Sitting of 25 February 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Consolidated Fund (£973,747); Register of Voters; Prosecutions Expenses.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BEAMISHsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the law relating to Charitable Bequests in Ireland; and whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill during the present Session for the purpose of altering the present constitution of the Board of Charitable Bequests?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: The subject has been under the notice of the Government, and communications with the Board have passed; but, at present, I am not aware that the Government have any intention of introducing a Bill.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he rose to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether it was the intention of the Government to make any proposal to Parliament, in accordance with the suggestion of the Secretary for Ireland, respecting the erection of a College in Dublin in connection with the Queen's University?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No question of the sort has yet been brought under the consideration of the Government.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, to make an alteration in the 57th paragraph of the Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceeding of the House. He would ask the attention of the House for a short time while he endeavoured to explain the object which he had in view. If hon. Gentlemen would do him the favour of reading the motion as it stood, and of comparing it with the rule of the House to which he referred, they would at once see the modification which he wished to effect. He had put his Motion in the shape which he thought would render it most intelligible to the House. By the insertion of a few words at the commencement of the rule of the House he wished to prevent any hon. Member being interrupted in the course of his speech in order that the House might be counted. By the introduction of a few words at the end of the paragraph he proposed to fix upon the hon. Member who called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present, and thereby interrupted the progress of public business, the responsibility of that act, by the insertion of his name in the votes and proceedings of the House published the following morning. All those Members who were present on the occasion, and who might fairly be considered as dissentients from the Motion, would also obtain the advantage of having their names recorded in the votes and proceedings of that House. He begged the House to understand that there was nothing in his Motion, nor had he the slightest desire, to interfere in any way with the existing right of any hon. Member to call upon the Speaker to count the House. On the contrary, he believed nothing was more essential to the proper conduct of the business of the House, or a better safeguard of their rights and privileges, than the retention of this power to count the House when circumstances occurred to justify such a proceeding. The alteration only affected the manner of exercising that right. It might be contended that for a debate to continue when forty Members were not present was an infringement of the rule of the House; but what happened practically was this:—A number of Members flocked in as soon as the Motion was made, and the Speaker having counted and declared that more than forty were present, those Members who had come in

691
for the purpose of being counted left the House again, and the hon. Gentleman who had been interrupted continued his address to an assembly not larger than that in which the original attempt to count out was made. To prevent a Member finishing what he had to say was a practical denial of the privilege of free speech; and it was unfair as well as discourteous, because, no matter how dreary the opening of a speech might be, no one had a right to say that the conclusion might not be full of interest and argument. He could not see how any of their rules could be affected by the adoption of his proposition, nor how any person could be inconvenienced by it except the Speaker himself. Although he was sure that every hon. Gentleman would be desirous of promoting the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman, he was equally certain that the Speaker himself would not allow any feeling of his own to stand in the way of the convenience of the House generally. He was prepared to show that the rights of independent Members were most deeply involved; for, generally speaking, the House was counted out with one of two objects—either to get rid of some very dull subject, or to avoid the discussion of some very inconvenient one. The first of these objects was perfectly natural, and he had not a word to say against it; but the attempt to get rid of an inconvenient discussion by resorting to a count-out was not only unconstitutional, but directly opposed to the whole spirit of their proceedings. It was within the knowledge of the House, that when there was a desire to get rid of an inconvenient subject, a "count-out" was understood to be effected by an arrangement between the distinguished occupants of the two front benches, and to be managed by those hon. Gentlemen who were known by the familiar name of "whips." "When he said that, he meant no discourtesy to either the distinguished occupants of the two front benches or to the Gentlemen who carried out the arrangement of their chiefs. The House was to blame, and not those who only availed themselves of one of the rules which governed the proceedings of the assembly. Would independent Members of the House allow him to ask them whether they had considered what the effect of "counts-out" was? He found that the House was counted out twelve times during last Session and thirteen times during the Session of 1860.
692
The recent change in the mode of conducting the business of the House had resulted in leaving to independent Members only one night in each week. Now, thirteen "counts-out" deprived them of thirteen nights, or one-half of that portion of the Session which the rules of the House left at their disposal. It was manifest, therefore, that independent Members lost one-half the Session by the practice of counting out the House. He therefore asked them whether their interests were not seriously affected by the existing system, and whether it did not create a very irregular and improper state of things? Was it fair that their privileges should be thus frittered away by this surreptitious arrangement? His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, a great authority, had warned the House to be on their guard against any rule which might have the effect of diminishing the control over the proceedings of the Executive which independent Members exercised. He thought he had shown them that the present mode of counting-out had that effect; and he asked them, therefore, to bear in mind the sound advice of his right hon. Friend. There was another objection to the present system. A great deal of time was lost by it in another way. They did not get rid of a dull speech or of a dull subject by counting out the House, for the speech was sure to be spoken over again, and the subject to be again introduced, when there was no escape from either. The hon. Member who was counted out availed himself of his right to move an Amendment or to call attention on going into Supply; so that the "count-out" had not even the merit of accomplishing its object. But that was not the only loss of time suffered; all the other Motions that stood on the paper after that which was interrupted by the count-out were also to be disposed of on a future night. The result was to cause a great accumulation of business at the latter part of the Session, to the serious interference of the progress of fair discussion. On public, as well as on private and constitutional grounds, then, the House was bound to withdraw its sanction from such a system. He trusted he should receive for his Motion the support of all independent Members, whose privileges were greatly impaired by the practice to which he referred. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

693
"That if it appear on notice being taken, at the close of the Speech of any Member (such notice not to be taken during the time that any Member is addressing the House), or on the Report of a Division of the House by the Tellers, after Four o'clock, that Forty Members are not present, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without a Question first put till the next sitting day; and the name of the Member who has taken such notice, and also the name of every Member present when the House is counted, shall be taken down by the Clerk of the House, and published on the following day in the Votes and Proceedings."
MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he rose to second the Motion, as he believed it was calculated to remedy a state of things that was most inconvenient, particularly as regarded independent Members. He was at a loss to know on what ground the Motion of his hon. Friend could be opposed. On occasions when the fate of a Ministry was at stake, and when, perhaps, 600 Members voted in the division, it frequently happened that there were not thirty Members present at some portions of the debate. If that was the case on occasions of great importance, a fortiori it might be expected to happen dining ordinary debates. If the House thought it necessary to adhere to the principle on which "counts-out" were founded— namely, that no business should be transacted when forty Members were not present. He intended to move that the original spirit and intention of the regulation in question be strictly adhered to, and that on every future occasion when the Speaker's attention was called to the fact that there were not forty Members present, the doors should be immediately closed, and the House immediately counted, without the alarm bell being rung. Why should those hon. Members who did their duty in the House suffer on account of those who merely thought it sufficient to linger about in the refreshment or other rooms adjoining the House, in order that they might be within call to rush in when their attendance was required for the purpose of recording their votes as they were desired, and, perhaps, without knowing anything of the merits of the question that happened to be under discussion? If it was essential to have forty Members present, why did not all the officials of the Government imitate the conduct of the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Treasury, who was always to be found in his place? Why should that noble Lord be, like
694
"—The last rose of summer, left sleeping alone, "While his lovely companions are vanished and gone?"
He called upon the House, for the sake of its own dignity, to put a stop to such a system, as far as it was possible to do so. Believing that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would tend to improve the regulation in question, he begged leave to second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed.
SIR GEORGE GREY:Sir, I must express my hope that the House will not assent to a Motion which will, I think, tend very much to discredit the proceedings of this House. The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not intend to limit the right which any hon. Gentleman now has to take notice that forty Members are not present; but if the House adopts his Motion, it will, I think, tend to restrain that right, by limiting the period during which the Speaker may be called on to count the House to the short time which elapses between one Member sitting down and another rising. The hon. Member says there are two motives for counting out the House—one to get rid of a dull and uninteresting debate, and he does not object to get rid of such debates; and the other to prevent the discussion of some inconvenient subject. But is it in the power of any Government or of any Opposition to prevent the discussion of any inconvenient subject, provided it is one which, in the opinion of any considerable number of Members, ought to be discussed? It is a complete delusion to suppose that at the present time, when there is so much less party following than there used to be, any Government can prevent the discussion of a subject which a very considerable number of the Members of this House think ought to occupy the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the practice of counting the House was had recourse to twelve times during the last year, and thirteen times during the previous year; but I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the House was counted out on the majority of those occasions at an early period of the evening. The House has been counted out once already during the present Session; but it was then between twelve and one o'clock in the morning, after the principal business had been disposed of; and it would, I think, turn out that on many occasions during the two previous years the House was counted out after twelve o'clock, owing

695
to hon. Members becoming wearied and leaving the House. I believe that during the last two Sessions the practice of which the hon. Gentleman complains has been very unfrequently resorted to for the purpose of interrupting business on Tuesdays. The hon. Gentleman says the practice is a very unfair one, because only one night is now devoted to private Members instead of two. I think that is a very great mistake. Tuesday is a day on which notice of Motion may be given by any Member, and they come on according to the priority of the ballot, whereby any Member has an equal chance with any other Member of obtaining precedence. In addition to Tuesdays, Wednesdays are exclusively devoted to the Bills of private Members. The Government never bring forward Bills on Wednesdays so as to interfere with the Bills of private Members. The reason why Thursdays are given to the Government is, that Friday, which was formerly an order-day, had, by the practice that had grown up, been virtually turned into a notice-day, and it was in order to secure two order-days that the Thursday was given to the Government. The privilege of bringing on questions for debate on the order of the day for Supply on Fridays, is made use of very largely, so that, practically, three days in the week are given to private members. Now, with respect to the specific proposal of the hon. Gentleman, it proceeds entirely from forgetfulness that this House is a deliberative assembly, and that speeches are made not merely to be communicated through the reporters to the country, but to influence the opinion of the House and to guide us in our decisions. If the hon. Gentleman's proposal were adopted, it would not be impossible that the House might be emptied of all its Members except the hon. Member who might be addressing it and you, Sir. I have no doubt he has paid a just tribute to your patience and public spirit in supposing that you would be willing to sit and listen. But it would not be creditable if it were known that an hon. Gentleman had risen to make a speech, accompanied by a declaration that it would be of no short duration, and that the whole of the Members might go away with the certainty that the House would not be counted out until the hon. Member had resumed his seat; nor then, except in the short interval between his fitting down and the rising of some other
696
Member who might have entered the House a moment before. The hon. Gentleman says that frequently speeches are dull in the beginning but interesting in the end. Now, I think that one effect of the knowledge which hon. Members possess, that the House may be counted out, is to lead hon. Members to compress their speeches; and I think it would be no slight advantage if they were to begin with the interesting part of their speeches. It would be also possible for some hon. Gentleman to make a speech of three or four hours' length, and then take notice that forty Members were not present, so as to prevent any other hon. Member from rising to follow him. The House had better adhere to its existing rule; it was based on good sense, and in practice it has not been found inconvenient. I trust that the House, for these reasons, will not agree to the Motion.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had selected the most unimportant part of his hon. Friend's proposal for his criticism, and had quite passed over the kernel and gist of his Motion. The right hon. Baronet had, in fact, censured, not the proposal of his hon. Friend, but the practice that existed in the House at that moment. It was quite conceivable that the Speaker and some hon. Gentleman should be confronted in the House, while one spoke and the other listened, and that might go on the whole evening, because there would very likely be forty Members in the library and smoking-room who would rush in, make a House, and then disappear. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman condemned that which existed,' and not what his hon. Friend proposed. If hon. Members intended to carry out the rigid theory, and to hear every speech before they voted upon it, then they must abolish the two-minute glass, which enabled Members to leave the smoking-room and make a House. If they did not intend to act on that theory, then there was no standing-ground for opposing the Motion. By maintaining the present system the House did not get rid of one dull speech, silence one bore, or facilitate the business of the House. The important part of his hon. Friend's Motion was, that when an hon. Member took notice that forty Members were not present, he should do so on his own responsibility, and that he should not conceal his name. He wished the House to observe that that was the solitary bit of secrecy in

