Sitting of 10 April 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Fire Insurance; Corrupt Practices at Elections; Small Tenements Rating (Scotland); Trading Companies, &c.; Juries; Education of Pauper Children; Red Sea and India Telegraph Company.
THE TYRONE ASSIZES.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether his attention has been called to circumstances that occurred at the late Assizes for the County Tyrone, which led to the quashing of the Petty Jury Panel and postponement of the trial of prisoners;
  760
  and whether he has any objection to lay upon the table a Copy of Mr. Justice Christian's ruling when quashing the said Panel as returned by the Sheriff?
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he would also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that Mr. John M'Crossan, brother of the Sub-Sheriff of County Tyrone, an attorney in most extensive practice, employed principally in conducting criminal cases, particularly in the defence of prisoners, was for the first time placed upon the Grand Jury at the late Assizes at Omagh, to the exclusion of gentlemen who were present and who had served on former Grand Juries; that Mr. John M'Crossan was not only engaged for the defence of prisoners then for trial, and whom (although a Grand Juror) he continued to defend in the name of another attorney, but that he was also retained for the prosecution of the prisoner Donnelly, in whose behalf the Petit Jury Panel was challenged and quashed by Judge Christian; and whether the right hon. Baronet is prepared to take any steps to prevent the recurrence of a proceeding so unusual and so dangerous to the purity of the Jury system?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that the circumstances to which the questions related had excited a good deal of feeling in Tyrone, and the attention of the Government had been called to them. As he had been in communication with Justice Christian, with the High Sheriff of Tyrone, and with the other authorities of the county, he might briefly state what the real facts were. It appeared that late on the last day of the Assizes, after all the other cases had been tried, a prisoner was arraigned before Justice Christian on an indictment of manslaughter. The counsel for the prisoner put in a challenge to the array of the Jury Panel, and the principal allegation was that the Sub-Sheriff had put upon the list the names of certain persons who were not on the list of the Clerk of the Peace for the current year, and had omitted the names of certain other persons who were upon that list. Two courses, as stated by Justice Christian, were open to the Counsel for the Crown. One was to traverse the challenge—in other words, to deny the truth of the allegations contained in it; and the other was to demur to the challenge—that was to say, to admit the facts, but to deny their sufficiency in law. The Counsel for the Crown adopted the

  761
  latter course; but Justice Christian ruled, that assuming the facts to be as stated, the challenge was well-founded, and the Panel was quashed so far as concerned that particular case. The Counsel for the Crown, as well as those for the prisoner, having petitioned for an adjournment of the trial, the Judge assented, but there were no trials of prisoners postponed. There were two challenges—one in the Civil Court, which Justice Ball overruled, and the other to which he had already referred; but all the prisoners were tried. He would have no objection to produce the Paper for which the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon had moved, but he thought there should be laid on the table along with it a copy of the challenge to the array of the Jury Panel.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland had given no answer to the question put to him by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh as to whether a person engaged in the prosecution of some prisoners in Ireland had been placed on the Grand Jury.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: With reference to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh, I may state that the trial of the person in question has been postponed till the next Assizes, the Counsel for the Crown having agreed to that course, with the approval of the Judge before whom the case went.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state to the House, and lay upon the table, the substance of the replies by the Courts of Quarter Sessions to his circular on the subject of Agricultural Statistics.
  SIR GEORGE GREYstated in reply, that in some cases the replies were to the effect that the police might be employed in the collection of agricultural statistics, but in the majority of instances the Courts of Quarter Sessions expressed an opinion unfavourable to the employment of the police. That opinion, however, was in some cases accompanied by another, to the effect that it was desirable that agricultural statistics should be collected. The replies would be produced if the hon. Member moved for them.

CAPTAIN COLES'S INVENTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, When Captain Cowper Coles first submitted to the Admiralty his plans, which have lately been adopted for ships of war; if such plans were reported on at the time; and, if so, by whom, and whether that Report was favourable or otherwise; and if there was any objection to lay the Papers on the subject upon the table of the House?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Admiralty had no objection to make public all the correspondence which had taken place relative to Captain Coles's shields. Perhaps, however, if he stated shortly what had occurred with respect to those shields, the noble Lord would not press for the papers, the production of which would be inconvenient as a precedent. Inventors always desired their inventions to be made public, but it would be impossible to publish the immense mass of papers laid before the Admiralty, not to speak of the inconvenience of producing the confidential reports of officers connected with the department itself. The credit of first taking up the invention of Captain Coles was due to the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), who, when he was at the head of the War Department, thought so favourably of it that he ordered a shield to be constructed with the view of placing it in a battery. When the present Government came into power, they also entertained a favourable opinion of the value of Captain Coles's shields, not only with respect to batteries, but likewise as connected with ships; and accordingly the Duke of Somerset communicated with the War Department to ascertain what progress they were making in the matter. It was found, after some time, that the War Department had some difficulty in constructing a shield, and early in 1860 the Admiralty requested the War Office to transfer the business to them. That request was complied with, and a shield constructed for the Admiralty was tried during last autumn on board the Trusty. As stated to the House at the time, the experiment was completely satisfactory; and the result was that the Admiralty resolved to ask Parliament to grant a sum of money in order that a ship should be built which would carry a certain number of Captain Coles's shields. He thought the noble

  763
  Lord would see that the Admiralty were early impressed with the value of these inventions, and had not lost a moment in bringing them to perfection. But he might be asked, what were the Admiralty doing with that gallant and clever officer, Captain Coles? Captain Coles deserved some testimony of their approval; he was necessarily put to considerable expense, and the House would be glad to hear that when the Admiralty first took up his shield they placed him on the full-pay list, and that he was likewise receiving the usual allowance of £1 a day as an officer engaged in preparing his inventions for the Admiralty. Of course he did not speak of that as a reward, which was a matter for future consideration; but he trusted the House would think that the Admiralty had not been altogether unmindful of the claims of Captain Coles.

SUBMERGING GUNBOATS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that, so far back as last autumn, Mr. Alexander Samuelson sent in to the Board of Admiralty plans and specifications for a double-skinned self-submerging Gunboat, similar to the Nangatuck already built by Mr. Stevens for the Federal Government of America; and if so, whether the Admiralty will take steps to have the plan tested and adopted, as has been the case in America?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that Mr. Samuelson proposed a vessel in 1860 that should during action have the advantage of submerging to a certain extent, so as to offer a very small surface to the enemy's fire. That gentleman brought his plans to the Admiralty, and he, with some other members of the Board, saw them. The plans were very carefully considered by the Admiralty, but they saw that Mr. Samuelson's plans, as proposed, would not be available for Her Majesty's service, and they did not think it proper to make any experiments with them; but Mr. Samuelson was informed, that if he had any modifications to make in his proposal, the Admiralty would consider them. This was on the 22nd September 1860, since which there had been no further proposal received from that gentleman.

THE LARGE BELL IN THE CLOCK TOWER.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to
764
ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the large Bell in the Clock Tower is to be taken down and recast; or whether it is to be used in its present condition?
LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to put another question on the same subject to the right hon. Gentleman—Whether, before any further expenditure of public money is incurred on this account, he will give the House the opportunity of pronouncing on its propriety and necessity; and whether he will lay the Estimate on the table?
MR. COWPERsaid, the disordered and cracked state of the bell had given him great anxiety. He had called in the most scientific advice he could find. There had been a consultation of learned doctors, and he had already laid on the table four Reports. The last Report, made after very careful investigation, was by Dr. Percy, the metallurgical chemist, of Jermyn-street Museum. He said—
"It may now be certainly concluded that this part of the bell contains about 2 per cent more tin, and consequently is more brittle, than the alloy prescribed to the founder, which should consist of 76 per cent of copper and 24 per cent, of tin. The bell is yet capable of being sounded, and, according to the opinion which Mr. Turle expressed to me, without any sensible alteration in the quality of the sound which was produced before the cracks were discovered. If considered desirable, it might, I believe, be still used with safety, as simple and not very costly arrangements might be adopted to provide against the possible though, in my opinion, not probable, contingency of the separation and falling of any portion in consequence of any further extension of the cracks."
By this it appeared that the bell might be used, but at the risk of the cracks increasing and the parts falling on the heads of those who were walking below. Under these circumstances he was unwilling to take on himself the responsibility of having the bell used without further investigation, and a closer calculation of the risk. Besides, when the bell did sound, it had caused interruption to the business of the House, and he apprehended there was no wish on the part of hon. Members for a repetition of the loud and slow sounds of which they complained before. Under these circumstances, he had not come to any conclusion as to what should be done with the great bell. At present the larger quarter bell was used to strike the hours, and though that arrangement was not perfect in regard to musical harmony, he thought it convenient for the present. Although not heard all over

765
Middlesex, the hour was heard within a sufficient range of that House. Certainly, before any expense was incurred in recasting this bell, or making a now one, he should think it necessary to bring the matter before the House. Nothing under this head had been put into the Estimates for the last two years.

THE "WARRIOR" TARGET AT SHOE BURYNESS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that at Shoeburyness, on Tuesday, the 8th instant, the Warrior target, or section of the Warrior's side, was twice pierced through by round shot; whether the shot was a 150 lb. Armstrong shot, fired from a 300-pounder Armstrong Gun; whether the charge of powder was 50lb.; whether the 150lb. shot with a 40 lb. charge of powder failed to penetrate the target; and whether the 300-pounder Armstrong Gun can be worked on board ship?
GENERAL PEELsaid, he also wished to put a question to his noble Friend with regard to this gun. He wished to know when it was finished, and why the trial had not taken place before?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETin reply said, that the questions of the hon. and Gallant Members referred rather to the War Department than to the Admiralty. He believed, however, that it had been thought necessary to test the gun in various ways before it was brought to the actual business of firing at the target. He was not really able to give a definite reason why the gun had not been tried earlier. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. H B. Sheridan) he thought he had better refer all who took an interest in the important experiment which took place last Tuesday, to an article which had appeared in The Times. Nothing could be fairer, or, he might add, more graphic, than the description which The Times gave of that experiment. He would only state shortly that there were four shots fired from what was called the 300-pounder Armstrong— that is, as a smooth-bored gun, it fired a shot of 150 lb.; but, if rifled, it would fire an elongated shot of 300 lb. On Tuesday last the first experiment was with a shot of 150 lb., and 40 lb. of powder. It was fired at the Warrior target, at the distance of 200 yards; but he was bound to say that the target had had
766
a good deal of shaking by previous experiment. The first shot struck the target on a part which had been, he thought, rather more shaken than the other parts of it. The shot entered, made a hole in the armour plating, and passed through eighteen inches of backing, being stopped by the inner skin of the ship, but it crucked that skin. The next shot, with 40lb. of powder, hit nearly on the same spot. The fragments of the shot went through plating, backing, skin, and all; and there were proofs that it would have created considerable damage in the interior of a vessel. The third shot Sir William Armstrong requested might be fired with 10lb. of powder additional; but some doubts were entertained, not whether the gun would stand such a charge, but whether so large a charge would be burnt to give the shot greater velocity. The third shot was fired with 50lb. of powder, and fired at that particular part of the target which represented the strongest part of the ship. The fragments of the shot went through the plating and backing, and he believed were buried in the supports at the back of the target. It was not very easy to say whether the whole charge of powder had burnt, but evidently a good deal more powder had burnt, because the effect was much greater. The fourth shot took place under the same circumstances. It went through the plating and backing, and buried itself, like the previous shot, in the scaffolding at the back. In reply to the last question of his hon. Friend, whether the 300-pounder gun could be worked on board ship, it was hazardous for him to say decisively, but he believed they could carry a 300-pounder on board ship; but at the same time it was questionable whether a ship could carry plates sufficiently thick to resist it.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether that clear and graphic account which appeared in The Times of that morning, describing what took place at Shoeburyness on Tuesday, was with the sanction and approbation of the Admiralty; and whether the noble Lord thought it desirable that all the experiments that were now being made from time to time with regard to the power of guns should be made public?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that the Admiralty had given no sort of sanction to the publication of the report of the experiments on Tuesday last. It was a moot question whether it was desirable that all

767
these costly experiments should be made public. With reference to a question of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir Frederick Smith), whether he was prepared to lay on the table the Report on the iron-plated ships, he might say the Admiralty had no desire to withhold any information which the House thought it desirable to have, but they had a strong opinion that it was not altogether advisable to lay that Report on the table at present.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE TARTAR GOVERNMENT.
  EXPLANATION.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that he wished to say a word in explanation with reference to the answer Which he made to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) on Tuesday last, When he moved for certain Returns, amongst others for a Return of the names of all British subjects in the employment of the Tartar Government. He understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to mean those in the military service of the Chinese Government. He had been informed since that those in the civil employment were included. Now, it happened that some English gentlemen, Mr. Lay and others, had been employed by the Chinese as commissioners for the collection of revenue, and he (Mr. Layard) wished it to be distinctly understood, that when he used the term "idle adventurers" on that occasion, he did not mean to include in that the gentlemen who were employed by the Chinese for the purpose he had stated, and who were gentlemen of high character and distinguished abilities.

GREAT GRIMSBY ELECTION.—REPORT.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
That John Chapman, esquire, is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Great Grimsby.
And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be a great convenience for the public business if this Bill,
  768
  which stood as the seventh order of the day for its third reading, were passed at once, that it might go up to the House of Lords that night, and be ready for the Commission which was to give the Royal assent to certain Bills to-morrow. He had, therefore, to move that the six previous orders of the day be postponed, to allow the measure to be proceeded with first.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he believed that the Bill was harmless, but it had been read the second time before printed copies of it were delivered to hon. Members; and he must protest against the practice of hurrying through measures before the House had the opportunity of making itself conversant with their provisions.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he also must complain of the irregularity of the proceeding. Such derangements of the business paper deprived hon. Members who might wish to move clauses in particular Bills of the power of doing so.
  Ordered,
  That the first six Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of the Australian Colonies Government Act Amendment Bill.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

THE ENGLISH IN CHINA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL SYKESstated, that since the promulgation of the Budget he had received a communication from China which would be interesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was from a gentleman who had been many years in China, and was thoroughly acquainted with the country. The letter said that representations had been made by the Taepings to the authorities at Shanghai, to the effect that if, in contravention of our neutrality, English officials continued to collect Customs duties on the part of the Tartar Government, and hand them over to the Tartars to be employed against the Taepings, the latter would be reduced to extremity, their forbearance, which had hitherto been unexampled, would be worn out, and they would be compelled, in self-defence, to destroy the whole of the

  769
  mulberry trees in the provinces which they occupied, containing a population of 98,000,000. The result of that would be, that the production of silk in China, which had increased year by year since the insurgents had had possession of the territory, would be entirely lost; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be disappointed in his expectation of receiving an augmentation of Customs duties on the importation of that article, and of realizing the balances of the indemnity money from the Customs duties collected at Shanghai by British subjects in the pay of the Tartar Government.

INCOME TAX COLLECTORS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he was afraid that he was about to descend to a subject of much smaller magnitude than the deeds of the Taepings. He wished to correct a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the last time they were in Committee of Ways and Means. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the income tax collectors had, by the authority of the Government, informed those persons who were liable to that impost that they were bound to pay on the 20th March, or twelve days before the termination of the quarter. The right hon. Gentleman said, that if the collectors had done that—and he intimated a doubt of the fact—they had done wrong, because they had been told not to press for payment before the end of the quarter; and that, whatever they had done in that respect, the Government were not responsible for their actions. Since that answer was given he had received a letter from one of the leading income tax collectors; and as the right hon. Gentleman's statement had been made public, it was only fair that this letter should be made public also. The writer denied both of the right hon. Gentleman's propositions, and stated that in the general instructions issued for the collection of the income tax for the whole year—a copy of which he enclosed—the collectors were ordered to collect the quarter's tax within ten days after the same should have become due—that was, to collect the quarter due on the 20th of March before the 1st of April, and not, as he gathered from Mr. Gladstone's reply, after the 1st of April. By the general instructions the collectors were bound not only to collect the quarter's tax within ten days after it became due,
  770
  but were bound to issue a warrant of distress if it were not paid. That might seem a small matter to hon. Members, but it was of serious consequence to small farmers and tradesmen. His correspondent added—
  "He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) further states, 'The proceedings of the collectors were not taken by the direction of the Government.' In answer, I can say we are continually feeling the action of the Government in the pressure put on us through the Surveyor and Receiver of Taxes, to hasten and complete the collection, which compels us in turn to press for the tax, which, at present, entails a great hardship upon small farmers and traders, suffering from the effects of two years' scanty harvests."
  The writer made one other remark, in which he entirely concurred—
  "There has been a tendency of late to make the collectors the scapegoat for those in high office in connection with the income tax, which I feel to be most unjust."
  In that matter he desired that the saddle should be put upon the right horse. If it was true that the fault lay with the collectors, a check ought to be placed upon them, and their duties ought to be properly defined. If the fault did not lie with the collectors, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be held answerable for it. There were strong grounds for suspecting that the action really proceeded from the Government. They had had two years of experimental finance, which had ended in large deficiencies. To remedy those deficiencies, the Government had scraped up every farthing it could find at the very first moment it could lay hands on it; and it had exhausted every means within its reach for bringing the wretched condition of the Treasury balances up to something like a presentable state. He was afraid that the hardship to small farmers and traders which he had been describing was but a part, and possibly only a small part, of the same policy which drew five quarters of the income tax into one year. At all events, the subject was one upon which the House ought to have some explanation.

