Sitting of 23 July 1861

Minutes.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Andover, v. the Right hon. William Cubitt, Lord Mayor of London, Manor of Hempholme.
INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would withdraw Clause 57, which might possibly admit of some modification.
  Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Clauses 58 and 59 would complete the first Bill, but he wished to make some explanations with regard to the clauses relating to the land tax, which had passed through inadvertence. He thought the Committee would agree that the clauses would prove useful; but if any hon. Gentleman wished to enter into discussion upon them, he would move that the Bill be recommitted for that purpose. The Committee would be aware that every parish was charged with a fixed quota of land tax, and also that in almost every parish there was a great increase in the value of property. That gave rise to a difficulty, because in parishes where the property was large and the quota small it was hardly possible to express the amount by a rate, and a considerably larger sum had to be raised than was necessary for the payment of the year. In these cases the money was not collected annually but periodically, and held over to meet the annual payments. It was obvious that that was inconvenient, and that it would be very desirable to provide a simple and efficient machinery, by which facilities should be given for redeeming the tax. That, however, was
  1364
  not the object of the clause, and it might be said that these were exceptional cases. But there were many parishes which were largely increasing in value, which could not be considered exceptional, and the operation of the law was very inconvenient as regarded them. In these cases a surplus was raised each year over the quota, and by the Act of 6 George IV. it was provided that that surplus should be held over and paid in aid of the assessment of the next year. That gave rise to great inconvenience. It necessitated a minute examination of the collections, and in many cases it was impossible to obtain a satisfactory result. Taking the parish of Brixton, for instance, it was found that the assessment between 1828 and 1855 collectively exceeded the quota by £30,201.
  LORD HARRY VANE: In whose hands do those sums remain?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In the hands of the collectors; but he made no charge against any one— the fault was in the system. What was proposed was to provide a means of legally, certainly, and rapidly, applying the surplus to the redemption of the tax. In the first place, the surplus land tax in every parish was to be paid to the Receiver General of the Inland Revenue, and by him into the Bank of England to the credit of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt to the land tax account, and when the amount standing to the credit of any parish was sufficient for the redemption of such tax the Commissioners were to certify the fact in the proper quarter. He would not give an unjust description of the scheme if he were to say that, without interfering with the discretion of the Land Tax Commissioners, or the local machinery with respect to assessment and collection, the effect of it would be to make the Board of Inland Revenue responsible for the management of those surpluses, for their due recovery, and for their application in redemption of the tax. Any remarks that hon. Gentleman had to make might, he thought, be very properly made when the Bill was recommitted.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was a matter for much consideration whether the present holders of property ought to pay, however small, any sum for the redemption of the land tax for the benefit of their successors. He was afraid that if the proposed machinery were set up, the collector would be bound to be much more minute and troublesome

  1365
  in his collections than he was at present. He wanted to know, supposing an estate were divided, and the land tax to be apportioned among the separated portions, who was to have the power of apportioning it?
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, that the object which the Bill sought to effect was a very desirable one. He believed that within each parish there was a power of re-apportioning the land tax. If the Bill should come into operation, he did not think that the Land Tax Commissioners were quite capable of giving effect to its provisions, and he thought that a permament officer should be appointed who should attend to the different interests involved under the Bill.
  MR. BARROWsaid, that it appeared to him very desirable that when there was a surplus it should be duly accounted for, and employed in the way proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that according to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer those who had redeemed their land tax would have no benefit at all. He approved of the object of the measure, but the question was whether the mode proposed was the best and most equitable in which to accomplish it. He thought the proper course would be to have a Select Committee previous to legislation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must admit there was great weight in the objection, that the collection of the tax, where only small sums were to he collected, might be unduly pressed. At the same time, he thought the general conduct of the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue did not expose them to that charge. It would be observed that he did not propose to meddle at all with the present machinery of the collection—it was only a plan to take care of the surplus after it was collected.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTreminded the Committee that at present the collection was made without any public charge, the collectors considering themselves reimbursed by holding the balances. If the plan were adopted all the collectors must be paid. He thought the clause would create a great deal of difficulty throughout the country, and upon the whole it would be better that the Bill should be recommitted.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask
  1366
  one question. Suppose a gentleman had been paying in surpluses for twenty or thirty years, and then proposed to redeem the land tax, would he get any benefit from the surpluses?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would in this way—when the surpluses had reached a certain sum the land tax would be reduced to that amount, and of course it would be reduced in the case of each landholder.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to ask what would be done with the surpluses while they were, accumulating, and further, whether it was to be left to the discretion of the Commissioners when the redemption would take place?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The surpluses would remain in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. The point at which redemption should take placed was fixed in the Bill.
  Clause 37 (Proceedings for enforcing payment of succession and legacy duties),
  MR. BOVILLcomplained that the power of appeal en the assessment of the tax was too narrow.
  MR. PHILIPPSsaid, there was nothing in the Bill of a mitigatory character. Everything pressed against the landed interest. It seemed as if the right hon. Gentleman was animated with a feeling of animosity towards the landed interest.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment of the clause to meet the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Guildford.
  MR. HENLEYasked what was the necessity for this clause, and why the law should be made more stringent than it now was? He should like to know what inconvenience the Crown had sustained by the law as it now stood?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the clause would substitute a simple and cheap process for the cumbrous and expensive one of proceeding by information, as at present, and would be beneficial not to the Crown only, but to the payers of the duty.
  MR. BOVILLproposed the insertion of words by which the power of appeal would be given both for and against the Crown, as the case might be.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was not intended to take away the power of appeal, and, therefore, he would consent to introduce words into the clause which would secure that object.
  MR. BOVILLalso proposed the insertion of words which would make the Crown liable on the cost of proceedings where proceedings against any party were discharged.
  Words added.
  On the Motion that Clause 37 of the Bill as amended stand Clause 1 of a second Bill,
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, when the sue cession duties were first introduced the right hon. Gentleman intimated his intention to introduce a law to extend the principle of the Act to corporate property. But nothing more had been heard of such a Bill. His own opinion was that it was not right an exception should be made in favour of any property, and, therefore, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend what were his intentions in regard to the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was true that when he was a member of the Earl of Aberdeen's Government he had stated his intention of considering the propriety of subjecting corporate property to duty. He was not able to consider the subject before leaving office. The question was taken up by his successor, but it was thought the sum likely to be realized was too small to justify action on the part of the Government. It was calculated that not more than —5,000 a year would be got from a duty on corporate property, and, therefore, the matter was not pressed. He was not quite satisfied that so small a sum would be derived from corporate property, but he had not been able to turn his attention sufficiently to the subject to arrive at any definite conclusion. He fully admitted the principle, however, that corporate property ought to be subject, in common with other property, to the payment of duty.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, the longer the discussion lasted the more he was satisfied of the impropriety of going on with legislation at that period of the Session. The succession duties had been in operation for nearly ten years, and there ought to have been an inquiry into their operation. His own opinion was that they operated most unjustly and unequally. He urged that the proposal should be withdrawn—that next Session an inquiry should be made both into the operation of the law and into the state of corporate property, with a view to taxation, and then to legislate with a mature consideration of the whole matter.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right
  1368
  hon. Gentleman must feel the difficulty of taxing corporate property, for how could they assess the value of successions on property which never lapsed? If taxed at all, he thought the tax must operate like the land tax. All which had passed convinced him that he was right in opposing the original Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Certain provisions in 22 & 23 Vict. c. 21, relating to summary proceedings in England, to extend to Ireland),
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTasked whether the succession duties clauses were to form one Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that it was intended to have three separate Bills, of which the clauses under discussion relating to the legacy and succession duties were to form one.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTasked whether it was intended to read the new Bills a second time?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the next stage of the Bills would be the Report.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, it no doubt might be argued that the principle of all these three Bills was discussed when the Inland Revenue Bill was read a second time; but he thought the course proposed to be taken a very inconvenient one.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved that the course they were taking was a most unusual and highly objectionable one. He should like to hear from the Chairman whether there were precedents for such a course, and, if so, he should like also to know whether there were good reasons for following such precedents on that occasion. Clauses were to be submitted to them which made very important changes in the Succession Duty Act, and they were told that the next stage would be the Report. He asked whether it was fair to introduce a Bill of that nature at the end of the Session? Financially the Succession Duty Act was a failure, as it deserved to be, and it was detested by the country; and now they were asked at that period of the year to pass a new Bill on the subject.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, that the Committee was acting in pursuance of the instructions of the House to divide the Bill, and it was not proper for the Committee to question those instructions. The course taken was not without precedent. In consequence of the instruction of the House to the Committee to divide the Bill into

  1369
  one or more Bills; he had referred to the course of proceedings, and he found distinct precedents on their records. In pursuance of those precedents he had ventured to take the liberty of guiding the Committee.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was surprised to hear right hon. Gentlemen opposite question the power to divide Bills in Committee, when that was the very course they themselves recommended in the case of the paper duties.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, they were not disputing the power of dividing the Bills, but the way in which it was proposed to be done. That point, however, had been decided from the Chair, and he had only to ask whether the Bills would afterwards go through their stages, as if they had been introduced as separate Bills?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would remind the Committee that the Resolutions on which these clauses were based were passed on the 28th of June, and that they had been delayed only that hon. Members might have a full opportunity of considering them. No objection was taken to the Resolutions when they passed, and it was not necessary, therefore, to go back to the earlier stages to discuss the new Bills. He wished to remind the Committee that he was not responsible for the division of the Bill, which was done in consequence of instructions from the House, in order that the House of Lords might have an opportunity of giving its attention to each of the subjects separately.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not question the right to divide the Bills, but he doubted the propriety of dealing with subjects so delicate at that period. He would, therefore, take the sense of the Committee as to the propriety of proceeding further.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the whole object of the present clause was to extend to Ireland certain provisions that had been found to work well in Scotland in the collection of the duties. When they came to the clause relating to the succession duties that would be the proper time for the discussion which his right hon. Friend wished to raise.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, his right hon. Friend did not propose to oppose the present clause, but he objected to going on with the Bill, which in the 40th Clause reversed a decision of the House of Lords.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, they were getting
  1370
  into position in which he had all along expected they would find themselves. The Resolutions on which the present clauses were founded passed through the House without discussion. At the end of the Session they saw an Omnibus Bill brought into the House, and before they knew what they were about it was proposed to make two or three tax carts out of it. He was afraid that at that period of the Session they would hardly be able to pass these measures in a satisfactory shape.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to express his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having so divided the Bill as not to preclude the House of Lords from dealing with it. As the House had decided to proceed, he thought the best course was now to go on, but he hoped the House would never again place itself in a similar position. At the proper time, however, he would cordially vote with the right hon. Member for Droitwich against the succession clauses.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, they were told when the Resolutions were passed that the right time for discussion would be when the clauses were before them. They had now those clauses before them, and he hoped no more time would be lost in discussing the present clause, which was of comparatively little importance, and that they would proceed without delay to take up the clause relating to the succession duty, which really was of vital importance.
  Clause 38 ordered to stand a clause of the new Bill.
  Clause 39 (No return of Probate Duty to be made for voluntary Debts).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the clause taken in connection with the Amendment upon the paper had had for its object to render liable to probate duty voluntary debts to be paid upon the death of the person who contracted them, or payable under any instrument which should not have been bonâ fide delivered to the donee three months before the death of such person. Debts contracted as portions for younger children or by way of marriage settlement were not considered "voluntary debts" in law, but debts for a consideration, and were, therefore, not included within the operation of the clause. What they wished to touch was debts contracted for the purpose of evading the probate duty. The term "voluntary debt" was, therefore, confined to two cases—one where it should

  1371
  be expressly payable on the death of the person who had contracted the obligation, and the other where it should be payable under an instrument which had not been delivered during the lifetime of the deceased. In order to secure bonâ fides in the case of an instrument, it was required that the instrument should be delivered three months before the death of the person who had contracted the obligation.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, the effect of the clause would be to tax a residuary legatee for property that had actually gone to another. The object of the clause was to prevent evasion of the payment of duty. That object should, therefore, be clearly explained. He proposed that the words to be added should be "any voluntary debt contracted for the purpose of evading payment of the duty."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the effect would be to neutralize the clause, for constant litigation would be necessary to decide what was and what was not a debt contracted for the purpose of evading the duty.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked, whether the clause would touch property given to a son in the lifetime of a father?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the clause had no relation to such a case.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he would not oppose the clause, provided the duty were not leviable on the estate of a person who might have died after a date to be fixed by the Bill. The clause, as it stood, would have a retrospective effect where persons died twelve months back, and the duty had not been yet levied.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he would fix the day from which the clause should take effect for the 28th of June, 1861, when the Resolutions on the subject were introduced.
  Clause as amended agreed to and ordered to stand part of the new Bill.
  Clause 40,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the object of the clause was merely to give effect to what he believed to be the intention of the House in passing the Succession Duty Act in 1853. The principle upon which the Act was framed was that the duty should be paid on the whole estate that was liberated by the death of its possessor, and passed into other hands. But the House of Lords had decided judicially, though after long discussion and deliberation, that where a suc-
  1372
  cessor had been previously to the death of his predecessor possessed of an estate, which at the predecessor's death he was bound to relinquish, then he was only called on to pay the difference between the estate he received and that he relinquished. That decision did not, in the opinion of the Government, give effect to the intention of the House in passing the Act. As the law stood, supposing A was entitled on the death of B, his uncle, to £2,000 a year, and that A, possessing some money, bought an annuity of £2,000 upon the joint lives of himself and his uncle B, when B died A might claim to be exempt from paying the succession duty, and, according to the decision of the House of Lords he would not be liable. So that it would be in the power of persons by purchasing annuities to evade the operation of the Act. That was a state of the law which required a remedy. The inheritance into which the man came was the entire inheritance, upon which, according to the view of the Government, it was perfectly plain the duty ought to be paid. He was anxious to have the opinion of the Committee on the subject, and if they thought more time was required for its consideration, he would not press it farther at that time.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that the object of the clause was to repeal the effect of a decision of the House of Lords. He presumed, as the reason for introducing the clause, that the Inland Revenue Commissioners must have persuaded the right hon. Gentleman that the law, as settled by that decision, would enable persons to evade the payment of succession duties in cases in which it was contemplated by the Act that they should be paid. He contended, however, that if the clause were allowed to pass, it would cover cases which did not fall within the reasons stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in which it would be clearly unfair that the tax should be imposed. The effect of the 38th Clause of the Succession Duty Act was to impose a tax upon any person becoming entitled to property in consequence of the death of another, the amount of tax being proportioned partly to the relationship of the parties, and also to the amount of property itself. The clause, however, proposed to impose a duty not in accordance with that principle; but the effect would be to tax a man whose income increased by £500 a year to the extent of £1,000 a year; in some cases to tax a

  1373
  person whose income did not increase at all, and in other eases to tax a man twice on different events happening in respect of the same property. No plea founded on the ground of evasion could justify the Committee agreeing to a clause which would operate unjustly. He should move that the clause be omitted.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALcontended that it was unreasonable to make a deduction from an estate when it fell to a man because that man had been previously in receipt of an annuity, for which he had paid no tax whatever. Yet that was the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Lord Braybrooke, and in the case of the Attorney General v. Sibthorpe. So that if a man in expectation of a large estate, and having property of his own, used that property in the purchase of an annuity of the same annual amount as the rents of the estate and determinable when he came into possession of the estate, he was not bound to pay succession duty on the estate because he lost the annuity. That was not the rule of law with regard to the legacy duty. He did not mean to dispute the decision of the House of Lords in law; but, supposing their judgment to be right, the conclusion to which they must come was that the House had failed to express its own intention. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not be led away by any appeal to its modesty as to interfering with a decision of the House of Lords, so as to prevent it from correcting what was after all its own mistake.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNScontended that the Amendment was entirely unnecessary and very complex, and could only be applicable to whimsical and extravagant cases. At the same time, he would remind the Committee that they need not discuss the remedies for simply evasive practices, because the Act as originally passed contained the singular and remarkable clause, giving power to the Judges to assess the tax where it appeared to them that it was intended to evade the Act of Parliament. It was not either for the Government or the House to decide what their own intention was in passing the Act, but to take the plain meaning of the words. That Act was intended to tax beneficial succession, and the only definition of a beneficial interest was to consider what a man got as compared with what he lost. That was what the House of Lords had done in its decisions, and what the Government now
  1374
  proposed to reverse by the clause. He admitted that the legacy duty was not levied in the same way, but the reason was that the Legacy Duty Act did not make the provision that was contained in the Succession Duties Act.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the case was a very narrow one. He would state a case which had happened in his own experience. A father gave his son during his lifetime a portion of his estate, and at his death left him the rest. He supposed the Government would not make that heir pay for the whole. But suppose the father did not give him the acres, but a rent-charge upon the acres—why should he pay in the last ease more than the other? He thought a man ought not to pay for what he had not got.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, he must say that they were bound to legislate for whimsical and extravagant cases, because there was nothing so whimsical or extravagant that certain persons would not do to evade payment of the duty. He had listened to the criticism of the clause which had taken place, and he hoped the Government would profit from it in any future effort they might make to legislate on this subject. After what had passed, however, and in accordance with his declaration when the Bill was introduced, it was not his wish to press upon the House at that period of the Session any provisions that might be thought open to objection. He would, therefore, move that the clause be negatived; but he hoped at some future time to bring in a Bill on the subject.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. CAYLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of bringing in another Bill. Did he mean this Session or next?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he meant, as a matter of course, next Session.
  On the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the title to the Bill, composed of Clauses 37, 38, and 39, was agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would propose Clause 15 (relating to wine licences), with the view of making it into a separate Bill. He did not anticipate any discussion.
  MR. AYRTONintimated that there would be a long discussion. [Laughter.]
  He meant that it was a long and difficult subject.
  House resumed.
  Report, That the Committee had divided the Bill into three Bills.

NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies, What is the nature of the Despatches received by the last Mail from New Zealand in respect to the renewal of hostilities?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the news received by the last Mail from New Zealand was hopeful, though uncertain. An entire cessation of hostilities had for the present taken place, as a season of the year had come round when they could not be conveniently carried on. The Governor was engaged in operations during this season which he hoped would lead to a general acknowledgment of the Queen's authority, but at the same time he could not speak with certainty.

SAILORS' HOMES.—QUESTION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it be true that the portion of the Grant voted by the House "for the encouragement of Sailors' Homes in the neighbourhood of Dockyards" has been withdrawn from the Cork Sailors' Home, on the ground that that Home was not in the neighbourhood of a Dockyard; and, if it is withdrawn, upon what principle it has for previous years been given? He also wished to inquire if there are not other instances of a portion of that Grant being continued to any other Sailors' Home or Homes not in the neighbourhood of Dockyards?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the Admiralty had thought it their duty to withhold the Grant from the Cork Sailors' Home, because, from the Report of the Commander-in-Chief on the station, it appeared not to be made use of largely by the sailors of Her Majesty's fleet. With regard to the second part of the question, he had to state that he knew of no Sailors' Home receiving a Grant which was not in the neighbourhood of a Dockyard, with the exception of the Home at Falmouth, which many sailors from the Coastguard ships made use of.

  OPERATIVE MINERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. KERSHAWsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will object to recommend Her Majesty to issue Her Royal Commission to inquire into the moral and sanitary state of the Operative Miners in Cornwall and Devonshire?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he had already stated in general terms that he thought it desirable that a Commission should be issued to inquire into the state of the Miners in mineral mines; but the question was one mainly of time, and he should not wish to pledge himself as to the particular period when the Commission could be issued.

THE POLISH DESPATCHES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relating to Poland will be laid upon the Table of the House? Whether the Despatch (from Viscount Palmerston to Prince Talleyrand), which contains the statement that "the rights of the Czar are incontestible," will appear with the other Papers; and, if not, whether that Despatch is authentic? And what are the reasons which influence Her Majesty's Government in withholding its contents from the House?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that as the correspondence in question took place at a time when his noble Friend at the head of the Government was Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, he had found it necessary to consult his noble Friend both as to which were the papers that it would be necessary to begin with, and also as to whether it would be necessary to add any other papers. The documents referred to were contained in volumes of former years, and his noble Friend had not yet read them sufficiently to give an opinion. As soon as he had done so, no doubt he would communicate to him (Lord John Russell).

THE TURNER GALLERY

  QUESTION.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, If any plans have been prepared under his sanction for erecting a building behind the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square for

  1377
  the reception of the "Turner Pictures;" and, if so, whether it is in contemplation to commence the execution of any such Plans without previously obtaining the direct sanction of Parliament?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the improvements recently made in the National Gallery were so arranged as to aid any large plan which might hereafter be adopted for extending the building of the National Gallery to the rear over the site now occupied by the barracks and St. Martin's Workhouse. He certainly had in his possession plans showing how buildings might be extended in that direction so as to provide accommodation for all the pictures, both ancient and modern, which were now or might hereafter be under the charge of the Trustees of the National Gallery; and a single wing might at any time be built over a portion of the barrack-yard, so as to accommodate the Turner pictures; these plans were under consideration, together with other plans, and as the Government had yet come to no decision on the subject he was unable to give any information as to what steps might hereafter be taken.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he would now ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that no steps in that direction will be taken without the express sanction and authority of Parliament?
  MR. COWPERsaid, he must entirely decline to enter into any pledge with the noble Lord. He could tell the noble Lord that he did not contemplate doing such a thing as erecting a building without the direct sanction of Parliament; but he did not conceive that the noble Lord had any right to get up and ask for a pledge that he would not do that which was very unlikely, and which was not in contemplation.

PORTO NOVO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of any Despatches connected with the attack on Porto Novo in the month of May last?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was not his intention to lay the whole of the papers upon the Table; but, as far as the Foreign Office was concerned, if he (the hon. Member) would move for any particular despatch it would be produced.

  SUEZ CANAL—GUANO.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Colquhoun, the English Consul General in Egypt, together with he English Consul in Alexandria and other gentlemen, have lately (on the 2yth June) visited the works of the Suez Canal, and had expressed his satisfaction with what he had seen and heard there; and whether such approval is to be understood to be qualified by the condition that forced labour should not be employed on the works of the canal, and that the obligations in that respect of the Pacha of Egypt towards the Porte be faithfully fulfilled?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had seen the report alluded to by the hon. Member in a foreign newspaper, but he had received no information on the subject from the Consul General. The Consul General had informed him of his intention of visiting the canal, but had not sent any information as to the result. He would take that opportunity of answering a question which had been put to him a short time previous respecting the exportation of Guano. The question was whether the Peruvian Government had opened the Guano trade? He had received no information to that effect; on the contrary, his information was that, the late contract having expired, it was their intention to invite tenders for a new contract. What Her Majesty's Government had asked was that the Guano should be sold at a certain price, and that the trade should be opened to all nations.

THE GREAT TASMANIA.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether an inquiry has taken place into the conduct of the Officers in Calcutta that signed the Inspection Report of the Great Tasmania, previous to her departure from England, who were charged with culpability by the verdict of the Coroner's Inquest which sat upon the bodies of the soldiers who died on board that ship on her voyage home from India, and, if so, if he can state to the House what the result of the inquiry has been?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, an inquiry had taken place at Calcutta, and the result was that the evidence which had been given before the Coroner's Jury in this country had been impugned in seve-

  1379
  ral material particulars. Before the inquiry had been instituted the Officer at Calcutta, who was in some respects responsible for what had occurred, had been removed from his command, and had not since been appointed to any other situation. The Officer in charge of the European Troops on board the vessel could only be tried by Court Martial, and that being a process by which it was deemed very little important information could be elicited it had not been adopted.

  INDIAN RAILWAY STOCK.—COMMITTEE.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had stated some time ago that it would be necessary for the Government before the end of the Session to take powers to raise money for railway purposes in India, in the event of the railway companies not raising sufficient funds to proseeute their undertakings. He gave notice last night that it was the intention of the Government on Thursday next to ask the House to go into Committee for that purpose, and in order that there might be no mistake as to the object of the Government, he gave notice that the Committee would sit to consider the propriety of authorizing the Secretary of State for India to raise money for railway purposes. He found, however, that the words of his notice differed from those under which money for the same object had before been obtained, and that the proposed stock might suffer a consequent depreciation. He therefore moved that the Notice which he had given should be discharged; and he had to inform the House that he would, as the first business on Thursday evening, bring forward a Resolution on the subject. He wished to make this alteration in the notice publicly, because although it was a change in the form the substance was identically the same as that of the previous notice. It was most desirable the stock so raised should be of the same nature as the old stock.
  Order discharged.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (INDIA).

  RESOLUTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose pursuant to notice, to ddvoeate the expediency of enabling British subjects born in India to compete on the same footing as other British subjects for public employment under the Crown. Previous to 1833 very little attention had been paid to education
  1380
  in British India, but a clause having been inserted in the 3rd and 4th William IV., to the effect that no Native of India, or any natural-born subject of His Majesty, should, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, or colour, be held to be disabled from holding office under the East India Company, a great stimulus was given to the Natives of India to fit themselves for public employment. Schools were accordingly established throughout the country and subsequently cottages were founded, and in 1845, when Lord Hardinge was Governor General, there were under the Government of Bengal no less than fifty-one educational institutions. In that year Lord Hardinge issued a Proclamation, in which it was set forth that in every possible case a preference would be given in the selection of candidates for employment in the public service to those who had been educated in the institutions thus established. Numbers had flocked to the schools and colleges throughout the country, stimulated by that assurance, and they did find employment. In 1854 three Natives of Bengal were sent to England by the Government to be educated at the London University. One of them, Chuckerbutty, carried away the gold medal from all competitors, and was now physician to the medical college at Calcutta. Others trod in his steps at their own expense or that of their relatives. Ten students came over from Madras, and three from Bengal, all of whom obtained their degrees in medicine and their diplomas in surgery, not to speak of other honours, and, as rewards for their professional acquirements, were appointed by the Directors of the East India Company to their regular gradation Military Medical Service as assistant surgeons, and can, therefore, rise with their European brethren to the highest grades of the medical service. Such was the state of things when the Act of 1858 was passed transferring the Government of India to the Crown, and when Her Gracious Majesty declared in a Proclamation that it was her will, as far as might be, that all her subjects, of whatever race or creed, should be fairly and impartially admitted to offices in the Royal service, the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity faithfully to discharge, and to give the Natives the means of reaching the highest intellectual status, Universities were established in Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, with the usual facilities, curriculum and profes-

  1381
  sional staff, and with power to confer degrees. List November the Indian students in England saw an official advertisement that on the 18th of February there would be a competitive examination for the office of assistant surgeon in the Royal Army. Those who considered themselves qualified made the necessary application at the War Office, and were all appointed to go up for examination at the period specified in the advertisement. They even got tickets of admission, but two days before the examination they received a communication from Dr. Gibson, Director General of the Medical Department, requesting them to call at his office. They obeyed, and were informed that for the future all employment in Her Majesty's medical service would be for general service, and not for local service in India, and that consequently they could not be allowed to compete. Equally astonished and disappointed they remonstrated, calling attention to the fact that many Natives were now in the regular medical service of the Crown in India, but their remonstrances were in vain, they were told that such was the decision; but bow that decision arose at the eleventh hour he (Colonel Sykes) could not say. Matters remained in this state until lie presented a petition from Dr. Thompson, one of the rejected candidates to the House, in which he complained of the injustice, of his prospects being blighted, and the very large sum be had expended upon his education in India and England being wasted. In consequence of this petition and of the question raised by him in that House it was decided to send two of the candidates—Dr. Thompson and Dr. Goodall—before a medical board, consisting of Dr. Gibson, Dr. Liddle, and Sir Ronald Martin. These gentlemen reported in general terms that it was their deliberate opinion, founded on experience, that the Native and mixed races of India and other tropical countries would never be able to sustain for any length of time the climate of our northern regions; and they added that Dr. Thompson and Dr. Goodall, though without any marked bodily defect, were constitutionally unfit for service in the various climates in which the British army was called upon to serve. Now, the fact was that Dr. Goodall was not an Asiatic, for his father was an officer in the army, and his mother was a daughter of an half-caste; so that he was three-fourths European. He was sent home in childhood, and had lived nine years in
  1382
  Scotland, where he was educated without his heath suffering in the slightest degree from the climate. Dr. Thompson, similarly, had passed the last winter in England, one of the most severe experienced for many years past, without a day's illness. He (Colonel Sykes) would beg to read to the House an extract from a letter addressed to him by a general officer of the name of Fraser residing at Pisa, a perfect stranger, but who had read an account of Mr. Thompson's case in the public papers. He stated that he had formerly commanded the 78th Highlanders, and had for many years in the regiment four Natives of tropical climates, and they were amongst the healthiest men in his regiment. If Indians were to be refused public employment, on the ground that they were unfit to serve in cold climates, the same objection should exclude from the service of the Crown the sons of civil and military servants born in India. Moreover, if Natives were not to be employed in cold climates on account of their health breaking down, there is sad experience that European troops should not be sent to a tropical climate for the same reason. But he altogether discarded the question of colour or race; he called upon the House to affirm the principle that Her Majesty's subjects, whether black or white, or of any intermediate hue, were entitled to the civil rights of other British subjects. The injustice done in excluding these Natives of India from competition for employment in the public service was not confined to the candidates themselves. He had a letter from the father of one, and who was also the uncle of another of these gentlemen stating that ho had been ruined by sending his son and nephew to England, on the faith of an Act of Parliament and the Queen's Proclamation. It had cost him from 10,000 to 12,000 rupees, and he could not believe that a British Parliament and a British public would give their consent to a wrong so flagrant. If Natives of India were admitted to compete there was no necessity to send them to Canada or other cold climates. As a mere question of humanity, it was necessary to have acclimatized persons as medical officers to the European troops in India, because tropical diseases could only be successfully treated by those who had acquired considerable experience with regard to them. Ten per cent of the strength of English regiments sent to India died within the first year after arrival, chiefly

  1383
  from a want of knowledge on the part of the surgeons who had accompanied the regiments from Europe as to the treatment of tropical diseases, and as they acquired that knowledge the percentage of deaths fell to 7, 6, 5, and even less per cent annually. On the ground, therefore, of humanity, they should have a permanent medical service in India, thoroughly acquainted with and competent to deal with tropical diseases. He looked with some anxiety to the consequences of disappointing the expectations which had been held out to the Natives of India? We were spending £279,000 a year in educating the people of that country, and with what object? Attaining a high intellectual standard, and feeling that they had the rights of British subjects, it was fatuous to believe there would not be discontent, disgust, and resentment, if the Natives were debarred from serving the Crown anywhere, or if confined to India, that their progress was limited to subordinate rank and paltry salaries of a few pounds per mensem. They would look forward as they had a right to do, to gradation rise in the service of the Crown, and it was his earnest hope that the Secretary of State for India would make such arrangements as would open to the Natives such a system of gradation rise in the medical and other services of India. He asked him to fulfil to the Natives those promises which were held out to them by the Act of Parliament and the Queen's Proclamation. He begged to move the Resolutions:—
  "That on all occasions when Candidates are invited to compete for public employment under the Crown, British Subjects born in India should be allowed to compete on the same footing as other British Subjects."
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he rose to second the Motion. The question was one of very great importance. It was twofold, first whether or not the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, born in India, should be allowed to compete for employment in the public service, and, secondly, whether the good faith of this country should be maintained He had presented a Petition from one of these gentlemen (Mr. Colah) belonging to that race who chiefly devoted themselves to mercantile pursuits, and were amongst the most intelligent and industrious of the people in India—the Parsees. That gentleman came to England with the object of competing for the medical service of the army. He passed the College of Surgeons in London, and the College of Phy-
  1384
  sicians at Aberdeen, but when ho presented himself for the competitive examination amongst the candidates for employment in the army he was told that, being a Native of India, be could not be allowed to compete. He remonstrated, and the War Office so far gave way that they said they would allow him to compete if he chose to serve as an army surgeon at Sierra Leone. He replied, with great dignity, that he was prepared to take service in any part of Her Majesty's dominions to which his duty might call him; but that he declined to compete if any conditions not authorized by the usual regulations were attached to his employment. It was no use talking of the constitutional unfitness of Natives of India to serve in northern climates; they might as well restrict the competition of Europeans for service in India because Englishmen were known to complain of their livers there. In the Queen's Proclamation the words were most distinct. There was no qualification as regarded race, colour, constitution, or anything else. Every subject of Her Majesty going up to compete had a right, if successful, to be employed in the public service. But the excuse of incapacity from constitution to serve in northern climates did not hold good, as Parsees were settled in all parts of the world, and enjoyed perfectly good health. It was said that medical gentlemen of colour would not be employed by Englishwomen. His experience did not lead him to adopt that view; even the Turks made no distinction of colour, and he had known negroes high in the Turkish public service. But there were cases of gentlemen who had not been allowed to compete for the medical service in the army because their great-grandmothers happened to have a tinge of Indian blood. There was the case of Dr. Thompson, who claimed to be as good a Scotchman as any beyond the Tweed. His mother was an European, but his great-grandmother had a tinge of colour, which was sufficient to exclude him from competition. There could be no doubt that a distinct promise had been held out to the Natives of India, and he would ask whether it was just or politic to depart from that promise? One gentleman had expended between £600 and £700 in educating himself and coming to this country to qualify himself to compete, and when he complained on being rejected, be was offered £200. Another gentleman, a Brahmin, said he was a ruined man; he had lost his caste by coining to Europe,