697
their Parliamentary institutions. It was the one point in which the ballot had crept in. If a Member chose to denounce a Minister, he must do so in the face of day, and his name was known. If he wished to denounce a particular policy, he did not shrink from publicity. But if he wished to insult a man against whom he had an enmity [Cries of Oh!]—yes, they all knew that such things were done—still more, if it were wished to banish fair discussion upon a subject which those in office, and those likely to be in office, both wished to avoid—a Member need not come forward in the face of day. He had only to slink behind the Speaker's chair, and, unseen by the reporters, and unknown to the world, he was enabled to put a stop to the legislative proceedings of the House. If a debate ought to be put a stop to, surely hon. Members were willing and courageous enough to come forward and give the sanction of their names to their opinions. If a debate ought not to be put a stop to, no opportunity of doing so secretly ought to be allowed. Wherever secrecy was permitted abuses took place. No hon. Member could have been long in the House without having seen Government whips in the lobby asking hon. Members not to go into the House. They were asked "just to stay there a little while," and every Member had known that moral and sometimes even physical pressure had been placed on hon. Members to induce them not to go into the House. If they were to vote on the question as it affected the character and credit of the House, he appealed to hon. Members, whatever else they might do, to let their proceedings be open, above board, and in the light of day, and not preserve that one piece of secrecy.
MR. PAULLobserved, that he regretted to say he felt himself at variance with the hon. Member who moved the Resolution. He thought it exceedingly inexpedient to pass any law or by-law which would sooner or later become inoperative. He did not think the object of the hon. Mover would be attained by the adoption of his Motion. Were they to consider that a quorum of the House should consist of forty Members or not? If they considered that fewer than forty Members should not constitute a House in which questions of importance should be debated and decided, the whole argument fell to the ground. He thought forty too few. The time was when sixty was the smallest number of
698
Members that could transact the business of the House. His hon. Friend thought it discourteous to interrupt a Member in his speech. That might be true. But what was the object of a speech? Not merely to have it reported, but to influence the decision at which the Member who made it wished the House to arrive. If forty Members would not remain in the House, what was the inference to be drawn? Why, either that the House did not care for the subject, or that the speaker was unable to place it in an attractive light. Nor was it fair to say that Government could always command a House. The House would remember the extreme efforts which the Government made in a former Session to keep a House for one of their most important measures—he meant the Reform Bill which was introduced by Earl Russell, and to which the noble Viscount was godfather. The House, however, was counted three times while that measure was before it. It was, therefore, quite clear that Government could no more prevent a House being counted out than others could sometimes keep a House. As to hon. Members sneaking behind the chair to give notice that there were not forty Members present, that arose, when it did happen, not from any discourteous wish to interrupt a speech. On the contrary, he should consider that he was upholding the privileges of the House in maintaining that no subject should be discussed unless that number which the House, in its wisdom, had thought proper to fix as a quorum, should be present. As to the publicity which the hon. Member wished to give to the names of the Members who were present at the count, he could hardly think that any one would shrink from such publicity.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he thought that it was important that the Member who might move to count the House should have his name published, as he assumed a great responsibility in putting a stop to the machinery of legislation and the business of the House. The whole of the hon. Member's propositions appeared to be worthy of consideration. Publicity was the soul of their proceedings, and for that reason he objected to a Member going secretly, stealthily, behind the chair and putting an end to a debate in that way, when all the other proceedings were fair and open. He thought the Motion deserved the attention of the House.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE:I do not

699
know that I formed any definite idea of the Motion before I came into the House, nor should I have attached much importance to the subject; but, in the present dearth of more important topics, we may as well discuss this. Save for the romantic notion of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford—and really I think he has contrived on this question to give forth a great deal of sentiment—I should not have addressed the House. But I must protest against its going forth to the country that any hon. Gentleman who chooses to go to you, Sir, and make the remark that there are not forty Members in the House, entertains any enmity towards the Member who is speaking. I really was quite surprised to hear the noble Lord adduce such an argument. Does the noble Lord suppose that any hon. Gentleman who acts the part of prompter behind the scenes—and the prompter's name is never given in the bills—does the noble Lord mean to say, that when he himself has been counted out, any hon. Gentleman could have entertained a sentiment of hostility against him? Why, I have had the dissatisfaction of hearing the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Ewart) counted out on several occasions. Does anybody believe that any hon. Gentleman entertained hostility to that hon. Member on those occasions? The hon. Member below me (Mr. A. Smith), who is always counted out—why, I remember he was counted out five different times in one Session on the celebrated question of the foreshores—does any one entertain any enmity to that hon. Gentleman? No, Sir; I deny it. I think that when the noble Lord indulged in the little bit of romance about secrecy, and endeavoured to hurl odium on that useful class of men, the counters-out, he forgot that they might be justly looked upon as of that class who
"Do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame."
I hope the House will not be led away by these new-fangled notions, but that they will stand by the old and accredited mode of counting out the House, and instead of heaping odium on a useful body of men they will stand by them to the last. What has been the practical working of the rule? Has the House ever been counted out on a really important subject that moved the public mind? I am perfectly willing that this subject should be separated into two parts, and that the names of those indus-
700
trious people who remain here all day and all night shall be before the public. But, on the part of those who are the counters-out, I protest against their being dragged into the light of day. I have never acted that part myself, because I have been content to suffer quietly under a great many speeches; but I will never give a vote that shall heap odium on that useful and meritorious body of men, the counters-out of this House.
MR. BENTINCKin reply said, that the admirable speech of his noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) had not been answered. He had never heard much romance in the speeches of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne), and the speech just delivered was not only devoid of romance, but of matter of fact, because he entirely misconstrued both the Motion and the arguments in support of it. As to the insuperable difficulty alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as to the shortness of the time which would be afforded for counting out, all he need say was that the difficulty would be avoided by giving the mover of the count precedence over any other new speaker. The right hon. Gentleman had made another starling assertion. He said the front benches had no power to 'arrange a count-out. Now, he (Mr. Bentinck) appealed to hon. Members whether, over and over again, they had not known the whips arrange the count out—whether it had not taken place frequently? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that private Members had three days each week. But, really, Wednesday went for nothing; Friday, generally speaking, was a dies non; and he repeated that private Members were restricted to Tuesday, and that, by the practice of counting out, they were frequently deprived of both their opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman had harped upon the number that had been fixed by the House as a quorum. He (Mr. Bentinck) did not propose by his Motion to interfere with that number at all. If any proof were wanting of the propriety of the Motion, it would be found in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his eloquence and ability, had not attempted to controvert any material portion of the statement which he (Mr. Bentinck) had made in introducing it to the House.
Question put.
The House divided;—Ayes 43; Noes 219: Majority 176.

THE TRANSPORT SERVICE.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he rose to move the following resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, her Majesty's Government ought to adopt measures to carry into effect the recommendations of the select committee of this House appointed in 1860 to inquire into the transport service, or at least such portions of the report of 1861 as were unanimously adopted by the said Committee."
  As no part of the session was to be devoted to Parliamentary Reform, there was no subject to which the attention of the House could be with more advantage directed than to questions of administrative and executive improvement. The mode of providing for the transport service at present in operation had prevailed for the last thirty years, with the exception of two years, to which he would presently refer. It was conducted by several departments of the Government. In the first place, there was the victualling and transport department of the Admiralty, which conveyed all the Admiralty stores, engaged all the tonnage required by the Admiralty and the greater part of that required by the War Office and Ordnance. The Commissariat now and then hired vessels to convey their own stores; and the India Office had a transport service altogether independent of the Admiralty. The Colonial Office, through the Emigration Board, engaged vessels for the conveyance of emigrants to Australia, and coolies to the Mauritius and the West Indian colonies. The Stationery Office and other departments at times despatched abroad their own stores without communication with either of the transport offices. Hence much confusion arose, which ought to be avoided, especially when it was remembered that the service involved a large amount of money. For example, in 1854, '55, and '56, the sum expended in the hire of transports by the Admiralty alone amounted in round numbers to £16,000,000; but notwithstanding that immense outlay, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the way in which the business was done. During the Crimean war enormous quantities of stores were sent out, but somehow they never seemed to reach their destination when they were wanted. The effect of organizing the Transport Board had tended materially to reduce the hire of sailing vessels from 27 s. 6d. to 16 s. &d. per ton, and that of steam vessels from 60 s. to 30 s.; in fact, it had caused a saving of nearly a million
  702
  per annum. The evils of the existing system were clearly demonstrated by the evidence taken before the Committee that sat upon the subject in 1860, and made its report in 1861. That Committee, of which he had the honour to be chairman, was composed of hon. Gentlemen who took great interest in the subject, and the witnesses called before it included the most experienced individuals from all departments of the Government as well as merchants and shipowners of great experience. After a very full investigation the Committee unanimously agreed to three recommendations, namely—
  "1. That the victualling and the transport department should be separated; 2. That the transport of stores should be removed from the charge of the India Board; and, 3. That the Emigration Office should be abolished and its duties transferred to the Transport Board.
  Unfortunately, by the existing system, each department had its own forms of charter parties, its own scale of provisions, and its own system of ventilation; so that every plan differed from the rest. The Committee were unanimously agreed upon the resolutions and the necessity of comprehensive changes; and, upon referring them to the Government, it was found that the Admiralty and the War Office were disposed to adopt the recommendations of the Committee as a whole. But he was given to understand that the India Office did not approve of the proposition so far as that office was affected. The Secretary to the Marine Department for India was asked whether he was in favour of the amalgamation, and his reply was—"Yes, I am very much in favour of it, except in the case of India." That reminded him of the merchant who was in favour of Sir Robert Peel's scheme for taking the customs duty off every article except "red herring" in which he traded. He (Mr. Lindsay) maintained that the proposed change need not interfere with the independent working of the Indian Department. All that would be requisite to do was to send an order to the Transport Board whenever any stores or troops had to be shipped, and the Transport Board would be responsible for carrying that order into effect. They would have to provide for the safety and comfort of the troops, and for the proper delivery of the stores to the place whither they were shipped. As an illustration of the complication, if not the absurdities, into