DEFICIT OF THE LAST TWO YEARS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to repeat a Question which he put the other night. For the last two years he had thought their financial policy so unsatisfactory that he never felt himself in a position to support the repeal of the paper duty, or any other duty. He had always anticipated the serious deficiency of the last two years; and he thought there

  771
  would be a deficit at the end of 1862–3. The deficit of 1860–1 was £2,550,000, and that of 1861–2 was £1,164,000, making together in round numbers £3,700,000. The question he wished the House to consider was how the deficits should be discharged? It was said that they were to be paid out of the balances; but what was the meaning of that? He believed that there was a serious question at the bottom, and that, in fact, in a covert way, they were running into debt. The balances consisted mainly of monies appropriated for purposes that were likely to be in operation within a short period. For instance, this year, £350,000 was included in the balances, being destined for fortifications, for which purpose it might be drawn out; and there was also a series of items arising from the balance of advances and repayments of loans. For many purposes, under Acts of Parliament, loans were advanced for public purposes. Those loans, which were capital lent, ought surely not to be mixed up with the ordinary finances, but should be kept clear and distinct, otherwise they only deceived themselves as to their true position. Had not the balances, however, been mixed up with monies repaid from various sources under these Acts? And, if so, was it not true that, for two years, the Government had been silently and almost surreptitiously adding to the public debt of the country? That was a point on which a clear answer should be given, because it touched the marrow of our system of finance.

CHINA—VOTE OF CREDIT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a statement upon a point respecting which there appeared to be some misunderstanding. It was understood that a portion of the China Vote of Credit of last year had not been expended, and therefore it would not be necessary to take any further Vote for the present year, because there remained some £500,000 or £600,000 unexpended, and probably there would be about £500,000 more to be expended. He wished to know whether it was intended to surrender the balance of the old Vote, and take a fresh Vote, or to rely simply upon the balance unexpended? If it was not intended to take any new Vote, it was difficult to understand how that £500,000 could be brought into the
  772
  expenditure of the coming year, and in that case the expenditure would be half a million less than it now appeared to be.

THE SUPPLY BILL—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he, wished to remind the House that last Session he had called attention to the mode in which Supply Bills were laid before the House. That measure included the three branches of Excise, Customs, and direct taxes in the form of income tax. On that occasion he ventured to represent to the House, that if all these several branches of taxes were to be enacted in the same Bill, the House would lose the opportunity of discussing them separately, according to the forms theretofore adopted by Parliament. However, that Bill passed, and then the Inland Revenue Bill was introduced, framed on the same model as the other; that is, it embraced all the different branches of taxation in one Bill; and thus, as in the other case, precluded the House from the opportunity of discussing its different parts, according to the practice of Parliament. The House then did him the honour of agreeing with his representation on the subject, and the Bill was divided. He wished therefore to urge upon the Chancellor of: the Exchequer, with a view of avoiding the inconvenience of a Motion on the subject, which he, might feel it to be his duty to make, to follow this year, with regard to the Supply Bill as well as the Inland, Revenue Bill, the precedent adopted last year in relation to the latter Bill, and thus restore to the House the opportunities for separate discussion of the different taxes which they had hitherto enjoyed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is the intention of the Government to follow the precedent of last year in respect of Supply, which was adopted after full consideration. I do not think the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is correct that we have departed from precedent in the instance of the Inland Revenue Bill, which was divided into two Bills. The Inland Revenue Bill was not a Supply Bill; and as to such Bills, where it appears to the House that they relate to subjects which naturally divide themselves, and are more convenient to deal with in more than one branch, the Government is always ready to accede to those views when it considers them to be founded upon justice. The question of Supply Bills is different, because

773
in them the question to be considered is not only the administrative effect, but that which it is intended and professes to be—granting Supply to Her Majesty—which forms the ground for these subjects being presented in a united shape.
With respect to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), my answer is this:—He says he does not see how we bring the £500,000—the estimated sum to be expended for China—into the accounts of the year, unless a Vote is to be taken from the House. It is true that it sometimes happens that expenditure may be incurred within a given year for which no Vote has been taken from this House in that year. Whether that ought to be so is a meet subject for consideration. As a general principle, with respect to ordinary expenditure, I must say that balances ought to be surrendered at the close of the year for which they were given. But that rule is of necessity subject to restriction, as, for example in the case of the army and navy; and, indeed, it does not prevail in any branch of the public service. But as to the army and navy, it must be subject to restriction, because the balance in those branches cannot be surrendered without inconvenience until after the period for closing the accounts. The same consideration applies à fortiori to Votes of Credit, because they cannot be finally disposed of until the army and navy accounts are settled. Therefore it would not be regular—inasmuch as the Vote of Credit has not been disposed of, and as we have authority which we think will cover the whole probable charge—it would not be regular to ask any new Vote.
I must next notice the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby), who says that for two years past he has confidently expected there would be a deficit. If so, it is rather remarkable that the hon. Baronet in 1860 challenged me with the imputation that the estimates of revenue were greatly and systematically understated; and, if so, I do not see whence the deficit could have proceeded, because the only possible meaning of that remark must have been that the arrangement so made was to insure the existence of a surplus even by withholding due information from the House. The hon. Baronet asks me in what manner the deficit is to be paid? I am surprised at the question, coming from an hon. Member who pays so much attention to financial matters. The deficit is paid like all other charges
774
lawfully made on the Exchequer, and is paid out of the fund provided by the Legislature for such purpose—the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Baronet says truly that the state of the Consolidated Fund ought to be looked to when we are considering the position of our finances, for no doubt the state of the Consolidated Fund is affected by matters other than the revenue and expenditure of the year, particularly in one principal item—the balance of repayments over loans which we make, with great utility, for public works. The hon. Baronet has opened a question of considerable importance; and although I may not be inclined to agree in his conclusions, yet it is a question that may be legitimately raised. He thinks the loan account should be kept separate from the Consolidated Fund. That is a fair question to consider: but the Government have at present no power to act upon any such view. The Consolidated Fund knows no distinction between the sources from which various monies may proceed. When the monies reach the reservoir, they lose all trace of their particular origin, and the legitimate demands upon the Exchequer are paid in due order out of that fund, and all that remains for the Government to do is to take care that the true state of the balance between loans; and repayments shall be made known to this House.
I now come to the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), who has undertaken to show that special proceedings have been adopted to scrape into the current financial year, in order to lessen the deficit, money belonging to the next year. I presume that must be the meaning of his observations, or otherwise I should have nothing to say concerning them. The noble Lord has read a letter from a collector of income tax as to the mode and times at which that tax is to be collected. Will the noble Lord permit me to say that it would be convenient if, when he receives letters of this description, instead of suddenly challenging the Minister upon the floor of the House, who can have no personal knowledge upon the subject, he were to conform to the ordinary practice followed by nearly all Members, irrespective of where they sit, and more for the convenience of the House than for that of the Minister, and would give me notice, that I might refer to the Board of Inland Revenue, which alone can know anything about this subject? I gave to the noble Lord the other evening the best general explanation I

775
could upon the subject. But he must know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not the collector of the revenue, and that his sole mode of gaining particular and minute information on this point is by reference to the heads of those departments through which the collection is made. If, therefore, the noble Lord will place the letter in my hands, or any definite statement upon which I can found inquiries, I will make those inquiries, and the result of them will be entirely at his service to produce to this House if he thinks fit. Of course, I admit that ultimate publicity, upon the smallest as well as the most important matters, is of the utmost value. But, not being the person to issue circulars to every collector to inform him how he shall collect the taxes, it would be a waste of time if I were now to enter into this question. I adhere to the general purport of the statement I made before—namely, that the Government to my knowledge have never taken any measures for the purpose of causing the collection of income tax, which becomes due on the 20th of March, before the 1st of April; and if any such demand has been made, it must be from misapprehension or upon some old instruction which has not come under our notice. However, if the noble Lord will place the letter in my hands, I can then bring the matter to a definite issue, and he will have plenty of opportunities to bring the subject under the notice of the House.

BREWERS' LICENCES.
MR. BASSsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move in Committee the following Amendment on the proposed additions to brewers' licences:—
"That, in the event of the Committee adopting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition, all other manufacturers, ironmasters, and coal-owners shall, on the 1st day of next October, be subject to the payment of an annual licence, to be calculated, as nearly as practicable, on the same principle, or similar principles, to that on which the brewers' licences are to be imposed."
As, however, he had found the Resolution would be irregular in that form, and as his object was to invite discussion and give the House and the country an opportunity of understanding the subject, he should conclude with moving that the Committee be deferred till the next day. The taxation on individuals or on individual firms in the manner proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely new to their system of finance, and he wished the
776
House to express its opinion upon the fairness of imposing an impost of £5,000 upon a single individual or a single firm before they were licensed to proceed with their business. If the principle were one upon which it was expedient to act, he thought they had a right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some reason why it should not be extended to others as well as to brewers. He believed that the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take in that respect was totally opposed to all precedent. When, for example, the duty was takes off cotton, it was not proposed to reimburse the revenue by imposing upon the cotton-spinner a licence duty; nor when the duty was taken off printed calicoes—a business under the regulation of the excise—did the Chancellor of the Exchequer require the printers to pay compensation in the shape of a personal tax. He had no objection to such an impost, provided it was a general one—he thought even that it might be made a very productive source of revenue; but be could not conceive why, because a certain class of tradesmen paid very heavy duties already, and who were, therefore, really the best friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they should be selected for this new form of taxation. That was not the first addition to the malt tax that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed. Last year he deprived the maltsters of their credit for throe months, which was equal to a charge of 3d. a quarter upon malt; and that, coupled with what was now proposed to be charged, would be equal to an addition of 1s. 6d. a quarter to the duty. Some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were particularly anxious for some reduction in the malt tax. But that was going in a precisely opposite direction. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1852, unwisely, in the scheme of finance that he then submitted to the House, proposed by a reduction of the malt tax to throw away some £2,000,000, or £3,000,000 of revenue. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under some mistake when he made that complaint; for he was satisfied that if they reduced the malt tax to one-half, not one quarter of the revenue would be sacrificed, and he was inclined to think that in the course of a very few years the revenue would regain the whole. He thought he

777
should be able to show that on the present occasion the right. hon. Gentleman was creating a very dangerous precedent. The proposed change would not only inflict a most onerous tax on individual brewers, but would do it in a manner most prejudicial to the best customers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He calculated that four barrels of beer were produced from every quarter of malt, and had fixed his charge accordingly. Now, he (Mr. Bass) had brewed since the 1st of October last, from 100,000 quarters of malt, but had only produced 300,000 barrels of beer. He would thus be charged with 400,000 barrels, though he produced only 300,000, and would pay £108,000 for his 300,000 barrels, whereas those who brewed four barrels from a quarter would pay for the same quantity only £82,000. Did that inequitable mode of charging a tax furnish any reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make him pay £5,000 in addition? He was afraid that it was his misfortune to belong to a class of persons who did not meet with much sympathy from the House of Commons. Everybody said "put it on the brewers;" and if, instead of making him pay £5,000 a year, it was proposed to mulct him in £20,000, and in addition give him a fortnight on the treadmill, the House would probably offer very little objection. He hoped that for once the right hon. Gentleman would treat the brewers upon a principle of justice. Although he had already paid the tax, had used the hops, and paid the duty, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make him pay it over again on the 1st of October, on the plea that all these taxes were imposed before a man was allowed to carry on his business. But the right hon. Gentleman would surely not apply to a tax of £5,000 a year the same principle which was applied in the case of a tax of £10 or £20. A tax so enormous ought not to be imposed until some business had been done commensurate with it. He should leave the matter in the hands of the House, and move with a view of eliciting discussion that the Committee be deferred till to-morrow.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the said Committee,"
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. LOCKEsaid, he rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion, though he did not take the same view of the question as his hon. Friend. The brewers, although an ill-used body, had, upon the whole, been able to take pretty good care of themselves. He should second the Motion, in the interest of a class of men who had hitherto met with no consideration at all from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the hop factors, hop merchants, and holders of hops in this country. Nothing whatever had been said about them. When the paper duty was repealed, a drawback was granted on the stocks of paper on which the duty had been paid. On every principle of justice the same boon should be granted to the holders of hops. The mere mention of the word "drawback" caused an unpleasant sensation to every Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it was perfectly clear, if the duty on hops were repealed and no drawback granted, or granted in such a way as to do an injury to the holders of that property, a great injustice would be done, which he was sure the House would not willingly sanction. In 1857 the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) was very anxious to support the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) in attempting to get rid of the hop duty. A Committee to inquire into the hop duties was appointed, on which he (Mr. Locke) had the honour of sitting; and it was somewhat worthy of remark, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have selected from the evidence given before the Committee only the statement of the hon. Member for Derby, that if the hop duty were repealed, the consumers would derive the benefit of that repeal. [Mr. BASS: In the long run.] In a very long run indeed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look through the evidence again, he would find that the answer of almost every other witness was, that the consumer would derive no benefit whatever from the repeal. It was proved by the evidence given before that Committee, that if the duty were taken off, a man who drank a pot of porter every day throughout the year would only be the gainer of 11 d. by its removal. With such testimony as this, the evidence of the hon. Member for Derby ought not to have been conclusive. It was not a consumers' question—it was a brewers question; and the brewers, not the consumers, would get the benefit of the repeal.

779
But it was in reference to the position of the holders of hops that he called the attention of the House to the subject. In 1857, he believed, there was a differential duty of 27 s. per cwt. on foreign hops; that was reduced, in the first place, to a duty of 20 s. on foreign, and 14 s. on English hops. That duty was to last for one year, at the end of which the duty was to be, as it was at present, 14 s. on English, and 15 s. on foreign hops. A complaint was then made, and very justly, that the foreign grower was more considered than the English producer, because the English grower was compelled to pay the duty in the early part of the year after that in which the hops were grown; whereas the foreigner could bond his hops, and not pay the duty till they were taken out of the warehouse and sold. The consequence was, that the amount of the duty of 14 s. per cwt. had at once to be found by the English grower, or by somebody for him. The Government now proposed to take off all duty on the 15th of September. What, therefore, was the position of the English growers who had already paid the duty? The 14 s. per cwt. they had already paid was most unfairly taken from them, while it was put into the pocket of the foreigner. All they asked for was the same consideration that had been shown to the papermakers, the cotton manufacturers, and the wine trade; and the case of the holders of British hops was stronger than any of these. Wine, when imported, could be bonded, and the duty was not paid till the wine was sold; but the hop growers and hop factors were not allowed the advantage of bonding. They had submitted to all this, and yet their cup of bitterness was not completely full. They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was carrying out the great principle of free trade, and though it might affect them in an unpleasant manner, they must sacrifice themselves, like all good and patriotic men, on the altar of their country; it was a good thing for the country that taxes should be taken off, and they ought to submit with a cheerful countenance. Now, that he could not get his constituents to do; they would not be cheerful under the circumstances. They had requested him to put their case before the House; and if it was made out that great injustice would be done them, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way. If the drawback were not given, all these hops must be exported; for when exported,
780
the holders had a right to claim the drawback. But to export them, say to Jersey, and bring them back again, involved an additional charge, in freight and expenses, of 6s. per cwt. If there was, nothing to prevent the hops coming back again, why not allow the drawback at once? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the subject into his consideration, and would treat the persons interested in the hop trade with the justice which had been extended to other trades under similar circumstances.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, it seemed to him that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke) had taken for granted what was certainly not the general impression, namely, that the hop factor was the person who paid the duty. He held that the hop grower paid the duty before the stock went into the hands of the hop factor. In point of fact the hop factor had never paid the duty. He maintained it was so, and he believed the proposition of the Government would prove most beneficial to the growe. No doubt, a considerable quantity of hops held by factors were unsaleable, and they would be glad to get the drawback on them.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he objected strongly to the proposal to bring farmers, tradesmen, and country gentlemen, and others who brewed their own beer, under the cognizance of the Excise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House the other night that all that such persons would have to do would be to take out a licence, just like taking out a licence to shoot; but of course there would be provisions for recovering penalties for evasion of the duty, and that could never be carried out except by establishing a system of espionage over every private family who brewed their own beer, which was a complete novelty in this country. The hon. Member, for Derby (Mr. Bass) had not gone into the question contained in the Amendment which he had put on the paper; but certainly if one class of persons were to pay for licence to carry on a trade, there was no reason why all classes should not pay in the same way. Why should cotton manufacturers or coalowners or the learned professions be exempt? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that he had opened a very large question in proposing to tax people for permission to carry on their own affairs. Speaking on behalf of a constituency that were highly sensitive upon this subject, he should support the Motion