  1385
  and could not be received again by his family. The young Brahmins gave as a reason for not seeking to acquire European knowledge that, if they came to England they gave up their caste in India, while they were not received here upon the same footing as Englishmen. Such policy was calculated to do much mischief, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, who was, he believed, sincere in his desire to improve the condition of the Natives of that country, would use his best efforts to do justice to the gentlemen whose case they were now considering.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That," &c.
  MR. T. G. BARINGdid not yield to either the gallant Colonel or to the hon. Member for Southwark in his wish for the education of the people of India, but this question was not connected with that subject. The second part of the Motion before the House was simply a censure on the Secretary of State for War for having prohibited certain gentlemen, Natives of India, from competing for the office of assistant surgeon in the regular army. This was not a question of employment in India, but of employment in all parts of the world. The ground for the prohibition was a letter addressed to the Secretary of State for War by the Secretary of State for India, in which he said that Natives of India were unsuited for the general service of the British Army, and that they ought not to be permitted to compete for the office of assistant surgeon in that army. If they were admitted they might be sent to parts of the world where their health would fail them, and at an early age they would be thrown upon the half-pay list. There were also two or three gentlemen as to whom there was a doubt whether they should be considered Natives of India; those cases were referred to three most eminent medical men—Sir John Liddell, Sir Ronald Martin, and Dr. Gibson—who described them as men of colour with Asiatic features, and said that, although there was nothing to preclude them from employment in a tropical climate, yet they were constitutionally unfit for service in various northern climates where the British Army was called upon to serve. Was it possible, in the face of that opinion, for the Secretary of State for War to allow these gentlemen to compete for the general medical service of the army? He did not think the House could agree in the first part of the Motion of the hon.
  1386
  and gallant Member, which was one of the most abstract ones which had ever been brought forward. It pledged the House in effect to this among other things—that Natives of India should be entitled to compete for the Artillery and Engineers. If that Resolution were carried the result would be that persons notoriously unfit by constitution for the general service of the army would be admitted into the scientific branches of the army. With regard to the recent Proclamation, it was to be recollected that it was issued in India and addressed to the Natives of that country; it obviously referred to the employment of Natives of India in India, and by no twisting of it could it be made to apply to the general service of this country. He, however, admitted that the case of these gentlemen was a distressing one. In 1853, the medical service of India was open to public competition by Act of Parliament, but last year, in consequence of the amalgamation of the two armies, the Secretary of State for India thought it no longer necessary to keep up a separate medical service for India. Those who before the change had prepared themselves to compete for that service were allowed to compete in certain cases for the general medical service, but those who were constitutionally unfit for it were excluded. It appeared, however, from the papers before the House, that the Secretary of State for India, in Council, had taken steps to secure for the Native gentlemen who had thus been disappointed in their expectations suitable employment in India, and had allowed them a sum to defray the cost of their passage to that country. Upon these grounds he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, it appeared the real reason why these gentlemen were rejected was that they had Asiatic features. He would ask the hon. Gentleman if there never had been a Member of that House who had Asiatic features? These gentlemen were British subjects, and there was nothing to prevent any one of them sitting as a Member of that House if any constituency chose to elect him. In fact they had had an East Indian a Member of that House, Mr. Dyce Sombre. It appeared to him that the Proclamation of the Queen was a delusion. It was a disgrace to the Government that that Proclamation, which was received with such delight in India, was not honestly carried out. As to Asiatics not being able to serve in a cold cil-

  1387
  mate, they were much more able to do so than Englishmen were to serve in India.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that he did not believe that the frame of an Asiatic was calculated to endure the inclemency of many of our colonies. He should have no objection, as an officer, to mix on brotherly terms with the Natives of India; but he doubted whether the English private soldiers would allow a "dark skin" to command them in this country. There was a way, however, of giving employment to Native Indians through which they might attain eminence and considerable positions. Every branch of service in India required extending, and by inducing Natives to come over and study for the Medical Service much good might be effected. But after the statement which had been made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baring) he trusted that the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Sykes) would not press this question to a division.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, there was at that moment in the north-west province a deputy collector who was educated in St. Petersburg, and made an officer of artillery there, which showed that the Russian Government was more liberal than ours was. With regard to the Natives of India being incapable of serving in cold climates, if his hon. Friend were to look to the mortality of the Guards in London, he would find that no Natives could suffer so much as did the Guards. He found that out of 1,333 total deaths from all causes, 668 were from consumption, and 350 were invalided from the same cause. Was there anything that the Natives of India could fall into equal to that? He should not trouble the House to divide.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.—RESOLUTION.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the state of the Ecclesiastical Law in England and Ireland, and of the Courts in which it is administered, and especially the Act commonly called the Clergy Discipline Act, require to be amended and reformed, and that it is incumbent on the Government to direct a measure to he prepared for that purpose."
  1388
  He had to express his regret that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had refused him certain Returns on the ground that they would entail too much trouble upon the officers of the Diocesan Courts. He had asked for Returns respecting the Ecclesiastial Courts, and respecting the fees paid; and he should have thought that there would be no objection to give the Returns, but he was surprised to find them refused. He had, therefore, obtained such information as he found accessible, and it appeared from the Report of a former Committee of that House that in two instances the office of registrar was filled by ladies; that in other cases the duties of Judges were performed by deputies; that as many as seventeen minors had been appointed registrars; that one of the joint registrars of the Principal Consistorial Court at Norwich was appointed at the age of ten years, had performed the duties of the office by deputy, and received an income of £1,427 a year derived from fees; that this gentleman refused to give any details; that in the Consistory Court of London the registrar was appointed by the Bishop of London in 1796, at the age of eight years, and received an income from fees of £904 per annum; that in the Consistory Court of Winchester the registrar, Brownlow North, was appointed by Bishop Brownlow North at the age of seven years, in reversion, and at the age of fifteen years he came into possession, with an income of £860 per annum; that the registrar of the Consistory Court at Norwich was appointed at six years of age, with an income of £85 per year; that the registrar at Llandaff was only five years old; and that the registrar at Sudbury was but three years old when appointed, the duties in both cases being performed by deputies. This was the state of things with regard to the officers, whom the Home Secretary would not compel to return the duties of their appointments and the fees they received at the present time. These fees, it should be recollected, were derived from the poor of the land. Every couple who were married paid £1 or £2 in the shape of fees, which gave a revenue of £30,000 a year, which were given to these gentlemen for the purpose of enabling them to take their pleasure while somebody else performed their duties. He maintained that it was the duty of the Home Secretary not to be so weak as to be deluded by these officers into a quiet acquiescence in their refusal to give the required returns; and

  1389
  if the right hon. Gentleman suffered from such a want of energy that he could not insist upon that being done he had better give up the office he held altogether. With regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts, they had been condemned by the highest authorities in this country. The ecclesiastical law constituted a system by which a body of 25,000 of the most influential persons in this country were specially governed, all cases of bad conduct in clergymen. such as drunkenness, and so forth, being brought within its operation. But the delay occasioned in the administration of that law was terrible. In criminal matters a case was usually disposed of in two months; in civil cases probably four months might be taken as the average duration; but in the Ecclesiastical Courts a case would not unusually occupy two years, as. for instance, did the case of Mr. Bon well. Then the enormous expense occasioned to the Bishop of the diocese was ruinous, and the result was that sometimes a clergyman who was a scandal to the parish in which he officiated remained unpunished because of the difficulty of getting him removed. The late Bishop of London spent £1,500 on one occasion in trying to unfrock an unworthy clergyman. A very short time ago, when it was desired to use the name of an Archbishop in a suit against a clergyman, the Archbishop obtained a bond for £10,000 to indemnify him for costs before he allowed the use of his name. That was a very irregular proceeding, and only to be justified by the scandalous state of the law. In every well-ordered State the Judges should be bound to perform their duties themselves, and not by deputy; infants should not be promoted to responsible offices intended for persons of more advanced age and competent judgment, and sinecures should be abolished. When the Minister of the Crown knew of the existence of these things, and went on tolerating them, be could not be said to be pursuing a course creditable to the great party which supported him. The present Lord Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, the Irish Prelates in a memorandum to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and, lastly, the Bishop of London, had all expressed opinions favourable to the Resolution which he had the honour to propose to the House, and it now only remained for him to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department to reintroduce a scheme which had been elaborated by the genius of the present Lord Chancellor, and
  1390
  which it had been deemed expedient to submit to the consideration of Parliament during the pressure of the war in 1856. The Home Office had now for a long time been in a state of classic repose, and the right hon. Gentleman could, therefore, well afford to turn his attention to the subject, and fulfil his professions as a Liberal Minister.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the state of the Ecclesiastical Law in England and Ireland, and of the Courts in which it is administered, and especially the Act commonly called the Clergy Discipline Act, require to be amended and reformed, and that it is incumbent on the Government to direct a measure to be prepared for that purpose,'"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he regretted he had not come into the House until the hon. Gentleman had completed the introductory part of his speech, in which he had been informed the hon. Gentlemen had complained of his having misled him with respect to some returns which he hail moved for last Session. The House would, under the circumstances, perhaps, allow him to enter into a brief explanation on the subject. The hon. Gentleman had on Friday last given notice that he would ask him why the ecclesiastical returns which had been ordered by the House last July had not been laid on the Table, and he had accordingly instituted inquiry into the matter at the office to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, believing that the question of which notice had been given referred to certain papers moved for from that office. He had, however, since the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, ascertained that he had also moved an Address for some very voluminous returns relating to the Ecclesiastical Courts, but he did not understand him in the general description which he had given on a former occasion to point to those returns. Now, the address in question was not an order on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it was accordingly forwarded to the Home Office, from which a circular letter was in the usual manner written to Bishops and others who could be called upon to make returns in reply. Remonstrances had shortly afterwards been received from different quarters, stating that

  1391
  the returns were of so voluminous a nature that it could not be expected they would be made without payment, and requesting that intimation should be given by his department as to whether remuneration, in the event of the returns being made, would be given. Having taken the matter into his consideration, he came to the conclusion that he had no funds at his disposal which he could apply to such a purpose, and he had, therefore, caused a letter to he written to the effect that a compliance with the address could not be enforced. He took upon himself the entire responsibility of having adopted that course, and if the hon. Gentleman should deem it right to move for a renewal of the address he should be prepared to state the reasons why he did not think his demand for the information which he wanted was one to which it would be reasonable to accede. Having said thus much for the charge which the hon. Gentleman had brought against him, he had simply to observe, in reference to the general question, that he was by no means disposed to maintain that the present state of the Ecclesiastical Courts, so far as they retained any jurisdiction, was one which was not at all satisfactory. He had, he might add, no doubt that, if the time of the House were not otherwise occupied, it would be very properly employed in dealing with that question. Of course the Government, which had a great many measures to bring forward, must exercise some discretion as to the selection of the subjects on which it asked the House to legislate, and it was, he thought, quite clear that if they had in the present Session introduced a Bill for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts there would not be time for its due consideration, and it must eventually then for the present year be abandoned. The hon. Gentleman had correctly stated that a measure had been prepared on the subject which had been discussed in the other House of Parliament, although it had never been debated in the House of Commons. Now it was, no doubt, quite open to the Government, if they thought the question could be revised with advantage, to lay a Bill dealing with it it on the table of the House next Session. To the hon. Gentleman himself, or any other hon. Member who might wish to do so, it was equally competent to adopt that course, but it was impossible for him on the part of the Government to enter into any formal arrangement with the House as to the time when they might deem it prudent to submit a
  1392
  measure of that description to the notice of Parliament.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid: Sir, I wish to tender my thanks to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poole for the great research he has exhibited upon this subject, and for having placed in the hands of the Members of this House the speech he made last year, than which, with its Appendix and the speech he has just delivered, there can scarcely be a more valuable compendium of information on the subject before the House. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to very great credit for the perseverance he has displayed upon this question. The evils arising from the present state of the Ecclesiastical Courts have been admitted by the leading Members of the late and of the present Administration; and the Government must he aware that it is extremely painful to the great body of the members of the Church of England when they see such cases as that miserable case of Mr. Bonwell pending for years, to their disgrace, before the public. It happens that I myself have had reason to feel the utter impossibility of obtaining justice through these Ecclesiastical Courts, and I have felt that the disgrace which attaches to the Church of England is attributable to the negligence that has been exhibited by Parliament, in not enabling the Church to purify herself from the stigma that must attach to her when such cases—happily of rare occurrence—as the one to which I have referred, are kept for years before the eyes of the public. I think that the House will agree with me, that we may trace many cases of disturbance to the lax state of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. I know well, and I have admitted it in this House, that the agitation against church rates itself originated in the reasonable feeling of the people that they were paying for accommodation which they did not receive in many of the populous districts. But the inhabitants of many parishes have felt that their refusal to pay church rates was their only means of protest against conduct on the part of their pastors which grated heavily upon their consciences. Let the House remember, too, that we have twice had religious worship Bills introduced on behalf of the influential laymen, who have been so annoyed by the manner in which the services were conducted in certain parish churches, that they came here and asked permission of the Legislature to erect for themselves chapels, wherein they