  703
  which the Government were led by the existing system, he would relate to the House what he had been that day told by a gentleman who had just been settling an account with the Government for transport services. A ship belonging to this gentleman arrived in the port of London from Calcutta, in January last. It brought from India 123 time-expired soldiers, 85 invalids, 12 convicts, 2 naval-brigade men, and 1 stowed-away soldier. As for the time-expired soldiers, in order to settle the accounts for them, he had been obliged to go to the "War Office and the India Office; for the invalids, to the War Office and the Medical Department of the army; as for the 12 convicts, nobody would own them; the shipowner went to the India Office, the War Office, to the Millbank Penitentiary, and to the Board of Trade; but neither would admit that the responsibility lay with them. He (Mr. Lindsay) supposed there would have been equal difficulty in finding the right office to apply to in respect of the stowed-away soldier. By the plan which the Committee proposed all these offices would be consolidated; and, for instance, about three gentlemen would be enabled to do work which was now discharged by fifteen. An objection, he believed, had also been raised to the scheme by the Colonial Office. It was thought that the Emigration Office should not be amalgamated with the new Transport Department. The Duke of Newcastle had expressed himself strongly in favour of consolidating in one office the transport business of all the departments including the India Office, but he doubted whether it would be advisable to embrace the Emigration Office in the proposed amalgamation. The Duke of Somerset entertained the same doubt. It was a mistake to suppose, however, that the Select Committee proposed to do away "with the functions of the Emigration Office. The business of that department had to a large extent already ceased to exist. Of late years the number of emigrants had been greatly reduced, and he believed it was now very small compared with what it was only a short time ago. A man of ordinary business habits, with the assistance of a few clerks, could easily perform all the proper duties of the Emigration Office, having to make arrangements for only 5,000 emigrants in the course of the year. But the office had other duties to discharge, connected
  704
  with leases of land, minerals, and orders in Council connected with the transfer of land, which originally belonged to the Colonial Department, and which should be transferred back to it; the engaging of ships for the conveyance of emigrants, &c, being handed over to the new Transport Board. That Board should be, as it were, the carriers of the country; so that if the Admiralty had stores to send out, or the War or India Office troops to any colony, they should separately communicate with that Office, whose duty it would be to classify all these requirements, advertise for the necessary shipping, and be responsible for the conveyance of all troops and stores from the time of embarkation till they were landed at their destination. If anything went wrong, they would know exactly where to fix the blame. The Transport Board would also be responsible for the proper fitting up, provisioning, and ventilation of the ships. The colonies would, as they now do, communicate with the Colonial Office, which would continue to collect the emigrants, as at present. He merely proposed to transfer to the new department the conveyance of the emigrants. He did not see why the Emigration Board should not be thrown into the new department. There was another subject on which the Committee had touched—he referred to the question whether it would be better to engage private transports or for the Government to own transports of their own. There was a great deal of conflicting evidence, but the Committee unanimously agreed to the following recommendation:—
  "That, as a general rule, Government transports are much more costly than hired troop-ships; and, considering the vast extent of the mercantile marine of this country, and the magnificent steamships and vessels of every description which can at all times be obtained, your Committee are of opinion that Government should in future rely still more on the mercantile marine for the transport of troops."
  That conclusion was arrived at after hearing the evidence of Admiral Sir A. Milne, who for thirteen years had filled the office at the Admiralty now held by Captain Eden. Admiral Milne entered minutely into the whole question, and in the appendix to the report gave the actual cost of Government and hired transports. According to his account, one of Her Majesty's ships engaged in the transport service cost, exclusive of insurance and depreciation, £27,800, whereas exactly

  705
  the same work was performed by a hired steamship for £13,200—just about one-half. It was desirable that the Government should have sufficient transport of their own for the ordinary reliefs, but in great emergencies they might well depend upon the assistance of the merchant service. He trusted that the House would support the unanimous recommendations of its own Committee on the subject, and not allow aninvestigation which had extended over two years to remain barren of results. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the resolution.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS:Sir, the time was when Governments were accused of too great a desire to create new departments and new boards, and when the principal function of independent Members of this House was to restrain the appetite of a Government for wasteful expenditure of that description, by which its patronage in new appointments was increased. Now, however, we have lived to see quite a different state of things arise. The creation of new branches of Government is not unfrequently recommended in this House by independent Committees and independent Members; and it not unfrequently falls to the lot of a Minister to decline, at all events for a time, the creation of a new department of the State. Well, I find myself in that; position in the present case. I quite admit that the Report of the Committee of last Session was a well-considered report, that its recommendations are worthy of the attention of the House, and ultimately of adoption by the Government. But I am not at this moment enabled to say that the Government will at once act upon those recommendations. My hon. Friend said the result of his proposal would be that the work which was now done by fifteen persons would be done by three. It is very likely that it would be necessary to create a board consisting of perhaps three Members and a secretary upon whom this duty should be devolved; but I confess that my experience of changes of this sort does not lead me to anticipate with great confidence that the services of the fifteen other gentlemen who are said to be superseded will be dispensed with, and that a reduction to that extent in the different departments will take place. I think the House must expect, that if this new department should be established, there would be some additional number of persons employed
  706
  in the public service, and some additional expense incurred; although I do not at all dispute the conclusion of my hon. Friend, that increased efficiency would be obtained, and no doubt, as the ultimate result of that, increased economy also. But that there would be some addition to the establishment is, I think, a fact which must be admitted as the foundation of this measure. My own experience of the late transmission of troops to Canada leads me to believe that our present system is capable of improvement, and that there exists some confusion and some conflict of authority, which, although it did not cause any serious inconveniences on the late occasion of the despatch of troops, has still a tendency to produce errors in the shipment of stores and in the performance of the transport service. Therefore, the first part of these recommendations—namely, that the transport service should be separated from the Victualling Department of the Admiralty, under which it is now exclusively placed, is, I think, as a matter of principle a good and sound suggestion, and so far quite concur with my hon. Friend who calls attention to this Report. The two departments—the Admiralty and the War Department, I may say, are agreed generally in the admission of that principle, and they will be prepared, when the due time has arrived, to take steps for carrying it into execution. But then, Sir, there are two other departments which are also concerned in the matter—namely, the India Office and the Colonial Office. With respect to the first of these departments, my right hon. Friend at its head thinks that for the present it would not be advisable to make this change. He does not dispute that ultimately it would be advantageous; but he says that the shipment of troops and stores to and from India has always been regarded as well conducted under the separate management of the India Department; that their arrangements are now, and for some time to come, fixed and settled; and he is therefore not willing to agree to the immediate adoption of this measure. I believe he has stated his reasons for that opinion in a communication addressed to the Board of Admiralty, and there will be no objection on the part of the India Board to the production of that communication. If those reasons should appear to the House to be sufficient, they would, of course, militate against the immediate adoption of the second of these recommendations; namely

  707
  the removal from the India Office of the transport of all troops and stores to and from our East Indian possessions. The third recommendation is the abolition of the Emigration Office, and, consequently, the transfer to the Colonial Office of all business connected with the various laws passed by the Colonial Legislatures relating to land or emigration. Now, I believe it is the opinion of the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office, that this change could not be effected in such a manner as to give satisfaction to the different Colonial Legislatures— that those Legislatures deem a separate Emigration Board in connection with the Colonial Office to be necessary, that they would not understand a Transport Board which would be principally devoted to the transport of troops and stores under the conduct of the Admiralty and the War Office, and that he is not prepared, on that account, to give his assent to this change. I am not sure whether it would be possible to arrange any plan which would obviate these objections; but, at all events, the Government cannot at this moment carry this measure into effect without reference to the opinions of the heads of the Colonial and Indian Departments. I may say, however, that the Government regard it principally as a question of time and manner; that they admit the principles laid down in this Report; that they think it very desirable that the transport service— that is to say, the conveyance of troops and stores to and from this country, the colonies, India, and other places beyond seas— should be conducted under a separate Transport Department; but that they do not see their way to its adoption at the present moment. The abolition of the Emigration Board is a question on which more difficulty arises. The arrangements for voluntary emigration to the colonies are not necessarily connected with the transport of troops, and everybody, I think, must perceive that although it is possible that this recommendation may be a wise one, still, on further consideration, it may be open to serious objections. Certainly it does not present any very obvious congruity with the other parts of the measure. Under these circumstances I trust that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the assurances which I have given him, that the Government is on the whole favourable to his views; and I should add, that although they are not ready at this moment to carry them out,
  708
  they are yet taking steps for giving effect to them. They have appointed a committee of persons belonging to the Admiralty and the War Departments, with instructions for the framing of a plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee; and I believe my noble Friend near me (Lord Clarence Paget) has included in his Estimates a certain sum for laying the foundation of a Board of the description now proposed. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to divide the House on his Motion. The House is aware that this is essentially an executive question, in which details of administration are involved; and if they are satisfied that the Government are prepared to act upon the principle, which they consider to be a sound one, they may, with perfect consistency, leave to the discretion of the Government the elaboration of details which are necessary to carry that principle into effect.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Baronet admitted that efficiency and economy would be the result of establishing a Transport Board. As a member of the Committee, he could not but express his regret that the question had been left under consideration for two years. He thought sufficient time had been afforded for the various departments to make any arrangements that might be necessary. He had heard, that had not the American difficulty been settled so soon, a Transport Board would have been immediately established. The blue-book showed the great emergencies that occurred at the commencement of the Crimean war, and as no one could tell when a fresh difficulty might spring up, he thought that now was the time, when affairs were quiet, to make any changes that were necessary.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he hoped that after the satisfactory reply of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for War the hon. Member for Sunderland would not press his Motion to a division. He thought the recommendations were being carried out with extraordinary rapidity, as the principle was admitted by the Government, and two of the most important departments were already acting in accordance with those recommendations.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that having been a member of the Committee he was quite content with the assurance of the right hon. Baronet, but he would press upon

  709
  the Government the necessity of acting promptly. Within a short time the country had been in danger of a great war, and if that had occurred, they would have found our transport system as imperfect as it was on the breaking out of the Crimean war. A time of peace and calmness was a fitting opportunity for establishing a better system.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he also hoped the Motion would not be pressed. With respect to the third recommendation of the Committee, he wished to make one or two suggestions which might, perhaps, be considered by the Government before finally adopting any course as to the Emigration Department. The recommendation in the Report was, that that Department should be abolished altogether; but in describing the duties of the office some of its most important functions were omitted. The hon. Member for Sunderland had omitted to refer to the duty cast upon the Emigration Department to carry out the provisions of the Passenger Act. Every vessel leaving this country with passengers was inspected by that department, upon which also devolved the duty of prosecuting in cases of ill-treatment of passengers whether leaving or arriving in the United Kingdom. When the Committee recommended the abolition of the Emigration Department, they should have pointed out what other department ought to discharge those most important duties. The arrangements for sending Government emigrants to the colonies had been put upon the same footing as the transport of stores and soldiers; but that was a mistake. The greater part of the funds employed in the conveyance of emigrants was not the money of this country, but the money of the colonies. A very large proportion of the expenses of the Emigration Office itself was defrayed by the colonies. He would ask the House whether they were prepared to transfer to a department having nothing to do with the colonies the duty of looking after the safety and comfort of these emigrants, or would they wish to cast that duty entirely upon independent agencies appointed by the colonies themselves? The latter would inevitably happen if the Admiralty did the work of the present Emigration Office. The colonies were unwilling that an arrangement should be made by which these functions were taken away from a department with which they were in direct communication, and turned over to a department with which they had nothing to do.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office also objected to the amalgamation on colonial grounds, for the reasons just stated by his hon. Friend.
  MR. LINDSAY, in reply, said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the principle for which he contended, he should rest satisfied with the pledge of the Government on the subject, and should not press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL STATUTES.