781
for adjournment made by the hon. Member for Derby.
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he hoped the House would not assent to the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), for he thought his hon. Friend would gain nothing by his proposal. With regard to the question of the justice of drawbacks, he would not say one word; but he wished to take that opportunity of thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having boldly met this question, and relieved the hop-growing interest from an impost which had long pressed heavily on them. He had always maintained that the hop growers would derive benefit from such a measure, but he also believed that in the long run the consumer would likewise derive benefit from the removal of the tax. He would, however, throw out the suggestion that, to do away with the visits of the exciseman, it might be advisable in all cases where it was possible to make the licence duty payable with the assessed taxes.
MR. BUXTONsaid, that since he had last addressed the House on the subject of the Government proposal with respect to brewers' licences, he had ascertained the feeling of six leading firms with respect to it, and had found that, while they agreed, with him in thinking it would on the whole be, perhaps, better they should have been allowed to remain as they were, they, on the other hand, thought they had not much reason to complain of the manner in which they had been dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect of the removal of the duty on hops would be to induce a very much larger growth, and hops becoming thereby more plentiful, would, of course, become cheaper, which alone would be a source of considerable benefit to the brewing interest. At the same time he was opinion that there was some injustice in the mode in which the proposal was to be carried into effect, inasmuch as it was hardly fair that the brewers should be called upon to pay in the same year the tax on hops and also the new licence duty. If the right hon. Gentleman wished that duty to be paid in the present year, he ought to allow a drawback on hops, or, not choosing the latter course, ought to defer the payment of the licence tax.
MR. PULLERsaid, that as the interests of the hop-growers, hop-factors, brewers, and other private interests had been brought before the House with a view to their protection, he wished to say a word on behalf of the farmers. Hitherto they
782
had had a grievance in regard to the malt tax, but their complaint on that head had always been met, and not without some justice, by the argument that no exception could be made in their case, because exceptional legislation was an evil. But now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to put a special tax upon the farmers, and it was not sufficient to say that it was of small amount, and would not press so heavily as the malt tax. Farmers brewed generally three classes of beer. With regard to two out of those three—namely, that consumed by the farmer's family and that consumed by his dependants—it would be reasonable he should pay the same licence as other private brewers. But there was a third quality of beer—the harvest beer—which generally formed the greater part of the beer he brewed. It was an expense occasioned by the harvest, and it was an expense without which the farmer could not get that extra amount of labour performed which was necessary to get in the harvest. The House would recollect that steam was every day being more and more applied to the aid of agricultural operations, and they already had steam machines of all descriptions in use upon farms. Well, supposing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had included in his budget a proposition to lay a tax upon the coals by which such machines were worked, would not the House have considered such a proposition perfectly unjustified by any principle of political economy? And yet that was just what the right hon. Gentleman was doing; in imposing a tax, for such would be the effect of his Resolution upon the harvest beer. The harvest beer was the same as the coals—it kept the machines going, and in brewing it the farmer was simply giving practical effect to the injunction frequently heard as to the necessity of "getting up the steam." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether some modification of that portion of his scheme could not be adopted.
MR. HODGKINSONobserved, that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had propounded his financial scheme, he had stated that the existing scale of brewers' licences was in favour of the large brewers; but he found that while, in accordance with the new scale, the licence duty to be paid by a person who did not brew more than 1,000 barrels of beer was at the rate of 15 s. for every fifty barrels, the hon. Member for Derby and the leviathans of

783
the trade were to be let off on payment of a duty of 12 s. 6d. per fifty barrels—a distinction which, after what had previously fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he was at a loss to understand. He might add that the Resolution with respect to private brewing seemed to him to require further consideration. In that part of the kingdom in which he resided, private brewing was carried on to a greater extent, he believed, than in almost any other quarter, and he should like to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to meet the case of a gentleman who, having a house in London and one in the country, supplied the former with beer brewed at the latter. The Resolution did not, he thought, meet that case. There was another case also—that in which a gentleman, supplying his own malt and hops, hired somebody to brew for him—an old servant, perhaps, who had been in the habit of brewing for him—paying him a fixed sum. How, he would ask, was the Resolution to operate in that instance? But, even if the right hon. Gentleman were to improve his Resolution in these respects, he (Mr. Hodgkinson) thought it would still work unevenly; and he thought it would be better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed the private brewing altogether from the supervision of the exciseman, and placed the duty payable for it upon the same footing as the assessed taxes.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think we have anticipated in this discussion many points which might with greater convenience have been dealt with in Committee; but, since they have been raised, I may be permitted to dispose of them as briefly as I can, noticing only what appears to me material. Let me allude, first of all, to what has been said with respect to private brewing. The proposal of the Government with regard to a licence in respect of private brewing was not announced to the House as one of great financial importance. What I said to the House was, we are going to require from brewers for sale a payment in hard cash for every pound of hops they are estimated to use, and we cannot fairly make that demand upon them if we give to persons who choose to brew in private a positive premium by telling them that they shall have their hops free of duty without any payment at all. It may be true that Brewers for sale brew more cheaply than private brewers. With that we have nothing to do. Our business is simply not
784
to interfere. We ought not, without grave reasons, to give a premium to private brewers; but we should, as far as we can, leave both parties in the position in which we find them, asking them to bear the same burden of taxation. My hon. Friend who spoke last has raised a question which may be more properly discussed when we come to the Bill. The practice in the preliminary stage on Resolutions is to impose the charge, but limitations, exceptions, and qualifications, such as are necessary in a variety of cases, are reserved for the clauses of a Bill. My hon. Friend, or example, asks how we are going to deal with the case of a man who has several houses or farms? I have already stated that a person who receives a licence will receive it for all his houses or all his farms, as the case may be. We do not inquire whether he has one house or more than one. We assume that he will brew to supply the wants of his own family; but, of course, he will be liable to pay upon the highest rating or rental of his houses or farms, whatever their number may be. The case of hired brewers is a proper one for consideration. I am not sure that I understand all the bearings of it; but it is not a matter to be dealt with in preliminary Resolutions. Something has been said about espionage. It is a mistake to suppose that our proposed system of licensing involves any espionage whatever. If, indeed, taking the advice of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I were to require every one to make a return of how many barrels of beer he had brewed in the course of a given year, there would then be something like a system of espionage; but my proposal is one of a very different character. A brewing licence is analogous to a game certificate, but the case is much less embarrassing, because the test is of the simplest possible description. There can be no espionage in ascertaining the rating or rental of a house or a farm. I have been asked what is to happen if a man takes out a licence on a rental lower than the actual rental of his house. We will not allow him to do so. We have got a sure external test in the value of a farm, or a house. Of course, if a man deliberately chooses to take out too low a licence, he will be liable to penalties, in the same way as a man who shoots without a certificate; but the standard is of the simplest character, and there is no necessity for any espionage whatever. I will now refer to the two main questions—the question of licence and the question of drawback, and I

785
trust that the House will not entertain the Amendment proposed and seconded by my two hon. Friends. The hon. and learned Seconder of the Amendment said he did not agree with the Proposer's speech; but I differ with both of them; I differ both with the speeches in which they differ, and with the proposition in which they agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) says that he uses more malt in his beer than certain other people.
MR. BASS: Than you have estimated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: He uses more malt than the ratio of two bushels to the barrel, on which we founded our Estimate, but my hon. Friend is too acute not to perceive that the malt is used as a criterion of the consumption of bops. It is not the malt which he uses that is to determine the duty which he has to pay, but the hops which he consumes. We are not giving up the malt duty. If we could sacrifice it upon the altar of agriculture, the argument of my hon. Friend would, no doubt, be a fair one to urge; but unless he can show that he uses a smaller proportion of hops, he has no case whatever. I should be sorry if anything could be said by me or others to induce my hon. Friend in the slightest degree to alter the component parts of his beer, a beverage from which we all derive the greatest satisfaction; but so the matter stands. My hon. Friend has pointed out that there would be some hardship in calling upon brewers to pay in advance in respect to the hop duty. I do not admit that we shall call upon them so to pay in advance. A brewer supplies himself with his hops usually within a short period after the hops are in a condition to be sold. The great bulk of the crop passes almost immediately from the hands of the growers to those of the brewers. Now, my proposal is that the first portion of the licence duty shall be paid on the 1st of October, and the second on the 1st of March; and with reference to the crop of the year, I do not think it can be alleged that in that way the money will be paid materially earlier than it would be paid in the ordinary course of the brewing trade.
The other question—that of drawback —is one of considerable importance. We cannot, in fairness to the various interests of a very susceptible trade, postpone for some weeks the settlement of this matter. At the time I made my financial statement I did not say dogmatically that under all circumstances we should go
786
on on the following Thursday, but the period which has since elapsed has convinced me that on the part of those who are to pay the licence there is a general disposition to admit that the system is in substance and intention a fair one, and a general desire that there should not be any uncertainty. It is, therefore, my duty with respect to the interests concerned, and the prevailing state of opinion, not to accede to the delay which has been asked for; but, at the same time, I do not wish to preclude from the further consideration of the House or the Government any proposal which may be urged on the question of drawback. We intend to insert a clause in the Bill by which the re-importation of British hops without payment of duty will be prevented for a certain time after the 15th of September. I admit, however, that the holders of hops are entitled to export them, and are at liberty to turn that right to whatever account they please. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) has pointed out that there would be a great waste in thus turning that right to account. I admit that the holders of hops are entitled to draw from the British Government 14 s per cwt. upon hops exported to a foreign market, but I do not admit that they should be at liberty for a certain time after the 15th of September to bring those same hops back again free of duty, to compete with the new hops. But the Government are ready to listen to whatever may be said on that subject. I will only say one or two words upon the subject of drawbacks. I am convinced that generally the money given in drawback is so much pure gift to those who receive it at the charge of the State, and without any benefit to the consumer. I do not say that this should preclude the consideration of anything which can be urged in this case; but I do say that that is the general result. Nor can I admit that a product like that of hops, which is annually produced, and the bulk of the crop of which is consumed within the year, stands in fair comparison with products like those of paper and soap, which have no relation whatever to the seasons. Upon that ground I confess that I view with jealousy the question of drawback; and if in ordinary cases that is so, it is incumbent on us to act with great caution at the present moment, for two reasons. In the first place, we have just had a severe lesson in the article of paper. The officers

787
of the Government, doing their best to ascertain what stock of paper there was upon which drawback would be claimed, framed a computation, and that computation was somewhat less than one-half the real quantity on which drawback was claimed. The same thing may happen in the case of hops. Another reason is, that we do not present more than a balance of, income and expenditure, because from the £150,000 surplus must be deducted£40,000 for the mere transition of licenees. In certain cases a settlement may be made by, a sort of composition, by which the ends of justice may be attained, and it is open to the Government to entertain a proposition of that sort. At the same time the position of the public revenue is such that we ought not to incur any great risk in such a manner. The hon. and learned Member for Southwark said he would have lost the power if he permitted this stage to pass. I think: the hon. and learned Gentleman is in error. If I rightly understand it, the opinion of the House is that the question of the hop duty ought to be settled in the main upon the terms of the Government proposal; but, at the same time, the hon. and learned Gentleman may either confer with the Government, or, if dissatisfied, may bring before, the House any claims to which he thinks he is fairly entitled on a future occasion, without obstructing a plan which has been favourably received by the House. My hon. Friend behind me, with respect to the farmer, suggests that we may deal with him upon the value of his house; but the simple answer is that there are no means of ascertaining the value of farmhouses separate from the land, and therefore, it would be eminently inconvenient to the farmer to introduce a new system of charge, entailing a great deal of trouble, for a very insignificant purpose. With these explanations, I trust the House will go into Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Ways and Means considered in Committee.

WAYS AND MEANS.
House in Committee. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had already offered explanations upon the proposed alteration of brewers' licences, but that if there were
788
any other points on which hon. Members desired information, he would give it. Other parts of the proposal would be better understood from an inspection of the Bill. He would, therefore, move the following Resolution:—
"11. That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, the following Duties of Excise on Licences to brew Beer (that is to say):—For and upon every Licence to be taken out by any Brewer of Beer for sale,—

£

s

d

If the quantity of Beer brewed by such Brewer within the year ending the 10th day of October next preceding the taking out of such Licence shall not exceed 20 barrels, the duty of

0

12

6

MR. HODGKINSONsaid, he had to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a matter which he had already brought under the notice, of the House before they went into committee—namely, the difference in the duty payable by large and small brewers. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to raise the 12 s.6d. duty to 15 s., so as to make brewers' licences all equal.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must admit that the scale was not perfectly identical, and that compassion had been shown at both ends. The very small and the very large brewers had been favoured. These two anomalies were intelligible upon different principles. The principle applicable to the small brewer was that he should not be charged a sensible tax on his trade when upon the large brewer the licence was little more than nominal. The principle upon which uniformity had been departed from at the other end of the scale was that the large brewer, who had the responsibility of paying an equivalent for the hop-duty in ready money, should not pay more than he now paid in the double charge for licence duty and hop duty.
MR. BASSsaid, that the brewers who used two bushels of malt per barrel of beer paid 5s. 5d., and those who used three bushels of malt per barrel of beer paid 7s. 3d. to the revenue. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer should encourage the latter? With regard to the question of drawback, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any calculation as to the amount of hops which would be unconsumed on the 15th of September next?
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he could but complain of the manner in which the Chancel-

789
lor of the Exchequer applied his brewers' licences, always taking care that they should be paid in advance. The real principle on which taxation ought to be based was this—that the brewer should pay, not some supposed sum in advance, but when he had brewed the beer he should be called on to pay the .3d. per barrel imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The revenue would be got quarterly according to the extent of the brewing. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider that part of his somewhat harsh and crude plan.
MR. BASSsaid, he wished to put another question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whether, when all duty was removed from the article, he would allow any substitute for hops to be used.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had intended to dispose of the question put to him by the hon. Member for Derby, but, amid the multitude of details, it had escaped him. The question related to a technical point, though of considerable interest to the trade. The hon. Gentleman wished to know whether it was intended to retain in force the prohibition which now existed by law to use any other bitter instead of hops. The prohibition was certainly founded on fiscal grounds, and, that being so, he did not see upon what principle that prohibition could be maintained after the trade in hops was set free, and after the Legislature took no cognizance of the quantity of hops that was or was not used. It seemed, therefore, to follow that, at any rate, that prohibition should not be maintained in force. As to drugs of a deleterious character, he was informed the law was sufficient to repress the use of unwholesome ingredients. It was extremely difficult to estimate the quantity of hops that would remain unconsumed in the country on the 15th of September. He was not in a position to give any information on that subject to the Committee. When he stated that there would be a loss of £40,000 or £50,000 a year by the repeal of the duty, he said there would also be a further charge in respect of hops exported. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Moffatt) seemed to think that the duty ought to be paid on the number of barrels brewed within the foregoing year; but if that were adopted as the basis, it would be impossible for him to propose the plan at all in the present state of the Exchequer without creating a deficit. He should,
790
therefore, be under the necessity of imposing some new tax. He could not commute the duty on hops without proposing the substitution of a licence.
MR. MOFFATTexplained that what he meant to say was, that the 3d. duty on each barrel of beer brewed by each brewer should be payable at the end of each quarter of the year.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that that proposition would be still open to the same objection, as it would withdraw three-fourths of the whole £300,000 from the current year, and entail the necessity of a new tax. Whenever the tax amounted to more than £10, it would be optional to the party to pay it in two payments, on the 1 st of October and the 31st of March; and if the brewer thought fit to claim on any difference beyond the maximum brewing in his classification, an allowance would be made.
Resolved,
That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, the following Duties of Excise on Licences to brew Beer (that is to say):
For and upon every Licence to be taken out by any Brewer of Beer for Sale,—

£

s.

d.

If the quantity of Beer brewed by such Brewer within the year ending the 10th day of October next preceding the taking out of such Licence shall not exceed 20 barrels, the Duty of

0

12

6

And if the same shall exceed 20 barrels and not exceed 50 barrels, the Duty of

1

7

6

And if the same shall exceed 50 barrels, the Duty of

2

0

0

And if the same shall exceed 100 barrels and shall not exceed 1,000 barrels, then for every 50 barrels, and for any fractional part or number of an entire quantity of 50 barrels over and above the first 100 barrels, the additional Duty of

0

15

0

And if the same shall exceed 1,000 barrels and shall not exceed 50,000 barrels, then, in addition to the Duty chargeable in respect of 1,000 barrels, there shall be charged, for every 50 barrels, and for any fractional part or number of an entire quantity of 50 barrels over and above 1,000 barrels, the further Duty of

0

14

0

And if the same shall exceed 50,000 barrels, then, in addition to the Duty chargeable in respect of 50,000 barrels, there shall be charged, for every 50 barrels, and for any fractional part or

791

number of an entire quantity of 50 barrels over and above 50,000 barrels, the further Duty of

0

12

6

And for and upon every such Licence to be taken out by any person who shall first become a Brewer of Beer for sale, the Duty of

0

12

6

And there shall be paid by such last-mentioned person, within ten days after the 10th day of October next after taking out Such Licence, such further additional sum as, with the said Duty of Twelve Shillings and Six Fence, shall amount to the Duty hereinbefore mentioned, according to the number of barrels of Beer brewed by him within the preceding year.
The Duties aforesaid to be in lieu of the Duties now chargeable on Licences to be taken out by Brewers of Beer for sale,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that since he had addressed the Committee on a former occasion, he had ascertained that there were means of finding the rental of farmhouses when they were over £20 in value; and, that being so, he did not think there was any sufficient ground for creating a distinction between persons occupying farmhouses and other persons. He proposed, therefore, to strike out of the next Resolution all the words having special reference to farmhouses, so that there would be no distinction between farmers and other persons. That would simplify matters very much, and prove so far favourable to the farmer, who not only brewed for the consumption of his own family, but with some reference to the conduct of his trade.
MR. BALLsaid, he did not consider that the concession which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer did away with the objectionable nature of the proposed tax. He did not intend to oppose the proposal at that stage; but on a more fitting occasion be should not only oppose it, but divide the House upon it. He protested against anything tending to increase the burdens of the farmer who had not participated proportionately in the relief of burdens which had been extended to other classes of the population.
MR. MALINSsaid, there seemed to be a general impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already not steered clear of error in imposing petty vexatious duties, and he wished to know how much the right hon. Gentleman expected to get from this tax on beer brewed not for sale. With regard to the hop duty, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having got rid of an obnoxious impost on a most equitable principle; but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would pause before
792
he levied a tax like that under discussion, unless it was likely to produce such an amount of revenue as would compensate for the vexations it would entail.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that many farmhouses had been too highly assessed to the house tax, though many persons had submitted to the injustice rather than put themselves to the expense, the trouble, and the annoyance of making an appeal; but he protested against the adoption of the house tax as a criterion, for it was no longer a fair or just criterion; and if it were to be continued, an attempt would be very generally made by persons to bring the rating of their houses below the sums mentioned in the Resolutions. He hoped that the imposition of the tax would not he converted into such if an instrument of oppression as the income tax had in many cases been made, for he must say that he had never known the latter to be collected with so much harshness as within the last few months.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him that by making this concession the Chancellor of the Exchequer had out the ground from under his own feet, because he admitted that he did not attach any great financial importance to the imposition of his new tax, but that he desired to place the public and the private brewer on the same footing. If that was the ground for adopting the proposed legislation, they ought to proceed to enter at once to the consideration of the incidence of taxation of every kind; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with the question in that spirit, he ought to have listened to the hon. Member for Derby when he asked on what ground a tax was to be imposed on one class of industry and not on another. If a tax were to be imposed on o the brewer, why should the calico printer, carpet weaver, or other manufacturer, escape? The objectionable character of the tax had not been removed by its limitation, for it still intruded the excise officer into the private dwelling-house. It had been attempted to draw an analogy between the brewing licence and the shooting licence, but no fair comparison between the two could be made. The proposal would prove vexatious in its details, and opened up a question which would involve the consideration of others. He was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Ball) intended, at the proper time, to meet it with a direct negative.
MR. DODSONsaid, he would remind

793
the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ball) that when he complained, on the part of the agricultural interest, of the present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he forgot that the hop growers, who were interested in being relieved from their present burden, were an agricultural interest. Besides, the farmer who paid a tax of 5s. for a brewing licence would get his compensation in the reduced price of hops, from which the duty would be removed. The proposition was not made from any animosity or desire to tax the private brewer, but simply as matter of equity to the public. The hon. Member for West Norfolk asked why a licence should not be imposed on every trade; but it should be recollected that licences were generally imposed for police purposes, or where it was thought necessary for the security of the revenue to keep the premises under some kind of inspection. The collection of the tax on private brewing would be exempt from the inquisitorial espionage of the exciseman, and would take place like that of other assessed taxes.
MR. BALLsaid, the hon. Member for Sussex, no doubt, was filled with sentiments of gratitude for the great boon he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thus induced to become the advocate of that right hon. Gentleman. It would, however, be an additional misfortune to the agricultural interest if, in consequence of that boon, the hon. Member for Sussex should decline to lend that interest his support. The relief given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hop growers would not benefit the agriculturists generally.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he had received a communication from one of his constituents complaining bitterly of the paltry, vexatious, and useless tax on domestic brewing. His correspondent said that they might just as well tax his wife for making a cup of tea or baking a loaf of bread as tax him for brewing a little beer for the consumption of his family. He regretted that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire was not prepared to divide the Committee against that trivial and obnoxious impost; and certainly if he saw any chance of obtaining support, he would himself take a division against it.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter before he introduced the Bill, and would see the propriety of withdrawing the proposition, which was not only
794
novel in its character, but would operate very unequally and unjustly, and would combine the largest amount of inconvenience to the taxpayer with the smallest possible benefit to the revenue. No estimate of the sum that would be derived from the impost had been given; but taking it at £5,000, surely the right hon. Gentleman could hardly contemplate putting 20,000 homes to the annoyance incident to the collection of so insignificant an amount? Even the inconvenience of having to go to a country town to obtain a licence would be serious in the case of persons living in remote country districts.
COLONEL W. STUARTsaid, he should be glad to learn how lunatic asylums hospitals, and similar institutions would be affected by the impost.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that such establishments would be treated as if they were private houses. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), as to what would be the amount of the proceeds of this tax, he might state that the fiscal importance of the tax was not such as to admit of the Government making it an essential point of the plan which they had proposed. The proceeds would be valuable so far as they went, but the amount would not be such as to make the tax a vital part of the plan. The discussion, however, which had taken place convinced him more and more that it would be but an act of justice towards the brewers that a charge of the kind should be imposed. If it were wholly impossible to collect such a duty, that might be as argument against its imposition; but in the form proposed by the Government there could be no very serious inconvenience in that respect. As to the amount to be derived from the tax, he could not give the hon. and learned Gentleman any further information than some figures from the very roughest computation. The proceeds might be guessed at £5,000, and even as high as £15,000; but the best and fairest criterion, upon the whole, might be formed from the quantity of malt used by private brewers. The paper which he held in his hand showed that the quantity used was 2,729,000 bushels, or between 6 and 7 per cent of the whole amount charged with duty; and the amount of the hop duty was £225,000. Therefore, if they took the proceeds at 6 per cent, that would give about £13,000 from this duty. Now, that might be too high or too low; but every Member of the

795
Committee would be just as well able to form an opinion upon the subject as the Government.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that as the proceeds from the tax, even upon the showing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be so small, public brewers would not complain if the Government name to the conclusion that it would not be worth while, for the sake of so very trifling an amount of revenue, to produce the great amount of vexation which attended these email taxes In all the rural districts the impost, if persevered in, was sure to excite a strong feeling of irritation.
MR. MALINSsaid, he was of opinion that no new tax ought to be imposed unless it was shown that it would produce a satisfactory result. As the proposed impost would only produce a small sum, and would create a great deal of dissatisfaction, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be acting very unwisely in persevering with his Resolutions. He trusted that during the coming recess the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the question, fend ask himself whether it was worth his while to embody the Resolution in his Bill under all the circumstances stated.
MR. BALLsaid, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman meant, by creating the duty to induce persons who had brewed, or might be inclined to brew, their own beer, to buy brewers' beer, instead of brewing it for themselves. If that were the view of the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Ball) would tell him that such a practice would not conduce to morality.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUBRsaid, he did not propose to impose the tax for the purpose of inducing persons to do anything of the kind. He, however, thought it would not be fair or just towards the public brewer, if there were an inducement held out to private parties to brew at home as against the public brewer.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, as the amount expected from the tax was so small, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to impose such a burden upon his fellow-creatures, many thousands of whom would be affected by it. He was certainly disposed to divide the Committee upon the Resolution.
MR. MALINSsaid, he rose to express a hope that his hon. Friend would not persevere in his intention to divide the Committee. He (Mr. Malins) should prefer leaving the matter to the good sense of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, particularly
796
as he understood the right hon. Gentleman to imply that he Was not indisposed to reconsider the subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I consider myself pledged to this part of the Resolution as an act of justice. Let not the hon. Gentleman withdraw from a division under the notion that I shall reconsider the matter.
Resolved,
That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for the use of Her Majesty, Her heirs arid successors, for and upon every Licence to brew Beer not for sale, to be taken out by any person who shall intend to brew Beer:—

£

s.

d.

Where the dwelling house and premises of such person shall be of the annual rent or Value of £20 or upwards, and less than £50, the Duty of

0

5

0

And where such House and premises shall be of the annual rent or Value of £50 or upwards, and less than £100, the Duty of

0

10

0

And where such house and premises shall be of the annual rent or value of £100 or upwards, and less than £300, the Duty of

1

0

0

And where such house and premises shall be of the annual rent or value of £300 or upwards, the Duty of

2

0

0

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

COURTS OF JUSTICE (MONEY) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. COWPERmoved the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have given some explanation in moving the second reading of so important a measure. It came before the House under very peculiar circumstances, and required very strong justification, because any hon. gentleman who had read the Treasury minute upon the subject would know that it was not only open to considerable observation on the part of independent Members, but that the magnitude of the transaction had attracted the notice of Her Majesty's Treasury, and the conclusion to which they came was eminently unfavourable to the Bill. He should have expected, therefore, that when a Bill

  797
  came before the House creating a heavy charge, and with the incubus upon it of adverse report from the Treasury, it was desirable that the Minister of the Crown should explain why he had thought fit to override that report.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was quite ready, of course, to explain the nature of the Bill at the moment; but he imagined, that as he had done so upon the introduction of the measure, he might have been allowed to wait until he had heard some of the objections which were to be offered to it, before making his own statement. It would not be necessary again to go over the ground, which he had traversed on the introduction of the Bill, as to the necessity which existed for a measure such as that before the House. The matter had been long under consideration, and had received much discussion not only in the last Session of Parliament, but on previous occasions. A Royal Commission sat in 1860, consisting of Sir John Coleridge, Sir William Page Wood, Sir George Lewis, Dr. Phillimore, and Mr. Young; they heard evidence, and drew up a very full Report, which had been laid upon the table, recommending that measures should be taken for concentrating in one neighbourhood all the courts of law and equity. Now, the purpose which they had in view was one which had met with the general support and approbation of the legal profession. It was felt that the accommodation provided for the courts of law and equity and the offices connected with them was exceedingly unsatisfactory, and such as ought not to be tolerated any longer in such a country as England. The existing arrangements had not been deliberately made, but had arisen from various, almost accidental, circumstances. The Courts of Westminster Hall originally included both equity and common law; but in consequence of inadequate accommodation the Equity Courts were removed to Lincoln's Inn. Even in Lincoln's Inn the Equity Courts were only lodged in temporary places. So badly were they in want of room that the old hall of Lincoln's Inn was divided by a partition, and one portion devoted to the Lord Chancellor's Court, and the other to the Court of the Lords' Justices. Two of the Vice Chancellor's Courts were in a condition that every one acknowledged could not be long continued. With respect to Westminster Hall, those who had occasion to attend the courts must be perfectly acquainted with the inconveniences of the arrangements, espe-
  798
  cially in the cases of the Bail Court and the Exchequer Chamber. They were too small for the decorous administration of justice. In addition, very great inconvenience was felt by all parties, owing to the separation of the courts from the offices connected with them. A common-law Judge had frequently to leave his court at Westminster Hall to proceed to sit in chambers at Serjeant's Inn, thus entailing an unnecessary waste of time and trouble. Barristers were also exposed to needles inconvenience by the courts being so far removed from the localities in which their chambers were situate, and thus were prevented from devoting much valuable time to the study and preparation of their cases. Many persons of great authority attached importance to the ultimate fusion of law and equity, and the arrangement proposed by his Bill would greatly tend to render such fusion practicable. The inconveniences at present borne by the suitors was pointed out by competent witnesses before the Commission, and it was proved that the propinquity of courts and offices would save more money than even a reduction of fees. Great delays now occurred after a decision in court had been arrived at, in consequence of the separation of the offices from the courts interposing difficulties in the way of parties meeting together to draw up the details necessary to carry out the decision. Considering the subject in all those aspects, it had been felt that the Bill under consideration, and that which accompanied it, constituted a most important legal reform, and in that light they were pressed upon the notice of the House. The reason for dividing the subject into two Bills was, that as one part of the measure affected private property, it was necessary that it should be submitted to a Committee upstairs, where parties might be heard; but the other part, not affecting private interests, was introduced as a public Bill. There were reasons, however, why the latter Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, as there were many details which could not be adequately considered in a Committee of the whole House, and he should, therefore, propose to refer that Bill to a Committee, so that the real charge which it would entail upon the public might be fully ascertained.
  An erroneous impression upon that point had gone abroad, arising from a hasty examination of the Treasury Minute of last year. That Minute did not profess to give

  799
  a final decision upon the subject, but was more in the character of a warning as to what might ultimately and possibly be the expense that would be caused by the plait proposed. It did not go, however, into the important point of the savings that would have to be set off against the charges. As it was proposed to provide new premises for Certain courts and offices, the action of the Bill would be to set free the buildings now occupied for those purposes, and what was saved in that direction at least ought to be set off against the expense for the new buildings. The Bill would empower the expenditure of a sum in stock of a million and a half, which, when sold, would probably realize about £1,400,000; but the Bill went on to provide that whatever money was expended should be voted by that House, so that the actual expenditure Would always be under the control of Parliament. It was proposed that when a tote in Supply had been taken, a sum not amounting to more than a million and a half in stock should be sold out by order of the Lord Chancellor from the Surplus Interest Fund and the surplus Fee Fund, to replace the money voted by Parliament. In the first instance the loss arising from the sale of these funds would be at the maximum rate of £45,000 a year, which would represent the charge upon the public; but that amount would not always be required for the Suitors' Fee Fund. At present there was an amount payable out of that fund in the shape of certain terminable annuities as compensation allowances for abolished offices; but as they fell in no corresponding charges would be placed upon the fund. Those Charges now amounted to £69,000 a year. The Bill provided that as those charges fell in up to the amount of £45,000 a year the charge upon the Consolidated Fund should be reduced; and when the reduction in the charges upon the Fee Fund became equal to £45,000 a year, no charge would remain upon the Consolidated Fund. Assuming that the charges upon the fund diminished at the rate of £2,000 a year—and of late they had diminished at a greater rate— the sum capitalized would amount to about £350,000, which would be the sum that might have to be made good out of the public revenue. Against that must be set the value of the buildings which would no longer be required when the new courts were erected. The buildings in Chaneery Lane, in Southampton Buildings, and Serjeant's Inn, might be estimated at
  800
  £118,000. Then, the Probate Registry would no longer be required; and when the Common Law Courts were removed from Westminster Hall, that site would be disposable for the public buildings which Sir Charles Barry originally proposed to erect there. The site of the Probate Registry and the site of the present Common Law Courts might be set down at £75,000; Rents to the amount of £5,000 a year were at present paid partly out of the Suitors' Fee Fund, and partly by Parliament, which, if capitalized, would give a sum of £145,000. Again, the Government would be saved from the necessity of building new Common Law Courts which must be provided for elsewhere, as the present site could not be enlarged. Those courts cost £98,000, and proper accommodation could not be given elsewhere for less than twice that sum, or probably £200,000. It would also be necessary to provide permanently for the Probate Registry, which would cost a considerable sum. Altogether, he calculated that the ultimate saving by the adoption of the Bill would be £600,000, against £350,000 which he assumed as the capital sum representing the annual dividends now paid. What the public were called upon to do in return was to guarantee that, in the event of these funds being required, the whole amount would be forthcoming out of the Consolidated Fund. But that was not a very formdiable contingency. The Surplus Interest Fund, amounting to £1,291,000 was liable to be called upon to replace any deficiency which might arise in the cash balances paid in by suitors. But that contingency could only arise if the Court of Chancery were to shut up shop, and all the suitors were to call for the money they had deposited; and even then the fund would be sufficient to meet all claims, provided that Consols were above 87. In the case of the Suitors' Fee Fund, which amounted to £201,000, the guarantee could only be required if there was a deficiency in the fund from which this surplus arose. That was also a very improbable contingency; and as long as the business of the Court of Chancery increased, the fund would, no doubt, increase. Practically, these guarantees were not likely to be called for, and the maximum limit to which the payments upon the Consolidated Fund could extend were £45,000 a year. But if even a burden were thrown on the general taxation of the Country, it must be, remembered that the Consolidated Fund

  801
  was receiving considerable sums in the shape of fees from the Common Law and Probate Courts, which would be provided for in the measure.
  Then came the question whether it was light to use these funds, which were now lying idle, for the object now contemplated. Now, at different times Parliament had been of opinion that the profits made by the courts upon the funds deposited with them could not be better spent than in providing better accommodation for the suitors, and various offices attached to the courts had therefore been erected out of similar funds. The buildings known as Southampton Buildings, used as the Masters' offices, were purchased and acquired in a similar manner. Another precedent was supplied by the Insolvent Court, in regard to which an Act, the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 72 was passed, which employed the unclaimed fund of the Insolvent Court in enlarging that Court. The Irish Four Courts were also built out of the Suitors' Fund. There being, then, sufficient precedent, was there any injustice to any one in the proposed appropriation of the funds in question? He thought not, and felt himself justified in assuming that no one could hereafter set up any claim to the enjoyment of the money. It had been created by about ten Acts of the Legislature, authorizing the Lord Chancellor and the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery to invest the funds. If the money had not been invested, there would have been no profit; and it rested, therefore, with the Legislature to say how the money thus created should be spent. The money was in the same position as the reserved profit made by a banker on the employment of deposits. The Court of Chancery had received certain cash payments which it was bound to repay, but it had entered into no engagement to pay interest. He had been informed that nineteen out of every twenty of the pending suits of the Court of Chancery had been instituted since 1852. No suitor could say how much of the interest accumulated had arisen from his particular account. He maintained, therefore, that the property belonged to no individual owner, but to the public at large.
  The only opposition he anticipated to this measure was indicated in a petition from the Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn which body had a project in 1859 for doing the same thing. They proposed that they should be empowered to erect a building in
  802
  Lincoln's Inn which should cost £100,000, and for which they stipulated to receive £4,000 a year from the Surplus Interest Fund. The only difference between the two plans was that the Society of Lincoln's Inn proposed to take the interest of the fund and not to touch the principal, while he proposed to take the principal and to guarantee the interest. The difference between them was not, therefore, one of principle. Another petition raised the question of the schedule of the Bill. Upon that point he would only say, that if the Society of Lincoln's Inn had a claim upon the property in the schedule, they would have an opportunity of making out their claim before the Committee. He understood the Society of Lincoln's Inn argued in favour of keeping all the Courts of Equity within their limits. That claim was not, however, viewed with favour by the rest of the profession, nor did it seem desirable that the great courts of justice should be held in the premises of a private body. No doubt, such a scheme would be of great advantage to those who had chambers in Lincoln's Inn; but against that must be placed the advantage of bringing all the courts and offices into close contiguity, and placing them under one roof. The best site for such a building would be between Lincoln's Inn and the Temple, so that those who resided in all the Inns of Court should have equal facilities for attending the courts of law. It was impossible to concentrate all the courts in Lincoln's Inn Fields, and the only appropriate site was that recommended by the Commission, and which it was proposed by the present Bill to purchase. He trusted that the House would sympathize with the desire he felt that the country should possess an ample, commodious, and stately building as a Palace of Justice, in which all the legal proceedings of the country could be carried on. If the principle of the Bill were adopted, the right course would be that a Commission should be appointed to consider what extent of accommodation should be made for the different courts and offices. Supposing that a satisfactory decision was come to as to the number and size of rooms and halls to be provided, then the ordinary course taken the erection of public buildings would be pursued, and all the more eminent architects of the country would be invited to send in plans and designs for the proposed building, it that way, he trusted, they would see before long

  803
  a building worthy of the purposes to which it would be devoted and satisfactory to the country. The estimates of the cost could not be made in minute detail, but it was calculated the site would cost £730,000, and all the courts and offices would be constructed for a further sum of £720,000, making a total of £1,500.000. The present Bill would onlygive£1,400,000; but when the matter came to be minutely examined, it might be found that £1,400,000 would suffice for the site and the cost of the buildings. The savings obtained by the operation of the Bill would be much greater than the annual payments called for, and would certainly be sufficient to cover the £100,000 if it should be required. He believed, that if the Bill were read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, the statements he had made might be substantiated in detail, and that nothing need prevent the measure from passing and becoming law during the present Session.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he had hoped that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Brand), whose name was on the back of the Treasury Minute to which reference had been made, would have risen to answer the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Cowper's) observations in respect to it; but as that hon. Member was temporarily absent from his place, it devolved on him to show that the First Commissioner of Works was not justified in treating that Minute as a hasty one.
  MR. COWPER: I beg pardon. I used the word "hasty" in reference to the perusal of the Minute.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; but, passing from that point, he must observe that, so far from the proposed guarantee being merely nominal, the Bill would involve the country in a very large expenditure. Before dealing with the statements in the Treasury Minute, he would ask the House to consider how different was the position in which they then stood from that which they had occupied at the date of that document. The Minute was dated the 17th of July, 1861. At that time they were indulging, if not in the belief, at least in the hope, that there was something like a surplus of income over expenditure on the national balance-sheet. The Chanceller of the Exchequer, however, had recently put them in possession of the disagreeable information that there was no such surplus. Under these circumstances he thought the
  804
  House would agree with him that the nature and extent of the guarantee into which they were now asked to enter were matters of the deepest importance. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that his two estimates for the purchase of ground and the erection of the buildings were loose ones. The House had had some experience of estimates, and they knew that even in the case of carefully-framed estimates they might safely add one-third for contingencies. They would, therefore, be disposed to agree with the Treasury in thinking it highly probable that the cost of pulling down these hundreds of houses, compensating the occupiers, and erecting the courts, would be at least £2,000,000. The question was, then, what income had the right hon. Gentleman on which he could depend to meet the interest on that sum? He would not enter into all the various funds in the Court of Chancery in detail, but take them as a whole. That was the way they were dealt with in the Treasury Minute. The aggregate income arising from the entire of the funds was taken on the one side, and the whole of the charges on the other. Dealing with the sums in that way, it was found, that for the year ending in November, 1859, the surplus of income over expenditure amounted to a little over £3,000. But in that result the case against the Bill was understated, because the evidence of Mr. Johnson, the solicitor to the Fund, given before the Committee in 1861, p. 32, showed, that calculating on the same bases, but for a year later—namely, the year ending in November, 1860—the aggregate income was £158,213 7s. 10 d., and the total payments £156,991 4s., giving an excess of income over expenditure to the amount of only £1,221 13 s. 10 d. It was quite true that the annual charges on that income were liable to diminution, arising from the death of annuitants; but, as the Treasury Minute pointed out, there were probable expenses, such as repairs, to be taken into account on the other side also. A large portion of the income was derived from funds paid by suitors in the Court of Chancery, who were taxed in every way, on bills, answers, evidence, and decrees. Funds raised in that way might be diminished to a very serious extent by any falling-off of the business of the court, or by legislative alterations in respect to the jurisdiction of that court; so that the time might arrive when what was now recommended as being merely a nominal

  805
  guarantee would become a substantial payment of the interest on a very large expenditure. No doubt, very strong evidence had been given in favour of the new scheme by members of the Committee of the Association of Solicitors. Unquestionably, it would be very agreeable to that body to have their club-house in front of a stately Palace of Justice instead of abutting on a narrow lane; and, as had been stated by the Master of the Rolls in his evidence, solicitors might experience some advantage from having what was now the business of two or three clerks done by one under the new system; but, as to the Bar, he took the liberty of differing from the right hon. Gentleman. Neither the opinion of the Judges nor that of the Bar was in any degree favourable to the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. The First Commissioner of Works described the principal fund on which it was proposed to draw as one which at present was really lying idle, and that seemed to have been the view taken by the Commission; but the effect of the Commissioners' proclamation on the subject had been to raise numerous claimants to the fund in question. He had in his possession a letter from one of the most experienced officers of the Court of Chancery, which stated that since the publication of the Commissioners' Report, some solicitors had made a business of bringing forward claims against the fund, and the result was that the amount of the claims had reached £320,000. Many of these claimants had succeeded in recovering the principal stock and dividends; but they had been, by a decision of the court, deprived of the benefit of the accumulations which had actually taken place; for it was proved in evidence before the Committee of last year, that even when an order of the court had been made for the investment and accumulation of the dividends, unless the person entitled or his solicitor could go every half-year to the Accountant General's office and direct the investment of the dividends, he would not obtain the benefit of the accumulation, although actually made. That appeared so strange to the Committee, that it was not satisfied till the orders of the court in two cases were read to it. The Master of the Rolls was asked this question, "Was not the result that a person who had been out of the jurisdiction, and who, therefore, had no opportunity of going every year or half-year to the Accountant General's office, but who might have relied on the order which had been
  806
  obtained for the investment and the accumulation of the dividends, was deprived of that benefit, except for the period of six years?" The Master of the Rolls replied, "That was it exactly." How could the right hon. Gentleman say the Suitors' Fund belonged to nobody? The Court of Chancery might be considered either as the banker or custodian of a sum of money, or as a trustee. Suppose a person going abroad told his bankers he had transferred a sum of money to their name, to receive the dividends and invest them; suppose he remained abroad twenty years, and was then told by the bank that they had invested the dividends under a different name, and that they claimed the accumulations for themselves—what would be the opinion of their honesty? How would the Court of Chancery itself deal with a trustee, who, under an order to invest and accumulate dividends, said he had invested them, but in his own name and for his own benefit? If the decision to which he had alluded should be reversed by the present or any future Lord Chancellor, or by the House of Lords, the supposed surplus of these funds would be greatly diminished, and, at all events, these claims ought to be satisfied before appropriating the fund to other purposes.
  It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that Parliament had dealt with the fund, but in every instance he could find it had been applied for the benefit of the suitors, from whom it had been raised. He could not conceive how the precedent had been strained so as to include the appropriation of the fund to the purpose of the Bill. That appropriation would really prevent any improvement in the practice and administration of the Court of Chancery. There was a stamp required on almost every proceeding of the court; and if this Bill passed, it would be impossible to make any change in procedure involving a reduction of those stamps without the sanction of the Commissioners of the Treasury. The Master of the Rolls, in his evidence before the Committee, said, in reference to this part of the Bill—
  "I think that is a very cruel provision. I think it is scarcely possible, if the House really understands the effect of that clause, that they will pass it. The whole course of legislation of late years has been to avoid law taxes, and, as much as possible, to put an end to them."
  And in answer to a question whether the proceedings in the court were not heavily taxed, he said—

  807
  "Yes; and if the Committee ill remember the very celebrated pamphlet of Mr. Jeremy Benthem on law taxes, which produced so great a sensation, and in fact put an end to making the courts of law a source of revenue to the public, they will see that that applies precisely the same to the taxes which are now levied, though essential for the maintenance of the courts as at present established."
  The Master of the Rolls was perfectly justified in the observation; and if this Bill passed, no improvement in the practice of the Court of Chancery would be possible, and the Lord Chancellor or the Master of the Rolls would not be able to remit a fee, even if paid by error, without the consent of the Commissioners. The surplus of the Suitors' Fund ought to be applied to a gradual reduction of the expense of the proceedings in the Court of Chancery, as had been emphatically declared by the present Lord Chancellor only two years ago in this House. He said—
  "It was a great mistake to suppose that the Court of Chancery was indebted to the Consolidated Fund. If the balance were struck, and if the Suitors' Fund were emancipated from the burden thrown upon it, the Consolidated Fund would have £200,000 additional to bear. The accumulations of the Suitors' Fee Fund ought to be dedicated to the purpose of relieving the suitors from the fees of the Court of Chancery." [3 Hansard, clviii., 1574.]
  He would not object to anything that could be done for the benefit of the Courts of Common Law. He believed that there were considerable funds belonging to those courts which might be applied for their benefit. It was, however, proposed to take the money of the Court of Chancery for the benefit of those courts, and not only for the benefit of those courts, but for the benefit of the Probate and Divorce Courts. If a new Probate Court were required, surely those who established their title to property by means of that court ought to provide the necessary funds; and as to the Divorce Court, rather than do what was proposed by the Bill, he would tax the prurient crowd who waited outside that court to hear the cases tried there, or tax the newspapers that published their filthy details.
  Again, in the reference which the right hon. Gentleman made to the existing courts, he seemed to have forgotten that the Commissioners had reported the Court of the Lord Chancellor to be perfectly sufficient, not only for the convenience, but for the proper dignity of the Chancellor's office. The same was stated with regard to the courts occupied by the Lords Justices; and the Master of the Rolls, in his evidence, de-
  808
  clared that it would not only be very expensive, but positively detrimental to the public service to remove him front his present court and offices, for which no rent was paid, and which lay close to the new buildings, erected at a cost of £884,000, to hold the public records, of which the Master of the Rolls, in Virtue of his office, was custodian. In an epoch of retrenchment, was it not surprising to hear a proposition deliberately made that the functions of the Master of the Rolls should be divided—that he should cease to discharge a portion of the duties which he now most satisfactorily performed, without additional expense to the public, and that a new office should be created, requiring great ability, legal knowledge, and historical acquirements on the part of the holder, and therefore entitling him to very large remuneration? The Senior Vice Chancellor's Court was also amply sufficient for its purpose; and therefore upon four of the six principal Courts of Chancery no expenditure whatever was required. The description which the right hon. Gentleman had given of the two others was perfectly correct; they were merely temporary courts, built by the Society of Lincoln's Inn upon ground of its own. But the society had always been perfectly willing to give ground for the erection of new courts, and courts would long since have been built if it were not for the agitation of this gigantic scheme for, spending £2,000,000 The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Society of Lincoln's Inn, and stated that, of course, it was their interest to keep possession of the courts. As a bencher of that society, and one whose family had been connected with it for many generations, he might be allowed to say that the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely justified in attributing interested motives to that society. Wherever the courts might be built, the managers of that society could not derive pecuniary advantage to the extent of a single sixpence. The society no doubt considered it a great honour to have had the courts located for so many years within their precincts; they had given their hall and ground freely for the public service, and therefore they hardly deserved the terms in which they had been spoken of by the Minister of the Crown. In 1859 a Bill was introduced, by which it was proposed that provision should be made for the two Vice Chancellors by erecting a building at a maximum cost of £100,000, to be paid by the Society of Lincoln's Inn.

  809
  The right hon. Gentleman said that proposal was substantially the same as the present, but he need not point out that there was a considerable difference between £100,000 and £2,000.000, especially when with respect to the smaller sum no guarantee was asked from the public. It was impossible to imagine a more liberal proposal than that which had been made by the Society of Lincoln's Inn. They offered to give the ground on which courts might be built out of the funds of the Court of Chancery, or to build courts themselves, if they received a moderate rate of interest for the money which they should expend.
  With respect to the 7th clause of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman, feeling it impossible to answer the petition presented on behalf of the Society of Lincoln's Inn, treated their statements as matter of detail to be dealt with in Committee; but the Bill actually proposed that the Six Clerks' Office, and that of the Accountant General, standing on part of the ground and garden of Lincoln's Inn, should be vested in the First Commissioner of Works, with a view to their being sold discharged of all subsisting trusts declared with respect thereto; those trusts being trusts declared by former Acts of Parliament for the benefit of the Society of Lincoln's Inn and of the Court of Chancery. As well might it be proposed to take and sell a school which some nobleman or gentleman had built upon his demesne, and to apply the proceeds of the sale, together with the accumulation of the weekly payments by the scholars, towards the expenses of the erection of a gaol, compelling all the children, no matter what their religious opinions might be, to attend some British and Foreign School in the neighbourhood. That was not pushing by any means too far an illustration of the course of confiscation that was about to be resorted to in the case of a society which had behaved so liberally to the public as that of Lincoln's Inn. If the Bill were thrown out, as he trusted it would be, the amalgamation of the Common Law Courts, instead of being retarded, would be positively facilitated; for it would be easy to obtain a site capacious enough merely for them, whereas it would be next to impossible to procure a site sufficiently spacious for the courts and offices both of law and equity, with the extensions and enlargements that would in time become necessary. By subtracting the six Courts of Chancery, with their different offices, from
  810
  the scheme, they rendered that a practical design which otherwise would be gigantic and visionary. He should therefore conclude by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months"
  MR. PEELsaid, he did not rise to answer the objections of the hon. and learned Member to a measure for concentrating the courts of law and equity on one spot, nor to say anything with regard to the applicability of funds be-longing to the Chancery Courts to the general purposes of the courts of law, though he might say, in passing, that there were no funds belonging to the courts of law which were applicable to building purposes, since by law all the surplus which might arise was payable into the Consolidated Fund. His only object was to make a few remarks on the financial bearings of the measure in connection with the Treasury Minute to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred. The first question for the House to consider was, what would be the probable expense of the plan of his right hon. Friend? The first estimate was£1,500,000, but the Treasury, acting under the very natural apprehension founded on their past experience that on several important occasions the actual cost of buildings had exceeded the estimate, added £500,000 to the estimate. He was bound to add, however, that his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had since carefully gone over the estimate, and he adhered to the original calculation. The Bill declared that the cost was to be paid out of money to be voted by Parliament, so that the House would retain the control of the expenditure in its own hands. The money which was available arose from the surplus funds of the Court of Chancery, and would, it was estimated, amount to £1,400,000. But of course it was not open to the public to appropriate a sum of that kind without undertaking a corresponding responsibility; and the question was, what was that responsibility, and what was the actual amount of the liability incurred. It would simplify matters if he stated that there were two funds belonging to that court, one called the Suitors' Fund, and the other the Suitors' Fee Fund. The Suitors' Fund was the general cash balance of the Court of

  811
  Chancery, and consisted of money deposited in that court by suitors, in regard to which they had omitted or declined to make any recommendation that it should be invested for their benefit, and which had consequently been invested by the court on its own responsibility for the benefit of the public. According to a return which had been presented to the House, the amount which the Court of Chancery was, on the 1st of October, 1861, liable to make good in cash was£2,702,542. The amount then in hand, in cash, was£437,798, and the difference, £2,264,744, had been invested in stock for the benefit of the public. The stock purchased amounted to £2,606,225; and unless the funds should fall below 87, that amount would be sufficient to realize the whole sum for which the Court of Chancery was responsible to the suitors. There was also a reserve or security fund, which on the 1st of October, 1861, amounted to £1,291,629, and which was liable to make good any deficiency which might arise on the realization of the stock. That fund it was proposed to appropriate to these buildings, the public undertaking the responsibility towards the suitors' cash, which was now charged against the reserve. It was most unlikely that there would be any deficiency, and therefore the responsibility of the public in that respect would be little or nothing. The Suitors' Fee Fund was, in reality, an income and expenditure account. For the year ending the 1st of October, 186l, the income of the Court of Chancery amounted to about £225,000. That was made up partly of fees, and partly of the interest upon the two capital funds which he had mentioned. It consisted to the extent of £100,000 a year of fees, to the extent of £119,000 of interest and dividends upon these funds, and to the extent of £5,792 of dividends upon a stock which had been created by the investment of the surplus income of the Suitors' Fee Fund since the year 1842. The expenditure of the Court for the year ending the 1st of October, 1861, amounted to £217,348, showing a balance in favour of income of £7,000. The return showed a balance of only £5,500; but in it credit had been given for only one half-year's dividend upon the last-mentioned stock. By the Bill it was proposed to appropriate the reserve fund, amounting to £1,291,000, and also the £201,000 stock which had been created by the investment of the surplus of the Suitors' Fee Fund. That
  812
  would reduce the income by£45,000, and cause an excess of expenditure over income of £37,000 per annum. That was the maximum liability which would be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund by this measure; but there were two reasons which led him to think that the actual charge would be considerably under that maximum. In the first place, as a great plan like that proposed could not be carried out at once, the deficiency of income would not arise at once; and, in the second, the Bill provided that the public should have the benefit of all reductions of expenditure arising from the falling-in of compensations and pensions granted upon the abolition of offices, which it was calculated would amount to about £2,000 per annum. They had, therefore, a right to expect that the charge to the public would not in any one year exceed £30,000, and that sum would be gradually decreasing by £2,000 per annum. In order to prevent the charge becoming more onerous, it would be necessary that care should be taken that the income of the Court of Chancery was not reduced by the diminution of fees, and, accordingly, provision was made by the Bill that no such reduction should be made except with the consent of the Commissioners of the Treasury. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that that provision would operate to the disadvantage of the suitors; but it ought to be borne in mind that a scale of fees had been maintained without inconvenience which had produced so large a surplus that the fund had now a balance of upwards of £90.000 to its credit.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, that the fees had lately been greatly reduced, and it had been the object of every Lord Chancellor to reduce them as much as was safe.
  MR. PEEL: It would also be necessary to take care that the expenditure of the court was not unnecessarily increased. From time to time Bills were brought into that House, placing fresh charges for salaries, &c., upon the Suitors' Fee Fund. There was one before them at that moment —the Lunacy Regulation Bill. If the House was vigilant with regard to measures of that character they need not apprehend that the liability of the public would be greater than he had stated. He by no means meant to imply that the plan could be carried out without considerable cost to the public; but he believed that in no other mode could so great and beneficial

