Sitting of 29 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); East India Loan (No. 2); Militia Pay; Militia Ballots Suspension; Parochial Offices; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2); Officers of Reserve (Royal Navy).
3° Drainage of Land; Public Offices Site; Pensions, British Forces (India); Newspapers, &c.

ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What are the rules which have been laid down at the Home Office with respect to recommending, or otherwise, commuted allowances towards the payment of rates for Government property in certain parishes?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the rule laid down was where the Government property bore a considerable proportion to the assessable property of the parish, and the subtraction of that property from the parish assessment seriously affected the payment of rates due from the ratepayers, to allow a contribution towards the rates.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to know what was the exact proportion laid down as a fixed rule?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there was no exact numerical proportion laid down.

CASE OF THOMAS CARTER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Carter, who was, on Monday, the 15th of day of July, brought before Thomas Thorpe Fowke and Le Marchant Thomas, Esqrs., at the Ryde Police Court, charged with being a vagrant and sleeping in the open air at Oakfield, and who was committed by those Magistrates to Winchester Gaol for three weeks, and ordered to be kept to hard labour for that period; and, if so, whether he has given, or intends to give, orders for his immediate release?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, a letter was written from the Home Department at an early period of last week requesting the committing Magistrate to send a Report in the case of Carter. That Report had not been received at the Home Office,

  1735
  and a second letter was written on Friday last, reminding the Magistrate that he had not sent a report, and requesting that it should he sent. No report has yet been received, and that morning he (Sir George Lewis) had caused a third letter to be addressed to the Magistrate.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to renewing Postal Communication between Galway and America?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the House was aware that the Contract had been put an end to. The Report of the Committee who considered the subject had been circulated, and was in the hands of Members; but the Evidence taken by the Committee was not yet printed, and until the Government had an opportunity of considering not only the Report but the Evidence also, he was not in a condition to state what might be the intentions of the Government with respect to the future. He had, however, no objection to repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, that it appeared to him, generally speaking, to be advantageous for the commercial interests of the United Kingdom at large to have the most rapid communication possible with Newfoundland, whence there was telegraphic communication with the continent of America. The question would naturally be what point of the United Kingdom was best adapted for that communication? He thought that, geographically considered, Ireland was, and that the most suitable part of Ireland was the west coast. Perhaps the hon. Member would not object if he added that Galway, being the most central point of the west of Ireland for communication by railway with any part of the United Kingdom, appeared to him (Viscount Palmerston) prima facie to be the most desirable place for the purpose. But all these were matters which the Government had to consider, and he could only say, in the absence of the evidence, that he was not able to intimate any specific intention on the part of the Government.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask if the noble Lord would undertake to give an answer to the Question which had been put to him before the close of the Session?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could not undertake to do that, as that the matter was one of considerable importance.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, I rise to move the postponement of the second reading until the Bill be printed and in the hands of Members. A great many assertions have been reiterated last year with regard to the fact that it is the peculiar function of the House of Commons to look after all Money Bills, and to superintend the application and appropriation of the funds which come out of the pockets of the people. This responsibility—and, undoubtedly, it is a serious responsibility—certainly rests upon this House alone. Last year we refused to allow the House of Lords to share it. But, if this be our peculiar function, how do we exercise it? If this responsibility rests upon us, how do we discharge it? If this trust be imposed upon us, and on us alone, do we fulfil that trust intelligently and honestly? What is the real state of the case? The Lords, part of whose duty this is not, have refused to vote for the second reading of any Bill until it is in the hands of Members; they object to pass a measure without knowing what that measure is. But what is our practice? Year by year this Bill has been allowed to pass the second reading; to go through Committee, to pass the third reading, and eventually to pass the House without having been printed and put into the hands of Members. The House, consequently, could not be aware whether it was in the correct form or not—whether it contained the restrictions and restraints demanded by the Constitution, or whether certain clauses were omitted so as to give the executive a full scope, and an uncontrolled sway, over the funds of the country. It had been urged that it was useless to print this Bill, as it was always exactly in the same form every year. Was that the case? In the first Session of the year 1857 (to go no further back) the Appropriation Bill contained the usual Appropriation clause. But the Appropriation Bill of the noble Viscount's Government, passed in the second Session of that same year, contained

  1737
  no such clause; it even had a clause (§ 26) which repealed the Appropriation Clause of the Bill of the preceding Session. What was the consequence? The sums that were voted by Parliament were exceeded, The army grants were exceeded by £1,050,000, and the navy grants by £133,383. This money was not only spent without the sanction of Parliament, it was expended against the expressed wish of this House; yet, as the usual clause had been omitted from the Bill, no remedy was left in our hands. Again, in the first Session of 1859, the usual Appropriation Clause was contained in the Appropriation Bill of Lord Derby's Government. It was passed, however, without having been in the hands of Members; but the Lords refused to let it go to the second reading without having been distributed. In the second Session of that year, when the noble Viscount had come into office, the Bill was again brought in without the Appropriation Clause; and it again contained a clause (§ 22) which repealed the Appropriation Clause of the Bill passed by Lord Derby's Government. And what, again, was the result? The army at the end of the year was found to contain 11,500 men more than had been sanctioned by Parliament; and in order to meet this additional expense, the War Department appropriated other funds to the purchase of military stores: they took £200,000 which had been voted for the building of iron ships; and —519,000 which had been voted for transports. This Appropriation Bill did not contain the usual Appropriation clause; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), that it was in the usual form! The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not perhaps to be much blamed for this, because this Bill is never prepared in his office. Neither he, nor any of the Ministers, are more able than any other Member to know whether it be correct or not. They cannot, therefore, be responsible to the House for its correctness; they cannot answer for its containing the necessary restraints over the executive. But then this fact proves the whole case which has to be made out; if the Ministers cannot be answerable, then clearly we must have the Bill in our own hands; and we must not allow that responsibility, which we would not permit the House of Lords to share with us, to devolve upon some subordinate officer of the House of Commons, It has been objected that to print this
  1738
  Bill would occasion both a loss of time and an increased expense. But both these objections are easily answered. For the Bill must be printed before the Lords will receive it; and it is well known that the difference, both as to expense and as to time, between the printing of six copies and the printing of 600, is very slight indeed. Besides this, six copies of the Bill have actually been printed, and lie in the office; and yet they refuse to issue them to Members. This is, indeed, a matter of great importance. But the question assumes a far greater magnitude when the constant tendency of all our legislation during the last few years is taken into consideration. Any one who will glance at the pages of a very able periodical which is edited by Mr. Toulmin Smith, must come very quickly to the conclusion that a centralizing tendency prevails in nearly every Bill which is brought before the House. We seem to be getting very fast into the bureaucratic system which caused the great French Revolution of 1792. Formerly the whole government of the country was carried on at parochial boards and by county authorities. Even the taxes were collected in the parishes by parochial officers, and handed into the Treasury by the sheriffs of the counties. The farmers and gentry who executed these functions received no payment; they did it all as a labour of love, or rather as part of the duty which they owed to their country. Now, these local boards have been replaced by central boards in London; and paid officials have taken the place of unpaid farmers. Thus it is that the Civil Service Estimates have been so enormously increased. This, however, is a minor matter, and does not bear upon the question before the House. What is of far greater importance is this: these farmers were not at all under the influence of the Cabinet; they always did that which, after mature discussion, seemed best for their own parish. It made no difference to them which party was in power. Now, on the other hand, the paid functionaries who have taken their place are appointed by the Minister, are paid by the Government, and can be removed by the Minister. They are, therefore, entirely at the beck and bid of the Minister: they are all in his power. The tendency of modern legislation is to establish more of these central boards, and to increase the number of these functionaries. Thus the patronage of the Minister is being continually augmented. He is daily getting

  1739
  things more and more into his power. We are, in fact, gradually drifting into an oligarchy, and settling down under the iresponsible control of a Cabinet—a body not recognized by the Constitution. I do not bring this forward in a party spirit. The one side of the House is no more to blame than the other. The tendency of our legislation has been the same whichever party has been in power. The front bench on your left, Sir, as well as that on your right, seeks to increase its own power and augment its irresponsible control. The Conservatives used to pride themselves upon defending the local self-government and fighting for the ancient municipal institutions of the country. But we, too, have lately been tempted to centralize as well as our opponents. But, Sir, if this be so, is it not more than ever important that the House should prevent the Cabinet from obtaining also an irresponsible control over the funds supplied by the people, by omitting all those restraints which the Constitution has imposed? Should we not try to stop a system which has been so silently but so steadily growing and gathering strength? Our forefathers were very particular about this matter on which we have grown so lax. Just after the Revolution of 1688, Lord Somers framed some Appropriation clauses with the greatest care. But it is wrong to call that period a Revolution; for it was not a subversion of the Constitution—it was a return to the ancient state of things, and a revivifying of the Constitution. During King James's reign an oligarchy had obtained an irresponsible power. But there was this difference between that time and our time: the cabal of that day shore the people of their liberties, but did not infringe upon the prerogatives of the Crown. The Cabinet of this day robs the people of their ancient liberties, and also arrogates to itself the prerogatives of the Crown. In 1688, when the ancient liberty was again restored, Lord Somers —the mention of whose name is enough to command respect for all he did—drew up certain Appropriation clauses, in order to bar any future infringement of the liberties of the people in that quarter. A Parliament was summoned and passed this Act. It is the 1 Wm. & Mary, s. 2, c. i. The Appropriation clauses (§ 45–53 and § 55) were not repeated in subsequent Acts, but were referred to in the following stringent terms:—
  "And to the end the sums by this Act appro-
  1740
  priated may not he diverted or applied to any other purposes than are hereby declared and intended, Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the rules and directions appointed and enacted in one Act (1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. 1) intituled 'An Act for granting to their Majesties an aid of two shillings in the pound for one year, for the speedy payment of money thereby granted into the receipt of the Exchequer by the collectors and receivers, and for the distribution and application thereof and keeping distinct accounts of the same and all other provisions, pains, and penalties and forfeitures thereby enacted in case of diversion and misapplication of any money thereby appropriated, are hereby revived and enacted to be in force and shall be practised, applied, executed, and put in use for and concerning the distribution and application of the said sums hereby appropriated as fully, amply, and effectually as if the same were here again particularly repeated and re-enacted.'"
  When this good practice fell into desuetude I cannot state. But at the present day the clause which is in vogue is as follows:—
  "The said Aids and Supplies provided as aforesaid shall not be issued or applied to any use, intent, or purpose whatsoever other than the uses, intents, and purposes before-mentioned or for the other payments, appropriation, or application directed to be made or satisfied thereout by any Act or Acts or any particular Clause or Clauses for that purpose contained in any other Act or Acts of this Session of Parliament."
  That is the clause which is given in Mr. May's Practice of Parliament, p. 538. This was a matter upon which our forefathers exercised a great deal of strictness. A reference to the Journals of the House will show that Edward Seymour, Esq., Member of this House, was impeached on Saturday, Nov. 20, 1680, for eluding the Appropriation Act. A Committee was appointed, which reported on the Thursday following. And the House passed a Resolution declaring that such a misapplication is a sufficient ground for impeachment. On May 15, 1711, several Resolutions were passed to the effect that the application of even an unexpected surplus is a misapplication of public money, it not having been previously sanctioned by Parliament. On Jan. 12, 1784, a Resolution was carried, declaring that even after Votes in Supply have been passed, yet for any Minister to sanction the payment of these without an Act of Appropriation previously passed—
  "Will be a high crime and misdemeanour, a daring breach of a public trust, derogatory to the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the Constitution of this country."
  In latter years, however, this House has become far more negligent and lax. For in 1845 a clause was introduced into the

  1741
  Appropriation Act by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) to give the Treasury power to alter the relative amounts of the grants for the army and navy, provided the whole sum total were not exceeded. Yet on March 30, 1849, the following Resolution was carried:—
  "When a certain amount of expenditure for a particular service has been determined upon by Parliament, it is the bounden duty of the department which has that service under its charge to take care that the expenditure does not exceed the amount placed at its disposal for that purpose."
  We learn, also, from Mr. May's Practice of Parliament, that it used to be customary to vote an instruction to the Committee on this Bill to receive a clause of Appropriation; and that this practice was discontinued in 1854. Thus it was that we find an entry in the Journals to the effect that the title of the Bill had been changed in Committee. For instance, in the Journals, vol. 109, p. 479, there is this entry—
  "Mr. Bouverie reported, That the Committee had gone through the Bill, and had amended the title thereof; which title is as followeth:—A Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund, and certain other sums, to the service of the year 1854, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament."
  It will be seen at p. 473 that the original title of the Bill did not contain the words "and to appropriate the Supplies," &c. Thus, until the year 1854, the House of Commons took measures to insure that the Appropriation Bill contained the usual restrictive clause; but since that time the Bill has not been printed and placed in the hands of Members, although there is no security that the usual form of the Bill is maintained, and the House remains in ignorance whether the Bill contains the Appropriation Clause or not. In 1857 and in 1859 it was omitted. On March 11, 1861, the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) moved an Amendment to the question that you, Sir, do leave the chair, which he withdrew on obtaining a distinct promise from the Government that they would not alter the Appropriation of any sums. Nevertheless, as the Bill is always drawn without their cognizance, this House should ascertain that the Bill is in the proper form, and should not allow such an important responsibility to devolve on a minor officer of the House. If, therefore, we desire honestly to discharge this responsi-
  1742
  bility; if we would fulfil the trust imposed upon us by our constituencies; if we would redeem some of the many pledges which we have given, or if we would but emulate the self-respect entertained by the Lords and refuse to be led blindly in the dark, then we shall insist upon getting this Bill into our hands before we vote that it be read a second time. We, on this side of the House, glory in the name of Conservatives. Of what are we Conservatives, if not of the ancient practice of local self-government and of the time-honoured municipal institutions of the country? Those on the other side of the House profess a love of liberty and call themselves the friends of the people. Are they friends but in name and in empty profession—merely verbum tenus amici?—or do they entertain any real anxiety to defend and preserve the rights of the people? If so let both join in stopping the progress of a baneful system which has been silently but steadily growing.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "not read a second time until it has been printed and in the hands of Members," instead thereof.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that about five years ago a clause had for the first time been introduced into the Appropriation Act calling upon the Government, on the presentation of the Army and Navy Estimates to mention a deviation which, might have taken place in the expenditure from the objects for which the money was voted in the previous year. Ho wished to know whether such a clause was contained in the present Bill?
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYfelt obliged to the noble Lord, the Member for Huntingdon, for having brought the matter forward. He, however, took objection to the Bill on other grounds than those which the noble Lord had stated. He had obtained a return of the amounts voted in Supply and in Ways and Means in 1860–1, with an abstract of the manner in which those amounts were set forth in the Appropriation Bill of 1860–1. It showed that the sum £60,123,174 had been voted and paid, and what he wished was that it should be made intelligible in the Appropriation Act itself what were the amounts that had been voted in Committee of Supply. He had taken the liberty of suggesting a mode by which the Act could be made more intelligible by an alteration of the marginal reference. As they were