  RESOLUIIOJT MOVED.
  MR. H. SEYMOURsaid, he rose to move that it was expedient that the Ecclesiastical Statutes be revised with a view to their consolidation, and he did so upon two grounds. The first was, that ecclesiastical matters were at length claiming the attention of the Government, and the Home Secretary had given notice of a Bill for the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts, to which his own Motion might be said to be supplementary. The second ground was, that the consolidation of the statutes was regarded as a work which ought to occupy the attention of Parliament, more especially at a time when it was not occupied with the consideration of subjects of an important external character, and when the Session was likely to derive its character from the promotion of measures for effecting important internal improvements. The Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law had resolved, after mature discussion, that the best way of carrying out this consolidation was not by any general system, but by choosing groups of statutes devoted to one particular subject, and consolidating each group separately. With regard to the consolidation of the statutes generally, the first Motion was brought forward by Lord Brougham in 1833, when a commission was appointed to consolidate the criminal statutes. They reported in 1835, and then the matter lay dormant until 1853. In 1854 another commission was appointed, and existed till 1859, when it ceased. It made several valuable reports, and left many materials for future consolidation. The result was, that there had been three great consolidations of the law of late years — the Bankrupt Act in 1849, which paved the way for the amended Act of last year; the Customs Act in 1853, when from 1,000 to 1,500 statutes were consolidated;

  711
  and the criminal law consolidation of last Session, which had also given universal satisfaction. He then asked the House to consolidate the Ecclesiastical Statutes, without which the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be extremely imperfect. These statutes had been collected by an eminent ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Stephens, in two large volumes, containing 2,270 octavo pages. The collection extended up to 1846, and if these statutes were brought together at that time, they would probably occupy 3,000 pages. Of the ecclesiastical laws, one class related to religious and the other to temporal matters. In the first division were all the statutes relating to the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, and the Thirty-nine Articles, and such other statutes as might be considered as the foundation of the Church both in England and Ireland, or illustrative of her history. He had explained to the hon. and learned Solicitor General that he was willing to amend his Motion, so that none of these statutes should be in any way touched by it. The distinction between the temporal and religious statutes was well known to ecclesiastical lawyers, and might be made without any difficulty. It was possible to keep them on the Statute Book; but collected and bound in a separate form. The second class of statutes were those relating to temporal matters. These were far more voluminous than the others; there were, he believed, about 2,300 of them altogether; there were 26 Church building Acts; there were 40 or 50 Acts relating to glebe leases, clergy leases affecting church property in England and Ireland; there were 78 Acts relating to Church discipline. It might be thought desirable not to touch the last class of Acts, and the same might be said of the Acts relating to dilapidations. They might however be consolidated without alteration. Then there were 39 Acts relating to the augmentation of benefices; to the residence of the clergy, 31; and there were 11 statutes relating to vestries. Many of these Acts had been recommended as special objects of consolidation by the Statute Law Commission in its various reports. The number of these statutes that had been passed, especially since 1800, was perfectly extraordinary. In the reign of George IV. the number of statutes passed relating to ecclesiastical matters was 265; in the reign of "William IV. There were 136, and
  712
  in the present reign, down to 1846, there were 173 passed. Taking as a standard the average number of statutes passed in the three years preceding 1846, there had been passed since then about 432 statutes. The total number of statutes was about 2,400, and, deducting the purely religious and eleemosynary statutes, that would leave about 2,283 to be considered. Then allowing 700 for repealed statutes, there would remain about 1,500, which could be consolidated without in any manner interfering with the religious statutes. The Statute Law Commissioners stated that of the Acts passed since 1800 three-fourths had either expired or become obsolete. That report was signed by men of great eminence—by Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord Stanley, and the present Lord Chancellor. But it was perfectly indifferent whether the number was 1,500 or 500: if it was large, it made it imperative on the Government to consider how they could be presented in a more compendious form; if the number was smaller, there was no difficulty in the matter. In either case, when the Ecclesiastical Courts were occupying the attention of the Government, the ecclesiastical law ought also to be considered. He would remind the House that one of the last things it did in the last Session was to pass a Bill repealing many hundreds of obsolete statutes, with the object of preparing a revised edition of the Statute Book, in which the laws of the land might be presented in the most compendious form possible. He asked the House to carry out that intention; the present was a fitting time for the work, as there was not likely to be any urgency or press of business to prevent it. Since the Statute Law Commission expired, two gentlemen of great learning and ability had been employed in the expurgation of the Statute Book; that was, in picking out the expired, repealed, and obsolete Acts; they were beginning at the beginning of the Statute Book, and going gradually through it down to the present time. He need not say they had not advanced far in their labour. Some years would probably elapse before they completed their work. But their labour had nothing to do with the Motion he submitted; because their task was confined to the expurgation of the Statute Book; they were not employed at all on the consolidation of the statutes that remained. What he proposed was more comprehensive; it

  713
  was both to expurgate the statutes relating to temporal ecclesiastical matters, and to consolidate those statutes that remained into-the smallest possible compass. Now, the ecclesiastical law was a particular study, and a matter of special knowledge. It involved the deepest interests, both of the clergy and laity. The revision should therefore be confided to special hands, and treated as a special subject; if accomplished, it would be a great step gained towards the consolidation of the whole statute law, and would be a reform that, he hoped, would prepare the way for an English code. He was glad to find that the Government intended to propose a reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but there were two evils to be remedied—bad law and bad judges. The reform of the courts would touch only the judges, of whom nineteen out of twenty had been declared by high authority to be incompetent to their office. The reform would not touch the other evil of bad, inconvenient, and expensive law, under which it was often said it was better to submit to a wrong than resort to such law to obtain a remedy. It might be said that the state of the Ecclesiastical Law was not a real grievance, or that the grievance was only felt in a few cases. But on this point a distinguished prelate, whose merit had received a just reward by one of the last Acts of the patronage of the present Government, the Bishop of Killaloe, had stated that the present state of the Ecclesiastical Law and the Ecclesiastical Courts tended to shelter great delinquents and render difficult the expulsion of religious error; and within the last week the Record, the organ of that party in the Church from which the Government had selected several of the prelates who adorned the episcopal bench, had declared that the Ecclesiastical Law, with its discordant statutes and anomalies, was enough to warrant any amount of indignation. That law governed 20,000 clergy, and the laity were deeply interested in it, both ecclesiastically and in a pecuniary point of view. The lay patronage amounted to nearly £2,000,000, all of which was governed by that law, but neither the clergy nor the laity were able to ascertain what their rights or liabilities were, without going to an ecclesiastical lawyer. It was perfectly possible to make that law clear and plain. That was the opinion expressed by the Lord Chancellor when in that House, and he did not believe that the noble and learned Lord had
  714
  changed it since his elevation. No fresh constitution of the Ecclesiastical Courts would do that. What was needed was the consolidation of the Ecclesiastical Statutes as proposed by his Motion. A work like that would stamp the present Session, for which at present there was no work provided. As yet there were literally but two Bills of any importance before them, and when they had passed the Highways Bill and the Bill for making the road across Ken sing-ton Gardens there was no reason why hon. Gentlemen should not be allowed to return to their constituents. Since his elevation to the Woolsack, Lord Westbury had endeavoured to be a great law reformer; it was in that capacity that he wished to be handed down to Parliament. He had much work before him, but to do it all he would require the strenuous support of the House of Commons. Public attention had been recently called to the work of consolidation in a remarkable speech delivered by one of the most rising statesmen of the day, the noble Lord the member for King's Lynn. He told his constituents that one of the most important works which the present Parliament would have to undertake would be the consolidation of the statute law, and, from the opinions which were known to be entertained on the subject by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, there was no doubt that if the party opposite came into power, that would be one of the first measures which they would take up.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient that the Ecclesiastical Statutes be revised, with a view to their consolidation."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the subject to which he had called attention was a large and important one, and that in several of its branches there could be very little difference of opinion as to its being desirable to improve the law. But to agree to an abstract resolution in the terms proposed by the hon. Gentleman would be inexpedient and productive of no advantage. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the very learned and able publication of Mr. Stephens, which obviously had suggested to him the terms of I his original Motion. That Motion was for the consolidation of the Ecclesiastical and Eleemosynary Statutes, which happened to be the title of that learned gentleman's voluminous work. He was not surprised that his hon. Friend, on taking up that

