Sitting of 23 May 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE— On Patent Office Library and Museum nominated*; and, on May 27, Mr. Halford discharged, and Mr. Humphrey added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Chief Rents (Ireland) [Stamps] re-committed*; Bank of England Notes (Scotland); Bank Acts.
Ordered—Game (Ireland)*.
First Reading—Bank of England Notes (Scotland)* [Bill 115]; Game (Ireland) [Bill 116].
Second Reading—Vncating of Seats (House of Commons) [Bill 107]; Army Prize (Shares of Deceased)* [Bill 105]; Beer Houses (Ireland) [Bill 109].
Referred to Select Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [Bill 91], as to Carling-ford, Lough, Oban, and Rhyl.
Committee — Limited Penalties* [Bill 94]; Chlin Cables and Anchors* [Bill 103] re-committed; Chief Rents (Ireland) [Lords]* [Bill 117].
Report— Government Annuities, &c.,*[Bill 114]; and re-committed; Limited Penalties* [Bill 94]; Chain Cables and Anchors* [Bill 103]; Chief Rents (Ireland)* [Bill 117].

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.—QUESTION.
MR. WATKINsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To state the present position of Negotiations with the Government of the United States in reference to the proposed
588
termination or repeal by the United States of the "Reciprocity Treaty" and of the "Bonding Act," under which instruments facilities for mutual commercial interchange have been afforded, and a large and increasing trade has grown up with the Colonies of British North America?
MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, there were no negotiations pending with regard to the suspension or repeal of the "Reciprocity Treaty;" and the Government had received no official information upon the subject of the "Bonding Act."

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State fur Foreign Affairs, Under what Rule, Ordinance, or Law, British subjects in China are subject to trial in the Consular Courts for breaches of neutrality in the present Civil War in China?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, he had not been able to obtain any information with regard to the trial of any persons for a breach of neutrality in China. But the jurisdiction which was exercised by the British Consular Courts in that country was exercised under three Orders in Council, dated the 13th of June, 1853, the 2nd of February, 1857, and the 12th of September, 1863.

CONVICTS (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Why the long sentenced Convicts in Ireland from seven years and upwards are not sent to Western Australia in the same manner as the long sentenced English Convicts?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that in Ireland since 1853 the practice of sending Convicts to Australia or other Colonies had been discontinued. The Irish Convict system enabled the authorities to dispose of their criminals at home. Transportation had been found to be productive of very great mischief, and it was also attended with considerable expense. The present system worked satisfactorily, and the whole expense of a Convict was not more than about £20 a year.

NAVY —THE "RESEARCH" AND THE "ENTERPRISE."—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to put a question to the noble Lord the

589
Secretary to the Admiralty respecting the damaging Report of the result of the recent firing aboard the Research, He held in his hand a letter which contained this passage—
"I suppose you have heard that the Research has turned out a perfect failure. The Commander-in-Chief inspected her last Saturday and had her guns fired with blank. The first discharge brought down all the bulkheads like a house of cards, jumped the pinnace nine or ten inches out of her crutches, and broke her back. Nearly all the glass on board was broken and the stanchion bolts underneath the battery were snapped short off by the concussion. I went aboard next day and saw the extent of the damage."
He hoped the noble Lord would state Whether the arrangement in the Research contrived by Mr. Reed for carrying heavy ordnance is satisfactory, or whether the firing had not been found very destructive to the ship herself?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that the trial of the guns on board the Research, which took place a few days ago, was the cause of the loss of a considerable amount of crockery, and had also been attended with some damage to the bulkheads of the vessel, because she had not been prepared for action by taking down certain moveable bulkheads on deck, and by removing glass skylights before the firing had commenced. But there was no reason to suppose that the arrangement for firing the guns was unsatisfactory, or that there had taken place any explosion very destructive to the ship itself.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that with a view to put himself in order he would move the adjournment of the I House. He considered the Question to be I one of great importance, and it was most desirable that the real facts should he brought under the notice of the House. The answer of the noble Lord did not, according to his information, give the true facts of the case. He held in his hand a communication from an officer of high rank, in which he described the ship as having become a complete wreck. The Commander-in Chief at Plymouth had ordered her out of the Sound for the purpose of firing five rounds from each of her guns, which consisted of 100-pounders and 68-pounders; the former to be fired with 16 lb. of powder, and the other with 12 lb, by no means excessive charges. The result of the experiment was to send the pinnace three feet out of her "crutches," to break her back, to break the holts of the stanchions, to destroy the whole of the
590
standing bulkheads, to smash every atom of crockery, and to send glass flying about the lower deck, which might have killed a number of men, and which had actually wounded the carpenter, who was the only person on that deck. His informant further stated, that independently of that the ship was totally unfit to go to sea, that she was only three feet and a half or four feet out of water, that she could not possibly rise to the sea, and that if she went to sea she would absolutely and certainly be lost. That was the first-fruit of the exercise of the powers of the Constructor of the Navy. The sister ship, the Enterprise, had not as yet been tried, but from her they could but anticipate similar results. There were besides a number of ships drawn by the same gentleman, which were at present in course of construction; and under those circumstances that was a matter of very great gravity, and one which the House ought at once to take up and investigate, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were to go on with the construction of those ships without having the opinion of those constructors who had been educated at the expense of the State, but who had been superseded by a man who had been only partially instructed, and who, although favoured by the press and the Government, had in that his first essay turned out a vessel that was absolutely useless to the country. He would ask the noble Lord whether the statement he (Sir James Elphinstone) had just made was not substantially correct, and whether the vessel in question was not an unmitigated failure? In conclusion he begged leave to move the adjournment of the House.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not help thinking that his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, had received a very one-sided and exaggerated statement of what had occurred on board the Research, He (Lord Clarence Paget) had that day seen a list of "the defects" caused by the firing of the guns on board the vessel, the cost of repairing which would be somewhat under £30. The Admiral in command sent the ship out to be inspected, and the firing took place without the precaution of removing the bulkheads and skylights. The consequence was that the bulkheads went down, and glass was broken; but hon. and gallant Officers knew that if the ship had been going into action the bulkheads would have been put down, and the glass would

591
have been removed below. As to the stanchions, he had heard no account, but he had heard that no accident whatever had occurred to the standing parts of the vessel.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, that the statement of the noble Lord would lead them to believe that there was no defect in the construction of the vessel. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Hear, hear!] But it appeared that there had been some great neglect in making the experiments, and he thought it was only right that the subject should be investigated, so that they should ascertain who was answerable for that neglect, in order that he might receive a fitting censure.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, whether the flotation of the Enterprise is not deeper than had been calculated, and whether she is not undergoing repairs to counteract her too great depth in the water?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: So far from the Enterprise drawing one foot of water more than was intended she draws one inch less.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE PRUSSIANS IN JUTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, in moving the adjournment of the House at its rising until Thursday, said, that as to-morrow was the Queen's birthday, and on Wednesday the great bulk of the Members would wish to be elsewhere, probably there might be some difficulty in getting a sufficient attendance, and it would therefore be more generally agreeable that the House should adjourn over.
  Moved, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday."—(Viscount Palmerston.)
  MR. WHITESIDE: Before the Motion is agreed to I wish to ask the noble Lord, whether he has received, in reference to what is called "the armistice" between the belligerents, any information to the effect that twenty-four hours after the truce was in operation, and three days after notice of it had reached Jutland, Major General von Bornstedt, a Prussian General, addressed the following communication to the Provision Committee of Viborg:—
  592
  "Should these my moderate commands not be instantly and scrupulously obeyed by the Provision Committee, I would give the gentlemen upon whom the execution devolved an opportunity to consider on bread and water their stubbornness, and would take by force of arms what the usages of war allow."
  I also wish to know—not by way of interfering in any way with the progress of the Conference towards a happy pacification, but simply in reference to the manner in which our own Government has adjusted the terms of the armistice—whether it is a one-sided armistice, depriving the Danes of every opportunity of asserting their power at sea, where they have many advantages, and at the same time leaving them to be annihilated upon land? I wish to know whether it is lawful for one of the belligerents to demand provisions, and whatever else he may require, without payment, pending the armistice, and to compel the inhabitants to labour in removing the fortifications of D¨ppel, that the Prussian guns may be able when the armistice is at an end more completely to sweep the Island of Alsen? I want to know what the terms of the armistice really are —not in the least with any desire to ask for any information as to the proceedings of the Conference, which is entirely a separate matter, and will have to be adjusted at the right time, but simply because, if a compact has been made with England such as has been described to us, it is for the honour of England, and of the Ministry, that a satisfactory answer should be given to my question?
  MR. LAYARD: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that on Friday night, after a Question was put on this subject, and also after the House was counted out, and, therefore, too late to communicate it to the House, the Prussian Ambassador forwarded to us a telegram which he had received from Count Bismark, stating positively that orders had been given that after the establishment of the armistice no forced contributions should be raised, and that if any had been raised subsequently they should be returned; that any orders issued for the raising of forced contributions should be abrogated at once; and that all provisions furnished to the Prussian troops for the future should be paid for. With regard to the proclamation mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, no official information has been received by Her Majesty's Government; but we have sent both to Copenhagen and Berlin for all the information that can be

  593
  obtained with reference to all the proceedings of the Prussian troops in Jutland
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Have the Government received any information whether the orders issued have been obeyed since the establishment of the armistice, and whether payment has been made for all provisions?
  MR. LAYARD: I cannot answer that Question, for, as I said, we are waiting for information. All I can say is, that we have a distinct assurance from the Prussian Government that no forced contributions shall be raised after that date.
  MR. WHITE SIDE: Do the terms of the armistice contain that obligation?
  MR. LAYARD: Undoubtedly. It has been already stated that the suspension of hostilities inferred that from the 12th instant no forced contributions should be raised, and all provisions should be paid for.
  MR. WHITESIDE: Is it an instrument in writing, and will it be laid on the table?
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman was addressed not to the Under Secretary but to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he thought that a Question of that importance ought to be answered by the noble Lord himself, whom they nil rejoiced to see back among them, resuming his place in their proceedings. It was extremely unsatisfactory that, when attention had been directed to what appeared to be an infraction of a solemn engagement, they should receive merely a cursory answer, that the Question should not be treated by the highest authority, and that the House of Commons should be left to guess, to a great degree, what the proceedings really were. He wished to know from the noble Lord whether, if the provisions taken by the Prussians were to be paid for, they would be paid for in money, or in some kind of obligation invented by the Prussian authorities?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State answered the Question because it referred to a departmental matter, with which he was, of course, much more conversant than I. With regard to the Question now put, my hon. Friend has stated that the armistice distinctly provides that no contributions should be levied after the signature of the armistice, and that all things required and had by the Prussian and Austrian troops
  594
  shall be paid for to the people who deliver them. My hon. Friend has stated that M. Bismark, the Prussian Minister, has assured Her Majesty's Government that these engagements will be fulfilled, and we cannot take upon ourselves to doubt that the Prussian Government has the power to compel its local officers to obey the orders issued in pursuance of national engagements. As to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith), that really is one which is beyond my power to answer. The engagement is that payment shall be made; but with regard to the mode and the time, that is a matter which depends upon the arrangements of the Prussian Government, and I am quite unable to give any answer on the matter.
  I Motion agreed to.
  House at rising do adjourn till Thursday.