  1393
  and their families might meet and worship according to the rites of the Church of England, under the ministration of clergymen over whom they could have a more direct control. I rejoice that the House on each occasion rejected those Bills, for I hope never to see in the hands of the lay members of the Church of England such arbitrary control over the clergy as is exercised by some of the Dissenting denominations. I value as much as any man the independence of the clergy, and I value it because I believe it conduces, in the vast majority of cases, to the faithful discharge of their peculiar duties. Still this manifestation on the part of influential laymen is not one which we, the members of the Church of England, can with safety disregard. If it is disregarded too long, we shall see a schism in the Church of England like the schism which took place in the Church of Scotland; but in the case of the seceders attended with all the lamentable consequences that attach to the condition of the Episcopal Church in that country. Sir, that would be an evil so great that the noble Lord at the head of the Government will, I am confident, think me justified in urging the probability of this danger upon him, as a grave reason for the interference of the Legislature in the matter. Let the House look also at the other cases which have arisen. I have stated that I regard the agitation against church rates as often used as a means of expressing annoyance on the part of many parishes. Take the case of St. George's-in-the-East. There the abuses of which the parishioners complained were put down by nothing short of mob law, restrained only by the police from actual personal violence. Then take the case of the rebellion at St. Barnabas, and the conduct of the incumbent, who, after thousands of pounds and many months had been spent in the suit, repudiated the authority of his Bishop, and succumbed only to the power of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, of which that Bishop was a member, and, therefore, the exponent. There was no respect whatever for Episcopal authority in that conduct. It is with shame and regret that I see the record of that conduct standing in condemnation of the present state of the Church of England. Then, Sir, remember the appeal which was made to a civil court in the Lavington case—I mean the application to the Court of Queen's Bench—for the issue of
  1394
  a mandamus. And for what purpose? Merely to enable the parishioners to obtain a hearing which the Bishop had refused, for under the Church Discipline Act the Bishop has it clearly in his power to refuse a hearing to any complaint, and he is justified in the refusal because the condition of these Courts is such, their charges are so exhorbitant, and the delay in their administration is such, that it would be actual ruin to most of our Bishops were they always to perform their duty when required by members of the Church of England within their dioceses. Well, all this is a manifest disgrace to the Church. Let the House glance next for a moment at the case of the Essays and Reviews. Why, Sir, the entire Episcopal bench have declared their condemnation of that work, and, in doing so, what did they manifest? They manifested the disgrace of the Church and their own impotence; because, although armed ostensibly, as they ought really to be, with judicial powers, they expressed their opinions upon that grave subject extrajudicially; and I can only think of that protestation, as I have already said, as a manifestation of disgrace to the Church, and a confession of impotence on the part of the Episcopate. The Bishops have, indeed, before told us that judicially they are impotent. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poole has stated, they are helpless. Their incomes have been so reduced that it is totally impossible for them to bear the expense of performing their disciplinary and judicial duties at the enormous expense entailed by proceeding in their own Courts. Far be it from me to wish that any arbitrary or uncontrolled power exercised without the checks and safeguards incident to a fair trial in the presence of a competent bar, and with all the due process of open justice, should be placed in the hands of the Bishops of the Church of England, however much I may respect them. For, Sir, it is the peculiar characteristic of the Church of England, that she is united with the State by a bond which secures the emoluments and temporalities of the clergy. The position of the Church is that she is not subordinated, but is co-ordinate with the State in her obedience to the supreme power of this realm. And I hope that in any measure which is introduced upon this subject the characteristics of the Church of England as a branch of the Catholic Church, and at the same time as a national Church, will be borne in mind, and that we shall see no proposal

  1395
  made for vesting in the Bishops an arbitrary power such as that which has been generated by and has increased the abuses which have crept into the Church of Rome, but that we shall see a measure introduced by which, whenever any grave and well-founded complaint is made, shall secure that that complaint may be investigated in open Court, with all the attendant ceremonies and safeguards of the law, securing to every incumbent his right of irremovability, and the enjoyment of his preferment undisturbed, unless it can be proved that he has rendered himself amenable to those common maxims of just law which ought always to prevail in the government of the clergy as well as in that of the laity. It is a most extraordinary fact that this House has done more justice to the Roman Catholics resident within this country than it has done to the great body of the members of the Church of England. Last Session, thanks to the Government, and especially to the perseverance of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, a measure was passed which has given to the Roman Catholics the opportunity of a hearing and a fair trial under the laws of their native country in everything that concerns their property devoted to religious and charitable uses; but to this hour the great body of the Church of England remain practically debarred from many of the benefits which last Session you conferred upon that small minority who profess the Roman Catholic faith. That measure was, in fact, the answer to an appeal which which was made as long ago as the year 1851 by the Roman Catholic priests of the district of Hexham; and let me for a moment, in illustration of the nature of the improvement or reformation of our ecclesiastical law which I hope to see, remind the House of what these gentlemen prayed for. They addressed themselves to Cardinal Wiseman, and they asked—
  " First, that their ecclesiastical constitution be compounded of these four ingredients—that is, the civil law of England, the Canon law (in spirituals) of the Catholic Church, the common law, and the just and equitable statute laws of their beloved country; for they are convinced that these would constitute, if properly compounded, a safe, salutary, and uniform system of ecclesiastical legislation for the Catholics of England."
  Now, what I would ask for the members of the Church of England is that by the renovation of our system of ecclesiastical procedure, you should revive those benefits for us. But I hope that in no measure
  1396
  which may be introduced we shall meet with such an answer as was given by the committee of St. Thomas of Canterbury, though by anticipation, to this prayer of the Roman Catholic priests. That Committee, of which Cardinal Wiseman is a member, said—
  "In the Catholic Church, the Bishop, as your Committee learn, is not merely an administrator; he is a judge, acting sometimes with the ordinary formalities of courts, at other times summarily, and without any formalities whatever …. It is not every case of supposed criminality in which a priest is entitled to a trial before suspension. On the contrary, it is the gravest offences of all which, for avoiding scandal, give the Bishop the right of suspension without trial, &c, &c. So true is it that a Bishop can, by virtue of the aforesaid decree (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV., 1; De Syond. Diocese), for reasons best known to himself, interdict a priest from the exercise of his sacred functions, that he is not even bound to make known the cause of suspension or the crime to the very criminal himself, but only to the Apostolic See, if the suspended priest shall have recourse to that tribunal."
  Now, Sir, last Session we did all we could to guard the Roman Catholic priests and Roman Catholic laity of this country against this arbitrary control, and I trust that no measure which is introduced for the Church of England will give any such arbitrary jurisdiction to the Bishops of our Church, however much they are entitled to our respect. Let us not oppose the clergy; but in seeking justice for the laity, 1 would seek justice for the clergy also. I claim that the character and the position of the Church of England, as united with the State by a union which until this jurisdiction lapsed was without confusion, shall be borne in mind by those who are to provide for the due administration of her laws. I say this, Sir, because I wish to clear my urgency upon this subject from all imputation of a desire to place the parochial or inferior clergy under a jurisdiction which I feel would be unbecoming the freemen of this country. We seek, Sir, a national reform. We seek a reform in the spirit and according to the constitution of the Church of England; and 1 will conclude by assuring the Government that, so far as my humble vote will go, should their measure be, as I believe it will be, a measure well adapted to meet the exigencies of the case, I shall feel it equally an honour and a duty to tender them my support.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would strongly urge the members of the Church of England to release themselves from the trammels of the State. There was not a more

  1397
  independent body of men in the world than Dissenting ministers, although they were dependent upon the voluntary system. But what was the state of the Church of England? Why, according to the testimony of the Bishop of Ripon, there were 10,000 of its ministers who at that moment were not in the receipt of —100 per annum. Dissenters certainly did not treat their ministers in this way, and he argued that the only remedy for that unhappy state of things would be the adoption of a system which would enable those clergymen to avail themselves of the voluntary kindness of their flocks, and which would free the Church from the benumbing influence of its connection with the State. He would, however, undertake to utter a prophecy in that House, which was that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would never attempt any reform of the discipline of the Church of England. He was too experienced a politician to try his hand at anything of the kind, for he would bring all the ecclesiastical bodies in the kingdom about his ears.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he was satisfied with the opinions elicited from both sides of the House, and also with the perfectly unsatisfactory answer of the right lion. Gentleman, and, in withdrawing his Motion, he would state that he should take the earliest opportunity of again bringing the subject under consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FIRES IN LONDON.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the House to a subject deeply affecting the interest of the Metropolis. He would show the existence of a very great evil, which required the interference of the Legislature—he referred to the state of the law respecting the prevention of fires in the Metropolis. A great fire had lately occurred near London Bridge, and public attention had very naturally been directed to the subject. The state of the Metropolis was not what it ought to be with respect to proper arrangements for putting out fires. The House was perhaps hardly aware of the immense property to be insured against the risk by fire in the Metropolis. Taking the rental within the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works at £15,000,000, and capitalizing it at twenty years' purchase, the value of house property alone was
  1398
  £300,000,000 sterling. Taking the moveable property in houses as at least equal to the house property itself—taking into account also the immense property in the docks, in London warehouses, and shops, independently of pictures, books, and jewellery in private houses, he was sure he did not exaggerate when he calculated the value of the whole at not less than £600,000,000. That property was left practically without any municipal regulations whatever for its protection against fire. The fact, he had no hesitation in saying, was almost unexampled. He did not believe there was another great city in the world besides London that had no municipal regulations whatever in force for the prevention of fire. He would briefly explain to the House what was the present state of the law. Immediately after the Great Fire of London, in the following year public attention was naturally directed to this subject, and an act of Common Council was passed, which he had seen in the library among the records of the City, giving very elaborate directions as to the course to be pursued in London in the event of fire. The municipality, which then formed the greater part of London, took upon itself to make what might at that time be thought admirable regulations for the security of property against fire. They went into very minute regulations. One of these was to this effect, that—"At all such times the Lord Mayor be attended with all his officers, with the marshals and their labourers, the bridgemasters, &c., who are all, upon notice of any fire, forthwith to repair to the Lord Mayor, and to observe such directions as may be given them. The sheriffs, also, will be attended by all their officers upon pain of forfeiting £3 in default of such their attendance. Another clause enacted that—"Every alderman who has passed the office of sheriff shall provide twelve buckets and one hand squirt of brass, to be kept at their respective dwellings." He had gone lately to the Guildhall, and asked the Town Clerk if he could give him information as to any existing municipal regulations in the City of London on the subject. The Town Clerk told him he was not aware of anything of the kind. All they depended upon was an Act of Parliament of 1774, which required each parish within the metropolitan area to maintain at least one engine and a certain number of ladders. That was the only Act relating to the subject of fire, and any hon. Gentleman who had anything to do with

  1399
  parochial arrangements in London would know that such an arrangement as the one proposed was perfectly useless so far as regarded protection from fire. The engines were kept up in a very inefficient manner, or were not kept at all, except in a few of the larger parishes, and in some instances the keys were in the possession of a parish clerk who resided at a considerable distance from the engine-house. In the year 1844 a measure had been proposed by the right hon. Baronet Member for Carlisle, who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, by which certain parishes were required to maintain a greater or a lesser number of engines, according to the amount of their population, and a certain number of firemen. The Bill included about 200 parishes, and it provided for the maintenance of about 800 firemen, but those men were to be placed under no kind of organization, and the measure would have been totally ineffective, as the vicious principle of parochial efforts was still to le kept up. There could be no doubt that the present state of legislation upon the subject was unsatisfactory. He might be told there was a brigade, called the fire brigade, in London, which had practically prevented public attention being called to the want of legislation, because they formed a very efficient body. No doubt they were highly efficient for the purpose intended, but certainly not for the general protection of life and property in the Metropolis. The brigade consisted of 108 or 109 men, with sixteen engines at stations in various parts of London, but it was formed out of a previous system by which all the insurance offices of London kept a certain fire establishment of their own, partly as a sort of advertisement and partly to put out fires where, the offices were directly interested. That system having been found very expensive, it was suggested that it would be far better to form one brigade by the union of all the men, and from that suggestion originated the fire brigade which had now existed since 1833. He admitted that the present arrangement was a great improvement, but still it was wrong to leave the protection of the Metropolis from fire to the insurance offices. The brigade had rendered great services under its late superintendent, Mr. Braid-wood, and he might mention that the insurance offices had shown their appreciation of that gentleman's services by granting an annuity of £300 to the widow, with a reversion of the capital—£7,000—to his
  1400
  children. He repeated, however, that the present system was wrong, for although in one sense it might be to the interest of insurance companies to put out fire, yet their premiums were based upon a calculation of risks, and if the fires doubled in number the premiums would he doubled also. In the late great fire the loss of the insurance offices was estimated at £1,000,000, besides several hundreds of thousands pounds' worth of uninsured property that was destroyed. The whole amount of the premiums received by all the London and country offices for risks incurred within the Metropolis was only £350,000 a year, so that one fire had swept the whole amount of 2½ years' premiums. The brigade was supported by the various companies at an expense of £25,000 a year. That sum, of course, was calculated in the amount of the premiums, and fell upon the insurers, so that the insurers paid for the protection that was afforded to non-insurers—an arrangement that could hardly be regarded as equitable. If anything ought to be taken up as a municipal question it was the protection of life and property against fire. In Paris there were 800 of the Sapeurs Pompiers, a most efficient fire brigade. In Edinburgh, Dublin, Liverpool, and Manchester, the extinction of a fire was a municipal arrangement, and there was no continental town in which the same system did not prevail. In London alone there was no such system, and this important object was left to depend on voluntary exertions. Our public buildings were unprotected, and, considering the invaluable property which they contained, that was a most unsatisfactory state of things. In the Bank of England alone an efficient system prevailed, and so there ought to be in an establishment containing the records of the National Debt and titles of property amounting to £800,000,000; but was it not equally the duty of the Government to protect the public buildings under their charge, remembering that within the metropolitan police area were more than 3,000,000 persons, and between 500,000 and 600,000 houses, there surely ought to be some public system? He did not want to saddle the country at large with any expenditure to accomplish this object. The matter was one of police, and there could be no better time than the present for effecting such a change. He spoke without authority, but he believed that the whole of the existing fire-brigade establishment would be handed over to the public on

  1401
  equitable terms if they would take charge of it, and the companies would be glad to be relieved from a duty which he did not think ought to fall upon them at all. He hoped the matter would be considered by the Government during the recess.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: My hon. Friend has naturally and wisely taken advantage; of the present moment, when attention has been directed to the disastrous fire at London Bridge, of which we have heard so much, to bring under notice the defects in the present arrangements for the extinction of fires in the Metropolis. The principal provision on this subject is contained in the 14th of George III., which enacts that every London parish within the Bills of Mortality shall keep up certain fire engines and other appliances for the extinction of fires. At this moment I am not prepared to say what is the aggregate expense which the parishes incur under this enactment; but, no doubt, the expenses of the several parishes, when added together, amount to a considerable sum. Nevertheless, the whole of that expenditure is almost frittered away. It is divided into such minute proportions that no one parish contributes any important assistance to the extinction of any large fire. The Act of George III. was passed at a time when there was no organization for the Metropolis. Each parish was, in 1774, a separate community, excluding the City of London, and they had no common organization. Such organization, however, now exists in the metropolitan police, which, indeed, is independent of the City of London, but is common to the whole of the rest of the Metropolis. It is an obvious remark that if all the expenditure of the separate parishes were thrown into one common fund and were placed under a common management, the expenditure would be far more equally and economically applied for the purpose of extinguishing fires than it is at present. Whether any alteration in the law could be made for that purpose, is a point upon which I will not express any opinion; but I agree with my hon. Friend that if these arrangements, which are now simply parochial, were combined, and if the persons who are now employed by the several parishes were brigaded, the means of extinguishing fires would be much more efficient than at present. The existing fire brigade in London is maintained at an expense of £20,000 a year, and is a voluntary force, supported by the various fire insurance offices. And
  1402
  if the whole of the expense is thrown on the parishes it seems but reasonable that some contribution should be made by the companies. However, I merely advert to that subject as one which will require consideration, and I must thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has brought this subject under the notice of the House.