  715
  work, should have been alarmed and astonished at the great magnitude of the Ecclesiastical and Eleemosynary Statutes. His hon. Friend had accurately stated that these two volumes contained 2,270 and odd pages, and that, if continued down to the present time, the work would contain somewhere about 300 more. The statutes mentioned in them were 2,283, and considerable additions had since been made to the number. No doubt, the first exclamation of hon. Gentlemen would be, "What an appalling mass of statutes, and what enormous need there must be for consolidation." But if they would take the trouble to look a little more carefully into the volumes, their alarm and astonishment would be considerably diminished, because it would be seen that almost every statute became an Ecclesiastical Statute under the touch of Mr. Stephens. A close examination of the Statutes comprised in the book immediately repelled the idea of consolidation. Not only did Mr. Stephens's volumes contain those Acts which most persons would recognise as being part of the ecclesiastical law — Acts relating to the constitution of the Church, its primary and normal relations to the State; Church Discipline Acts; Church Building Acts; Acts relating to tithes and commutation of tithes; Acts relating to cathedrals, bishops, deans, and chapters, and the like; but in addition to these a great part of the bulk of the book consisted of Acts which only referred to ecclesiastical matters in the most partial and incidental manner. For instance, the last Statute of Limitations contained a clause which applied to ecclesiastical property; therefore the Statute of Limitations appeared in Mr. Stephens's book. The Municipal Corporation Act was also there, because municipal corporations had advowsons which required to be sold. All the Acts relating to the registry of births, deaths, and marriages, all the Marriage Acts, all the Burial Acts, were also mentioned. There also appeared in it the Acts for the government of Canada, and the Act for providing for the regency of the kingdom in case of Her Majesty having been removed while the heir to the Crown was a minor. Not only that; but his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be surprised to hear that his old friend the paper duty found a place there. It so happened that books of a certain description, published at the two Universi-
  716
  ties, were exempted from the paper duty, and the Act concerning the paper duty therefore, figured among the Ecclesiastical Statutes. The Metropolitan Police Act was there, because it contained provisions forbidding certain things being done on the Lord's Day; the Prisons Acts, because they regulated the appointment of chaplains; the Bakers and Sale of Bread Act, because bakers might not sell bread on Sunday; and the Evidence Acts, because parishioners were empowered to give evidence in certain parish cases. The House would thus see at once that under the name of Ecclesiastical Statutes many things were brought together which in no essential point came in contact either with the Church, the clergy, or with religion. These, instead of being proper subjects for consolidation, absolutely repelled consolidation, and to attempt it would be to create confusion and not order. At the same time, there was left a certain residuum more properly ecclesiastical, and that divided itself into various branches. He could not for a moment adopt his hon. Friend's division into religions and temporal. There was hardly an Act on the Statute Book to which that division was appropriate. Except so far as the services of the Church and the Thirty-nine Articles were concerned, there was hardly an Act which was not, primarily and properly speaking, temporal and concerning temporal matters. The great constitutional statutes which fixed the relations of Church and State were one class of Ecclesiastical Statutes; and as he understood, that his hon. Friend did not think it expedient to tamper with them, they might be dismissed from consideration. He then came to those statutes—and they were not so numerous as his hon. Friend supposed—which related to Church discipline, and entered into the body of the special law to which the clergy were subject. As to the administration of that law, there was undoubtedly considerable room for improvement, but there was no uncertainty as to what the law was. And here he could not help observing that much of the latter part of his hon. Friend's speech had reference rather to the improvement of the law than to its consolidation, and the pamphlet of the right rev. Prelate he quoted alluded to the evils of the present law and the amendments which it required. That was a delicate and difficult subject, and any one who successfully undertook it would be a benefactor to the public.

  717
  But amendment ought surely to precede consolidation; it would be desirable to get the law into the state in which they wished it to be before they proceeded to consolidate it. The practical question when dealing with consolidation was, what were the branches of the law which were in a state in which it was at once practicable and convenient to consolidate the scattered statutes for the purpose of putting the law into a clearer and more legitimate state. He was far from denying the expediency of performing that process in respect of some portions of that great mass of law which was grouped together under the name of ecclesiastical, but if the Government committed themselves to doing it as to the whole, they would be giving a most idle promise, which there would be no chance of their redeeming in the current or even in a dozen Sessions. There were some things which fell within the general scope of the Motion which it would be expedient to do, and his hon. Friend would have done good service in pointedly calling attention to them. In fact, he believed he did not state too much when he stated that the Government would profit by his suggestions, and would direct their attention to the consolidation and revision of the law upon those topics. For instance, the Church Building Acts were extremely numerous; they related to an important subject, and occasion was constantly arising for reference to them. They were a very ill-drawn set of Acts, each prepared without due consideration of the others, and their consolidation and revision would be attended with great advantage. He thanked his hon. Friend for having directed attention to that subject. It would not be overlooked by the Government, and he hoped that the day was not far distant when a Bill would be presented for the amendment and consolidation of that purl of the law. To the subject of residence houses, which was closely connected with that of church building, attention might also, with great propriety, be directed. Nor did he say that the Government should stop at those points, or that other branches of the law kindred to them might not properly be dealt with. What he submitted was, that it was not expedient for the House, by adopting this Motion, to pledge themselves to a very great undertaking, which could not be entered upon without a large staff and a very considerable expenditure, in addition to that which was now being devoted to the progressive work
  718
  of the improvement of the law. A specimen expurgation statute was passed last Session; two gentlemen of very great ability and aptitude for the work were now engaged, under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, in the continuance of that work, and his Lordship hoped during the present Session to submit to Parliament a Bill which would remove from the statute book all useless, obsolete, and repealed statutes which had been passed between the time at which legislation commenced and the end of the reign" of Henry VII. That would be no inconsiderable progress, and the work would go on with as much expedition as was consistent with its careful and conscientious performance. Surely, it was desirable that before consolidating the Ecclesiastical Statutes a similar process should be applied to them. He thought that his hon. Friend might leave the direction as to the order of that work to those who had it in hand; and he would remind him, in conclusion, that the commission to which he had alluded did not recommend the undertaking of this Herculean task of a general consolidation of everything which could be called ecclesiastical law. They preferred the course which the Government thought it morewise to adopt—that of dealing with particular subjects on principles similar to those on which they had constructed other Consolidation Acts.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, he entirely sympathized with the motives which had induced his hon. Friend to bring the subject before the House. One more important, he thought, could not engage their attention. He concurred, however, with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that it would be inexpedient for the House on a matter of such magnitude to commit itself to the terms of a somewhat vague resolution. The Solicitor General had placed the real question in a. very plain and intelligible form before the House, and had promised on the part of the Government that as regards the statutes relating to church building, they would at once apply themselves to the work of consolidation; and those statutes certainly required, more than many others, to be so dealt with. He had also intimated that the statutes relating to residence should be consolidated, and that other groups should be dealt with in u similar manner. He (Mr. Freeland) thought that this was the proper course to pursue to effect a few simple reforms in the law, and to present results in a

  719
  definite shape to the country. He thought that this would prove a far more satisfactory course than launching out into vague resolutions, the scope of which the country could not appreciate. He hoped that the Lord Chancellor would maintain in another place his character as a law-reformer. "Under the circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his resolution to a division.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, they had several immense volumes of statutes on ecclesiastical law which might he reduced within very small limits; and he believed that if they were consolidated, and the repealed Acts taken out of the way, it would be a boon to the student, the profession, and the country at large. He was glad to see a prospect of the Church Building Acts being reduced to something like an intelligible form. He was sure the Lord Chancellor was in earnest in the matter, and he hoped now something would be done. At the same time he trusted that the Government, in prosecuting legal reforms, would not confine their attention exclusively to ecclesiastical measures.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, they had often been promised consolidation, not only of the Ecclesiastical Statutes, but of the laws generally. And he wished to know, before they went into the matter before them what had been done in respect to the consolidation of various other laws? He was aware that, at the instance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly), several gentlemen had been employed to condense and consolidate various branches of the law. Among other subjects taken up, a Bill had been prepared embracing the whole of the law with regard to aliens. The measure passed last year was not strictly an Act for the consolidation of criminal law, but only of what were commonly called Sir Robert Peel's Acts; and, owing to the course which had been adopted in consolidating with them certain portions of Lord Campbell's Acts, considerable practical inconvenience had arisen. Some of the clauses only having been repealed and others left standing, it became necessary to consult two Acts for the future instead of one.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he could not take credit for having induced the House to adopt any species of law reform. He had only been instrumental in getting rid of the Commissioners, and he felt glad at having done so, because, so long as they occupied the ground, nothing was done in
  720
  the reform of the law. He thought they ought to proceed first with the expurgation of the old statutes, and then go on with the consolidation of the remainder. With regard to the matter now under consideration, he was of opinion that his hon. Friend had done good service in bringing forward the question, and he hoped he would accept what he might call the pledge of the Government, and alter the wording of his Motion, so that it would stand as a simple declaration in favour of the consolidation of these Acts.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, that while not going to the full extent with the argument of the Solicitor General he thought that the instalment which the hon. and learned Gentleman had promised would do something. The fact that the Solicitor General called Dr. Stephens's book a jumble of everything, showed the necessity for a complete consolidation.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL:I meant no disrespect to Dr. Stephens.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he knew no reason why the Ecclesiastical Statutes might not be consolidated in one or two years. He ventured to express a hope that the Church of England and that of Ireland—or, more properly speaking, "the United Church of England and Ireland"—would be dealt with as one. If the Government did not treat them as one, but dealt with the Act of Union as waste paper, he hoped they would call together the Irish Parliament to deal with Irish Church matters.
  MR. SEYMOURin reply said, that he could not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Surrey, because he thought there was more to be hoped from the promised measure of the Solicitor General than could be got from what the hon. member (Mr. L. King) proposed. As he understood, there was at present no work of consolidation going on, but only expurgation by two gentlemen. If that state of things were allowed to continue, half a century might elapse before the desired object was accomplished. The Statute Law Commissioners had reported that, to a great extent, amendment and consolidation might go on together. After what had been stated by the Solicitor General he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REGISTER OF VOTERS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he rose to ask

  721
  for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for an alphabetical index to the register of voters in counties and boroughs in England and Wales. The object he had in view was neither a part nor a political one; it was simply to remove the confusion in which the register at present stood. Ever one who had looked into the register of any large constituency would find that, though the names were alphabetically arranged according to the parishes, it was difficult to find readily the name that was sought. It was now the fashion that to every book published there should be an index, and all that he asked was to append to ever register, in small type, and in an inexpensive form, the name of each voter alphabetically arranged, and his number on the register. The plan would be very simple, very inexpensive, and very effective. As he believed the proposal would be generally approved of, he should say no more in its favour.
  Leave given.
  Bill to provide for an Alphabetical Index to the Register of Voters in Counties and Boroughs in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE King and Mr. KER SEYMER.
  Bill presented, and read 1o; to be read 2o on Tuesday next, and to be printed.

