to ask for not £400,000, but £1,400,000 on account; and I observed particularly that, when the Secretary to the Treasury was pressing this on the consideration of the House, he made out a case, not for voting money on account to meet a particular exigency, but to meet the possibility of the House sitting till August, and not being able to go on with them. This is what
1666
alarms me in the novel proceeding of the Government. I think it better not to oppose your leaving the chair, because the Government may have more reasons to give in Committee for voting this money on account; but when we get into Committee, we ought to scrutinize with the greatest minuteness the claims for these Votes on account. The Estimates ought to be proceeded with earlier in the Session, or this House will forfeit a much greater privilege than it is supposed to be about to hazard in another matter, for it is by these Estimates and by going into Committee of Supply alone that this House has an opportunity, before it grants a shilling of the public money, of demanding explanations with reference to all matters where they may be required. Postpone the Estimates and take money on account, and you deprive this House of the opportunity of bringing under the notice of Parliament any grievance that may require its interposition.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) did not intend to support the Motion, which he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw, against the House going into Committee. It was most desirable that the Estimates should be proceeded with at an earlier period of the Session, and that it should not become the habit of the Government to ask for Votes on account. But the Secretary to the Treasury had limited the amount of the sums he proposed to take on account, and the House would run no risk in voting only what was essential for the public service. The present proposal was so reasonable that he hoped there would be no opposition to it, since the House did not pledge itself to vote the whole of the money of which it was now asked to vote a part.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had somewhat changed the position of this question. Since the Notice Paper had been presented the Government had determined to ask only for money on account of ten items, and for £400,000 instead of £1,400,000. But it was a question of principle, and the House ought to know the precise meaning of the alteration that had been made. If the intention was to ask for money on account merely to enable the Government to get over the Whitsuntide holidays, and if it were understood that after the recess the House were to be asked

1667
to consider the Civil Service Estimates, the proposal would be of a moderate character. But if these Votes were proposed merely to enable the Estimates to be postponed until late in the Session, it was not a question of £1,400,000 or of £400,000, but of principle and precedent. Although he should be most reluctant to throw difficulties in the way of the Government, they ought to understand on what principle this money was asked for. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had correctly stated that there were only three precedents for voting money on account—the dissolution in 1857, that of last year, and the appointment in 1848 of the Committee to revise the miscellaneous expenditure. Upon the last occasion the Votes were taken on account, in order to enable the House to deal with the Estimates after they got the Report of the Committee. There was, however, this difference, that it was not intended that the Committee which was appointed this year should express any opinion on the Estimates of the year. Their duty was to examine and report upon the Estimates only of the past year. The truth was that in all those three cases the ground on which the Votes were given on account was one, not of convenience, but of principle. When the House of Commons was about to be dissolved it would obviously be very improper for the House to proceed to vote all the details of the expenditure, and commit the country to their views. That was a duty which should be reserved for the now House of Commons which was to be elected. He understood, therefore, that the principle on which the Votes on account were taken in 1857 and 1859 was simply that, as the House was about to be dissolved, it was necessary that the settlement of the expenditure should be left to the following Parliament. Such was not the case at this moment. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury cited the authority of the Committee on Public Moneys for the course proposed; but the report of that Committee was by no means applicable to such a case. That Report recommended that the same principle should be adopted in voting and auditing grants for the civil service as for the army and navy. The grants for the latter services were voted in large sums to be expended during the year, as had been explained by the Secretary to the Treasury. It was suggested that the civil service Votes were taken so late in the year that to adopt the same course with regard to
1668
them as with the other Votes would have the effect of involving the Government in difficulties. The Committee, therefore, with reluctance, suggested that Votes should be taken on account, as the only way of getting out of the difficulty. Considerable hesitation was exhibited by the Committee in coming to that decision. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir G. C. Lewis) submitted a very able paper, which, to a great extent, formed the foundation of the Report, and in which he expressed some doubts as to the possibility of making any alteration in the mode of voting the Miscellaneous Estimates, because there was great difficulty in getting Parliament to pass all the Votes before the 1st of April. The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), stated his opinion that to vote money on account of the civil service, without specific appropriation, would be open to serious objection, and that to take part Votes for one quarter on each separate head would lead practically to a double discussion. But although, as he had said, that decision was come to with much hesitation, a certain object was to be gained by it. In the present case, however, they were asked to take the same course without attaining any object. In truth, on looking at the circumstances of the case, and considering the course which was proposed, it would be seen that by adopting it the House would be exposed to one of two difficulties—either they must discuss the principle of these Votes now— in which case nothing was gained except that they would have to discuss them over again — or the principle of other Votes, which it was desirable should be discussed, would be withdrawn from consideration. They were told that the proposal now made was very moderate, because they were asked to vote money on only one or two Votes. But some of these Votes were in class 7, which was not before them. That was a very important class, and one in which very large reductions had been promised—reductions to the extent of over £200,000. If it was really necessary for the Government to get money for these two or three services in that class, they ought to have the specific Votes before them, in order that they might discuss them properly. But if they were to give these Votes on account and leave the rest till the end of the Session, the consequence would be that they would be brought before the House at a time when they could not re-

1669
ceivc proper consideration. He objected, therefore, to giving these Votes on account in class 7. It was not to the amount, but to the principle involved, that his objection chiefly referred. He was opposed to passing such Votes on account, unless on the distinct understanding that they would have the Estimates before them immediately after Whitsuntide, to be proceeded with in the proper manner.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he objected on principle to Votes being taken on account, and he did not think that the Secretary to the Treasury had made out a special case for this occasion. A great deal of time had unquestionably been thrown away in the early part of the Session, not without due warning to the Government from himself and others that delay in the introduction of the Reform Bill would lead to a deadlock in the business of the country. It did not matter that the proposition now made was a moderate one. Unless the House of Commons made a stand, and protested against the practice of voting on account, they would find one Government after another announcing that they were pressed for money, and asking for a small sum on account, on the promise that the Estimates would be brought on afterwards. Every hon. Member who had spoken had objected to the principle, but it was of no use objecting to the principle unless something was done to prevent the practice. No one who listened to the speech of the Secretary of the Treasury could resist the conviction that it was not the intention of the Government to bring forward the Estimates before August; and if they were delayed till then, what opportunity would there be for properly discussing them? Another view of the question was, that the Vote of so much money on account was virtually a sort of Vote of Confidence in the Government. Now, the present was a very critical time. An important step would have to be taken by the Government in regard to a matter pending between this House and the other; and, for his own part, he could say that the confidence he would be disposed to place in the Government would depend very much on the nature of the step they took. The country surely could not be so completely short of funds that the Votes of Credit could not be postponed for a week or ten days, by which time the Committee which was to be appointed to-morrow would be enabled to report as to precedents. He would, therefore, press the Government to defer
1670
the taking of the Votes on account till at least after Whitsuntide.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have no wish to mix the question now before us with any other. I will confine myself, therefore, to the proposition which the Government have submitted to us. On occasions like the present, notwithstanding the constitutional suspicion with which the House ought to view propositions of this kind, I am myself always inclined to facilitate the course of public business, and to give any Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury bench that fair assistance in conducting the affairs of the House which they have a right to expect from Parliament. It is impossible, however, to assent to this proposition without some consideration. The House should clearly understand the proposition that is made, because I cannot at all agree with the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord H. Vane) in his view. The noble Lord seemed to entertain objections of a very serious character to any course of this kind, provided the demand had been a large one; but as it was, comparatively speaking, so small in relation to that originally asked, and positively speaking, so trifling in itself, he did not see how the House could properly refuse the application. To my mind the small amount of the proposition would rather add to its objectionable character, in case I felt it my duty on the whole to offer no opposition to the plan of the Government. Because, what is the view of the public business given to us by the Secretary of the Treasury? He certainly, as has been observed by the noble Lord who spoke last, and as was generally felt by both sides of the House, conveyed the impression that there was no immediate prospect of the House forming itself into a Committee of Supply to consider the Civil Service Estimates. Well, what will be the position of the House if, a fortnight hence, when this supply is exhausted, a similar proposition, equally small, is made? The House may be occupied at that time with business, supposed to be of great interest and importance, and an appeal may then be equally successful if it is urged as to-night, that surely the House has sufficient confidence in the Government to supply them with funds to carry on the urgent business of the country for another week or fortnight? Therefore, although the application may be small, the precedent may be large; and therefore it is only as a precedent, involving a principle, that the House has really to decide upon the question be-

1671
fore it. I entirely assent to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole. I agree with him in all his arguments, and the only part in which I do not agree with him is the conclusion at which he arrives. It appeared to me that every reason urged by my right hon. Friend would have induced him to arrive at a conclusion the reverse to that which he reached; and, so far from thinking that this is not the opportunity upon which the House should come to a decision, whatever that decision may be, I am of opinion that it is upon the question that you, Sir, shall leave the chair that—a principle being involved, and we being called upon to establish a precedent—the House ought to treat the matter frankly and fully, and arrive at their decision upon it. Upon the subject of precedent I need hardly touch, because I think the admission of the Secretary to the Treasury is conclusive. All the precedents which he adduced proved that it was a course which the House adopted only under extraordinary circumstances, such as impending dissolutions of Parliament, changes of Ministry, references to the House itself of the Estimates; and in the present Session none of those extraordinary circumstances exist. I therefore think that we may fairly throw aside all precedents. We are called upon to-night to make a precedent. On the subject of amount it does not appear to me that it is of the slightest consequence whether the application of the Government be for £500,000 or £1,500,000. As far as the Government is concerned it is a question of confidence. I and every Gentleman sitting on these benches are perfectly prepared to give them that confidence, provided there is a clear understanding of the terms upon which that confidence is to be given. If the public service is in such a state that there really are not in the Exchequer funds to carry it on from day to day, I am disposed to come to the assistance of the Government. I will not go out of the way to inquire whether a great deal of time has been wasted. I will not read the list of the meetings of the House to show that, although Parliament was called together in January, a fortnight passed before any business was transacted, or that even on one or two nights the Government did not take advantage of opportunities to go into Committee of Supply. I will not stop to inquire why we have not yet been regularly in Committee of Supply. If the service of
1672
the country absolutely requires it, I will not enter into any discussion whether the sum shall be £500,000 or £1,500,000. The condition which I make with the Government, and which I think it right to make, and which I think the House of Commons ought to make, is this,—If we are ready to extend this fair confidence, will they engage that we shall have fair opportunities and legitimate occasions of entering into that criticism and examination of the Estimates of the Government which is our right and privilege? To ask us to enter into an investigation of the Estimates in August, as the Secretary to the Treasury tells us, or even in the month of July, is not a fair constitutional fulfilment of the conditions which, I think, the House in giving its confidence to the Government has a right to demand. That is the real point, and if the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman will rise and tell us that it is impossible, for want of Supplies, to carry on the business of the country until next Thursday, when we meet and can, if the Government please, go into Committee of Supply, every one will be perfectly willing to grant that which they require; but we ought to make a constitutional condition. When they ask this unusual assistance from the House, they ought to say: When the holidays are over we will go as early as possible into Committee of Supply, continue to take Supply, and give to the House the legitimate opportunities of investigating the expenditure of the country and of bringing before the consideration of Parliament those grievances which it is the privilege of the House of Commons to bring forward under those circumstances. If Her Majesty's Government frankly tell us that they are prepared to do that, which I conclude a Minister of the Crown cannot hesitate for a moment in doing—if they will enter into a clear engagement that when the holidays are over, next Thursday, we shall go into Committee of Supply, that these Estimates shall be submitted to us, that we shall not be deprived of our constitutional right to examine the Civil Service Estimates, and to see whether in our minds they are of the proper amount and character, and that we shall have the opportunity on those occasions of bringing subjects under consideration which it is usual to bring forward when Estimates are moved, I shall support the proposition of Her Majesty's Government. But if that offer be not accepted—if we are called on to establish a most dangerous precedent,

1673
and to go on through the remainder of the Session voting aids and credits without the advantage of going into Committee of Supply, thereby risking the loss of those privileges which are most valuable, and of which we are most proud, then I shall feel it my duty to support the hon. Gentleman. I only ask the House to remember the position in which it is placed. Certainly two-thirds, if not more, of the usual Session has already passed, and we have scarcely gone into Committee of Supply as far as the exercise of any real control over the expenditure of the country or of the privilege of obtaining redress of grievances is concerned. There is also, from the admission of the Secretary to the Treasury, a prospect that the remaining portion of the Session will also pass without the House having the enjoyment of those advantages. I trust that I have placed the question fairly before the House, and treated it in a constitutional point of view. As I have said, I shall support Her Majesty's Government if they enter into that engagement, but otherwise I shall support the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, it is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there is a financial necessity for a Vote for these services,—not that the Exchequer is empty, but that we have not yet Parliamentary authority to apply the money; and unless Parliamentary authority is given the services must suffer great inconvenience, and the public interest be seriously prejudiced. That is the simple ground upon which, we apply to Parliament for these Votes on account. I cannot admit that an application to Parliament for a Vote on account of Estimates already presented is at all a matter without precedent. It is a matter of almost annual occurrence. Nor do I see any great distinction between these Miscellaneous Estimates and Estimates for the Army and Navy, except that perhaps the latter are more important and present a greater number of subjects upon which it is desirable opinions should be expressed. There is nothing unparliamentary or unconstitutional, when the necessity arises, to ask for Votes on account of the larger services of the army and navy; and I cannot see what Parliamentary or constitutional objection can be raised in principle to a Vote on account of consular establishments, education, or any of these different heads of the Miscellaneous Estimates, which are infinitely
1674
less important than those upon which Parliament by practice has acquiesced in the principle of Votes on account. It has been stated that the necessity for Votes of account on these Miscellaneous Estimates does not often occur, and why? Because these Estimates—and here I may appeal to the recollection of hon. Members to bear me out—come on late in the Session, and are frequently not finished till late in July, and the House has usually found nothing in that advanced period of the Session to prevent it giving the necessary attention to the details of these Votes. We are accused of negligence in not having brought these Vstimates sooner before the attention of the House, but I beg to recall to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that we called Parliament together ten days earlier than usual. We showed no disinclination at all events to meet Parliament at the earliest possible period consistent with the convenience of hon. Members—in fact we were somewhat blamed for having anticipated the usual period for its assembling. Have we, during the period which has elapsed from that time to this, abstained from submitting to Parliament measures of importance and general interest deserving their consideration? Parliament, in fact, has been uninterruptedly occupied by measures of the greatest national importance. I am not at all disposed to cavil at the length of time which the House has thought fit to devote to the consideration of the weighty measures submitted to them—the French Treaty, the Reform Bill, the Budget, and the financial measures springing out of it. They were perfectly justified in discussing them at length, but a great deal of time has, in fact, been occupied by these discussions, and they have so far interfered with the ordinary course of public I business in regard to the Estimates, that at this moment we have not been able to give to the Army and Navy Estimates, which generally take precedence of the Miscellaneous Estimates, sufficient time to enable us to complete them. If the Miscellaneous Estimates, therefore, have been postponed to the present time, it is not our fault, but the result of that course which the House of Commons in the performance of its duty has thought fit to adopt with regard to the measures of first-rate importance which were submitted to it, and which deserved all the attention bestowed on them. Blame ought not to be thrown on us for a result which is no fault of ours, but which has arisen from the length of time the House