IMPORTATION OF GUANO.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MAJOR WINDSOR PARKERsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had, by anticipation, answered the question he bad put on the paper relative to the importation of Peruvian guano. He would, however, venture to remark that while they had imported last year about £30,000,000 sterling worth of corn the importation of that valuable fertilizer had gradually fallen off. It had been calculated that one ton of Peruvian guano was equivalent to a production of five quarters of corn, and upon that calculation the falling off in the import represented a falling off in the production of corn in this country of 2,000,000 quarters. The Government would, therefore, confer a great benefit on the country if they would give greater encouragement to the importation of guano, so that the country might cease to be dependent on foreign nations for such enormous importations of grain. The House had been reminded by a petition presented by the grand jury of Leitrim that the Peruvian Congress had endeavoured to do away with the monopoly by which the English farmer was charged £2 5s. per ton more than his American rival. If that resolution of the Peruvian Congress should be carried out the English farmer would be saved £500,000 a year. The trade in Peruvian guano was in a most unsatisfactory state, and he trusted that the Government would energetically urge upon the Government of Peru to make some reduction in the present enormous export charge levied on guano.
CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. STIRLING*said, that in calling attention to the pensions on the Civil List, he thought it proper to quote the words under which that fund was established. It was an Act of Her present Majesty, the 1 & 2 Viet., c. 2, s. 56, and it provided that the sum of £1,200 should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund as pensions to

  1403
  such persons as had just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who, by personal service to the Crown, or by the performance of duties to the public, by their labours in literature, or by useful discoveries in science or art, had merited the approbation of their Sovereign. The Act directed that a list of the pensions should be laid before the House every year, clearly showing that it was intended that these pensions should be open to the review of Parliament; but no complete return had ever been given till the one he had moved for. The aggregate amount of the pensions now payable was £18,700. He was sorry to see from this list that very early in the history of this civil fund some pensions were granted that partook of the nature of an abuse. In 1840 Lord Melbourne granted to seven persons, instructors of Her Majesty in various branches of education, £700 out of the £1,200. He did not say these persons did not deserve recognition from the Crown; the well-known accomplishments of Her Majesty made it probable that they had faithfully discharged their duty. But it could hardly be said these were services that came within the spirit, though they might come within the letter of the Act. It must be remembered that, in addition to the £1,200 a year, there was a further annual sum of £13,200 at the disposal of of the First Minister, under the name of Royal Bounty, Alms, and Special Services. It certainly appeared to him that the pensions he alluded to ought to have been granted out of the larger sum and not out of the smaller. In 1845, Sir Robert Peel granted out of this £1,200 a pension of £1,000 to a member of the Royal Family. Believing that no defence could he made or would be attempted for this pension, he called attention to it merely for the purpose of expressing a hope that nothing of the kind might occur again. Here and there on this list, extending over a period of twenty-four years, he found other pensions hardly less objectionable. The names of several persons appeared there, as it seemed, for no other reason than that they were poor and their relations extremely rich and powerful. Grants of this kind could not be too severely condemned. There was, doubtless, much individual hardship in these cases, and it would be repugnant to the feelings of almost any Member of this House to allude to them by name. But it was behind this natural repugnance that
  1404
  Ministers sheltered themselves when they perpetrated these jobs. He must say the rich relatives who asked were more to blame than the careless Minister who gave. But it was the duty of Ministers to resist the applications for such gifts, and to make the wealthy aristocracy understand that the fund was not to be made a refuge for their poor relations. The poor had their friendly and benefit societies maintained at their own cost, and it would be well if the rich and titled, following their example, would take upon themselves the burden of supporting some of the destitute persons whose names appeared in this Return. He would now call attention to the literary and scientific pensions. In no grants was it more necessary that caution should be exercised. A literary career was a lottery, in which the prizes in fame, influence, and hard cash were so splendid that it followed in the nature of things the blanks must be very numerous. It was a career which peculiarly appealed to the imagination of youth, and in which the difficulties and obstacles were seldom visible from the starting post. In other walks of life there was generally some point when a man felt he had made good his footing, and from which he was or might be borne onward and upward by seniority, by death vacancies, or by the exertions of others. In the literary career there was no such point; success here implied continual progress; and progress was only to be made by incessant exertion. The result was that the literary profession was crowded with middle-aged men, of considerable abilities, great cultivation, and no little industry, who, nevertheless, found it difficult to make a decent livelihood. When the cares of a family were added to their other difficulties, the position of these persons was forlorn indeed. It was obvious, therefore, if the good character and a fair degree of literary skill were to be the passport to a pension, three times £1,200 would hardly suffice to satisfy the claims of literary men alone. The possible rewards being so scanty and so few, none ought to be granted except to those persons who had rendered real and signal service to English literature. Rightly to select the recipients of these rewards demanded the exercise of the greatest care. Looking through this return, he must say that the selection afforded evidence rather of carelessness than care. In his remarks he would not go further back than five years, fixing that period to show that, while

  1405
  he criticised the pensions given by the noble Lord, he had no wish to exempt from remark those granted by the late Government. In the last five years about forty pensions had been granted for literary services alone; of these he was himself familiar with the names of twenty-five. Some of this number were unexceptionable—such as Lover, Richardson, and the relatives of Robert Southey and of Hugh Miller; but to others he thought considerable objections might fairly be made. Of the remaining fifteen names he had never heard until he read them in this list. He had, therefore, placed the returns in the hands of a number of gentlemen of the highest literary reputation, living in London, and of course conversant with all branches of literature, and especially called their attention to the fifteen names of which he spoke. Respecting one only of these names could his friends furnish him with any information leading to the belief that it deserved to appear on this list. He was, therefore, entitled to say that out of these forty names fourteen were wholly obscure. It had further fallen within his knowledge that of the persons pensioned for literary services, some had taken the unworthy course of attempting to raise further contributions by means of begging letters. As he did not know the circumstances under which the appeals were made, he should not now mention any names; but if be should find that the practice was persisted in, he should feel himself justified in taking some steps to make the names of the offenders known. But if any special example were needed of a mistake in disposing of these grants, he could not refer to a more striking case than that of Mr. Close. The noble Lord bail withdrawn the pension of £50 he granted; but as he had allowed him £100 out of the Royal Bounty, he hoped he might take the liberty of giving a short sketch of Mr. Close's career. He was bred as a butcher; but soon gave up that trade to be come a printer. From his early years he seemed to have had a fatal facility for writing doggrel verse and ungrammatical prose. It would be altogether a misapplication of the term to apply that of "literature" (to anything he had ever written. Most of his productions appeared in the shape of handbills, and were circulated by means of the post. When persons returned him a favourable answer with an enclosure of money they were highly praised; those who did not pay him that attention were ridiculed and satirized. Many of these compositions
  1406
  were really so gross that they would very fairly come under the operation of the late Lord Campbell's Act. Others were attacks on women in his own neighbourhood, of such a nature that he wondered how he had escaped the horsewhip he bad so frequently provoked. A volume of his writings was on the table of the library of the House, and those who had seen it could say whether he had drawn a too unfavourable picture of them. One of these handbills or fly-sheets, as they were called by the author—a very gross attack upon the character of a lady now no more—became the subject of an action for libel at Liverpool so lately as 1856, The defence made by the counsel of Mr. Close was not that the libel was true, or that there was any doubt as to the identity of the party attacked; but that his client was not a creditable person—these were the words he was reported to have used—and that nothing he could say or write could affect the character of any man or woman. This defence did not succeed in obtaining a verdict from the jury, who gave £50 damages against Mr. Close; and had it not been for consideration for his circumstances, their foreman; stated that they would have given a larger: sum. But this was not all. The plaintiff, who seems to have been a good-natured man, remitted the damages, on condition that Mr. Close should print a paper, confessing that what he had previously written was slanderous. Mr. Close accepted the condition, He confessed what he had said of the lady was slanderous. But in many subsequent flysheets he had spoken of the trial as an occasion when he was mulcted for writing the truth. Was such a man deserving either of a pension or of a donation? He regretted that the noble Lord, on withdrawing the pension, should have given a donation out of the Royal Bounty Fund, which donation seemed to have been allotted as a solatium to Mr. Close for having been found out to be an impostor. The pension was given in the first instance in consequence of a memorial which the noble Lord produced to the House on a former occasion, when he (Mr. Stirling) bad called attention to the subject. The noble Lord then stated that Mr. Close was a self-taught genius, that his works deserved to be placed in the same category as those of Burns, and that a pension would be particularly valuable to Mr. Close as a mark of the Royal favour. The noble Lord finished by flourishing the memorial over the box on the table, stating that it was signed by

  1407
  Lord Carlisle, Lord Lonsdale, and many other persons, and sat down, as usual, amid the cheers of the House. By the courtesy of the noble Lord he had had an opportunity of seeing the memorial, and as far as he could perceive it was signed by nobody at all. Towards the bottom of the list there might be some signatures which were real, but the greater part of the, signatures—certainly all likely to weigh with the noble Lord—were exactly in the handwriting of the memorial, which was that of Mr. Close. The noble Lord informed the House that the pension was given upon the memorial, and if so that proved his case; because it proved that a pension had been given upon a document which ought more properly to have been transmitted to the Mendicity Society. The pension being withdrawn, the final result of the memorial was the £100 granted out of the Royal Bounty Fund. In taking leave of Mr. Close,, he hoped he would employ this £100 better than those talents of which he was perpetually boasting. He must admit that this Westmoreland bard possessed one of the attributes of a great poet—the gift of prophecy. Last year he wrote in one of his fly-sheets—" Had I been a pugilist instead of a poet, Lord Palmerston would have given me£10 out of the Royal Bounty Fund." This year, although it was proved that, instead of being a member of the comparatively respectable fraternity of the Prize Ring, he was the writer of doggrel verse and, obscene prose, a convicted libeller and a confessed slanderer, he had received not £10, but £100, from the improbable source which he had so impudently indicated. The question now was—how were mistakes of this kind to be prevented in future? He submitted to the noble Lord and the House whether, it would not be desirable that there should be in the printed list of pensions a short indication of, the services and works for which the pensions were grafted, for it might happen that in some instances the obscure pensioners had been the anonymous authors of meritorious publications. Might it not also be said that some of the pensions were of too small an amount? The smaller the pensions were, the greater the chance of their being carelessly given. He, saw in the list the name of a lady as the recipient of£30 a year. He never had the advantage of hearing her name before, and was, therefore, unable to say whether her services deserved recognition; but if she was so poor that £30 were of importance to her, would it not have
  1408
  been better to give her a little, more? With the exception of the pensions for literary and scientific, services, some department of the State might be side be responsible for the pensions granted. For those given to soldiers and sailors, for example, the War Department and the Admiralty might be held responsible, and he had no doubt the responsibility was real and the supervision effective. In the case, however, of the bestowal of literary and scientific pensions there was no responsibility except that which rested on the Prime Minister, who, having so much to occupy his time, must necessarily leave the choice of these pensioners in a great measure to others. He ventured to say that if the noble Lord made a rule of appending to these grants the names of one or two persons of acknowledged literary eminence, who undertook to vouch for the value of the services for which the pension was given, many chances of abuse would be removed. There was no doubt but that many applications, which ought not to be entertained were made, to Ministers by persons who did not themselves choose to refuse them, and who very improperly throw upon the over-worked Minister the task of examining the flimsiest claims. If a Peer, with a taste for poetry, or a Member of that House, who was versed in geology, wanted a pension for a poet or a geologist, would it not be an excellent answer for the noble Lord to make—"Well, I will see if I can grant it; but if I do, remember that I shall probably give your name in the return as a guarantee for the propriety of the grant." He believed such a practice would have a great effect in checking abuses. Many men would, make applications who would be far from desirous of being put down on the, pension list as the godfathers of such pensioners as Mr. Close. He thanked the House for the patience with which it had listened to his statement on a matter which, so far as money was concerned, was a small one, but which, nevertheless, had an important bearing on the interests and the honour of literature.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was not at all, aware, that these pensions to which the hon. Member had referred, were granted to necessitous, members of wealthy families, who ought to look to their relatives for support. Some of these pensions were so small in amount that they could not be an object to any one moving in that sphere of life in which persons belonging to wealthy and aristocratic families would

  1409
  move; and, so far as he was concerned, the hon. Member's observation could not apply to the mode in which he bad disposed of the pensions. As the hon. Member truly stated, the pensions allotted to persons of literary and scientific attainments were so small that it was almost a wonder how they could be of any great value to the receivers; but he could assure the House that the gratitude expressed by many very deserving persons for the assistance which those small pensions, varying from £50 to £100 a year, afforded, was exceedingly gratifying to him, as showing that in dispensing that amount which the law enabled him to dispense he was able to relieve a great deal of individual anxiety and privation. With respect to the particular case of Mr. Close, he thought that the hon. Member was mistaken in saying that the signatures to the memorial were in the same handwriting as the memorial itself, though undoubtedly the two first names—those of the Earl of Carlisle and Lord Lonsdale—were evidently not written by those noble Lords. So far as the Earl of Carlisle and Lord Lonsdale were concerned he found that the former had given his sanction to Mr. Close to use his name as a patron, although he had not authorized him to use it as supporting his application for a pension, while the latter noble Lord had done so. It was clear, therefore, that there had been no great amount of misrepresentation on the part of Mr. Close with reference to those two signatures. The reason, he might add, why he had taken away the pension from Mr. Close was that the hon. Gentleman opposite had communicated with him, and proved to him that Mr. Close had been convicted of having written a libel. Having ascertained that fact, it at once occurred to him that a man who was open to such a charge, whether he believed the libel to be justified or not, was not exactly the sort of person who was entitled to receive a pension from the Crown. Taking into account, however, the circumstance that some time had elapsed between the period of the announcement that the pension would be granted and its withdrawal, and it having been represented to him that Mr. Close had taken steps in expectation of receiving the pension which would entail on him considerable pecuniary loss, he certainly did not think it right—the fault resting, perhaps, in some measure with himself in not having examined sufficiently into the particular case—that Mr. Close should be allowed to suffer to so great an extent as he must
  1410
  have done if he had received no pecuniary assistance. The hon. Member, indeed, seemed to think that if he were disposed to render that assistance he ought to have paid the money out of his own pocket. [Mr. STIRLING: No, no!] That was the inference he drew from what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman; but, be that as it might, he had not felt called upon to adopt that course. He could, moreover, assure the hon. Gentleman that he paid great attention to the distribution of the grants in question; that he examined carefully the grounds on which recommendations for them were made; that the names of the persons making the recommendations were duly sent in to him, and that he had granted pensions to several upon whom— even according to the admission of the hon. Gentleman himself—they were properly bestowed. The hon. Gentleman had, indeed, stated that there were fourteen cases in which he had not been able to learn on what grounds grants had been made, and he, therefore, seemed to assume that in those cases the public money was not wisely and fairly distributed. He might, however, turn the tables on the hon. Gentleman, and say that his want of knowledge in these particular instances was no good reason why he should not be wrong, while his own acquaintance with the grounds on which those fourteen pensions were granted furnished no good reason why he should not have done right in conferring them. He could at all events assure the hon. Gentleman that he believed he could satisfy him that the claims in the fourteen cases to which he alluded were just ones, if he would only bring the circumstances of each case under his notice. In many instances, it was true, the recipients of pensions were persons not known to fame. They were not persons whose works had enabled them to arrive at that high degree of reputation and emolument which distinguished literary success secured. On the contrary, they walked in the humbler ranks of literature. They were men who struggled without avail to acquire wealth by the exercise of their talents, but who, nevertheless, possessed natural genius and great industry, and to whom the grant of the smallest allowance was a great boon, inasmuch as, however trifling it might be, it sometimes precluded the necessity of their being obliged to seek refuge in the workhouse, or to depend on the casual support of friends or relatives. Those grants had at all events, he believed, done great good. They resembled the dis-

  1411
  tributions made by the Literary Fund, which were very small, but which, as everybody knew, had produced, in some instances, in cases of distinguished men, great relief in moments of distress. He had simply, in conclusion, to assure the lion. Gentleman that he should feel it to be his duty to take every precaution against the recurrence of such a case as that of Mr. Close.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY— CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee,
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £145,140, to complete the sum for Superannuation Allowances and Compensations.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the Vote was increasing every year. He found several instances in which allowances had been granted upon the abolition of establishments, but with proper economy those persons, instead of being thrown on the public as pensioners, might have received appointments in other departments. There was, he observed, the case of a person who had been receiving£320 a year on account of ill-health since 1831; and another in which £700 a year was paid for "infirmity of body" since 1820—that was for forty-one years. There was an item of £2,000 for the Queen's coroner which needed explanation. He should like to know what the duties of that office were?
  MR. PEELsaid, that no doubt the Act of 1859 granted more liberal allowances, and embraced a larger number of public servants than the previous Superannuation Act, and that accounted for the increase in this Vote. With respect to the allowance of £2,000 a year to the Queen's coroner and attorney, he (Mr. Peel) was not aware that the hon. Gentleman intended to draw his attention to this allowance, and he did not know the particular circumstances under which it was granted. He did know, however, that an Act was passed abolishing this office, and otherwise effecting a considerable reduction in the Vote for that department of the Queen's Bench.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the four following Votes:—
  (2.) £10,000, Commutation of Probate Act Compensations.
  (3.) £1,040, Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants.
  (4.) £325, Refuge for the Destitute.
  (5.) £3,210, Polish Refugees, &c,
  (6.) £3,951, Miscellaneous Allowances.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, there was a charge included in this sum for a pension of £500 granted to Sir Thomas Clarges by Charles II., and he wished to know who received that money now.
  MR. PEELsaid, he supposed it was the representatives of that person. The question of continuing the payment had been submitted to the law officers of the Crown lately, and they were of opinion that the payment could not be discontinued.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he should move that the amount of the grant should be struck out.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that the Motion would not be persisted in, for the grant had been made by the Crown and charged upon the old coal duties, and was as much private property as was the subject of any other grant from the Crown.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the following six votes:—
  (7.) £2,539, Public Infirmaries (Ireland).
  (8.) £1,900, to complete the sum for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital (Dublin).
  (9.) £700, Rotunda Lying-in Hospital (Dublin).
  (10.) £200, Coombe Lying-in Hospital (Dublin).
  (11.) £5,200, to complete the sum for the Hospitals of the House of Industry (Dublin).
  (12.) £1,800, to complete the sum for the House of Recovery and Fever Hospital (Dublin).
  (13.) £600, Meath Hospital, Dublin.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Vote, for he did not believe that a more valuable institution existed; but he conceived that the course which had been pursued of late years by the medical officers of the institution, in selecting their colleagues instead of allowing them to be chosen by election, was likely to bring the institution into discredit.
  MR. CARDWELLexplained the circumstances connected with the recent acts of which the hon. Member complained, and pointed out that the gentleman who had been appointed was in every respect qualified for the office to which he bad been elected.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he considered that the mode of appointment was one which required some alteration.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
  (14.) £100, St. Mark's Ophthalmic Hospital (Dublin).
  (15.) £900, to complete the sum for Dr. Steevens' Hospital (Dublin).
  (16.) £265, Superintendence of Hospitals (Dublin).
  (17.) £58,700, Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.
  (18.) £17,400, to complete the sum for Distressed British Seamen Abroad.
  (19.) £5,121, to complete the sum for Charitable Allowances, &c. (Ireland).
  (20.) £29,747, Nonconforming, &c, Ministers in Ireland.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he objected to the Vote. There were constant accessions to the claimants upon the fund, though the census showed that the body to which they belonged had in thirty years decreased 20 per cent. New claims, too, were being added. The Presbyterians of Ulster, moreover, he contended, did not require that assistance, inasmuch as they were rich, having in one year raised £30,000; for houses and £10,000 a year for missionary enterprises. They paid their ministers, however, very badly, and the system of granting them public money encouraged that practice. The grant was really an injustice to the class who received it, for a larger amount might be secured by the voluntary system. The Established Church, the Regium Donum, and the Maynooth Grant were like a three-legged stool. If any one of the three were taken away the others would tumble. He believed that a sum of £10,000 had been already taken on account. He, therefore, begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £28,000.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the question had been substantially decided last Session after a debate upon the Regium Donum. The House then resolved to continue the Regium Donum. On the one hand, the Government would not propose any new endowments; but, on the other, they were of opinion that those, which had I been continued for a long time should not be withdrawn; and he knew of no body of men who were more entitled to the grant than the Presbyterians of Ireland.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that all parties in Ireland were in favour of the grant, and he would for his part desire to see it increased, so that the salary of each minister would not be less than £100; and in order to prevent these annual discussions, he
  1414
  would place the charge upon the Consolidated Fund.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £29,747, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 18: Majority 60.
  Vote agreed to.
  (21.) £3,750. Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, ho objected to the Vote, on the ground that the Commissioners were rich and did not want it. In four years they had spent £98,000 upon lawyers and surveyors, and in the year 1858 alone £32,000. He would certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it,
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the sum was voted for the expenses incurred by the Ecclesiastical Commission in the performance of duties formerly discharged by the Church Building Commission, which had been dissolved.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, ho objected at the time to the transference from the Church Building Commissioners to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. What had the Commissioners to do? He believed absolutely nothing.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he could not help making an observation on the great amount paid by the Commissioners for surveyors and receivers. In 1858 no less a sum than £10,814 was paid to two firms of land surveyors in London for commission, and in 1858 the sum had grown up to £20,546. It appeared to him that the better plan would be for the Commissioners to appoint some person at a sufficient salary to do that work. In the year 1858 there was also paid to lawyers £11,992. He certainly thought that was an expenditure which should be inquired into.
  MR. DEEDESexplained the duties which devolved on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in connection with the Church Building Acts. They were of a most onerous and important character, and the Commissioners would be glad to be relieved of them. The money asked for would, therefore, be well applied. As to the solicitors' and surveyors' charges, the Commissioners were not afraid of a full investigation into these matters. The Commission had charge of large estates and vast sums, and the charges were neces-

  1415
  sarily heavy, "It had always been their earnest desire to keep down their legal and professional expenses as much as possible.
  MR. PEELexplained that the duties of the Commission under the Church Building Acts were to receive the conveyance of sites where persons were willing, at their own private charge, to build churches, and' when the churches were built to separate for ecclesiastical purposes from the existing parishes those districts which were to be assigned to the new churches. The cost of these duties under an Act of Parliament could not be defrayed out of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,750, be granted to Her Majesty; to defray a portion of the Expense of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 34: Majority 32.
  Vote agreed to;as was also
  (22.) £12,606, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £29,005, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Fees, Salaries, Expenses, and Compensations, payable under the provisions of the Patent Law Amendment Act, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
  MR. W. WILLIAMScalled attention to the large amount of fees received by the law officers of the Crown.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he should move the reduction of the Vote by£9,166, the expense of fees payable to the law officers of the Crown. He complained that the operation of the law was most unjust, as bearing upon working men who were desirous of obtaining patents. There was a charge for travelling expenses to obtain the Lord Chancellor's seal when he was out of town. Surely if the Lord Chancellor went out of town for business or pleasure it was his duty to leave some officer in town who could, affix the seal. The amount of fees payable by a working man to get a patent made out was no less than £50, which was excessive, whereas in America a patent could be taken out for £3 or£4.
  MR. PEELsaid, the law officers of the Grown received certain fees in respect of patents; in return for which they were expected to examine specifications, and sometimes had to call persons before them. The aggregate sum appeared a large one; but the law officers only received two guineas upon each provisional protection,
  1416
  and one guinea upon each grant a patent, and, considering the large incomes, made by barristers at the head of their profession, it was not excessive. A reduction in the charge, of taking out a patent had within the last few years been made, and the charge, which used to be £300. was now £25 for a period of three years, The Commissioners of Patents did not recommend any further reduction of the fees, which they said would increase the number of speculative and useless patents.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that the fees for a three years' patent were £50, not £25.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, the reduction of the fees to a low amount would be a great boon, to inventors.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the item of £9,166, for Fees payable to the Law Officers of the Crown, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"
  —put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,018, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland, to the 31st day of March 1862."
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he objected to the system by which a charge was made for the use of a particular brand. It would be better if the trade were left entirely to protect itself. As matters stood the careless and the careful curers of fish were placed on the same footing. He also wished to ask whether orders had been given to the war steamers engaged in protecting the fishery, so that no such catastrophe as that which had recently resulted in the death of a fisherman should again occur?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the policy of the Fishery Board had been frequently under consideration, and a Commission was issued three or four years ago, who inquired on the spot and reported to the Treasury, in consequence of which report an Act was introduced by which certain fees were charged for branding. He was partly responsible for the Bill, but confessed that he entertained considerable doubt as to the policy of the provisions. There was, however, a strong feeling in Scotland on the subject, and if efforts were made to abolish the Fishery Board, corresponding efforts, he believed, would be made to maintain it, the brand being regarded as of essential service to the foreign trade. With regard to the unfortunate occurrence connected with the Jackall, the

  1417
  Fishery Board were fully aware of the gravity of the circumstances, and, no doubt, would give the necessary instructions to the commander of the vessel, so that no occurrence of his sort might happen again.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that as all parties seemed agreed that that was a most objectionable payment, he would move that the sum of £13,018 be omitted from the estimate.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that last year upwards of £3,800 had been received by the Board in the shape of branding fees, and is also obtained by other means £3,000; so that if these two sums were deducted from the Vote, it would be seen that the money actually to be paid by the country for the support of the Board was only half of the Vote.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he trusted that the Committee would not entertain the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Locke), especially as some portion of the Vote was distributed in pensions.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, ho believed that there was a general feeling in Scotland that the Fishery Board would disappear altogether. At the same time what had been done to improve the fishing ports was advantageous to them, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member's Amendment would not be persisted in.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that a more rotten piece of protection was never known. It was usual, however, in such cases to vote the pensions, and he trusted that his hon. Friend would amend his proposal accordingly.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he also objected to the Vote, on the ground that there was no more reason for expending the public money in branding herrings than in making roads and bridges in Scotland.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that so far from the money being expended in the improvement of harbours it was mainly spent in nets.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he must deny the accuracy of the statement made that the Vote was asked for the purpose of protection. The Commissioners reported that it was a national interest, and by no means an improper object to foster this branch of industry, in which a large number of the poorer classes were engaged. The grounds stated in opposition to the Vote were altogether inefficient to maintain that argument.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he did not wish to strike off the salaries and pensions, and
  1418
  was willing to reduce the Vote to £8,711. He objected to voting money for mere I local matters, and they were often enough reminded of that when there was any money required for metropolitan improvements.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,247, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Fisheries in Scotland, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 55: Majority 24.
  Original Question put, and agreed to. (25.) £2,000, Trustees of Manufactures (Scotland).
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the Vote involved a greater job than the last. It was the only Board of manufactures supported out of the public money, and he would propose that the Vote should he negatived.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge on account of the Annuity to the Board of Manufactures in Scotland, in discharge of Equivalents under the Treaty of Union, to the 31st day of March, 1862."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 13: Majority 50.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the three following Votes:—
  (26.) £35,000, Local Dues under Treaties.
  (27.) £3,500, inspectors of Corn Returns.
  (28.) £1,000, Boundary Survey (Ireland).
  (29.) £11,930, to complete the sum for; the Census of the population.
  MR. CAIRDinquired why it was that; the expense of the census in Scotland was proportionally greater than the expense in England or Ireland?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the reason why the expense of the census in Ireland was less was because the police were the enumerators in that country. The greater area of Scotland in comparison with the population, and the greater difficulty of travelling, in consequence of the want of railways and the nature of the country, rendered the census proportionally dearer in Scotland than in England.
  MR. PEELsaid, that another reason which increased the cost of taking the census in Scotland was a Motion proposed by the hon. Member himself last year, requiring the enumerators in Scotland to

  1419
  take an account of the number of occupied and unoccupied houses, of the number of houses building, and of the windows contained in the houses.
  Vote agreed to.
  (30.) £26,457, Telegraph Companies Subsidies.
  In reply to Captain JERVIS,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Red Sea Telegraph Company might be said to be reduced to a state of neutralized existence; but it did not appear to the Government desirable to proceed at the present to any definite conclusion with respect to the financial arrangements involved. They were, however, of opinion that it would be desirable to ascertain at a moderate cost the condition of the line, and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had received some reports which he hoped would enable him shortly to apprize them more precisely as to the mode and extent of the inquiry which it would be expedient to undertake, in order that they might arrive at the root of the matter. So far as his information at present went he did not think the circumstances of the case very favourable.
  In reply to Sir MORTON PETO,
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the Turkish Government were now employed in establishing a telegraphic line along the Euphrates from Brusa down to Bassora, by means of which he hoped communication would be opened with India.
  Vote agreed to, as was also
  (31.) £36,000, Malta and Alexandria Telegraph.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

LANDED ESTATES (IRELAND) ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Duty payable on Proceedings),
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 1, line 11, to leave out the words 'the passing of this Act,' and insert the words 'such date as the Judges of the said Court may, with the sanction of the Commissioners of the Treasury, by general order appoint."
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided;—Ayes 4; Noes 30: Majority 26,
  And it appearing that 40 Members were not present:
  Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair:—House counted:—And 40 Members being present,—Bill further considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "where such value shall be less than £10,000 and twenty shillings."
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 29; Noes 3: Majority 26.
  And it appearing that 40 Members were not present:
  Mr. SPEAKERresumed the Chair:— House counted:—And 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Abinger, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Lord Clerk Register Salary Abolition; Enlistment in India; Ordnance Survey Continuance; Crown Suits Limitation; Criminal Proceedings Oath Relief; Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment; Ecclesiastical Dilapidations.
2a Voters (Ireland); University Elections; Salmon Fisheries; Irremovable Poor; Dublin Revising Barristers; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Act Continuance; County Cess (Ireland) Act Continuance; Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society; Local Government Act Amendment.
3a Attornies and Solicitors (Ireland).

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain Amendments agreed to, some agreed to, with Amendments; and some disagreed to, with their Reasons for such Disagree-

1341
ment: The said Reasons and Bill, with the Amendments, to be printed; and to be taken into Consideration on Friday next. [Nos. 230 and 231.]

ANNOYANCE JURORS (WESTMINSTER) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD LLANOVERsaid, that the Act of Elizabeth entitled "An Act for the good Government of the City or Borough of Westminster," amended by subsequent Acts, appointed, amongst other things, an Annoyance Jury, whose duty it was to inspect annoyances, obstructions, and weights and measures. The object of the Bill was to abolish the Annoyance Jury, and to vest its powers in the "Court of Burgesses" which constituted the local government of Westminster, with power to appoint inspectors to summon offenders, and to inflict penalties, which were to be paid one half to the Bailiff of Westminster, the other half to the Court of Burgess, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Act. The object of the Amendments he proposed to move was to place the duty of punishing offences of this kind in the hands of the stipendiary magistrates, as was the case in the other metropolitan districts; and to direct the fines to be paid over to the Bailiff. The noble Lord said that the inhabitants of Westminster objected to the continuance of this power in the hands of the Court, which was a self-elected body; and, while admitting that more persons were fined for; having deficient weights and measures in the City of Westminister than in other parts of the kingdom, explained that circumstance by stating that in Westminster the fines were not, as they were elsewhere, paid to the county treasurer, but were paid to the burgesses and applied by them. The noble Lord then moved an Amendment in Clause 5 to strike out the words" the said Court of Burgesses," and to insert "two Justices of the Peace for the County of Middlesex."
LORD CHELMSFORDdefended the constitution of the Court, which lie said had been established three centuries, and which had always attending its meetings a town clerk, who was usually a lawyer, and who was appointed by the High Steward. The Annoyance Jurors, as they were called, though their object was rather to prevent annoyance, had the power to enter into shops and examine the weights and mea-
1342
sures, and defacing or destroying those they found defective, and amercing offenders in penalties to the amount of 40s. But the Court of Burgesses, assembling once a month, had power to mitigate the fine. This jurisdiction had been conferred upon the Court of Burgesses by an Act passed in the 27th year of the reign of George II., and had been exercised most beneficially for more than a century. As the humble classes wore those who suffered most front fraudulent weights and measures, it was necessary that there should be constant supervision over the traders in particular districts. A return published in 1858 showed that in the previous year there were a greater number of convictions for improper weights and measures in Westminster than, with one exception, in any other division in the country. The fines received by the Court of Burgesses amounted to £50 or £60 a year. He left it to their Lordships to consider whether the Court was more likely to discharge its duties more diligently and painfully in consequence of this amount of revenue. No complaint had ever been made as to the practical working of the Court, but it had been objected by many of the inhabitants that the being compelled to serve on this Annoyance Jury was a very great burden. Accordingly, a Bill had been introduced to abolish the jurisdiction of the Court of Burgesses, and to substitute for them an Inspector of Weights and Measures. The Court of Burgesses themselves did not object— they considered the measure to be a relief and a benefit. No doubt it was most desirable that the Inspectors should act under a constant and vigilant superintendence, and if the Inspectors were not to be answerable to the Court of Burgesses he thought the door would be open to a great deal of connivance and partiality. There was nothing in his noble Friend's argument beyond this, that the Court of Burgesses was a self-elected body.
THE EARL OF POWISwas of opinion that it was better to transfer the jurisdiction of the police magistrates than to continue it in the hands of the Court of Burgesses, It would, of course, be open to any of the inhabitants who thought they had reasonable ground for complaint against the Inspector, to prefer such complaint before the magistrates. It was but reasonable that the jurisdiction should he placed in the hands of the police magistrates, rather than in those of a self-constituted body like that of the Court of Burgesses.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought that the police magistrates had quite enough business thrown upon them without being saddled with those additional duties of looking after the Inspector of Weights and Measures and hearing complaints respecting him.
LORD LLANOVERsaid, he thought it would be a great improvement to have this jurisdiction transferred to the stipendiary magistrates; but he would not trouble their Lordships to divide upon the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Amendment made; The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, this Bill was introduced into the other House at the beginning of the Session in consequence of the Resolution of a Committee which sat last year, that it was desirable that votes for the election of Members for the Universities should be recorded in a prescribed form before a justice of the peace. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and, after considerable discussion, passed the House of Commons in its present form. The reason for the Bill was the non-residence of almost the whole of the University constituencies. They numbered respectively 3,500 and 5,000 voters, and only about 250 were resident either in Oxford or Cambridge. A great deal had been done by the multiplication of polling places to render it more easy for the voters in other constituencies to record their votes, and a majority of those voters were resident in the borough or county for which they possessed a qualification. The Bill sedulously avoided anything like voting by proxy, and would greatly diminish the cost of contested elections for the Universities. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  Motion agreed to;
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SALMON FISHERIES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY,in moving the second reading of the Bill, the
  1344
  object of which was to preserve the breed and growth of salmon, said, that a Commission which was appointed last year examined witnesses as to the state of the rivers in England, and ascertained the undoubted fact that salmon which formerly existed in them in great abundance had diminished in some, and in others had almost ceased to exist. The causes were the establishment of fixed engines, the pollution of the waters, the complication of the law, the non-observance of a closing season, and illegal modes of fishing. The Commission made a Report, and this Bill was founded upon its recommendations. From the time of Magna Charta down to the 11 & 12 Vict., Parliament had constantly recognized the duty of protecting the salmon. At present all kinds of obstacles were interposed in the way of the salmon when they attempted to ascend the rivers for the purpose of spawning, and every possible effort was made to capture them by means of fixed engines, fixed nets, and other contrivances. It had been the uniform object of the Legislature to give the salmon a constant and ready access to the upper waters, and with this view it was now proposed to prohibit the continuance of any fixed engines except where a fishery of this kind existed by ancient charter or grant of the Crown. It was also proposed that in the case of dams and weirs a constant and ready access should be provided for the salmon to the upper waters by means of a gap or "free pass," and it provided a weekly close time from eight p. m. on Friday till six a. m. on Monday. Spearing and "burning the water" would be prohibited, and a penalty would be inflicted on any person who permitted deleterious matter to flow into a river so as to kill or poison fish, subject, however, to exemption from the penalty if he proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he had used the best practicable means, within a reasonable cost, to render such matter harmless. He believed that as the law now stood an action might be maintained against any person who thus poisoned the fish, but this was a costly process, and the Bill provided for the infliction of a penalty if the offence were proved to the satisfaction of two magistrates. The Bill inflicted penalties for the capture of unclean fish, for taking the young of salmon, and for disturbing the fish when spawning. It was proposed to declare a close time between the 1st of September and the 1st of February, and to make it illegal to sell or offer to sell

  1345
  any salmon during that time. There might be objection to some of the provisions of the Bill, but he hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading. It was naturally of interest to all sportsmen, but it had also a wider interest, since it was calculated to insure a valuable supply of fish, which was now almost destroyed. This country possessed some excellent rivers for fishing, but the quantity of fish there seemed to be gradually becoming smaller. He did not expect ever to see salmon sold for a penny a pound, or to find a clause again inserted in the indentures of apprentices providing that they should not be made to eat salmon oftener than three times a week. But he did expect through the operation of this Bill that salmon would become more plentiful and cheaper than it was at present.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had not proved a true prophet when he warned their Lordships that a rather extraordinary and somewhat amusing Bill would come before them on this subject. The House of Commons were entirely of his opinion, for in the Select Committee they had deprived the Bill of its singular and objectionable features, and this was now a practical measure, which, with some alterations, might be very fairly passed into a law. There would, however, be some difficulties in carrying out the Bill. He thought that their Lordships, however well versed they might be in natural history, would be very much puzzled if they should ever have to apply the definition of a salmon as given in the Bill. For example, it seemed that a magistrate before whom an offender under this measure was brought would be expected to know the difference between "a salmon, cock or kipper, kelt, laurel, girling, grilse, botcher, blue cock, blue pole, fork tail, mort, peal, herring peal, May peal, pugg peal, harvest cock, sea trout, white trout, sewin, buntling, guiniad, tubs, yellow fin, sprod, herling, whiting, bull trout, whitling, scurf, burn tail, fry, samlet, smoult, smelt, skirling or scarling, parr, spawn, pink, last spring, hepper, last brood, gravelling, shed, scad, blue fin, black tip, fingerling, brandling, or brondling." Now, he thought that most of the magistrates of this country would be rather puzzled when a delinquent was brought before them to know to which of these fish the offence applied. This must be simplified in Committee. He hoped, too, before going into Committee that his noble Friend
  1346
  would look at some points which rather seriously affected property. He entirely agreed that all fixed engines and obstacles to the passage of the fish up the river should be removed. There were, however, two clauses in the Bill which he thought were highly objectionable — namely, that which prohibited fishing with nets within fifty yards of a mill dam or fishing weir, and that which provided that the fishing should be closed from eight o'clock on Friday evening till six o'clock on Monday morning. As long as dams or weirs were obstructions to the passage of the salmon there might be reasons for prohibiting fishing in their neighbourhood; but as it was intended by this Bill to provide that a free passage should be allowed for the fish over such structures, it would be absurd and unjust to prevent proprietors from fishing as near such dams or weirs as they pleased. In some rivers in the south of England, as, for instance, in that at Christchurch, the enforcement of such a provision as that contained in the Bill would entirely destroy the fishing, because the pools near the dams and weirs were the only places in which fish could be caught. As to the weekly close time, it would, in his opinion, be quite sufficient to forbid fishing between six o'clock on Saturday night and six o'clock on Monday morning; and he hoped their Lordships would not overlook the circumstance that upon persons who had taken fishings as a means of obtaining a livelihood the deprivation of one day's fishing a week would operate as a great hardship. He hoped that the noble Lord would not insist upon retaining in the Bill the provisions to which he had referred.
  THE EARL OF LONSDALEsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Bill, but he thought that some alteration would be requisite in the wording of some of the provisions before it was allowed to become law.
  LORD LLANOVERconsidered that it would be politic to make some concessions to those who were interested in the upper waters, who were, or ought to be, the great salmon preservers.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that this was a subject in which all persons were interested, and he believed that they would willingly give their assistance in carrying out the law. At the same time he had no objection to some slight alterations being made to meet the views of the noble Earl who had raised the objection.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and Committed of a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD WODEHOUSEmoved that the Bill be now read a second time. The object of the measure was to amend the present law with regard to the class called the irremovable poor. This class of poor was created under an Act passed in 1846, which made a residence of five years in a parish to confer a status of irremoveability. By another Act, introduced by Mr. Charles Buller, when he was President of the Poor Law Board, the support of the irremoveable poor was thrown upon the common fund of the union to which they belonged, the assessment being calculated upon the cost of the relief of the settled poor during the three preceding years. By this law a very large number of poor persons became irremovable; in 1860 no less than 225,000 persons were relieved as irremovable poor, the expenditure on their relief being £780,000. The alterations proposed to be made by the present Bill were these:— It was proposed, in the first place, to diminish the time during which a continuous residence should render a person irremovable from five years to three; and instead of its being necessary that this continuous residence should be within a particular parish, such residence within the limits of any one Poor Law Union should be sufficient to render a person irremovable. It was proposd also to make a change in the mode of raising the common fund from which the relief of the irremovable poor was to be given. Instead of an assessment on the average expense of the settled poor for the past three years, it was proposed that the fund should be raised by a rate on the assessment to the county rate; so that the expenditure from this common fund should be equally distributed according to the county assessment of all the parishes in the union. There were good reasons why these changes should he made, though they would not justify any apprehension or alarm that they would make any great and radical change in the existing law. The present was not a Bill for the abolition of settlement, nor was it a Bill for establishing a union rating. The measure was confined to one particular class of poor, and its ob-
  1348
  ject was to remedy certain evils that had arisen out of the law of 1846 itself. Of the two principal changes, one had reference to the ratepayer, the other looked rather to the interest of the poor. It was obvious that the law of 1846 aggravated the inconveniences which arose in parishes which were in the possession of a few landowners. Independently of the natural desire of the proprietors of such parishes not to be burdened with the charge of a large number of poor, an additional reason for removing them was given by the Act of 1846. Under that Act the charge for the relief of the irremovable poor was calculated on the average expenditure for the relief of the settled poor during three years. It was, therefore, the interest of the owners of parishes to diminish as much as possible the number of the settled poor within their limits. This was a grievance that did not rise from the general principle of the Poor Law; it had arisen wholly under the special legislation of 1846. He called it a grievance, for it certainly threw a burden on the ratepayers of open parishes, or those in the hands of many proprietors, and, undoubtedly, it gave rise to cases of extreme hardship among the poor. The question of the effect of close parishes was one that had been much examined and discussed. He would not push any argument to an extreme, but he knew that in some close parishes there had been an actual diminution of the population compared with parishes belonging to a number of owners. When poor people came in to supply a deficiency of labour, not in a particular parish, but in an entire district, it was a great hardship that the whole cost of their relief should be thrown upon what were called the "open" parishes; yet these parishes were overburdened with poor because land could be procured in them on which residences for labourers could be erected; while the "close" parishes, which benefited by their labour, exempted themselves from contributing to their relief, because they refused to permit them to settle within them. As to lessening the period of residence, one of the greatest improvements made in the administration of the Poor Law of late years had been the decrease of the number of removals. Those removals were to the poor the greatest hardships existing under the administration of the Poor Law system. Most of their Lordships must have seen cases of extreme hardship caused by those removals, and he contended it was their duty to diminish

  1349
  the hardships caused by them. It was proposed to render a man irremovable after a residence of three years—not in any particular parish, but within the union. However much they might be in the habit of praising the parochial system of this country, yet they must remember that these parishes were very ancient divisions, made without reference to the relief of the poor, and by adhering to them great anomalies and much hardship had been created. But the union was a recent division, formed with special reference to the administration of the Poor Law. The Bill did not seek to establish a union rating with regard to the settled poor; all that was sought to be established was to make the area of the union the limit within which a residence of three years should render a person irremovable. Owing to the provision in the law requiring residence in a particular parish to make a person irremovable, it frequently happened that after a man had resided for seven or eight years in a particular house, he lost his right to be considered irremovable by merely moving to a distance of 100 yards, or, perhaps, to the other side of the street in the same village, and rendered himself liable to be removed to a distant part of the country. It was to mitigate that evil of the law of settlement that the change provided by this Bill was proposed. He held in his hand Reports of Poor Law Inspectors and other documents, which contained evidence of the practical hardship which the present law entailed. He would quote a single instance. The precincts of St. Katharine's Dock had no poor, because all the labourers who worked within them resided in neighbouring parishes. Those persons became chargeable on the parishes in which they resided, and the place in which they worked escaped from all responsibility for their maintenance in case they became chargeable on the poor rates. It might be urged that this was a matter which had not been sufficiently inquired into; but really about few subjects had there been more investigation. A Committee of the House of Commons sat in 1847 and produced a blue book containing a great amount of information on the question. In 1848 various Inspectors were sent to inquire into the matter, and during the last three Sessions a Committee had been engaged in going through the whole case. It was on the Resolutions of that Committee that the present Bill, with the exception of one clause, had been based, Very grave
  1350
  questions, both as regarded the law of settlement and the area of chargeability, had occupied the public mind; and no doubt those would be discussed hereafter. It would not, however, be a sound argument, that because their Lordships were not prepared to abolish the law of settlement or to adopt a system of general union rating, therefore, they ought not to make any amendment which the existing law required. Looking to the great changes which had taken place in this country—looking to the manner in which the poor moved from one part of the country to another—and looking to the popular feeling with regard to the law of settlement, he ventured to think it was better for their Lordships to make small and well considered changes than to wait till matters grew to such a head that they might be driven to adopt some sweeping legislation, which, perhaps, might not be so well advised, and which, at all events, would not be so gradual and cautious as those measures which usually marked the progress of legislation in this country.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said that the candid, lucid, and able statement of the noble Lord who had just sat down convinced him that he had formed a just opinion of the measure when he came to the conclusion that it was an attack upon the English parochial system, and the first step—and by no means an inconsiderable one — towards the establishment of union rating. Poor Law legislation must be based upon the principles of political economy; but it must always ho borne in mind that this was a Christian country, and that such legislation must also be founded upon principles of Christian charity. That was the wise view upon which the legislation of Queen Elizabeth was based, which succeeded the old monkish system of the relief of the poor by charity, and that was also the principle upon which the first Irish Poor Relief Act was founded, which succeeded the system of relief of the poor in that country by the indiscriminate charity of those who were very little removed above the grade of the people who received relief. But there was only one security which could be given that poor relief should be properly administered, and that was by making the area of rating so small that not only should every ratepayer know how the money devoted to that pur-

  1351
  pose was expended, but should be able to make his voice heard in case the mode of expenditure should be called in question. Both modes of relief had been tried in Ireland, and it had been found that small districts of rating worked best. The advantage of small rating districts over large ones was especially shown in the counties of Donegal and Clare. In the latter county, where the districts were large, pauperism was as 39, whilst in Donegal, where the districts were small, the pauperism was only 24½. In England, safe guards were far more needed than in Ireland for the pernicious system of outdoor relief was eating like a canker-worm into the public resources. Such relief was looked upon as a right, and the natural consequence was that children neglect their parents and parents their children; unless that system were kept under strong check the result would be most disastrous and the only thing that could supply an efficient check was having small areas of rating. The effect of this Bill would be to mulct the parishes where the poor where taken care of for the benefit of those parishes where the poor are neglected, and to induce a cruel system of compulsory migrating of the poor from one parish to another, till the time had elapsed which made them chargeable to the union. Their Lordships were again called upon to stand between the House of Commons and the public interests; last year they saved a large amount of revenue, and on this occasion he hoped they would also confer a considerable advantage. Noble Lords who sat opposite had many traditions connected with their party, but they had none more honourable than that which related to the passing of the Poor Law of 1834, which saved the property of the country, and which measure they promoted in the most generous and unselfish manner, and at a great sacrifice of popularity; and he trusted they would pause before, by passing the present measure, they inflicted a fatal blow upon that useful and beneficial system they had themselves established.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Day Six Months."
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, that having been for many years connected with the Department from which this Bill emanated, he was anxious to say a few words; more especially because the Bill incorporated those principles to which he had always given a ready and cordial adhesion. He
  1352
  thanked the Government for having introduced it. He believed that the working of those principles must prove equally beneficial to the poor and to the ratepayers. In his opinion, the interests of those two classes could not properly be regarded as distinct. Whatever tended to raise the condition of the working classes, to secure to them adequate and just remuneration for their labour, and to mitigate the hardship which must, under the most favourable circumstances, fall to their lot, tended also, in no indirect or remote manner, to promote the interests of employers. As far as he understood the principles of the Act of William IV. and the views of its framers, he drew from them the conclusion that they acknowledged the necessity of, from time to time, introducing measures to extend the privileges of irremovability. He could not, therefore, admit that this Bill was inconsistent with the Poor Law Act, for it was only a just and equitable extension of it. The necessity for facilitating the circulation of labour from one part of the country to another had been recognized by all political economists, from Adam Smith downwards, and was one which need not now be demonstrated. There could be no question that it was of the utmost importance that the labourer should move freely from one part of the country to another, according to the fluctuations of demand and remuneration, and that after the lapse of several years he should not be liable, in the event of sickness or any accident, to be returned to the distant part of the country from which he originally came. In a very able and impressive speech his revered Friend, 'the late Mr. Baines, pictured in minute detail the hardship inflicted upon the labourers by their being torn from their homes and from the place where they had formed near and dear relations, to be sent to some distant parish; and as that right hon. Gentleman was never inclined to over-colour anything it could not be supposed for a moment that his statements were exaggerated. The hardship was recognized by the Legislature, and in 1846 an Act passed which introduced the principle of irremovability with respect to persons who had resided five years in any one parish. This Bill sought to extend that principle and to make it permanent. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Viscount Lifford) referred to the case of Ireland as an argument in favour of retaining small areas of rating. Under the peculiar circumstances

  1353
  of Ireland he (the Earl of Devon) had always been an advocate of the adoption of small areas in that country. Looking to all the difficulties which the new Poor Law had to encounter there, small areas were probably advantageous. If the present proposition had been to substitute a system of union rating he was ready to admit that considerable weight would be due to the argument. It might be that, on the subject of union rating, he entertained views which some of their Lordships would deem impracticable, but at present it was sufficient to say that the Bill contained nothing of so formidable a character as the abolition of the law of settlement and the adoption of union rating, and that a sound and useful measure was not prejudiced by propositions which might raise arguable points. All that the Bill did was to diminish the time and increase the area which was to confer the privilege of irremovability in certain cases; and, with regard to the poor, the benefit would be very great, not merely in diminishing the hardship of removals but in promoting a free circulation of labour. The advantage to the ratepayers was still more obvious, because instead of poor parishes being, as now, often unduly burdened, the burden would be more equally and justly distributed and the amount of litigation would be greatly diminished. The effect of the Act of 1846 was greatly to reduce that most objectionable part of the Poor Law expenditure. In the years 1843, 1844, and 1845 the amount spent in litigation was £285,000, and in 1851, 1859, and, 1860 it was only £186,000. Other changes might have had some effect, but from his experience in that Department he was inclined to ascribe the greater portion of that remarkable diminution to the adoption of the principle of irremovability. By this Bill that principle would he extended, and by the diminution of time it would be easier to ascertain the correctness of any claims to settlement, and thus tend further to reduce the expense. The Bill came to them recommended by two Committees of the House of Commons, and by a majority of the Poor Law Inspectors, whose authority must be admitted, and as he believed great benefit would result to the whole community he should cordially vote for the second reading.
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKEsaid, his consideration of the Bill had led him to a different conclusion from that of the noble Earl who had just sat down. It had been
  1354
  described as a measure which did not introduce union rating. That might be so, but he regarded it as a wedge which would lead hereafter to the introduction of that principle. Now, he had never objected to union rating in towns, to which this principle might perhaps be fairly applied. But this was not the case in rural districts—and, indeed, the very reverse was the fact there. At present there existed, he was happy to say, a number of parishes where the owners and occupiers of property took a great interest in their poor, and did their utmost to find them employment, and in which, when there existed a superabundance of labourers, the owners and occupiers subscribed to enable the surplus to emigrate, and thus reduced the poor rates in their respective parishes. In other parishes, however, where property was more divided, or where the owners lived perhaps at a distance, the poor were comparatively neglected, there was a want of employment, and the taxes were far heavier than in the well-administered parishes. The result of a union rating would be to punish the good administrators and to favour the neglectful. It had been said that it was the interest of owners to pull down the labourers' cottages; but such eases were extremely rare—the practice was seldom resorted to and was generally disapproved. He did not say that it was impossible to find one such case; but he believed that six cases of this kind could not be found in the kingdom. The general opinion of landowners was averse to this proceeding, and their aim everywhere was, he believed, to promote the well-being of their labourers—in truth, the general disposition of landowners was to improve the cottages on their estates, and to provide them with three sleeping rooms. No man had advocated the Bill of 1834 more than himself, from the time of its passing this Parliament he had never felt the shadow of a doubt of its great value, but he strongly objected to subsequent alterations which threw the burthen of maintaining the poor when sick on the parishes where they resided, generally adjoining those to which they belonged, and where they worked, in lieu of charging the parishes of their settlement, thus giving an uncalled for, and unfair advantage to ratepayers in parishes having few cottages—this law ought to be repealed. Feeling that the Bill would be prejudicial to the interests of the poor themselves, inasmuch as they would not be so completely employed as they now were,

  1355
  and believing, that it was the first advance towards a system of union rating, he should be compelled to oppose the second reading.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he felt extreme regret in having to oppose this Bill, because it contained a great deal which was likely to be of advantage. At the same time he could not at present consent to pass such a measure. Those by whom it was advocated had treated it as a little Bill; but it was really a very large one, and rendered a satisfactory settlement of other questions much more difficult than before. In his opinion the changes now proposed should be considered in connection with the law of settlement altogether. He admitted that the system of settlement in the form in which it now stood must be got rid of; but by introducing this Bill a difficulty was created in the way of complete legislation. The measure introduced important alterations as regarded the burdens upon property. An illustration had been given of three parishes where the rate was very disproportionate, and the change now proposed would, without showing any sufficient grounds, make a difference at once in the value of property there equivalent in one case to the withdrawal, and in the other to the imposition of a new income tax. That was a very great change, and unless their Lordships were convinced of its justice they ought not to make it. He granted that there was an inequality which ought to be removed; but this was too violent a settlement of the question. There was hardly a union in the kingdom in which the alteration here proposed would not make a difference of 1s. in the pound, some gaining to that amount, and others having to pay 1s. more than they did at present. Suppose two men had taken two farms in different parishes on a lease, assuming the respective burdens to be the same, it would be a serious thing in the one case to increase those burdens, while in the other they were possibly diminished to the same extent. Their Lordships ought to pause before they hastily made so great a change in the value and relative position of property. They were asked at this late period of the Session to take in hand a Bill of this importance, involving the principle of irremovability and union rating. Now, if they had sent down such a Bill to the other House late in July, would the House of Commons have consented to consider it? Their Lordships were asked to pass a Bill on imperfect information, that opened large questions which it did not close, and to pass
  1356
  it at a period of the Session when it was impossible to give the measure the consideration its importance deserved. He should be sorry to record his opinion against the principle of the Bill; and, for these reasons, he would entreat those who had charge of the Bill not to press it.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEbelieved this was an important and beneficent measure, which, if passed in the present Session, would cause it to be referred to hereafter as one that had produced a great public advantage. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) in opposing the Bill, stood in a different position from most of the other Members of the House. He said he was prepared to deal with subjects that few of their Lordships and few Members of the House of Commons were prepared to deal with—the two great questions of the law of settlement and the extension of the area of rating. That might be a valid objection to proceeding with this Bill as far as the noble Lord was concerned; but, he believed their Lordships were not prepared to deal with either then, or, probably, in the next Session. Was that a valid reason why they should reject a Bill that did modify the evils of the law of settlement and paved the way for dealing with that question hereafter? The noble Lord asked if it was fair that this Bill should be sent up from the House of Commons at a period of the Session when their Lordships would have no opportunity of investigating the subject? That was a plausible argument, but there was still a fortnight or three weeks of the Session to run, and that would give ample time to consider the Bill in Committee. And any investigation of a subject of this magnitude must be made by their Lordships individually; they had great opportunities, as landowners, of considering the subject, and the advantage of reading the results of the inquiries instituted by the House of Commons, that had thrown a flood of light on the question for some years past. If any subject had been fully investigated this was one. He did not refer to the Committee appointed ten or twelve years ago, but the Committee of 1858, of which Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was Chairman. This Committee did not make any recommendations, but wished to continue the inquiry, and it was re-appointed in the following year, and again in 1860, with the present Duke of Richmond as Chairman. Thus it sat for three successive years, and its recommendations were almost precisely embodied in the present

  1357
  Bill. Every enactment of the Bill was included in the recommendations of the Committee, with one exception; that was as to the mode of making the assessment for the union charge. The Committee recommended that the population should be taken into account, and, by a strange and difficult process, added to the pounds sterling. This recommendation was, he thought, judiciously avoided in the Bill. With that exception all its recommendations were followed. The noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill (Viscount Lifford) spoke of this as the first attempt to upset the parochial system of England, and to introduce the principle of a union rating. This was not the first attempt to upset the parochial system, in any respect whatever. That was done by the Acts of 1846 and 1848. This Bill carried the principle no further, but only altered certain details. The noble Lord spoke of the "fine end of the wedge," but that was introduced by Mr. Charles Buller; when the Bill of 1848 made the assessment for the irremovable poor chargeable to the union, instead of the parishes, the principle was initiated of which the noble Lord complained. Nothing was more unjust than the common fund now that the relief of the irremovable poor was charged on the unions. When the Poor Law was enacted the principle was just and fair; then parishes that contributed a large amount to the rates for their own poor paid a proportionate sum to the union charge. There was a reason for it. The object of the common fund was to provide workhouse accommodation for the poor of the union and the officers, and the parishes that had the largest number of poor contributed the largest share; but the irremovable poor were not the poor of the parishes who contributed the largest sum for their own poor. But those parishes were taxed, while rich parishes were exempted from a charge that justly ought to be imposed on them. There were close parishes with irremovable poor that did not contribute a single farthing to the common fund. That was not just to the ratepayers, nor was it just to the poor. In the union of Radford there were three parishes, one rated at 11 s. and the other two at 4s. each, though the rateable value of each parish was almost identical and the number of irremovable poor almost the same. According to union rating each would pay alike; under the parochial system one would pay three times as much as each of the other two. It could not be contended that
  1358
  this was a just principle now the, irremovable poor were made chargeable on the union fund. He believed the effect of the measure would be very beneficial, and tend to encourage landowners to increase the number of cottages on their property. There had really been a considerable increase since the Acts of 1846 and 1848. Although he felt that the subject was far from exhausted, he would refrain from trespassing on their Lordships' time by discussing the various points that might be raised, particularly as he knew that full opportunity for discussing these matters would be found in Committee. If their Lordships did divide ho hoped there would be such a majority in favour of the second reading as would indicate the concurrence of that House with the opinion, not only of the House of Commons, but also of the boards of guardians who had been applied to on the subject, and who had responded in favour of the Bill by a majority of nine to one.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought that, considering the enormous magnitude of the question, and the importance of the points involved in its discussion, it was rather hard of the Government to come to that House and ask their Lordships to road such a Bill a second time on the 23rd of July. It was really impossible to understand and read all the Bills brought up to their Lordships' House at this late period of the Session. Since the 15th instant no less than ten Bills had been brought into their Lordships' House, of which five were brought up from the House of Commons only on the previous evening. He understood that there were absolutely Bills in Government offices which had not yet been laid on the table of the other House of Parliament. He was sorry that his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had not moved the Resolution which he had been accustomed to move in previous Sessions. He thought that Resolution was a very useful stimulus. Although he was not prepared to give his determined opposition to the provisions of the Bill, he did not think their Lordships should be called upon to deal with a question of such magnitude and importance at so advanced a period of the Session, and he hoped the Government would not persevere with the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 31; Majority, 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlisle, Bp.

  London, Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Boyle, L. (E.Cork and Orrery.)

  Somerset, D.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Denman, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Caithness, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  Fortescue, L. (V. Ebrington.)

  De Grey, E.

  Devon, E.

  Harris, L.

  Granville, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Minto, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Portman, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Somerhill, L.(M. Clanricarde.)

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Bath, M.

  Delamere, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L.

  Derby, E.

  (E. Egmont.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Powis, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stradbroke, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Dungannon, V. [Teller.]

  Lifford, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Melville, V.

  Tyrone, L. [M. Waterford.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Churston, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND SOCIETY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that his attention had been called to this subject that afternoon by a petition from some widows of naval medical officers, which he had declined to present because he thought that the petitioners asked for some concessions to which they had no claim. There were,
  1360
  however, some things for which they were anxious, which perhaps the noble Duke might be disposed to concede. One was that a trustee of this fund should be appointed to represent their interests; and the other that it should be understood—as he believed was the case—that the Admiralty would under this Bill have power to increase the pensions of medical officers, if the fund would bear it, to an amount above £26 13 s. 4d.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that he was anxious to do all he could to satisfy the wishes of the annuitants, and at the same time protect the public interests. He would communicate with the noble Lord, and see what arrangement could be made to secure those objects.
  LORD CHELMSFORDfelt very much indebted to the noble Duke for the answer which he had given.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON THE BISHOP OF LONDON rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of ecclesiastical dilapidations. He said he was extremely unwilling to trouble their Lordships at that hour with any lengthened statement, but the noble Viscount (Viscount Dungannon) having frequently asked what course the right rev. Bench intended to pursue on the subject of dilapidations, he had thought it best, even at that late period of the Session, to ask their Lordships to read for a first time the Bill he was about to lay on the Table. The subject was one of very great importance, and ought no longer to be delayed. Some apology was, no doubt, due to the noble Viscount and to the clergy for the delay which had taken place already with regard to the Bill; but that delay had in a great measure arisen from the extremely complicated nature of the subject with which they had had to deal. How complicated the subject was would be easily understood from the fact that there were no less than 9,000 residences with respect to which this question of dilapidations arose; and the number of these residences was increasing at an average of 125 every year. The last time a survey was taken there were only 6,000 such residences; but during the last twenty-five years they had risen

  1361
  to 9,000 in number, and there was every prospect that they would increase. Their Lordships were aware that by the common law, and by the canon law, every incumbent was bound to keep his residence in repair; but it was only by Ecclesiastical Courts that this duty could be enforced. But the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts was not such as could be desired, and this part of the law was practically a dead letter—it was almost impossible for any ecclesiastical authorities to enforce the law. The result was that, when persons had small means, there was a strong temptation to put off this duty from year to year; and it continually happened that the death of the incumbent, or his removal to another incumbency, took place before the dilapidations were repaired. The only remedy then was a proceeding at common law by an action for damages against the incumbent, if he were living, or the heir, if he were dead. A reference had to be made, and three surveyors had to be employed, one for each of the parties, and a third as referee. In different parts of the country surveyors proceeded on different principles of valuation; they took different views as to what dilapidations were, and the result was the greatest confusion and uncertainty. Moreover, when all this had been done, it constantly happened that there were no assets wherewith to defray the expense of the repairs. The successor in all cases was under the disagreeable necessity either of proceeding against persons who were often of small means, or of putting up with the loss and repairing the residence at his own expense. The property oven of patrons was much diminished; it was a great hardship upon those who were appointed to benefices, and a still greater injury was done to the parish from the degeneracy in value of these incumbencies, and the lessened inducements held out to clergymen to undertake the cure, when they must make a considerable outlay, and perhaps become hampered with debt. By the present Bill power was lodged in the hands of the Bishop to insist upon the execution of necessary repairs. The machinery which it was thought most expedient to employ was already in existence—namely, the Board of Queen Anne's Bounty. In some instances a charge would have to be made upon the living, for which Queen Anne's Bounty would furnish the funds. A report from surveyors would have to be
  1362
  made, certifying that the repairs were properly executed. In all cases there must be a power to insist upon repairs being executed. In favour of the Bill it might be said that it was acceptable to a large body of the parochial clergy being based on the recommendations of a Committee of Convocation: but it was extremely desirable that during the recess an opportunity might be given to the Bishops, archdeacons, and rural deans, to have the subject fully discussed. It was further of the highest importance that the clergy themselves should consider what improvements might be made in the measure, in order that they might he introduced into a future Bill. He sincerely hoped that before the end of next Session this great evil might be remedied. The right rev. Prelate then presented a Bill for the Relief of Ecclesiastical Persons in respect of the Maintenance and Repair of Houses of Residence and other Buildings; and moved that it be read 1a.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, it would afford the greatest satisfaction to the clergy to know that this Bill had been laid upon the Table of the House, not with a view of progressing further with it this Session, but of giving thorn an opportunity of considering its details, and considering what further or other remedies might be applied to the case. The subject was one which very strongly required legislative interference, and personally he begged to express himself highly indebted to the right rev. Prelate, for the great trouble and pains he had taken in preparing a measure which, if it remedied the evil, would earn for him the gratitude of the clergy.
  LORD REDESDALEasked out of what fond the expense of the machinery for working the Bill, such as the surveyors and other officers, would be defrayed?
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that a fund would have to be raised in each diocese, for which it was intended that the archdeacons and rural deans should arrange, by means of an assessment on the value of the several benefices.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought that certain cases of dilapidations which were omitted ought to be included in the Bill, and that there would be a difficulty in defining what were ecclesiastical dilapidations. He felt that thanks were due to the right rev. Prelate and his right rev. brethren of the province of Canterbury for the pains which they had taken, and he

  1363
  hoped that in the next Session a satisfactory arrangement would he made.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 1a.
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.