PROSECUTIONS EXPENSES.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to reintroduce the Bill of his right lion. Friend the War Secretary for the amendment of the Acts relating to the payment of expenses of prosecutions. It was proposed that there should be a uniform scale of allowances to witnesses payable by the Treasury, which should in no case be exceeded; but that the county magistrates should have power, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State to increase the allowances out of their own funds. He moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MR. A. TURNERsaid, he was glad that a Bill on the subject was to be introduced, because the existing regulations caused great inconvenience and frequent complaints, particularly in the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The magistrates of Lancashire had made a strong presentment on the subject, complaining that the scale interfered with the due administration of justice by deterring witnesses from attending courts to give evidence. He had heard of the case of a
  722
  surgeon who, after losing a day's practice, in a case in which two men were sentenced to penal servitude, found, on reaching home, that his allowance loft him a balance over expenses of 1s. 6d
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, that having been a Member of a deputation from Yorkshire on the subject, he wished to corroborate the opinion entertained as to the injury and inconvenience accruing to the present administration of the law from the present mode of paying witnesses.
  SIR GEORGE GREYexplained, that the Bill was the same that was brought in by his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) last Session. It was founded on the Report of the Commission of 1858. He would not put the second reading for a very early day, and he wished the Bill to be printed before he named a day for the second reading.
  Leave given.
  Bill for the Amendment of the Acts relating to the payment of the Expenses of Prosecutions, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY and Mr. CLIVE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o; to be read 2o on Monday next, and to be printed.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

  LEAVE.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the procedure of the Court of Chancery. The object of his Bill was simply to make it imperative on the Courts of Chancery to determine every question of law and fact necessary to enable them to administer the jurisdiction they possessed. He did not desire either to enlarge or to diminish, to alter or affect in any way the jurisdiction of these courts. In the exercise of i that jurisdiction, however, there often arose questions of law and fact, which, under the present mode of procedure, the courts of equity were in the habit of referring to the courts of law for their opinion or decision as preliminary to the determination of the equitable questions arising in the case, and he proposed by this Bill that this course of procedure should be discontinued. The object of the Bill, though simple, was therefore of considerable importance, and would produce very large results in the administration of justice in those courts. He was quite conscious that the onus lay upon him to give solid reasons for the change. The Legislature had already thought it

  723
  desirable to remove all doubt as to the power of the Court of Chancery to determine all questions of law and of fact requiring to be determined for the exercise of its jurisdiction; and the Act of the 15 & 16 Vict., c. 86, gave them full power for that purpose, and with the same view took away from the Court the power of obtaining the opinion of a court of law by stating a case. But notwithstanding the evident intention of the Legislature, the Court of Chancery was still in the habit of sending questions of law and of fact to be determined by a court of common law as before. It was still within the power of the Court of Chancery to refuse or postpone its own decisions until some question of law or fact had been decided at law either by means of an action or of some issue directed by the court to be tried at law. The cases of injunctions applied for in equity against the infringement of patents or of copyright would very well illustrate the subject, though there were many other classes of cases in which the inconvenience of the present system was equally great. If the owners of a patent alleged that it was infringed, they applied to the Court of Equity for an injunction, and their right to the injunction in equity depended in equity on the legal validity of the patent and on the fact of infringement. The court was in the habit of saying to such parties, "You must bring your action at law or try your issue. Prove that the patent is valid and has been infringed, and then you may come here, and we will grant you an injunction." That state of things caused much uncertainty, delay, and expense. The courts had the power of determining the law and the fact for themselves, but it was a question of discretion with them whether they should exercise the powers they possessed or not, and frequently they were led to say that the courts of law were a better tribunal, and to decline to discharge the duties to which the Legislature had invited them. Every suitor to the Court of Equity was told that the court had the power to determine all the questions of law and fact, and the result often was that he exhausted all his evidence and went through the whole of his case, as if everything were to be decided in equity, only to find that it had all to be done over again, with great additional delay and expense, in a court of law. The grievance was of so large and frequent a character that it was
  724
  worthy of redress. In about one hundred cases that had recently come under his notice, one-sixth contained some specific question of law or fact that required to be determined to enable the Court of Chancery to exercise its jurisdiction, and more than two-thirds of this proportion had been sent to a court of law. One objection might possibly be urged—namely, that judges of courts of equity were not so equal to the discharge of these duties as judges of courts of law, and that in equity there was no adequate machinery for the purpose. But it was well known that equity lawyers were selected to argue pure questions of law in the Exchequer Chamber and in the House of Lords, the courts of the last resort. In fact, it was necessary to be master of the whole law before any person could with propriety undertake to practise or to administer justice in courts of equity. He had known, for instance, a case of copyright, which was a pure question of law, sent out of the Court of Chancery to be tried in a court of law; and when argued at law, the authorities cited had been for the most part cases which had been decided in a court of equity. Now, he proposed to make it imperative on the Court of Chancery to determine all such questions itself. Questions of equity were frequently arising in courts of law, and, there was no such necessity for judges in courts of law to be masters of equity as there was for judges of equity to be masters of law; but a court of law never thought of sending equitable cases to courts of equity, but dealt with them itself; and, in like manner, there could be no doubt whatever of the capacity of courts of equity to deal with questions of law. The only question, therefore, was, whether courts of equity had sufficient facilities to deal with all questions of fact? It was quite competent for them to summon witnesses and to sift evidence viva voce, and to proceed by jury trial when necessary; and though for the first half-dozen cases there might, perhaps, be some awkwardness in the way in which practitioners in equity might deal with a jury, yet the difficulty would soon be got over. At all events, if there was any part of the duty which the equity judges were unable to discharge, let them be deprived of jurisdiction so far as regarded that part, but do not let suitors be bandied backwards and forwards flora one court to another to try a single question of right. He desired, in conclusion, to

  725
  say that he did not for one moment complain of the course taken by the judges in the courts of equity, or of the way in which they exercised the discretion intrusted to them, as to the determination of questions of law and fact. No body of men, without exception, could be found more able or more willing to discharge every duty which was placed upon them. But, taking human nature as it was, the result would be such as he complained of—when there was power to send particular cases elsewhere, there would be a natural and inevitable tendency to do so. If each court was, as it was bound to be, master of the principles of law and equity, and each court was bound to discharge all its own duties, the advantages of a division of labour would make it convenient that the courts should be separate as now; a great and substantial remedy would be provided for evils existing under the present system; and there would be no necessity for any fusion of or any breaking down the boundaries between the principles administered in courts of law and in courts of equity. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the procedure of the Court of Chancery.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he heartily concurred in the general views and principles which his hon. and learned Friend had expressed, and in his estimate of the practical importance of the subject. His noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor had authorized him to state that his attention had been directed to that very subject, and that he had it in contemplation to embody that, as well as other points touching the practice and procedure in the Court of Chancery, in a Bill which it was his intention to lay on the table of the other House. At the same time, his noble and learned Friend did not wish to throw any impediment in the way of his hon. and learned Friend. who was so well entitled to contribute his valuable assistance upon questions with which he was so well acquainted. He thought that they would all concur in the main principles which his hon. and learned Friend had laid down — that it was of the utmost importance that every court should be, as far as possible, complete in itself, and that multiplicity of litigation should be got rid of, not merely discouraged. In the nature of things, courts of equity must be as competent to deal with questions of law as any other courts,
  726
  because all equity was founded upon law. With regard to the procedure on questions of fact, great improvements had been made. He assumed, however, that his hon. and learned Friend did not propose to deal with questions of fact in such a manner as to take away the power which courts of equity possessed of sending issues of fact to be tried at the assizes before juries, as was done by the superior courts of law themselves, when, in consequence of witnesses residing on the spot, there would be greater convenience and cheapness in so doing. It might not be improper to add that judges of great authority on many questions had actually laid it down that it was the only proper course for a court of equity to require the previous establishment of the legal right by action of law. Now, they all knew that this course had become, so well-established by precedent, that it might be doubted whether judges would not feel that in departing from that usage they were exercising a discretion, which might be competent to them in the abstract, in a manner which previous precedents had shown to be improper, He also agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that if the equity judges possessed only a discretionary power to try questions of law, they would naturally be inclined to refer them to the common law judges, from a belief that they were more in the habit of dealing with them. The legislation which his hon. and learned Friend proposed was therefore not only useful, but necessary for the purpose of cutting off a vicious course of precedents, and of delivering the courts of equity and the judges who presided in them from the fetters which that usage had imposed upon the exercise of their discretion.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to express his concurrence in the principle of the Bill, but it was his opinion that in the event of this Bill becoming law the common law judges should be engaged to assist in the trial of the issues of cases in equity courts, and that barristers practising at common law should be admitted to the equity courts without a breach of etiquette.
  Leave given.
  Bill to regulate the Procedure of the Court of Chancery, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ROLT and Sir HUGH CAIRNS.

LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES, &c.
  COMMITTEE.

    (KENSINGTON GORE AND BAYSWATER ROAD).
    London Coal and Wine Duties, &c, considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. COWPERsaid, he rose to move that the Chairman be directed to move the House that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1861, and to authorize the formation of a road between Kensington Gore and Bayswater, and to apply the proceeds of the Metropolis Improvement Fund account towards defraying the cost of the construction of such road. It was with considerable reluctance that he asked the Committee to entertain the Motion, not merely because it was always unpleasant to deal with questions of taste in Parliament, nor because the question was mixed up with parochial and metropolitan jealousies, but chiefly because the office he had the honour to hold had for one of its special duties the guardianship of the public parks. He was therefore anxious to protect them as much as he could against any interference which would diminish the recreation and enjoyment of Her Majesty's subjects. A very strong case, however, had been made out for the proposed interference with the existing stale of the parks. For the last two years lie had received representations that the formation of a road across Kensington Gardens from north to south was a very urgent and a very necessary metropolitan improvement. Recently he had received a deputation from the five parishes of St. George, Hanover Square, Marylebone, Paddington, Kensington, and Chelsea, showing that the want of some such road as that he now proposed was urgently felt by all the inhabitants of those parts, and representing that it was a hard case that the Park and Kensington Gardens should oppose a barrier of two miles to the passage of any carriage from north to south. He felt there was great force in the demand which had been preferred, that the Crown should allow a carriage road to be made to meet the permanent wants of that portion of the Metropolis. He spoke not of a temporary want, which might arise this year from the Exhibition, but of one of the permanent wants of London. It was obviously a great in-
    728
    convenience that in that great Metropolis so large an extent of ground should be suffered to remain impervious to passengers. That there should be a space of two miles, which could not be traversed from north to south by carriages, was an inconvenient arrangement which no one could wish to continue. The Committee must recollect that not merely did the ordinary private traffic between Paddington and Kensington Gore require accommodation, but also all the carriages going from the south to the Paddington Station, and all the vehicles coming from the north to Kensington Gore and its neighbourhood. That part of the town was rapidly developing itself. The Museum at Kensington Gore was daily thronged by all classes of the community, who found there amusement and instruction in science and art. The Horticultural Gardens were likely to attract thousands to the flower shows, and a part of the Exhibition building, then in course of erection, was intended to be permanent under the care and direction of the Society of Arts. The Committee, therefore, would see that not merely those who resided in London, but the public who came to London from all parts of England, might frequently require to resort to the latter centre of attraction by means of the road which it was proposed to form. Such a road was certainly a great public want. On the other hand, looking to the interest of the frequenters of the park, it was desirable that the road should not be allowed unless it could be made without serious detriment to the park. It was, to some extent, a conflict between beauty and utility. If they looked only to utility, the omnibuses and cabs must be allowed to take the shortest cut to where they wanted to go, even though it were across the park or gardens. On the other hand, if they looked mainly to beauty, they would keep out such unsightly objects as butchers' carts, hack cabs, omnibuses, and waggons, and reserve places of recreation for more refined objects. But in this case there was no necessity, fortunately, to choose between beauty and utility; they might be combined. He believed it possible to sink a road below the surface, which would give a direct route for travellers, with sufficient light and air, and yet not interfere in any material degree with the beauty of the landscape or the enjoyment of the pedestrians in the park or gardens. He had described