VACATING OF SEATS (HOUSE OF COM MONS; BILL— [BILL 107.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Moved "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir George Grey.)
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked if I all the Under Secretaries of State would be incapable of sitting and voting in that House, if there were one more elected at a General Election than the number generally allowed?
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDasked why the first clause of the Bill referred exclusively to the Principal Secretaries of State, while the second clause referred both to the Principal Secretaries and the Under Secretaries?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the object of the Bill was to make effective the Act of 1858. If there happened to be four Members holding the office of Under Secretary in that House and a fifth was nominated, his seat would become vacant, and he would not be capable of being elected so long as those four Gentlemen continued to hold office; but it was impossible to say which of the number ought to be excluded from voting. It was not really necessary that the Bill should be made to apply to a Principal Secretary of State, because his seat became vacant on his acceptance of office. If, however, it was thought there was any ambiguity it could be remedied in Committee.
  COLONEL FRENCHthought there was some irregularity connected with the acceptance of office by the Vice President of the Council for Education, inasmuch as a new writ for Merthyr Tydvil was issued, when in reality there was no vacancy created. The appointment was confined to a Privy Councillor, and as the hon. Gentleman who was selected was not at the time a Privy Councillor, there was no proper appointment, and consequently the House had no power to issue a writ. He hoped that such an irregularity would not occur again.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as this Bill overcame the difficulty which it was intended to meet, and did not alter the law, he would not offer any opposition to the second reading; but, at the same time, he wished to guard the House against a conclusion which might be drawn from what had taken place upon this occasion. In the Committee upstairs there was a great division of opinion as to whether the fifth Under Secretary was or was not disqualified from sitting by the Statute of Anne, as well as by the recent Acts. His own conviction was that a new Under Secretary of State was within the Statute of Anne. But what he was now anxious about was that no general conclusion should be drawn from what had taken place this year with reference to seats which might be vacated, or be held to be vacated, in some future year under similar circumstances. If the Statute of Anne had been rigidly observed—that is to say, if it had been held that whatever the number of new Under Secretaries who were in the House, they must all go to their constituents for re-election upon accepting office —no harm could have been done, because each one must have undergone that trial which every Minister of the Crown upon accepting office was bound to submit to. But if the number of Members of that House who were entitled to hold office without going back to their constituents was not restricted, two dangers would arise, and those dangers would materially affect the independence of the House. In the first place, the number of persons who could hold office without going back to their constituents at all would be increased, which was contrary to the whole spirit and intention of the Statute of Anne; and in the second place, as had been pointed out already by his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, an inducement would be offered to the Ministry to put the Principal Secretaries of State into the other House
  596
  of Parliament, and leave the Under Secretaries in the House of Commons, instead of complying with what he conceived the constitution required—namely, that those great Officers, particularly when they were connected with the principal Estimates, should be in that House, so as to be responsible for all the questions and all the discussions which arose in that House with reference to their Departments particularly, and when those questions and discussions related to matters connected with the revenue. As the Bill did not alter the law he should not oppose it, but he took that opportunity of protesting against any general conclusions being drawn from the circumstances which had taken place this year, or from the Bill itself; and he could not agree that the holders of any of these offices were to be considered as privileged to sit in that House without going back to their constituents, if the offices they held did not exist before the Statute of Anne. If such a conclusion were ever drawn the independence of the House would be more struck at than it had hitherto been within his recollection. He hoped the House would be careful not to consent to anything derogatory to its dignity and independence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that his right hon. Friend might safely assume that nothing which had occurred this year, and nothing contained in this Bill, could be productive of any such precedent as that of which he had justly expressed his apprehension. If he understood the view of the Select Committee correctly, it was that the office of Under Secretary was not a new office within the meaning of the Statute of Anne. Whatever might be the law with regard to any similar office created de novo, this Bill simply dealt with the particular case of the office of Under Secretary. It adhered to the limitation which recent Acts of Parliament had placed upon the number of persons holding that office who might sit in the House of Commons. It made that limitation more stringent and effective than it was, and it did not countenance the notion that any new or different offices could be created which should be exempt from the wholesome operation of the statute.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday.

BEER HOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 109,] SECOND READING,
  Order for Second Reading road.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir Robert Peel.)
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he thought that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to furnish to the House some explanation as to the necessity of this Bill.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Bill appeared to English Members a very extraordinary one, for it would place beerhouses in Ireland on a totally different footing to that on which beer-houses in this country were placed. In this country beer-houses sold beer to be drunk on the premises, without any interference by the police; whereas, by this Bill, beer-houses in Ireland would be subject to stringent regulations, both at the hands of the magistrates and the police. Would the Government have any objection to frame a measure extending what they now proposed for Ireland to this country.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that he made a statement in respect to this Bill upon moving for its introduction; but as it was at an hour of the morning when very few Members were present, he would repeat the grounds upon which this measure was introduced. In Ireland, he regretted to say, the great source of crime and disorder was the intoxication which was encouraged by the beer-houses as well as by the whisky shops. In consequence of the establishment of a great many additional beer-houses, in Dublin particularly, intoxication had increased to a frightful extent, and crime had augmented in proportion, the existing law not allowing the police to enter into those houses as they were permitted to do with regard to the houses of licensed victuallers. In 1861 there were only three regular beer houses in Dublin; whereas now, owing to the extension of the trade, there were 270, in addition to 1,100 licensed victuallers and grocers' shops. In that state of things criminality of the worst kind existed. It further appeared that houses of ill fame in close proximity to those beer-houses had largely increased of late. By a defect in the law the police were powerless in preventing crime which might originate in these beer-houses, as they were not authorized to enter those house. He was aware that the Bill would create certain differences
  598
  between the law of the two countries, but in Dublin and other large towns, the evil had risen to such a pitch, that the Government at his suggestion, and with the approval of the inhabitants of Dublin, had thought it right to bring forward this measure. This was not a Bill that could be considered as involving a question of revenue, hut solely one of policy. By the list he held in his hand it appeared that the number of convictions for drunkenness had increased to a frightful extent in Dublin within the last three years. In 1861 the total number of persons convicted for drunkenness in the Dublin metropolitan police districts was 8,561—namely. 5,305 males and 3,256 females; in 1862 the number was 11,269—namely, 7,199 males and 4,070 females; in 1863 the number augmented to 13,227—namely, 8,714. males and 4,513 females. Since the 1st of January last there were 6,341 convictions for drunkenness—namely, 4,338 males and 2,013 females. Now, if that rate were to continue throughout the year it would make a total of 16,912 convictions. In view of such a state of things it was impossible for the Government to resist the pressure put upon them for a new measure of legislation to check this rapidly increasing evil. Now, under the existing system there was not only a vast increase of crime emanating from those houses, but the beer which they sold was adulterated with a great many deleterious substances. He held in his hand a statement of the various articles with which they adulterated the beer. In answer to an inquiry, one beer-shop keeper said that he knew there was a good deal of "dash" put into his beer. On being asked what that meant, he said that a good deal of the Liffey entered into it. It appeared that the following ingredients were mixed with the beer: Cocculus Indicus, nux vomica, copperas to give it a head, vitriol to give it smartness, molasses to give it colour, and various other things. Under such circumstances he put it to the House whether it was not necessary, as a matter of public policy, to give the police the power of entering those public-houses. Those establishments were licensed to sell beer not on the premises. The proprietors, however, generally took out the three-guinea licence, and evaded the payment of the other guinea for a full licence, which would enable them to sell beer in smaller quantities out of the house. The time he thought had come when, in the interest of the poor man, that state of things should

  599
  be put an end to. Those houses remained open to an early hour of the morning, and their customers during all that time were drugged by this horrid stuff which they called beer. The Bill would oblige those houses to close at certain hours, and would impose certain other restrictions which he trusted would hare the effect of putting a check to the evils to which he referred.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it was a satisfaction to know from the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Ireland were disposed to adopt beer as a national beverage instead of whisky. He was sorry to hear that the beer in that country was mixed with so many deleterious ingredients; but he was glad to observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting next the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he made his important and interesting statement, and he trusted that the House would never again hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Ireland was in no way interested in the repeal of the malt tax. If, however, the House should hear that argument again, he trusted that it would be vigorously combated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman would, in the interest of the poor of that country, advocate the repeal of the malt tax, which no doubt tended to promote the evil of adulteration, which was quite as much felt in England as in Ireland. There would be no objection on the part of English Members to place the Irish beer-houses under due restrictions.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, however bad the beer was which was sold in Ireland, it was nothing in comparison to the kind of spirits which the people there were obliged to drink. Those vile adulterations were caused by the higher duty which was put upon spirits, and crime and madness had increased to a frightful degree. He however, could find nothing in the Bill of the right hon. Baronet to prevent the adulteration, of the beer of which he complained.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHtrusted that the introduction of the present measure would stimulate the Home Secretary to bring in a measure for regulating beer-shops in England. Such a measure would receive support from his (the Opposition) side, which had besieged the Home Office for the last ten years in favour of the more stringent regulation of beer-shops. These houses might be more stringently supervised, either by magisterial licence or police supervision. He thought that some
  600
  simple police regulations might be introduced which would enlist the owners of beer-houses on the side of sobriety, law, and order more strongly than at present.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the police already had the power of entering every house for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and so far the Bill would assimilate and not separate the law of England and Ireland. Beer-shops were subject to restrictions which were not imposed upon public-houses. They were obliged to close at seven o'clock in the country, and at midnight in London and the large towns. They were not allowed to keep open all night like the public-houses. It was, however, he would admit, difficult to obtain convictions involving the forfeiture of the licence and the shutting-up of the house. He believed that it was possible on the third conviction for the magistrates to close the house for a limited period. He thought that if the police had the power of entering these public-houses and laying information, the law would not be so powerless as it was at present in Ireland to arrest disorder.
  COLONEL DICKSONwas glad that they had found an Irish subject in which English Members seemed to take an interest, although a collateral one. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland admit that since he went to that country the number of houses of ill-fame had increased so largely in Dublin. He (Colonel Dickson) did not wish to oppose the second reading, but he thought the measure ought to be one of a much more complex character. It appeared to him that the only effect the Bill could have would be to interfere with the drinking of beer in Ireland. Now he was of opinion that it was most desirable to encourage the use of that beverage in Ireland, instead of the much stronger liquors to which the people were so long accustomed. He concurred with the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) in thinking that there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the frightful adulterations that were going on. The whole system of licensing required alteration. The great curse of Ireland was the great number of; drinking shops. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would withdraw this Bill, and introduce one of a much wider scope.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he saw no objection to the Bill, which aimed at the substitution of a superior class of vendors of beer. He wished he could see anything