  813
  an improvement be carried out with so little pressure on the resources of the nation.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he hoped the House would pay the closest attention to the proposition before them. It had been said that the House was to provide the money from year to year, and; therefore they would have a check upon the expenditure; but past experience showed that such checks were fallacious, and he hoped that they would never fall into such a trap again. The Houses of Parliament were, as they all knew, originally estimated to cost £770.000, but eventually upwards of £2,000,000 was expended upon them; and although hon. Members did their best from time to time to close the transaction, they were unable to do so until they determined to vote no more money, and Sir William Moles worth was requested to bring in a final estimate, which was accordingly done. The only explanation they; had ever succeeded in getting from Sir Charles Barry as to the cause of the increase from the original estimate, was that it had "gradually clothed itself with £2,000,000." He considered the system of finance contained in the measure was one of the most fishy and rotten ever submitted to a deliberative assembly. The whole Bill smelt from first to last of the Consolidated Fund. It began with the Consolidated Fund, and he felt certain it would end with the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Peel) had opened a different view to that taken by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Selwyn). The main fund of the Court of Chancery was known by the letter A. It was a very large fund, consisting of stock and cash, but principally of the former. The Suitors' Fund was called B, and B was said to be a guarantee for A. Why? Because Stocks might fall. Supposing, then, there was a war, and Stocks fell to 80, there would be a heavy deficit. So much for the guarantee. Then, with regard to the fund itself, he could not conceive how the House could propose to take the capital of a fund the revenue of which was absolutely or nearly disposed of. It appeared to him to be an absurdity. His right hon. Friend admitted that there was a charge upon it of £30,00; or £40,000, which, taking interest into account, was equivalent to a capital of £1,000,000. The accounts of 1859 showed that there was a difference only of £3,000, the total revenue carried to account C being £226,000, and the total expenses being
  814
  £223,000. Of the £226,000 no less a sum than £97,000 arose from fees, clearly showing that that fund was liable to great fluctuation, depending upon the popularity or unpopularity of the Court of Chancery. He therefore contended that the scheme of the Government was all moonshine. They might seize the capital, as they might seize any capital, but they must prepare to meet the burdens upon it. Therefore the scheme was a sort of mock mode of meeting the expense, because very heavy burdens would have to be paid. These remarks, he thought, disposed of the financial part of the question. But it was a very remarkable fact that there was really no necessity for dealing with the Courts of Equity. The principal witnesses—for instance, the Lords Justices, the Master of the Rolls, and Sir William Page Wood— all united in the opinion that they were better where they were; and that all they wanted were two courts for two extra Judges, and which might be erected at Lincoln's Inn at an expense of a few thousand pounds without any further consideration. One change, he observed, had been made in the Bill since it was last submitted to the House, for he found that account E had vanished. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works had shown a wise discretion in leaving that account out of consideration, because it was public revenue. But E having gone, they were in a worse condition than before, inasmuch as he (Sir Henry Willoughby) contended that B was worth nothing. Consequently, really and truly, the taxpayers of the country would have to pay an enormous expense at a moment when they were threatened with every species of difficulty. He therefore hoped the House would prove itself a vigilant guardian of the public purse, and would refuse to sanction an expenditure the responsibility of which had, on the part of the Government, been declined by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had stated with precision the pecuniary part of the question. If, as the hon. Baronet seemed to suppose, he (Mr. Gladstone) had declined, on the part of the Government, all responsibility for the financial scheme of the Bill, he must have expressed himself very unfortunately, as, on the contrary, he believed that it was at its maximum in regard to this subject. What he meant was, that while the re-

  815
  sponsibility of the Government remained in full force, it was one of that class of questions on which the House of Commons also had a peculiar and large responsibility. In the case of the Army and Navy Estimates, it was natural for the House to accept the figures as in a great degree relating to matters of which the Government could alone judge, and to pass them very much as votes of confidence. In the present instance, however, the House was bound to sift and probe the estimates for themselves, as the Government had already done. In speaking of the responsibility of the House of Commons, he did not regard it other than as cumulative and not derogating from that of the Government. In point of fact, he thought the public had had fair reason to be dissatisfied in some notable instances in recent experience with the enormous excess of costs beyond the estimates of public undertakings. It was the sincere desire of the Government to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such grounds of complaint. With respect to the financial part of the question, there was no doubt a prospect of a considerable public charge, against which, however, the sets-off had been mentioned by his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works. He thought it extremely desirable that the House should have the opportunity of examining the nature and value of those sets-off, as well as the amount of the charge itself. The Government had proceeded in the belief that this measure was one of the greatest possible value and importance with respect to the administration of the law, and they had therefore felt willing, and advised the House to exhibit the same willingness, to encounter some considerable risk with regard to the outside charge which might be entailed. At the same time the Government had taken in view any fair and reasonable sources from which compensation might be derived. One of these sources was the Fee Fund. Another was the sets-off to which his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner referred, in the shape of property liberated and made available to other uses. The Commission appointed to inquire into the state of the funds of the Court of Chancery was not appointed under any notion that they would discover anything of a gross or flagrant character, but under the belief that the arrangements connected with those funds would admit of considerable improvement and economy; and the view of the Government certainly was, that in future a fair
  816
  claim might be put in on behalf of the public for the savings, in consideration of the charges entailed by the scheme. It was pretty plain that some considerable savings might be expected from the nature of the case and the contents of documents before the House, although the Commission had not reported. He thought that he had said sufficient upon the financial bearings of the question, and that further details could be more satisfactorily discussed in Committee
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, it. was admitted, and, indeed, was evident that a, heavy public charge would result from the measure. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Subject to sets-off.] Those sets-off were of: a very illusory character. It was also plain that the House of Commons was to be saddled with the responsibility of sanctioning that expenditure. They all knew what would follow if they passed this Bill. If they did so, a considerable item would appear some two or three years hence in the Estimates; and if any dissatisfaction were expressed at its amount, they would be told,; "You voted for this Bill, and you cannot now shirk the responsibility of paying the account." They had already experienced something similar in the various law reforms which had been promulgated of late years. Law reform was a very goad thing, and he had always been a law reformer; but law reform, he thought, might be bought too dear. There was the case of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which they had thoroughly reformed, and the result was an annual charge of £120,000 for compensation. A new annual item of £25,000 appeared in the Estimates for this year, and they found it was for a reform of the Bankruptcy Court. This was the time above all others when they ought not to embark in this great expenditure. The revenue was very large, but the expenditure was so enormous that it was with the greatest possible difficulty they could make both ends meet. They seemed to proceed upon the spendthrift's idea—that when their finances were in a very unsatisfactory condition it was immaterial whether they spent more or less, and therefore they might scatter their money in every direction, regardless of future consequences. The public would soon begin to think that they were not discharging their duty when they held the purse-strings so loosely. Besides, the scheme itself was one of novelty, and had never been thoroughly thrashed out by debate in the House or discus-

  817
  sion in the country. It seemed to be taken for granted that the concentration of all the courts would be of enormous value; but there was no definite plan, and they had made no careful estimate. The Houses of Parliament were supposed to cost £750,000; they had cost nearly £3,000,000; and if the rule of three applied, as these courts were computed to cost £1,500,000, the expenditure would be £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. They were building new ships, erecting batteries, re-organizing and re-arming the army, and this expenditure could well be deferred until they had an overflowing Exchequer.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, said, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Selwyn) had omitted to make any allusion to that which had formed an important part of the statement of his right hon. Friend in moving the second reading of the Bill —namely, the credits which, as he had proved, he was entitled to take as against the expenditure, and which amounted to a sum of nearly £700,000. His hon. and learned Friend, having thus unduly swollen the expenditure, had then sought to diminish the income, for he had told the House that the probable effect of the changes which were being introduced into the law would be to diminish litigation. He (Sir William Atherton) could not concur in that anticipation. On the contrary, he thought that the growth which was daily taking place in the population, the wealth, and the commerce of the country, would necessarily compel more persons to resort, however unwillingly, to the Court of Chancery. His hon. and learned Friend had referred in a tone of disparagement to the very valuable Report of the Commissioners; but that report was confirmed by the evidence of a large number of witnesses connected with the law. His hon. and learned Friend said that there had been but one eqiuty Judge, Sir W. Page Wood, upon the Commission. That was true, but there was likewise only one common law Judge, Sir John Coleridge, upon it. The other Commissioners were the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War, who was not engaged in the legal profession; Dr. Phillimore, who was a civilian; and Mr. Young, an eminent solicitor, whose practice lay more in the Chancery than in any other courts, so that it was impossible to argue that the Commission had not been constituted with perfect fairness, or that any undue Chancery complexion had been
  818
  given to its Report. With regard to the probable claims which might be made upon this fund, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend had been very fortunate in the selection of his examples, because he had given the House the example of a claimant who had no ground of claim. He had put the case as if the Court of Chancery, with reference to this fund, stood in the position to the suitor of trustee or banker. Now the fund of which they were speaking was the creation of the court itself—the result, in fact, of investments made by the court at its own discretion and on its own responsibility, in cases where suitors had declined to exercise the right the law gave them of requesting that the money should be invested. The matter had been exhaustively disposed of by the Commissioners, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knew. When suitors requested they their money should be invested, they were entitled to the gain, as they must bear the loss of the transaction; but when they did not, they simply received the money at the close of the suit without addition or diminution. The position of the court was in fact, simply that of stakeholder between, the litigants. The only difference between the proposal of his hon. And learned Friend, and that of the Government was one of degree, and not principle; for his hon. and learned Friend proposed that they should take a certain portion—a less portion no doubt—of the fund, and apply it to the erection of courts for the use of the courts of equity only. The origin of the fund was entirely Parliamentary, which was clearly stated in the Report of the Commission. Previous to the year 1705 the practice; was, when money was ordered to be paid into court, it was paid into the hands of the masters or the ushers, who used it for their own profit; and certain malversations having taken place, an Act of Parliament was passed, which directed the investment of the money in Government stock. Such being the origin of the fund, and it being quite independent of any option on the part of the suitors, how, he would ask, had it been applied? To the accomplishment of various objects; among others to the erection of an Accountant General's office and other buildings, as well as to the payment of pensions to incapacitated and retired officers. It was said that Lincoln's Inn was entitled to some consideration. He had no desire to speak in disparagement of that honourable society, nor did he suggest that its members were influenced by

  819
  selfish motives, but it was impossible to forget that the barristers practising in the courts of equity had an interest which was likely to bias their minds upon this subject. He had no hesitation in saying that the opinion of the profession of the law generally was in favour of the present measure. The profession desired better courts, believing that if the courts were concentrated the administration of justice would be greatly advanced and improved. On those grounds they supported the Bill, and so strong was his own opinion in its favour that he was persuaded any outlay which it might entail would prove highly beneficial to the country.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he agreed with the hon. and learned Attorney General that there was a general concurrence of opinion in the profession of the law that something ought to be done. The question was what that something should be. It was admitted on all hands that the courts of common law were both badly situated and inconvenient in themselves, and that they should be put in a central situation. There was also a general agreement that the best site which could be selected was the site bounded on the north by Carey Street, on the east by Bell Yard, on the west by Clement's Inn, and on the south by the Strand. With respect to the courts of equity, it was quite unnecessary to spend a single sixpence on the courts occupied by the Lord Chancellor, the Lords Justices, the Master of the Rolls, and the senior Vice Chancellor, but the two junior Vice Chancellors sat in courts which were little better than covered sheds. He had spent his life in one of them, and he could say that in summer they were very hot, while in winter they were very cold. Another evil was that the administrative business of the Court of Chancery was transacted in chambers altogether inadequate in point of size and accommodation. Now, the business of the Court of Chancery could not be computed at less than one-third of the whole judicial business of England, and the adoption of the plan proposed by Lincoln's Inn would at once provide for the transaction of that vast mass of business without making any demand upon the public purse at all. But for the proposal of this gigantic scheme, the whole evil would have been remedied years ago. Undoubtedly the country should provide the courts necessary for the proper administration of justice; but the House ought not to suffer them selves to be deceived. Let
  820
  them not imagine that the Suitors' Fund could supply the means. That fund was already occupied; there was a tenant for life in possession. If the plan was worthy of the support of the country, why did the right hon. Gentleman not meet the difficulty in the face? Why did he not propose that the Consolidated Fund should provide the means? The Suitors' Fund ought to be applied in lowering the fees of the suitors. Again, the coat was estimated by the First Commissioner of Works at £1,500,000; but be at the same time admitted, that he had only "rough estimates;" and there was no doubt that the expenditure would not be less than £2,000,000; in addition to which there must be some thousands a year spent in keeping the building up; though of that charge no account at all was taken. He repeated that so far as the Chancery courts were concerned only two courts were wanted, in addition to chambers for the chief clerks; but with regard to the common law courts he certainly thought that something should be done. He objected, however, to the Bill, as an attempt to hoodwink the House, by concealing the fact that the public funds must pay for the courts.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he wished to make a very few observations. The question naturally divided itself into two obvious branches—one relating to the object in view, and the other to the pecuniary means by which that object was to be accomplished. The object was to accommodate the administration of justice in suitable and convenient courts near the chambers of both barristers and solicitors. If they were left to the exercise of their common sense, no two opinions could be formed on that part of the subject. It would be a disgrace to any country, but to such a country as this more than any other, that justice should be scattered over forty or fifty different places in so many holes and corners, here and there, in different parts of town, the offices separated by miles, the practitioners being driven up and down; there being a total impossibility of conducting business with any economy of time or system at all. Was there any great town in the comities in which justice was not better accommodated than in London? Apart from the conclusive and convincing evidence of all the witnesses examined before the Commission, and of the Commissioners themselves, there was no difference of opinion on that subject. There was a plain and

  821
  most important object to be provided for. The want of it was a great and serious evil; and even if a serious expenditure was to be incurred, it might be very well worth considering whether that expenditure would not be well bestowed. Long before he ever could aspire to fill the position he now humbly occupied he thought upon this subject as he did at present, and at all times he considered such a Bill as this a most important and necessary measure, and the delay which had taken place was always to him a matter of surprise and astonishment. The separation of the courts of law and equity had tended to divorce more and more in practice these two branches of the administration of justice, while the tendency of opinion was to bring them more closely together. When it was endeavoured to give to the courts of equity some share of the jurisdiction now exercised by the common law courts, and to give to the latter some share of the jurisdiction of the equity courts, there had to be encountered the difficulty arising from their divided position. The changes recently made in the practice of the courts rendered it in the highest degree important that the courts should be in some locality where those conversant with the practice of one court might occasionally give their assistance in another, and where the judges might conveniently communicate together. With respect to the common law courts, it was quite clear that, as they were separated from the chambers of the legal profession, many persons were now compelled to waste valuable time in waiting for the coming-on of causes, and in the mean while the business in chambers was delayed. That was manifestly a matter which concerned the interest of the public, because time was money; and there could be no doubt that all that enormous waste of time, arising from the courts and offices of justice being scattered about, must in the end be paid for by the suitors; and if the benefit of a measure like that before the House were set against the amount of fees payable in the courts, which the Commissioners stated were by no means high now, and which had of late years been largely reduced, forming a very small proportion—only 8 per cent—or the whose cost of litigation, he was quite disposed to believe that the public would be great gainers by the concentration of the administration of justice, supposing the whole amount of the present fee should remain unreduced. His hon. and learned Friend
  822
  who last spoke admitted that one-half of the scheme must be executed, and that new courts of common law must be provided, but observed that the Chancery Courts had at present considerable accommodation. That was an admission quite sufficient to justify the second reading of: the Bill, especially as it was proposed to refer the measure afterwards to a Select Committee, and as great expenditure must be occasioned by repairs and rebuilding if the present scheme were not adopted.
  With regard to the ways and means, he would first of all advert to the question of the propriety of using the proposed funds in the Court of Chancery. He took the liberty of saying, with great respect to others who held a contrary, opinion, that those funds were as much public property as the Consolidated Fund, and were at the absolute disposal of Parliament. There was no ground for asserting that the suitors in the Court of Chancery had more right to them than the suitors in the common law courts, and they had been used to pay the salaries of registrars, judges' clerks, and all the staff establishment of Chancery, and for building courts in Ireland and other purposes. They had arisen from profits derived by the court from the investment of monies paid in by former suitors. If those who paid in the monies had no claim to these profits (and they certainly had not), it was impossible seriously to contend, that other and subsequent generations of suitors had a claim to them. There might be some propriety in employing them for purposes conducive to the better administration of justice; but they had always been treated as public funds absolutely available for any purpose to which Parliament might think fit to apply them. Then, as far as: the funds were concerned, the question was narrowed to this issue—whether it would be more beneficial to diminish the court fees in favour of the suitors, or to provide; suitable and convenient accommodation for the administration of justice. On that subject opinions might differ. The Master of the Rolls—and there was no man for where opinion he felt greater respect—theought it of more importance to reduce the fees; but, respectfully differing from that learned individual, he took the liberty of thinking that it was an object of fan general and permanent interest to save all the present disgraceful waste of time incident upon the scattered