    729
    the road on the previous night, but its situation did not appear to be quite understood, as few had been on the gravel walk through the centre of Kensington Gardens, along which the road would proceed. The generality of visitors to Kensington Gardens frequented the walks on the east and west, but there were many who had never penetrated to the centre. What he proposed to make a road was now a grave walk, about the centre of Kensington Gardens from their eastern and western boundaries. If the road were made, those who now walked on the broad gravel walk would have an opportunity of walking in either of the avenues on each side, which they would find much pleasanter, inasmuch as the avenue of trees which they would adopt was much prettier than the avenue at present in use. The road would commence at Lancaster Gate on the north, and terminate at the wrought-iron gates of Rotten Row. Is was quite clear of the Serpentine, being about an eighth of a mile from it. The road would be forty feet wide at the bottom, and eighty feet wide at the top of the slopes, and supposing it were made, no pedestrian would be checked in any walk which he now took. If he desired to walk in an avenue, there would be an avenue on either side; and if he desired to cross the road, he could do so either on the level, at the present footpath, which would not be interfered with, or pass over it by means of light bridges. Although the number of crossings would be limited, ample provision would be made for the purpose. He did not believe that the noise and dust from the proposed road would have any material effect in annoying the people in the vicinity, when he considered to what a small distance the noise from the existing road, penetrated into the Gardens. Neither would the road he proposed interfere with Rotten Row or with the carriage drive, as it would pass underneath them, and in that way, from its going in a direct line, it would actually form a shorter communication from Paddington Station to the Exhibition than any other road which had been recommended as an alternative. Another road had been suggested, sunk in an open cutting, which would follow the boundary between Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, and cross the Serpentine; but the difficulty in respect to that road was in crossing the Serpentine, A
    730
    tunnel under the river, as proposed by Mr. Page, would be very disagreeable. A now bridge close to the existing one, at a different level, would be a disfigurement; and the widening of the present bridge would probably entail not less expenditure than £20,000, provided the present appearance of that structure were preserved. He thought, therefore, that the best mode both of consulting the convenience of persons passing across northwards and southwards, and of maintaining the present features of the Park and of the Gardens, would be by the adoption of the read he now proposed. Then it had the advantage, that whatever amount of annoyance might arise from the passage of vehicles would, in the case of the middle walk in Kensington Gardens, be felt by the smallest number of persons, because that centre walk was the least-frequented part of the Gardens. On the other hand, the boundary walk between Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park was the most used, and if they brought a large number of carriages and omnibuses immediately into contiguity with that walk, they would expose the largest number of persons to whatever inconvenience would arise from noise and dust.
    The Bill would provide that the new road should be made by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that the money should be drawn from the proceeds of the penny coal duty, which had been invested since 1859 in Consols, in the names of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works. By an Act of the 8 & 9 Vict. that money was directed to be invested for the purpose of being afterwards applied to some metropolitan improvement, as Parliament might direct; and it was for Parliament to decide whether the proposed I purpose was the best to which that sum of £34,000 could be appropriated. It was intended for a metropolitan improvement, and he proposed the construction of the road he had described as a metropolitan improvement. The proposition had I received the sanction of a very considerable number of the representatives of the metropolis [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: What representatives?] Those who represented the metropolis in this matter were the vestries, although the hon. Gentleman who interrupted him thought that the metropolitan members in that House were only to be listened to. No doubt there were conflicting interests and rival claims for the appropriation of the fund, and he

    731
    should be prepared to see the majority of the metropolitan members opposed to any proposal that might be made. If it was proposed to spend the money in the East of London, he should expect to see the north, south, and west opposed to the step. The question for the Committee to decide was, whether the proposed road was the most desirable and useful improvement that could be made? He believed it was. It was said that, the road being a special improvement to the district of Paddington and the parishes of Chelsea and Kensington, the expense should be defrayed by them. He should be glad if they could be induced to take on themselves the burden; but there might be difficulty in their agreeing to a voluntary rate: the eastern portion of Paddington, for instance, might urge that they were not so much benefited as the western parts of that parish. Neither had the parishes the power to apply their funds to such a purpose without a special Act, and that could not be obtained in time to be of service that year. The Metropolitan Board of Works had considered whether it would be right to take the money for the road out of the rates they had the power of levying, and had determined not to exercise their power in this way; and therefore, practically, the question whether or not there was to be such a permanent road depended upon the view which the Committee might take on the proposal for devoting the sum he had mentioned as arising from the penny coal duty to the purpose. As officially charged with the management of Hyde Park, he had no desire for this road. Looking only to the interests of those who enjoyed and frequented the park, he might say that they could do very well without any road of the kind; but if the advantage of direct communication were to be considered, it was an improvement that ought to be made. The Bill gave authority to the Metropolitan Board of Works to make the road, and empowered the Commissioners of Works to defray the expense. It had been stated that in reference to the convenience of visitors to the Great Exhibition—which was a matter of paramount importance in the minds of many—the road could not be made in time to provide the accommodation temporarily requisite this year. It would no doubt be economical to combine a permanent road with the access
    732
    wanted for a few months to the Exhibibition. The question having been raised on a former evening as to the time in which the road could be made, it was in his power to state that engineers of the highest authority had declared that such a road could be completed in a period of two months. He was also prepared to say that a contractor, who performed work on a very large scale, would undertake to execute it in three months, on condition of not receiving one farthing of remuneration if he did not at the end of that period deliver up the road in a complete and perfect state. If the Bill which he proposed had been received with the favour which he had anticipated, and if it had been allowed to pass rapidly, the road could have been completed by the time when the greater number of persons would begin to flock to the Exhibition—namely, the 1st of June. But his anticipations with respect to the reception of the Bill had certainly not been confirmed. On the contrary, instead of a desire to hasten on the progress of the Bill, intentions had been manifested to obstruct and retard it. What was not a usual proceeding, advantage was taken of a thin House the other night to force on a division, and thereby to delay its progress for four days. If, on the introduction of the Bill, the forms of the House were taken advantage of for the purpose of retarding the passing of the Bill, it was impossible that it could become law in time to enable the contractor to have the road completed before the opening of the Exhibition. To guard against such a contingency, he had introduced into the Bill a provision for the making of a temporary road, and he should wish to have the opinion of the Committee whether they desired it to be of a permanent or simply of a temporary character. That there ought to be some means of access across the park to the Exhibition was, he supposed, a proposition which nobody was prepared to dispute; but the point which he wished to have decided was, whether the inhabitants of the Metropolis were to have a road constructed by means of the coal duties? The proceeds of those duties constituted a sum invested in the name of the Commissioners of Works, and if not applied to the purpose which he proposed, they would be soon devoted to the accomplishment of some other metropolitan improvement. The question, therefore, was, were these coal duties to be

    733
    appropriated to the construction of a permanent roadway across Hyde Park or not? In any event, there would, he trusted, be a temporary road, which might be made, indeed not for the sum mentioned by the Member for Finsbury on a previous evening, but for a moderate amount. It was true that such a road might be to some extent inconvenient; but still those who used the park as pedestrians, or Rotten Row as riders on horseback, were willing to submit to the inconvenience in consideration of the great public object of having a northern access to the Exhibition. He might add that, being once strongly urged by many persons connected with the Metropolis to aid them in carrying out the project of a permanent roadway, he had deemed it to be his duty to bring forward the present measure but, of course, if the view which he had indicated with regard to the construction of such a work were not carried out, he, as being officially charged with the custody of the parks, would have no reason to complain, although he was of opinion that the Metropolis would suffer very considerably, owing to the want of what he believed would be a most useful line of communication—a line of communication, moreover, which might be made available when the gates of the park were necessarily closed, inasmuch, as it would be lighted by gas, and watched by the police. There might be other roads which it would be desirable to improve and enlarge, but no line of communication could, he thought, be constructed so really useful as that which he proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1861, and to authorize the formation of a Road between Kensington Gore and Bayswater, and to apply the proceeds of the Metropolis Improvement Fund Account towards defraying the cost of the construction of such Road."
    MR. AYRTONsaid, he was anxious to have some further information on the subject of the road proposed than the right hon. Gentleman had afforded. He had not, for instance, told the Committee what kind of road it was intended to construct, or given any explanations as to the height of the proposed bridges or the depth of the cuttings. It was true that on a previous evening he had been understood to say that the road would be some feet below the level of the parks, and that it
    734
    was intended to be crossed by bridges wherever it divided the pathway in Kensington Gardens. He begged, however, to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Act of Parliament by which the construction of bridges over roads was regulated, required that there should be a headway of sixteen feet; and if to that the length necessary for the construction of the arch were added, it would be found that, from the surface of Rotten Row to the surface of the proposed road would be about eighteen or twenty feet. According to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, the bridges would be somewhat similar to those on the well-known willow-pattern china. Now, he (Mr. Ayrton) would like to be informed whether it was intended that there should be a slope at an angle of forty-five degrees in the park, because, if so, he thought it would be most dangerous in connection with a line of communication described as likely to be one of the most frequented in London? He would further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he contemplate d having two lines of iron railings on each side of the park; because, if so, Kensington Gardens would be as completely divided into two parts as if the Bayswater Road a t the present time lay between the divisions of the park?
    MR. COWPERreplied, that the engineers whom he had consulted on the subject by no means proposed to construct the antiquated and absurd description of bridge to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, but to employ flat iron girders to span the arches. Neither was it intended to have so large a headway as had been mentioned; it was quite open to the engineer to carry the road as low as he might think necessary, in order to clear the upper surface. Looking at the plans and sections, he had every reason to believe that 10 ½feet would be a sufficient depression, and certainly the bridge at Rotten Row would not be above that level. The bridges in Kensington Gardens would be slightly raised, but they would be very light, and would not be so arranged as not to divide the gardens, as the hon. Gentleman supposed, into two parts. For his own part, he did not see how it could fairly be contended that such would be the result, when persons might cross the road in six or seven places within the distance of half a mile. The slope to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be at an angle of forty-five degrees, it being proposed that it should be supported