  601
  in the measure to discountenance the adulteration of beer by means of Cocculus Indicus, nux vomica, and vitriol, and to insure the sale of a more wholesome liquor. He feared that the right hon. Baronet expected too much from his Bill, and that the least injurious admixture in Irish beer was the water of the Liffey.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was greatly mistaken if he were legislating upon the notion that there were not adulterations of beer in England as well as in Ireland; because inquiries on the subject had brought to light the fact that many of those articles which he mentioned were used quite as much in adulterating the beer in this country as in Ireland, It appeared to him that there was something in the remedy suggested by the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), because if beer were made cheaper, then there would be no such temptation to adulterate. He (Mr. Henley) deprecated the principle of having a separate law for Ireland upon this subject —he thought that they ought to have only one law for both countries. He did not know precisely what was the population of Dublin, but he thought it was something about 200,000; and 13,000 convictions for drunkenness in the year was no doubt a very large proportion. In Liverpool, last year, the convictions were 12,000, out of a much larger population. He believed that if people were determined to get drunk they would effect their object in spite of all laws intended to restrain them. He was altogether averse to making the law more restrictive in Ireland than it was in England.
  MR. HENNESSYasked, whether the Government contemplated including brewers, who sold beer in large quantities, which was not to be consumed upon the premises, within the operation of the 6th clause?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Evidently not. The beer-house keeper was licensed to sell beer not to be drunk upon the premises, but in consequence of the want of police supervision it was drunk on the premises, and thus the law was evaded. It was now proposed to issue the three guinea licence and another at a guinea, and the police could then go in and see that tippling did not take place upon the premises. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) he should be delighted if the Irish people could get good beer, but it was impossible for the House to legislate as to the quality of the article. He knew that his hon.
  602
  Friend (Mr. Bass) had opened several large depots for his ale in Ireland, and he hoped that the sale would be such as to lead to the introduction of a much better article than was now generally sold there.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he could find no clause in the Bill for the prevention of adulteration.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, its object was not to prevent adulteration except as alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Mallow, by raising the character of the beer-shop keeper through the supervision of the police.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he was sorry to dash that little bit of consolation from the right hon. Baronet's lips. In England police supervision had certainly not had that effect. He served on the Adulteration Committee, and the evidence given before them went to show that the beer in London was very much adulterated. One of the medical witnesses stated the effect of drinking a quart of London beer by a countryman was to produce coma, from the large quantity of Cocculus Indicus which found its way into it in spite of police supervision.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that Ireland had excellent brewers of her own.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he could not understand how the police were to prevent adulteration, unless they were empowered to taste it. Did the right hon. Baronet intend that the police should go round from house to house tasting the liquor sold there. He reminded the right hon. Baronet that no steps had been taken to prevent adulteration in this country. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not in the future stages of the Bill advertise Mr. Bass's ale at the expense of Messrs. Guinness's native production.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday.

BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES (SCOTLAND) BILL— EAVE.—FIRST READING.
SIR JOHN HAYmoved that the House go into Committee, in order that the Chairman might be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorize the Governor and Company of the Bank of England to issue their notes in Scotland, and to make such notes a legal tender there.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the mere mention of this Bill had caused much dis-

603
cussion in Scotland. The people were at a loss to know what it meant, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would state what was the purport of the Bill.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the object of the Bill was simply to make the Bank of England note pass current north of the Tweed, which was not the case now. It would be very convenient to all parties if they could make it a legal tender in Scotland.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it would be only courteous to the hon. Baronet, seeing that it was admitted that there were points in the banking system of Scotland which deserved the consideration of the House, to go into Committee, and give him an opportunity of submitting his plan. Further than that he could not go; because what the hon. Baronet treated as a very simple matter appeared to him to be very far from simple, and he could hardly imagine any single proposal connected with the currency that could raise a greater number of difficult questions. The hon. Baronet wished to make Bank of England notes to pass current north of the Tweed. But there was nothing to prevent Englishmen from taking Bank of England notes into Scotland or Scotchmen from receiving them. He understood that at present in Scotland paper was not a legal tender, and therefore this was a proposal to introduce it for the first time, and in favour of a note manufactured in England. They were not in a state to legislate on the Scotch bank issue this Session. There were great difficulties surrounding the proposal. It would require careful weighing, and if adopted it would have to be adopted with the general goodwill and consent of the people of Scotland, and, probably, in conjunction with many other subsidiary arrangements. He did not object to the introduction of the Bill, but he was not prepared to say he could give it his support on the second reading.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved,
That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the Governor and Company of the Bank of England to issue their Notes in Scotland, and to make such Notes a legal tender there.
Resolution reported in Committee.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN HAT, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. DUNLOP, and Mr. CAEGILL.
Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 115.]

CASE OF CAPTAIN MELVILLE WHITE.

  PAPER MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL FRENCHmoved an address for a Copy of the Award made by the Senate of Hamburgh in the case of Captain Melville White. Captain White was a gentleman who had distinguished himself for his gallantry in every country he had visited. He had saved the lives of the English and French Consuls in the Red Sea, and, in addition to that, he had succoured a great number of vessels in a sinking state; and on the breaking out of the mutiny in India he went out there at his own expense, and did his country great service. This gentleman had occasion to enter the republic of Peru, when he was seized without cause, imprisoned, and most brutally treated—so treated, in fact, that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared that it was one of the worst cases that had ever come under his observation; and the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary declared that it was a case which demanded reparation, and must be enforced by the whole power of England. The officers of the Government, on inquiry into the case, considered that £4,500 should be demanded from the Government of Peru as a requital for his sufferings. Captain White, however, considered that a disproportionate sum, and it was proposed that the decision should be left to the Senate of Hamburgh; but Captain While claimed that it should be placed under the arbitration of the Emperor of the French. The Government would not accede to his views, and the arbitration was left to the Senate of Hamburgh. They were ready to enforce the demand of £4,500, but they declined to make a demand for some £100,000, as wished by Captain White. The matter was, however, referred to the Senate of Hamburgh, who, after considerable delay, decided that Captain White was not entitled to any compensation whatever. The question, however, referred to the arbitration was between £4,500 and a larger sum. He therefore asked for a copy of the award, in order that he might be in a position to bring the subject before the House.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, there was no objection to the production of the award, but the difficulty of getting a reliable translation of a German document of eighty pages full of technical phrases would occasion some little delay. The case of Captain White was well known. Her Majesty's

  605
  Government were under the impression that Captain White's treatment was not justified, and a demand was made for compensation. A certain sum was offered; but Captain White declined to accept it, and it was proposed to refer it to the I Senate of Hamburgh for their mediation. That was accordingly done. They went through the matter most carefully, and they ultimately came to a decision ad- I verse to Captain White. He was at a loss I to know what course Her Majesty's Government could take. Captain White had submitted to the arbitration of the Senate of Hamburgh, and of course must be bound by their award.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for "Copy of the Award made by the Senate of Hamburgh in the ease of Captain Melville White." — (Colonell French.)

BANK ACTS.—RESOLUTION.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee for the purpose of agreeing to the following Resolution:—
"That it is expedient to enable certain Banking Co-partnerships which shall discontinue the issue of their own Bank Notes to sue and be sued by their Public Officer,"
said, the intention was to remedy a technical defect in the law, which had arisen out of the language of the Act of 1844. The intention of that Act was to confirm to certain banking Co-partnerships the privilege of issuing bank notes, subject to certain restraints and limitations; and it was also intended by that Act that, in case any bank should desire to surrender the power of issue, it should escape from the limitations and restraints attaching to that power of issue, without incurring any new disability, A case had lately arisen in which the National and Provincial Bank, wishing to surrender its power of issue for the purpose of commencing banking business in London, had been advised that one effect of that surrender, under the present law, would be; that it would lose the privilege of suing and being sued by its public officer. That clearly was not the intention of the Act of 1844, and it was to remedy this defect that he proposed to introduce a declaratory Bill.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolved,
That it is expedient to enable certain Banking Co-partnerships which shall discontinue the issue
606
of their own Bank Notes to sue and be sued bjr their public officer.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Thursday.

BANK ACTS.—RESOLUTION.

  GAME (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HERVEY BROCE, Bill to alter the days for shooting Game in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir HERVET BRUCE and Colonel FORDE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 116.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till Thursday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILIS — First Reading — Admiralty Lands and Works* (No. 88); Summary Procedure (Scotland)* (No. 89).
Second Reading— County Courts Act Amendment (No. 70).
Third Reading—Under Secretaries Indemnity* (No. 77); Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment* (No. 51).

THE REGIUS PROFESSORSHIP AT OXFORD.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF DERBY:—My Lords, when a charge has been made in your Lordships' House affecting an individual or a public body, your Lordships are always willing to afford an opportunity of explanation. If it be true that the greater the authority from which the attack proceeds the greater is the injury done, I feel certain that I need not further apologize for adverting to a statement which was made in this House, by no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with reference to a breach of faith

555
alleged to have been committed by the University with which I have the honour of being closely connected—the University of Oxford. I am quite aware, and the University gratefully acknowledges, that the noble and learned Lord has been, on all occasions, actuated by the kindest feeling towards the University, and they recognize this feeling in the effort he has made to provide for the endowment of the Regius Professorship of Greek, and thus relieving the University from an embarrassing difficulty. For that reason I the more regret that the noble and learned Lord should have let fall expressions which went further than the impression he intended to convey, and which were certainly highly disparaging to the University of Oxford. The noble and learned Lord's words were—
"The best mode would undoubtedly be for the University to do that which justice and reason pointed out, and which, in fact, good faith dmanded, for the University had received great gifts from the Crown, with the understanding that the duty of endowing public Professorships should be fulfilled on their part."
On the second reading of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord is reported to have said—
"The University of Oxford had received certain pecuniary exemptions on the understanding that it would make proper provision for its Professors. It had got an exemption from stamp-duties on its degrees; it had got an exemption with regard to patent fees to the amount of £12,000 or £14,000 a year."
Now the latter part of that paragraph is a manifest error, and upon referring to The Standard of the same date I find the following passage:—
"Their Lordships were aware that the University had received great pecuniary benefits on the understanding that they would make proper provision for the Professors. First of all, they enjoyed an exemption from stamp duties on degrees; the University was also exempted from the patent of the Queen's Printer—a benefit amounting in value, he was informed, to £12,000 or £14,000 a year."
I think the noble and learned Lord is mistaken as to the amount, though there is no doubt that the privilege of being exempt from the patent of the Queen's Printer has been very valuable. The question is whether the grants which have been made to the University have been made on the understanding or for the purpose of empowering the University to endow Professorships and pay salaries. I may remind the House that it is only within a comparatively recent period that the professorial system has
556
come into actual operation. When I was an undergraduate, although there were Professors for various branches of education, the whole business of the University was carried on by the tutorial and not by the professorial system, and I will undertake to say that at that time not one undergraduate out of a hundred was aware of the existence of a Greek or Latin Professor. I do not deny that the Universities have accepted great emolument from the Crown; but what I complain of is that they have been charged with not fulfilling the engagement or understanding upon which they accepted that emolument. The noble and learned Lord certainly gave an explanation which could not be offensive to the University; but certainly it was not the impression made on your Lordships and on the public; and in order to show the impression produced elsewhere, I will, with your Lordships' permission, quote an extract from an article which appeared in The Times—
"It is scarcely sufficiently remembered in discussing the question that the University is actually bound as a mere matter of good faith, as it has been put by the Lord Chancellor without contradiction, to provide the endowment for this Regius Professorship. The Crown some few years ago abandoned stamp duties on giving degrees and other occasions to the amount of more than £12,000 a year, and the reduction was made on the clear understanding that the University would undertake the endowment of the Regius Professorships still insufficiently paid.… The Crown, in point of fact, has given the University a large sum of money on the understanding that a portion of it shall be applied to this purpose; and to refuse to supply it is, to say the least of it, a breach of faith."
I do not complain of this article, provided the facts are correctly set forth; but I deny that they are correctly stated, and with your Lordships' permission, I will proceed for a very few moments to point out how the case actually stands, and what are the engagements which were entered into by the Universities in consequence of the endowments from the Crown. The exemption was originally made in the time of Charles I., and has continued ever since in both the Universities. Up to this hour, however, I have never understood that the grant was made subject to any obligation for the endowment of any Professorship whatever. That disposes of the largest part of the charge of the noble and learned Lord. By confounding two things, the noble and learned Lord has given a colour to the charge — that, inasmuch as the University has not endowed a certain