  1743
  given at present he would defy any Member to make out the total amount which had been voted during the year. "What was the objection to the alteration? He had made inquiry of the officers of the House, and was referred to Mr. Jones, who said he could not alter anything in the Appropriation Act, not even the marginal references, without the sanction of the Speaker. He had referred to the Speaker, and was given to understand that the alteration could not be made under the present form of procedure. He could not understand what the objection to the alteration was. It seemed to him to be a very simple thing. It did not interfere with the body of the Bill, but simply with the marginal references, and he should be very glad to hear what was the objection to it. He thought hon. Members should be able to understand what were the sums voted and what had been done with them from the Appropriation Bill itself; but he hoped, at least, in the beginning of the next Session the finance accounts would be in the hands of Members so as to enable them to understand the application of the sums voted.
  GENERAL PEELwanted to know out of what funds the sum of £206,000 voted the other night as excess of military expenditure had been paid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his financial statement at the commencement of the Session, stated that it would not be paid out of the revenue for this year. It could not have been paid out of the Vote of Credit of last year, because that Vote, according to the Appropriation Act, was applicable only to the payment of sums authorized by Parliament last Session. The charge must have been met in some way or other, and he should like to know in what?
  THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there could be no doubt about the question of military excess. What he stated in his financial statement was that no provision would require to be made for that excess in the finance of the present year, inasmuch as it consisted of money which had been already paid. He did not understand the gallant General to dispute the fact that it had been already paid. Of course, therefore, it could not enter into the finance of the present year, having been paid out of the issues of the year to which it now stood as an excess. [Mr. PEEL: 1860–61.] His right hon. Friend, who understood the matter, would probably explain it to the House. He did not think
  1744
  that the observations of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey) with respect to the Appropriation Bill were applicable to the present stage of that measure. The hon. Member thought that the structure of the Bill might be improved. That was a matter well worthy the attention of the House, and all he could say was that any suggestion upon that subject would, doubtless, be favourably entertained at the proper time — namely, either in Committee on the present Bill, or upon some convenient occasion next Session. The noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Montague) had truly stated that it was not for the Government but for that House to say how the Appropriation Bill should be dealt with. For his own part, he did not object to the Motion of the noble Lord on the ground of expense, because the question of the cost of delivering 600 copies of the Bill, if it were desirable on public grounds that it should be so delivered, was an utterly unimportant consideration. His objection to the Motion was one of a very different character. When the noble Lord said that the Bill should be delivered, he did not, of course, mean that it was to be regarded simply as so much waste paper. The noble Lord, doubtless, intended that it should be carefully examined by hon. Members, and that the multitude of figures which it contained should be subjected to a rigid investigation. For that purpose some time must be allowed; because a Bill of thirty-four pages could not be presented to hon. Members in the forenoon, and they should be asked to discuss it in the afternoon; in fact, what with the time which must necessarily be given to the officers who prepared the Bill, and to the printer who printed it, and that which must be allowed to hon. Members to consider its various clauses, he probably was not far wrong when he stated that five or six days must be interposed between the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill and the Motion for the second reading. Such was the addition which, if the Motion of the noble Lord were agreed to, must be made to the length of the Session. Now, everybody knew that when the Appropriation Bill came on there was a very great, and certainly a very natural anxiety on the part of hon. Members that it should be proceeded with from day to day, and therefore the real question before the House was whether the Session should be lengthened by about a week for the purpose of enabling those who might feel inclined to

  1745
  check the figures contained in the Appropriation Bill. The practice which the noble Lord now sought to introduce had not been adopted in cases where it might have been acted upon without adding to the length of the Session. No proposal was made to print the Consolidation Bills passed during the course of the Session, though they gave authority to the Government to issue £27,000,000; nor had the noble Lord required 600 copies of the Exchequer bills Bill to be delivered to hon. Members, though both of these might have been printed without interfering with the length of the Session; but in the only case in which the noble Lord proposed to have the Bill printed there would be that inconvenience which, according to the present course of business, would, he feared, be thought a very serious one by the House. At all events, he would suggest to the noble Lord that, instead of making such a Motion as the present, he should bring the matter forward at an earlier period of the next Session, when the House would have the opportunity of considering fully the amount of inconvenience likely to be incurred. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) estimated the advantages from the course proposed very low, but that might not be the opinion of the House, and it would be for the House, and not for the Government, to lay down the course of procedure in matters of this kind. The apprehensions of the noble Lord on account of the liberties of England were mainly connected with the fact that in two particular years one of the clauses of the Appropriation Bill, which the noble Lord called the Appropriation Clause, was omitted. But if any clause in particular was to be called the Appropriation Clause, it was plain that it was not the clause which the noble Lord mentioned, but the 10th Clause, which provided that the monies coming into the Exchequer should be appropriated, and were thereby appropriated as the House had directed. His impression was that that clause, although it might be inserted as a declaration of constitutional principle, was, in point of law, mere surplusage, because the Government had no authority to appropriate those monies to any other purposes than those for which Parliament had appropriated them. In other years to which the noble Lord referred, a difficulty arose in connection with the wording of that particular clause on account of the fact that there had been two Parliaments in both
  1746
  those years—1857 and 1859—before the Appropriation Act was passed, and that was the ground of the omission of the clause. He would therefore suggest to the noble Lord, if he thought the subject worthy the attention of the House, to bring it forward on a future occasion, when the House might see how to reconcile those views with its convenience, which he thought was that the prorogation should take place as soon as possible after the Supplies had been granted.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire was very complete according to the present mode of conducting business; but the question was whether that mode was the proper one. The effect of the noble Lord's proposal would, no doubt, be practically to prolong the Session for a fortnight, but why should it be necessary to bring in the Appropriation Bill the moment the last Vote in Supply had been taken? In his opinion at least a fortnight should be interposed. The proper mode of proceeding would be next Session to determine beforehand how this part of their business should be transacted. If his noble Friend would at the commencement of next Session propound a scheme, or move a Committee for the purpose of devising the best scheme for arranging the business of Supply, so that the House should have an opportunity of comparing the Appropriation Bill with the Votes of Supply, he would be conferring an important service, and would deserve the thanks of the House.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that if the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer proved anything, it proved that the Appropriation Bill was perfectly useless. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they were bound to vote for the second reading of an Appropriation Bill, of which they knew nothing, merely because the Government managed matters so badly that hon. Members might be kept in town for a period that might not be convenient. He wanted to know why the Appropriation Bill was to be dealt with upon a principle different from other Bills? It was generally understood that they ought not to be called upon to vote for the second reading of a Bill which they had not read over. Now, he said that this Bill was of so much importance that the business of the House and country should be managed in such a manner that the Bill could be dealt with

  1747
  as other Bills, and Parliament ought not to be called upon to vote for a thing which they knew nothing about. This Bill was not a mere blank sheet of paper, but was a measure intended to put an actual check upon the way the money voted by Parliament was expended by the Government—it was very different from the Consolidated Funds Bill, for the simple reason that it was an Appropriation Bill. The noble Lord had been asked to bring the matter forward next Session, and to propose a scheme of his own. Now, though it might be very well left in the hands of the noble Lord, yet it was the duty of the Government to take it up, and he should like to have a pledge from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other Member of the Government to that effect.
  MR. HENNESSYwished to know who was responsible for this Bill. Unlike other Bills, it did not state by whom it was prepared, and brought in.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was brought in by Mr. Massey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Peel.
  MR. HENNESSY: It is not so stated on the back of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It so stated in the Order-book. The Bill is only in proof.
  MR. H. BAILLIEwould not recommend his noble Friend to withdraw his Amendment unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to give some pledge that such an irregularity as he thought had now taken place should not recur. It might be for the convenience of Gentlemen on the Treasury bench that Parliament should be prorogued as soon as possible; but, so far as those who sat on the Opposition benches were concerned they were quite prepared, if necessary, to sit there for a month longer, in order properly to transact the business of the country.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that no irregularity whatever had occurred. The Appropriation Bill had been prepared and introduced just as its predecessors had been for the last fifty or one hundred years. The form was prescribed by the House, and no sort of objection had ever been taken to it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were, it seemed, quite prepared to sit another month longer; but what advantage would there be in sitting another month in order to do something in a different mode from that which had been the in-
  1748
  variable practice of that House, and to which no substantial objection could be urged?
  MR. SPOONERreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the subject had been discussed last year, and if his memory did not deceive him, a pledge had been given that the irregularity which then occurred would not be repeated. If the Appropriation Bill were not a farce, he hoped something would now be done to correct what he thought a serious anomaly.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISapprehended that the Votes in Supply during the Session were the real appropriations, and constituted the substance of the Appropriation Bill. The Votes were brought by the Executive Government before the Committee of Supply and discussed in Committee, and each Vote was, in fact, an appropriation. But, technically speaking, it was necessary to have an Act of the Legislature, and in order to that the Votes were combined in a Bill appropriating them to their several destinations. The preparation of that Bill had always been considered, very properly, the act of the clerks of that House. It involved nothing but a clerical function. There was nothing in the Bill on which any discretion could be exercised. It had never been until lately the practice to print even a single clause; but a few years ago there was a request made that one or two clauses might be printed, and they were printed. To represent the present mode of proceeding with the Bill as an innovation and unconstitutional was a simple delusion, and as wild a chimera as ever entered into the brain of any Member of the House.
  MR. AYRTONthought the objection to this mode of proceeding came very properly from the noble Lord, who he believed, was a descendant of the illustrious financier with whom the Appropriation Bill originated. It was certainly important to observe that the Bill had been altered in its terms without the knowledge or sanction of the House. ["No, no!"] He was merely stating what was a matter of fact; and the denial only showed how necessary it was, as a matter of precaution, that the Bill should be printed. He thought the reasons alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against that course were conclusively in favour of the recommendation of the noble Lord, for the House had been degraded during the last two Sessions by the course

  1749
  pursued by the Government of postponing Votes in Supply to so late a period of the Session, when they were hurried on, morning and evening, without Members being able to give that attention to them which it was right they should give. He really thought the Bill should be printed in order that the Government might be compelled to submit the Votes in Supply at a period when they could receive due attention. He could not agree that a Vote in Supply authorized the expenditure of public money. That could only be done by Act of Parliament, and since the Votes had been thus hurried by the Government it was highly necessary that the House should possess the opportunity afforded by the Appropriation Bill of again taking the sense of the House on any particular Vote which had not been properly considered at the time it was passed. He was astonished at the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) and denied that the Bill was a mere form. It was, he apprehended, quite competent for a Member to challenge any of the Votes in the Bill, and to divide there-upon. It might not be desirable to divide the House upon the present occasion; but he hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would in a future Session bring forward the Votes at a proper period, so that there was time to discuss them. If the representatives of the people possessed any function in that House, it was surely that of checking the frightful expenditure and the extravagant waste in which the Government now indulged.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There can; be no greater aggravation of an injury than to accompany it with mockery, and there can be no greater injustice than for those who have inflicted an injury to make that injury a subject of reproach to those who have suffered by it. The hon. Gentleman reproaches the Government with not bringing on the Votes in Supply at an early day, and finishing them sooner than at present. That reproach comes from independent Members, whose interposition of preliminary Motions every night upon which we go into Supply raises the interminable discussions which are the real cause of our finishing Supply so late. I must say that is a reproach which I think, upon reflection, my hon. Friend will find applies to other parties than the Government. We began Supply as early as we could, and if it has spun out until the end of the Session it is because hon. Gen-
  1750
  tlemen—and I do not blame them—having a great number of topics to call attention to, select the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair to go into Committee of Supply as a fit opportunity for raising discussions. I do not blame them, but still we ought not to be reproached for the delay. The hon. Member also found fault with us for saying that a Vote in Supply is an authority to issue the money. No one doubts that the moment a Vote in Committee is passed the Government is empowered to spend the money. It is quite true that for the purposes of audit the preliminary sanction of the three branches of the Legislature is necessary, and that is what the Appropriation Act gives; but that Act does not alter a single Vote. It is a record of past transactions, and does not afford the House an opportunity of altering any Vote. No one supposes that in the Appropriation Act we can increase or diminish any Vote. It is simply a form that is required by the Constitution, but it is not a Bill to give rise to any discussion.
  MR. HENLEYthought, from the time the conversation had taken, that they were getting into an awkard position. The Prime Minister told them they could not deal with any article in the Appropriation Bill. He (Mr. Henley), on the contrary, thought it was competent for any Member to take the sense of the House upon every one of the items in that Bill, and for the House to determine whether it should be struck out or not. The Secretary of War as well as the Prime Minister spoke of the Bill as a mere form; but that was putting the question in a strange and inconvenient light. An hon. Gentleman made a Motion upon going into Supply the other night, which the Speaker ruled to be out of order, and he (Mr. Henley) then said publicly, and without contradiction, that the hon. Member could raise the question upon the Appropriation Bill. If the Bill was a mere form, and the Exchequer was entitled to issue money simply upon a Vote in Committee, that was a view for which he was not prepared. It would have been better if this question had been raised earlier, so that the officers might have had time to prepare the Bill for printing; but he could not see what difficulty there would be in preparing the accounts as the Votes passed through the Committee of Supply. It was not as though the whole of the Votes in Supply were reported in the last nights of the Session, for most of

  1751
  them had been reported long since. He hoped, however, that his noble Friend would not press his Motion upon this occasion. It would probably be convenient to adopt some course like that he had suggested at the beginning of the next Session. He thought the Prime Minister hardly felt the importance of the statement he had just made; he had always understood it was the privilege of any Member of the House to propose to strike out a money Vote on any stage of the Appropriation Bill.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONexplained that he did not at all dispute the power or right of the House to make any alteration it pleased in a Bill as it passed through its several stages; but it had never been a custom, by alterations in the Appropriation Bill, to rescind the previous acts and Votes of the House.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHprotested against the power taken by the 2nd Clause of the Bill. It gave compensation to the Land Revenue for the transfer of any premises, being public property, that were required under the Act. It was monstrous that a department should be compensated for the transfer of public property required for the site of public offices. If the principle were applied in this case, it might be be applied to all property.
  Bill read 3° and passed.