  823
  position of the courts, and to provide suitable accommodation for the administration of justice. Then there remained the question of the burden to be imposed upon the public revenue. There was no reason to assume that the original estimate of the Government was too low, and it had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that £30,000 a year was the present, maximum of charge to be borne by the public, and this would diminish every year, and in a few years would wholly cease. The question was, whether the value of the object was not sufficient to justify such a charge. Several of the views that had been presented to the House might, however, be best considered before a Select Committee; by that means all necessary information might be laid before the House and he thought the House could not do wrong in allowing the question to go before such a tribunal.
  MR. WAPOLEsaid, he approached the question with a strong impression on his mind, as to the present state of the finances, and with a still stronger impression of the admonition so forcibly, urged upon them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to its being their duty to ponder well their financial, position before assenting to the proposal. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had put that as he always put every question, in the fairest possible point of view, and had said, that they had two things to consider—namely, the object of the Bill, and also, the ways and means by which that object was to be accomplished. As to the first, his hon. and learned Friend had stated very candidly that the object was to collect together within the same precincts all the courts of law and equity, so as to prevent waste, of time and labour in the administration of justice. Now, he would not argue it as an abstract question. Possibly, if they had no courts, and were in a new country, the proper mode of dealing with the subject would be to place all the courts together, so that those engaged in them should not be driven from one end of the town to the other. But surely, as prudent men, if their finances were not now in that flourishing state which would enable them to incur a great outlay, nothing could be more injudicious than that, while four out of the six courts of Chancery were admirably situated for the conduct of business, and there were other courts equally well adapted for the administration of justice, they should get rid of all their existing
  824
  courts, pull down a vast number of houses at great expense, and then cover an area of some acres with new buildings, when they had literally no money for such a purpose Admitting, therefore, that the object might be good, he took exception to the time and mode in which it was sought to carry it out. Next, as to the ways and means for accomplishing that object, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said that the Suitors' Fund could be, properly devoted to that purpose, and would be better applied in that manner than in any other. But the House should bear in mind what took; place on that very subject some fifteen, years ago, when he first entered Parliament To reform the law, and improve its administration a vast number of offices paid by fees were then abolished, at an immense cost to the country, in order that the suitor might no longer be oppressed by those fees. Among others he now alluded to the six clerks in, Chancery to provide compensation for whom the Suitors' Fund was saddled with the payment of between £40,000 and £50,000! a year. The only justification for that was that there was no other mode of getting rid of the system of fees, and that as those gentlemen's lives dropped the suitors would pro tanto be relieved from the burden of compensation which the fund had, now to bear. But the House was now asked to anticipate the very fund out of which that relief was to be afforded the, suitor, contrary to the Parliamentary pledge given fifteen years since. The, hon. and learned; Solicitor-General reminded them, indeed, that they had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury that the estimate, instead of amounting to £2,000,000 as the Government had once computed it, would be covered by £1,500,000. That brought vividly to his mind the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which the House ought not now to forget. That right hon. Gentleman told them, and told them truly, that a broad distinction was to be made between the ordinary financial proposals of the Government for the expenditure of the year and the sanctioning of any such outlay as that recommended in the measure. With respect to the former, the Government undertake a very great responsibility, and, as the hon. Gentleman justly said, to question their financial propositions amounted in fact to a vote of want of confidence in them. But

  825
  in a case like that before the House, although the Government, no doubt, incurred a considerable responsibility, an immensely greater responsibility would rest upon the House; and it therefore behoved them to take care not to create a heavy prospective liability unless they saw their way tolerably clear for discharging it. Did anybody believe that the project would be completed for the sum named by the, Chief Commissioner of Works? Recollecting how former estimates for building operations had been falsified, he felt convinced that, instead of £1,500,000, or even £2,000,000, defraying the cost of the scheme, it would require more than £3,000,000. Knowing perfectly well, then, that at that moment we had not a penny of surplus revenue for such a purpose, he could not concur in the propriety of such an enormous expenditure. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University had shown them that the income arising from the Suitors' Fund did not yield a surplus of more than £2,000 a year. If that were so, the public Exchequer would immediately have to guarantee the proposed outlay of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000, and the burden must necessarily be borne by the Estimates for the year. Considering, then, the state of the finances, that prudence and economy were essentially necessary at that moment, that the duty in that respect had ever been urged upon them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and believing, as he did believe, that the sum asked for would be wholly insufficient for the purposes proposed, he could not take a step which involved the country in an expenditure which he felt they were not justified in incurring.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided.
  The numbers having been announced by the Tellers; Ayes 81, Noes 81:— It was stated by Mr. Brand, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, that Mr. Wykeham Martin, Member for the City of Rochester had been in the Right Division Lobby, but had not been counted by the Tellers:—Where upon Mr. Speaker having desired the honourable Member to come to the Table, Mr. Wykeham Martin came to the Table accordingly, and stated that he had heard the Question put, but having retired into the Lobby had not passed the Tellers; he now declared himself with the Ayes:—
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker declared the numbers; Ayes 82, Noes 81: Majority 1.
  Main Question put. The House divided: Ayes 81; Noes 83: Majority 2.

SUPPLY—EXCHEQUER BONDS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask how many Exchequer Bonds were outstanding?
MR. PEELsaid, there were £2,600,000.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that after the present £1,000,000, there was £1,000,000 due in April, 1863; another £1,000,000 in October, 1864; and 600,000 in November, 1864; total, 3,600,000. The rate of interest for the new bonds was not yet fixed, as they would not he issued until the end of May.
Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding.£1,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bonds payable on the 8th day of May, 1862.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.—LEAVE.—FIRST READING.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to corrupt practices at elections of Members of Parliament. The Bill was founded mainly on the Resolutions of the Committee which sat in 1860, to inquire into the operation of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, and it provided for the continuance of that Act, with some material alterations, for a period of five years. It was proposed to comprise in the present Bill the enactments in the present Act, as well as some enactments which would be introduced for the first time. The Bill would re-enact the clauses relating to bribing and treating, and reduce the penalties attaching to those offences, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee recommended that in boroughs no provision should be made for the conveyance of voters; but the House having already pronounced its opinion on that subject when a Bill having reference to it was before them, he did not intend to introduce any provisions into the Bill in reference to that point. By the eighth Resolution the Committee expressed the opinion that the appointment of election

827
auditors had failed to prevent corrupt practices; the clause, therefore, relating to election auditors would be omitted, and a provision substituted calculated to ensure the publication of all the expenses of candidates and the inspection of all the accounts relating to the election. The Bill would extend to Election Committees the power of compelling witnesses to give evidence, though they might criminate themselves, subject to indemnity, as was given now by the Royal Commissioners where Commissions were issued. In that way witnesses would be protected from the consequences of their evidence so far as related to all civil and criminal proceedings. There was power also given to suspend the writs for certain time where it was proved that systematic bribery existed. There was also a provision that persons employed as agents at elections should be disqualified from voting.
Leave given.
Bill to amend the Law relating to Corrupt Practices at Election of Members of Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Bill presented, and read 1° to be read 2° on Monday 12th May, and to be printed [Bill 83].

TRADING COMPANIES, &c. BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the incorporation, regulation, and winding up of trading companies and other associations. From the year 1844 down to that time a number of Acts had been passed bearing more or less upon the subject. They were seventeen in number, amongst which there were six relating to joint-stock companies generally, four to banking companies in particular, and five to the winding-up of companies. It was intended to repeal the whole of these Acts, except a small number of sections, which would be inserted in a schedule, so that for the future, if the Bill passed, all trading companies would be brought under a simple statute as to their construction, regulation, and winding-up. Instead of the limit of £100 formerly imposed, it was intended that there should be no limit to the amount of the shares of banking companies trading under limited liability. It was proposed also to limit the retrospective liability of past shareholders to one year from the date
  828
  of the transfer of their shares; to limit it also in the case of contracts made before the transfer; and to make their liability a secondary one, not to be enforced until after that of the existing shareholders. It was further proposed that in all cases, except that of mining companies subject to Stannary jurisdiction, the winding-up should take place in the Court of Bankruptcy, and the Vice Warden of the Stannary Courts would be empowered to refer cases to the same Court. Another useful provision would be one by which every limited company would be bound to keep a register, accessible to shareholders and creditors, of all mortgages effected by the company.
  Resolved,
  That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the incorporation, regulation, and winding-up of Trading Companies and other Associations.
  House resumed. Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. MILNER GIBSON.
  Bill presented, and read 1°; to be read 2° on Monday 5th May, and to be printed [Bill 85].

PROSECUTION EXPENSES.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the present system of payment of the expenses of prosecutions, with reference to the due administration of justice, and to report to the House whether it was desirable that any alteration should be made in that system, either as to rates of payment, or as to the fund out of which such payment should be made. Various authorities showed that the inadequacy of the present scale was the cause of prosecutions being abandoned; amongst others, be might refer to an opinion which he understood had been delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of England from the bench on the circuit which had just expired. From that reason the ends of justice were frequently defeated.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should not resist the Motion. He might remark, however, that the expenses of prosecutions had become so heavy a charge on the Consolidated Fund that some check was necessary to prevent further increase in the amount. Accordingly, in 1857, when he was Home Secretary, a new scale of allowances for witnesses, &c, was adopted, which he was bound to admit had caused

  829
  a great deal of dissatisfaction in many parts of the country. No evidence had been laid before the Government, however, to show that there had been a failure of justice arising from the present scale; and he must observe that all witnesses had a right to expect was a fair compensation for their expenses and loss of time. No profit ought to be made by any person on account of his evidence in a court of justice. In support of his opinion he would refer to the following extracts from the Report of the Commission on the subject:—
  "We find that the greatest differences prevail in the different parts of the country as to the charges usually allowed—differences for which we cannot account by any such satisfactory reason as might be afforded by the contrast between urban and rural districts, or between districts thinly inhabited and without roads, and districts traversed by roads and railways. Nor, while it is alleged that failure of justice will be the necessary consequence of reduced allowances, do we find that in jurisdictions like those of Surrey, Kent, Hants, Somerset, and others in which the scale is low, crime escapes punishment from a reluctance either to prosecute or to give evidence."
  "It will probably be objected that some of these allowances are too low by the counties in which larger allowances have heretofore prevailed; but we find that they exceed the allowance in the counties on the Oxford and Norfolk circuits, in some on the Western and Home circuits, and several other places where no failure of justice has ever been alleged to exist.. In point of fact, the scale of the Home Office was based on evidence derived from the counties "
  In conclusion he would say, that if the hon. Gentleman should succeed in establishing such a state of things as he represented, the Government would only be too glad to act upon such information.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he was bound to say, so far as regarded the county which he represented, that the scale of allowance to witnesses was not an impediment to justice. At the same time, as there had been complaints, he thought it well that a Committee should be appointed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the operation of the present system of payment of the Expenses of Prosecutions, with reference to the due Administration of Justice, and to report to the House whether it is desirable that any alteration should be made in that system, either as to rates of payment, or as to the Fund out of which such payment should be made."

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

  NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he had to move that the following Members be nominated
  830
  on the Select Committee of the Thames Embankment Bill:—
  MR. COWPER, Sir JOHN PAKINGTOS, Sir MORTON PETO, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, Sir JOSEPH PAXTON, and five Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. COWPER be one of the Members of the Select Committee on the Thames Embankment Bill."
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that on the part of the City of London he objected to the composition of the Committee. Part of the object of the Committee was to make a street from Blackfriars to the Mansion-house, but there was not a single Member connected with the City who was on the Committee.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that as the Committee could not meet before Easter, he thought the best plan would be to postpone the nomination of the Committee until after Easter. Not only were the City Members excluded, but other Members who had objected to the proposed expenditure. He should endeavour to prevent that expenditure by moving an instruction to the Committee that they be directed to inquire into the expenditure of the proposed works and report to the House, and that the corporate bodies belonging to the Metropolis be at liberty to appear before the Committee.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he thought, as they were so near Easter, it would be better to postpone the appointment of the Committee till the House met after the recess.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he did not see why they should postpone the Motion. If the Motion were agreed to, the Committee of Selection, which did not meet often, would be enabled to make the selection when they next met. With regard to the observations of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Crawford) he had no objection, if anyone chose to move that a Member of the City be added, to agree to it.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he would move that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought the House might affirm the names now proposed. By so doing, hon. Members, who might be desirous of moving that others be added, would not be precluded from doing so.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, upon that understanding he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question. "That Mr. COWPER be one of the Members of the Select Committee on

  831
  the Thames Embankment 'Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Sir MORTON, PETO, Sir JOHN SHELLEY, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, and Sir JOSEPH PAXTON nominated other Members of the said Committee, and five Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.
  Power, to send for persons, papers, and records; Eight to be the, quorum.

TRAMWAYS.—LEAVE.
MR. AYRTONsaid he wished to move for leave to bring in a Bill to authorize the construction of tramways on turnpike roads and other roads in England.
Motion made, and. Question proposed,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorize the construction of Tramways on Turnpike Roads and other Roads in England."
MR. DEEDESsaid, the question was a very important one; and unless it were postponed till after Easter, he should oppose the introduction of the Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should not oppose the introduction of the Bill, be he thought the hon. Member would expedience considerable difficulty in obtaining the assent of the House to the measure.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for the time.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned-at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES
.— PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Chancery Regulation; Crown Suits (Isle of Man); College of Physicians (Ireland).
3a Whipping; Pier and Harbour Act Amendment.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.—PETITION.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW presented a petition from James Toland and Elizabeth Murphy, the nearest relatives of a child who was horn in Glasgow, and whose parents were Roman Catholics, complaining of a certain decision of the Board of Supervision. They stated that the parents of the child were Roman Catholics; that the mother was dead, and that the father had enlisted in the army in 1855, and had not been heard of since. They complained that all access to the child was denied to them and to any pastor of the Roman Catholic religion, and that the child had been sent from the poor-house to a purely Protestant institution. He had presented a similar petition last year from the neighbourhood of Edinburgh; and the answer was, that the child, though only nine years of age, had no objection to being brought up a Protestant. The law of this country was that a child under fourteen years of age was incompetent to form any opinion on such a subject. The matter called for some interference, and ought to be investigated either by a Government Commissioner, or that the Poor Law Committee of the other House now sitting should be directed to extend its inquiries to Scotland.
746
It was a matter of gross hardship that a child should be subject to such treatment, and he trusted that the noble Duke, who must feel interested in the honour and integrity of his country, would aid him in abating the continuance of such an evil, if the evil existed.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that last Session a similar complaint was brought before the House, and he, in consequence, communicated with Sir John M'Neill on the subject. The result was that counter-statements were presented, which satisfied the House that great exaggerations had been made in the petition. If his noble Friend would communicate to him the particulars of the present case, he would again refer to Sir John M'Neill, and he was quite sure that all proper measures would be adopted. There was some difficulty in dealing with these cases in Scotland. The children were the children of parents who had practically deserted them; and if, in the present instance, the parent enlisted, and afterwards sent home no means of support for his child, nor communicated with the family, the man might be said practically to have deserted the child. In many cases it was felt to be better, on the score of health, and more economical, to bring these children up in the country; and as there were very few rural districts in Scotland where Roman Catholics could be found to take care of them, the children were necessarily put to board with persons of the Presbyterian Church. Wherever it was possible, Roman Catholic children were placed under the care of Roman Catholics, or were sent to a neighbourhood where there was a Roman Catholic priest.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that a practical hardship had been alleged to exist in this case, and he thought that an investigation should take place. He would suggest to his noble Friend to move for a Committee after Easter. No one could more fitly preside over such a Committee than his noble Friend, who was well known for the honesty and impartiality of his opinions.

THE ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENTS AND BUILDINGS.—QUESTION.
LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that in the course of the autumn formal notices had been served upon all proprietors and occupiers of premises in Spring Gardens and New Street, with a view to obtaining a site

747
for new offices in connection with the Admiralty. He had lately heard that the intention of building those offices had been either suspended or entirely abandoned. It was a considerable hardship for anybody to be turned out of a house that suited him; but if the public convenience required it, individual inconvenience must be submitted to. The hardship, however, was, still greater, to have an eviction of the kind he had alluded to hanging over one's head—and to be kept in a state of uncertainty whether it would or would not be executed. A man could under such circumstances neither lay out money on his house, nor dispose of it, nor provide himself with another, and he thought Government ought not to serve such notices unless they had fully determined to act upon them. He wished, then, to know from the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, whether he had made other provision for the accommodation of his officers, or, at all events, whether or not the scheme for building new offices on the site in question had been abandoned?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, the Admiralty had determined to bring all their detached offices into close contact with the Department, as they believed that such a step would contribute to efficiency and economy in the transaction of the great mass of business which the Admiralty had to perform. The Admiralty had therefore pressed the question of new offices on the Treasury and Board of Works; and while the subject was under consideration, he requested the Board of Works in the autumn to give notices to the inhabitants of New Street and Spring Gardens that their houses would be required, so that if they came to a conclusion upon the matter, the purchase might be completed without delay. The matter, however, did not rest with the Admiralty, and the sum that would be taken for the new buildings would be brought forward in the Estimates of the Board of Works. Upon consideration of the subject, the Board of Works thought that the plan would admit of some improvement before Parliament was asked for any money, and therefore some delay had occurred in the matter. He could not, however, give the noble Lord the assurance that the matter would not come before Parliament in another year. The close connection of the several branches in the War Office Department had materially contributed to the despatch of public business, and a similar advantage would be obtained
748
for the Admiralty when all the departments were brought under one roof.

ITALIAN AFFAIRS.

  CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED.
  EARL RUSSELLhaving presented (by command) correspondence respecting Southern Italy,
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYcomplained, that the production of these papers should have been postponed to the last day before the recess. Three or four weeks had elapsed since he made the Motion for this correspondence, and yet the few pages that were laid upon the table were all the result. It hardly required three or four weeks to extract such a valuable contribution to their Lordships' information. It was not of the number only of the papers that he had to complain, but of this—that there was among them only one despatch of Sir James Hudson written this year, the rest all related to 1861. With respect to the only despatch which related to this year, Sir James Hudson said that the law which regulated prosecutions of the press was well defined. But the question was, was it acted upon? He understood that, among other prosecutions, one newspaper had been prosecuted merely for reprinting an article from a London newspaper. The despatch did not contain any allusion to the proceedings in the Turin Parliament, nor to the speeches of M. Ferrari and other members, which described the atrocities which had been perpetrated in Naples, and which completely refuted his noble Friend's favourite idea of Italian unity. Notwithstanding the statement of Mr. Bonham on the subject of Major Fumel's proclamation, there was no doubt that Major Fumel had offered a reward of 100 f. to any brigand who would shoot his comrade. If Her Majesty's Government followed out their preconceived nations, they would receive the smallest possible amount of information from their agents. He wanted to know whether the noble Lord could explain why Sir James Hudson had taken no notice of the important discussions which had taken place in the Chamber at Turin this year. Was it because they were very much against his favourite doctrine of the unity of Italy? One despatch alone had been presented, giving a report of a speech of a deputy last year who had no particular claim to notice: why had none been forwarded this year?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that search had,

  749
  of course, been made at the Foreign Office for such papers as might appear to answer the terms of the Address in which they had been moved for by the noble Marquess, and very few were found to answer the description. With respect to the press prosecutions, Sir James Hudson had said that there was no case of oppression which had been brought under his notice, and he did not consider it necessary to give an account of what passed in the law courts. He was sure their Lordships would not think it necessary that an account should be sent to the Foreign Office of all the debates which took place in foreign countries. Our Minister at the Court of Turin sent reports relating to the condition of Italy, just as our Ambassador at the Court of Russia gave the Foreign Office much information: about the case of Poland, and our Ambassador in Austria much information about the state of Hungary; but it was not the practice, and he did not think it would be desirable, to place all that information before Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYwished to know whether he had rightly understood the noble Earl to say that there had been other reports of the late debates at Turin, which he had not thought it desirable to present?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that the despatch to which he had alluded was the only one that answered the noble Marquess's description.

CHANCERY REGULATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
  LORD KINGSDOWN, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was an additional step, though a small one, in the progress of improvement in the Court of Chancery—a Court which, he would not hesitate to say, having regard to the nature of the cases which it decided, and the value of the property which it administered, was now one of the cheapest and most expeditious, as well as one of the best in the kingdom. It had formerly been the practice for the Court of Chancery, in cases that came before it, to send questions of both law and fact to the Courts of Common Law for determination. The decision of these Courts, however, was by no means conclusive, and there was one case on record in which Lord Eldon sent a case to the Queen's Bench; but, being dissatis-
  750
  fied with the opinion, he sent it to the Court of Common Pleas. Lord Eldon was again dissatisfied with the decision, and he finally decided the case upon his own judgment, and a very large estate was now held upon that decision. This was on the construction of legal instruments—a question of law—but the same course was pursued with the same result in questions of fact. An issue was directed to be tried in a Court of Common Law; but if the Judge was dissatisfied with the verdict, he refused to act upon it. At that time the mode of taking evidence in the Court of Chancery was so defective that it was impossible to arrive at any satisfactory result. In the year 1852 a revolution was made in the practice of the Court of Chancery, and an Act was passed giving the Court the power of determining any question of law or fact which might arise previous to the decision of the equitable question. It was intended by this Act that the Court of Chancery should decide for itself all the questions necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment. This Act, however, was not obligatory, but only permissive. Another Act, passed in the year 1858, gave the Court of Chancery additional powers for determining all questions of fact. It was empowered to summon juries, and the verdicts of such juries had the same effect as if they had been given in a Court of Common Law. Last year, a Commission having issued, several suggestions were made for improving the practice of the Court. As the Judges were now provided with full means of ascertaining the truth in any manner which they thought most advisable, it was desirable to make it their duty to avail themselves of the facilities they possessed. At present, when parties came prepared, at great expense, to try the question of law and fact, they were sometimes told to go before a Court of Common Law to try their right, and then to come back to the Court of Equity and claim its interference. When the Bill was originally brought in, in the other House, it made it obligatory upon the Judges of the Courts of Equity to try all the questions that came before it in the proceedings in a cause; but it was afterwards thought desirable to insert some qualifying words, so that the Act might not cause additional expense beyond what was now incurred in certain cases. The Bill was not intended to effect a great deal; but he thought their Lordships would agree with him in thinking it desirable that the

  751
  Court of Chancery should avail itself to the fullest of these facilities for the administration of justice which the Legislature had already decided on placing at its disposal. He therefore begged to move the second reading of this Bill.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he fully approved the principle of the Bill: the only point on which he differed with his noble and learned Friend who had moved the second reading was as to what the Bill would accomplish. He thought it would accomplish a great deal, provided that its obligatory character was preserved; but certain alterations had been made in the Bill in its passage through the Commons, which, in his opinion, would very much detract from its efficiency, and might lead to its obligatory character being evaded. He should like to have an alteration made in the language of the second clause, in order to leave no loophole—no mode of evasion; in order to render it certain and sure that the Court of Equity should not send to the other side of Westminster Hall any portion of the justice which it ought itself to administer. He should communicate with his noble and learned Friend as to the way in which he thought the clause might be altered, so as to render it more effectual for carrying out the great object of the Bill.
  LORD KINGSDOWNconcurred with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in what he had said of one of the alterations; but it had been made in deference to an opinion of great weight— namely, that of the Solicitor General.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid a few words on the measure, which were inaudible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that although he objected to the modifications which had been introduced into the Bill in the other House, he had no wish whatever to interfere with the discretion now permitted to the Court of Chancery of deciding as to how and when proceedings should be initiated. He only feared that the wording of the clause as amended might defeat the object of the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 6th of May next.

EDUCATION—THE REVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS.

  PETITIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD LYVEDENrose to present cer-
  752
  tain petitions against the Revised Code of the Committee of Privy Council on Education. His Lordship said, that as these petitions had been sent to him for presentation to their Lordships, he had thought it his duty to present them; but, for himself, he believed the Code was a great improvement on the existing system. Her Majesty's Government, in his opinion, deserved great credit for the energy with which they had met the difficulties of the case, and for proposing a system which, though it was not likely to be so popular, placed the education of the country on a sounder footing. He wished to ask his noble Friend the President of the Council whether he would consent, after Easter, to a Select Committee of their Lordships to consider the Minutes of Council on Education as recently altered? Unfortunately, during the present Session the great question of education had never been brought before their Lordships as a whole; but its importance had been frittered away in small discussions of particular points of the Code itself, or of objections to the Minutes of Council. Believing that their Lordships possessed peculiar qualifications for expressing a sound and valuable opinion on the subject, both owing to their personal acquaintance with the administration of schools in their several localities, and because they were unencumbered with the objurgations which reached Members of the other House from constituents opposed to a change in the system from personal interests, he was anxious that an opportunity of expressing their views on the question of education should be afforded to them. If that remark applied to their Lordships' House as a whole, it applied with equal force to a Committee of it. Limited as had been his experience of Committees of their Lordships' House, his personal observation led him to believe that a fairer or more impartial tribunal did not exist. At the outset of the discussions on the Revised Code they had been told that it was not to be made a party question. But disclaimers of party spirit, as they well knew, often ended in the bitterest party strife. He could not say that on the present occasion such had been the case; but at least there had been a very narrow escape. Everybody knew that a number of unfamiliar faces had appeared in Parliament ready to take part in the decision; and if the evils of party had

  753
  been avoided, his noble Friends on the Treasury bench would hardly deny that the result Arrived at was due not so much to conviction of its propriety as to a very reasonable dread of a party defeat. Before a Committee of their Lordships' House, however, there would be no fear of the introduction of party or personal feelings. These latter had, unfortunately, been largely imported into the discussions. At public meetings during the recess, the hostility to the alteration in the educational system had been freely ascribed to the economy of Mr. Gladstone and the philosophy of Mr. Lowe. Nothing could be more unfair than the attacks which had been made on that right hon. Gentleman. Himself an adept in education, perfectly skilled in the right method of stimulating energy and encouraging genius, a fine scholar, and a lover of literature, what on earth could induce him to oppose the existing system, supposing it were best adapted to the requirements of the country? On the contrary, he thought the country was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman and to his noble Friend the President of the Council for having stemmed the tide of extravagance which was overwhelming the Estimates. What was the object which the State proposed to accomplish by the grants for education? He had read with pleasure a letter written by a lady named Sewell to the Royal Commissioners—a more sensible or practical composition he had never seen. This lady stated, that if the education given in schools were confined to such as was fitted for children who had to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, as their fathers had done before them, the object might be attained; but if they went further and endeavoured to raise the condition of the children themselves, they would certainly and assuredly fail. The question was whether that idea had been kept in view in the State-assisted schools? The education given in these schools was intended to be, in the words of the Royal Commission, "cheap, sound, and elementary." But had it been confined to that? So far from being elementary, the reports of some of the Inspectors defined what they considered a "good," a "fair," and an "excellent" school: but, according to their description of an "excellent" school, the highest class of these schools was such that their Lordships might send their sons to them, or themselves wish they had received their education there. He
  754
  contended that Parliament had no right to tax the people for anything beyond elementary instruction. To remove barriers which a man himself in after life would be unable to surmount was a fair and legitimate object; but further than that they ought not to go. It was said that the instruction should be carried so far as to give the people of the humbler classes a love for books: but what was the kind of books that these classes loved? It had been seen in the Report upon Military Schools that the books which they chiefly read were works of fiction and romance. If it were sought to give them a taste for any higher class of literature, they must not only be supplied with books, but with places in which to read them; and if they attempted that, he did not know how far they might have to carry the expense, unless they meant to resort to the system of the ancient Romans, who gave games to the people for the purpose of amusing them and keeping them quiet. He trusted that no one would suppose him to be an enemy to education—on the contrary, he had always been a determined advocate of education; but, at the same time, he held that anything beyond elementary education ought to be supplied by voluntary efforts, and not by public money. When the present system was originally established at a cost of £20,000, it was never contemplated that it would reach £800,000. A right rev. Prelate had asked, considering the vast sums they wasted in unholy wars, what objection there could be to the expenditure even of £2,000,000 on the education of the people, if that outlay might possibly rescue thousands from the cell and the gibbet. But did the education now given so save them? The most unsatisfactory part of the Commissioners' Report, to his mind, was that which treated of the moral results of the educational system. There were under that head only some half-dozen pages, followed with reports only from Inspectors in mining and manufacturing districts, stating that they thought there was an improvement. But where were the criminal statistics to substantiate their case? He thought their Lordships were entitled to ask what value they received for the £800,000 which the country was every year spending on schools; and what was the answer of the Commissioners? Why, that the money did not educate one-fourth of the children of the nation, and that the education which was given was "too ambitious and too superficial." They could hardly have found in the

  755
  English language two words more condemnatory of the existing system; for what they wanted was an education which was unambitious, but which was sound. He believed the operations of the Committee which he proposed would be attended with the best, results. He did not intend that they should travel over again the ground exhausted by the Royal Commission; but he thought it very important that a statement should be put forward authoritatively of the present position of the question, which was not understood by the country, many persons being carried away by the general cry in favour of education. It might be asked of what use would the inquiry be, seeing that the question was after all one of national expenditure, and. their Lordships' House had no constitutional control over the Estimates. He did not think, however, that that argument was tenable for a moment. To say that one of the most vital questions of the day was to be excluded from the consideration of one branch of the Legislature, and that the other, by holding the purse-strings, should have complete dominion over it, seemed to him to be as monstrous a doctrine as it was unconstitutional. He believed that the decision of a Committee of their Lordships on such a subject would be very valuable, and that it would be well received by the community at large, whatever it might be. With these views, and desiring not to obstruct, but rather to forward the measures of the Government, he asked his noble Friend whether he would himself propose, or sanction if proposed by any other noble Lord, the appointment of a Select Committee to consider this subject.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although I cannot give to the question the answer which my noble Friend would desire, I hope he will allow me to thank him, not only for his courtesy to myself personally, but also for his truthful and just appreciation of the great public services of Mr. Lowe with respect to this question; and still more do I wish to thank my noble Friend for the good sense which he has shown and the excellent principles which he has laid down in the speech which he has just delivered. I can assure my noble Friend that I should be the very last person to undervalue the utility of the discussions of this subject in this House. On the contrary, I feel that I have reason to be most highly satisfied with the character of these debates, and also with the great good sense and judgment which have been
  756
  exhibited in many of the occasional speeches delivered since the commencement of the Session, to which that of my noble Friend is a valuable addition. I am pleased with the position of the question in this House, where the discussions have been entirely free from party spirit. I entirely agree with what my noble Friend has said in regard to the Revised Code. My noble Friend the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Lansdowne), under whose conciliatory administration the Minutes of Council first found favour with the country, has authorized me to state (which I do with especial gratification) that in his opinion the time had come for a change in the mode of administering the Parliamentary grants; and he has also authorized me to say, that although he has not been able to consider every point of detail, he thinks that the changes embodied in the proposal which we made will have had a very beneficial operation. In answer to the appeal which has been made to me as to whether the recent alterations are not rather concessions made under fear of defeat, I frankly confess that, in my opinion, those last concessions are not improvements on our plan, but, on the contrary, will to a certain extent, tend to diminish its economy, and to weaken the effect of the stimulus which we wished to apply to that elementary instruction, with regard to which my noble Friend has not expressed himself one whit too strongly in describing it as the important part of national education which the State ought to assist. I was, at the same time, glad to find that my noble Friend does not undervalue the advantages of a higher class of education. My own opinion is, that you cannot educate the people too highly if you really educate them soundly in those elementary matters which it is essential that they should know. That, however, is, with the large mass of the labouring classes, impossible; and my objection against the existing system is not that it has taught too much, but that it has not taught—at least not so well, nor so universally as we could have wished—exactly that most important part of education. In reply to the question of my noble Friend, I must answer it in the negative. I must say that I do not think that the adoption of the course which it suggests would help us with or further the measure which we have in hand. At the beginning of the Session the Government thought it necessary to consider the different proposals which it was probable would be made by the opponents of this

  757
  measure; and, among other things, we thought it probable that it might be proposed to refer the subject to a Select Committee. Upon a careful review of the advantages and disadvantages of such a course, we came to the conclusion that such a reference would not be desirable. Nothing is more important in regard to questions like this than that you should inquire and consider well before you act; but the time does come when you must act, and the multiplying of different forms of inquiry is a most inconvenient form of action. My noble Friend did ample justice to the labours of the Royal Commission. That Commission sat three years; they had a large staff, a certain sum of money was expended, and a very able Report was the result. My noble Friend proposes that the Committee should not go over the ground which has been already traversed by the Commission; but it would be impossible to avoid doing so, and the result would be that the Committee would be examining the same witnesses and discussing the same questions as the Commission examined, with infinitely less time. If there was any force in these objections to the appointment of a Committee at the beginning of the Session, it is clear that they apply with tenfold force now that we have nearly reached the Easter recess; and such a Committee could not, if appointed, commence its labours until a considerable part of the Parliamentary Session, which does not promise to be a remarkably long one, had elapsed. For these reasons I cannot hold out to my noble Friend any hope that I shall either propose or encourage the proposal of a Select Committee upon the subject.
  EARL STANHOPEexpressed his entire assent to the conclusion at which the noble Earl the Lord President had arrived. He did not think that any advantage could result from the labours of a Committee, the appointment of which must greatly delay the settlement of this question. Their Lordships had now before them, in the Report of the Commission, the evidence, and the additional papers which had been produced, ample information; and all that was now needed was that that information should be applied and acted upon. There was, indeed, one point upon which he should be glad to receive further information. They had been promised that a substantial portion of the grant should be given independently of the examination. That term "substantial portion" was
  758
  rather an elastic one, and might be either expanded or contracted. On that point he thought the noble Earl ought to give the House some information.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he intended to-morrow to lay on the table papers showing the mode in which the Government proposed to fulfil the pledge given in the other House, and to take the opportunity of making a short statement on the subject.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot but think that the noble Earl opposite is perfectly justified in refusing to accede to the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Lyveden). There can be no doubt that a Committee, if appointed, would sit a very long time, and, whatever might be the value of its recommendations, they would probably come too late to be of any use. The noble Earl appears to be quite satisfied with the position which the question occupies in the House; and perhaps he has reason for being so. For my own part, however, I regard the situation of the question as being in the last degree unsatisfactory, and I think that people generally, when they begin to examine it, will be of the same opinion. The Government had before them a case of the most monstrous abuse, shown in the Report of the Royal Commission—an extravagant expenditure constantly increasing, very little good being done, and no hope of more good being obtained. They accordingly endeavoured to apply a remedy. If they could not reduce the expenditure, they desired, at least, that it should not be charged to the public without some return; that the benefit should be commensurate with the outlay. That was a most legitimate object; it was their duty to attempt it, and it would have been contrary to their duty had they not attempted it. But the Government were driven—fairly driven—from that position. They would, no doubt, have been beaten had they gone to a division, and they very properly gave way. I am apprehensive of the consequences of their concession. The same coalition which has defeated them in this instance will be ready to resist them again in future years, and the contest will have to be renewed. I see nothing in prospect but increasing expenditure, without any increase of advantage to be afforded to the public in exchange. That is a very deplorable state of things. I know not whether, by proposing the measure in the shape of a Bill, instead of proceeding by revised Minutes

  759
  of Council, the Government could have avoided the difficulty; but I trust they will place before the country clearly, distinctly, and forcibly, the question of public economy which is involved this matter. The only interest I take in the matter is on account of the grants of public money. I feel perfectly satisfied, that if Parliament were to refuse all support to the education of the people, it would still go on. Such an impulse has, been given to the cause that there is no fear of its falling. Indeed, I believe the public education would be conducted with much greater advantage than at present, because great portion of it would be derived from the charity and benevolence of individuals, and would be received with gratitude; but when the public marches in with a long purse at one door, we find that charity and gratitude walk out at the other, and generally persuade economy to accompany them. That, I apprehend, will be the case; and I most sincerely wish success to the Government in whatever efforts they may make to stay the progress of this enormous charge, which has already risen to a very great amount, and which threatens—for the most eloquent advocates of the system rather glory in it than lament it—to extend still further, and to absorb a large additional portion of our revenue.
  Petitions to lie on the table.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow Twelve o'clock.