557
Professorship, therefore they are liable to the imputation of breach of faith, because in the cases of other endowments where there has been a distinct engagement, that engagement has been acted upon. The facts as to the remission of the tax upon matriculations and degrees are these. In 1815, when every possible subject for taxation was eagerly sought after, a stamp duty was for the first time imposed upon matriculations and degrees. After enduring for forty years, the tax was remitted in 1854, upon the recommendation of the University Commissioners. The tax only produced about £2,400 a year, and it was then remitted. But there was a great difference between presenting to the University a sum of £2,400 a year, and simply taking off a tax with which the University had been burdened for forty years. This remission of taxation has been put forward as a gift to the University, in consequence of which that body undertook to perform certain engagements. It is quite true that when that tax was taken off, the University did accept certain conditions, and did consent to be charged again with certain fees. The University was to pay certain sums to certain Professors. Those sums were originally charged upon the Civil List, but were subsequently placed in the annual Votes made by Parliament. The total sum voted by Parliament for those Professors was £953 a year. The first act of the University after the remission of the stamp duty, was to make a corresponding reduction in the amount of fees payable upon matriculations and degrees, thus deriving for itself no benefit from the remission of the tax. But the University also undertook the duty of providing the £953 a year to the Professors, and in the Act of Parliament passed in 1854, it was provided that the stamp duties should be remitted as soon as due provision had been made for the payment of the Professors of the University. That was a distinct obligation, subject to which the stamp duty was given up. The University in fulfilment of that obligation, has, in addition to the £953 which it undertook to provide, actually paid to the Professors a sum of £1,250 a year, thus more than doubling the contribution they had undertaken to make. The University has also endowed other Professorships to the extent of £1,750 a year. We have the clearest evidence, that of Parliament, that the University has fulfilled the obligation which it took upon itself. In the
558
preamble to the Act of the 18 & 19 Vict, c. 36 it is declared—
"And whereas by a statute of the said University adopted by Convocation the 31st day of day, 1855, provision has been made for the payment out of the University chest, of the salaries and allowances to certain Professors of the said University, mentioned in the schedule to this Act (being the same salaries and allowances as were heretofore annually voted by Parliament to the same Professors), and the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury are satisfied that such statute is a due provision in lieu of the moneys heretofore voted annually by Parliament, as intended by the said Act; be it enacted," &c.
I think I have shown your Lordships that there was no understanding, engagement, or condition as to the endowment of this, that, or the other Professorship—that there was never any obligation, except the generally implied obligation of supplying a University education. I have shown that when the stamp duty was remitted, the duty which the University took upon itself has been more than fulfilled. It is, therefore, hard upon the University that the noble and learned Lord, with his high position and great authority, should have used expressions—stronger, perhaps, than he intended, but which conveyed a wrong impression to the House, and to the public through the columns of the newspapers, and especially of that journal which I believe has a wider circulation than any other in the world; and this has given to The Times ground for introducing into a leading article a specific charge against the University of having received money upon the promise of performing certain acts, which acts they have not performed. If such a charge could be substantiated, I should not be so proud as I am now of my connection with that University; but I think your Lordships will agree that the statement I have made relieves that body of an imputation of bad faith which, coming from so important a source, could not fail to produce a very bad impression upon the public mind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would be the last person to desire to bring any charge against the University of Oxford. Even if a charge were well founded, I would rather cast a veil over the offence than expose it to the public view. I am sorry that the noble Earl has entered into this matter at such length, because it might have been sufficient to have withdrawn the words attributed to me — I cannot tell why or wherefore—as imputing to the University of Oxford that they had violated a distinct understanding. I cer-

559
tainly did not use any such words. It is difficult to rely upon words spoken in debate; but, subject to correction of the noble Earl's recollection and the reports in the newspapers, I may say that it never entered into my mind that in respect to any of the gifts to the University there had been anything like a distinct understanding or compact with the Government or with Parliament. But if the noble Earl means to put it that because there was no understanding therefore there was no obligation, I must take the liberty of saying that a greater error cannot exist. The understanding in these matters would be the obligation to do that which it is the duty of the University to do. I speak upon this matter with some anxiety, and desire, if possible, to speak with the same care as though I were speaking from the bench of the Court of Chancery. The nature of the obligation, and the manner in which it has been carried out by the University, can be gathered from the statement of the noble Earl. The University has fulfilled its duty by endowing every Professorship but one — the Professorship of Greek. Has the University recognized no duty in making those endowments? Has the University any justification for not endowing that Professorship? and, if so, on what does that justification rest? Is it a right thing to have a Professor performing his duties in an eminently satisfactory manner, and yet to endeavour to starve him out of the University? Is it a becoming thing in the University to say we will punish you for your heterodoxy by refusing you a just remuneration for your labour? Is it a becoming thing in the University to take advantage of the labours of a Professor in instructing the youth committed to its care, and be obliged to acknowledge that those labours are performed in a manner unexampled for industry, "care, and success, and yet to refuse him the common rewards of his toil? Now, let me show your Lordships what is the nature of the obligation into which the University has entered. The noble Earl has stated quite correctly, that the original gift to the University was by patent enabling them to print every description of hook, and that this has been considered by courts of justice to operate as an exception to the patent of the Queen's Printer, and to give the University the power of printing the Bible and Prayer Book. By the law as it now stands for the general security of the commonwealth and for the security of
560
religion, what I may denominate the copyright of the Old and New Testament is vested in the Crown. The Crown is in the habit of granting it to the Queen's Printer; but in the time of Elizabeth a grant was made to the University of the right of printing and publishing every description of book. I think the words used are, omnimodum librum. A Question subsequently arose between the Queen's Printer and the University of Cambridge, as to whether the antecedent patent to the University was overruled by the patent of the Queen's Printer, and there was a remarkable letter in the first volume of Burns' Ecclesiastical Law from Mr. Justice Foster, one of the Justices of the King's Bench, to Sir William Blackstone, who was then Vinerian Professor of Common Law at Oxford, in which he explained the reason of the decision then given. He says—
"I thought it would be agreeable to you to know the issue of the cause. The word 'intrusted' was inserted by way of intimation to the University, that we consider the power given by the letters patent as a trust reposed in that learned body for public benefit, for the advancement of literature, and not to be transferred upon lucrative views to other hands."
Now, if the University has received what the noble Earl states to be £12,000 a year—
THE EARL OF DERBY: I said, on the contrary, that the amount had been exaggerated.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg pardon. I do not mean to fasten anything on the noble Earl; but the amount is generally supposed to be £12,000. But we will take it at £10,000. If the University has received £10,000 a year for the advancement of literature upon trust for the public benefit, and refuses to remunerate the labours of a Professor in order to starve him out of his heterodoxy, as it is called—that heterodoxy not at all interfering with his appointment — is it to be said that injustice has been done to a public body acting thus? I grieve to say so—because it was stated that what it had done was inconsistent with good faith, with justice, and with reason. Now, let us examine this a little. If you violate a trust, do you net with good faith? Will the noble Earl give an answer to that question? If the trust which attaches itself to all these benefits be violated, has the University preserved good faith? Are we to have the University vindicated on the special pica that there was no understanding?

561
If I receive money for performing a duty and say nothing, am I exempted from duty on the special plea that there was no understanding? Is that the language, feeling, and conduct of a man of honour? Is this the ethical lesson to be taught by the University charged with the duty of educating and instructing the youth of England? Is that to be the doctrine held up for the sanction of this House, the great court of appeal of the nation? I am sorry the defence of the University rests on no better ground. There is an old proverb that we should abstain from stirring up quod non bene olet, I wish the University had thought of this before they came here with such a defence. There is no greater duty of the University than that they should so conduct themselves as to impress those who come to them for instruction with a sense of their justice and their earnest desire to reward the instructors of youth. There is not a single Professor who is not endowed except this, There is not one who has so great a claim, And yet what does the University do? It drives young men in crowds to the chambers of this Professor, who are all most deservedly attached to him, and one of the greatest bonds of union between them is the sense of injustice with which he has been treated by the University. Is that consistent with reason? Let me for one moment call your attention to the manner in which this matter was put to the University itself. I have here an argument used before it, and with your Lordships' permission I will adopt a few words of it as a portion of my answer to the noble Earl. "But if we are told," says the speaker, "that a person who takes an office, ill paid (or rather not paid at all), yet having attached to it great, useful, and important functions (as a Professorship of Greek in this University has, for it is a disgrace and a blot on the University that it has never yet had a properly endowed chair of Greek); if we are told that such a person undertaking and discharging those functions and doing us thereby great, useful, and important services, doing for the University that which is really necessary should be done, has no claim on us whatever—if that is justice, I say that it is a kind of justice which may do for an attorney's office perhaps, or for a Government Department, but which is so narrow, so technical, I must add so ungenerous, that any man would be ashamed to act on it in private
562
life, and I hope we should be ashamed to insist upon it here," And that is good faith. You would be ashamed to refuse a man the reward for his labour, and take shelter in this, that you had employed him, but there was so understanding between you. That is what the University has done. Now, I leave the issue to your Lordships. But of this I am confident, that we do no injustice to the University in holding it up in its proper colours; because I am sure there are within and without the University faithful and devoted sons, who will see her rescued from this reproach. The noble Earl will permit one word more, and that is, to do an act of ordinary justice. When I brought forward this measure, let me assure you, I had no communication whatever with the Professor of Greek. I go farther—when that learned gentleman saw the Bill after it was brought in he wrote, through the medium of a friend, to me; and said, "I do not desire that this measure should be prosecuted. I would rather trust the University. I am content to go on labouring as I now labour; and I will trust to the University doing me justice in the end." The right rev. Bench will tell me whether that is not language conceived in a more Christian spirit than the proceedings on the part of the University. I am happy to add this remark to the unanimous testimony which is borne to the excellence of the learned Gentleman. I have thought it right to mention this, in order that your Lordships should not suppose that a measure, intended for the good of the University, had been brought forward on the authority, or with the sanction and for the benefit of that individual Professor.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I did not state that the measure was not introduced for the advantage of the University. I did not enter into the question how far it was desirable that the University should make a grant to the present Professor of Greek. I only said it was quite sufficiently known on what grounds they had, whether wisely or not, decided. But what I did complain of was the statement made by the noble and learned Lord; and though he says he did not make use of the expression, it is singular that, in the reports of two successive debates, papers not at all connected with each other should have attributed it to the noble and learned Lord — namely, that there had been a