WILLS AND DOMICILE OF BRITISH
  SUBJECTS ABROAD BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it would perhaps be convenient before making the formal Motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair, if he were to extend the few preliminary observations he had to make to the Bill which stood next in order, namely, that respecting the Wills of Personalty by British subjects dying abroad, as no description of that measure—which had much in com-
    1752
    mon with the other—had been given on the second reading; the object of the Bill first in order was to obtain, by convention with such foreign Governments as might think proper to join, a definition of what "domicile" was. The question of domicile had of late forced itself into a good deal of notice before the various tribunals of this country, especially in connection with the wills of British subjects made out of this country. The rule was that the law of the country of a person's domicile at the time of his death should govern the distribution of the personalty left behind him; and very nice questions had arisen as to whether a British subject had at the time of dying or making his will, as the case might be, acquired a foreign domicile, or still retained his British domicile. Much disappointment had been suffered by persons who were entitled in fairness to the property, by the difficulty and expect of having the question decided; and, after all, the decision had often been very unsatisfactory. It would, therefore, be a great advantage if the question "What is domicile?" were settled once and for ever. That, however, could not be done without conventions with foreign Governments, because the tribunals of different countries might take different views. A uniform rule was the main object of the present Bill. It provided that where a convention should have been entered into no British subject resident at the time of his or her death in a foreign country should be deemed, or admitted, under any circumstances, to have acquired a domicile in such country, unless such British subject had resided there for one year immediately preceding his or her decease, and had also deposited in a public office of such foreign country a declaration in writing of his or her intention to become domiciled in such foreign country. This would give most satisfactory evidence of the animus of the testator, by a solemn and deliberate act; and to this part of the measure he apprehended no objection would be raised. There was a corresponding provision with respect to foreigners dying in this country. Then there followed an independent provision of a very valuable kind, to the effect that after a convention on the subject had been made it should be lawful for the Queen in Council to order that whenever a subject of a foreign country should die within the dominions of Her Majesty, and there should be no person at the time of death rightfully entitled to administer

    1753
    to the estate of the deceased, it should be lawful for the consul, vice-consul or consular agent, of the foreign State to which the person belonged, to take possession of the property. The advantage of the corresponding arrangement to this country would be that when a British subject died in a foreign country without a representative on the spot, the British consul would be warranted by the convention in taking possession and administering the property for the moment, and so to provide for the decent interment of the deceased, and prevent any spoliation of the property. Now, there was a Bill standing in the orders, immediately below this, which had come down from the Lords. It was entitled, "Wills of Personalty by British Subjects," and had also reference to those wills as affected by domicile. The object of that Bill was to put an end to the law that the validity of the will depended upon the law of the domicile of the testator. But if the Bill first in order should pass, the evils and mischief arising from the doubt and difficulty of defining what constituted domicile would be very much mitigated; because there would be an authoritative declaration of domicile ratified by convention with foreign Governments. The framers of the Bill with respect to wills of personalty by British subjects abroad had in view the evils resulting from the application of the provision that the law of domicile was to govern the will; but the House, he anticipated, would be of opinion that this second Bill, to which he was referring, went too far, and would produce mischiefs and dangers beyond the evils it was intended to remedy. By this Bill it was provided that the will should be sufficient if made according to the law of the place where it was executed, or the law of the place where the person making the will was domiciled, or the law in force in any part of the United Kingdom. Thus, a London merchant who had never set his foot across the border, going to Paris or Naples, and making his will there, might make his will either according to the law of England or of Scotland. Why should an Englishman having a domicile of origin in England have a choice of this kind? Some years ago great pains were taken to settle the law of wills in England; and if this Bill from the other House became law that measure would be to a considerable extent repealed. A British subject, for example, might be travelling, and, having been some time on the Continent, he might have written an informal in-
    1754
    strument in the nature of a will. That instrument, being found among his effects, although it might not have complied with the formalities of the English law of wills, nor have been intended to be a will, yet, as the instrument might be conformable to the testamentary law of the country—Norway or Sweden, for example—in which he might be travelling, would acquire testamentary validity under the Bill from the Lords. He believed, however, that the Bill he had first mentioned, which had reference to the wills and domiciles of British subjects abroad, would on all hands prove of advantage and facilitate future legislation. He would suggest to his hon. and learned Friend (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) who had charge of the "Wills of Personalty by British Subjects Abroad Bill," not at present to persist in pressing the measure on the House. They would thus have an opportunity of seeing the effect of the first Bill before discussing the second measure. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would, at all events, defer the second Bill for the present.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, that he had listened with great surprise to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who, without any explanation regarding the state of the law, or of the necessity for amendment, and without any real reasons assigned—on grounds entirely fallacious—called upon the House to approve of the Bill he had brought forward himself, and called upon him (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) to withdraw a Bill which had passed through the House of Lords with general assent and approbation. The attention of both Houses of Parliament had been called to this important subject in 1857 and 1858. The then Attorney General (the present Lord Chancellor) brought forward a Bill, unlike the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in some points, though certainly with the same object; but as it appeared to be entirely inadequate to the ends proposed, and left the law as unsettled and uncertain as it was before, it did not receive the approbation of the House, and was not pressed. With regard to the Bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Kingsdown—the Wills of Personalty by British Subjects Abroad Bill—which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General suggested that he should withdraw,

    1755
    he begged to remind the House that in 1857 a Bill much to the same effect not only received the approbation of the House of Commons, but was approved of by the present Prime Minister and the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was also approved of and supported in the other House by Lord Clarendon, who at the time held the office of Foreign Secretary. It would have passed the House of Lords but for the lateness of the period of the Session at which it was introduced. Again, in 1858, the Bill was re-introduced and passed without opposition in that House, and received the approbation of the then Ministers of the Crown, though subjected to some slight criticism of the Attorney General. It was sent to the other House, but fell a victim to the rule of not receiving a Bill, except of great urgency, at a late period of the Session. The Bill which his hon. and learned Friend now called upon him to withdraw, having been introduced into the House of Lords by the high authority of Lord Kingsdown, was referred to a Select Committee of that House, and underwent a most searching examination. It was unanimously adopted by that Select Committee, and passed the House of Lords with the entire approbation of the Ministers of the Crown in the Upper House. He would attempt to explain in a few words the grievances which arose from the existing state of the law. Some thirty years ago a decision was pronounced by the Court of Delegates, happily no longer existing, which, upon the faith of an old maxim, entirely inapplicable to the circumstances of the present times—mobilia sequuntur personam—determined that the will of a British subject domiciled in a foreign country must be made according to the law of the country of the domicile at the time of testator's death. Thus things stood until the other day, when a British subject made a will in Paris, having an attorney sent from this country for the purpose, and executed it according to the law of England. The case went before the Privy Council, and there the testatrix was held to have died domiciled in Paris, and the will was declared invalid. The effect of that decision was this, that every British subject who made his will, whether in this country or in any other, if it should turn out in the opinion of a jury or of a Court of Probate that that person had acquired a domicile at the time of his death in a foreign country, and that the will was not made according to the form of law prevailing in that country, the will was
    1756
    void. That decision would have a most mischievous effect on many wills made of late years. If a British subject, having made his will in England according to the law of the land of his birth, went abroad, a jury or Court of Probate might hold that he went abroad with the intention of permanently residing there, that he had his domicile abroad, and that, consequently, his will was void. Thus, not only was a person bound to ascertain the law of the country in which he had acquired a domicile, but he was bound to foresee at the time of making his will what would be the country of his domicile at the time of his death. Very great difficulties must arise from this state of things, for scarcely two Judges sitting on the bench were able to agree as to the law of domicile, as it depended not only on what a man might do, or say, or write, but upon his intention, or what was passing in his mind. The Bill of which the Attorney General had moved the second reading made the validity of the will of every British subject to depend upon the question of domicile; because it provided that a convention should be entered into with foreign countries, under which no person was to be held to have acquired a foreign domicile except by a continuous residence of one year before his death; unless he should have made a formal declaration in writing that he desired to transfer his domicile to the country of his residence. He appealed to his hon. and learned Friend himself to say whether there was any question arising in courts of law in this or in any other country that was attended with greater difficulties and perplexities than the law of domicile. The Bill of the late Attorney General (the present Lord Chancellor) proposed to make an amendment of the law in this respect, which at present was fraught with mischief and inconvenience, to depend upon treaties or conventions being entered into with foreign countries, and upon offices being established abroad, at which a person was to state his intention to acquire a domicile. He (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) considered that such a Bill was entirely inadequate to the ends proposed, and that it must necessarily continue for a long period of time, perhaps for ever, all the mischief and inconvenience arising under the present law. But, on the other hand, the object of the Bill introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Kingsdown was simple, plain, and clear. It proposed that no genuine will made by a person who believed he was disposing of

    1757
    his property as he had a right to do according to law, and who made it according to the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or of the country in which it was made, or of the country in which the testator had acquired a domicile, should be rendered ineffective because he might at last die domiciled elsewhere. He heard with some surprise the statement of the Attorney General, that the provisions of the Bill of Lord Kingsdown were at variance with the international law of Europe. He said, without fear of contradiction, that the effect of that Bill would be to make the law of England conformable to the public law of Europe, He also ventured to assert that, according to the public law of Europe, every will was valid which was made according to the law of the country in which it was made. The improvement in the law which the Bill now before the House was intended to effect was made contingent upon treaties which might never be entered into, and which even if effected would leave the law attended with all the evils which were completely remedied by the Bill of Lord Kingsdown. He did not, however, object to going into Committee on the present Bill if it were the wish of the House.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERrose to move that the House go into Committee on the Bill that day three months. He very much regretted that while taking that course he had not the benefit of having among his auditors the present Lord Chancellor, who was so much in the habit of accusing those who differed from him of ignorance; because if the noble and learned Lord were present he might enlighten the House as to the principle on which his Bill was founded—although he (Sir George Bowyer) defied either the noble and learned Lord or anybody else to prove that it was founded on any principle which could be clearly understood by a legal mind. There was, however, no use in indulging in idle regrets, for the noble and learned Lord had gone beyond recall to enlighten the ignorance which existed in "another place." The House must, therefore, make the best of the Bill in his absence, and he should with the permission of hon. Members draw their attention to its preamble, which referred to the question of the validity of wills made abroad and the disposition of personal property by means of such instruments, according to the law of England, and recited that the same could not be amended effectually without the consent and concurrence of foreign States. That he denied. He
    1758
    maintained that the law of England made effectual provision in the matter, and was fully competent to do so, and that the first and second clauses of the Bill could be carried into effect without a convention, and that, consequently, the preamble was founded upon an allegation entirely groundless in point of law. No convention with a foreign country was required to alter the law as administered in the courts of England. It was said that a convention would be necessary for the purpose of determining the domicile of a foreigner resident in this country. He denied that proposition, because the law of a country was supreme within its own territory, and it was competent for Parliament to determine without a convention under what conditions a foreigner resident here should be admitted by the English law to be domiciled in England. He ventured to say that if the Foreign Secretary were to ask any foreign Government to enter into a convention with us on the matter he would be laughed at. Then there was another absurdity in the Bill. The Bill provided that by a declaration in writing a British subject resident in a foreign country should be able to declare that he was domiciled in that country, and that such declaration should have the effect of proving him so domiciled. No Act of Parliament was requisite for that purpose, because domicile was a question of intention and of fact rather than of law. The law was sufficient as it stood. What the Bill did it did injuriously, because it ex-eluded all proofs except a declaration in writing. He thought that a very mischievous interference with the law of nations, because it provided only one proof of domicile and allowed of no other. Perhaps the Solicitor General would tell him that a convention was necessary in the case of British subjects dying abroad and leaving property in a foreign country. But for that purpose no Act of Parliament was necessary; it could be done by treaty. There was not a case in fact which made such an Act as this necessary. He believed if the Bill passed it would be for the most part a dead letter. It was, moreover, open to the objection that it fixed the errors in the English law at present. He repeated that by the law of nations the domicile of the testator had nothing whatever to do with the question. Vattel, as quoted by Storey, clearly laid down that the forms and solemnities required for the execution of a will were the forms and solemnities required by the law of the place where the

    1759
    will was executed, and not by the law of his domicile. He objected to this Bill because it tended to perpetuate the greatest defect in our law—the doctrine that the validity of a will depended on the law of domicile. The law of domicile ought not to be allowed to defeat the will of a British subject resident abroad, because the validity of a will depended by the law of nations, not on the law of domicile, but on the law of the place where it was executed. If a will were executed according to those forms and solemnities required by the lex loci, it was valid all the world over. Lord Kings-down's Bill was based on the soundest principles of public law and practical utility; but he did not see how it was possible to place this Bill and that of Lord Kingsdown together on the statute book. He moved that this Bill be committed this day three months.
    MR. HENNESSYseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that there was nothing in the two Bills in the least inconsistent with each other, and each might be discussed with perfect convenience on its own separate and independent merits. The Bill before the House dealt with the subject from a point of view entirely distinct from that involved in the other Bill. The Bill from the Lords dealt with the question what authentication should be necessary to establish the factum of a will; the Bill before the House dealt, in all the clauses except the last, with the question what authentication should be necessary to establish the factum of domicile with respect to the subject of personal succession. The Bill which was next to be submitted to them applied only to cases in which a man dying abroad had made a will, but did not apply to the important question of succession in cases of intestacy. Therefore, the House might decide on both Bills without any conflict between the two. There would be great advantages in passing this Bill on the supposition that foreign nations would be willing to enter into conventions on this subject with this country. If they would not
    1760
    the Bill would fail: but he could not see why foreign nations should object. He might remind the House that during the present Session it had passed a Bill which provided that, by means of conventions precisely similar, questions of foreign law might be sent to foreign countries, in order that the law of those countries might be stated for the guidance of the courts of this country. He wished the House to see the advantages which would be gained if such conventions were entered into. In the first place, all must have observed what extreme inconvenience would arise from introducing local laws affecting the succession of personal property into particular countries—laws which would not be recognized as to the personal property of the same persons in other countries. Though it might be true that in most countries, as to the authentication of the instrument, the lex loci had been permitted to prevail, yet his hon. and learned Friend (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) could not mean that in the distribution of the estate and the succession to personal estate the law of domicile was not universally regarded. Therefore, it was quite clear that in dealing with the really important question of the distribution of the estate, the succession to property, and not the mere authentication of the instrument, they could not escape the necessity of attending to the law of the domicile. The fixing of the domicile was at present a question of the most extreme difficulty. The whole history of a man's life, from his birth to his death, was constantly the subject of investigation with a view to ascertain it. Lord Kingsdown in the House of Lords referred to the enormous expense incurred in prosecuting those difficult inquiries, and mentioned an instance in the courts of this country in which the costs amounted to £30,000. The object of this Bill was to reach that difficulty. As to the distribution of the estate, whether a man died testate or intestate, the other Bill was silent altogether; but this Bill reached the cases both of testacy and intestacy, and also dealt with the subject of domicile so as to get rid of all the enormous sources of expense which existed in the present state of the law. It was proposed by the mutual consent of this and of foreign countries to require certain necessary evidence of the fact and of the intention—of the fact, a certain length of residence; and of the intention, a declaration made for that purpose. It prescribed a method of proving

    1761
    domicile animo et facto. At present many persons were compelled to die intestate, because neither France nor England would recognize the law of domicile acted upon by the other. This was a serious evil, of extensive operation, and he believed that the Bill of the Government would provide an ample remedy; whereas, if the other Bill only were adopted this evil would be left untouched. Under these circumstances he thought the Bill ought certainly to be allowed to go into Committee.
    MR. ROLTsaid, he did not think it had been shown that this Bill would accomplish the desired object. It depended on conventions for its success. What probability was there that any conventions would over be made? Foreign countries did not act upon our view of the law of domicile, and, therefore, it was not very likely that they would enter into conventions upon the subject. He admitted that it was necessary to do something, but this Bill would only prevent effectual legislation. There was no difficuty in doing what it proposed to do without conventions. The Solicitor General spoke of reciprocity, but had not pointed out how that was to be obtained. Supposing a convention was made with France, that would not in any way meet the case of a British subject dying in Spain. Therefore it would be necessary to make this measure effectual, that we should have conventions with every other country. He objected to this Bill because some legislation without the necessity of conventions would be easy, while the effect of passing this measure would be to hinder such legislation. He regarded the Bill as useless, uncertain, and ill-drawn, and, therefore, he thought it ought not to be passed.
    MR. MALINSadopted the same view as his hon. and learned Friend; but while he desired that this Bill should not pass, he desired that the other should; though he admitted that there was no necessary antagonism between the two. That there was a necessity for some legislation upon the subject of the law of domicile there could be no doubt, and in proof he might refer to the case of the Southampton Charity, in which £30,000 or £40,000 had been spent in ascertaining the domicile of Mr. Hartley, the testator, at the time of his death. He thought that if a will was drawn in conformity with the law of the country where it was executed it ought to be regarded as a good will. The Bill which had come down from the House of Lords was based upon that principle, and,
    1762
    if passed, could come into immediate operation, while this Bill required conventions to make it operative, He (Mr. Malins) would not oppose the passing of this Bill, if the Government would undertake not to oppose the passing of the Bill which was to follow. In proposing this, himself and his hon. and learned Friend must have credit for disinterestedness, as nothing led to more litigation and expense than questions as to wills. The short Bill sent down from the Upper House swept away a mass of legislation on the subject, and simply stated what the law would be hereafter, at least in reference to personal property. He would be willing to postpone the consideration of the subject till the next Session, if ho could be assured that no cases of difficulty, expense, and hardship would occur in the interval. But there could be no guarantee against the operation of the ordinary law of mortality; and since the Bill of the House of Lords would effect an immediate and useful amendment, and the Bill of the Attorney General did nothing antagonistic to it, he trusted his hon. and learned Friend (Sir George Bowyer) would withdraw his Motion, and allow both Bills to pass as a kind of compromise.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that, no doubt, the operation of the Bill was contingent on foreign Governments doing that which the Bill proposed in order to arrive at a settled decision as to what was a legal domicile. As to the reciprocity, what he contended was that in the absence of a convention they would still find variance in the decisions of the Courts of different countries; whereas, if a covention were made, there would be a settled principle as to domicile. The hon. and learned Baronet, the Member for Dundalk, questioned the accuracy of the proposition that by the law of nations, not only the distribution of movables, but the solemnities of the execution of the testament depended upon the law of domicile; that opinion, however, was supported by Lord Wensley-dale and the other law Lords in the case so often referred to; who said that not only the distribution of the movables must be dependent on the law of domicile, but that the will itself must be in the form prescribed by the law of the country in which the will was made.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSdid not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) meant to take the opinion of the House on the subject, nor was it actually of much impor-

    1763
    tance whether he divided or not, for there was no chance of the measure becoming law this year. Still, on such a question they ought to he fully persuaded of the grounds on which they supported or opposed the Bill. He would state as briefly as possible his strong objections to it. First, the Bill assumed that the proper way to regulate the succession of property by will was to alter the law as to the domicile. On the contrary, he thought the proper mode was to bring the law of this country as to wills into agreement with the law of other countries, and to make a testamentary disposition good, provided it was in accordance with the law of the country where it was made, and disregarding the question of domicile altogether. His next objection was that the Bill provided a system that would be utterly ineffectual if no conventions were made, and which, if they were made, would establish a system more complex than anything at present existing. He did not know how many foreign States there might be in Asia, Africa, and North and South America; but in Europe alone some fifteen or twenty conventions would be required with first, second, and third rate Powers. A man would have to travel with a hook like Hertslet's Treaties, in order to know whether he was in a State with which a convention had been made with Great Britain on the subject of wills. But, practically, a man would think nothing about it. Testators, again, would omit to go through the formal process of lodging the declaration with the officer named in the Bill. The Attorney General had spoken of the convenience of defining domicile. He would agree that whoever should produce a correct definition of domicile would be a benefactor of mankind. But the present Bill did not define domicile in any way. It only said that there should be no change of domicile until there had been a residence in another country for one year. There would be no statutable enactment to define domicile, and after a convention had been entered into and the process defined in the Bill had been gone through it would still be necessary to show the animus of the testator by the evidence of letters and conversation, as at present. Suppose, too, some testator died abroad in Spain, leaving personal property in France or America as well as England, the Act would only apply to the countries with which we had conventions. Did the Attorney General suppose that other countries would not
    1764
    adhere to their law on this subject? The measure was, in fact, a complicated piece of machinery. It affirmed an erroneous principle, and he must enter his protest against its further progress.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) had suggested that the opposition to this Bill should be withdrawn on condition that the Government should make no objection to the second Bill also passing through Committee. He had no hesitation in accepting that proposal, so far as the present stage was concerned. The House might pass both Bills through Committee to-night, and when they came out of Committee they would he better able to judge of the desirableness of proceeding with the second measure.
    SIR FITZROY KELLYthought that that course would be the most advantageous one to adopt.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that under those circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

WILLS OF PERSONALTY BY BRITISH SUBJECTS BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
SIR FITZEOY KELLYmoved that the House go into Committee on this Bill. He would not trouble the House by entering into an exposition of the objects intended by the Bill further than to say that this Bill was not intended to invalidate wills already made; but its result would be to give effect to solemn acts done by British subjects in foreign countries, wherever the will was a genuine one, so that the intention of the testator might be carried into effect.
House in Committee.
Clause 1, (Wills made out of the Kingdom),
THE ATTORNEY GENERALmoved to leave out the words at the end of Clause 1, to the effect that in the case of an Englishman losing his English domicile it shall be presumed that his will was not made in England.
SIR FITZROY KELLYdeclined to accept the suggestion. The Amendment would strike at the principle of the Bill.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSmoved that the

1765
latter portion of the clause should be amended by providing that the will should be valid if it were framed in conformity with the law of that portion of Her Majesty's dominions in which the testator had his "domicile of origin."
MR. BOVILLthought the clause as it stood was best.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERalso thought that it would be better not to make any change in the clause. If the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast were adopted a will made abroad according to the Scottish law by an Englishman having property in Scotland would be invalid as regarded that property.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PROSECUTIONS EXPENSES BILL.

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for Second Reading [24th July], read.
  SRI GEOBGE LEWISsaid, he had brought in this Bill to satisfy some of the northern counties. As, however, it did not appear to have given satisfaction, he should best discharge his duty by withdrawing it.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT (1854) CONTINUANCE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. BRADYexpressed his opinion that, instead of preventing, it rather tended to produce corruption at elections. He moved the omission of the first clause altogether.
  THE CHAIRMANstated that the only clause in the Bill was that which continued the former Acts.
  MR. BRADYthen moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. COLLINSopposed the Motion.
  MR. BRADYsaid, that he would not persist in his Motion; but must enter a protest against the principle of the measure.
  In reply to Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH,
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had little doubt the Bill would have to he introduced again next Session.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

LANDED ESTATES (IRELAND) ACT (1858)

  AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. PEELproposed to insert the following clause:—
  "Whereas Lieutenant- Colonel John Henry Keogh has sustained a loss of £1,879 6s. 7d. by the neglect of an officer of the Encumbered Estates Court; and whereas it is expedient that he should be indemnified for the said loss; be it, therefore, enacted that the Judges of the Landed Estates Court may, with the sanction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, direct the payment to the said Lieutenant-Colonel John Henry Keogh, from time to time, out of the duties levied or to be levied under the provisions of the said recited Act, of an amount not exceeding the said sum of £l,879 6s.7d.; and no general order reducing the said duties shall be issued until there shall have been received after the passing of this Act from the proceeds of the difference between the existing duties and the reduced duties to be levied under this Act a sum amounting to £l,879 6s. 7d."
  Clause brought up, and read 1°.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSopposed the clause. The object of the fees paid in the Landed Estates Court was merely to make that Court self-supporting, but now it was proposed that the suitors should pay more fees, in order to make good the loss sustained by the neglect of one of the officers. The effect of such a principle was to make all the suitors mutual insurers against the mistakes of the officers of the Court. This would establish a most vicious principle in regard to all Courts, and would render the establishment of such a Court in this country impossible.
  MR. PEELsaid, that the case was a peculiar one, and it had been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that Colonel Keogh had been compelled to pay the sum it was proposed to give him twice over. He thought that both in this country and in Ireland the course now proposed had been adopted under analogous circumstances, and the Committee had recommended that Colonel Keogh should be indemnified in this manner.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that the Secretary of the Treasury had certainly made the case more clear, and more objectionable than it seemed before. There had been no instance in which Parliament had

  1767
  given its sanction that the fees of suitors should make good an error in judgment of one of the officials. The principle upon which suitors were compelled to pay fees was to make the Court self-supporting, but, unfortunately, the principle was not strictly adhered to. He did not doubt that Colonel Keogh ought to he reimbursed; but he did altogether deny that he ought to be reimbursed out of the pockets of those who might hereafter become suitors in the Encumbered Estates Court. It was, in fact, levying a tax on future suitors to pay for a loss incurred in reference to bygone suitors. There was an admission that the fees would bear reduction, but this reduction must be postponed to pay for the errors of an official. The Committee were not empowered to say whether this money should come out of the Consolidated Fund or not; all they were called upon to decide was, whether Colonel Keogh ought to be remunerated or not. The question of the fund out of which he was to be paid was one for the consideration of the House. He should ask the Committee to expunge the clause altogether.
  MR. BRADYasked what would be done after this claim was liquidated. Other cases might arise like this of Colonel Keogh. Would those payments in future come out of the Consolidated Fund?
  MR. PEELsaid, he could not state the course that would be pursued in future cases. The necessity in this case arose out of the legislation of the House. It must be remembered that the principle had never yet been carried out of making this Court self-supporting.
  MR. VANCEsupported the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast. The result of the clause would be for some years to come to keep suitors out of the Court.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 25: Majority 8.
  MR. HENNESSYwished to ask the Chairman a question. The title of the Bill was to alter the duties in the Court; but the 3rd Clause said that the Commissioners might raise the duties as well as alter them. Under such circumstances, he desired to know, whether it ought not to have been introduced by a Resolution in a Committee of the Whole House?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, as the Bill did not intend to make any charge upon the
  1768
  Consolidated Fund, it was not necessary to proceed by Resolution in a Committee of the Whole House. The duties proposed to be raised were to come out of the suitors' fund. He thought, however, that the title of the Bill would require amendment by the addition of some such words as these, "and for other purposes."
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PAROCHIAL OFFICES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it was recently decided by the Court of Queen's Bench that overseers were not entitled to apply any portion of the poor rates to the building or hiring of any place in which to transact their business. Great inconvenience had resulted from that decision, especially in populous parishes, and the object of this Bill was to enable overseers, with the consent of the vestry, and also of the Poor Law Board, to apply a portion of the poor rates to the purpose he had stated.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the measure might be needed in towns of 5,000 inhabitants, but thought it would lead to extravagance if the principle were extended to towns with only 2,000.
  MR. C. P. V1LLERShad adopted the limit of 2,000 in consequence of the wording of a former Act defining a "populous place," but had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

OFFICERS OF RESERVE (ROYAL NAVY) BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said he had been asked to give some explanation of its provisions and the necessity existing for such a measure. In any debate which might follow his remarks he was sure his brother officers of the Navy would join with him in avoiding any observations which could be construed offensively towards the merchant service, as remarks, made unintentionally he was quite sure, in "another place," had given great annoyance to this excellent and gallant body of men,

1769
whose co-operation they sought to obtain in the defence of the country. The officers of the mercantile navy proposed to enrol themselves as officers of Naval Volunteer corps, formed on a principle somewhat similar to those which had been so successfully carried out on land; and the Admiralty had accepted their patriotic proposal with a warm desire, which he had no doubt was shared by the public, to avail themselves of the services of the gentlemen composing the officers of the merchant service. For this purpose Her Majesty's Government had prepared a Bill which he had now the honour to propose, enabling those gentlemen to enrol themselves, so that in the unfortunate event of unforeseen war they would assist the officers of the Navy, either in large ships of war under the command of captains or commanders, or in charge themselves of smaller vessels. It was right he should state that there was not a single word in the measure, or in the regulatons which would accompany it, which could be taken by the officers of the Royal Navy as in the slightest degree infringing on their dignity or interfering in the slightest degree with the flow of promotion. The Bill simply empowered Her Majesty to receive the services of these officers, and provided for the footing on which they should be placed while at drill or on actual service. Some time ago the Admiralty issued a form of regulations under which officers would be eligible for the Naval Reserve. A great meeting of officers in the merchant service followed; and, having been invited to express their opinions, they raised certain objections which he believed had been entirely obviated in the amended regulations which he should be happy to lay on the table if any hon. Member would move for them. At their request the rule requiring that no masters should be admitted as lieutenants of the Naval Reserve who did not hold extra certificates under the Mercantile Marine Act of 1850, or the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, had been modified, and a much less stringent qualification was now required, though sufficiently strict at the same time to ensure that the officers in question would be men of sufficient education and experience to undertake the duties imposed upon them. The only other point to which the masters of the mercantile marine objected was that of rank, holding that it would be unjust for an officer who might command, for instance, one of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company's fleet—a vessel of equal value and
1770
requiring as skilful handling as a ship of war—to be placed under the command of a very young lieutenant of the navy. Such a contingency was one that could very rarely occur, as the number of officers in the merchant service commanding vessels of that class must he limited, and in case of war they would probably receive command of some small vessel—of the class, he meant, which would ordinarily be commanded by a lieutenant in the navy. But it must be apparent to all that masters in the mercantile marine could not expect to take rank above commissioned officers in the Navy; in such a case the latter would have fair ground of complaint. The rule with regard to corresponding rank was followed in the Volunteers and the Militia, and it was impossible to suppose it could he departed; from in the Naval Reserve. Practically he did not believe such a contingency as that referred to was likely often to arise; but in case it should ever do so in actual warfare officers of the mercantile marine would be swayed by motives of patriotism, and would not, he was confident, stickle on this point of dignity—there could be no clashing whatever between the two services. The lieutenants of the Reserve would rank with, but after, the lieutenants of the Royal Navy, and merchant officers might, in his opinion, be well content with the honourable post of holding commensurate rank with lieutenants of the Royal Navy. The question of rank, as he had stated, was the only point of difficulty. It had been said "in another place" that there was no necessity for this measure, and that if a war broke out we could easily find officers. He (Lord C. Paget) said it was a measure of absolute necessity. We had at this moment something like 850 lieutenants, yet there was scarcely at this time of peace one unemployed who was able to go to sea. What would occur if a war broke out to-morrow, and that in the event of casualties we had no means of reinforcing the fleet with young lieutenants? In these days gunnery was absolutely necessary. A lieutenant who knew nothing of gunnery was absolutely useless. What was proposed was to give the merchant officers of the Royal Naval Reserve an education in gunnery. They would have to take a course of gun-drill on board the training ships. They would read the various books on gunnery, and make themselves thoroughly acquainted with gun-drill. What he hoped was the Admiralty would then place on board the large merchant ships officered by these

1771
men a gun or two, and ultimately every man in the merchant service would become a gunner. He might be sanguine, but he looked to that day when they might have on board these large merchant ships a system of gun-drill under their own officers, and that thus when war broke out the officers of the merchant navy would bring with them large bodies of their men already drilled and made efficient. He was not prepared to say that they could have educated more sailors of the Royal Naval Reserve than they had done. The training ships had been fully employed with the 5,000 and odd men who had come forward, and if they had come forward more largely he did not know that they could have accomplished more than had been done; but it would be most important to educate the officers of the merchant service in order that they might in turn become the instructors of their own men on board their own ships. Then, if they got this great Navy Reserve they would be able, in some degree, to reduce the vast expenditure of the navy. If, at this moment, there had been a reserve of 30,000 officers and seamen, they might safely reduce the great amount of the Vote No. 1, in the estimates for men. He, sincerely hoped officers of the navy would favour this scheme; and, on the other hand, that officers of the merchant service would come forward like their fellow-subjects and devote themselves, as it might become necessary, to the service of their country. He could not sit down without alluding to an establishment now formed for the education of officers in the merchant service, and which he thought would be of very great importance in the future as regards the naval resources of the country. He had gone down to Liverpool some weeks ago to inspect a school established by the Mercantile Marine Association for young officers for the merchant service. He found there 100 young gentleman admirably educated, of the highest respectability, preparing as officers of the merchant service on board the Conway. He was bound to say they were entirely equal, in every respect, to the cadets at the Naval School on board the Britannia at Portsmouth. They were being instructed not only in the higher branches of astronomy and navigation, but in gun-drill, and he saw with pleasure a vast body of young officers who would by-and-by be perfectly fit to take part in vessels of war, and whose services would be invaluable to the
1772
navy. He looked forward to the time when these schools would be established at all the principal ports; so that the young men from the merchant service would he perfect gunners; thus, in the event of war, largely increasing the means of manning our fleets and assisting us most usefully in officering the navy. He trusted the old standing antagonism between the merchant service and the Royal Navy would now be broken down, and that the distinguished officers of the merchant service would, as on former occasions, even when they were pressed men, acquire great glory in the naval service of the country. It was also to be remembered that after service those officers were qualified to become officers in the Royal Navy itself. He trusted if ever the time came when these men were called on many of them would become distinguished officers of the Royal Navy. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Sir, I must disclaim all feeling of illiberality in the few remarks I may offer in relation to the Bill now submitted to the House to enable Her Majesty to accept the services of officers of the merchant service as officers of Reserve in the Royal Navy—quite the contrary—I desire to profess what I truly feel, a high respect for their character and profession, but I am at a loss to understand how this Bill can work with advantage to the object designed, directed as it is to the admission of 130 masters and 270 mates, under the qualifications stipulated for their admission. Let me ask how can you place confidence in having the command of the services of these officers at the moment you necessarily will require them on the immediate outbreak of a war, when probably the greater number will be absent from England on foreign voyages or otherwise not forthcoming? I am, therefore, constrained to observe, looking to a certain provision and wise caution, it were far more prudent than to rely on a source so hazardously uncertain for officering your fleet, to establish year by year a regular supply of cadets equal to the demand contemplated and which must occur, to offer certain employment and the opportunity for distinguished service to the officers of the Royal Navy, who, at all times, have been found ready to devote the best portion of a man's life to the profession, and to surrender the most attractive opportunities of acquiring wealth to the realization, of an honourable renown

1773
in the service of the country. The noble Lord observed that these officers of Reserve might be employed in small vessels of war in sole command, but it is right he should bear in recollection that it is this very description of vessels, and in gun and mortar boats, that the lieutenants of the Navy rely upon selection for command, in war time, affording the most certain means by which they may secure promotion and acquire honour—permit me, like wise, to observe that the Naval officer entered the service in his earliest youth. He had to submit to a severe course of study and a most rigid examination to qualify him for high rank, having to obtain a practical knowledge of seamanship, navigation, gunnery, and steam. He was subject to be sent to all climates, and was liable to all contingencies of service, being oftentimes separated for a considerable number of years from his family, and having to perform continuous service in unhealthy climates, whilst his sole encouragement lay in chance-promotion to high rank and the acquisition of a distinguished name. The officers of the Mercantile Navy were placed in far more independent circumstances, and had far greater opportunities of securing a competence both present and future. They were not subject to the same risks, the same dangers, or the same deprivations, nor had they to serve so frequently or so continuously in unhealthy climates. If these officers of Reserve were to be placed in the service, the masters to take rank immediately after lieutenants, and the mates to sublieutenants, in what position, may I ask, were the masters in the Royal Navy to stand whose rank invariably had been with lieutenants, but subordinate in command to them? a most meritorious class of officers who ought not to be deprived of the rank they now hold next to lieutenants. In the event of a war our commerce would be immensely restricted, when we should experience no lack of officers of the merchant service or of merchant seamen, in number as they wore nigh of 200,000, and I am confident, in such a crisis, if England be threatened from them, our seafaring population will spring up a host of Volunteers to the Navy to uphold its ancient reputation, and the honour and glory of the country. I shall not oppose this Bill, but I do most earnestly entreat that in carrying out its provisions the just claims and feelings of the officers of the Royal Navy will be scrupulously regarded.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he did not think there was any great urgency for passing a measure which had been so little considered, and, therefore, he had hoped that the Bill would not have been persevered with this Session. Considering the large number of officers now upon our Navy List, there was, in his opinion, no occasion for such a measure. Upon the Active List for July there were 101 admirals, 343 captains, 445 commanders, 844 lieutenants—the First Lord of the Admiralty said the other night that there were 855—and 126 sub-lieutenants, making a total of 1,859; independent of masters, engineers, mates, and midshipmen. From the masters we might, on an emergency, obtain lieutenants, who would be far more efficient for the purposes for which they would be required than would the officers of the mercantile marine. On the Reserved List there were 97 admirals, 96 captains, 124 commanders, and 408 lieutenants, making a total of 725 officers; or, together with those on the Active List, a grand total of 2,584—a number, he believed, larger than that possessed by all the other nations of the world put together. America had no admirals, 100 captains, 130 commanders, and 362 lieutenants—total, 592. France had 54 admirals, 103 captains of line-of-battle ships, 230 commanders, and 700 lieutenants, making, with a considerable number of aspirants and eleves, who answered to our mates and midshipmen, a total staff of 2,207. Of our lieutenants, whose number he stated at 855, the First Lord of the Admiralty said the other night that only 150 were unemployed. He had looked at the List, and, as far as be could see, there must be at least 200 in that position; besides which many of them were employed in situations which in time of war might be filled by older men from the Reserved List. Of these 855 officers, 600 were under the age of twenty-six years. At what age did they expect to get those officers of the mercantile marine who were obliged to have been for so many years on board ship in different parts of the world, and to have been for three years master of a vessel of 500 tons? He was afraid they would find it difficult to get such officers to serve in the position proposed for them, or to get them to come for one month to drill. And, in reference to the drill, he must observe that he thought it a very bad plan to have the officers living on shore while attending it. It would be much better to have them aboard ship in the company of

1775
officers of the Navy, with whom they were intended to serve in case of war. His hon. and gallant Friend who had just spoken had asked whether they would he sure of the services of those officers of the mercantile marine when their services were required? The master of a merchant vessel might just have concluded an agreement to go on a distant voyage. Would the owner think it just or honourable of him to break that engagement? They were told that he would not only come himself, but bring his crew with him. What would the owner say to that? It was said that this plan had the approval of the mercantile marine. The sentiments expressed at the recent meeting on the subject did not appear to support that assertion. The plan now promulgated was very different from that which had been originally suggested, and on the whole he had never heard a scheme proposed that gave less hope of being satisfactory to any part of the service. The creation of officers of the Naval Reserve would entail a heavy charge on the public funds, for which no equivalent would ever be obtained. The scheme was, no doubt, devised with the best intentions, but ho believed it would prove an utter failure, unsatisfactory both to the Royal Navy and to the mercantile marine. He believed that the most effectual mode of fostering the navy was to provide training-ships for the young, and to free the merchant service from the trammels which had so long been imposed on it.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he had too high an opinion of officers of the mercantile marine, and knew too well their good sea-manlike qualities and great integrity of character, to utter a word in disparagement of them. He must say, however, that he did not approve this Bill. He believed it would do great injustice to officers of the Royal Navy. The officers of the merchant service had strong objections to the scheme as first proposed; and his noble Friend, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), had endeavoured to make things pleasant by agreeing to all they asked. It was said that there would be no difficulty in regard to the officers of the Reserve being employed under young lieutenants of the Royal Navy, because it would be easy to give them separate commands. But if that were done it would be a great injustice to those young lieutenants to whom an independent command was an object of na-
1776
tural ambition. These officers entered the service at an early age, underwent a great deal of severe training and irksome discipline, and received comparatively little remuneration. They ought not, therefore, to be deprived of any of their privileges. Some officers in the mercantile marine—those in the Peninsular and Oriental Company's service, for instance—received as much as £1,000 a year, which, was a great deal more than officers in a similar position in the Royal Navy; and, therefore, it was a great injustice that they should be supplanted in the commands to which they looked forward. He thought it very unfortunate that his noble Friend should have introduced this Bill at so late a period of the Session. Naval questions never got due consideration, for they were always brought forward at the fag-end of the Session. A great many mistakes and much extravagance were the result. He suggested that the Bill should not be pressed forward this Session, and that his noble Friend and his colleagues should endeavour during the recess to devise some effectual plan for manning the navy, instead of bringing in officers who were not wanted at present.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYreminded the House that this was a purely voluntary measure, the tendency of which would be to economize the expenditure of the navy. He thought it was the duty of all those who were connected with the mercantile navy to give the Government every assistance in promoting such a scheme. It should be remembered that the force would come into use in time of war, when a number of merchant vessels would necessarily be unemployed, and he had no doubt that numbers of merchant officers would join the Reserve, animated by the same patriotic spirit which had produced the land Volunteer force.
MR. CAVEsaid, they did not yet know whether the scheme met with general acceptance in the merchant service. It appeared that there was a glut of commanders, and a paucity of lieutenants in the navy, and that the object was to recruit the lower rank from merchant captains. He did not think any great inducement was offered either to their ambition or cupidity. The gallant Admiral (Admiral Duncombe) had shown the superiority of the merchant service in the point of pay. The noble Lord, indeed, had compared the officers of the merchant service entering under this Bill to the Volunteers, but it

1777
must be remembered that in the Volunteer service all ranks were open. This was more like linesmen exchanging into a lower rank in the Guards, and then being debarred from future promotion. The noble Lord talked of this scheme increasing the good feeling between the navy and merchant service. If that were his object, he (Mr. Cave) thought it would be well to follow the example of Sweden, where encouragement was given to officers of the Royal Navy serving on board vessels engaged in the packet service. He should not oppose the Bill; but if there were any doubts as to the complete success of the measure he thought it would be well to postpone it for more mature consideration.
MR. HENLEYdid not think the discussion had been favourable to the scheme. The fear was that out of the large number of officers in the merchant service who were qualified under this Bill the best would not be obtained. There was also a doubt whether at the end of four or five years they would find themselves in possession of that young blood which it was hoped to acquire.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVY BILL.

  COMMITEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Public Worship),
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that this was another piece of Admiralty tinkering in the present year. This Bill had for its object to amend an Act which became law on the 17th of August last, and did not come into operation until the 1st of April, and they were now, after four months experience, asked to amend that Act. Besides, this Bill came down from the Lords, but the noble Lord, so far from accepting it as is it came down, had a whole paper of Amendments to propose.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETbegged the Committee to remember that the Navy had been governed by an old Act of Parliament, with scarcely any or but very small Amendments for the last two hundred years. He would ask, then, whether it ought to be a matter of surprise when they were called upon to frame a new Act for the entire government of a service like the Navy, not having a previous Act like the Mutiny Act, which, however, received Amendments

  1778
  almost every year to make it suitable to to the age—he would ask whether in the Navy there might not arise some matters which they would wish to see amended from time to time? As regarded the working of the Act there had been no great difficulties, but as they were no great law-years in the Navy it was thought better, instead of two Acts to have but one, and to call it by the name of the Act for the Government of the Navy. The Amendments which he had to propose were, with two exceptions, purely verbal.
  Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 44.
  Clause 46 (Punishments),
  MR. HENLEYwished to know if there was any power of commuting the punishment of death in foreign states?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, this was provided for by Clause 60.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that Clause 60 said, "where the sentence has been commuted," but there was no power to commute given to the Commander-in-Chief.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would introduce a clause on bringing up the Report, to meet the case suggested.
  Clause agreed to, as were Clauses 46 to 55.
  Clause 56 (Summoning Witnesses),
  MR. HENLEYsaid, this clause provided that a witness who had appeared before a court-martial and had prevaricated might be brought before a Court of Law. He could not see how such a clause could be noted on. How could any Court judge of a witness who had prevaricated before another Court?
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Half-after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Windsor Suspended Canonries; Lace Factories; Inland Revenue; Stamp Duties on Probates, &c., Public Works (Ireland); Gunpowder, &c., Act Amendment; Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act Continuance, &c.; Edinburgh University; Revenue Departments Accounts; Drainage of Land; Public Offices Site; Pensions, British Forces (India).
2aEnlistment in India; Municipal Corporations Act Amendment; Removal of Irish Poor; Indemnity.
3a Tramways (Ireland) Act Amendment; East India (Civil Service); Irremovable Poor; East India (High Courts of Judicature); Copyright of Designs; Crown Suits Limitations.

CASE OF THE ORWELL.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYasked, the Under Secretary of State, What in-
1710
structions the Foreign Office had sent to Sir James Hudson respecting the case of the English ship Orwell, belonging to Messrs. Pearson, of Hull, which had suffered much damage at the hands of the Garibaldian Volunteers, for which compensation had not been made by the Italian Government? The case was this. In the month of August last, the Orwell was chartered at Genoa by Garibaldi to take 100 Volunteers to Sicily, the condition being that the owner should receive £5,000. It appeared that the agents of Garibaldi then seized the ship by force, and went out in her on a piratical cruize. The English Consul, on being informed of the circumstance, telegraphed to the Admiral, and the Orwell was consequently captured and carried to Malta. It was here found that her engines had been totally destroyed, and on application to Garibaldi for compensation a commission was appointed, which recommended that the claim should be paid at once. Since that time the King of Italy had assumed the liabilities of Garibaldi, and the claim was on the point of being settled when Cavour died. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) now asked what had been done in the matter by the Foreign Office?
LORD WODEHOUSEreplied that the Orwell had been, as stated by the noble Earl, seized by the Garibaldian Volunteers and recaptured by Her Majesty's ship Scylla; that Mr. Pearson, the owner, had applied to the Foreign Office; and that instructions had been given to Sir James Hudson to afford him all the assistance he could properly give. No accounts had been recently received of the position of the case; but if Mr. Pearson would write to the Foreign Office and state the present position of the affairs, his application would receive every attention; though he could not pledge the Government to interfere officially without a further consideration of the facts as they stood at present.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF DERBYthought it but justice to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Public Works to correct an error into which he had fallen in the remarks on the state of public business which he had addressed to their Lordships on Friday evening. On that occasion he said that the Bill for providing the money for the new courts of justice had been passed on Thursday night, or ra-

1711
ther at an early hour on Friday morning; He had been informed since that the Bill which had been so passed was not the one which he had supposed, but the Public Offices' Site Bill, and that the other measure had been dropped in the House of Commons. He presumed that the Courts of Justice Building Bill, which stood for Committee in their Lordships' House, would be dropped also, as it was connected with the one which had met that fate in the House of Commons. With regard to the Law Consolidation Bills, he was glad to hear that when they came on for the 'second reading, it was the intention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to call attention to the alterations which had been made in them since they left their Lordships' House last Session.
EARL GRANVILLEobserved that the Bill to which his noble Friend had referred, as one which he expected to see dropped, had been read a second time, and he could see no reason for not proceeding with it.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the Courts of Justice Building Bill had been read a second time, because he believed it was necessary to read it a second time before the date fixed by the Standing Order as the last on which second readings could be taken; but it was distinctly understood that in reading it a second time the House did not pledge itself to a particular site.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that although the site was indicated by the Bill, their Lordships were not pledged to that particular locality, nor to spend any particular sum of money. But he thought it ought to be pressed forward, seeing that it had met with no opposition in either House. He would explain what alterations had been made in the Criminal Law Bills when the House was in Committee on them tomorrow.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, there could be no doubt that there was a clear and distinct understanding when the Courts of Justice Building Bill was read a second time the other night, that it should not conclude their Lordships to any opinion on the principle of the Bill. He was surprised to hear that it was now intended to press on the Bill after the other Bill for the appropriation of certain funds to be expended in the erection of the new courts had been withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, their Lordships would perceive, on looking at the Bill, that neither the neighbourhood nor the site was determined. The Bill gave
1712
more power for the acquisition of land for the purpose. The utility of passing it lay in the fact that some £8,000 or £9,000 which had been expended upon the necessary surveys would otherwise have to be repeated next year, in the event of a Bill being passed by the House of Commons devoting a particular sum to the erection of Courts of Justice. If the present Bill passed this amount would be saved in case the scheme were proceeded with; but if the Money Bill did not pass, this Bill would by that fact become a dead letter.
LORD DENMANbelieved that the proposed Courts of Justice, if erected, would be productive of great public inconvenience. Reversing the old rule that "equity follows the law," all the law courts and lawyers would be obliged to follow equity to an inaccessible locality in the centre of London.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that distinct reference was made in the Bill to the plans and specifications agreed upon by the Commissioners, which referred to districts and houses that were perfectly well known; and power was sought under the Bill "to purchase, take, and use for the purposes of this Act, all or any houses, tenements, buildings, and lands described on the above-mentioned plans." It was, therefore, an error to say that no particular site or neighbourhood was pointed to. Doubts and uncertainties would be excited by this measure in the minds of owners and residents in particular properties, and he thought it a very grave question whether a saving of the cost of preparing the surveys anew might not be dearly purchased by the passing of the present Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, though the site might be indicated, no advantage could be taken until the money was expressly voted for the purpose by Parliament. Two things, therefore, must be done in the next Session before the plan could be carried out—the money must be voted; and if that money were the suitors' money that question must be decided by Parliament.
LORD WYNFORDthought it highly inexpedient to proceed with this scheme in the face of a Treasury Minute stating that the estimate would probably be exceeded by a million.

APPROPRIATION OF SEATS (SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee upon the Appropria-

1713
tion of Seats (Sudbury and St. Albans) Bill read.
EARL GRANVILLE, in moving that the House do go into Committee on the Bill, gave a short explanation of its objects. The noble Earl was understood to say that, as the practice of the Constitution had provided that the House of Commons should consist of a certain number of Members, the Government had, in the absence of any strong feeling in either House of Parliament in favour of a general measure of Reform, thought it their duty to make a proposal for filling up the vacancies occasioned by the disfranchisement of the boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans—a measure in the adoption of which two noble Lords opposite were concerned. Their first proposition was that two seats should be given to counties and two to boroughs, and the boroughs selected were Birkenhead and Chelsea with Kensington. That scheme was not accepted by the House of Commons, and as the Bill now stood the West Riding of Yorkshire was to be divided into two divisions, each of which was to have two Members, Birkenhead was to have one Member, and a Member was to be added to the two now possessed by South Lancashire. He would not attempt to anticipate the arguments which might be urged against the Bill, but would at once move that their Lordships should go into Committee upon it.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
LORD STRATHEDEN, after showing that the Government and its supporters were not in any way committed to this measure, since it was not the same the Government had introduced in February, and they had disapproved the changes it received, said, the Motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee may be viewed either as intended simply to arrest it, or as implying that its details are in want of such an agency to sift them. In both these lights it is defensible. If viewed in the first light the lateness of the Session is not an argument against it, but an argument in favour of it. The lateness of the Session would prevent a Select Committee from reporting. But the lateness of the Session renders the Committee of the Whole House utterly inoperative. In point of fact it is unwarrantable to proceed with such a Bill at such a moment. The Standing Order of the House year by year has given a formal voice to the legitimate opinion that, after July 25th, mea-
1714
sures ought not to proceed without reasons urgent and exceptional, and such as, in this case, are well known to be wanting. It is true that it was read a second time on the 19th. But it was read pro formâonly. It now comes before us for the first time to be discussed. If the opinion which used to be embodied in the Standing Order, and which still prevails, although from temporary circumstances it has not this year been embodied in it—arrested ordinary Bills, how much more ought it to arrest a plan which, as it alters the Reform Act, must influence the dignity, prosperity, and future legislation of the country? It is unjust to ask noble Lords who, from February last, have patiently attended the business of the House to compromise their health, to waste their powers, and even sacrifice their duties by remaining in town a day after July is ended. And yet unless the Bill is hurried, against all decency and precedent, the day after it is first discussed into a law it must run into August. What is the result? That, to the loss of the community, and to the injury of the House itself, it goes, without consideration and discussion, through its stages. For who can venture to discuss it? If any one, a year ago, had given notice to submit the question to the House of how these seats should be appropriated; if long before that time he had formed opinions on the subject; if he saw the present Bill to be impolitic, and felt an obligation to examine it, in what position would he stand? He would have to choose between the fatal evil of addressing an impatient House and the yet more serious calamity of allowing what he saw to be a legislative error to pass unexposed and unquestioned to the statute book. Although no Member of the House would shrink from any task which duty urges on him, the Government are not entitled to place men in such a difficulty unless necessity controls them. But does it in this instance? In the other House of Parliament the Bill was read a second time on the 25th February. It went into Committee on the 11th June. Was such an interval inevitable? It reached this House on July the 11th, and now, upon the 29th, we are beginning to debate it. Was that interval inevitable? But, setting that aside, is this Bill forced on at this late period by some popular opinion it would not be prudent to resist or disappoint? It is well known that it has not any popular opinion to support it,

1715
and that the democratic party in the State would applaud the House if they rejected it. Is the Government engaged per fas et nefas to advance it? It is by a course of Ministerial defeats that it has gained the form in which it reaches us. Are the Opposition deeply and irrevocably pledged to it? In the other House of Parliament the Opposition have declared themselves in favour of a different project. But is the public bent upon obtaining it? That most distinguished organ of the general opinion three times advised the Government in a friendly spirit to renounce it. Never was a Bill, therefore, which came more thoroughly within the prohibitory spirit of the Standing Order, or which it was less essential to set at nought by proceeding with that spirit. If, therefore, you view the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee as a Motion to reject it, on these grounds it is legitimate to do so. But if the Motion is regarded as a Motion for inquiry, it is far more easy to defend it. For, as regards the present Bill, one thing must be admitted, namely, that the onus probandi falls not on its opponents but its advocates. To increase the House of Commons by four Members, so far as the mere numerical addition goes, by all conversant with the subject, is regarded as an evil. The excess of numbers may disturb and compromise political assemblies as well as the privation of them. In the House of Lords the evils which result from the want of numbers have been frequently referred to. In the House of Commons the reverse of such a picture is displayed. It is usually admitted that before the Irish Union swelled it by a hundred, the assembly was more adapted to the purposes of the business than it is at present. The room in which the House meets will not accomodate six hundred. And unless night by night for at least three hours, the usages of Parliament reduced the number present to a small proportion of the whole, it would be impossible to go through the clauses of the Bills and through the items of the Estimates. No kind of Parliamentary or public inconvenience has resulted from the want of the four Members. It has been convincingly explained that 658 was not a constitutional, but accidental number. It was only upon Irish grounds that the House of Commons was ever carried to that limit; and it is not on Irish grounds that this Bill can be supported. The questions must, therefore, force themselves upon us—Cui
1716
bono is the Bill brought forward?—what end does it attain?—what advantage does it furnish?—what complication does it remedy?—what popular demand does it assuage?—what interest requires it?—And if these questions have not been answered in debate, the Select Committee might dispose of them. Another ground for the inquiry would occur from the number of interests and claims to be adjusted. Salford, Burnley, Middlesex, and Kensington, the Inns of Law, and Scottish Universities, the London University have all pursued the gift to be distributed. In 1852, in 1854, in 1859, in 1860, and at present, Governments have offered different modes of dealing with these vacancies. It is, therefore, clear that no strong or general conviction has been formed as to the proper manner of disposing of them. And while this is so the claims which it is not proposed to satisfy may fairly ask inquiry from the Legislature before that doom is finally pronounced. But such inquiry may be asked upon a ground far more imperial and general. The public has a claim distinct from, and superior to, those I have adverted to. So long as these seats are unappropriated, we have it in our power to deal by-and-bye with one of the most fatal and notorious defects of the Reform Act. And if you fill them up as it is proposed, you lose your chance of doing so. The Reform Act has, no doubt, succeeded in expressing the opinions of the country. It has succeeded in forming an assembly equal in intelligence and station to the work which comes before it. But it has not succeeded in the third great function it aspired to, the function of returning to the House of Commons all those who, having sat there, ought to have a seat in it according to the judgment of the public and of Parliament. It can only discharge this function when you have, as before 1832 you had, a corrective power in the State to do what the country wishes to be done, when the general election happens not to do it. By the judicious use of these four seats you might perhaps arrive at such a power; but if you rashly part with them, when no kind of popular demand asks you so to do, you will not arrive at it except by increasing the numbers of the House of Commons beyond 658. And this would scarcely ever be regarded as admissible. But as regards the proposition that the general elections since 1832 have fallen short of one result they were intended to accomplish, it is easy to establish it by re-

1717
ferring to a series of distinguished men who since that epoch have, for longer or shorter times, been thrown out of Parliament, while not one could be considered as excluded by the wishes of the country. Sir William Molesworth, Lord Macaulay, and Sir Edward Lytton are sufficient illustrations. They suffice at least to prove that, be a man connected with the Radicals, the Whigs, or the Conservatives, the support and admiration of the country are no security for constant access to the Legislature in which he has attained them. They suffice to show that public life is unhappily distinguished from every other line of effort by the perpetual risk of arbitrary exile. It was not possible at such a time to explain how that great anomaly existed, or to what political calamities it tended. But in order to remove it, it was only necessary that the public should have some means, after a general election, of giving force to its opinion. We all know that if it had these means, neither Sir William Molesworth, Lord Macaulay, Sir Edward Lytton, Lord Carlisle, or Mr. Cobden would have been for years condemned to all the evils of inaction. Whatever plan you might adopt — and some have been suggested—it would naturally occupy the space afforded by these vacancies. If I am asked by what employment of these you could remedy the evil, I answer a Select Committee is the agency to which alone a question so delicate and gravecould be confided. And I express a firm belief that a Select Committee of the House would be a body not unequal to contend with the difficulty of the problem. But inasmuch as no Select Committee can approach the problem for the present, I will revert but only for a moment to the question, ought the Bill to be proceeded with. It requires much consideration to decide how far it is expedient to transfer power, as the Bill does, from the southern to the northern portion of the kingdom; to give, as it does, to counties vacancies arising from disfranchisement of towns, and to convert, as it does, seats which were open to the mass of politicians to seats which are only open to persons locally connected with them. But such grave consideration it is not in the power of the House to grant to all these topics. And it should never be forgotten that the gratitude the measure will excite bears no proportion to the discontent it will occasion. It is allowed that in the West Biding no strong opinion has been formed
1718
as to the advantage of dividing that constituency. There has been no apparent movement in South Lancashire in favour of the gift to be conceded to it. But the Scottish Universities will receive a blow and disappointment from the measure. The only consolation you can offer to Burnley, Kensington, and Salford is to keep the vacancies suspended. In point of fact it is obnoxious to the interest which calls out for change in the Reform Act. It may be sometimes indispensable to offend that interest by standing still, but it appears to be the height of folly to offend it by legislation which wants at once the sanction of the Government and the approbation of the public. If a general and comprehensive measure of Reform is by-and-bye presented, the scheme is utterly uncalled for. If it is resolved to act by isolated measures, that policy will not be happily inaugurated by a Bill which overlooks a problem entitled to the care of statesmen, and which, from many of its features, may be made use of at a future time to create among the body of the people the passions it is most essential to prevent and to assuage. On these grounds the noble Lord moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
Amendment moved, to leave out from ("that") to the end of the Motion, and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.")
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I suppose I may assume that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to accede to the suggestion of the noble Baron of referring this Bill to a Select Committee, which would probably present its Report about the middle of August. And for my own part I never recollect a Bill for which there appeared less reason to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee than this. The facts are plain and undisputed. There are no very complicated details of arrangement which can be more conveniently considered in a Select Committee. It is a Bill of a very plain and straightforward character, which can be perfectly well discussed in your Lordships House. For my own part I have no fault to find with it. I think it has been greatly improved by the manipulation which it has undergone in its progress through the House of Commons, and which I give the Government credit for having sanctioned with the most exemplary resignation. It is very much like the Bill which the Government with which I was

1719
connected had the honour to propose in 1852, and which was mainly rejected through the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who until a short time ago was one of the most prominent candidates for one of the seats which the Bill proposes to create. It is true there is this difference, that we proposed in 1852 to confer two seats on the West Riding and two on South Lancashire. I have a very strong preference in favour of two seats for a county over the inconvenient plan of three; but in 1852 Birkenhead had not risen to the importance which it has now attained, and I can find no fault with the selection of Birkenhead for one of the vacant seats. If, indeed, it were in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a very large or extensive plan of Parliamentary Reform, I think they would be acting most improvidently and unwisely in hampering their discretion by the introduction of this smaller measure. In that case I should think there was some reason in the complaint of the noble Baron, that it would prevent due consideration of the claims of places which have a right to be considered in any general measure. In the measure of 1859, which the Government with which I was connected introduced, not only were all these seats provided for, but provision was also made for other places. The London University, the Scotch Universities, (the borough of Chelsea and Kensington was provided for in a different mode by subdividing the county of Middlesex); and I believe by that Bill the claims of all the principle places for representation were satisfied. But it did not please the different parties to allow that measure to pass, and I certainly bow with submission to the determination at which they arrived, and am perfectly ready to give my support to Her Majesty's Government in adopting and approving this partial measure. I presume Her Majesty's Government have no very extensive scheme of Parliamentary Reform to bring forward; first of all, because I think recent experience has forcibly shown them that small and not wholly independent boroughs are not without their use in the political system of this country. They will not say they are, but I am sure they just now cordially wish that there were "six Richmonds in the field." For other reasons I am inclined to suppose they have no such scheme. The noble Lord—I do not know whether we can yet call him the noble Earl, whom we shall very
1720
shortly have the satisfaction of seeing in this House, and whom all your Lordships on every side of the House will rejoice to see here, has expressed very honestly and very candidly his opinion that there is no use in bringing forward a measure of Reform unless there is a strong feeling in favour of it among the public at large, and he left it to be implied that there is at the present moment no such feeling, and consequently no such temptation to Her Majesty's Government. It is not only from what the noble Lord has said, but from what the noble Lord has done, that 1 augur there is no wish to introduce a Reform Bill, because the noble Lord has selected this precise moment for a change in his position. Like another Astræa, disgusted with the follies and iniquities of the lower world, he has left it. He is about to rise to a higher, a calmer, and, I hope, a purer atmosphere; and I cannot wonder that the noble Lord, who has devoted so much time to the labour of reconstructing the plan and building up the political edifice of the Constitution, should be glad to take the opportunity of finishing the work, and filling up the gaps which for so many years have deformed its beauty, filling up those gaps in the representation by the additions of the West Riding, South Lancashire, and Birkenhead.
"Extrema per illos
Justitia excedens terris vestigia fecit."
This is to be the concluding scene of the noble Lord's efforts in the cause of Parliamentary Reform. I have stated that to the Bill I have no objection to offer, and no doubt it will be on the whole a very satisfactory measure, as soon as it has received a few alterations at the hands of the Committee—first, for the purpose of making it English, and next for the purpose of making it sense. Whatever may be the ulterior views and whatever may be the ultimate wishes of Her Majesty's Government, I seriously hope that what has passed on the subject of Parliamentary Reform in the course of the last two years will be a warning to the present and all succeeding Governments not hastily to bring forward or promise, or still more hastily and inconsiderately to pledge the name of the Sovereign to the introduction of large and extensive measures which they do not feel perfectly confident of being able to carry. There are great and serious evils in the perpetual introduction of Bills which are perpetually rejected, and the Sovereign is placed in an undignified

1721
position in pledging Parliament year after year to consider Bills which cannot possibly be passed. In 1858, when I was in office, I felt bound earnestly, seriously, and honestly to endeavour to give effect to pledges which on high authority had been given to the House, and I did apply myself to the introduction of a measure which I hoped would satisfy rational and moderate men. It did not meet with the success which I anticipated. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government were equally sincere, but equally failed in success. From the failure of successive measures introduced by successive Governments I hope it will be clearly understood that neither this nor any other Government are under any obligation to deal at any future time with this question, but that it is a question which must be left to the discretion of any Government to introduce or not, and that they are not to be reproached for violating pledges if they abstain from bringing forward a proposal on so delicate and difficult a subject. I have no wish to interfere with the progress of the Bill. In Committee I shall venture to suggest two or three Amendments, but they are entirely consistent with the principle of the measure, which I shall be glad to see receive the Royal Assent.
EARL GRANVILLE: — My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl in the opinion that it would be undesirable to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and I presume that my noble Friend who moved that Amendment is satisfied with having given himself an opportunity of stating his views on this subject, which I know he has considered very much for several years. This is a measure affecting the constitution of the other House of Parliament, and that House has not thought it necessary to refer the measure to a Select Committee—indeed, it is not usual to refer constitutional questions to Select Committees and although, no doubt, it is the duty of this House to oppose this or any other measure which appears to it not to be founded on a right principle, yet, if no such objection can be raised, I think your Lordships would naturally be disposed to receive from the other House the details of a Bill which appears to them to offer the best means of filling up any vacant seats in their own Assembly. To refer the Bill to a Select Committee at this time of the Session would be to reject it altogether, and I hope, therefore, that my noble Friend will not persist in his Amendment. As to
1722
the Government proposals respecting this Bill, it is agreeable to find that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) regards them favourably, and I think your Lordships must, at all events, be persuaded that in submitting them we were not actuated by any party motives. Nor were the changes introduced during the progress of the Bill in the House of Commons of a very grave character. The measure remained the same as before, with the single exception that no seat was given to Chelsea and Kensington, and that a seat was instead bestowed on the West Riding. The noble Earl opposite has made a pointed allusion to my noble Friend Lord John Russell. Had I known that it was his intention to do so I would have asked your Lordships to postpone the Bill till to-morrow, when I trust to have the honour of introducing my noble Friend, who has been so gracefully referred to by the noble Earl, and to whom I am sure your Lordships will extend that hearty welcome which is never refused to a man eminent in any line of life, and which I am sure will be given to one who has played so great and important a part in directing the affairs of this country, and who combines with his public eminence a singularly high private character. The noble Earl has told us what should be the conduct of the Government in respect of future Reform Bills, and with great fairness administered a reproof to his own and to the present Government for having introduced Reform Bills which did not meet with general assent. I entirely concur with him that nothing would be more improper, after the experience we have had, than for any Government lightly to introduce a Reform Bill without a reasonable hope and expectation of carrying it through Parliament. I say this, though at the same time I am strongly opposed to all finality, and to the notion that it is impossible to improve the Constitution of the country, believing, on the contrary, that an extension of the suffrage may be most just and reasonable, and may in the most Conservative spirit be accorded to the people. I repeat, however, that, like the noble Earl, I think it would be rash in any Government beforehand, and without reviewing the whole circumstances of the case to pledge themselves to a Reform Bill without having some probable reason to suppose they would be able to carry it. The Amendments suggested by the noble Earl are very slight in their character; they are indeed similar to those

1723
of which I have given notice, and I have no objection to adopt them.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Then the original Motion was agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 (Providing for the Dissolution of the "West Riding of Yorkshire),
LORD STRATHEDENsaid, that, although the House had, as he thought, unfortunately decided to go on with the Bill, a middle course was open to them. The Bill fell into two parts. By one it was to give two seats at once to South Lancashire and Birkenhead. By the other it gave two, prospectively, at the next general election to the West Riding of Yorkshire. There was not the least occasion for the latter proposition which Clause 1 contained. Common sense revolted at the wanton sacrifice by Parliament of its future right to deal with, these two seats, when the West Riding might not for three years borne into possession of them. It was loss to the whole country, and was not gain to any section of it. As well might a man part with a fund to some one who received it with the condition of its being locked up in a box for a considerable period. Why did he part at all with his discretion as regards it? No man was so foolish as to think that a necessity existed for appropriating all the seats together. A hundred circumstances might occur all showing the impolicy of giving two to the West Riding as compared with other applicants; and they were now asked not to give them, but to pledge them three years before the favoured party would be benefited by this superfluous and reckless prodigality. He suggested that all the clauses should be Struck out until they came to those which are on South Lancashire and Birkenhead.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 7 amended, and agreed to.
Clause 8 (Making Provision for the Issue of a Writ for South Lancashire),
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had to propose an Amendment to this clause. The clause gave the Speaker of the House of Commons the option of issuing the writ at any time before the dissolution of the present Parliament. He had every confidence in the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the Chair of the House of Commons. He had known him for fifty years; thirty-five years ago they were travellers together, and somewhat later they were fellow-travellers in another sense,
1724
being both members of a small but select party known by the name of the "Derby Dilly." He had ho idea that the power given in the clause would be abused by the right hon. Gentleman; but a corrupt Speaker might issue the writ to suit party purposes, and might even postpone it till the eve of a dissolution and after a registration had taken place. He thought the time for the issue of the writ should be more definitely fixed, and that no unnecessary delay in doing so should occur. If it took place later than the middle of next month it would interfere with the harvest, and he need not point out the inconvenience of having an election at a more advanced period of the year. He would, therefore, propose, that instead of the words "at any time before the dissolution of the present Parliament," the clause should run, "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act," and that in the next line the word "shall" should be substituted for "may."
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
Clause amended and agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to, with Amendments; the Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  LORD REDESDALEopposed the Motion, describing the Bill as a crude and undigested attempt at legislation.
  On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 27: Majority 11.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendments made.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which he said was to settle doubts that had arisen in consequence of a recent decision of the Court of Queen's

  1725
  Bench, and to make the position and privileges of mayors in provincial towns the same in law which they had been in practice since the establishment of municipal corporations. In consequence of the increased facilities of communication afforded by railways it would no longer be insisted upon that magistrates should reside within seven miles of the borough in which they officiated, on condition that they occupied a house or office within the borough; and it was proposed to extend to magistrates in boroughs where no Quarter Sessions were held the same powers with regard to licensing as were exercised in other boroughs where these Sessions took place. A clause to which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) took exception a few evenings since had been withdrawn. He, therefore, hoped there would be no objection to the Bill.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, many of the clauses of the Bill required modification, and as the matter was not one of pressing importance it ought to be more maturely considered. He objected to the clause providing that mayors should preside at all meetings of magistrates, because a person who had only just been elected mayor might not be the best qualified to discharge the duties of presiding magistrate. The object of this clause was to set aside a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which was unquestionably right, as grounded on the soundest principles. Why should not the borough justices have the same right as the magistrates of counties who, being obliged for the due conduct of their business to have a chairman, elected that magistrate in whom they had the most confidence, from the knowledge of his character, his knowledge and ability, and habits of business? The circumstance that the office was elective was a great encouragement to the younger magistrates, by study and attention to business, to obtain that distinction. It is true that in counties, due respect would be given to persons of station and consequence in society, if duly qualified, but no more, and the like preference in case of voluntary selection would be given in boroughs. He had a still greater objection to that clause in the Bill which took away the jurisdiction of county magistrates to license in boroughs having no quarter sessions. The object of this clause, also, was of the same objectionable character. It was to overturn a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, which, also, was in his opinion very clearly
  1726
  right—and in cases where those boroughs sent Members to Parliament, the transfer of the power of licensing from the magistracy of the county at large, to the smaller body of the borough justices, who would have local connections, would be likely to lead to the corrupt exercise of that power, for the purpose of obtaining political influence in elections, especially in the smaller Parliamentary boroughs. He had himself on this ground principally opposed a Bill of his noble Friend (Lord Ravensworth) to give the exclusive power of licensing to the magistrates of the borough of Sunderland, some two years ago, and with perfect success.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to defend the provisions of the Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDthought that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the postponement of this Bill, because he hoped to satisfy their Lordships that in its present state it ought not to pass. The sixth clause had been given up; the second and third had been, as his noble Friend said, introduced to correct a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench; but, surely, it was a strange kind of legislation, when the Court of Queen's Bench had pronounced a decision giving what was unquestionably a true interpretation of the Municipal Corporations Act, immediately to introduce a Bill to overrule that judgment. The provision that mayors should preside at all meetings of magistrates within the borough by virtue of his office, was, in his opinion, unnecessary and contrary to good policy, and would create great dissatisfaction throughout the corporate towns of the kingdom. It was unnecessary, because, as the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill had admitted, mayors were invariably asked to preside at such meetings, and even at Birmingham, from which the complaint in this matter proceeded, that courtesy had not since the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench been withheld from the mayors. It was a violation of principle to take from the magistrates the power of electing their own chairman. As a general rule the person of the highest rank present was chosen to fill the chair; but still the right of choice lay with the meeting, and if any one insisted on presiding as a matter of right it would be resisted. As had been admitted, the mayor was usually elected chairman, except where, as sometimes happened, he was unfit for the post; but the effect of the Bill would be to compel the magistrates to submit to his presi-

  1727
  dency even when notoriously unfit. Although the magistrates, in nine cases out of ten, voluntarily paid a compliment to the mayor by selecting him, they would naturally resent being forced to do so, and ill-feeling would be apt to be produced by that provision. He, therefore, hoped that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would not insist upon retaining it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobserved that the noble and learned Lord had proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the mayor was generally chosen to be chairman as a mere compliment. He believed that the prevailing understanding was that the mayor was ex officio the chairman of the meeting, and such was obviously the intention of the framers of the Municipal Corporations Act. He was of opinion that to confirm that impression by law would be much more likely to remove ill-feeling than to allow the matter to be the constant subject of dispute.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that what he had remarked in conversation on this Bill to the noble Earl opposite was that in his opinion the question of the precedence of mayors was very unimportant, but that he did not see that there would be any great advantage in the Bill in that respect. He added that if Her Majesty's Government were desirous that it should be carried he would not offer any opposition to it. He stated, also, in the same conversation, that it was Clause 6 of the Bill which he deemed most objectionable, and that the question of granting licences was one on which there was a good deal to be said. After that conversation, he felt bound in honour not to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but be held himself at liberty in Committee to deal with the remaining clauses, apart from that on the precedence of mayors, as he thought fit.
  On Question? their Lordships >divided: —Contents 44; Not-Contents 27: Majority 17.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a, accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE) BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD MONTEAGLEcomplained that this Bill had been brought up to their Lordships at a period of the Session when it was impossible it should receive proper
  1728
  consideration. It was a Bill which ought to have been introduced at an earlier period of the Session, and in their Lordships' House, when and where it could have been more properly discussed. This, and other Bills referring to India, had been needlessly postponed to a period of the Session when it was impossible they could be considered with that weight which their importance demanded. He protested against this mode of transacting public business. By this Bill the pledge which the Government had given to encourage the employment of the Natives was indirectly broken, inasmuch as they had introduced such conditions preliminary to their employment as to render them, generally speaking, ineligible for those offices which it had been intended to open to them. He referred in especial to the grievance which would be inflicted on the Natives of India by their being practically debarred from the army medical service. It was true that there was no express change in the law making them ineligible for these appointments; it was the indirect effect of the amalgamation of the Queen's and the Indian local armies. The ground alleged was their physical incapacity; but in a letter which he had received from a most intelligent Native gentleman the writer said the true cause of this retrograde step was to be found, no doubt, in the foolish prejudice against men of colour. The present measure was, he felt sure, introduced in a kind and friendly spirit towards the Natives, but he wished to insure, if possible, that the spirit of the law—namely, that the Civil Service should be open to the Natives of India, should be properly carried out. He, therefore, proposed a clause which would not give to the Natives any new right whatever, but only secured them against the loss of any right which they at present enjoyed, and enacted that the provisions already in force on this subject should he taken to be part of the present Bill, and should be construed with it as confirming the Natives in the rights, privileges, and immunities already granted to them, The noble Lord moved a clause embodying the views he had expressed—
  "That in page 2, line 19, after ('India') to insert the following Clause:—
  "Whereas by Section Eighty-seven of an Act of the Third and Fourth of King William the Fourth, Chapter Eighty-five, it was enacted that 'no Native of the Territories of India, nor any natural-born Subject of His Majesty resident therein, shall by reason only of his Religion, Place of Birth, Descent, Colour, or any of them, be dis-

  1729
  abled from holding any Place, Office, or Employment under the said Company:' Now be it enacted, That the said Eighty-seventh Section shall be deemed and taken to be Part of this present Act, and shall be construed therewith in all respects as re-enacted and continued therein, and as assuring to the Natives of India and all natural-born Subjects of Her Majesty resident therein all the Rights, Privileges, and Immunities granted to and conferred on them by the said Eighty-seventh Section."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the reason why these Bills were not introduced earlier was that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India had decided to wait for the latest and fullest information before the views of the Government were formed. The noble Lord must remember that his words were addressed not to that House only, but to the world at large; it was, therefore, imperatively necessary that the most accurate strictness and the most correct language possible should be employed. The noble Lord had addressed himself to the consideration of two questions which had no connection with each other, except that they related to the Natives of India. Some time ago a question was put by the noble Lord with reference to the non-admission of Native gentlemen to compete for assistant-surgeoncies. On that occasion his noble Friend the late Secretary of War (Lord Herbert) was present in the House, whose continued absence their Lordships must so deeply regret. He (Earl De Grey) could add nothing to what was then stated by his noble Friend. The noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) said a new construction had been put on the Act of 1833 by the Government regarding the admission of Natives to the Civil Service, and he stated that this had given rise to the greatest discontent in India. Now, the simple fact was that the only branch of the Service from competition for which Native gentlemen had been excluded was that of assistant-surgeons, not to the Native, but to the general army. They were not excluded from the Native army; but it was believed that their constitutions would not fit them for those changes of climate to which the British soldier was exposed, and that they would not if attached to British regiments attract that respect and obedience which it was so important the medical officers of the army should receive. He thought the interests of those gentlemen who had been excluded from this competition might be very safely left in the hands of Lord Canning. This and other Bills would open up
  1730
  for the Natives of India entirely new sources of employment. They were about to be made eligible for seats at the Governor General's Council, and to places on the bench in the highest court of justice in India, and yet this was the time chosen by the noble Lord for asserting that they were limiting the privileges of the Natives of India. The whole object of the Bill was to open to the Natives opportunities of employment under the Crown, and to legalize appointments hitherto made in contravention of law. If the Indians were discontented after the present debate, it certainly would not be in consequence of any provisions of the Bill. Her Majesty's Government cordially accepted the enactment of 1833, and had done more than any previous Government to carry out its spirit, but they did not think it advisable to re-enact it, in the terms of the noble Lord's Amendment, as it might lead to a belief among the Natives on the one hand that the Bill contained some secret and insidious attack upon their rights; or, on the other, that it was intended to do more than the Bill professed, and to open to them all competitive examinations in this country, and to sweep away all the restrictions of the covenanted service. No more unwise course could be taken than to add to a Bill conferring substantial benefits on the Natives of India the vague and general clause suggested by the noble Lord.
  LORD LYVEDENacquiesced in the view taken by the noble Earl (Earl De Grey), whose services had been given with such advantage to India since his appointment to the office which he was now about to vacate; but he maintained that since 1833 the Natives had been systematically misled, as they never practically were admitted into the Civil Service. If Natives were deemed inadmissible they ought to be told so, but it was a mockery to admit them in name, when not a single instance had occurred of their actual appointment.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that it was true that the Civil Service was, by the letter of the law, now open to the Natives of India, but in practice no Native had ever been admitted to that service. It was, therefore, desirable to reinform and reassure the people of India that we adhere to the sentiments which we had previously expressed, and were anxious that they should be treated as on a perfect equality with Europeans.
  Lord MONTEAGLEhaving said a few words in reply,
  Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEmoved an Amendment to the effect that the Governor General should have power to give appointments to persons after a residence of five, instead of seven years, as provided in the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDprotested both against the measure and against the reasons which had been given for adopting it. He had received Returns from a very well managed union in Ireland where the system as to residence was the same as would be introduced into England under this Bill, which showed that while in 1835 the paupers chargeable on the union at large were 1 to 11; the proportion in 1861 was 1 to 2 1/2. He moved to omit from the end of the first clause the words which gave to residence in any part of a union the effect of residence in a parish.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment. The words proposed to be omitted contained a very valuable part of the Bill, and if struck out would defeat one of the main objects for which the measure was introduced. One of the purposes of the Bill was to mitigate, for it was not pretended that it would remove, the great hardships which arose from the removal of poor persons from one part of the country to another. It was obvious that where there were, as in London, a large number of small parishes, removal from one to another would at present destroy the status of irremovability which a person had acquired. These removals were a great source of expense to the ratepayers, and if diminished would tend to a saving. The arguments of the noble Lord being drawn from Ireland were not strictly applicable, as there was no settlement in that country.
  LORD REDESDALEwas as anxious as the noble Lord to secure a diminution of expense, but doubted whether that would he attained by the Bill.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONentered his protest against a Bill of such importance being brought forward at that late period of the Session.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the question of rating had not yet been fairly and fully considered. On a former occasion he had shown the disproportion between the rating in Berwick and Lancaster. He had since received additional returns, from which it appeared that while in one of the parishes of Croydon there would be, under the Bill, an increase of £1,000 a year, there would be a decrease of £800 in another parish. These discrepancies were very unjust and inexpedient. He thought the Bill would also bear unfairly on the owners of tithes, which, when commuted, were an unimprovable property. He should move the omission of Clause 9, and subsequently move the addition of a clause limiting the continuance of the Bill to three years. The Bill was being passed with a great deal too much haste, and as it was doubtful whether the change would be just it ought to be an experimental and not a permanent measure. The noble Lord proposed to leave out Clause 9.
  LORD WODEHOUSEdid not deny that the Bill would shift the burden from parishes which were unfairly taxed to parishes which were unfairly exempted, but he maintained that it was a desirable object, and that the omission of the clause would aggravate the inequality, because other provisions in the Bill would bring on the open parishes a still larger burden, and leave those which did not bear their fair share more exempt than before. As regarded unions in two different counties, inequalities might arise from the county assessment being taken as the basis; but, as the county justices could order a new assessment and correct any injustice, he did not deem it a defect in the Bill. With regard to tithes, the Act of 1848 first made a change, and this Bill merely adjusted the burden more fairly. Some tithe owners might have to bear an increased charge, but others would bear a less charge. It could not be contended that the bargain with the tithe owners was such as to preclude Parliament from making any change. He should not consent to omit the 9th Clause, or to make the Bill temporary. They had been passing temporary Acts for fifteen years, and the time was arrived when they were bound to render their legislation permanent. As to the Bill being passed in haste, he would remind their Lordships that in the other House it had received a great deal of consideration, and that their Lordships being well acquainted with the subject could have proposed

  1733
  Amendments if they had thought them necessary at any of the previous stages.
  Question put, "Whether the said Clause shall stand part of the Bill."
  Resolved in the Affirmative,
  LORD REDESDALEthen moved "at the end of the Bill to add the following Clause: 'This Act shall continue in force for Three years only.' "
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  Bill passed.

REMOVAL OF IRISH POOR BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, the Bill only proposed to amend the machinery of removal. According to the existing law the poor were sent over to Ireland, badly fed and badly clad, and often landed on a quay, and there left to find their way to their places of destination as best they could. A Committee of the House of Commons on the subject sat in 1854 and 1855, presided over by Mr. Baines, then Chairman of the Poor Law Board; and another Committee in 1858,1859, and 1860, presided over successively by Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, Lord March, and Mr. Villiers, the latter also Chairman of the Poor Law Board. The Bill was founded on the recommendation of both those Committees; it had passed the Commons, and he hoped their Lordships would also agree to it. This was peculiarly a favourable time to pass the measure; for whereas, in 1850, 77,000 persons landed at Liverpool from Ireland who were manifestly paupers, in the last year only twenty-one such persons from Ireland so landed at Liverpool. He meant not 21,000, but twenty-one individuals only. So that the cost of the removal of the Irish poor would now be exceedingly small. The object of the Bill was that they should not be left destitute on the quays, but be passed to their abodes.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  In reply to Lord REDESDALE,
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsuggested that alterations, if needed, could be made in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.