1675
has, in the discharge of its duty, thought fit to give to important business. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made very light of the observation of my noble Friend, that the objection to this course is diminished in proportion to the diminution of the sum asked for; but I think, even in his own view of the case, that observation had great force. The amount of money to be voted is equivalent in meaning to a certain portion of time, and those who object to these Votes on account to carry on a certain service, on the ground that they place the remainder of the Vote in a certain degree out of the control of Parliament, ought to feel that the diminution of the sum voted on account, as it involves the necessity of an earlier recurrence to Parliament for the remainder of the services, very much removes the objection to this course. The right hon. Gentleman says he is quite willing to agree to this Vote provided the Government will undertake that the details of these Estimates shall be submitted to the House at a time and in a manner which shall enable it to give to them the full and fair consideration which is necessary for the due discharge of its constitutional functions. Undoubtedly that is an undertaking which we are perfectly ready to enter into. Indeed, it seems to me to follow as a matter of course from that power which the House of Commons has over the Government. It is an engagement to which we can scarcely be said to be parties, because the House has the matter entirely in its own hands. The Votes now asked for will enable the Government to carry on the services till about the middle of June, and beyond that time nothing can be done without the sanction of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, asks us to enter into such an arrangement, he is rather derogating from the constitutional power of the House, because we are in the hands of the House. No further money can be issued without the authority of the House, and that authority, of course, the House will not continue to give, unless it has an opportunity of entering fully and fairly into a discussion of all the details for which the money is required, and exercising their undoubted right of control.
MR. BENTINCK: It would be more satisfactory if the noble Lord would state in what manner he understands the engagement into which he professes his readiness to enter. When does he propose that we should go into Committee of Supply?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is perfectly impossible to fix the exact day.
SIR FRANCIS BARING: The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir S. Northcote) referred to some suggestion of mine in reference to the Public Moneys Committee; but the Report of that Committee has, in reality, nothing whatever to do with the point before us. It related exclusively to certain arrangements which were proposed, but which would have necessitated a change in the mode of voting the Estimates, and the question with the Committee was how to get over that difficulty. But the real question before the House is this:—The Government state to the House that they require certain sums for the public service to carry them on till after the holidays, and I confess I am surprised to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite that their principles are such that they refuse to go into Committee to ascertain whether those moneys are actually required by the Government or not. If the Government were prepared to ask sums which would throw off the consideration of the Estimates to an unreasonable extent, I can understand that sum being cut down in Committee to a proper amount; but, when the Government have stated that the public service requires certain sums to be granted, I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they will take on themselves the responsibility of refusing to go into Committee for the consideration of the votes asked for.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The right hon. Baronet has misunderstood the feeling which prevails on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that we have no desire to cause any public inconvenience. The speech of the noble Lord was directed entirely to an attempt to draw the House from the fact that the proposal of the Government is intended to establish a precedent, and that one of a very objectionable and dangerous character; and in guarding against that precedent, the language of my right hon. Friend and the general feeling on this side of the House showed that we had no desire to cause any public inconvenience. We have asked the Government to state distinctly whether there will be any injury to the public service by delaying this grant to Thursday evening next, and, if the Government will give us that assurance, we are ready to go into Committee at once; but they ought not to call on us to go into Committee without some assurance of that

1677
sort. If there is any necessity for the grant being made immediately, it is the Government who are to blame for bringing us into that condition. Parliament certainly did meet earlier than usual this year, but for the first fortnight nothing was done. We rose every night at eight or nine o'clock for the first fortnight, and, therefore, we have a right to blame the Government for making this Vote on account necessary, if necessary it be. Without some assurance of the sort, I should object to setting a precedent, for I deny that one already exists. The only way in which we can guard against that precedent being established, is by voting now against the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the chair, unless the Government will promise that they will bring these Estimates before us on Thursday next.

THE NEUTRALITY OF SAVOY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINGLAKErose, to put the question to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of which he had given notice — namely, Whether the Swiss Confederation persisted in asking for a Conference relative to the neutral provinces of Savoy, and whether Her Majesty's Government supported the Confederation in making the demand?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Up to the present time—and I had a despatch from our Minister in Switzerland this morning —the Swiss Confederation continues to ask for the meeting of a Conference on the subject of the neutralization of part of Savoy. Her Majesty's Government supported that proposal from the first, and unless the Swiss Government themselves abandon or withdraw that demand, we shall continue to support it.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET AND THE MESSRS. GREEN.—QUESTION.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I am unwilling to interpose between the House and a division, but having received a letter from an hon. Gentleman opposite informing mo that he intended to make a statement affecting me on going into Committee of Supply, I think I may claim from him that he should make the statement with which be has threatened me on the occasion on which he said he desired to make it. I received the following letter this morning: —
Mr. Lygon presents his compliments to Lord
1678
Clarence Paget, and has the honour to inform him that it is his intention, on going into Committee of Supply this evening, to call the attention of the House to the reports which are current respecting his connection with the house of Messrs. Green & Co. of Blackwall."
I trust the hon. Gentleman will now fulfil his intention.
MR. LYGON: I am quite in the hands of the House. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not my intention to bring forward this question in a hostile spirit. The question is not one with regard to which it will be necessary for me to detain the House at any length; and, in common with every other Member of the House, I shall rejoice if the noble Lord, as no doubt will be the case, should be enabled to give a satisfactory explanation. I entirely disclaim all hostile feeling towards the noble Lord, and I can assure him he entirely mistakes my object if he supposes that my inquiry is made with any such purpose. But everybody, I am sure, will agree that under the circumstances which have taken place, when contractors have publicly acknowledged that they were the builders of certain gunboats which have suffered very severely from decay, and when it is reported in commercial circles that the Secretary to the Admiralty was a partner in the firm at the period when the gunboats were built—every hon. Member of this House will see that it is for the advantage of the service, of the House of Commons, of the Board of Admiralty, and of the noble Lord himself, that these circumstances should be explained. I, for one, have no doubt that they are capable of a satisfactory elucidation; and so far from the Motion being received by the noble Lord in a manner implying that he regards it as one which is brought forward in an unfriendly spirit, it ought, I think, to be matter of gratification to him to have the opportunity of meeting the reports which are current as to his being largely connected with Messrs. Green and Company. Such a report has gained notoriety, and must, it is evident, be most pre-judicial to the public service. It is needless for me to enter into the question of the gunboats or the culpability of contractors. I have simply discharged a public duty of a very painful character. But the importance cannot be overrated of clearing up and setting at rest all misapprehensions which may exist on a matter so vitally affecting the credit of all public servants.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I must ask the indulgence of the House, having

1679
already spoken on this question, and very few words, I think, will suffice for the purpose I have in view, which is to clear ray character from any imputations which may have been made upon it. The hon. Gentleman opposite I understand to state that he has heard it confidently reported that I am a partner with Messrs. Green of Black-wall?
MR. LYGON: That you were connected with them at the period when the gunboats were built.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: That I was a partner with them when the gunboats were building. I do not make any complaint of the hon. Gentleman for having called the attention of the House to this subject; on the contrary, I think that he—having been a Member of the department with which I have also the honour of being associated—if he heard any reports of a nature which he considered derogatory to my honour, either as an officer or a Member of this House, was quite right in bringing them forward. If I were disposed to make any complaint it would be that he had not placed the matter on the notice paper, in order that any hon. Member, if he had desired, might have come down to the House to deliver his opinion upon it. I might answer the accusation very much in the same vague way in which it has been made, because the hon. Gentleman brings no proofs, but merely states that lie has heard certain reports, and I think I might satisfy the House by giving my word of honour that those Reports are utterly without foundation. But it is always best to be perfectly frank and fair in all matters where the personal honour of individuals is concerned. All thoroughly ingenious stories have some sort of foundation, by which a great deal more may be made of them than they are really worth, and, therefore, in order that there may be no misunderstanding — although I really; scruple to take up the time of the House with a. matter of this sort—I still think it my duty, holding as I do a very high and honourable position in Her Majesty's Government, to state exactly the circumstances of the case. It is perfectly true that for many years past I have been—alas! a very small, but still a shareholder to some I extent in certain ships in the Australian trade. In 1857 my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for India, did me the honour to invite me to take a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I will not quote his letter, because it was in terms rather
1680
complimentary to myself, and I wish to confine my observations exactly to the point in issue; and if I read my answer to that communication, at least that part of it which relates to these transactions, it will, I think, be quite sufficient to dispose of this charge. I should state that previously in that same year my right hon. Friend, through his private secretary, Captain Drummond, also an intimate Friend of my own, expressed his desire that in the event of a vacancy taking place I should hold myself in readiness to fill a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I told my Friend, Captain Drummond, that I had great scruples of conscience in the matter; for, although I had nothing whatever to do with shipbuilding, or with any vessels likely to be taken up by contract for the Government, yet, nevertheless, to hold a seat at the Board of Admiralty, and at the same time to retain a connection with shipping concerns, was what I thought would not be fair or proper. This, therefore, was the reply which I wrote to the very flattering letter of my right hon. Friend:—
"Plas Llanfair Oct. 22, 1857.
"Dear Sir Charles,—I hasten to express my obligations for the flattering and friendly communication I have this day received from you, dated the 21st. When during the last Session the subject of my going to the Admiralty was talked over between my friend Captain Drummond and myself, I, from a sense of honour, stated for your information that I could not conscientiously undertake the contract branch, which I believe falls to the Junior Lord, because I have for several years been, and still am, a shareholder in some ships belonging to Messrs. Green, and it would ill become me to open tenders in which they might be offered, for Government service. As to building, I have no connection with him or anybody else, but I should be very loath to discontinue my connection, small as it is, with that eminent firm."
And I concluded by saying, "I have no alternative but to decline your offer." Thus ended this transaction. I was altogether independent of the Board of Admiralty until the present Government was formed, when my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury did me the honour to invite me to join that Department. I stated to him exactly as I had stated to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, that I had been the owner of shares in a few ships, with which, however, I had nothing further to do, any more than one would have by holding shares in a railway, but that as long as I retained them I felt it incumbent on me to decline all connection with the Admiralty. "Well," says the noble Lord,

1681
"have you still those shares in the ships?" To which I replied, "No;" because on the occasion of my bringing forward during the last Session circumstances connected with the building of ships for the navy, to which, as an officer, I felt it my duty conscientiously to call attention, there were—I will not say open accusations— but there were inferences drawn, in certain speeches of hon. Gentlemen on that occasion, to the effect that as I was personally connected with a shipbuilding yard, I was therefore desirous of having ships built by contract there, instead of in the dockyards, and was consequently desirous of running down the dockyards. From that moment I determined that it was impossible for a public man, and particularly for a naval man, who wished to take a part in this House which would be beneficial to the service, to continue longer exposed to such suspicions, and that the sooner I got rid of these shares the better. There and then, —and I am bound to add at considerable loss to myself, for everybody knows that last year shipping was much depressed—I sold my shares. After personally accepting the appointment from the noble Lord, I wrote to him as follows:—
"2, Ennismore Place, S.W., June 16, 1859.
"My dear Lord Palmerston,—In accepting the post of Secretary to the Admiralty, I feel it due, no less to your Lordship than myself, that I should advert to the reasons which principally deterred me from joining your Lordship's Government in 1857. I was then, and have been till lately, a shipowner in the Indian and Australian trade, and while so employed I felt I could not conscientiously fill a post where, questions of personal interest to myself might possibly have to be decided; such as contracts for troopships, transports, &c. Various circumstances having induced me to dispose of my shipping property, I am now perfectly free to accept without scruples of conscience the office your Lordship has been good enough to offer me."
Let me acquit the hon. Gentleman who has introduced this subject of any intention to lower my character in this House; I trust that was not his wish, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of making the statement which I have now done, and to offer my sincere gratitude to the House for the kind reception it has met with.
SIR HUGH CAIRNS: As my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Lygon) has spoken already, he is not therefore at liberty again to rise. But I hope the House and the noble Lord will allow me to express what I am sure is the feeling at this side of the House, and which I am glad to believe is shared in by the House at large, that if it
1682
be the fact—of which I confess I was not before aware—that rumours of the nature alluded to have been current regarding the noble Lord, it is matter of satisfaction that in this place, where alone opportunity can be given to the noble Lord to meet those rumours, the subject should have been brought forward, and we must all rejoice to feel, after the full and frank explanation which he has given, that neither in nor out of this House can any such rumours continue to prevail.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 109: Majority 26.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(1). £400,000 on account of certain Civil Services.
Printing and Stationery, £30,000.
County Courts (Treasurer's Salaries and Expenses), £35,000.
Constabulary of Ireland (Pay and Allowances), £82,000.
Public Education (Great Britain), £100,000.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHasked whether that sum of £100,000 would include the department of science and art?
MR. LAINGexplained that the Vote of £100,000 did not include the Vote for science and art, but was merely a payment on account of public education. It would be applied to meet the charges that were running on for public education—for the salaries of schoolmasters and so forth. The total Vote for public education would be £798,000, while last year it was £800,000. They were running into a fifth quarter, and the sum of £100,000 was wanting to keep up the current payments.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he understood that the Government merely required a sum on account to take them over the holidays. He should like, then, to know why they asked so large a sum for that purpose as £100,000, when the whole Vote would only amount to £798,000.
MR. LAINGsaid, the Vote for national education was already overdrawn out of the Civil Contingencies, to the extent of £40,000, and heavy payments were to be made in the department before the 10th of June.
Consuls Abroad, £54,000.
Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home, £20,000.
Sundry Commissions (Temporary), £12,000.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this latter was hardly an item to be put into a Vote of credit. At any rate a Vote should only be taken for what was absolutely required at present.
MR. LAINGexplained that the necessity for the Vote arose from the fact that the amount for the service was overdrawn out of the Civil Contingencies. Under the head of Temporary Commissions, there were extensive Commissions connected with military matters. It was necessary to make provision for the running Commission, and that was done out of the Civil Contingencies; and a sum of £10,700 was required to repay the debt to the Civil Contingencies. The Vote for the Slave Bounties was in a similar position.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not consider the explanation of the hon. Gentleman satisfactory, inasmuch as there was a sum of £50,000 to be asked for on credit for the Civil Contingencies. He thought the whole of the Votes in Class 7 of the Civil Service Estimates required peculiar consideration, and should be discussed in their order. As, however, the whole of the accounts were not before the House that was not then possible. There was a Vote, for instance, for the Serpentine? What was the state of that matter? Last year £17,000 had been voted for a certain plan with reference to the Serpentine; but, after that Vote had been passed, and the works commenced, a Committee of the House was appointed, which reported against the plan. Upon that the Government stopped the works; and, not content with that, they had begun to spend money for a different plan. It might now turn out that, when the House came to the discussion of the matter, they might disagree with the Select Committee, and disapprove of that expenditure of the public money without the sanction of the House. If certain items of that class were agreed to, then, of course, the House would lose the power of checking them afterwards.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must enter his protest against the enormous sums spent on the Military Commissions, and he wished to call particular attention to the case of the Weedon Military Commission. There had been an enormous sum of no less than £9,000—£8,700 rather was the exact amount—charged for professional accountants employed in the investigation of the accounts of the
1684
establishment. The Treasury, he believed, had objected to that large amount, because the Commissioners had had the assistance of the clerks of the Commissariat, and of Mr. Commissary General Adams, an officer in the pay of the State. That £8,700 did not include the military clerks, so that altogether the expenses would come to over £10,000, an expenditure perfectly unjustifiable. He wished to know if the present Vote was to include that sum, and also when there would be an opportunity of discussing that Vote, and also the very singular proceedings that had followed the Report of the Commissioners.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he should wish to put the question whether one of the Commissioners of the Weedon Inquiry was not a police magistrate of Loudon, and whether he did receive an allowance for his services on that occasion, though as he (Colonel Dickson) believed, his duties as a magistrate only occupied his time about six months in the year. He quite concurred in the remark of the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Dunne) that the expenditure was quite unjustifiable, and the House was bound not to throw away the public money in that way without inquiry. Hon. Members opposite were constantly charging Gentlemen on his side of the House with being opposed to anything like Reform, and yet he was astonished to find that those hon. Members on the Liberal side, who were invariably preaching economy in the public finances, went out into the lobby and voted away large sums of money in the lump, and without a murmur. What was the use of talking about economy unless the question was brought to some issue?
MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to know whether the Berwick Bribery Commission had yet commenced its sittings?
MR. TURNERsaid, an attack had been made on the Weedon Commission which he thought was altogether unjustifiable. He should, when the proper occasion arrived, be able to justify the conduct of the Commissioners; at present he would leave it to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to answer the question which had been put to him on this subject. He would only now say that, after the immense la-hour these Commissioners had undergone, he felt it his duty to protest most strongly against the insinuation that they had been guilty of any unjustifiable act.
COLONEL DUNNEexplained that he had used the expression solely with regard to

1685
the expenditure of the Commissioners on Accountants, and he thought he should be able to prove it was so when the subject came fairly before the House.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the sums due to the Civil Contingencies ought to be voted separately, otherwise it might be spent along with the rest, and the public would never know anything about it. Votes taken in that manner might be made the means of cloaking over other matters not thought desirable to be brought to light, which was very objectionable. He wished to know when the details of the sums they were then asked to vote would appear under Civil Contingencies.
MR. LAINGsaid, he would beg to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Pomfret (Mr. Childers), that the sums under the Civil Contingencies List would be explained when the full Estimates were submitted to Parliament. As to the unfortunate Weedon Commission, he was willing to admit that there had been a large expenditure with an inadequate result. The present Vote, however, did not touch any part of that sum. It might perhaps include some portion of the expenses, such as the salary of the secretary, and other minor sums, but not the large claim of nearly £9,000 sent in by the accountants, respecting which the Treasury had felt it to be their duty to take legal opinions on the fact whether they were liable to the whole amount. They had not yet got a decided opinion from their solicitor on that point, and while matters were thus pending he could hardly give a distinct answer as to whether those expenses would or would not be included in the Estimates. Of course if they were they would come under class 7, and there would be an opportunity of discussing them. Hon. Members would not be committed by the present Vote. In reply to the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), he begged to say that, in order to reduce these two Votes to £400,000 he had gone to the lowest point at which it was possible to conduct the public service up to the 12th of June, without fear of overdrawing. That was the only fund that they had to meet claims that might be made during the next two or three weeks. He should think that the result of the Committee now sitting would be to alter the constitution of Class 7 very considerably. As regarded Class 7, he was ready to give a pledge to the Committee that it should be printed at the earliest opportunity.
MR. BENTINCKasked, if he was to
1686
understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) as giving a pledge that it was not the intention of the Government to draw again on the amount voted for Civil Contingencies for the purpose of preventing the House from duly considering the Civil Service Estimates.
MR. LAINGsaid that, after a very short period, the Government would be entirely in the hands of the House, because they would have no money in hand to enable them to delay taking the Votes in the usual course, but he could not pledge himself not to ask for a further Vote should there be occasion for it.
MR. W. HUNTasked, what were the Election Commissions the expenses of which they were called upon to vote?
MR. LAINGsaid, that there were the Commissions for Gloucester and Wakefield.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered the system very objectionable of borrowing certain amounts for the Civil Service from Civil Contingencies. He had never been able to understand the application of the money. The details did not appear in the public accounts, and in point of fact the House knew nothing about them.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that the Vote was a practical illustration of the objectionable course of asking for Votes of credit, or on account. He confessed he did not know what he was asked to vote £12,000 for. He did not know what any of the Commissions had cost, and when therefore he was asked blindly to vote such a sum of money, he, for one, should enter his protest against it.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he, too, thought it extremely inconvenient to be called upon to vote away money without knowing what it was called for, where it was to go, or how it was to be paid away. There was much mystification in the accounts.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, it was quite clear that the Government had sufficient money to carry them on beyond June, and if the present Vote were granted, they would not be furnished with details before the end of July.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, the first duty of the House was to take cognizance of every shilling they voted, and if they gave one shilling on account they virtually abandoned all control over the details. That point, however, it was useless then to dwell upon. He desired now to have it distinctly under stood whether, on the arrival of the 10th or 12th of June, there was any chance of

1687
Government declaring that the time had not yet come when the House should have access to the Estimates, and should go into a consideration of the details.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he hoped that some explanation would be given as to the application of the £12,000.
MR. LAINGsaid, the necessity for the Votes arose from the fact that there had been large drafts on the Civil Contingencies for several Commissions, which came on at too late a period to be included in Class 7 of the last year. Of course, those conversant with the accounts must know that Civil Contingencies were the only fund that Government had to meet any miscalculations or mistakes which might have been made in the 197 Votes which were asked for, or any new expenses which might arise during the recess, or during the last few weeks of the sitting of Parliament. A variety of Commissions had originated during the interval, and the amounts had to be drawn from Civil Contingencies. He could assure the Committee that the full details would be brought forward when the complete amount came to be voted. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), he begged to say that the Government had no mysterious funds hoarded up in order to meet emergencies. There were ample funds in the Exchequer, but there was no power of applying them without a specific Vote, and he thought no Secretary of the Treasury, or Member of the Government, was likely to take the responsibility of applying them without the authority of the House. Therefore, by the 10th or 12th of June, or at all events within two or three days more or less of that time, the Government would find themselves in the position of being obliged to come to the House and declare that their authority was exhausted, and that they must either have a further Vote, or else proceed in voting the Estimates in the usual way.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that the House had already voted £40,000 for Civil Contingencies, they were now asked for £12,000, and they would be asked by-and-by for £50,000 more. Thus the Civil Contingencies which they were asked to vote in this way had risen within a few years from £70,000 to about £100,000. The only conclusion he could draw from the Vote before them was, that it was for the payment of sums which had been withdrawn from the Estimates, and which it was now intended to pay out of this money.
MR. LAINGsaid, if they had only the ordinary demands upon the Civil Contingencies, no doubt the sum of £100,000 would be more than what would be necessary for that department of the public service. But they were now arrived at a period far beyond that at which the Votes wore usually obtained. A great many balances were now exhausted; but it was thought to be convenient to the House to reduce the sum required for the present to the lowest amount possible.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had dealt frankly and fairly with the Committee. Having listened attentively to all the hon. Gentleman had said, he (Mr. Walpole) was satisfied that the sums asked for were really wanted. The Civil Contingencies Fund was that from which all those small sums must be paid that were not otherwise provided for. The discussion had, however, strongly confirmed the statement of his hon. Friend (Sir S. Northcote) of the great disadvantage of taking Votes on account where the Estimates had not been laid before the House. What had taken place would, he hoped, be considered a warning, not only to the present, but also to all Governments, that the House had acceded to the proposal on the ground of exigency, and that it was not to be repeated without a stronger necessity than had been shown to exist in the present year.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he concurred with his right hon. Friend as to the frankness with which the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had dealt with those Votes. He could only say that if that explanation had been given at an earlier period of the evening he should not have gone out into the lobby against the hon. Secretary's proposition.
Vote agreed to.
Bounties on Slaves, £10,000.
Dublin Police, £7,000.
Civil Contingencies, £50,000.
(2) £2,500 Malta Harbour.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid that the present Vote had become necessary, in consequence of an agreement entered into with the Maltese Government for the construction of certain works in the Harbour of Malta, which would prove most advantageous to the Navy as well as to the Island itself. The reason why this Estimate had not been laid on the Table of the House at an earlier period was, because the Maltese Government had not come to a decision in

1689
regard to it until a short time ago. An outline of the plan of the proposed works had been placed in the hands of Members, in order to enable them to form an accurate opinion of their details. Ever since the Island had belonged to the Crown of England, the limits of Merchant Harbour, and that for the men-of-war, had never been clearly defined. The result was, that the merchant vessels had encroached upon the best part of the harbour; so that the men-of-war sometimes had great difficulty in finding a berth. The great addition in the number of ships frequenting the harbour, and the increase in the size of vessels of war, made it imperative to improve the Harbour of Malta, which was in a most unsatisfactory state; although Malta was our head-quarters for repairs, &c. in the Mediterranean. An engineer on the part of the Admiralty had surveyed the harbour in the company of the engineer selected by the Maltese Government, and they had come to the conclusion that the only plan was to deepen the head of the harbour, which was now a swamp, and to give it up to the merchant vessels, while French Creek, which was safe for vessels of war, would be given up for the navy. It was necessary to bring this vote before the Committee tonight, because the work was to be done at the joint expense of the two Governments; and the parties who owned the land around French Creek wore only under contract to wait until the middle of June, when the agreement, unless previously confirmed, became null and void. The total estimated expense of the work was £111,000, but he only proposed to ask to-night for £2,500, in addition to the £2,500 which would be found in the Estimates already before the House.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he quite concurred with the noble Lord in the importance of the plan proposed. It was well known that Malta was the key of our position in the Mediterranean. He should have been pleased if the noble Lord had doubled his demand at present, in order that the works might be carried on as rapidly and efficiently as possible. He wished to know whether the quarantine harbour was to be made available.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I fully concur in the value and importance of the proposed works; and regret that the subject did not receive due consideration many years ago, when, I am persuaded, the Government could have procured the land on more advantageous terms. I am rejoiced
1690
at the manner in which the noble Lord has so honourably vindicated his reputation and character from the charges which have been insinuated against him. Having enjoyed for several years the acquaintance of the noble Lord, I can testify that his character is above reproach; and he can well afford to treat such rumours and imputations with indignation and contempt.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wanted to know what proportion of the entire amount of £111,000 was to be defrayed by the Colonial Government?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he saw a sum of £60,000 put down for the purchase of property around the French Creek. That sum, however, was not to be taken immediately, but to be paid in future years. He wished to know how that amount was arrived at, and what security they would have for obtaining the property in question at the sum mentioned?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the contracts had been drawn up with great care. The arrangement was that, as soon as French Creek was deepened, then the property in question was to be paid for and to revert to the Government. As regarded the quarantine harbour, that was not to be made available; inasmuch as it was exposed, and could not be occupied with safety by large ships.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had heard with great pleasure the explanation given by his noble Friend opposite in reply to the charge that had been made against him. The honour of each Member was dear to the House, and they must have all heard the noble Lord's statement with the most unalloyed satisfaction. He (Mr. Bentinck) had certainly listened to it with a double interest, arising from personal friendship towards his noble Friend, whom he had known for many years. He could only say, and he was confident the whole House would confirm it, that no man could have listened to the explanation of his noble Friend without feeling that it removed all doubt—if, indeed, any such doubt existed —as to his noble and gallant Friend having been implicated in any transaction in a way inconsistent with his high character.
MR. PEASEasked if the merchants of Malta were satisfied with the arrangements which had been made.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, it appeared from the plan of the proposed alterations that it would be necessary to remove an enormous amount of mud. He wished to know what was to become of it—whether it was to be

1691
removed to some other part of the island to create a pestilence, or was it to be carried out to sea.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the merchants of Malta were perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made, which had, in fact, originated from their own Government. An estimate had been framed which was based on the probable cost of conveying the mud clear outside the harbour.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he regretted the short notice that had been given of so important a subject coming before the Committee. The sum, though small, pledged Parliament to an expenditure estimated at upwards of £100,000. Experience showed that the limit at first proposed did not always turn out correct. The noble Lord stated that the thing was narrowed down to this—that if the bargain was not concluded by a certain day in June, it would go off. Now, however desirable it was that the proposed works should be carried out, it was impossible for those who had not a personal knowledge of the harbour to give an opinion upon the subject, from the short period the papers in connection with it had been supplied to hon. Members.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to know whether the contract with the Maltese Government was, that they were to pay half the expense of this work, no matter what might be the amount, or whether the arrangement as to their contribution of a moiety only extended to the estimate before the House.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that unless the Admiralty had it under hand and seal of the Maltese Government that they would pay one half the whole expenditure—no matter what that might be—the contract would fall to the ground, and the work would not be undertaken. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that it would have been desirable to give the House an earlier intimation of this scheme. At the same time he must observe it was no new thing. The late Government had considered it, and the preparations had been making for several months, but it was only a short time previous that the scheme had arrived at a sufficiently matured state to justify its being placed on the Estimates.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the noble Lord would lay on the table the agreement which had been made with the Maltese Government, and the contract for the purchase of the land that was to cost £60,000.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that as soon as the contract was concluded, he would lay it on the table.
LORD LOVAINEobserved, that this plan had been before the late Government. The Admiralty under that Government were fully convinced of the necessity of some such work as that now proposed, but they had not arrived at any accurate calculation as to the expense, for they had not ascertained what would be the cost of the ground. There was, however, no doubt that, if they had remained in office, they would have brought forward some such scheme.
MR. JOSEPH LOCKEcomplained that Members should be called upon to vote sums of money upon Estimates which had not received sufficient consideration. The first thing which ought to have been done was to furnish the Committee with the various items of the Estimate, and then to have given hon. Members a chance of seeing whether the sum was proper or not. This was the case of a new work, and there was nothing before them to show whether it was a fit thing to do or not. They ought at least to have had the name of the officer who made the Estimate as a guarantee of its soundness.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that the Civil Engineer employed by the Admiralty to prepare the Estimate was a gentleman of much experience, and that the calculations had been made with the greatest care.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that as the Government had employed an engineer to measure and calculate the work, it would only have been reasonable to have given a little further time to the House to examine the details, before coming to a decided opinion on the matter. He was afraid the fact that the Admiralty were bargaining against an excess in the Estimate warranted the suspicion that they expected an excess.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that no doubt the engineer had taken the exact measurement, and made a correct calculation, leaving a margin for contingencies or extras.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that very scanty informatiom was given to the Committee. There was no account of the acreage of the work or the amount of accommodation to the navy. He wished to know whether there were to be any docks for the merchant service, and whether the expense was included?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, they expected to get accommodation for six line-of-battle ships and two frigates, but if they grew much larger there would be room for only five line-of-battle ships. As to any new merchant yards, in lieu of those which the Government purchased, the Government would have nothing to do with any buildings on shore. Their business was to deepen the harbour. The purchase of the French Creek, and all the buildings which surrounded it, was included in the Estimate of £60,000.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTinquired whether it was certain that the depth in the new harbour would be sufficient for the larger ships?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that this had been ascertained.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHobserved, that there were no soundings given on the map.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the small map presented to the House had been prepared since the previous evening. The large map from which it had been prepared had on it a great amount of detailed information that had not been copied on the smaller one. As to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), he should observe that the Government would have given more ample notice, but there had been many references from the Admiralty to Malta, and they found by experience that when it became known the Government intended to purchase, the property trebled in value. If the estimate were postponed to a future day, the agreement to sell the property would become void.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committtee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee of Ways and Means.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had to propose a Resolution requiring the makers of British wines to take out licences for either making or selling the same wholesale, the amount of which was fixed at half the amount which the venders paid. The right hon. Gentleman moved—
"That, towards raising the Supply granted to
1694
Her Majesty there shall be charged and paid the following Duties of Excise, that is to say—For a Licence to be taken out by every maker of any kind of Sweets or Made Wines, or of Mead or Metheglin, for sale or by any dealer who shall sell the same in any quantity amounting to two gallons or upwards, or in one dozen or more reputed quart bottles at one time, £5 5s."
MR. AYRTONthought the right hon. Gentleman was taking effectual means to prevent the public getting good wine at all. As far as he could discover, before dealing in wines a trader would have to pay £19 19 s. for licences, which was a large tax to impose on a person before he could embark in business. The greatest chance of the public having good wine was in the establishment of many traders who would deal in it wholesale and retail, and he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have proposed one consolidated charge, after payment of which the dealer would be able to sell any quantity, large or small, as long as it was in bottle. With regard to British wine, it was much purer than a great deal of that which came from abroad. The process of manufacture here was, that dried grapes were placed in a vat with water, the juice being pressed out of them and allowed to ferment; and the wine thus produced was consumed in large quantities by people who were above the vulgar prejudice of thinking that that which came from abroad and had a high-sounding name was better than home productions. The whole tendency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals was to force the sale of wine upon the premises. It was his impression the other evening, on coming out of Committee, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended the Bill to extend to British wines. The night after the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was to be confined to the sale of foreign wine. Did the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask, intend, according to promise, to bring in another Bill regulating the sale of British wine to be drunk on the premises? As the case stood Parliament was called upon to alter our municipal law to promote the consumption of a foreign commodity, while it did nothing to extend the consumption of an article made in our own country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must really decline to follow the hon. Member into a discussion of the Wine Licences Bill. It might have been supposed that the hon. Gentleman had spoken long enough during the course of this discussion, but he seemed quite in-

1695
satiable. As to the necessity of a new law respecting the consumption of British wine he was not aware that any such necessity existed, nor did he remember to have promised the introduction of any measure on the subject. What he said was that the sale of British wine might be regulated by the existing law. With regard to British wine, which the hon. Member seemed to think was made much more legitimately here from raisins than by expression from the grape in the country of its birth, it was to be remembered that these raisins were imported at a low duty, whereas the foreign wine paid a high rate of duty. The hon. Member, of course, could not be expected to sympathize with the exchequer in such a case; but the two articles contributed to the revenue in very unequal degrees, and this was an element which could not be entirely left out of consideration. A difference was recognised in the amount paid for licences— namely, ten guineas for a wholesale foreign wine, and five guineas for a British wine licence; but he should have no objection to allow persons who paid the higher amount to deal in both kinds of wine.
MR. BOVILLsaid, he thought it would be difficult to interpret the expressions "sweets" and "made wines" to be found in the Bill. Would "sweets" include "bitters?" Then a large proportion of port and sherry was manufactured in and about London, elder wine and logwood being prime ingredients in the former concoction. Within a short distance of that House there was a manufactory of champagne from rhubarb. Would those be "made wines" within the meaning of the Resolution?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the expressions objected to were certainly not to be justified upon abstract grounds, and fell short of the standard of purity which the hon. and learned Member wished to set up in the wording of the Act. But they were in accordance with usage, and would be, he believed, adequate for the purpose. "Sweets," he was informed, was the legal description of British wines, and "made wines" would comprise any of the other miscellaneous compounds sold under the name of wine.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolved,
"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid the following Duties of Excise (that is to say):
1696

£

s.

d.

For a Licence to be taken out by every maker of any kind of Sweets or Made Wines, or of Mead or Metheglin, for sale, or by any dealer who shall sell the same in any quantity amounting to two gallons or upwards, or in one dozen or more reputed quart bottles at onetime

5

5

0

House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c. REPEAL BILL—SECOND READING.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He believed he might safely say that the distinguished statesman whose name had been so often brought before the House, never contemplated the celebrity which he was to acquire in after times. Strongly as he felt on this question—[A laugh.]—That laugh proceeded from some hon. Gentleman who was probably altogether indifferent about the morality of the country. He felt strongly on this question because he thought it was an important one. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that some complications had arisen in the earlier stages of the financial arrangements which suggested the measure, and it was accordingly transferred from the position it occupied in another Act, and made a separate Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other hon. Members who had advocated the measure had nearly all regarded it in different lights, and he believed all of them had seen it in a wrong light. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that power of language which always characterized his remarks, had contrived to a certain extent to mystify the House upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to show that the effects of Sir J. Barnard's Act were extremely inconvenient to trade; that they interfered with the business of the City; that the public morality had really no connection with this question, and that therefore the objections to this Bill were totally unfounded. Now, in the first place, if Sir J. Barnard's Act had been so extremely inconvenient to trade, it

  1697
  would hardly have been allowed to exist for 130 years. That Act could not have done much harm if it had done no good. The truth was that the first two or three lines of the preamble of the Act itself contained the whole gist of the matter—namely, "Whereas great inconvenience has arisen by the wicked, pernicious, and destructive practice of stock jobbing," &c. The object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to place a penny stamp on time bargains, and to do that it was necessary to defend the principle of time bargains. Upon this question he (Mr. Bentinck) took issue with the right hon. Gentleman. A pamphlet had been sent to him (Mr. Bentinck), in which he found the following statement referring to a great authority in City matters: —
  "The Times is aware that credit is lower on the Stock Exchange among themselves than among any other mercantile body; that, in addition to seventy failures in May, 1857, there were thirty-seven failures declared publicly, after which The Times declared that there was no such gambling to be found on the turf, or in any London gambling hells, or at any German watering-place."
  That was the opinion expressed by The Times newspaper, and yet how was the law carried out? Persons were frequently taken up for betting, and fined; and recently a publican, who had for many years carried on his business near Grosvenor-square, was refused his licence because be allowed persons to bet in a subscription-room in his house, upon the door of which was marked "private." Betting upon horse races was an amusement indulged in by the highest persons in the land, and what were its immoralities compared with the vices of the system which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to legalize? The comparison could only be paralleled by the comparison of an angel to a fiend. Then how could the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer be so indifferent upon a question of public morals—and this was essentially so—as to propose the repeal of a Bill the real object of which was to discourage such proceedings? A melancholy case had lately been brought before our criminal courts of a man who had succeeded in defrauding a bank of more than a quarter of a million, and the explanation of its disposal was, he had speculated in time bargains. In no other place than the Stock Exchange could so much money have been wasted in the time. The gambling on the Stock Exchange, indeed, was perfectly unlimited, extending to hundreds, thousands, and millions. An-
  1698
  other important consideration was the manner in which the repeal of this Bill would affect the immense funds placed by the depositors in savings banks in the hands of the Government. It had been said, however, that Sir J. Barnard's Act might he construed into interfering with perfectly bona fide transactions on the Stock Exchange when the delivery was not immediate. He admitted such might have been the case. But his hon. Friend (Mr. Bovill) had lately sought leave to introduce a Bill the effect of which would have been to repeal all the objectionable features of this Act, retaining that portion which would apply to the malpractices to which he had alluded. Yet, strange to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to agree to the introduction of that Bill, but was now endeavouring to repeal the only good that could be done by the Act. Without it was understood to be an admitted proposition that gambling was beneficial, he really could not see any ground for the repeal of Sir J. Barnard's Act, and he therefore hoped the House would not sanction it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the admirable speech he lately made at Edinburgh, had said that a hope of an enduring fame was, without doubt, a great incentive to virtuous actions. He (Mr. Bentinck) would like to know, supposing some pert young student of the north had risen just after that sentiment had been expressed, in the harmonious terms always adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and had said, "That is all very well, but how about the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act?" He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have found it rather a difficult question to answer. He could only say that this Bill was an unwarrantable attack on the morals of the people for the sake of putting a few pence into the public Exchequer, and he therefore moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he was glad that issue had been at length joined on the Bill, after so many postponements, and that there was some chance of laying the wandering ghost of Sir John Barnard at last. He trusted that the House would find no difficulty in acceding to the second reading of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) had ad-

  1699
  verted to the case which had recently occurred, in which the servant of a bank had disposed of large funds belonging to his employers in gambling transactions on the Stock Exchange. There was no doubt those defalcations had occurred, and had arisen out of gambling in the Funds, but the case had, in fact, no legitimate bearing on this question. If it had any, it argued rather in favour of the Bill than against it, for it showed the utter insufficiency of Sir J. Barnard's Act to prevent such transactions. It was but one of many instances, well known in the legal and commercial world, which showed that the Act, notwithstanding its stringency in terms, and probably owing to that stringency, and its cumbrous machinery, was a dead letter. The hon. Gentleman asserted, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, zealous for the finances of the country, had overlooked the dictates of honour and morality, and, for the sake of getting a small revenue out of contracts on the Stock Exchange, was prepared to do away with one of the existing barriers against gambling; but the answer to that was very simple. In fact, supposing the Act were repealed the next day, the law would still remain abundantly efficacious against gambling transactions. The law as to the invalidity of time bargains would remain just where it was, and the inducement to use stamps on the Stock Exchange or not to use them, would be just the same. There wore two main enactments in Sir J. Barnard's Act. The first and the few following clauses were directed against time-bargains. They were declared void; and penalties were made recoverable at the suit of a common informer against all persons who might enter into them. Time bargains were defined thus in a judgment of Baron Alderson in the Court of Exchequer:—
  "Sir J. Barnard's Act was intended to prevent gambling transactions where stock was not delivered, and where all that was recovered was compensation for a fictitious sale, which was merely imaginary between the parties—in truth, nothing more nor less than a gambling transaction or bet as to the price of stock."
  Had there been no subsequent enactment he should have been very much disposed to agree with the hon. Member for West Norfolk, in the expediency of retaining this portion of Sir J. Barnard's Act. The 8th and following sections of the Act rendered illegal, under penalties recoverable by a common informer, the mere fact of a person not possessed of particular
  1700
  stock entering into a contract to sell that stock. That clause prohibited a class of dealings perfectly wholesome and legitimate, which had been common on the Stock Exchange when the Act was passed, and which had continued to prevail there, notwithstanding it, ever since. Nobody, he believed, objected to the repeal of those sections. The question then arose whether the House would repeal the 8th clause and those hearing on it by themselves, or whether they would repeal the whole Act? By the 18th section of the 8th &c 9th of Victoria, chap. 109, commonly called the Gaming and Wagering Act, it was provided in effect that every contract, however made, by way of gaming and wagering, should be null and void. The difference between this Act and Sir J. Barnard's Act was simply this,—that, while the Act of Victoria prohibited gaming and wagering with respect to every kind of vendible commodity, Sir J. Barnard's Act prohibited them with respect to only one species of property—namely, stock in the British Funds. The latter Act had no reference to foreign stocks, to railway stocks, or to any one of the innumerable kinds of property which might be made the subject of dealing, with the single exception of the British Funds. If it were disputed whether the Gaming and Wagering Act really applied to gambling contracts in the British Funds, every lawyer know that it was now too late to raise that question; for it had been decided by the Court of Common Pleas that a colourable contract for the sale and purchase of railway shares, where the parties intended only to pay the difference, according to the rise and fall in the market, was gaming, within the Act of the 8th &, 9th of Victoria. It followed, therefore, that the provisions of that Act would equally apply to wagering in the British Funds; and the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Norfolk that, if Sir J. Barnard's Act were repealed, fresh encouragement would be given to gambling in the Funds, were not well founded. The real truth was that Sir J. Barnard's Act had proved inefficient, and bad practically been a dead letter, and, upon its repeal its place would be occupied by the Act of Victoria, which had been found beneficial and effective for its purpose.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he had stated when this question was originally mooted, that as regards the repeal of Sir J. Barnard's Act he should vote with the Chan-

  1701
  cellor of the Exchequer; but he entertained the suspicion that the present Bill was not introduced simply to repeal Sir J. Barnard's Act, but as a portion of the Budget for the purpose of getting a revenue from contracts void under that Act. He believed that the effect of 8th &c 9th Vict, was not known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the present Bill formed an essential part of the Budget, its object being to allow those contracts which were void under Sir J. Barnard's Act to be valid. If a Bill had been brought forward to sweep away Sir J. Barnard's Act as being obsolete, no suspicion would have been created, but when the present Bill was proposed as an essential portion of the Budget, suspicion was naturally engendered. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had said that the opponents of this Bill need not have raised the ghost of Sir J. Barnard, and sent him wandering through the House. To carry on the metaphor, be (Mr. Edwin James) would apostrophise this Bill as Hamlet did the ghost of his father:—
  "Thou com'st in such a questionable shape,
  That I will speak to thee."
  MR. HANKEYsaid, the members of the Stock Exchange had very naturally objected to the stamp duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to impose on contracts to which they were parties. They had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and put forward representations as to the onerous and unjust nature of the lax, and they had also asked to be relieved from liability to certain penalties imposed by an obsolete Act on transactions which in themselves he maintained to be perfectly legitimate, and in accordance with the usages of the present day. Time bargains were frequently the most convenient mode in which investments could be made; and as long as the seller of stock fulfilled his contract, he did not believe the legitimacy of the transaction ought to be affected by the period at which it came into his possession. For instance, if a gentleman, being left as trustee, or in any other capacity, had £50,000 to invest, he would go a stockbroker and desire him to purchase stock to that amount. The broker would, of course, buy it in at the most favourable times, and would make a contract with the gentleman to deliver the whole amount of stock on a particular day. In many kinds of marketable securities it was impossible that business could be carried on in any other way. Foreign stocks and railways, for instance, were not dealt in from day to day, but at
  1702
  stated intervals. Transactions in reference to them he regarded as by no means of an equally gambling character with fire insurances, where the agreement was clearly in the nature of a bet. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) had used a very strong expression when he applied the word "gambling" to the transactions of the members of the Stock Exchange, but he could mention places where practices much more open to objection were carried on without question. The bargains in stock were based upon sound commercial principles, and great practical inconvenience would be felt, if, owing to any reason, these were put a stop to. The gentlemen of the Stock Exchange were quite justified in their desire to have the character of illegality removed from their proceedings, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with their representations before him, had acted most properly in undertaking as far as in him lay to accomplish the repeal of Sir J. Barnard's Act.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he had not intended to charge the Members of the Stock Exchange with gambling. He regretted that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) or his friends had not availed themselves of the assistance of the Solicitor General, who would have told them that some of the transaction; as to which they entertained such unpleasant apprehensions were perfectly legal, and were not declared to be otherwise by Sir John Barnard's Act, although, as the language of the Act was obscure, he (Mr. Bovill) was not surprised at the mistake having occurred. He had been delighted to hear from the hon. Gentleman the history of this measure, which, it now appeared, had been introduced, not from any pressing necessity for the amendment of the law, and consequently had not been intrusted to the law officers of the Crown, but in fulfilment of a contract between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Stock Exchange for the legalizing of gambling transactions. The House had been made acquainted that Session with a great many measures for the amendment of the law, but the proposal under consideration had originated from the Resolution by the Committee to grant a penny stamp duty on contracts, provided Sir John Barnard's Act was repealed. In drawing up the Bill for this purpose the able assistance of the hon. and learned Solicitor General had not been invoked, and the law officers had not even seen the Bill; but the Government had re-

  1703
  course to the assistance of some person so wholly inexperienced that it was first boldly proposed to repeal an Act, the operation of which only lasted for throe years, and which expired nearly a century ago. It was now manifest by the speech to which the House had listened that no real amendment of the law was contemplated, the only object being to carry out the agreement by which in return for a penny stamp the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to bargain away the morality of the country. He remembered the feeling of utter astonishment with which in the first instance he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduce the subject by laying it down that, as it was impossible to prevent those transactions, it was better to render them legitimate, and to turn them into a source of revenue. What portion of the community, he would ask, had ever complained of the provisions of Sir John Barnard's Act; what classes had petitioned for its repeal, and what were the grounds suggested for sweeping away that enactment? The hon. and learned Solicitor General being uninformed as to the true reasons for the repeal of the measure, had ascribed the Bill now before the House to the fact that Sir John Barnard's Act was a dead letter. Had the House ever before heard of a case in which it was thought necessary to impede other useful legislation, and to keep a Bill on the paper night after night for a month, whoso simple object was to repeal an obsolete and ineffective Act of Parliament? He ventured to think it was precisely because it was not a dead letter, and because its provisions were found a serious obstacle to the carrying out of those illegitimate gambling transactions that some parties were so eager for its repeal. He had lately prepared at considerable trouble a Bill, preserving all that was useful in Sir John Barnard's Act to prevent gambling, and sweeping away the obsolete provisions. Unless the Government wished to sanction these illegal practices, he asked why had they refused to accept his Bill? He would tell the House why. It was because it would not have fulfilled the compact between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Stock Exchange for a total repeal of that Act. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had said that Sir John Barnard's Act did not stop gambling; but, because Acts of Parliament were not sufficient to repress the evils they were intended to remedy, that was no reason why they should be repealed. Gaming-houses existed, but no-
  1704
  body would seriously propose to repeal the Acts against gaming. It was singular that with Sir John Barnard's Act before him the hon. and learned Solicitor General had omitted to state almost the only important part which affected the Stock Exchange. By that Act gambling transactions were prohibited, a penalty was imposed, and a bill of discovery was authorized to be filed, but there was also this further and most awkward provision, that if time bargains were made by way of wagering and gambling, the money so paid on such time bargains might be recovered hack by the person who paid it. Would any person tell him that that was not a restriction on the facility for gambling? It was a restriction, and that was the reason which made the Stock Exchange so anxious for its repeal. The Government proposed to leave gambling under the Act of 1845, but that Act did not say that money paid upon time bargains might be recovered back. He repeated that the effect of the repeal would be to encourage gambling, and if they encouraged it in one case, they would have the small tradesman resorting to the Stock Exchange for the purpose of retrieving his fallen fortunes, and he should vote against the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, that he had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, because he was in hopes that his hon. Friend would have shown that Sir John Barnard's Act was of some use. His hon. and learned Friend had failed to do so. He had failed to show that it had ever punished anybody who had committed a bad act on the Stock Exchange. He had failed to show that it had prevented such acts. It had, indeed, been a terror to honest and respectable people, but was ineffectual either for the punishment or prevention of fraud. Such was his hon. Friend's admiration of this useless Act, that he bad brought in a Bill to perpetuate some of its provisions, but with what result? His hon. Friend had not been able to find one Member of the House to support him and his Bill was negatived without a division. His hon. and learned Friend had addressed the House that as a common jury, and a very common jury indeed, but he had failed to convince them that it would be unwise to pursue the course to which they were invited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in repealing the Act in question. It was said that the Act was to be repealed

  1705
  in consequence of a bargain which had been made between the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In making that bargain he thought the right hon. Gentleman had done quite right. The gentlemen of the Stock Exchange disliked the imposition of a penny stamp on their contracts, and they said, here was an Act for which none but antiquaries could have any respect, but which did, in some way or other, interfere with stock transactions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up to the Stock Exchange this worthless Act, and in return it gave the right hon. Gentleman a penny on each transfer. The hon. Member for Guildford had supported the hon. Member for West Norfolk, a gentleman for whom he (Mr. Locke) entertained the highest respect, but as he sat on the opposite side of the House, he did not place the same unlimited confidence in his judgment as the hon. Member for Guildford was pleased to do, and therefore he (Mr. (Locke) was not disposed to support him on this occasion. These two hon. Members had hunted the ghost of the unfortunate gentleman up and down that House for the last three weeks; but he (Mr. Locke) trusted that this evening it would be finally laid.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, that when the subject was first mooted he had ventured to express his regret that the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act should have been brought forward in the shape of a clause in the Stamp Act, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared surprised at the objection he made; but his surprise must have long since vanished, considering the nature of the objections the circumstance had produced. That circumstance had given rise to an assertion that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to raise a revenue by a stamp duty upon contract transactions, which in themselves were illegal and immoral, and so legalize those transactions. No stamp of any amount would make moral and legal transactions that were illegal and immoral in their very nature. Many cases came before the Courts of law which depended on documents evidently given for an immoral consideration. Whether such documents were required to be stamped or not he did not know, but he was sure no stamp would render them legal. He denied, however, that there had been any mystery or concealment about the compact of the Government to repeal Sir J. Barnard's Act. The
  1706
  repeal was made a condition in a clause of the very Bill that imposed the penny stamp. Nothing could be more open than the way in which the Government had brought the matter before the House. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had quoted a passage from The Times, written several years ago, giving a very vivid description of the immorality of the Stock Exchange gambling. Evidently, then, Sir J. Barnard's Act had not prevented gambling transactions. But what were its negative effects? The chief objection to the measure was, not that it prevented transactions in the Funds of an objectionable kind; but that men, and those not mere gamblers only, sometimes took advantage of it to defraud those whom they had employed to operate on the Stock Exchange. But, as a London merchant, he must speak in behalf of a body of men who had been much maligned by Sir J. Barnard's Act itself and also by much that had been said during this debate. Did the charge of immorality apply only to time bargains in the Funds? Did it not equally apply to similar transactions in foreign Funds and many great articles of consumption, in which speculations were made of enormous extent and value, and which were quite as ruinous as any gambling in the Funds? Fortunes were lost and made by lucky time bargains in indigo and cotton, and nobody took exception to them. In fact, they could not he prevented, and it was an excessive detriment to liberty of action to fetter it merely because in its abuse it led to bargains which they might call immoral. The repeal of Sir J. Barnard's Act now stood on its own merits, and by voting for that repeal he should not consider himself bound to vote for the penny stamp. He found in the Parliamentary History a note of Tindal the historian, to which he begged the attention of the House:—
  "The friends of this Bill were disappointed in its being passed. They had endeavoured to possess the public with the notion that the greater part of the Minister's (Sir Robert Walpole's) power and income and that of his friends arose from stock jobbing, and that as he was in the secret of affairs at home and abroad, he made use of his knowledge to influence the funds to the advantage of himself and his creatures. The notion was not more injurious to his character than it was false in itself, and he treated it with a becoming disdain by suffering the Bill to pass, though some parts were contrary to his private judgment."
  He should vote unhesitatingly for the re-repeal of a statute which was in its spirit utterly opposed to the policy of the pre-

  1707
  sent day, and which, as he had shown, had originated in party strife and personal malevolence.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that on that occasion he felt compelled to vote against those with whom he usually acted. They could not go into the motives which led to the passing of Sir John Barnard's Act, but must look at the present state of the law and consider whether they ought not to repeal the act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put a tax upon the gentlemen of the Stock Exchange, and they came to him and said there was a certain Act of Parliament which might act oppressively towards them—which was a public inconvenience, and it would much reconcile them to the new stamp duty if the right hon. Gentleman would remove that inconvenience. He agreed to do so and in his (Mr. Malin's) opinion the bargain was a perfectly fair and open one on both sides, and ought to be carried out. Sir John Barnard's Act would, if rigidly acted upon, debar any stockbroker from selling stock unless he had it in his possession. What would the House say if a railway company were to insist that, before he began his contract, the contractor was bound to produce all his iron and wood to satisfy his employers that the contract would be carried into effect? If morality was only to be preserved by Sir John Barnard's Act, it must have been destroyed long ago. [Divide!"] As the House seemed impatient, he would content himself with saying this, that if the principle of Sir John Barnard's Act was right, it fell far short of what it ought to do, because it ought to include bargains in the foreign funds, in timber, and other commodities. He agreed with the learned Solicitor General in thinking that there was sufficient protection against illegal transactions, by the 8th and 9th Victoria, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer acted wisely in seeking to repeal this Act.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to state in one or two words the reasons which would guide him in the vote he was about to give. It had been openly stated and not contradicted, that a bargain had been made between the right hon. Gentleman and certain parties on the Stock Exchange, by which, in consideration of the repeal of this Act, they consented to pay the tax. Now, he did not pretend to be very conversant with what went on inside that place, but he believed they were a very shrewd set of follows that frequented the
  1708
  Stock Exchange, and that they never would have consented to pay this penny tax upon every one of their transactions unless they found that this Act put them to some special inconvenience. He had almost arrived at that conclusion before, but he was confirmed in it by the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard). His hon. Friend said that transactions of a certain kind went on there— that men sometimes fell among thieves, that they got robbed; that these time bargains, very honourable no doubt, could not be carried out; and that the Act prevented the carrying of them out being enforced. Now that convinced him that a great deal of gambling went on there which the Members were desirous of legalizing. His hon. Friend said it was of great benefit to the country, but he was not of that opinion; he thought it worked great mischief, and therefore he would vote for the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he also wished to state in a sentence the grounds on which he would vote against the second reading of this Bill. It totally repealed an Act in which he found several good provisions, particularly in bringing the light of publicity to bear on the transactions of the Stock Exchange. It was clear that the Stock Exchange was wiser than the House, for that body was endeavouring to make regulations to prevent the repetition of such disgraceful transactions as had lately allowed a quarter of a million sterling to be lost there. Now one of the provisions of Sir John Barnard's Act was, that a public register should be kept of all transactions that took place on the Stock Exchange, by which the light of day had been let in upon them. He therefore could not agree to the total repeal of the Act, though he should not have objected to its amendment.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that if an informer were to bring a qui tam action against a respectable merchant on the faith of the provisions of this Bill, the House would act as it did in the case of the qui tam actions for horse-racing—it would not only repeal the Act, but pass an ex post facto law to prevent the enforcement of the penalties, He should support the second reading.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he regretted to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having recklessly thrown away millions of the public revenue, now attempting to get it back by having recourse to the pettifogging expedient—wholly unworthy of a

  1709
  Chancellor of the Exchequer—of the imposition of a penny stamp upon every document connected with commerce, and upon every movement in our warehouses. They had had evidence that evening of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had actually been negotiating with the Stock Exchange in this matter, with a view to obtain from it, a miserable contribution towards filling up the deficit which he had so wantonly made.
  Question put, "That the word "now" stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 181, Noes 58: Majority 123.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

EXCISE AND ASSESSED TAXES ACT.

  COMMITTEE. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
  Question again proposed,—
  "That in lieu of the Duties now payable on Game Certificate's in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, there shall be charged the following Duties of Excise:—
  For a Licence 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 land-rail, or any conies, or any deer, or shall take or kill by any means whatever, or shall assist in any manner in the taking or killing, 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 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 shall be taken out

  2

  0

  0

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

  To expire on the 5th day of April following

  2

  0

  0"

  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he rose to move a Resolution on the subject of Game Certificates. He had made a good deal of inquiry with respect to it, both in conjunction with the Revenue Department and gentlemen interested in the matter; the result of which he believed to be a plan which was simple in itself and also workable, although it was not that which the Revenue Department preferred. It was that a game certificate taken out for the whole season should be
  1710
  £3; and for a moiety of the season, including three months to or from October 31st, £2. That was the essence of the scheme. There was no alteration whatever in the law except with regard to deer; although the phraseology might be such as to give rise to some question. Deer would now be considered as game, and, of course, the shooting of deer would require a certificate to be taken out as in the case of other game. There was also a Resolution entitling a person having the right to kill game, to authorize any servant chargeable to the assessed taxes to kill game upon the same lands upon payment of the duty of £2.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved that the Resolution was not on the paper; he suggested that it ought to have been printed.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of pointing out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had, in dealing with the subject, considered the question too much as a question of finance, and too little as a question of public convenience and advantage. The effect of the proposal would be to cause many people to take out game certificates who would not otherwise do so, and to encourage day poaching in districts where game was preserved. This would lead to scenes of violence between keepers and poachers by day as well as by night. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would carefully reconsider the subject.
  MR. FELLOWESsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to adjournment, in order that the Resolution might be printed. It was really most important that hon. Members should know what they were going to do.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYmoved that the Chairman report progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had been under a misapprehension, thinking that the subject was before the Committee when he was absent. He did not advert to the fact that the Resolution had not been printed. He certainly quite agreed that progress should be reported under the circumstances. The Resolution would of course be printed.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mean that a farmer would require to take out a licence at £2 or £3 to shoot rabbits, which were vermin.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, rabbits were a great nuisance, and farmers were obliged to em-

  1711
  ploy persons to destroy them. It would he very hard to require a farmer to take out a licence for that purpose.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, there was no alteration in the existing law in the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except in the matter of the licences, and that farmers were allowed to kill rabbits without a certificate.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given up the idea of £1 certificates at the end of the season, and he was entitled to every credit for having done so. Every poacher would have availed himself of such a privilege.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he wished to know whether the question was to be considered on financial or moral grounds? The fact was, that violent encounters and bloodshed occurred so often in various parts of the country, in relation to the game laws, that if hon. Gentlemen went into the question in a moral point of view, some inquiry ought to be made as to whether a stop could not be put to those outrages, which filled the gaols with prisoners, and caused an amount of evil which was almost incalculable in the counties where they occurred. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact, to show that if the House really proceeded to consider the Game Laws at all, they should go into the whole case.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn. House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Thursday next.

PIERS AND HARBOURS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he had to move that the Order for the Committee on the Bill be discharged for the purpose of having the Bill referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he did not think that that was a Bill that ought to be sent to a Select Committee, as it proposed to levy rates on shipping, and to take out of the hands of Parliament the power which it now possessed as to levying rates, and to place it in the hands of the Board of Admiralty. He apprehended the House was not prepared to allow the Admiralty to take compulsorily land on the shores of the kingdom. The House alone ought to have jurisdiction in such matters. He would move that the Bill be committed that day six months if he were supported.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would remind the House that on the se-
  1712
  cond reading of the Bill, his hon. Friend (Mr. Paull), who had charge of it, consented, in deference to a wish then generally expressed, to submit it to a Select Committee, and that he was now endeavouring to give effect to that wish.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the propriety of referring the Bill to a Select Committee had been under the consideration both of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and they had come to the conclusion that as the Bill had been read a second time after full discussion, it was desirable that it should go to a Select Committee, with the view to a consideration of what powers should be given to a department of the Executive Government for promoting harbour improvements. It was desirable that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) should know that the subjects in question would not be altogether removed from the jurisdiction of the House, inasmuch as any provisional orders to be made under the Bill would have to receive the assent of Parliament.
  MR. PAULLreplied.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  "Bill committed to Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Lord ROBERT CECIL, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. CORRY, the JUDGE ADVOCATE, Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Mr. TALBOT, Mr. GORE LANGTON, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. M'MAIION, Mr. BLACKBURN, Mr. SERJEANT KING-LAKE, Mr. RIDLEY, and Mr. PAULL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records: Five to be the quorum."

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD FERMOYwas understood to oppose the progress of the measure at so advanced a period of the night.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he thought the Bill objectionable in many particulars, but in the belief that it would be properly scrutinized in Committee, he would give his assent to the second reading.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEcontended that there were grave objections to the Bill on the ground that the Metropolitan Board of Works were about to usurp the power of the vestries, and cause parishes to pay excessive taxation. The board also proposed to re-

  1713
  tain their present elective system, although by the constitution they were not elected by the ratepayers, but by the vestries, and the members elected did not fairly represent the Metropolitan districts. Some provision ought to be made in the Bill for an alteration in their constitution. If these points were attended to in Committee he had no objection, but the Bill must be almost entirely remodelled. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, in order to enable the hon. Member for Bath to explain more fully its objects. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be road a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. TITEexplained the object of the Bill, which was to apportion more fairly the drainage and sewerage expenses among the districts of the Metropolis. There was a debt of £200,000 to be paid off, the payment of which was in the first instance divided among forty districts, upon some of which it pressed very severely in proportion to the amount of benefit they had derived. The Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to take £73,000 of the debt for the main drainage of the Metropolis, which would relieve some of the parishes, and allow of a fair distribution of the remaining sum. It was not proposed, however, to make any alteration in the mode of electing the members of the Metropolitan Board, as the system had hardly had a fair trial. The Bill was the result of careful deliberation, and the Committee which he would have the honour to propose would have the power to take further evidence and propose such modifications as would be thought most effectual in accomplishing the objects for which it had been framed. It was, however, a matter which pressed, as unless the Bill passed, the Board would have to enforce an unjust payment from several parishes.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the House had great cause to complain that the Metropolitan Board of Works should ask them at the end of May to pass a Bill consisting of more than 100 clauses. They ought to pause before it gave any more power to the Metropolitan Board of Works so long as it was constituted on its present basis.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he could not understand why this Bill was not brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, if the Metropolitan Board were anxious to have the money that was due properly apportioned. However, he would not oppose the proposition for the second reading, with a view to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee; but he must reserve to himself the right of opposing the Bill after it came back from the Committee, if it was not materially improved.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he objected to a great many clauses in the Bill. Many of the powers given by the Bill were extremely arbitrary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed to a Select Committee.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland); Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment. 3a Consolidated Fund (£9,500,000).

TREATY OF TURIN—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Their Lordships were aware that by the Treaty of Turin, Nice was to be ceded by Sardinia to France. In the French version of the Treaty as published in the Moniteur, it appeared that the word "arrondissement" was used, a term as to which there was some ambiguity. He wished to ask whether the noble Lord opposite could furnish the House with any satisfactory information on this subject. Their Lordships were also aware that a mixed commission of Sardinian and French officers had been appointed in order to settle the boundary between the two countries. Now those of their Lordships who knew the country were well aware that the road to Turin, after leaving Nice, instead of bending round the spur of the maritime Alps, mounted to their summit. The question of boundary was therefore of the utmost importance, both as regarded this road and also the limits of the neighbouring State of Monaco. He wished to know whether the noble Lord could give the House some information on this point also?
LORD WODEHOUSEreplied, that he was not able to give much information. The Treaty of Zurich had not yet been ratified by the Sardinian Parliament, and, in fact, the treaty itself was silent as to the precise limits between Nice and Sardinia. He believed a Commission was about to be appointed to consider that question, but he was not in possession of sufficient information to warrant him in saying anything further upon so important a point.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that as to the existing boundaries on these frontiers, they were as well ascertained as those of any borough in England. If the word "arrondissement," were intended as a translation of "circondario," and the latter was the word actually used in the Treaty, there could be no doubt whatever as to what was its exact rendering.

UNION OF BENEFICES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1. (Contiguous Benefices in a City, Town, or Borough, may be united.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the primary object of the measure was to meet the peculiar case of the City of London. The population having migrated to the suburbs, the City churches were now almost unoccupied, and it was consequently desirable that the churches should be sacrificed, and that accommodation should instead be provided for the inhabitants of outlying districts. He doubted, however, whether the principle should be extended any further, and whether legislation ought not to be confined to the exceptional case of the Metropolis.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, that in many of the old corporate and cathedral towns there were a number of small churches, ill-endowed, ill-built, and inadequate for the wants of the population, and which were a positive hindrance to church accommodation, because as long as they stood they would prevent more commodious churches from being erected. Such a Bill as the present would probably make it easier to remedy this evil, and by uniting certain benefices and allowing the demolition of some of these old churches would provide more adequately both for the support of the clergy and the spiritual wants of the district. He could see no reason why such a measure should be exceptional in its operation. If the principle were good for London, it was no less good for other places

  1635
  similarly circumstanced. He hoped therefore their Lordships would consent to make this measure a general one.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that if it were thought desirable to extend a measure of this sort generally, there was no need of the elaborate machinery of this Bill, The object could he effected by means of the provisions of the Pluralities Act.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought that the application of the Pluralities Act would not be sufficient, because this Bill proposed in certain cases to authorize the pulling down of churches, which the Phi ralities Act did not.
  LORD PORTMANpointed out that if the measure were confined to the Metropolis it would become if not a private, at least a hybrid Bill, and would require certain stages to be gone through before it could proceed further.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he must call their Lordships' attention to the fact that this Bill was in principle a continuance Act of an Act which expired this year; and that, therefore, this or some other Bill was necessary. The Bill did not apply to the whole country; it was confined to any "City, Town, or Borough," and did not extend to rural parishes.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested the insertion, after the words "any City, Town, or Borough," of the words "inserted in the schedule to this Act annexed." The principle would thus he laid down that this legislation was exceptional and only applicable to the places mentioned in the schedule, the places whose names should be inserted in the schedule might he made subject of future consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrecommended the right rev. Prelate to accept this proposal. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl, as he was always glad to do whenever he was able. The suggestion would meet the wishes of both sides of the House—it would extend the operation of the Bill to all those places to which it ought to be extended, and it would prevent its application to places to which it ought not to be applied.
  EARL GREYobserved that a grievance existed the extent of which was uncertain, and a remedy was proposed which was accompanied by careful restrictions. If those restrictions were insufficient, let them be increased; but let not their Lordships run the risk of omitting by inadvertence places from the schedule which ought to be included in it.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONassented to the suggestion.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 14 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 15 (Site of Church pulled down not to be sold or let without certain Consents).
  THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to insert the words ("shall be taken or construed to legalize the Sale or Letting of the Site of any Church to be pulled down, if there shall have been any interments or Deposits in any Grave or Vault under the Site of such Church"). The object of this Amendment was similar to that of the clause which was inserted by the House of Commons in the Act which was now expiring.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, be should certainly be the last man to consent to any desecration either of churches or churchyards; but the object of the clause was simply to do that which had been already authorized by numerous other Acts both public and private. Some of these Acts had authorized the sale not of the sites of the churches only but of the churchyards. By the 19th Charles II., which was an: Act for the re-building of the City of Lon-don after the Fire, and the 22nd Charles H., the same power was reserved; and by; the 1st Will. IV. the Corporation of the City of London were empowered to dispose of the burial ground of St. Olave's, South-wark, and to remove the bodies. That was under the London Bridge Approaches Act. There were several other instances in which I the Corporation of the City of London had been empowered to take down churches and to dispose of the site and of the burial grounds. It was by no means the intention of the framers of this Bill to put up these churches for sale by auction, or to look merely to raising money by the sale of them. The Bill, as it stood, would simply I rest in very responsible persons the discretion of determining when the power given; by Parliament should be exercised. Pub-lie opinion had much changed in this matter, it being seen that there was no real danger of the desecration of churches or I churchyards under such guarded provisions as those under discussion. He was, there fore, disposed to adhere to the clause in its present shape. If the House of Commons should think fit to introduce an Amendment like that now proposed by the noble Lord, it would be competent for them to do so when the Bill went before them.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHob-

  1637
  jected altogether to ecclesiastical precedents drawn from the days of Charles II., and with respect to the other precedents referred to by the right rev. Prelate there was probably none that did not involve advantages to the Corporation of the City of London. Now a distinguished statesman had once recommended to him never to have anything to do with the City Corporation, for that they were the greatest jobbers he ever knew in the whole course of his political life. Bearing in mind everything that fell from that excellent person, he objected to act on precedents derived from the Corporation of the City of London. The right rev. Prelate said that public opinion had changed in respect to interments of the dead—but respect for the dead was an instinct of human nature that could never be forgotten, and he thought it was far better for them to do what they knew and felt to be right than leave it to the House of Commons to tell them they had done wrong.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBLRYsupported the Amendment, alluding to an observation once made by Captain Cook, the great navigator, who had remarked that he found no more certain test of the comparative civilization and degree of mental culture attained by the wild tribes he had visited, than the degree of respect which they paid to the place where the remains of their dead were deposited.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that the principle of the clause had been frequently acted upon from the time of Charles II. to the present reign for purposes of local improvement; and surely it was not to be objected to when the object was to provide means of religious instruction to thousands who would otherwise be left spiritually destitute. Care would, no doubt, in every case be taken that no violence was done to decency and that reverence for the dead which they all; wished to cultivate. If the Amendment were adopted the mere fact of a single leaden coffin lurking in some corner of an old wall would prevent the sale of an ecclesiastical site, which it was most desirable to dispose of for the religious training of thousands of the living. He trusted their Lordships would not deprive the Bill of this beneficial clause.
  LORD CRANWORTHobserved, that the effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite would he that no title to any church could be made out without an objection being taken by the conveyancer,
  1638
  that it was necessary to establish that there never had been a corpse buried under any part of the church.
  EARL STANHOPEthought the words proposed to be introduced would go much further than his noble Friend (the Earl of Powis) intended, and would extend to cases where, from the lapse of time there were no vestiges of mortal remains, but where, it appeared from ancient records interments had once taken place.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that the plea for disposing of the sites of these churches in order to obtain the means of providing religious instruction elsewhere, would justify the sale of all churches and churchyards. There were two classes of churches in the City, some built merely for congregational purposes, and others for burials besides. The distinction to be recognized was, that where the churches were erected merely as places of worship, the consecration was confined to the fabric, but where interments took place the ground was consecrated as well as the fabric. His Amendment, in fact, only asked them to continue a principle in legislation they had adopted five years ago.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that, on the contrary, by passing the Bill, including this clause, in the form in which it was proposed by the right rev. Prelate, they would only be acting in conformity with what had been done by Parliament on former occasions, and conferring a great benefit on future generations.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERhoped their Lordships would not adopt the Amendment, which would, in fact, make the Bill wholly inoperative. It was not likely that the Bishop of the diocese and the Archbishop of the province, with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose sanction was required before the remains of the dead could be removed or the graves and vaults disturbed, would sanction any "desecration." Surely this provision was a sufficient guarantee against improper proceedings.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONcited a Report made by the Inspectors of Graveyards upon this subject, in answer to a communication which had been addressed to them by the Home Secretary. They noticed the great differences which existed between some of the churches in London and others; but the general tenor of their Report was far more against the removal of the remains therein deposited than in favour of it. Their Lordships should be

  1639
  very careful about assenting to a scheme on which these gentlemen expressed so qualified an opinion.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONbelieved the noble Earl was referring only to the first part of the Inspector's Report, and not the second. At the end of their Report they recommended that nothing should be done without the sanction of the Secretary of State, and that provision was embodied in the Bill, It had been stated that some churches were built only for congregational purposes, and others for burials as well; but he believed that scarcely a single church could be found in the City of London under which interments had not taken place; so that if the noble Earl's Amendment were adopted not a single church could, under any circumstances, be disposed of.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsuggested that some provision should be made, by which the parishioners themselves might be consulted, and their opinion taken as to what should be done with the church.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONpointed out that, by the 7th and 8th clauses of his Bill, the vestry would have the power of objecting, and then the matter would have to go first before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and then to the Privy Council.
  Amendment negatived: Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Bishop may allow additional Church left standing to be used for certain services).
  EARL NELSONobserved that this clause gave power to the Bishop of London to give the use of these churches to any congregation of Foreign Protestants, He would not object to this for the performance of the Church Service in the Welsh or any foreign language; but it would be placing a Bishop of the Church of England in rather an invidious position to call on him to decide to what other foreign denomination he would grant the use of the Church.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, he hoped the proposal embodied in the clause would obtain the consent of the House: for it was quite in accordance with the spirit of the Church of England to hold out the hand of fellowship to the Protestants of Foreign nations. He remembered seeing in Canterbury Cathedral some French inscriptions, and the explanation of their being there was, the Archbishop of a former time had allowed a congregation of French Protestant refugees to assemble for worship in
  1640
  the Metropolitan Church of England, and to put up there some texts of Scripture in their own language, that they might not feel too much like strangers in the land to which persecution for their faith had driven them. He believed the present Bishop of London had acted in the same spirit, in admitting this recognition of that brotherhood which the Church of England claimed with Protestants throughout Europe; and he (Lord Taunton) feeling warmly on this subject, as from his connections he might be expected to do, did not love the Church of England the less, because he regarded her as a bulwark of Protestantism in the world. As a suggested consequence of assenting to this proposal, that members of the Mormon or similar persuasions would be admitted to hold their services in those churches, he (Lord Taunton) could not believe that the time was likely to come when the discretion of using his authority in such a case might not safely be left in the hands of the Prelate occupying for the time being the Bishopric of London.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that such an expression of feeling came very gracefully from the noble Lord, considering his family traditions; and he agreed with the noble Lord, so far as the question related to the maintenance of the great principles of Protestantism; but the wording of the clause was very loose and vague.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhoped the right rev. Prelate would not abate one jot of this clause, which, in his opinion, was greatly in favour of true religious freedom. If the right rev. Prelate withdrew the clause he would cause disappointment to thousands and tens of thousands of Protestants in the kingdom. From the earliest days of the Reformation it had ever been the desire of the heads of the Anglican Church to cultivate friendly relations with the Protestants of the Continent, as was shown by the fact that in the days of Archbishop Cranmer, Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr were appointed Professors at Oxford. In the days of Elizabeth, Archbishop Usher wrote and spoke in the same spirit; and in our own days the late Archbishop Howley was in favour of a continuance of the same friendly intercourse. [The noble Lord read a passage from the late Prelate's writings to that effect].
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that if the late Archbishop Howley would have supported, as it appeared from the quotation he would have supported the

  1641
  clause, it was impossible for him to oppose it; for in his mind the late Archbishop Howley approached as near to the perfection of the Christian character as any man could he expected to arrive.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 18 to 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Property to be sold to vest in Ecclesiastical Commissioners).
  EARL NELSONstrongly urged that instead of pulling down the churches they should pull down the pews, and leave the whole of the sittings free and unappropriated.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, there was an old principle observed in parish churches for certain seats to be appropriated to persons resident in the parish; and he thought that it would give dissatisfaction to the parishioners if they wore not to have seats set apart for them.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHasked whether under this Section there would be any possibility of pulling down St. George's-in the-East?
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday, the 4th of June next.

THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF THE COUNTY OF LONDONDERRY.
THE EARL OF BELMORErose to draw the attention of the House to the appointment of Mr. Lyle, the Receiver Master in Chancery in Ireland, to the Office of Lieutenant of the County and City of Londonderry; and to ask Her Majesty's Government for some Explanations with regard to that Appointment. The noble Earl said that the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county in Ireland was created by an Act which was passed in 1831. In the discussions which took place on the passage of the Bill through Parliament, it was admitted that the persons chosen for the office should be persons of the highest rank and character resident in the counties to which they were respectively appointed. In the House of Lords, on the question of going into Committee on the Bill, Earl Grey (who followed the Duke of "Wellington) said—
"With respect to the qualifications of those persons, no doubt they should he of high character and rank, and above all, as suggested by the noble Duke, residents in the county."
In the House of Commons, Mr. O'Connell opposed the Bill, and said—
1642
"He no more doubted than he doubted of his existence, that the measure would create discontent and heart-burnings throughout Ireland."
Mr. Stanley (then Chief Secretary for Ireland) replied to the objections of Mr. O' Connell, and, in the course of his speech, said,
"Generally there would be no difficulty in finding a person whose high standing and weight in the county, would point him out as a fit person to be entrusted with the responsibility of this office."
And Lord Althorp said—
"One great advantage of the introduction of such a system as this into Ireland was, that they would have persons of rank, station, and respectability in the several counties there, whom they could make responsible for the recommendation of magistrates in their respective counties, and who would take care that none but proper persons would be selected to fill that office."
The duties of a Lord Lieutenant of a county were to recommend persons for the Commission of the Peace to the Lord Chancellor, to appoint the colonels (and now all the officers) to the Militia of the county, and as Custos Rotulorum to appoint to the lucrative office of Clerk of the Peace. About two months ago a vacancy occurred in the Lord Lieutenancy of the County of Londonderry by the death of Sir Robert Ferguson. The appointment was given to Mr. Lyle, a Master in Chancery, a gentleman, he admitted, of the very highest character, but who certainly did not fulfil the conditions which he had stated: whereas there were resident within the county two Peers, and several gentlemen of wealth and the highest social position. He had no objection of a personal kind to make to Mr. Lyle, of whose private character and of whose efficiency as an officer of the Irish Court of Chancery he had heard many people speak in terms of the highest commendation. But there were many grounds for questioning the propriety of his nomination to the position of Lord Lieutenant. How was it possible that a gentleman who was bound to attend every day in the Irish Court of Chancery, could properly perform the duties of Lord Lieutenant of a county which was one of the most remote in all Ireland from the Irish capital? Again, a Lord Lieutenant recommended gentlemen to the Lord Chancellor for appointments to the Commission of the Peace; and in that capacity he was supposed to offer a check against the introduction by the Chancellor of unfit persons into the magistracy; but a Master in Chancery could hardly be expected to control in any way the action of a great public functionary in whose

1643
Court he filled a subaltern office. Was it, he asked, constitutional that the Crown should appoint one of its own officers to be the head of the unpaid magistracy of the county. Another fair objection to the appointment was the smallness of Mr. Lyle's property. All that he (the Earl of Belmore) could, learn upon that point was that Mr. Lyle was the owner of a very nice model farm in the county of Londonderry, and that he had property there of the value of about £1,000 a year. He was informed that when that gentleman announced himself to the grand jury of Londonderry as their Lord Lieutenant, that statement was received by everybody present, with the exception of one person, in solemn silence. Of course, he admitted that where there were several persons equally well qualified to fill the office, the noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) had a perfect right to appoint one who agreed with him in political matters, rather than an opponent; but he hoped that if he (the noble Earl) had determined, when he could not find a person in any particular county, who entirely agreed with him, to seek for a Lieutenant from amongst the class of small proprietors, he would re-consider the matter, as he (the Earl of Belmore) knew that very often a Lieutenant so chosen would be overwhelmed with solicitations to make the most improper appointments, both to the magistracy, and to the Militia. There was another point to which he wished to refer. The other House of Parliament had a Standing Order which declared that any Lord Lieutenant of a county using the influence of his office to secure the return of a particular Member to that House would be guilty of a breach of their privileges. Now, it was stated that Mr. Lyle, within a day or two after his appointment, had taken an active part in a recent election for the city of Londonderry, and although it might be urged that he had only done so in his private capacity, it appeared to him (the Earl of Belmore) that he would have done better to abstain from any interference in such a political contest. These were circumstances which, in his opinion, called for explanation, and he hoped that explanation would be given on the part of the Government.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I have to express my acknowledgments to the noble Earl on two accounts—first, for having treated this matter with good taste and temper, and secondly, for having
1644
brought it forward when I had an opportunity of being here present, and offering such an explanation as I may deem proper. It has been stated, though not by the noble Earl, that in the appointment of Mr. Lyle to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Londonderry, I acted very much under the inspiration of others. I mention this because, though I hope I am not indisposed on all due occasions to act in full concert with my colleagues, whether in England or in Ireland, I should be sorry to lose any of the direct responsibility of this appointment, inasmuch as I think it, for the reasons I am about to state, a remarkably good one. I shall begin by admitting that Mr. Lyle does not possess those attributes of large fortune, or of very high birth and lineage, which may, perhaps, be properly looked for, and which I will not dispute with the noble Earl are generally looked for, in these appointments. However, as many of your Lordships are aware, the county of Londonderry is very peculiarly circumstanced in this respect. A very large proportion of the county is in the hands of the great London Companies, comprised under the general designation of the "Irish Society." The area of the whole county consists of 518,000 acres. The properties held in fee by individual proprietors amount to 87,000 acres only, and the remainder—that is, about four-fifths of the county—is in the possession of the great London Companies. So that, really, if you were to look only to territorial possessions and influence, the Governors of the Irish Society or the Lord Mayor of London would be the most appropriate persons to appoint as Lord Lieutenants of the county. But the noble Earl has referred to certain individual proprietors connected by property with the county. He has stated that there are two Peers either of whom I might have selected for the office. One is the Marquess of Waterford. Now, I presume the noble Earl would hardly recommend me to place the office of Lord Lieutenant, who has the supervision of the magistracy and the Militia, in the hands of a Peer who is himself in Holy orders. I hold, moreover, the primary qualification for the office of Lord Lieutenant to be that of residing in the county; and it is well known that the noble Marquess referred to not only never resides in Londonderry, but resides in the county of Ireland the most remote from Londonderry. The other Peer is Lord Garvagh, who does not at present possess any property in the

1645
county; the estates belong to his mother. But I admit at once that if I had thought it fitting to have recourse to persons differing in political opinion from the Government with which it is my pride and pleasure to be connected, I might have found one or two persons, but scarcely more, whose stake in the county exceeds that of Mr. Lyle. I might have selected Lord Garvagh or Sir Harvey Bruce; but I think it due to those who concur in political opinion with Her Majesty's Government, whenever I have to assign stations of honour and distinction, unless there is some strong reason to the contrary, to give the preference to those who entertain the opinions and support the principles to which I myself owe the position I hold, and the power I possess of dealing with such matters at all. Such, I am sure, has been the general practice in this country, and it was the intention, as the noble Earl rightly stated, of those who brought forward the measure creating the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county in Ireland, to introduce the English system, and to follow the English precedent. In this country, under all Governments, the course has been followed of giving the preference in these cases to persons coinciding in political opinion with the Government of the day. I may cite two very remarkable instances which occurred in my own time, one under a Conservative, the other under a Liberal Government. There was a vacancy in the office of Lord Lieutenant for the county of Bedford. I need not tell your Lordships of the great extent of property possessed by the Duke of Bedford in that county. But the Government of Lord Liverpool, upon that vacancy occurring, did not give the Lord Lieutenancy to the Duke of Bedford, but gave it to Earl de Grey, who at that time did not possess one single acre within the county. The other case, which occurred under a Liberal Government, was a much stronger one. There was a vacancy in the county palatine of Lancaster. That office had been immemorially held by the family of the noble Earl who usually sits opposite, who was the last Prime Minister, who owns the largest estates in that county, and who, I have no scruple in saying, is by his position, by his public services, by his genius, and by his personal worth, one of the most eminent subjects, if not the most eminent subject, of the Queen. Still the Lord Lieutenancy of Lancashire became four times vacant, and four times it was given by different Governments not to the Earl
1646
of Derby, but to other persons, who however eminent, as to position, family connexions, and public eminence, could in no way compete with that noble Earl. I say that a much stronger argument might have been raised against the omission of the noble Earl in those instances than against the overlooking of any person in the county of Londonderry in the present case. The noble Earl has alluded to Mr. Lyle's property, which for the sake of his argument, he a little understated. I know from the best authority that Mr. Lyle has an estate in fee simple producing £1,300 a year, exclusive of his house and demesne containing 300 acres, and well worth £400 a year; he has also leasehold property worth £94 per annum, making a total of £1,800 a year. This is certainly not a magnificent estate; but I am within the truth in saying that it is of greater value than the estate which was possessed by the late lieutenant of the county, Sir Robert Ferguson, who performed the duties of his office with the utmost efficiency, and was held in universal respect and honour. It may be some consolation to Mr. Lyle under the unmerited, and, I think, ungenerous attacks which have been made upon him, to know that just the same taunts and imputations were levelled against the appointment of Sir Robert Ferguson. I might quote what was said at the time of that gentleman's appointment; but I am sure that those who made the attacks lived to see that Sir Robert Ferguson was a most excellent lieutenant, and I have little doubt that the same correction of hostile opinions will occur in the case of Mr. Lyle. Now, with respect to the personal qualities of Mr. Lyle—to those which, after all, constitute the real man, and which qualify him for the duties which he has to discharge, and the part which lie has to play in life—I can only say that I would answer for him as I would for the most honoured of your Lordships. It was my lot—for my experience of Ireland has now been rather a long one — to recommend Mr. Lyle for the first legal office which he held. He has, since then, under different Governments with which I had no connection, risen gradually higher. He first became Deputy, and then Chief Remembrancer, an office held by the late right hon. Anthony Blake, whose reputation must be well known to many of your Lordships; and on that office being abolished he was made First Master in Chancery. I do not imagine that the

1647
duties which he has to discharge as a Master in Chancery in any way disqualify him for the performance of those which will pertain to him as Lieutenant of the county. If there should be any incompatibility between the two sets of duties, it will not be of long continuance, because it has long been notorious in Ireland that Mr. Lyle intends within a very short time to retire, as he is enabled to do by the Acts constituting the different Courts to which he had been an officer, from discharging the active duties of his profession. He has for fifteen years been a deputy lieutenant of the county of which he is now made Lieutenant; he has regularly attended the grand juries; he is intimately acquainted with the business, with the gentry, and with the interests of the county in which he resides. He has already been in the habit of living in the county of Londonderry. The noble Earl (the Earl of Belmore) asks how he can perform the duties of lieutenant of that county when he has to spend part of the year in his office in Dublin?—but I will at least make bold to say that he resides in his county much more than many of the noble Lords and Gentlemen, some of whom have seats in Parliament, and others hold offices under the Crown, who act as lieutenants for other counties in Ireland and England. He already resides there a great deal, and it is his intention to do so to a still greater extent. As to his still more personal qualities, I know him to be judicious, discreet, sensible, unblemished in character, and in the whole course of his life; in short, he is made of just the stuff to fit him to be a good lieutenant, and to enable him adequately to perform the duties of that office. Really, if I had not been specially called upon to do so, I should feel ashamed of detaining your Lordships so long by making excuses—that is not the word I ought to use, but by giving reasons—for the appointment of such a man, because he does not possess all the mere external attributes of fortune and position of which many far less really qualified than he is can boast. Having thought it right to say this much for Mr. Lyle, I am glad that at least in this place no insinuations have been hazarded that this appointment was made from sordid motives, to secure his retirement from his office in order that the Government might bestow it upon another. Had such insinuations been made, I should have been able to show your Lordships how exactly the reverse of the truth they were. I have
1648
thought it due to Mr. Lyle to say thus much, and I am sure that every succeeding year that passes over our heads will prove the propriety of his appointment. For myself, my Lords, I have only to add one or two very short sentences. I perceive that some censures have lately been passed upon my conduct—that, in short, charges of general mischief-making and personal corruption have been made against me. I do not forget how gracefully and how generously I was defended, and have only to say, with regard to them, that I have now been for a very long time, I believe for thirty-five years, before the public in one or the other House of Parliament. I have served large constituencies; I have been connected with the actual Government of Ireland for above ten years. No doubt shortcomings and errors in judgment might be plentifully alleged against me; but with respect to personal probity and integrity, if my conduct requires any defence, it is not worth defending.
THE BISHOP OF DERRYsaid, he would trespass on their Lordships but for a few moments, to express to them his sense of the great respectability and high character of his Friend Mr. Acheson Lyle. Since he had been translated from the diocese of Limerick to that of Derry every day's acquaintance with this gentleman had increased his appreciation of his merits. He might be allowed to say that he felt perfectly assured Mr. Lyle would discharge the high duties of his office with honour to himself and with advantage to the county, which he certainly would adorn.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he had listened with some surprise at what the noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) had said in defence of the appointment. It appeared that he relied upon and brought forward the Earl of Derby's case as a parallel, and he mixed up his defence with expressions of pride and personal gratification at being connected with a "Liberal Government." Liberal! Why, what was this liberality? What was the liberal conduct of the Government? And what was the liberal conduct of the noble Earl? Was it to be said that no matter how great the services that had been rendered to the country by one of rank and position, no matter how meritorious those services, or how eminent the individual, he was to be set aside and overlooked in favour of a man who was called a "Liberal?" although inferior in point of position, inferior in every respect to the individual so set aside. Having performed

1649
no service for his country, but because be called himself a Liberal, he was to have a preference and be placed in a more prominent position than the person whose services were so exemplary. Were those the "liberal" sentiments of Her Majesty's Government? He should call this the reverse of "liberality;" indeed he should say this was "bigotry in politics." Was it to be understood that no situation, great or small, was to be given to any person who did not support the existing Government? That henceforth no favour or honour was to be bestowed on any person who would not go in every respect along with the noble and liberal Earl? It might be the noble Earl's pride, as he had said, to belong to the present Government—but what were the opinions of Her Majesty's Government? What were his principles? It appeared to him that they had no principles—nobody could fathom them:—at all events they held one set of principles in Ireland, and another in I House of Commons England. They had a Janus head. In England they upheld a Protestant form of Government; in Ireland a Popish form. The British Government was Protestant in form and expression. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) was just the reverse. He was not satisfied with appointing Roman Catholics to every office great and small, to the exclusion of all Protestants, but he appointed Ultramontanists, or, as they were called in Ireland, Papists. Under the mask of liberality the noble Earl sought to establish a despotism of the very worst kind. The noble Earl said that his character was not worth defending. But the country was worth defending, and the question came to this—were they to have the Government of Queen Victoria or that of the Po These were the grounds on which he would address their Lordships. ["Hear, hear!"] He rejoiced at those cheers. He trusted the House would lend him their patience, for he would require it. Mr. Lyle's selection for the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county was not an isolated case. The noble Earl had made equally objectionable appointments in the Queen's County, Wexford, Cork and Roscommon. Could the same excuse that had been advanced for the appointment of Mr. Lyle be urged for passing over Lord Clancarty, Lord Clan-brock, Lord Castlemaine, Lord De Freyne, Lord Ffrench, Sir Gilbert King, and other Resident Proprietors of much greater importance than Mr. Tenison. But Mr. Tenison wished to have a seat in the House of Commons. Perhaps the noble
1650
Earl would favour their Lordships with his reasons for appointing Mr. Tenison for Roscommon?
THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSwas under the impression that the last-named appointment occurred while he was at the head of the Irish Government.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMthought it would not be denied that the noble Earl (the Earl of Carlisle) appointed Mr. Tenison, Lieutenant of Roscommon. Being so appointed, that Gentleman stood as a candidate at the last election for his county. Will the noble Earl deny that, excepting for the purpose of advancing his electioneering prospects, there were not other gentlemen in the county better qualified than Mr. Tenison to fill that important office? but happily the noble Earl failed, in seducing the county of Roscommon to return Mr. Tenison, he lost his election, and having been defeated, he petitioned the to unseat his adversary — pending that Petition, and the decision of the House of Commons, it became the duty of the noble Earl to select a gentleman to fill the office of High Sheriff for that county, and in so doing, he thought himself justified in setting aside Mr. Balffe—a gentleman fully qualified to fill that I office, and whose name had been approved of by the Judges of Assize, and in consequence of the course taken by the noble Earl, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the following correspondence ensued. The noble Earl was proceeding to read a correspondence with the Irish Government respecting a recent choice of sheriff for the county of Roscommon, when—
THE LORD CHANCELLORrose to order. The noble Earl's remarks were quite irregular, there being no Motion before the House.
EARL BELMOREsaid, that he had asked a Question of Her Majesty's Government.
EARL GRANVILLEalso interposed. It was usual for their Lordships, although no Motion was before them, to give a hearing, as a matter of courtesy, to any speaker who confined himself to the subject raised by any question that might be put to a Member of the Government. But in this ease the noble Earl was assuming to himself a latitude wholly inconsistent with the order and usage of the House.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he wished to be beard while the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was present to answer him. He had been taunted with bring-

1651
ing forward charges against the noble Earl in his absence; and now he had the noble Earl he thought it convenient to address their Lordships on the subject of his appointments.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, as an Irish representative Peer, thought that if the noble Earl had any charge to make against the Irish Government he should put a notice upon the books of the House. It was very unfair to attack the acts of any Government without any Motion or previous intimation.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he hoped the noble Earl would take the advice just given him. Though he sat as Speaker he was sensible that he had no more authority over the debate than any other I of their Lordships; but, speaking as a Peer, he could not but express his regret t at the irregularity of the noble Earl's proceedings.
THE DUKE OF LEINSTERsaid, he did not think it necessary to add anything to the testimony of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Derry) as to the character and I qualifications of Mr. Lyle. He had no; doubt that gentleman would fill the office to which he had been appointed with honour to himself and to the Government.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM, if such was the wish of their Lordships, would for the present postpone the subject; but if he brought it forward again — and bring it forward again he most assuredly would— he hoped the noble Earl, the Lord Lieutenant, would be present to defend his appointments generally.
EARL GRANVILLE: Will the noble Earl forgive me if I express a hope that he will bring forward some appointment in particular?
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I will bring forward the noble Earl's appointments in general.
House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter before Four o'clock.