563
distinct understanding on this subject, which had been violated by the University.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I made use of the words I decidedly withdraw them.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am quite satisfied now that the noble and learned Lord has withdrawn the words as publicly as he made the charge. I only regret that he should have taken the occasion of the University wishing to protect themselves against what they felt to be a most unjust imputation, to make a fresh attack, and by implication repeating the charge which he in so many words repudiated. I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Lord would have done better if he had frankly stated that he had not charged the University with any violation of an engagement or understanding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl will pardon me for a moment. I distinctly charged the University with a violation of trust, but I certainly did not use the word "understanding."
THE EARL OF DERBY: With all respect, I must say that the noble and learned Lord has failed to show that the University has been guilty of any violation of trust. The words which the noble and learned Lord read to the House specified what was the kind of trust in question, and then the noble and learned Lord assumed, that because for particular reasons a certain Professorship has not been endowed, therefore the University has violated the general conditions of that trust, which referred to the promotion of literature and science, and the education of the young men committed to its care. I say the trust was so general in its terms, and the University has carried out its conditions so fully and literally, that the University ought to have been free from the censure which the noble and learned Lord has thought himself justified in passing upon it while professing to withdraw words which have naturally given great dissatisfaction, and which have led to representations in the public press that I hope the present conversation will satisfy the country at large were unfounded, and that certainly exaggerated even the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, and, still more, I am willing to believe the real opinion entertained by him.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I entirely dissent from the rebuke which the
564
noble Earl has thought fit to bestow upon the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. In the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord, that the obligations of justice have not been fulfilled by the University, I am sure most of your Lordships will concur. I think that this debate will lead to some practical benefit. My noble and learned Friend brought forward a measure which your Lordships have decided to postpone; hut I am glad to perceive that the debates which took place upon it have encouraged the University authorities to make a further attempt, which I hope will be successful, to do a mere act of justice to a very learned and eminent man, the present Professor of Greek. How does the case stand? Here is a distinguished Greek scholar, teaching, with singular energy and industry, and in a manner peculiar to himself, nearly all the ablest young men at the University; and while other Professorships are largely endowed—some with £600 a year, some with £900, and some even with £1,000—none with less than £300 a year, the amount of the remuneration granted to the Professor of Greek does not exceed £40 per annum. Several efforts have been made to increase that remuneration, and have been supported by the great majority of the teaching and intellectual residents at the University; hut, nevertheless, up to the present moment, they have been unsuccessful. What are the reasons urged—most conscientiously, no doubt—by the majority of the University against increasing the endowment of the Greek Professorship? One is that Professor Jowett is supposed to hold certain opinions on doctrinal matters which are not the opinions of the majority of the Oxford constituency. It appears to me that, as a matter of policy, it would be advisable for the University to hold itself neutral in these discussions on doctrinal points; but, apart from that, I cannot help thinking that the line adopted by the University is the most inconvenient and illogical that any learned body could assume. In the first place the University has not exercised the powers which it has of depriving Professor Jowett of the degrees which alone enable him to teach Greek; and, in the next place, not a single head of a College has ventured to prohibit any of his students from regularly attending the lectures of a man whose influence has naturally been increased by the students rightly thinking that he has been subjected to an unjust persecution. The University, while

565
not prohibiting its students from receiving anything baneful which Professor Jowett may be thought capable of imparting to them, and while enjoying the great advantage of having its ablest young men taught in the best possible manner a critical knowledge of Greek, tries, forsooth, to save its conscience by refusing a modest remuneration to the Professor. It appears to me impossible to stand upon that plea. There is another reason, which seems at first sight much more plausible; it is that the Greek Professor being nominated by the Crown, it is the business of the Crown, and not of the University, to find funds for his remuneration. That plea also cannot hold water. There are other Professorships which, if not wholly, are partially endowed by the University, and the endowments of which have been recently increased by the University; and yet the Professors are nominated by the Crown. Besides, I utterly dissent from the principle that the right of nomination or of election should necessarily, and, under all circumstances, rest with whoever supplies the endowment. In considering this question as between the Crown and the University I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was justified in pointing to some of the pecuniary advantages which have recently been conferred upon the latter. I am not sure of the amount derived by the University from the privilege of printing the Bible and Prayer Book, but I know that in 1852 the average sum was about £11,000, and I should be surprised to hear that it is less in 1864. A considerable sum—£500 a year—was also granted to the University by the State as compensation for the abandonment of the monopoly of printing the Almanacs, and your Lordships will recollect that the University has been relieved when purchasing land from the provisions of the Mortmain Act. Within a comparatively short period, in fact, a large addition has been made to the income of the University.
THE EARL OF DERBY: There was a remission in 1854 of a tax imposed on the University in 1815, in the shape of a stamp on matriculations.
EARL GRANVILLE: And that amounted to £2,400 a year; and when it was; remitted it improved the income of the University by that amount. When it was made, the endowment of the Professorships was in contemplation, and I cannot help thinking that at a time when the University was increasing the endowment of Professor-
566
ships it should not have entirely passed over one of the most successful, most eminent, and most deserving of its Professors. I should be sorry to say anything that might irritate or offend, and I have made these observations, not with any wish to wound the feelings of any man, but because I think they relate to matters that ought to be taken into consideration when this subject is next discussed at Oxford itself. The feeling of your Lordships undoubtedly is that the Greek Professorship should be properly endowed, and one of the reasons which induced a majority of your number to vole against the Bill of my noble and learned Friend was that it was clearly the duty of the University itself to provide the requisite funds. I trust that deliberately expressed opinion of your Lordships will have its due weight at Oxford and elsewhere.

COUNT'S COURTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 70.)
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was glad that in this country we had to discuss only the question of the County Courts, at a time when, in almost every other part of the world, affairs were in so unsatisfactory, not to say deplorable, a state. In the New World, a portentous indifference to human life and public credit; in the Old a frightful triumph of cruelty, fraud, and pillage, by the strong against the weak—a triumph at once inglorious and disgraceful. In regard to the measure before them, it could not be overlooked that there was an almost unanimous opinion on the part of the County Court Judges against the Bill. Of sixty of these Judges who had considered and given their opinions upon it, not less than fifty-eight were clearly and decidedly opposed to it, or at least to one of the most important parts—that with reference to imprisonment for debt. There was, it seemed to him, some misapprehension as to the proportion of judgment summonses. In the course of the year, 900,000 plaints were brought in the County Courts, of which, not above 9,000 ended in judgment summonses, or, in other words, not 1 per cent of the whole number. Moreover, of these judgment summonses—which were not committals, but possibilities of com-

567
mittals—a very small proportion resulted in actual committals. This was a smaller proportion than in the superior courts— the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, and the Exchequer—where the proportion of writs of fi. fa. to actions brought was 8 per cent. There were some provisions of the Bill of which he highly approved — for instance, those clauses which gave to these Courts an equitable jurisdiction. He had himself endeavoured to procure an extension of equitable jurisdiction to the County Courts, bu thad not succeeded, for neither of his Bills on that subject in 1851 and 1852 had been passed. He trusted, however, that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack might be more successful in that respect. He thought, however, that if the Legislature should give their sanction to the proposition it would be necessary to increase the number of Judges, as the present staff would scarcely be able to overtake the additional labour. Another proposition of the Bill was that with respect to the limitation of actions. No doubt the present period was too long; but he thought that it would be inexpedient to restrict the period within which a small debt was recoverable to one year, and that two years would be a preferable limit. He thought it desirable that there should be some provision imposing some check in regard to summonses, which ought not to be issued as a matter of course; but that was a detail which could be considered afterwards. The optional clause of the existing Act as to bringing suits for sums above £50 in the County Courts had proved ineffective. He thought a better plan would be to give the power to bring the suit, and to leave it to the other party to object to its being tried in the lower Court. On the whole, he approved of the Bill, except the provision as to commitment for debt, and hoped his noble and learned Friend would be able to pass it.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that he could not support the Bill as it now stood. The Bill proposed to reduce the time under which small debts should be recoverable to one year. The matter was of very great social importance though it lay in a very small compass. By the law as it now stood if a man contracted a debt by simple contract, or acknowledged an existing debt and promised to pay it, or paid a sum on account of it, he could be sued for it any time within six years. But by the Bill of the noble and learned Lord this period as
568
regarded debts under £20, would be limited to one year. He could see no reason for so great a reduction. He thought the very shortest limitation should be three years. This was a question of very great importance to the working classes, for credit was their capital. Speaking generally the classes of persons sued in the county courts were manufacturing and agricultural labourers; and if they took away credit they practically took away the only capital these poor men had. Most of them had scarcely any money, and lived in lodgings; and the furniture they had was so small that the bailiff who was sent to execute the summons did not think it worth while to take the chattels, as he knew there would be no return beyond the expense of the execution. More injury would be done in carrying out such an execution than if the person were to be taken. Suppose the goods of a labourer were worth £10; they would not in a forced sale bring more than 10 s., and the poor labourer without furniture would find it hard to recover his position. Let their Lordships consider the case of the ordinary agricultural labourer. He might earn in summer 12 s. or 14 s. a week, and so long as he could earn his wages he got along very well. But in the severe winter the farmer declined his labourer's services. What was he then to do? As he had no money, and this Bill would destroy his chance of obtaining credit with the small shopkeeper, he must go to the work house. At present he went to the grocer or the baker with whom he had dealt in summer, and whom he had paid when in receipt of wages; and the grocer or baker, knowing that if he did not give him credit in winter, he could not have his custom in summer, supplied him with goods. But by this Bill he could not give this credit with safety. The existing law worked well both for the shopkeeper and the labourer, and he trusted their Lordships would do nothing to destroy the credit given to the working man. Again, the sympathies of their Lordships ought not to be solely with the debtor; the creditor, the small shopkeeper with a small capital, was entitled to a share of them. The small shopkeeper ought to have the power of enforcing his demands. The amount of debts represented by the 900,000 plaints which were issued out of these Courts represented a large sum of money. At present the County Court Judge, after ascertaining that the debtor might pay his debt by instalments, made an order directing

569
him to do so, and if the debtor then made a default in the payment of the instalments a judgment summons issued, and the debtor might be committed to prison. Imprisonment sometimes took place more than once for the same debt, and he was: of opinion that in this respect the law might well be corrected; but the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack desired to do away entirely with the power of imprisonment, except for fraud, false pretences, and acts of that description; and the imprisonment for such offences the noble and learned Lord extended to two months, in lieu of the forty days, which; the law at present allowed as the maximum term. As the law at present stood, if a man had means to pay a debt and would not pay it he might be sent to prison; but the Bill before the House proposed to take away the power of sending to prison altogether except in cases of fraud. And then there was this extraordinary provision in the Bill, that a judgment debtor might be punished if he wilfully wasted his income or earnings by unjustifiable extravagance or conduct. So that the creditor would have to prove that the judgment debtor had wilfully wasted his income in that way, and, therefore, he would have to follow the debtor about in order to find out how he spent his time. But, supposing the debtor was not guilty of this wasteful extravagance, then he could not be compelled to pay. He might have the means, he might have the money in his pocket, and yet refuse to pay, and in that case he could not be sent to prison. There was one portion of this Bill which, when it became known, would certainly excite general opposition, and that was that as soon as there was a judgment the Judge should have power to make an order, directed to the employer, commanding him to appropriate a certain portion of the wages of the debtor, and to pay them to the bailiff towards the liquidation of the debt. But was such a provision to be carried into effect? Suppose that there were a million of suits in the Courts throughout England, and that in a large proportion of them orders of this kind were made upon employers— how could they give effect to those orders? At a public meeting a manufacturer had recently stated that he employed 2,500 persons. Let their Lordships imagine a manufacturer of this magnitude whose workpeople were remiss in paying their debts. He would be constantly served with notices to appropriate portions of his
570
workmen's wages towards the payment of their debts—how would he be able to carry on his business? The noble and learned Lord would find it impossible to carry the clause into effect. But let this clause be struck out, and there would be no provision in the Bill for compelling a labouring man to pay his debts. He might be punished for fraud, but that was the case under the present law. A person of no means was not committed under the law as it now stood, but if he had means he was compelled to pay, and if he had no goods that could be come at he had to answer in his person. A man might have incurred a debt very lightly and very willingly; well, then, let him pay like an honest man, as willingly as he bad incurred the debt. This Bill was one which would have as wide an operation as it was possible to conceive, and, if passed into law, it might fairly be called a Bill for stopping the credit of the labouring classes. The Bill had been called one in favour of the labouring classes, but as it stood it would exonerate not only the labouring classes, but everybody else from the payment of debts under £20 after the lapse of a year; and this without any of those safeguards which should appertain to a statute of limitations. Referring to the Return made by the County Court Judges, it would appear that the Bill dealt with public-house debts, but not with some other kinds of debts which those Judges referred to. They said that there was an extensive system of selling goods, chiefly wearing apparel, by travelling packmen, upon the terms of paying 1s. 6d. or some other small sum a month; and that these sales were almost always made without the knowledge of the husband. Such creditors obtained judgments in large numbers; and in the great majority of cases no defendant appeared, so that the Judge was obliged to make orders of commitment. The Judges also drew attention to a system of sales by auction in some counties in Wales, the intending purchasers being largely supplied with beer, and third parties being sureties for payment. These cases produced many judgment summonses; and, indeed, the County Courts were used to collect the debts of such persons. He desired also to say that in his opinion it would be most objectionable to transfer to the County Courts the powers of the Courts of Equity, and, indeed, that a greater curse could not be inflicted upon the country. When a man possessed of

571
small property died, the course was now for the parties interested to come to some arrangement and dispose of their claims amicably; hut if this Bill passed, each such case would give rise to an equitable suit in the County Court, and the whole country would soon be overrun with litigation. Beyond this power of appeal was given from these new Equity Courts to the original Court of Equity. For the reasons which he had stated he thought that there were many objections to the measure which was then before their Lordships.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that the noble and learned Lord in introducing the Bill, had stated very fairly that the subject was of great interest and importance to the people, relating, as it did, to the law of debtor and creditor, and its administration as it affected the humbler classes of society. He was most anxious that the question involved in the Bill should not he regarded simply as one of a legal character. It was a social question of the highest importance, and one which involved not only the welfare of the labouring classes, hut their independence of character and integrity, and uprightness of dealing. It was a question, moreover, which appeared to him to require the most cautious deliberation, for it was one round which it was very easy to raise a mist of prejudice, through which things would he viewed in a false light. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack must forgive him for saying that in the able speech with which he introduced the Bill he permitted their Lordships to see only one side of the case. It would be his humble task to endeavour to call attention to other considerations which were necessary to do complete justice to the subject. The Bill of his noble and learned Friend might be divided into two general heads. First, the mode of enforcing payment of debts in County. Courts; and second, conferring upon those Courts an equitable jurisdiction. As to the latter object, he had no objection to it in principle, and, therefore, he should confine all he had to say at present to the former—and certainly the most important portion of the Bill. The principal feature of this portion might be described to he a proposal to take away from the Judges of County Courts the power they now possessed of imprisoning for a limited time persons of ability to pay the amount imposed by judgment of the Court, and who neglected or refused to do so. It was important that their Lordships should bear in mind the
572
circumstances under which this power originated. Prior to 1844 there were numerous Courts of Request for the recovery of small debts, which all possessed the power of enforcing their judgment by imprisonment. In 1844 the Legislature thought it expedient to abolish arrest upon final process for debts under the amount of £20. But the mischievous consequences of this enactment both to debtor and creditor were soon discovered, and the very next year the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 127 was passed, giving to the Small Debts Courts the power of imprisonment, which has since been exercised by the County Courts. In 1846 County Courts were established, and from that time to the present the power of commitment which it was now proposed to interfere with had been exercised by them. In 1853 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of these Courts; in their Report made in 1855, they recommended certain alterations, but carefully abstained from suggesting the removal of this power from the Judges. In consequence of a Return to the House of Commons of the number of persons imprisoned by the County Courts, the Treasury issued a circular in 1858 to the Judges of these Courts on the subject, and, as far as he remembered, they uniformly expressed their opinion as to the desirability of retaining the power of commitment. By an Act passed in 1859, the power of commitment was placed on the footing on which it now stands. The Legislature took away from the Judges the power of committing where defendants did not appear, except in cases of fraud, or where it appeared to the satisfaction of the Judge that the defendant had had, since the judgment, sufficient means to pay the instalments ordered by the Court, and had refused or neglected to pay them. He would call their attention to what had been said by one of the Judges—
"A great fact in reference to this question of imprisonment has been sadly overlooked by persons generally. No man is, or ought, at all events in accordance with the law, to be imprisoned simply because he has money and does not comply with the order of the Court, but because the Judge is satisfied by evidence that he is able to comply with the order and obstinately refuses so to do."
In the month of March last a circular was sent to the County Court Judges by his noble and learned Friend, evidently with a view to this measure, asking their opinion as to the abolition or modification of the power of imprisonment. The result of that letter was, that the opinion of fifty-seven

573
out of sixty was in favour of the retention of the power. He regarded that Return as being important, because it contained the opinions of men who, from their position, were brought into continual contact with the class of debtor and creditor, whose interests were affected by the Bill, and who had the largest experience on the subject. It did not appear to have been the intention of his noble and learned Friend to place the answers of the Judges to his circular upon the table, and they had only been obtained by the Motion of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth). These were the circumstances under which his noble and learned Friend introduced the present Bill. He could not help admiring the address with which his noble and learned Friend enlisted their Lordships' sympathies in favour of the Bill, by describing the misery to which the unhappy debtor was exposed under the system of imprisonment for debt now in practice. It was absolutely necessary, however, to put their Lordships upon their guard by describing the difference between the commitment by the County Court Judges and the old law of imprisonment for debt. The two things were perfectly-distinct. By the old law, imprisonment for debt was the act of the creditor as a satisfaction for his debt, the power proposed to be affected by the Bill was the act of the Judge in consequence of disobedience to his order. Under the old law, imprisonment for debt was enforced whether the debtor had the means of paying or not; but in the County Court the power of commitment was only exercised where the debtor had the ability to pay, and refused to do so. The term of imprisonment, too, under the old law was indefinite, while the maximum term of commitment by the County Court was forty, and did not generally exceed seven or ten days. He did not know why his noble and learned Friend should have taken the Returns of the commitments for two years, unless it were for the purpose of having a greater range of figures, and so to produce a greater impression. He was certain that that statement had given rise to much misapprehension. His noble and learned Friend stated that in the two years ending December, 1863, no less than 17,797 persons were committed, and that the number of days' imprisonment to which they were sentenced was 309,777, and the number of days actually spent in prison was 253,860. He then assumed that on the average these persons earned 3s. a day each, and then
574
multiplied the number of days spent in prison by that sum, and thus arrived at a sum of £43,434 as the value of the labour which was lost to the country to obtain the payment of £62,480. But there was a great fallacy in assuming that the persons committed were all in full work. As far as he (Lord Chelmsford) could make out, it very rarely happened that a man in full work was committed. The fact was that the debtor class was as easily recognizable as the criminal class, and it was not the honest hard working labouring man who was committed to prison, but the profligate idle man who worked only three days in the week and drank for the remainder. Nor was it fair to look at the absolute number of persons committed without noticing also the number of plaints out of which those committals arose. According to his noble and learned Friend's statement, the number of commitments was about 9,000 per annum. But the number of plaints issued annually was upwards of 900,000, representing a sum of more than £2,000,000. Of these, more than half were settled before judgment; and there remained 400,000 judgments issued, representing a sum of about a million for debts and £40,000 for costs. In one-third of the cases in which commitments were ordered the debt was paid before the debtor was actually sent to prison, and therefore the 9,000 ought to be reduced to 6,000 as the number of persons actually sent to prison, which, upon 400,000 judgments, amounted to only 1½ per cent. The argument derived from the loss of labour to the public would apply equally to summary convictions, of which there were upwards of 113,000, find to imprisonments for assault, of which there were as many as 40,000 annually. With reference to the smallness of the proportion borne by the commitments to the plaints, the Judge of the Preston Court stated that in the Leeds district during six months ending April 30, 1862, out of 6,500 cases only 63 individuals were imprisoned, although 625 commitment summonses were taken out—nine-tenths of the debtors under the pressure of a commitment summons thus settling with their creditors. This was the benefit derived from the power of imprisonment; It was the imprisonment of one individual in a hundred which forced the majority of the remaining 99 to settle with their creditors. His noble and learned Friend referred to instances in which persons had been

575
imprisoned for non-payment of very small sums, such as 3s., 2s., and, in one instance, 9d. But, in order that their Lordships might judge fairly of these cases, he ought to have informed them of the circumstances under which these commitments took place. They must bear in mind that the County Court Judges had the power of commitment only in cases where they were satisfied that the debtor had the ability to pay but refused to do so. He (Lord Chelmsford) had been made acquainted with two cases in which commitments might have been ordered for only 3d., but in which he was sure that every one of their Lordships would have approved the committal of the debtors. The first was the case of an attorney who was constantly in the habit of paying the clerk in the Registrar's office 6d. or 3d. short, and who was summoned for the latter amount. The other was a more remarkable case. An attorney's clerk who was summoned for the price of a bottle of whisky admitted that he had purchased and drank it, adding that it was very good, but set up as a defence the Tippling Act, passed in the reign of Geo. II. The Judge, pretending to have heard of this Act for the first time, looked at it very carefully, and then said, "I cannot order you to pay for the whisky, hut, of course, you returned the bottle?" "No," said the defendant, "I did not." "Well, then," said the Judge, "I find nothing in the Act with regard to bottles, and therefore I shall award 3d. for the bottle, 7s. 6d. for the costs of the poor man whom you have compelled to attend here to-day, and 2s. 6d. for his witness." The attorney's clerk did not resist payment of the sums ordered, but if he had he was sure that not one of their Lordships would deny that he ought to have been sent to prison even for so small a sum as 3d. The fact was the smaller the sum the more reason there was for assuming that the debtor must have the means of paying it, and that therefore his imprisonment was due to his own obstinacy, and not to the oppressive character of the system. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) then went on to refer to instances in which there had been repeated commitments to prison for the same debt, and he said that a person might be committed fifty times for the same cause. Without dwelling upon the words "for the same cause," he ventured to ask his noble and learned Friend whether he knew of any instance in which a
576
person had been committed not fifty times but five times for the same debt? In the papers which were before their Lordships, one of the Judges stated that out of 316 commitments in six months, only three were commitments for a second time; and another said that of 4,425 in six months, only about 300 were second commitments. Therefore, although it might be right that some modification should be introduced into the power of repeated imprisonment, they ought to be careful not to do anything even with regard to it which might create prejudice or excite any feeling upon a matter which required the most cautious and deliberate treatment. He did not think his noble and learned Friend had done justice to the County Court Judges. He would call their Lordships' attention to the mode in which his noble and learned Friend had availed himself of the opinions of some of those Judges, who would be astonished to find themselves enlisted in support of this measure. The noble and learned Lord quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Montague in 1551, and of Chief Justice Hyde in 1630, who in almost identical words declared that if a debtor had no goods he must live upon charity, and if no one would relieve him, let him die in in the name of God. The noble and learned Lord referred to these statements to illustrate his declaration that Judges almost invariably looked upon these matters from a creditor's point of view. In the Return of Mr. Falconer those statements were to be found; but that gentleman did not quote them to prove the tendency of Judges to regard questions of imprisonment from a creditor's point of view, but to show how the efforts of the Legislature in modern times to prevent commitments were a strong contrast to the practice of ancient times. He therefore referred to these passages for a totally different purpose to that for which they were employed by the noble and learned Lord. The care and diligence shown by the County Court Judges had been admitted by the noble and learned Lord, but he imputed to them a partiality for retaining the powers of commitment conferred upon them by the existing law. That was hardly just towards the County Court Judges, whose answers showed that they were not at all enamoured of the powers which they now possessed. The Judges at Liverpool said that no part of their duty was so irksome, or caused them greater anxiety, than the dealing with judgment summonses. An-

577
other Judge said he would be delighted if he could be relieved of the disagreeable duty now imposed upon him; while others thought the abolition of the power of commitment would be a gain to the Judges, although it might not be beneficial to either creditors or debtors. The noble and learned Lord said that his object in introducing this Bill was to put an end to the present mischievous and dangerous facilities for obtaining credit by the labouring classes; and, in illustration of the evils of the present system, he read two passages from the answers of County Court Judges relating to tallymen and Scotch pedlars. After reading those passages the noble and learned Lord said that that was the nature of the cases which most frequently arise under the present law. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would not give the sanction of his high authority to an opinion that any liability could arise in such cases as those referred to. In one case credit was given to a daughter without the knowledge of her father and mother; and in the other case credit was given to a wife for useless finery without the knowledge of her husband. He ventured to say that any County Court Judge who committed a father or husband under such circumstances would not understand his duty, nor the law he was administering. The noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (Lord St. Leonards) seemed to consider that an alteration of the law was necessary with regard to such cases; but that was not so: and he ventured to state that the present law was sufficient to protect husbands and fathers under such circumstances. The chief force of the Bill, according to the noble arid learned Lord, appeared to be to get rid of tallymen or itinerant drapers, who were supposed to be perpetually travelling about the country forcing their goods on people upon credit; and the noble and learned Lord reminded the House that in all villages there were small shopkeepers who gave credit. It was not, however, quite clear that something was not to be said for the tallymen. He (Lord Chelmsford) believed that in some places the visits of the tallyman were absolutely necessary to enable the wife and children of the labouring man to obtain decent and even necessary clothing; for in some of the retired rural districts wives could not leave their families to go to a distance to purchase apparel. He was also informed that County Court Judges almost
578
invariably refused to make a husband liable for articles ordered by the wife unless they were of absolute necessity, and in the majority of cases the Judges refused to make a man liable unless his signature was to be found in the tallyman's book. The noble and learned Lord proposed to prevent credit being given to the labouring classes by taking away the power of commitment, he therefore admits that if that power did not exist credit would not be given. In other words, this power over him is the only security which he has to offer. If you propose this out of kindness to him, take care that you do not thereby visit him with a greater evil by preventing him from obtaining credit at times when it becomes an absolute necessity. What is he to do in times of sickness and slackness of work, when his family are ill, and a doctor is to be paid, or when death is in his house, and the undertaker is required, and mourning to be provided. What is to be done in cases of occupations where the labourer is not equally employed throughout the year, such as brickmakers who earn large wages in summer, and none in winter. What as to the large classes of labouring men who only received their wages at long intervals. In the case of miners, some receive their wages monthly, others once in two months. Were they not to obtain credit at a time when they had no means of paying ready money for the very necessaries of life? They could not—or at least should not—prevent voluntary credit. If they did so they would pauperize not only debtors but also a large number of creditors, (small shopkeepers), and send them by scores and hundreds to the parish. To show what a narrow view had been taken of this great question, he must observe that every case had been treated as if it were a case of voluntary credit. But there were multitudes of eases where credit was involuntary. The petition he had presented from several societies for the Protection of Trade showed that the effect of the Bill would be to destroy the legitimate business of nearly every retail trader in the kingdom. One of the County Court Judges had furnished him with a description of the business which came before him in three days, and of 100 cases there were on one day twenty-nine, on another thirty-three, and on another thirty-four of involuntary credit. In all these cases if this Bill passed, the creditor would be deprived of the means of enfor-

579
cing his just demands. What was proposed to be substituted? First of all, there was to be the power of execution against goods beyond the value of £4. Then there was the power of arrestment of wages and punishment for fraud. With regard to the arrestment of wages, his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had shown what difficulties would attend the measure. It seemed to he thought that the remedy by execution on the goods would not only be more merciful, but equally efficacious. Now, with regard to the compassionate view of the subject, he ventured to doubt whether it was not an infinitely less evil to a labouring man to suffer imprisonment for a short time than to have an execution put on his goods, which would probably be the ruin of his wife and family. He referred to the opinions given by the County Court Judges, one of whom, at page 41 of the printed papers, said that the remedy by execution against the goods, where the sole remedy given, was the most cruel, as well as the most inefficacious remedy. The goods seized would probably, under a forced sale, realize only a few shillings, while they could not be replaced for as many pounds. There was a very numerous class too who had no goods to seize and who would never pay their debts when sued for, however trifling they might be, unless under the pressure of the power of imprisonment. That pressure taken off, one-half of the judgments obtained in the County Courts would be worthless. The County Court, certainly a very expensive establishment, would then exist merely for the purpose of ascertaining, not of enforcing debts, and the sooner they were done away with the better for the country. With regard to the second section of the Bill—that which limited the time within which actions for sums under £20 could be brought—he admitted it would be desirable that a general measure should be introduced, not altering the law in regard to the Statute of Limitations, further than by abridging the period within which actions might be brought. But he did not see the ground on which a distinction was to he drawn between debts above and those under £20. There was no principle in it, for £20 to persons in the position of their Lordships was a very small sum, while to a labouring man it was a very large one. It surprised him to hear his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth), whose judgment was usually so sound, entertain the visionary
580
idea that debts below a certain amount should be regarded as debts of honour. The limitation of one year would work injustice to creditors and operate harshly upon debtors. It would compel creditors who now forbear where the circumstances of the debtor call for forbearance to enforce payment for fear of losing the debt. If the clause passed, a medical man who now sent in his accounts yearly would be obliged not only to furnish them more frequently, but to press his debtor in the very cases where, from illness and want of employment, pressure would fall most injuriously upon him. While he admitted that it might be desirable to introduce an Amendment limiting the period for recovering small debts, he believed his noble and learned Friend, when he came to consider the point, would find that the limit proposed was inexpedient, and not practical. Another proposal, which was exceedingly plausible, but to which strong objections might likewise be urged, was that for taking away the concurrent jurisdiction of the superior courts in cases under £20. No doubt it was desirable to limit the costs of actions under £20; but in a variety of cases debts of £20 were incurred, not by labourers and mechanics to retail traders and tallymen, but by retail shopkeepers to wholesale merchants and warehousemen. These wholesale houses were, at present, enabled to sue out a writ in one of the superior courts, which was generally effective to produce payment. To take away in such instances the jurisdiction of the superior courts, and to compel the London, Glasgow, or Manchester merchant to send his travellers and books to these County Courts all over the country, would be a very serious hardship, and would, in many cases, amount to a denial of justice. The debtor, moreover, would have a direct inducement to carry the matter into the County Courts, as thereby he would obtain a little longer time, with the ultimate chance of being allowed to pay off the debt by instalments. The effect of passing such a measure would be to put a stop to, or at least to restrict credit to retail dealers under £20, being the amount of the larger proportion of book debts incurred to the wholesale houses, by which the honest and the dishonest would alike suffer. He was aware that he had trespassed at great length on their Lordships, but he scarcely felt that any apology was necessary for doing so, because the subject was one

581
earnestly demanding their most careful consideration, and he was anxious that their attention should be directed to those points which seemed to him material in determining the propriety of the measure. It would be prudent, he thought, to withdraw from the Bill those clauses which proposed to take away from the County Court Judges the power of imprisonment, and to confine its operation to the introduction of equitable jurisdiction, in favour of which there was much to be said. Of course, he could not expect his noble and learned Friend, after taking so much pains with the measure, all at once to adopt that suggestion; but he trusted it would, nevertheless, engage his attention. To the second reading of the Bill he should offer no opposition; hut its future progress required to be watched very narrowly, and the course he should feel it his duty to adopt would be governed by the declarations which the noble and learned Lord might feel it his duty to make.
LORD LYVEDENsaid, he desired to present the proposition to their Lordships in its social bearing, the debate up to that i moment having been conducted exclusively by noble and learned Lords. It was his, conviction that to the agricultural districts no greater boon could he offered than the abolition of the pernicious system of credit by which they were at present weighed down; and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if he relieved them from this great embarrassment, would entitle himself to their lasting gratitude. He therefore rejoiced that this Bill had been introduced, for it would cut at the root of an evil that was so mischievous. The system of large credits, moreover, was opposed to the spirit of modern legislation, which taught the working classes to hoard their earnings and invest their money to meet a time when their wages might be less. The noble and learned Lord who had just sat down (Lord Chelmsford) had talked about bricklayers and other labourers, whose work was principally in the summer, and asked what they were to do if they could not get credit in the winter. Why it was the credit system which was directly responsible for all the frauds practised on the poor, the rotten garments sold for them to wear, and the miserable food palmed off upon them to eat. They felt themselves dependent on the tradesmen, and went on running into debt with them to an amount greater than their circumstances warranted, under the belief that if they gave their creditors cause for
582
offence they could be sent to prison. The present measure, if passed into law, would have the effect of delivering the agricultural districts from what be knew in practice to be one of the most odious tyrannies. In his belief the measure was calculated to prove highly beneficial, not only to the labouring classes, but to the community at large, for whom he thought a long retail credit of no advantage.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he approved the material features of the Bill and especially of those clauses which limited in a great degree the power of imprisonment. In his opinion, there was a great fallacy in supposing there was an indispensable necessity for giving credit, at all events among the non-commercial classes. Credit, no doubt, was important in the mercantile world among those who had transactions abroad, among manufacturers, and among wholesale and even retail dealers; that is, among those who possess and those who employ capital; but what imaginable advantage was there in a system of credit among the poorer classes? The question was asked what the poor man was to do when he was out of employment. But the question really was whether it was desirable to encourage the working man to spend by anticipation wages which he had not yet earned, or to live upon that which he had put by for such an occasion. The former practice had been too much sanctioned by the operation of the County Courts, which, as at present constituted, had created a vicious system of credit among the poorer classes. It might be difficult to wean the labouring classes from the habit of living upon the anticipation of future wages, but legislation ought to be directed to this end. If the sole object of their legislation was to enable small traders to recover debts of £1 or £2, he did not believe that any means could be devised that would be half so effectual as the power of committal to prison. But in a social point of view it was better to go further back and consider whether these debts ought to be recoverable at all. He did not think that the clauses of this Bill were framed with the accuracy and clearness that generally belonged to his noble and learned Friend's measures. There was, however, nothing new in seizing property, because that could he done now. The Bill proposed to divide what a man had among his creditors, within certain limitations, and then to make the debtor as clear from future liability as if he had obtained a certificate in bankruptcy.

583
This was, he thought, the correct principle. It might work hardships at first, before the public got into the more wholesome system he had described; but that was an incident common to all salutary changes. He had not said that small debts ought to be regarded as debts of honour, but that they should be no more recoverable at law than debts of honour. Such a principle, if established, would, he believed, be for the advantage of society. Meanwhile he should give his cordial assent to the second reading of this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he must express his regret that the discussion of so important a measure, involving a great social question on which every one of their Lordships was competent to form a most able and useful opinion, could not attract a greater assemblage of their Lordships than he saw around him. He could not but think that if their Lordships were habitually to neglect discussions of so much importance, it would be impossible that their House should retain the high position which it now held in public estimation. This Bill was intended to improve the position of the lower classes. He feared that the preceding legislation of Parliament had been in a great degree the cause of much demoralization, and that the system of credit that had grown up under the County Courts Acts had been a very great social evil. It was with this evil that he desired to induce their Lordships to grapple. He must beg their Lordships to remember that there were two or three positions which the opponents of this measure took for granted, but which he could by no means admit. The first was that it was good and expedient in the interests of the poor man that he should retain the facilities of credit he now enjoyed. But these facilities of credit were a constant temptation to the labouring man to live beyond his means and to make him familiar with the inside of a prison. For what was the consequence? A man who was committed to gaol for debt lost his self-respect, and came out a degraded man in his own estimation. The second proposition that was assumed for granted, was that a creditor had a moral right to imprison a debtor until he had obtained payment of his debt. This he denied in toto. When the creditor came to him to ask for the imprisonment of his debtor he thought he had a right to ask him under what circumstances he had given him credit. Did he know the posi-
584
tion of the debtor—that he was a working man dependent on weekly wages? Did he know anything of his habits of life—that he was suffering under the exigency of sickness or any other calamity? Did he give him credit without inquiry, and merely that he might involve him in his hooks, charging him in many cases 100 per cent for the articles supplied over and above what he need have paid if he had gone with ready money in his hand? It was the creditor who was able to undergo such an examination satisfactorily to whom he should alone be willing to give the power of pursuing the debtor to a prison. Another argument against his Bill was, that a debtor who owed £10 or £20 stood on the same footing as the man who owed £500 or £1,000. But what distinguished the case of a poor debtor from that of a rich debtor under the existing law was, that the future property of the rich debtor was not held liable for the payment of his debts, while the poor debtor was compelled to mortgage the labour of his hands for ever until he had satisfied the debt, and the law called his future earnings "ability to pay." The result was that, under the fear of imprisonment, the poor debtor was frequently obliged, when pressed by one tradesman, to run up a debt with another, in order that he might wipe off the score contracted with the first; and thus he was always under a cloud, and always on the verge of ruin. A County Court Judge wrote as follows:—
"The poor man or his wife goes to the shop, and asks for a few things, promising to pay when the weekly wages shall have been received. On the Saturday night the money is taken, and the goods are paid for; but then more goods are had; and very soon a back reckoning is left unsatisfied, the man being frequently in full employ, and with no prospect of improving his means. He is thus induced to live beyond them, and he becomes practically insolvent. Then follows the County Court summons, and the order to pay, usually by monthly instalments—say at the rate of 1s. a week. Now, consider his position. He has been accustomed to spend 1s. or 2s. a week above his income; he is now called upon, not unfrequently with an increasing family, to apply a portion of his earnings to discharge the past debt. Some few, no doubt, may extricate themselves, and wisely see the propriety of living in future within their means. Others run into debt at another shop, while the judgment debt is discharged. Others wait till the creditor takes out a judgment summons, and then comes the usual question for the Judge of the County Court, 'Has the defendant brought himself within the penal provisions of the County Court Acts?'"
Such was the legitimate effect of the

585
measure for the speedy recovery of small debts, with its notoriously oppressive power of imprisonment. He would trouble their Lordships with one more illustration in regard to the case of the tallymen. In the first place, however, he wished to say that he did not mean to be indiscriminate in his remarks. Soon after the introduction of his Bill, a general meeting of dealers was held in London, at which a resolution was unanimously passed in favour of the abolition of imprisonment for debt; and he had no doubt that the main provision of the Bill was similarly approved by large numbers of the same class throughout the country. After speaking of the tallymen, the same County Court Judge from whom he had already quoted proceedcd to say—
"So much in justice to the men. Of their system of trading, however, I must speak very differently. The enormous number of poor men that it brings before the County Court is its simplest and most evident condemnation. A Return to Parliament of the number of plaints levied by this class of traders would astound the public. I have known an instance where a single hawker has taken out more than fifty summonses from one Court for the same day of hearing, They make the Court their 'debt collector,' thereby saving themselves the trouble of going for the fortnightly or monthly 6d. or 1s. to the poor man's cottage. And then, what has been so often objected to the system, their visit is usually made when the husband or father is absent at his work."
It was not the case, as their Lordships hail; been told, that a husband or father was liable to pay only when he had consented; to the order being given. If a dealer left goods in a house, although without the; knowledge of the master, and those goods were used and worn by the wife or; daughter, the man became liable notwithstanding he was no party to the ordering; of them.
LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the man; must have seen his wife or daughter using the goods. There were other cases, however, in which the husband or father might have no knowledge whatever of the existence of the goods.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwished to confine his remark to the cases mentioned in the Returns of the County Court Judges, A recent number of The Solicitors' Journal gave a long list of cases decided in one day in a County Court, when, although it was proved that in many instances the goods had been left during the absence of the master of the house, and in some even without the consent of the wife, defendant
586
after defendant was ordered to pay the debt with costs. There could be no doubt whatever that the law as it now existed was a source of much mischief, and it was idle to attempt to defend it on the ground that imprisonment was necessary for the recovery of debts. He granted that if these small debts should be encouraged, and if the creditor should have a right under every set of circumstances to put his debtor in prison, then the law should be preserved in its present condition. But he desired to know what right a man who gave credit wantonly and recklessly had to inflict injury upon society by requiring it to furnish him with the means of keeping his debtor in gaol. Under the existing system, not only was the poor debtor demoralized, but his family were pauperized, and heavy burdens were thrown upon the public. Let their Lordships consider these things, and then let them ask themselves whether it was just, moral, or expedient that such a state of things should be permitted to continue any longer. The noble and learned Lord concluded by expressing his desire that all the details of the Bill should be patiently and anxiously investigated in Committee.
THE EARL OF DERBYremarked that the noble and learned Lord had directed his observations mainly to the encouragement given by the existing law to the system of reckless credit. It was, however, under a state of law which previously existed, but which had now been abolished, that reckless credit was accompanied by the power of imprisonment. Imprisonment was at present limited to cases where the creditor was not reckless in giving credit. There were many persons who, although possessed of the means, refused to satisfy the demands of their creditors, and to whom therefore it could not be said to have been recklessly given; and these persons were justly liable to imprisonment. He believed that the power which the County Court Judges had of inflicting that penalty had had a good effect in the vast majority of cases where persons behaved in that manner, not denying their obligation, but declining to pay. He had heard of a man coming before a County Court Judge, not disputing the debt, but setting the law at defiance by a refusal to pay, while all the time he was chinking the money in his pocket. The noble and learned Lord had laid great stress on the hardship to the debtor of requiring him to pay weekly instalments out of scanty earn-

587
ings; but he proposed an attachment for the wages, which operated practically in the same way on the debtor, but was further open to the objection that,- as the employer would certainly refuse to incur the trouble which such an arrangement would impose upon him, and would dismiss the debtor from his service, so that the creditor would, in fact, lose his best chance of payment.
LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that he had not been able to make up his mind that imprisonment could be dispensed with to the extent proposed by the noble and learned Lord. He could not think it desirable to abolish imprisonment in the case of a man who had the means of paying his debts and refused to do so.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned at nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.