    735
    by a retaining wall of four feet in height, while there would be a fence, not at the top, so as to obstruct the view in the park, but a short distance down the slope, where it would be amply sufficient to protect the promenaders and children from danger.
    SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that he had opposed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the other night, because he thought that a question of such importance and interest should not be discussed in a House consisting only of about twenty-five members. It was usual to allow a Bill to be brought in without opposition, that the House might be enabled to form an opinion as to its merits or demerits; but his right hon. Friend had given so full a description of his measure that there was nothing more to learn concerning it, and upon his description the metropolitan Members were satisfied that there was no cause for allowing the Bill to proceed. He thought it much better that it should be at once understood that the Bill would not be allowed to go on, in order that other arrangements might be made for the accommodation of the traffic to and from the forthcoming Exhibition. He (Sir John Shelley) thought that the right hon. Gentleman had rather shirked one part of the question which he brought before the House the other night, and that was as to the source from which the funds for the construction of the proposed road were to be obtained. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House fairly enough the other night that it was by an oversight that the sum of £32,000 was not included in the Act of last Session appropriating the proceeds of the coal tax to the Thames Embankment, and that he thought the money might now be employed in the construction of the road. He (Sir John Shelley) did not believe there was any difference of opinion as to the great advantage that would accrue to both Kensington and Paddington from a road running between them, and he believed that both localities, if they were empowered by law to do so, would readily contribute towards so great an improvement. The Metropolitan Board of Works, which was intrusted with the funds of the metropolis at large, would likewise be perfectly justified in voting a sum of money for such a purpose. But the real question now before the Committee was, whether the plan proposed by the First Commissioner of Public Works was the one best calculated to accomplish the object which all desired to attain? He was anxious, if the
    736
    present proposal were regarded in the light of a permanent metropolitan improvement, that the Exhibition should be put altogether out of sight, and that the matter should be carefully considered before any plan was decided upon. If, on the other hand, it was to apply only to the Exhibition, he thought there were already roads sufficient for all the purposes of traffic, if they were only made use of. At the time of the last Exhibition nobody was inconvenienced by the traffic being allowed to pass in front of the Knightsbridge Barracks; and he (Sir John Shelley) was persuaded, that if the right hon. Gentleman were to throw open the Marble Arch and the other gates of Hyde Park to cabs and other vehicles, of course under proper restrictions, it would be found that the existing roads would afford better access to the Exhibition at Brompton than there had been to that in Hyde Park. Under all the circumstances, he thought that the best and most straightforward course for the Committee to adopt would be to tell the Government at once that the Bill was a mistake; that they had no right to lay their hands upon money which the House intended to appropriate to the Thames Embankment and that if they wanted to improve the approaches to the Exhibition, they had nothing more to do than to throw open Hyde Park for traffic as they had done in 1851.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:I so far agree with the hon. Baronet who has just spoken that I think the matter before the Committee has been pretty fully explained by my right hon. Friend, and that, as the Committee is tolerably full, we may as well come to a decision upon it now as wait for the second reading. No more information can be derived from a perusal of the Bill than has already been given by my right hon. Friend in his opening speech. This really is a question in which the Government have no particular interest. It relates mainly to the convenience of the metropolis. Everybody must admit that there is a great want of communication between that great mass of town which lies to the north of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens and the huge city, as I may truly call it, which is growing up in the south. There are two questions—how and in what direction that communication is to be made, and who is to pay for it. My right hon. Friend has proposed a direction which is the shortest

    737
    and most central, and which is therefore the most convenient to those who have occasion to pass from one side to the other. Some persons may think that a sunken road is not so good as a road upon the level. That is a matter of opinion. A road upon the level may be less convenient to those who use the Park and Gardens, while such a road may be favoured by those who use the road only. It is a balance of convenience between two classes of persons, and the question may fitly be reserved for future consideration. Then, with respect to the funds, some people say that the parishes ought to supply the money. Recollect, however, that a parish is bounded by an arbitrary line; and why are persons living in particular streets which are contained within the parochial limits to pay, while others, who live a few streets off, and who are not less likely to make use of the road, are exempted? A proposal to collect tolls from all who should use the road would, at least, be intelligible; but I cannot see the justice of calling upon people to pay for the construction of a road which they may never use, merely because they happen to live in a parish which adjoins the place through which the road is to pass. Whatever may be the fate of this Bill, and whatever may be thought of the proposal for a permanent road, I think we must all agree that some additional communication ought to be made with a view to the Exhibition. My hon. Friend who spoke last said it would be enough if we were to allow a passage through the Marble Arch and down the road which is parallel to Park Lane.
    SIR JOHN SHELLEY:And through all the other gates in the Park.
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:But all the traffic passing through those gates must come round by Hyde Park Corner; and what, I ask, would you gain when you got to the Marble Arch by coming down through the Park instead of along Park Lane? The only advantage would be, that you would avoid, perhaps, some obstruction in the narrow part of Park Lane. You would, however, make no saving in point of distance, which is the very object sought to be attained. However, I shall not go further into that matter; but I shall be glad to have the opinion of the Committee upon the question of a permanent road, and
    738
    I think it will be better to take it now than to wait until the second leading. The question is a very simple one. Here is a communication wanted which would be a great advantage and convenience to the metropolis at large; and here is a fund not now applicable to any other purpose, which cannot be used except under the authority of an Act of Parliament, and which we ask Parliament to devote to what is admitted to be a public improvement.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he believed that the difficulty in which the First Commissioner of Works found himself placed at that moment was mainly owing to his having confused the duties of his office with others which did not belong to him, and he trusted that the result of that unfortunate Bill would be, that the right hon. Gentleman would for the future confine himself to the discharge of his important public functions. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that, as guardian of the Royal Parks, he had serious objections to the proposed road, but that in his private capacity, looking at the road as a great metropolitan improvement, he thought it ought to be made. Let the Committee support the right hon. Gentleman in the performance of the special duties of his office. It was as a metropolitan improvement, however, that the right hon. Gentleman wished them to support him in making this road. But that was precisely the function which the right hon. Gentleman was not called on to discharge; and if he would only leave it to the proper authorities to carry out metropolitan improvements, he would greatly facilitate the discharge of his own important duties, and spare the House a great many unsatisfactory discussions. The right hon. Gentleman had found a supporter in the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who sometimes assumed the whole management of the Office of Works on his own shoulders. That noble Lord said they were called on to say aye or no to a great metropolitan improvement. Well, but great metropolitan improvements had been by Act of Parliament delegated to another body. If, then, the proposed road were a great metropolitan improvement, it was for the Metropolitan Board of Works to decide whether it should be carried out. No doubt a great metropolitan improvement might be carried into one of the Royal Parks, and in that case the right hon. Gentleman would

    739
    be bound to see that no damage was done to them. But there was a broad and distinct line of demarcation between the duties of the Metropolitan Board of Works and those of the right hon. Gentleman, which ought not to be transgressed in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had attempted on that occasion. They now understood that the Government, seeing the temper of the House, were not anxious to persevere with one portion of this embryo Bill, which dealt with metropolitan improvements, but they were still anxious that the Committee should enable them to form a temporary road. The noble Lord asked why the parishes should pay for the road? The answer was, that the law of the land required the parishes to make and maintain the roads. But was it necessary that any temporary communication should be provided? The suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) was founded in good sense and upon fact. The majority of hon. Members would recollect what had happened at the Exhibition of 1851. He believed there was no great likelihood of greater multitudes coming to the Exhibition of 1862 than came in 1851, and it was quite probable that the roads which were sufficient then would be sufficient in 1862. But, admitting that some increase of accommodation were necessary, why proceed by Bill? It was enough, if the outlay of a few hundreds was necessary, to lay the estimate on the table, take a vote for the amount, and the thing was done. If the proposal to make that objectionable road was considered in the light of a permanent metropolitan improvement, he should join the metropolitan Members in opposing it; and he sincerely trusted that would be the last time great metropolitan improvements were undertaken by the First Commissioner of Works.
    LORD FERMOYsaid, that he believed the right hon. Gentleman to be one of those men who were more formidable to his friends than to his enemies. He (Lord Fermoy) had been one of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to get a road made across the park, but even those who were most anxious for such a communication, were quite opposed to his engineering crotchet, which, indeed, was distasteful to everybody but to some few individuals in his own office. The right hon. Gentleman hazarded the very principle of carrying a
    740
    road from north to south across the park by adhering with intense obstinacy to a plan of his own. His plan would sever Kensington Gardens into two, and that he, for one, could never consent to. He quite concurred with the noble Lord who spoke last, that this engineering crotchet did not exactly come within the province of the right hon. Gentleman. He much preferred that the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the member for Finsbury should be adopted. He (Lord Fermoy) complained that the right hon. Gentleman had so placed his Bill before the Committee as to force those who disliked it to vote against the introduction of the Bill. He was not, however, prepared to go that length, believing that in committee it might be competent to introduce a clause to prevent the cutting up of Kensington Gardens; but if it was to be supposed that by voting for the introduction of the Bill the House was committed to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, he for one could not support it.
    MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, that he strongly objected to the formation of a permanent road across Kensington Gardens. There was scarcely a feature in the metropolis worthy the notice of foreigners except the parks and those gardens, and he could never consent to sacrifice them merely to promote the success of the present Bill. A temporary road might, if necessary, be made along the west side of Rotten Row, which would simply cause slight temporary inconvenience to equestrians. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton). That was not a matter merely affecting the interests of Tyburnia or Belgravia, but was one of national importance. He wished to know whether the Bill was intended for the making of a permanent or a temporary road, or whether the two were to be combined in it?
    MR. COWPERsaid, that after the appeal made to him by the noble Lord the member for Marylebone, he (Mr. Cowper) felt himself very much in the position of the camel whose back was broken by the last feather. In the quarter from which he had expected staunch support he had met with strong opposition. Seeing that the feeling of the Committee was so decidedly against a permanent road, he should only be wasting time by persevering with the Bill. But before the Chairman left the chair, he wished to make one

    741
    observation on what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners). The noble Lord had said that he had got into that scrape by going beyond his province. He must take the liberty of reminding the noble Lord that it was quite within his province to propose a Bill relating to the Royal property. The noble Lord had spoken as if the Metropolitan Board of Works had jurisdiction in the Royal Parks; but he must have been aware that that Board would have no right to introduce a Bill to affect those parks, or to make any road beyond its own jurisdiction. As far, however, a3 the opinion of the Metropolitan Board of Works went, he begged to inform the noble Lord that he had received a vote of thanks from that body with reference to this measure. Therefore, as far as that Board represented the Metropolis, he should have expected the cordial support of the Metropolis to the Bill. But he found that different views were taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works and by the metropolitan Members of that House, and he felt that he could not do better than withdraw his Motion. He would, however, provide for the other branch of the subject—namely, the arrangements to be made for the temporary passage of vehicles to the Exhibition, by proposing an Estimate for that purpose. He thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury had taken a very sanguine view as to the expense of such a work, but still its cost would be moderate.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    House resumed.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock.

ITALY—PROCLAMATION OF COLONEL FANTONI.—NOTICE OF QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DERBYgave notice that on Thursday next he would ask the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary the question of which his noble Friend the Marquess of Normanby had given notice, Whether the Government had received any information as to the most extraordinary proclamation which had recently been published in the Neapolitan newspapers?
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps the noble Earl will inform me where the proclamation is to be found.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was just about to ask whether the Foreign Department had not received notice of it. He had seen it both in an Italian and in a French paper, and believed there was no doubt whatever that it existed. If the noble Earl had not seen it, he would have great pleasure in sending him a copy of it. It was a proclamation which interdicted any one from setting foot within a large district of country, ordered that all houses, cabins, or hovels within the district should be levelled to the ground, and declared that if any farmhouse there were

689
found provisions more than sufficient to maintain the family for one day, the inhabitants should be treated as brigands and immediately shot.
EARL RUSSELLsaid, that neither Her Majesty's Minister at Turin nor Her Majesty's Consul at Naples had forwarded any information on the subject to the Government. He would therefore be obliged to the noble Earl if he would send him a copy of the proclamation.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock,