Sitting of 12 May 1865

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.—CLASS I. PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Dockyard Extensions *; Crown Suits, &c. *
First Reading—Dockyards Extensions * [145]; Crown Suits, &c. * [146].
Second Reading—Dogs Regulation (Ireland) * [127]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * [132]; County of Sussex * [138]; Ecclesiastical Leasing Act (1858) Amendment [140].
Referred to Select Committee—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) * [132].
Select Committee—On Metropolitan Toll Bridges * [47], Mr. Leader added; on Waterworks, * Mr. Dawson Darner added.
Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue * [129].
Report—Customs and Inland Revenue * [129].
Considered as amended—Prisons (Scotland) Act Amendment * [91].

INDIA—DELHI PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Why the third instalment of the Delhi Prize Money has not been paid according to the recommendation of the Prize Committee, and when it will be paid?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply, said, the Commissioners had considered the advisability of making a third distribution, but they found that a number of claims had not yet been preferred, and of course, if they made the third distribution, they would not have had the means of meeting those prior claims. The payment had been suspended only until these outstanding claims had been disposed of.

THE IRISH CHURCH.—QUESTION.
MAJOR KNOX: I wish to ask the hon. Member for Swansea, Whether he intends to bring the Question of the Irish Church on again this Session?
MR. DILLWYN: It is not in my power to bring it on without the assistance of the Hosue. It stands now as an Order of the Day, but I hope I shall be able to induce the Government to give me a day.
MAJOR KNOX: I will now ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to give a day for so important a Question?
SIR GEORGE GREY: At present all the Government days are fully occupied.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Abstract of Grants for Civil Services for 1865–6 [presented 2nd May]; Account of Exchequer Bonds [presented 1st May]; and Accounts of British Museum Expenditure [presented 9th May]; referred to the Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

REMUNERATION OF POSTMASTERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CAVE, in rising to move a Resolution on the subject of the inadequate remuneration of Postmasters, said, he wished first of all to clear himself from a charge which might be brought against him, and to answer by anticipation an objection which was usually made against Motions of a similar character. The charge was that he was aiming at an increase in the taxation of the country. Of course this was the case indirectly, insomuch as it diminished the surplus revenue of the Post Office, but he submitted that the Post Office was not to be considered a branch of the revenue, but an establishment for giving every convenience to the country within the scope of the Department, provided it could be done without loss. Now, according to the last Report of the Postmaster General, there was a surplus of £10.000 to the credit of the Post Office savings banks account. He had heard it, indeed, doubted whether that was a correct statement of account, and it had been said that the savings

  195
  banks had worked at a loss. He trusted that this was not the case, and, at any rate, he had a right to assume that the surplus stated was real, and it was out of that surplus that he thought a fair payment should be made to those who worked the system. So much for that objection. The other was that there was never any difficulty in getting the work done on present terms, and that, in fact, there were many applicants for every vacancy. He would not go into the abstract question of the propriety of a Government setting the example of giving inadequate wages, but the real fact was that a great majority of Postmasters gave merely their spare time to the Government. They made their livelihood in other ways. Hon. Members had heard of the individual who advertised for a pensioner as hall-porter, because the wages he gave were insufficient without the pension, and they knew that the slopsellers kept needlewomen's wages at a starving point by introducing the competition of the convents, the inmates of which were supported in other ways. But then, of course, the question arose whether the retail shopkeeper, who had his hands full of other work, was the proper person to work Government savings banks, and, still more, the new system of Government annuities. So that the question was not only the narrow one of increased pay to certain people, but also the more important one whether, under the present rates, the work was properly done. There was scarcely an office under Government which might not be filled at a less charge. People with full confidence in their own powers would, no doubt, accept the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary to the Treasury, at one-tenth of the present cost to the country, but the country would scarcely gain by the economy. He thought it necessary to say so much by way of preface, as he quite admitted the inexpediency of such Motions on general grounds, and that almost every branch of public servants would complain of their salary if they thought their complaints would be heard. He had originally intended simply asking a question at the request of a country clergyman; but after placing the notice on the paper he had received so many complaints from all quarters, and his correspondents had stated so many cases of hardship and mischief arising there from, that he felt justified in altering the question into the present Mo-
  196
  tion. He would not detain the House long, but he begged hon. Members, especially those who sat opposite, to remember that he was advocating the cause of a class deprived of the franchise, and therefore, according to their views, entirely unrepresented in the House; who lived, moreover, in such dread of incurring the displeasure of their official superiors that some had written anonymously, and others had expressed the greatest fear of being supposed promoters of his Motion. He objected, as contrary to public policy, to encouraging public servants to make complaints of their superiors. He had, therefore, sought for information chiefly from independent sources, clergymen and others who were interested in the question on public grounds, and though he trusted that his statement might lead to a fairer treatment of an important class of public servants he had also in view the impediments caused and likely to be caused by their discontent to the operation of those useful measures, the Post Office Savings Bank Act, and the Government Annuities Act, which latter was also, as they were informed by a paper laid lately upon the table, to be worked through the Post Office. He might state that he had received information from the counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Sussex, Devon, Gloucester, Somerset, Lincoln, Salop, Northampton, Herts, and others, but for obvious reasons he should not mention the exact localities. It must be evident to all that within the last three years enormously increased work had been thrown upon the keepers of post offices. According to the Postmaster General's Report for the past year the deposits which had been paid into the various post offices had amounted, with interest, during the interval between September 1, 1861, when the Act first came into operation, to March 31, 1864, to nearly six millions, and the net profits of the Post Office to more than £10,000. Before this time Postmasters were not overpaid, when it was considered how much additional work was entailed upon them by the growth of the system of money orders and the book and pattern post. What, then, was the additional remuneration received for the vastly increased trouble of the savings banks—trouble in no way connected with the business of carrying the correspondence of the country, nor indeed to have been anticipated, for the Postmasters might as reasonably have expected to be turned into Govern-

  197
  ment tailors as Government bankers. There seemed to be certain classes under which postmasters might be ranged in reference to payment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury might possibly explain the principle of the classification. He found that the most fortunate received £5 for every 1,000 transactions. That seemed to him a reasonable arrangement, as the trouble of large and small deposits was the same, and he thought it sufficient in amount. Others were paid at the rate of 1d. for every deposit, which might possibly be sufficient also, because though some grumbled others seemed satisfied, and one of the recipients expressed his opinion that the Post Office was just though stingy. After these two, however, came three classes which were much more hardly treated. The first received one halfpenny per deposit, and 1s. per cent on the amount the first year, but afterwards nothing. The second, certain apparently arbitrarily fixed small sums the first year, since then nothing. The third was most illused of all, for they had never received anything; but they had been led to expect something eventually, and lived in hope. Meantime there were complaints that the bonds had been enlarged, and the percentages on money orders and postage stamps reduced, and there was apprehension expressed that the Postmasters would have to work the Government annuities scheme gratuitously also. He had stated that he had advocated the cause of these officials because they were helpless and incapable of resistance. He had heard, however, that one in London had thrown up his office and published his reasons on a large placard exhibited in a shop window, couched in terms by no means complimentary to the authorities. But a still more important part of the question was its effect upon the public service. He was an advocate of Post Office savings banks and Government annuities, and wished them success; but the course taken in respect of these salaries militated against it. One Postmaster wrote that he should discourage Government annuities because he got well paid by benefit societies; another stated that the old savings bank in the town paid an actuary £100 a year for keeping the office open for an hour or two once a week. A clergyman wrote—
  "I can plainly see the Postmaster discourages the issue of 'books,' and what he does in all
  198
  probability others do. The trouble is very considerable, and all the same whether 4d. or £4; as I was mainly instrumental in getting the savings bank established here, I feel somewhat guilty in having entailed so much upon him with so little return."
  He could multiply cases of this kind, but would not weary the House. Early in 1862 the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin) asked a question on this subject, and the Secretary of the Treasury replied that there was, doubtless, an increase of trouble, and that the remuneration was under consideration. This was also stated in the Postmaster General's Report, so that the Postmasters had been living in hope, which alone induced them to put up with the present scale of payment. He would not enlarge on the immorality of underpaying those who held offices of trust; because, though there had been defalcations, yet it was infinitely to the credit of the class whose cause he advocated, that of the vast amount of valuable property of every description which passed through their hands so little miscarried. The subject of salaries in every department of the Post Office was a most important one, but he had preferred confining his remarks to one branch, and feeling as he did that no more time should be lost in placing these payments on an adequate, fair, and uniform basis he should conclude with the Motion which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is neither just nor expedient that labour and responsibility should be imposed upon public servants, in respect of Post Office Savings Banks, without adequate remuneration,"—(Mr. Cave,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that when the Bill for the establishment of the Post Office savings banks was under discussion he had ventured to suggest to the House that the difficulties of the scheme would commence with its success, and that it would not be so easy to conduct it as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose. It had occurred to him that those who had the conducting of the business of those banks would view matters in pretty much the same light as they were regarded in public offices generally, and think that very little ought to be done and a large salary paid.

  199
  He had foreseen that as soon as people began to deposit their money, a large amount of discontent would grow up. The House had now before them the first appearance of the difficulties arising from the attempt to establish a national bank for the savings of the people. No doubt there was a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member had just stated, and that the Postmasters were grievously discontented at having so much additional work and no additional remuneration. It was difficult to persuade people who had been employed to discharge one duty that they ought to perform another, and he believed the Postmasters had not only to do that, but to receive an enormous amount of abuse into the bargain from those who deposited money. It was not an uncommon thing for a Postmaster to find himself assailed by a depositor, who, on examining his book and finding the interest to amount to so much less than he had anticipated, accused the unfortunate Postmaster of fraud and robbery. He thought, however, the House ought to proceed with caution, and be slow to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave). They had hardly sufficient experience in the matter to venture on any expression of opinion. He would suggest that before any step so decided was taken it would be necessary to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the Act. No doubt the Postmasters had been encouraged to make this application by the Returns which had been laid on the table, and been commented upon in the newspapers. When those Returns appeared the people were congratulated on the success of the Post Office savings banks, for they showed that there was a very considerable balance on the profit side of the account—he believed £21,000. He was afraid, however, that when matters came to be examined a little more closely they would wear a different complexion. The House knew that certain joint-stock banks had showed they were able to pay 10 per cent, and, what was more, had actually paid it; but those establishments failed afterwards, and then it appeared that they had neither capital nor profit. In the accounts of the Post Office savings banks laid on the table of the House, as he understood, no notice was taken of the important fact that a considerable amount of the funds was invested in terminable annuities which had not a great many years to run. Therefore, though the interest
  200
  paid on those investments was not only enough to pay the current expenses of the banks, but also to leave a profit, it was in reality merely nominal, for it was a part of the capital which was being wasted. He had moved some time ago for a Return of the depreciation in consequence of the lapse of time, and it appeared from the figures which had been laid upon the table that the amount was now £81,000. If, then, they deducted that £21,000 of apparent profit from the loss by depreciation, there was an actual loss up to the present time of £60,000 on the Post Office savings banks, instead of there being a gain of £21,000. This might be remedied at a future time through increase of deposits and other causes; but it showed that the House ought not to encourage any increase of expenditure at present. Should those persons who performed the duties of postmaster be unwilling to conduct the savings banks without additional remuneration, it was evident that Parliament would have to subsidize those banks out of the Consolidated Fund if it meant to carry them on. But it was much better that there should be a thorough inquiry into the whole subject before any decided course was taken. It was scarcely fair to make that inquiry at present, as the Post Office savings banks had not been established a sufficient time for them to get into thorough working order. Probably in a year or two the question would be ripe for discussion, and he hoped the House would then thoroughly sift the matter, and, in case it should turn out that the savings banks could not be carried on without a loss, take into consideration the advisability of entering into some new arrangement with regard to them. In the meantime, however, it would be highly improper to force Government to spend the public money, which, unfortunately, they were always ready enough to do. The House had better perform its proper function of endeavouring to keep down the expenditure, rather than afford the Government any excuse for extravagance.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he entirely sympathized with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the embarrassing position in which he was placed by Motions of that description. He had received no communication from any Postmaster on the subject, but the present proposal was so exceptional a one that he felt bound to give it his support. The increase which

  201
  had of late years taken place in our Post Office system must have imposed a large amount ef additional duty on the Postmasters, and that increase of duty was not, he believed, accompanied by a proportionate augmentation of their salaries. He must remind the House of the multifarious duties performed by the Post Office, and that in order to discharge them properly the Postmasters and Mistresses had to rise by candle light in the morning. When additional duties were imposed upon already hard worked officials it was incumbent upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether, with a due regard to the public revenue, he could not increase their remuneration. He should be sorry to move for a Return which would undoubtedly be very interesting—namely, a Return of the number of Postmasters and Mistresses who had been dismissed for dereliction of duty. He was afraid it would show that, owing to the very small emoluments attached to the duties, a very inferior class of persons had obtained the situations. He should add, however, that as far as he could learn the profits of the Post Office Department were not as great as the public general imagined, and many persons were in consequence led to make demands on it which it could not be fairly expected to meet. The gross revenue of the Post Office was £4,100,000, and as, on the other hand, the only expense entered against them in the public accounts was £870,000 for the packet service, many persons imagined that they must have a surplus of over £3,200,000. But that was not the case, and they had many other large charges to defray. In his opinion, it was very desirable that the public should be made acquainted, if it were possible, with the net revenue of the Department. But he repeated that he thought the present proposal a fair one, and he hoped it would meet with the favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. PEELsaid, it would be establishing a very bad system for our public servants, were we to pay them according to the amount of surplus realized by the office in which they were engaged, instead of according to the value of their services. The proposition of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution seemed reasonable enough—namely, that, if additional duties were thrown upon a class of public servants, they ought to receive additional remuneration. The principle involved in that
  202
  proposition had, however, always been recognized and adopted by the Post Office. The question of remuneration of Postmasters had received a great deal of attention, and the desire always had been to remunerate them in proportion to the amount of work they performed, while taking care to avoid offering them any inducement to favour any class of depositors in order to improperly increase the amount of deposits and withdrawals. He did not think it would be desirable to pay them in proportion to the amounts deposited with them, because they would in that case have an interest in developing the business of the larger class of depositors as compared with the smaller class; and it should be remembered that it was essentially for the benefit of the humbler portion of the community the system had been established. The Post Office savings bank system was carried on by about 3,000 Postmasters in 800 head offices and 2,200 sub-offices. More than one-half of the business was transacted in the sub-offices, the masters being remunerated according to the amount of the work performed; exactly in the same manner as they were paid for the money-order business, with the single exception that they received £5 in the former, instead of the £4 for every 1,000 transactions which they received in the latter. In other words they received 1s. for every ten transactions. The work they had to do as between themselves and the depositors was to receive the money from the depositor and to enter the amount in the depositor's book. As between themselves and the General Post Office in London, they had to forward a memorandum, showing the amount of the deposit and the name and residence of the depositor, the whole of the accounts being kept in the Central Office in London. As the amount of remuneration varied with the quantity of work done of course it was but small at present, but in a few years it would probable equal that which the Postmasters received for the money order business. The total amount of remuneration at present derived on account of the savings bank business between the 2,200 sub-Postmasters was £4,000, as against £22,000 for the money order business. The remaining 800 Postmasters did not receive any special allowance for their labours either in the savings bank or the money order department; and the reason was that their salaries were fixed, and were fixed in proportion to the whole amount of the busi-

  203
  ness it was thought they would have to discharge. The salaries might have been fixed before the additional duties were cast upon these Postmasters, but they were continually undergoing revision. It was open to any Postmaster who thought that he was underpaid to apply for a revision of his salary; that revision, if granted, would have special reference to the increased work which had been east upon him by the money order and savings bank systems, and his new salary would be fixed with reference to the whole amount of duty which he had to discharge. To show how continually this process of revision had been going on, he had been informed that the salaries of thirty of these 800 Postmasters had been revised since the commencement of the present year. Of course, in revising the salary of a Postmaster, it was necessary to consider whether the duties discharged by him in person had been increased or not. As regarded one-half of these 800 Postmasters, the work of their offices was done by clerks who were paid directly by the Post Office, and of course, if there was additional work to be done, it was provided for by increasing the number of clerks. They were the masters of the more important Post Offices in the country, men enjoying good salaries, and also receiving considerable, in some instances, very large sums indeed, as commission or poundage on the sale of stamps. The only class of Postmasters to whom the proposition of the hon. Gentleman could apply, so far at least as it implied that something had not been done that ought to have been done, were the other 400 masters of the minor head offices, whose salaries were small, and who had to do their work themselves, just as the Postmasters of the sub-offices had, and whose salaries had been fixed originally without reference to the increased duties which had devolved upon them since the establishment of the savings banks. In many of these offices, however, the extra business which had up to the present time fallen upon the Postmasters was very trifling, and all that they could claim would be an addition to their salaries at the rate of £5 for every thousand transactions. The addition which had been made to the salaries which had been revised had been at a higher rate than that. In case of a revision, it was sought to fix the salary with reference to the business which might be expected to fall upon the office within a reasonable time, and consequently
  204
  the present addition was generally rather larger than was received by those whose extra remuneration was calculated according to the number of transactions. He did not say that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman was other than a reasonable one, but he assured the House that the Post Office were now acting upon it as far as they could.
  SIR RICHARD BULKELEYsaid, he was glad the subject had been brought forward, as it appeared to him the Postmasters in several instances were not sufficiently remunerated. He wished also to call attention to the inconvenience and delay which were often experienced in Post Offices where there was only one clerk to perform all the duties of the office, and expressed a hope that such a state of things would be remedied.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the remarkable statement which had been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that there had been a loss of £60,000 upon the investment of the funds of the Post Office savings banks, which did not appear in the account. If that was the case there must have been gross mismanagement. The Government only paid 2½ per cent, and they were receiving interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. The money might, in his opinion, be so invested as to pay 10 per cent. It might be the theory that whenever work was increased an addition was made to the number of clerks employed; but such had not been the case in the Post Office with which he was best acquainted. He thought that as the Government had made a considerable profit upon the deposits invested in savings bunks, they might make a more liberal allowance to the Postmasters who had to conduct the business. He hoped the hon. Member would persevere with his Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) did not exactly make his mouth water, he certainly greatly astonished him when lie talked of investing the money deposited in the Post Office savings banks so as to earn 10 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman could realize what he had promised, he believed that he should be quite safe in asking the House to grant him a sum of money in acknowledgment of so great a public service. When these Post Office savings banks were established, the Government cer-

  205
  tainly held out the hope that they would be self-supporting; and he was bound to say that if the facts were before the House he believed he could show that no such egregious error had been committed as was supposed by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton.) He would not, however, venture to state upon his own responsibility that the House could safely assume the existence of the surplus to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave) who introduced the Motion had referred. If the process which he had recommended was to go on, some inroad might be made upon that surplus. The fact was, the system was so novel and so complex that it was as yet impossible to ascertain the precise nature of its results. If or, indeed, ought the existence or non-existence of a surplus to have an appreciable effect upon this discussion; because, in considering how such a surplus should be disposed of, the first question would be whether the Government could not increase the rate of interest to the depositors. He could hardly imagine that there was among the depositors in these banks such discontent as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets—who had indulged his old grudge against them by having a kick at them that night—had described. The effect of discontent would, he should imagine, be to diminish the number of depositors; but the fact was, that they were continually and incessantly increasing. He did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman opposite intended to take the opinion of the House upon this abstract proposition, to which, as an abstract proposition, no one could refuse his assent, especially as it had been shown by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) that it was the great desire of the Post Office to act upon the principle which he desired to affirm. No less than 2,200 Postmasters were paid according to the amount of work which they performed; and the cases of those Postmasters who were not so paid, and on whom any additional duties were imposed, were undergoing constant revision. The cases in which extra work might have been imposed upon Postmasters to whom no extra remuneration had been given were those in which they received salaries, and the work was done by clerks paid by the Post Office. The only method in which those cases could be dealt with was by a revision general in principle, and applied to each case in succession. Though he quite concurred in the prin-
  206
  ciple of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, he believed that even the hon. Member himself would acknowledge that it was not possible to inaugurate any wholesale and sweeping change in the present system.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION.—RETURNS MOVED FOR.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY, in rising to put to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) certain Questions of which he had given notice, said, that he felt convinced that notwithstanding what had taken place between the hon. Member and himself some years ago, the hon. Gentleman would give him credit for bringing no Motion forward in a feeling of personal hostility, and for asking no questions which were not dictated by an honest desire to obtain information. He wished to ask the hon. Member, who was Chairman of the Westminster Improvement Commission, for information relative to the intended destruction of a very large number of houses in Westminster exclusively inhabited by the poorer class of the population. A Bill was passed in 1861, which seemed to be a Bill for allowing certain affairs of the association to be wound up, though Clause 29 gave them the power of purchasing in certain cases, to enable them to carry out the instructions of the Act. He could not, however, feel at all satisfied with the progress that the Westminster Improvement Commission had made since the year 1861. The Commissioners had two duties intrusted to them by Act of Parliament. One was to sell the property which was invested in their hands, and the other was to purchase a good deal of property adjacent to their own, the purchase of which would make their own property more valuable and more saleable. As regarded their duty relating to the sale of the property, nothing could, of course, be more easy, because the property was not only very valuable in 1861, but had actually doubled in value since that period, in addition to which there was, he believed, the greatest desire for its possession exhibited on the part of the public. He was afraid, however, that the question of buying property was a more difficult matter, because at that time the Commission did not possess one shilling in the shape of credit or sixpence in ready money. He would ask the hon.

207
Member whether it was usual for the House of Commons to give to a private company compulsory powers to purchase land and houses for the advantage of property which they previously possessed, and that without being furnished with any estimate, or the company being required to make any deposit. He regretted exceedingly the proposed depopulation which the Commission had thought it necessary to seek powers for in the other House. An hon. Friend of his estimated that the houses to be pulled down and poor people to be ejected by the Commission would be as numerous as in the case of the new Courts of Justice Bill in Carey Street. When he remembered also the furious destruction about to be committed in the same locality by the Metropolitan Railway, it appeared to him almost as if there was a general exodus of the poor of the metropolis, not accompanied—unfortunately—by any promised land for their reception. The Commissioners had, in reality, begun to imitate one of the worst features in the conduct of the old Westminster Commission. They had been making clearances without being sure of the means with which they were to cover these clearances with new buildings. He could not deny that much good had been done, and he hoped that previous to the next Session much more might be effected. He believed, therefore, that the full discussion of the question might be left to those hon. Members who would outlive the ensuing equinoctial gales. He thought that improvements which were public should be carried out by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that the Improvement Commission, which he feared possessed neither capital nor credit, should not attempt to deal in any way with the streets of the metropolis. He would conclude by moving for a Return of all the expenditure of the Westminster Improvement Commission, including the expenses attending the passing of their Act in 1861.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Returns relative to the expenditure and working of the Westminster Improvement Commission,"—(Sir William Gallwey,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. TITEsaid, he begged to thank the hon. Baronet for the courteous tone of his remarks. He had on a previous occasion stated the duties of the Commission of 1861, which came to the rescue of a very large property. The former Commissioners having spent all their money and contracted debts to the extent of £300,000, secured by mortgages, and £700,000 in addition in debentures—were in a position of complete insolvency, and in 1861 an Act was passed appointing a new Commission, consisting of six gentlemen—one being a Member of the old Commission, two representing the bondholders, two others representing the mortgagees, and himself nominated by the Government as Chairman. Although he had been all his life engaged in business he could safely say that a more onerous duty had never been undertaken by him, the affairs being most complicated in their nature. All the moneys received by the Commission were paid into the Court of Chancery for division among the mortgagees. The expenses were extremely moderate, and the allowance to the Commissioners was only £700 a year. They were authorized to borrow £10,000 in order to pay the bills of the lawyers and the surveyors, but they had no intention of embarking upon any speculation. During the last winter, by the co-operation of some corporations interested in property lying near Victoria Street, they were encouraged to carry out an improvement in Orchard Street, and by the co-operation of a large firm—Elliott and Co.—they were enabled to make great improvements at the other end of the street without borrowing or spending a single shilling of public money. Their object was to obtain something for the bondholders, and their solicitor had advised them that it would be necessary to apply to Parliament for additional powers. A benevolent gentleman—Mr. Gibbs—who had spent £40,000 in providing accommodation for the working classes, was willing to assist them in making further improvements. The House must remember that the houses in the neighbourhood were not occupied by working people, but consisted to a large extent of some of the lowest brothels to be found in London. It was desirable to make an improved access from the Park by means of a short street, and toward effecting that object the co-operation of the Metropolitan Board of Works and the parishes might be expected. It was also desirable to open

209
Stanhope Street, and to improve the entrance to the Horseferry Road, which, though a long and important thoroughfare, ending at present in a very narrow street. For those purposes compulsory powers were necessary. The Commissioners had, therefore, directed their solicitor to prepare a Bill for Parliament, and thus had arisen the extensive scheduling to which the hon. Baronet had referred. Some remarks had been made upon the fact that the Bill was sent to the House of Lords, but that had been done by the Chairman of Committees, and not by the wish of the Commissioners, or from any desire to smuggle it through. An opposition was raised upon Standing Orders by one parish, and the result was that with two small exceptions the powers granted were simply permissive, not compulsory. Terms had since been made with the opposing parish, which was now anxious to restore the Bill to its original shape. Laud in the neighbourhood had doubled in value during the last four years, and he believed that if the Commission had power to retain it for seven years longer it would again be doubled in value. They had realized £135,000, which had been paid into the Court of Chancery, and the improvement that had taken place in the property within three years was patent to every one. With respect to the Return asked for, he should not object to it; on the contrary, he should wish every publicity to be given to the proceedings: but as the terms of the Motion were not very definite, he would suggest to the hon. Baronet to withdraw his Motion, and he (Mr. Tite) would arrange with the hon. Baronet to furnish any information that might be desirable.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he was glad that full information was to be given, as it appeared that Parliament was about to be called upon to grant further powers to the Commissioners. The Bill introduced by the Commission contemplated the destruction of 500 houses, a larger number than would be removed for the Courts of Justice. He hoped when the Bill came before the House that a clause would be inserted requiring the Commission to provide accommodation for the people whose dwellings they sought power to destroy. He believed that the Metropolitan Railway would also come into the neighbourhood and displace many other residents at the back of the Westminster Palace Hotel. He hoped also that a com-
210
plete debtor and creditor account of the liabilities of the Commission would be laid before the House before it was asked to give them the fresh powers asked for which would amount to a prolongation of their existence for some twenty years longer. He saw no reason why there should be three or four different bodies in the metropolis for carrying out these metropolitan improvements, and it would be far better that these powers should be transferred to the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. JACKSONsaid, that they were discussing a Bill which was not before the House, and it would be time enough to discuss it when it was before them. They had nothing to do with the improvements made by the Marquess of Westminster or Mr. Gibbs. Speaking from his practical knowledge of the property, he could say that no property had so much improved during the last twenty years as that property had. The working of the Commission had been most beneficial to the property, and he felt bound to say that he thought all those interested in the property were greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite).
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that he also could bear testimony to the change for the better which, owing to the labours of the hon. Member (Mr. Tite), had come over the property during the last four years. There would be plenty of opportunity for discussing the Bill when it came before them.
MR. TAVERNER MILLERsaid, there were several charities in Westminster which were highly indebted to the Commission, for the lands which they held there, from being waste and profitless, had by the operations of the Commission become saleable to the great advantage of their funds and powers of doing good. In all the transactions which he had had with the Commissioners he had always found them anxious to do what was most for the public good. He was sorry to see an attempt made to get up a prejudice against the Commissioners in reference to this Bill. When it came before the House, it would be found that, so far from pulling down 500 houses, it only took compulsory powers with reference to some twenty or thirty houses. AB to the rest permissive powers only were asked for.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the hon. Member for Bath deserved great credit for having extricated the property from such con-

211
fusion, and he was quite sure his hon. Friend would be the last man to propose to destroy the houses of the working-classes without making some provision for them. The lodging-house built by Mr. Gibbs was not a speculation. He went into the venture wholly and solely to benefit the working classes, without caring in the least whether it would repay him. He certainly hoped that it would.
MR. BROMLEYsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that these Westminster Improvements had been any benefit to the poorer classes, though they might have benefited another class. He knew of his own personal knowledge that that was not the case. The classes who had been displaced were not the classes which inhabited Mr. Gibbs's lodging-house. They had disappeared altogether. There certainly was no part of London where greater injustice had been done to the working classes by the removal and the destruction of their dwellings.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL ASSISTANTS ON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to call attention to the position of the Civil Assistants on the Ordnance Survey, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War upon what grounds the principle of classification adopted in the Irish Valuation and other Government Offices is denied to this Department of the Public Service. Seeing the increase that had taken place in the cost of articles of consumption he thought that the Government would, before long, have to take into consideration the remuneration of the civil servants of the State with the view to increase it. But the grievance to which he wished at present to call attention was that the system of classification which existed in the War Office, Admiralty, and in other Departments, and by which promotion was regulated, did not extend to the civil assistants of the Ordnance survey. They complained that they were placed under the control of military officers who had the power of promoting them or not. A private sapper might be placed over several intelligent men in the civil service, and those persons depended upon an increase of pay on the caprice or whim of the military officer placed over them. The best way to get rid of the grievance would be to adopt a regular scale of pay, and to
212
extend to them the benefits of the system which had been applied so satisfactorily to other Departments of the State. An observer, after a service of two years and one month, had 5s. 9d. a day; another observer had also 5s. 9d. a day after a service of seventeen years. A surveyor had 4s. 3d. a day after a service of eight years and nine months; another surveyor had 4s. 3d. a day after a service of twenty-five years and three months. An examiner of plans had 4s. 3d. a day after a service of nine years and one month; and another examiner of plans had 4s. 6d. a day after five months' service. He called attention to the different course adopted in reference to the general valuation service in Ireland, and asked why this intelligent, educated, and well-conducted body of men should be denied the benefits of the system of classification which had been successfully applied to men discharging similar duties at the other side of the Channel.
MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, that civil servants were entitled to ask the House to remedy any grievance under which they suffered. No one could doubt that those assistants were an intelligent, educated class of men or that they had been unjustly treated. It was said that they were at liberty to quit the service if not satisfied. Advertisements had been put into the newspapers for men to fill the places of these assistants, but only one applicant would undertake the duties, and he resigned after three months. The survey they made was a credit to the nation; the treatment they received was a re proach to the Government. He had no doubt they would be told that this was a case brought forward in the interests of their constituents; but public servants had a right to come to that House when they had a grievance to complain of, and in this instance there was a substantial grievance. He hoped the Government would agree to this very moderate demand.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he had some knowledge of the question which had been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Southampton, and could testify to the good conduct and harsh treatment of the public servants to whom it referred. The superior officer in this Department could promote any one in it and give him a higher salary. Such a power was too great for a superior officer of a department to possess, and the principle was objectionable, especially where

213
no classification existed. In this service there were highly educated gentlemen who had served twenty-one, twenty-two, and some twenty-four years, and who received only 6s. 6d. a day with 9d. increase after ten years' service. Others received only 4s. a day, with 1s. increase after the same period of service. That was not sufficient remuneration for an arduous service well performed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to introduce a system of classification so that these gentlemen might be adequately paid.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, there was no analogy whatever between the position of the civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey Office and the clerks in those other public offices to which the hon. and learned Member had referred. He quite admitted that those assistants were very meritorious persons; but many of them were artizans and workmen, and there was no reason why the principle of classification should be extended to them. He had no very accurate knowledge of the duties of the Irish Valuation Office, still he knew enough to show that they were of a very different character from those now under contemplation. In the first place, the Irish Office was not an office superintended by military authority; it was conducted entirely by civil employés, and the work devolving upon that Department was the valuation of every occupation and property in Ireland. It was evident, therefore, the duties were of a very responsible character, and that the valuators were more than ordinarily open to the exercise of corrupt influences. On that account it was essential that the employés should be persons of the most reliable character. At the same time, he was unable to say what had induced the Government to adopt the system of classification in that Department. Under the present system they were enabled to obtain exactly the amount and description of work they required in the Ordnance Survey Office, and there was no reason why Government should pay a higher rate for the work it required than a private person or a public company found it necessary to pay. If the principle of classification were admitted into that office, not only would they have to pay a larger sum of money for the work performed, but the efficiency of the office would be impaired. Under the present system the survey was conducted mainly by officers of the Engineers, and the sappers working under
214
them, aided by a body of 500 civilian assistants. The most intelligent of those assistants were selected, and, after receiving instruction, they became measurers and surveyors. There were also a number of boys employed at the office at Southampton, many of them sons of persons employed in the office, and in time those boys became tutors, or filled other offices in the Department. The only assistants it was necessary to look for outside the office were the engravers, who were paid the ordinary rate for their work. Was this system of training men for their duties, which had been found to work so admirably, to be changed for one by which men were to obtain appointments through political, personal, and local influences? In that case, instead of having an industrious and able set of men in the office, they would have to deal with persons who would deem themselves secure of their places for life provided they did not entirely neglect their work. Under such circumstances the House could scarcely expect that the efficiency of the Department would be preserved, while the additional cost of the classification system would be, at least £1,500 a year. In addition to this, unless the House was disposed to vote a larger sum for the service than it had, the result would be the postponement for a number of years of the completion of the survey. The civil assistants in their memorial prayed for an increase of salary, on the ground that their present pay was not sufficient to enable them to support the respectability of an office under Government. In his opinion the persons complaining of their inadequate remuneration ought to be paid according to the value of their services, and not according to some imaginary rate to enable them to maintain what they called their respectability.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he must express his surprise and regret at the response that had been given by the noble Lord to the appeal which had been so well and so ably put by the hon. and learned Member for Southampton. The noble Lord relied on the same argument that he had used when last called upon to defend this grievance—he declined to concede the benefit of classification upon the allegation that it would prove prejudicial to the public service. He admitted that classification worked admirably for the public service in the Customs, Inland Revenue, Treasury, and other public Departments, but declined

215
extending it to the Ordnance Survey officials, upon the ground of dissimilarity of occupation; but in regard to the officials of the Irish Valuation Survey Office, where the system of classification prevailed, the noble Lord appeared to feel that some explanation was necessary. And what was the explanation? Why, that the duties were essentially different. Upon this he joined issue with the noble Lord, and maintained that the duties were essentially similar. There were the same officers employed—observers, computors, draughtsmen, plotters, tracers, surveyors, spirit levellers, computers of areas, &c.; and the processes and results were essentially similar, the only difference being that the classification, which worked well in Ireland, was denied to England. He would appeal to any Gentleman in the House acquainted with the respective Departments to confirm his statement as to their similarity. He recollected when this subject was last before the House the noble Lord stated that the Ordnance Survey system was perfect, and that so preeminently satisfactory was its condition that foreigners visited England to admire and to imitate. A few days after hearing that statement he chanced to see the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Dublin of the pay and the length of service of these valuable and almost inimitable public officers. There, to his surprise, he found that thirty-four surveyors, averaging a service of fifteen years each, were in receipt of a salary equivalent to £60 per annum, and that eighteen spirit levellers and computers of areas averaged about eighteen years' service, and each the munificent remuneration of about £65 per annum—£65 a year for 313 days' labour in the year; no leave for holidays—all close and unintermitting labour. The noble Lord excused this upon the ground that the service could be done, and was done well for the pay. Let the noble Lord extend that principle, if he was satisfied of its soundness, to the War Office—cut down the salaries to the minimum at which the duties could be efficiently performed, and then the present feeling of injustice to a Department would be alleviated, and the public burdens would be materially reduced. But the noble Lord would propose nothing of the kind. The poor might be squeezed, but the influential and wealthy would not be incommoded. The noble Earl at the head of the Department had distinguished himself while in that House
216
by his frank advocacy of the weak when pressed by the strong, and he trusted that in the re-consideration which this question would doubtless receive before Parliament again met some redress of existing grievances would be granted.

THE POOR LAW BOARD AND THE HIGH WYCOMBE UNION.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I hope the House will not lend an indifferent ear to the short statement which I have to make tonight, under the impression that the subject is one simply of local interest. I can assure the House it is one of general, and so far as England is concerned one of universal interest, for it concerns every Board of Guardians in the kingdom. The House will agree with me that it is important there should be a clear understanding as to the relative duties of the Central Board and the Boards of Guardians throughout the country; for unless there is that clear understanding there is necessarily a chance of great confusion in the public business, and great neglect occasionally of the public interests. In the case I am about to bring before the House there appears to have been considerable and injurious neglect. I cannot pretend that I have not myself formed an opinion as to what body that neglect is to be attributed; but I will say to those representing the Poor Law Board to-night that, so far as I am concerned, I bring this question before them in a spirit of candour, in order to give them an opportunity of entering into explanations which may remove a strong sense of discontent and indignation now existing in a considerable district; and if the explanation is satisfactory I shall not hesitate to admit that it is so. The Wycombe Union consists of thirty parishes in the southern part of the county of Buckingham, and contains a population exceeding 35,000. The union house, which is a new structure, built within a few years from the design of Mr. Scott, is at Sanderton, and about six or seven miles from this union house, at a place called Bledlow, there is the union school. Within two or three years a person named Harold Stallwood was appointed master, and his wife matron, of the union school at Bledlow. He was apparently a man well qualified for the post, of fair fame, very good talent, and considerable experience

  217
  in connection with the administration of the Poor Law, because he had been a relieving officer in one of the districts of the county before this appointment. Although there was this distance between the union house (the central point of the union) and the union schools, I am bound to say there has been, as far as I can form an opinion, a satisfactory system of visiting and inspecting the schools. There was a system of periodical and continuous visiting by committees of the Board of Guardians; and also, which is of importance, the schools at Bledlow had been frequently and constantly visited by the Poor Law Commissioner of the district. At Bledlow, besides these union schools, there had been an industrial school, which rendered the frequent attendance of the Commissioner necessary. He was a man by education and position fitted for and active and zealous in the discharge of his duties. I mention this, because, as the House will see, under his inspection, which gave general satisfaction to the community, occurrences happened which were hardly to be expected under a system of efficient inspection but, at the same time, I am bound to express my opinion that no blame is to be imputed on the score of neglect either to the guardians or to the Poor Law Inspector. We all know that in much higher places than union schools, or institutions of that kind, very often practices come to light highly to be reprobated, but which have continued for a long term of years under critical and conscientious administrations. We know also that crime in authority has great advantages for securing secresy. First of all, a kind of terror is exercised over subordinates, and that, accompanied by ingenuity, will baffle the otherwise disinterested vigilance of those who, under ordinary circumstances, might discover the offence. At the beginning of the year a rumour reached the guardians of the Wycombe Union (who on the whole possess the general confidence of the district), that an act of great barbarity had been practised at the school at Bledlow—that a boy had been punished in a manner which no circumstances could justify. So strong was the feeling of the mother of the boy who was herself an inmate of the union house at Sanderton—she became so alarmed by this rumour—that she absolutely claimed her discharge from the union house, and went to Bledlow to ascertain the truth for herself. She
  218
  there learned enough to induce her to claim an audience of the chairman and some of the chief guardians; and the result was that a general meeting of the guardians was called at the school at Bledlow. There in the course of forty-eight hours they were all assembled. The question of the punishment of this boy was investigated. The evidence also of several of his companions who had been treated with extraordinary cruelty was taken from their own mouths. It came out in the examination that these severe punishments on the part of the master were rather, it seemed, produced by a desire to establish a system of terror than from any abstract practice of cruelty. It appeared that the boys had heard rumours of indecent conduct of the master with female pauper pupils in the institution, who, of course, were mainly under the direction of the matron. The boys had heard of these things and talked of them among themselves; and the master had recourse to these severe punishments, which were of an outrageous character—threatening even the lives of the boys by holding a knife to their throats and menaces of that kind—evidently for the purpose of by terror suppressing the conversation of the boys, and not from any habitual cruelty on his part. This led to a further examination. It was necessary to examine the girls. That was done on the 13th of February, when a great deal of evidence was taken showing that a system of profligacy of a very heartless and heinous description had been practised for a long time by the master of the school. It is not necessary to go into details because there is no controversy between the Board of Guardians and the Poor Law Board as to the nature and character of this offence of the master. It is agreed that his conduct was most profligate and indefensible. The guardians passed that day in taking evidence. The evidence taken cannot be called ex-parte, because Stallwood was present, and he was permitted to make observations if he pleased; but generally speaking he kept a strict silence, and merely denied the whole affair, saying that the boys were telling lies, so that what fell from him threw no light on the subject. The guardians were of opinion, after consultation, that the evidence should be forwarded immediately to the Central Board in London, who should be asked to send down some person to investigate the matter. I am perfectly willing to admit

  219
  that it would have been better if the Board of Guardians had acted on the moment with more decision; if, for example, they had said, "There is sufficient evidence of indecent assaults to bring this man before the magistrates and have him committed for trial." So far the thing might have been met immediately. But that is not a view of the case which can be urged by the Central Board in London. They never took that view. This, however, must be said for the Board of Guardians. All boards, we know, act with hesitation, and no board is so timid as a Board of Guardians, because, though intrusted with very great administrative duties, their absolute authority is very slight. In this very Board, though their affairs are administered with ability, and although generally they possess the respect of the community, it was not very long ago that a subordinate officer having behaved in an unjustifiable manner (not in a manner so heinous as the present case) was dismissed. In that case these very guardians received a severe reproof from the Central Board, and were told they had no authority to dismiss their subordinate officer. I am not mentioning that as any charge against the Central Board, whose legal authority must be obeyed; but the guardians remembering that, and acting perhaps with rather more hesitancy than they otherwise would, feeling that this affair at Bledlow was of a more extensive and deeper nature than it first appeared, and alarmed to find that all the subordinate officials were under the influence of the man Stallwood, an able man, and were disinclined to give information; feeling that the matter ought to be dealt with authoritatively, and that the evidence which was to be the basis of a criminal indictment should be precise and authentic, and that it would not be satisfactory to have it taken by a mere Board of Guardians, which could not administer an oath or conduct such an investigation with the acuteness and authority that were indispensable—influenced by these considerations, they were extremely anxious, and urged that a person of authority should be sent down from London to conduct the inquiry. They accordingly forwarded that evening, or the following morning, all the evidence which had been given, and earnestly urged the Central Board to take up the matter and institute an investigation. That letter was written on the 14th of February. No answer was ever received
  220
  to that letter. This case, of course, created considerable excitement in the neighbourhood. Rumours spread, and the want of precise knowledge caused them to be exaggerated. The general effect produced was one of much alarm and disquietude. Guardians belonging to different villages, and frequenting different markets, were anxious to know whether any communication had been received from the Central Board in London in answer to the letter which had been sent up. Days flew over; a week elapsed; and on the 20th, which would be the next meeting of the guardians at Sanderton, they had the mortification of finding that they had no answer. A letter, however, awaited them from the schoolmaster, Stallwood, whose conduct had been so much impugned, and who was placed in so remarkable a position; and this letter was a resignation of his office on the plea of the illness of his wife, and contained a request that the guardians would give him a general certificate of good conduct. Well, the guardians were in a very embarrassing position. A week had elapsed without any answer being received from London, and they felt at last that they must act. They had the man called in and informed him that they could not accept his resignation, but they suspended him from his office. They then wrote up to London within an hour, sent to the Poor Law Board the schoolmaster's letter of resignation, and announced the course they had taken in suspending him from his office. That letter must have been written on the 20th, but no answer wa3 received to the urgent communication from the Board of Guardians on the 14th, or to the letter of the 20th. Besides suspending the schoolmaster from his office, the guardians, as it was necessary to make provision for carrying on the schools, appointed a committee of their body for the purpose. The committee made arrangements to visit Bledlow daily, to report to the union house how affairs were going on, make temporary arrangements for conducting the school, and, of course, report to the Board of Guardians at their next meeting, which would be on the 27th. During this period the guardians received no answer to their letters. But at last the Poor Law Board sent down the Poor Law Inspector of the district, a gentleman of the name of Cane, but he did not apply to the guardians, he did not apply to a portion of them, he did not even go to the

  221
  usual place where they met—the union house at Sanderton, but he went to Bledlow, and there on his own authority, directed the schoolmaster and his wife, the matron, to send their immediate, written, and unconditional resignation of their offices to him. A meeting of the guardians, whether casually or by arrangement, had taken place to make arrangements for temporarily carrying on the educational establishments—both the industrial school and the union schools. Mr. Cane told them that the affair was finished, that the resignation being complete and unconditional, the places of the schoolmaster and matron were vacant, that the guardians had no further authority over the individuals; and that all that they had to do was to accept the resignations on his advice and responsibility, and to make temporary arrangements. I do not know what were the motives of the Poor Law Inspector, but of course I sincerely give him credit for the best motives. The best motives, however, in point of feeling, may be most erroneous in point of policy. I do not understand that the case of Mr. Cane was an exception to that principle. It was possible Mr. Cane might have thought, "This is a grave scandal; an investigation into these circumstances, as suggested by the guardians of the Wycombe Union, will lead to evidence most offensive to the public taste and to public morality; we shall have details of a very disgusting character; and the best thing, therefore, I can do is to hush it up." He may have been—he probably was—influenced by that feeling. Now, hushing up a private scandal may be an act of wisdom or of charity, and an act of charity is generally an act of wisdom. But when you come to a public scandal, it is a very different thing. Generally it is not wise to hush up a public scandal. It is more than a questionable, nay, it is a foolish act, because in the nature of things, enough always is known in a public scandal to attract great public attention, and unless matters are investigated they assume, in the imagination of the public, larger and more horrid features than they really possess. Nothing can be more inconvenient, nothing more distressing in any society, especially in society of the innocent character which generally pervades a quiet rural district, than an investigation into such charges as I have intimated, charges of gross immorality to be spread about in every village in
  222
  the union. But, in order to avoid such consequences and such inconvenience, and, in a certain sense, the injuries of such a course, would you lay it down as a principle that a criminal is to be left with impunity because the proof of his crime may produce indelicate and distressing details in the society which he has outraged? It seems to me quite impossible to sustain such a position. Then where are you to stop? where draw the line? When the investigation involves details that are contra bonos mores are you to say that these crimes, the most offensive to society, shall be treated with impunity? If Mr. Cane was influenced by a wish to hush up the matter, though I give him credit for amiability of feeling, I I do not think it is a course which ought to be approved of by the superiors of the Department, or by the authority of this House. It may be said that these peculiar cases, though capable of moral proof, are not always capable of that legal proof which is necessary to obtain a conviction. For instance, there can be no doubt in the present case that this schoolmaster had treated many of the boys with barbarity, and inflicted on them punishment which no circumstances could justify. But then an ingenious advocate in a court might appeal to a jury and dilate on the wholesome severity which is the privilege of a pedagogue, and he might so confound the witnesses and so mystify facts as to obtain the verdict of the jury in fa-favour of his client on that point. Then, again, in the more heinous part of the case, it might be shown where you depend on evidence, and that evidence given by young people, and uneducated people, and people unused to all the pomp and circumstance of public courts, that if there was not consent there was no resistance, and that no resistance involved consent, and though it might appear a very bad case it would be very doubtful whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of a jury; and on that ground Mr. Cane might have considered it best to have nothing to do with criminal justice, but to take the course he did. But then, how does the Central Board—for I do not wish to fix personal responsibility on Mr. Cane—justify their conduct in acting contrary to the wishes of the Board of Guardians by recommending the resignation of the schoolmaster and his wife? I must call attention to the peculiar consequences of the resignation of office under these circum-

  223
  stances. By the Poor Law the power of the Board of Guardians is so limited that they have not even the power of dismissing their subordinate officers. The Board of Guardians could not dismiss a schoolmaster. The House must also remember this, that there is a provision in the Poor Law Act to the effect that any person once in the employ of the Poor Law Board, and who has been dismissed, should never, under any circumstances, be employed by the Poor Law authorities again. The Board of Guardians were most anxious that the resignation of this man should not be accepted, because the moment he resigned his office there was not the slightest reason whatever that he should not be a candidate for office in another union, as soon as the circumstances that had happened had been forgotten, or in a place where they were not known. The central authority, by not only recommending, but by sanctioning and proposing the resignation of this person, absolutely screened him from the only penalties he would incur if he were not prosecuted for his heinous conduct, and sent him forth to the world without the slightest stain on his character. The Board met for the third time on the 27th February, with two important duties to discharge. In the interval a new charge had been made against the schoolmaster. A young woman, Ann Allen, who was about to leave the union house at Sanderton, when making her farewell visit to the master and matron communicated to them that she was in the family way, and that the father of her impending child was the schoolmaster—that she had been a pauper pupil some years of her life in that school; that he had seduced her there; that he had retained his connection with her, and that she had often visited him at the school. This was a case aggravating the offence of the man. The evidence was taken down, and it was determined to send it to the Central Board, from whom the guardians had not yet received a single letter. They had then to receive a report from their committee, and that committee informed the Board that the master and matron had resigned; that their resignation had been accepted by the central authority, that their places were vacant, and that they were no longer under the authority of the Board of Guardians. The Board of Guardians refused to confirm the report of the committee, who had no right whatever to accept any
  224
  resignation, and they addressed to the Central Board a statement of the case of Ann Allen, accompanied by a remonstrance, pointing out the effect of the acceptance of the schoolmaster's resignation, and an earnest appeal for an answer to their various letters, and some instructions as to the course which they were to pursue in this difficult business. At last they received an answer dated "Poor Law Board, Whitehall, March 4"—
  "I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ult., forwarding a copy of a resolution passed by the guardians of the Wycombe Union, at a meeting held on that day in reference to the resignation of Mr. and Mrs. Stallwood, the master and matron of the school, together with a copy of the evidence taken by the guardians in reference to his conduct towards Ann Allen, formerly an inmate of the school. The Board have also received your previous letters of the 14th and 20th."
  This was how the business of the Board was transacted—
  "In reference to the charges against Mr. Stallwood, I am directed to state that the Board have received a report from the Inspector, Mr. Cane, from which it appears that the master resigned his office unconditionally, and that Mrs. Stallwood resigned at the same time. Under these circumstances the Board direct me to point out that the acceptance of Mr. Stallwood's resignation by the guardians is not necessary to give effect to that resignation and as Mr. Stallwood is no longer responsible as an officer either to the guardians or this board, and that the Board can take no steps with regard to his alleged misconduct."
  What other interpretation could a body of well-meaning, honest men, used to the duties of their rural office, give to this letter, but that after all that had occurred they were now apprised by the central authority that there were no means whatever of obtaining redress for the great injuries which the society to which they belonged had sustained from this individual. I need hardly call upon the House to frame in their minds some opinion as to what must be the effect in a large rural district, containing upwards of 35,000 inhabitants, among every portion of which this story, in the course of a month, must circulate. The House can easily conceive what effect would be produced in such a society as I have described, by whom this affair had been discussed at fairs, markets, and all other public resorts. The feeling was naturally one of great indignation; they felt that they had no redress for the outrages they had suffiered. I do not believe that so much feeling had for

  225
  a considerable period been excited in that part of the world. Any one would have supposed that the business had terminated with the letter from which I have just read an extract; but the matter was mentioned in this House, and the Board of Guardians expressed by resolution their dissatisfaction with the communication which they had received from the central authorities, stating that they looked upon it as "altogether unsatisfactory," and informing the Poor Law Board that they should consult their representatives and take their advice as to the course they ought to pursue. And, certainly, I do not see why men should have Members of Parliament, or why we were elected to represent the interests and feelings of the community, if such things as this can take place with impunity, and not be mentioned in this House. Rather more than a week after the date of the letter to which I have already referred, the guardians received another communication from the Poor Law Board. It was addressed to the clerk of the guardians, and was dated October, but there could be no doubt that that was a mistake for March 15. It was written, by the way, as if there had never been any communication between them on the subject. Referring to the misconduct of the late master, it called the attention of the guardians to the 93rd section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, which provided that if any master or any other workhouse official should in any way abuse or ill-treat or be guilty of any other misbehaviour, or otherwise misconduct himself towards or with respect to any poor person in such workhouse, he might be brought before a magistrate, and if the offence was proved might be fined £20. Then, attention was called to an Act of the Queen, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 59, which provided that it should be lawful for the Board of Guardians to pay out of the funds in their hands for the apprehension and prosecution of any officer charged with the maltreatment or abuse of any poor person. And the guardians were told that it was for them to decide whether they could produce sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, and that if they found it necessary they might offer a reward for the apprehension of the accused. The letter was signed "R. B. Cane, Poor Law Inspector." Those are the facts of the case; and the general feeling which they have produced is such as I have described; but the House will not be surprised to hear
  226
  that a portion of the general discontent and indignation has naturally, though undeservedly, been visited upon the guardians of Wycombe Union—a fact which has made them still more anxious that the matter should be brought before this House. What they complain of is, first of all, that their letters of the 14th and 21st of February, when they first sent up the evidence, were never noticed at all; secondly, they complain that the Poor Law Inspector, without conferring with the clerk or any of the guardians, went down to the school and forced the resignation—no not "forced," for the man, I dare say, was happy enough to give it—occasioned the resignation of Stallwood and his wife. Thirdly, that they informed the guardians in the letter of the 4th of March that no proceedings could be taken in the matter, and then by the letter of the 15th informed them that they might prosecute, and, if necessary, offer a reward for his apprehension, which certainly was very necessary, because the House will be prepared to hear that long ago Stallwood had absconded. He had watched the course of events no doubt with great interest, and for a long time thought he should be able to baffle both guardians and Commissioners. But after the case of Ann Allen came out he thought that, on the whole, it would be the wisest thing to abscond. If no further proceedings are taken he may some years hence, when the evidence is almost forgotten and the witnesses scattered, return to the neighbourhood without a stain on his character. He could say that, when a public officer, he had tendered his resignation to the authorities, who courteously accepted it; and he might become again a relieving officer or perhaps a schoolmaster. Fourthly, they complain of the conduct of the Poor Law Board, because through their mysterious silence and neglect in not giving them the slightest information or advice till a month had elapsed, and the chief offender had disappeared, the Board of Guardians has itself been accused, certainly undeservedly, of neglecting the interests of the pauper children. This is the case which from a sense of duty I have brought before the House. I shall listen with interest to any explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, for it does appear to me to be a case which requires ample explanation at the least from Her Majesty's Government, and I shall be glad if my conclusions should prove to be unfounded. I have

  227
  omitted to mention that on the 27th, when the Board of Guardians sent up the statement of Ann Allen, and protested against the conduct of the Poor Law Inspector in arranging the resignation of the schoolmaster, they also sent a letter, which was addressed to them by a pauper then in the house, and which shows how keen was the feeling among the humbler classes on the subject. This letter, written after consultation with the other paupers, the writer being the best penman among them, was as follows:—
  "Gentlemen of this country; we poor paupers ask for justice on the part of our poor children. We should like to know why the master's conduct is not exposed to all the world. If we were to put a rope around a child's neck, or draw a knife across its throat, or if our little females were treated in an indecent manner—if we were to do acts of such brutality, we should be tried and punished. Is there the same law in this land for one as for another? Why are our feelings to be outraged? We appeal for justice. Your humble servant, William Hoare, a pauper in the house."
  The wording may excite a smile, but that letter shows what is the feeling of the paupers themselves, and that feeling is shared also by the poorer inhabitants. I do not wish to bring before the House details which would be inconvenient and are not requisite, and I, therefore, only move for a copy of the letter of the Poor Law Board, signed by H. Fleming, Secretary, dated March 4, 1865.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, a Copy of a Letter from the Poor Law Board, dated the 4th day of March 186S, and signed by Henry Fleming, secretary, relative to the Wycombe Union,"—(Mr. Disraeli,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had nothing to complain of in the right hon. Gentleman's manner of bringing forward this case. He had done so with his usual clearness and courtesy, and if there had been any inaccuracies in his statement either of the law or the facts this was due, no doubt, to the instructions he had received. As he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) was totally unaware of what was going to be brought before the House, he was not prepared to meet all the details into which the right hon. Gentleman had gone. He had marshalled his facts for the purpose of producing a particular effect, but the
  228
  question involved seemed to be one with respect to the particular powers conferred by the Legislature on the guardians and on the Poor Law Board respectively. The Legislature had provided for the protection of the inmates of workhouses, and for the removal of any person who might maltreat them; and the powers necessary to accomplish this object had been differently distributed—some being given to the Poor Law Board, and others to the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to find fault with the course which the central authorities took in not having acted up to their powers, and seemed to think that the guardians had been badly treated, that great scandal had been produced, and that there had been some miscarriage of justice. It did not appear to him that the law required any communication from a Local Board of Guardians to the Central Board before it could inquire into the conduct of any of its officers; but a communication had been made by the guardians of this union to the Central Board concerning certain irregular proceedings that had taken place at this district workhouse school. This was the course usually followed by the guardians if they had a complaint against their officers, and the course prescribed to the Central Board was to inquire into the truth of this matter. The usual course was followed in this case—namely, the papers forwarded to the Central Board were immediately transmitted to the Inspector of the district, and he was instructed to ascertain whether the charges were well founded. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the papers were sent on the 14th; but they were received, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had been informed, on the 16th, and on that day they were transmitted to the Inspector, whom they reached on the 17th. The Inspector was at that time engaged in other business connected with his office; but, however, he lost not a moment, but proceeded as soon as possible to the spot, which he reached on the 21st, and did that which was daily done by Inspectors. He called upon the man charged to appear before him, stated the communications which had reached the Central Board, and informed him that he had been appointed to inquire into the facts of the case. The man was told that an investigation would take place, and that his course would be either to appear before the Board, examine witnesses, and make what defence he could, or state what he could in extenuation, or

  229
  to admit his guilt, and immediately resign his situation. The course pursued by the Inspector was precisely that which the law prescribed, for by the 46th section 4 & 5 Will. IV., the Central Board were directed to appoint competent persons for the administration of relief, &c., to the poor, and it was further enacted that the Board was empowered, upon the complaint of the guardians, to order and direct a competent and tit person to proceed to the place at which the alleged offence was committed, to make inquiry. The Central Board was also empowered to remove any master or officer whom they should deem unfit to discharge the duties of his office. Such was the limited duty of the Central Board. They were directed to see that no unfit or incompetent person should remain in any office; and therefore when a person was charged with misbehaviour they might cither call upon him to submit to an inquiry or to resign. But with respect to the punishment of guilty persons, the law had provided that that matter should be in the power of the guardians. If anybody misbehaved in any way the Legislature had distinctly provided that the proceedings to be instituted with a view to the infliction of punishment should be in the hands of the guardians. The right hon. Gentleman had made light of that provision, but it seemed somewhat important in the consideration of this case. The 93rd section of 4 & 5 Will. IV. distinctly provided that any officer who might have in any way misconducted himself might be taken before two justices, and upon conviction fined in a sum not exceeding £20, or in default committed to prison for a term not exceeding six calendar months. If the right hon. Gentleman knew as much of guardians as persons who were brought into daily contact with them, he would know that an inducement to proceed against offenders was held out to them by a provision which laid it down that it should be lawful for any Board of Guardians to pay out of the funds in their hands all costs for the apprehension and prosecution of any person who might be charged with misbehaviour or misconduct. A distinct provision was made in 7 & 8 Vict. for costs under such circumstances. Well, then, what had happened in this matter? The Inspector having proceeded to the spot found there a Committee of the Board, of Guardians appointed to make arrangements for the superintendence of the school in consequence of the suspen-
  230
  sion of the master. They communicated with the Inspector, who informed them of what had been done, and that he had been instructed at once to proceed in the matter. The Committee, who had been appointed by the whole body of the guardians, were extremely glad to accept his services, and conferred with him for some time. The Inspector then went out and communicated with the master. He returned in a short time and informed the Committee that the master had tendered the resignation of his office unconditionally and absolutely. The Committee made no objection to that course, and the Inspector left on the same day, believing that he had done what the Committee wished and all that he had been deputed to do. The man had resigned; he had been told to quit the place without delay; a new master might be appointed, and the guardians had it in their power to punish the offender if they pleased. He would read a letter which the Inspector had written to the Poor Law Board to inform them of the mode in which he had executed his task. [Mr. DISRAELI: What is the date?] He presumed it was the 21st of February—it might have been a day or so after. The right hon. Gentleman then read the Inspector's letter, which stated that he had received the master's resignation, that he had advised the Committee as to what further was required to be done, and that he was not aware that it was the practice of the Board to take any steps under such circumstances. Some time afterwards, when a question was put in the House, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) inquired as to the nature of the offences, and why the matter had been left in the state it then was. The Inspector gave an explanation which appeared plausible, if not conclusive. He said—
  "I have had great experience in examining painful cases of this kind in which children are concerned, and I have frequently had reason to doubt their veracity. Not that their intention is to deceive me, but they are brought out of the ward of a workhouse, they know what they are expected to say, and I am aware of nothing which is more shocking than the disgusting details which are given by those children. I avoid, therefore, entering on such investigations when it is possible."
  But there was another reason. The nature of the charge made it a fit subject for criminal proceedings. The schoolmaster was charged with an assault upon certain children, and what was the position of the Inspector under such circumstances? The

  231
  guardians supposed that the Poor Law Board would proceed almost judicially, not only in hearing the case, but in passing judgment and inflicting punishment. The Inspector, no doubt, had the power of taking evidence, and the witnesses were sworn; but the doubt was how far the Inspector was entitled to put the schoolmaster on his oath and take evidence which might be used against him at the next assizes. Most persons would say that was an improper thing to do, and it was certainly inconsistent with the general principle of law in this country. The Inspector was, therefore, obliged to use his power very carefully, and the inquiry was, in fact, rather an irregular proceeding, instituted in order that the Central Board might know whether they were called upon to act, and whether the officer ought to be called upon to resign. He wished to request the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Disraeli) to the position of the Inspector in the present case. He obtained the resignation of the officer, and he left it open to the guardians to proceed in the regular way in making out the charge which they said they had evidence to establish. There was, he thought, no ground for complaining of any tardiness on the part of the Poor Law Board in its communications with the guardians. They were fully aware of the state of the law and of their power under it, and were somewhat offended with the Inspector for unnecessarily reminding them of it. The wonder was not so much that the Central Board did not act more promptly, as that the guardians did not exercise their powers. They had not the slightest doubt that they possessed the power of proceeding. The question was still asked why they did not even now proceed criminally against this person for the offence with which he was charged. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to wish the House to believe that it was in consequence of the shortcomings of the Central Board and the course taken by the Inspector that justice was not satisfied, and he intimated that this man might some day or other again fill some situation under the Poor Law Board. That, however, would be impossible. The man had not absconded. He believed it was known where he might be found, and it was clear that the guardians might offer a reward for his apprehension and proceed against him. But with regard to his future employment, a record was kept at
  232
  the Poor Law Board of the resignation or discharge of any officer. The charge against him, his resignation, and the circumstances under which it was offered, were all recorded in the books of the Board. He could not be appointed without the sanction of the Board, and they would not give that sanction without a reference to their books. He confessed he did not know precisely what the guardians had to complain of. They were of opinion, no doubt, that there might have been a communication made to them immediately; but the Board thought it would be much more satisfactory to send the papers and instructions at once to the Inspector. He went down immediately to the spot. He received the letter on the 17th of February, and he was upon the spot on the 21st of February. The right hon. Gentleman would have the House believe that between the 14th of February and the 4th of March no communication from the Poor Law Board was received by the Board of Guardians or their clerk. That could hardly be the case if the Inspector was on the spot by the 21st of February, and in communication with the Committee who carried the resignation to the rest of the Board of Guardians. He did not see that, under those circumstances, the guardians had any reason to complain of any want of consideration or punctuality. He would not pretend to say that the Inspector had taken the very best course, because it would perhaps have been better if he had left the guardians to take proceedings against the schoolmaster before a court of justice. But the Inspector was a most honourable, intelligent, and experienced man, and had acted from the very best motives. There was something like unfairness in imputing to the Inspector a desire to "hush up" the matter. This was rather an odious imputation, and implied complicity. But nothing the Inspector did evinced any intention to hush up the matter. He had no acquaintance with the schoolmaster, he had no quarrel with the guardians, and he had no possible connection with the place or with any person that should lead him to deviate from the practice pursued by himself and the other Inspectors in similar cases. It could not be said that he hushed up the matter when he forced the officer to resign, and told the guardians they might proceed against him either at the assizes or before the justices. He trusted that after this explanation the right hon. Gentleman would be of opinion that there had been no neglect on the

  233
  part of the Board, nor any misconduct on the part of the Inspector in the course he had pursued in this matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE IN SCOTLAND.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. CRAUFURD, in rising to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the method adopted for expediting the collection of the Revenue in Scotland, as shown by Return No. 223 of the present Session, said, that he had been induced to do so partly by what had appeared in some of the prints, and partly from a desire to point out the dissatisfaction which was felt at the mode in which the business of collection was transacted. In 1857, an Act was passed fixing the close of the collection for the 1st January, the day on which the assessed and other taxes should be gathered into the Exchequer. Now this regulation had been found exceedingly inconvenient in its practical application, because it differed from the habits of the country in the collection of rents and the payment of the interest of money in Scotland; and it was probable that the dissatisfaction was really attributable to this circumstance. But, in addition, there was a feeling that the collectors, or rather the Comptroller, at the office in Edinburgh was desirous to make a good show by the rapid collection of the taxes in Scotland. No doubt, it was very desirable that a public officer should discharge his duty with ability and with all due expedition; but he ought not to go beyond that to the inconvenience and discomfort of those who have to pay the taxes; but he thought some little excess had been shown by the head officer at Edinburgh to show its zeal and activity. It was said that a course had even been pursued which was scarcely correct—that such was the coercion used towards the collectors throughout the country, that they had been compelled in many instances to advance money out of their own pockets for the purpose of closing the collection at an early period. He at first thought that there might have been a few exceptional cases of the kind; but the office at Edinburgh had published a tabulated statement of the form of collection, which drew his attention to the matter. It appeared from that statement—which being included in a Return for which he had moved was now before the House—that the collection in sixteen dis-
234
tricts had been closed on or before the 31st January, five before the 4th February, and that three others still remained unclosed. That seemed to have been the last bulletin circulated by the Head Office in Edinburgh, containing the latest dates at which any of the collections were closed. But other statements had been circulated, beginning the 3rd January, and going on to the 10th, the 17th, and the 24th. The one first in order only gave a statement of the collections closed without any statement of the collection. On the 3rd February it was stated that in no less than sixteen districts the rate per cent collected on the 31st January was 100 per cent; in the second class there were five between 90 and 100 per cent; and in the third class there were two between 80 and 90 per cent. Sixteen were alleged to have been closed on or before the 31st January, with all the sums collected. Now, he was told that that statement was incorrect; and in consequence of what he had heard he had moved for a Return of the various Estimates in a tabular form in detail, containing the amount of assessment, the net amount to be collected, and the percentage collected on the 1st March; and having heard that some collectors were in the habit of advancing money for the purpose of closing their collections, in order to appear in the good books of the Head Office, he inserted a column requiring the amount, if any, which had been advanced by the collectors for the purpose of closing the collection. He thought that, in order to relieve themselves from pressing applications from headquarters, some of the collectors might have advanced the money, intending to repay themselves out of the outstanding accounts. But to his astonishment, there was scarcely a district in Scotland in which the collectors were not in the habit of advancing money towards the collection; and the result of the return was, that out of sixteen districts that had collected cent per cent on the 31st January, there was scarcely one that had collected cent per cent on the 1st March, so that the statement in the document circulated from the head-office was perfectly inaccurate; and he submitted that it is not a correct mode of dealing with the affairs of the country to misrepresent the state of the collection of the revenue, and to holdup to discredit and disapprobation those collectors who had not thought proper to advance money out of their own pockets in order to enable the Comptroller

235
at Edinburg to make a good show in returning the state of his collection. It appeared strange that the servants of the country should be called upon to pay money in advance of the collection. He found that in Stirling, Clackmannan, and Linlithgow, the amount so advanced was £1,257; in Ross, Cromarty, Sutherland, and Caithness, the amount paid in advance was no less than £1,362. And up to this moment in scarcely any district had the collector been repaid, or able to repay himself out of the collection. Now he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what principle this system had been introduced—what right there was to exact such a course of proceeding from the collectors—whether they are paid for it—whether they receive an allowance or percentage—and how they could go to the taxpayer and ask him to pay taxes after they had published a statement showing that all the taxes had been already collected, and that the full amount of the revenue was in the Exchequer? It seemed to be a most extraordinary state of things. If this had been done voluntarily there would have been no harm in it; but since he first noticed the matter, he had received communications showing that these gentlemen were driven into the adoption of this system. The Comptroller in Edinburgh applied the whip so unsparingly to the collectors that it might be the whole of them had to advance the amount out of their own pockets, thus leading to the false inference that the collection had been closed. He had heard another statement, to the effect that these advances were made by the collectors in consequence of applications having been made in the most peremptory terms. Now it was not at all likely that they would have made advances unless they had been goaded to do so. True, the Comptroller did not ask them in so many words to make the advances, but he alluded to the consequence of not closing the collection, which was utterly impossible except by advancing the arrears—the consequence meaning dismissal from office. He wrote them asking them to close, and that credit would be given afterwards for arrears, the plain meaning of this being that they were to advance the arrears. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to show that matters were not exactly as they had been represented; but it certainly was extraordinary that out of those sixteen districts that were stated to have closed their
236
collections not one had really done so—that was, that all the taxes have not been gathered in until two months, or fully a month after the date put down. In almost all cases there was still an arrear due. In Aberdeen the amount advanced by the collector to close the collection was £696; in Argyle, Campbeltown, the amount was £775; in Argyle, Inverary, it was £396. On comparing the statements of the account, he found that in the case of Stirling, Clackmannan, and Linlithgow, where £1,257 were advanced, the sum still uncollected is £260; and that in Ross, Cromarty, Sutherland, and Caithness, where £1,300 were advanced, the amount still outstanding is £438, which the collector is still out of pocket. And he wanted to know this: Suppose some of the taxpayers should become insolvent, or dispute the rate, how were these collectors to recoup themselves? He submitted that this was a most unusual course to pursue, and that these collectors would not have advanced these large sums of money unless under some real or imaginary compulsion, quite sufficient in their minds to induce them to take that course. The total amount of money advanced by the various collectors, as shown by the Returns before the House, was £7,585 10 s. 11 d.; and the total amount still outstanding on the 1st March was £2,314 12 s. 3d., which had been paid out of the pockets of these gentlemen. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would state that such a practice did not meet his sanction, and that some remedy would be adopted to put an end to it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that with reference to the general system of collecting taxes in Scotland, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated very truly that they were collected in a different way from the manner in which they were formerly collected, and he regards the change as a grievance towards Scotland, arising from the present system of payment. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) means of judgment on the subject are two. The first was the direct assurance of those who were engaged in the service of the Government in the collection of these taxes; the second was the negative evidence derived from the absence of complaints; and he could say, especially with regard to the second of these means, that his belief was that the system of the collection of taxes which had been introduced into, and was

237
now in operation in Scotland, was satisfactory. He had far lees trouble, far fewer complaints with regard to the collection of taxes in Scotland than with regard to any other portion of the United Kingdom; and he thought that was an indication as to what was the real state of the case as to these collectors. With regard to the question to which his hon. Friend particularly referred, it was one which had not been brought under his notice until within the last three or four days. The fact was, that a document called a "billet" was printed under the direction of the Inland Revenue Board for Scotland, and in that document was stated what was the progress made in each of the collecting districts in the performance of that duty. It was true, he believed, as is stated by his hon. Friend, that in certain cases money to make up the collection was temporarily advanced by the collectors themselves. Well, now, that was not an usual mode of proceeding in the collection of taxes; but in his remarks his hon. Friend had not quite clearly observed the distinction between the various parties interested in this proceeding. He was bound to say, with regard to the management of the Inland Revenue in Scotland, that nothing could be higher than the character for integrity and asssiduity of the gentleman (Mr. Fletcher) who is at the head of that important branch of the public service, and nothing could be better than the conduct of that service generally. Mr. Fletcher's was not an independent department; it must be borne in mind that Scotland had its own peculiarities, and the department in that country has certain usages of its own. Now, the important question was, whether there was any pressure put upon the collectors to induce them to make these advances, or whether they made them of their own free will out of their own resources. Now, on that question he could speak most confidently. There was no pressure whatever on the collectors, except the public spirit with which they were actuated. He was told that that was what induces them to make these advances. He hardly need say that no request, no menace, had ever been communicated to them to do this; it was purely and absolutely their own act, growing out of the free will of these gentlemen themselves, although, undoubtedly, those who were laggards in the race do not like the practice. If his hon. Friend had any evidence in his possession showing
238
that a degree of pressure had been exercised upon these collectors to expedite the performance of their office by requiring them to advance money from their own resources, on the receipt of that evidence he promised that no effort on his part shall be spared to put a stop to such a practice; but so long as it was purely voluntary, and a point of honour among the collectors, he did not see the necessity of interference, because, unusual as the practice was, he thought he should have the opportunity of knowing more of it before he interfered; but if the hon. Gentleman could give any information that the slightest degree of pressure has been exercised towards these collectors, the matter should have his immediate attention. He was bound to say it was stated to him on the best authority that no distinction was drawn by the Department between those collectors who choose to adopt this practice and those who did not.

DISGRACEFUL STATE OF UPPER STREET, ISLINGTON.—QUESTION.
MR. COXsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he had had his attention called to the disgraceful and indecent proceedings which take place every Sunday evening in the Upper Street, Islington; and whether he will take measures for the protection of the inhabitants of that locality from the outrages and assaults to which they are now weekly subjected? The inhabitants of Islington, who paid about £20,000 a year for police rates, were much scandalized at the manner in which this public thoroughfare was kept by the police, and naturally believed that if they had the management of their own police such disgraceful scenes as were now witnessed in Upper Street, Islington, would, speedily be put an end to. During the last ten or twelve months it had been impossible for respectable women and young females to walk through this street on their return from their respective places of worship without being subjected to the most scandalous outrages by a set of ruffians who congregated on this wide and open thoroughfare, a fine promenade a mile in length, which the inhabitants were so proud of that they compared it to one of the boulevards in Paris. These respectable females were not only subjected to these indecent assaults, but their ears were polluted by language the most

239
horrible it was possible to imagine. He would not state to the House the language that had been communicated to him as being uttered and the acts done by these ruffians every Sunday evening with impunity. He felt satisfied that if the right hon. Baronet had been at all aware of the disgraceful scenes which took place every Sunday night in this locality, and the language used, he would have been the first to condemn it and endeavour to put a stop to it. Unfortunately the inhabitants were deprived of local self-government in this respect, and they were handed over to the authorities at Scotland Yard, who only gave some two or three policeman for the protection of the public against some 1,500 or 1,600 ruffians who assembled in the place every Sunday night with the determination of insulting and annoying not only the respectable inhabitants but every passer-by. Only one policeman was on duty there, and if he took an offender into custody the respectable female who had been assaulted was left to the tender mercies of the ruffian's companions. One man was apprehended last week, and when taken before the magistrate at the Clerkenwell Police Court, he was discharged bcause the female did not attend to prefer the charge against him. Such a decision, he thought, was only likely to aggravate and not lessen the evil complained of, and he very much regretted that the magistrate had not followed the example of another police magistrate and punished the offenders upon proof of the offence without the presence of the female who had been assaulted. In Newington, where a similar state of things prevailed some time ago, the offenders were punished, and he believed that those outrages had since ceased to be perpetrated in that locality. He felt quite satisfied that the Secretary for the Home Department was as desirous as anybody could be to put a stop to proceedings so disreputable, and he trusted he would take the necessary steps to accomplish that object.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that his attention had not been called to the subject before the notice was placed upon the paper by the hon. Gentleman. On inquiry he found why his attention had not been called to the matter. As his hon. Friend had stated, there existed in the neighbourhood referred to a wide and enjoyable walk, which on Sundays was much frequented. Among those who
240
availed themselves of the advantage which this walk offered were a great many disorderly young men, and he feared some disorderly young women also. A complaint was made to Sir Richard Mayne about the conduct of these young people, and no appeal had been made to himself because the inhabitants expressed themselves satisfied with Sir Richard Mayne's answer, and with the police arrangements which he promised should be made for the protection of the neighbourhood. The hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in saying that only one policeman was stationed at the spot, because six policemen were placed there, in addition to the occasional services of an inspector and serjeant. The inhabitants were told that the services of the police alone were not effectual to remedy the evil complained of, but that evidence must be given in any cases of misbehaviour by the person ill-treated, or by some respectable inhabitants who had been witnesses of the ill-treatment. His hon. Friend had alluded to one case in which the prisoner had been discharged by the magistrate. On that occasion evidence was given by the policeman, and a number of the inhabitants attended for the purpose of appealing for protection. The police had also apprehended persons for similar misconduct in Westminster Bridge Road, and Newington, and in these instances the magistrate had committed the prisoners, on the production of sufficient evidence, without requiring the appearance of the young women who had been insulted. On the occasion, however, alluded to by his hon. Friend the prisoner said that he was very sorry for what had been done, and promised that if forgiven he would not again frequent the neighbourhood. The magistrate (Mr. Barker) in discharging him, told him that if he were again brought before him on such a charge he would pass such a sentence on him as would keep him away not only from that, but any other neighbourhood for some time, and in answer to the statements of the inhabitants expressed his determination to act vigorously in the matter. Although the prisoner in this instance had been let off because of the non-appearance of the young woman who had been insulted, the magistrate had not stated his intention of treating every prisoner charged with a like offence in a similar manner. He believed that if any of the respectable inhabitants would take the trouble to give evidence in these cases the magistrate

241
would be fully justified in committing a I prisoner even in the absence of a prosecutrix. He could assure his hon. Friend that there was no unwillingness on the part of the authorities to afford a sufficient number of policemen—not, of course, to watch every single person, but to give such assistance and protection as was required.
MR. COXsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, whether, in case six policemen were found to be insufficient to control 1,600 ruffians, an increased force would be granted?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not know that there were 1,600 ruffians. He should hope that the 1,600 persons who frequented this very agreeable walk I were not all ruffians. The young women themselves, too, were not always unwilling I parties to the misbehaviour complained of. The police force should of course vary according to the circumstances of each particular exigency.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to inquire, whether the exclusive responsibility of placing a number of policemen in any locality rested with Sir Richard Mayne; or whether any share of that responsibility rested in the Home Office?
SIR GEORGE GREY: If an appeal were made to me, which was not done in this case, because the inhabitants had expressed themselves satisfied with the present arrangement, I should call upon the Commissioner of Police to explain the reason which induced him to fix any number; and if I saw that that number was deficient I would express to him that opinion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
(In the Committee.)
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  (1.) £48,836, Royal Palaces.
  (2.) £100,590, Public Buildings.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that he objected to several of the items in this Vote, on the ground that they ought to be included in the Army Estimates, instead of the Estimates for the Civil Service. Not only were they asked for money for the maintenance and repair of the Chelsea Hospital and the Tower of London, both military charges, but the rents of the Army Medical Inspection office—Delahay Street and Delahay Mews—were also
  242
  charged under the Vote, in addition to which there were large sums charged for the rent of the War Office. He regretted to find that a practice had sprung up within the last few years of charging the public with rent on buildings which were practically Crown property. He should also be glad to know why the Geological Museum, in Jermyn Street, was not included in the Vote this year? He wished to know why these items were omitted, and whether they appeared in any other Vote?
  MR. COWPERsaid, it had been the desire of the Government to place the various expenses of each Department, as far as possible, together in the same Estimate. The item for the Geological Museum had, therefore, been transferred to the Science and Art Department, and also the items for the furniture of the museums. With respect to the Tower of London, the portion for the expenses of which a sum was asked in this Vote did not come under the control of the military department, but, being a portion of an ancient palace, was managed by the Office of Works. With regard to Chelsea Hospital, although it was in one sense a military establishment, it had always been treated differently from such purely military buildings as barracks. The building was occupied by the Commissioners of Chelsea, and the cost of repairs came properly under this Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £12,000, Furniture of Public Offices.
  (4.) £99,090, Royal Parks, Pleasure Gardens, &c.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYrose to put two questions to the First Commissioner of Works. At present persons wishing to pass from Bayswater to Knightsbridge were compelled to do so by traversing three sides of a square, and he thought that an alteration might be made which would greatly conduce to the public convenience. He fully appreciated the beauty and the charms of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, but he believed that a sunken road might be made from Bayswater along the eastern side of Kensington Gardens, and carried on by a widening of the existing bridge over the Serpentine, and then be continued under Rotten Row to Knightsbridge. Such a road might be made without causing inconvenience or creating an eyesore. With regard to the second question, he would observe that equestrian exercise had now become so general, and especially with ladies, that it

  243
  might be termed an English institution. It appeared to him that the ride might very easily be continued from Rotten Row round Kensington Gardens without at all interfering with the public enjoyment of those beautiful gardens. He was fully aware of how much the public was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements he had made in the parks, and for the manner in which they were kept. He believed that no capital in Europe could boast such beautiful public gardens as we possessed. He would, therefore, ask the First Commissioner of Works to consider whether it was practicable and desirable to make a cart and carriage communication from Victoria or Buckhill Gate, Bayswater, to Knightsbridge, by means of a sunken road, the bridge over the Serpentine being widened, and a tunnel under Rotten Row, and to ascertain at what expense it could be done; and, whether it would be desirable to prolong Rotten Row, so as to form a road for riding all round the exterior of Kensington Gardens, like that lately made in Birdcage Walk.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought that the Committee were bound to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the admirable way in which the parks were kept. He hoped, however, that the general acknowledgment of that fact would not stimulate him to expend more money upon them, £30,000 was, after all, a good sum to pay for keeping up St. James's Park, the Green Park, Hyde Park, and Kensington Gardens.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he hoped that well-intentioned suggestions would not induce the right hon. Gentleman to destroy the real charm of the public parks. Those who lived in the metropolis must pay some price for the enjoyment of the parks. Either they must be kept as places of recreation, or they must be cut up for roads for the public convenience. The right hon. Gentleman ought to exercise the greatest jealousy with reference to all proposals for increasing the traffic across the parks. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would steadfastly adhere to his principle of preserving a great portion of the metropolis for the purpose of promoting the public health as well as for recreation. He (Mr. Powell) was glad to find that the parks were becoming year by year the resort of working men and their children, as well as of the higher and more educated classes, who some years since might be said to be the exclusive visitors of them. He felt bound
  244
  to pay his tribute of admiration to the right hon. Gentleman for the improvements he had effected in those parks. He hoped, however, that those improvements would not be carried to an extreme by any attempt to give them the character of gardens instead of parks.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he thought that a sunken road from Bayswater to Knightsbridge, across Hyde Park, might be made, which would be a great convenience especially to the residents at those places, and which would not in the slightest degree interfere with the objects to which the parks were primarily dedicated. The right hon. Gentleman deserved the greatest credit for the care which he took of the parks. It seemed to him that the House had become a great deal too fond of cutting down the expenditure upon the metropolis. Now, although they need not imitate the immoderate expenditure upon parks they ought not to allow themselves to be influenced by that parsimonious feeling which had been creeping in of late years. People who came to London from all parts shared in the enjoyment of these parks, and it was an object, therefore, to which the country at large ought to contribute.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not deny that the parks were very tastefully kept, but thought that every Member not actually connected with the metropolis ought to look with the greatest jealousy at this expenditure, and he should like to have an explanation of the circumstances under which they appeared on the Votes. Five additional parks had "cropped up" of late years. Battersea Park was one of them. It was understood that its expenses would be paid by the inhabitants and out of some fund mentioned at the time it was opened. Kennington and Victoria were also now parks. No doubt the arrangement and management of them all were admirable, but he wished to know how much each contributed to the Treasury.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought that a great reason for the expensiveness of these parks was the ornamental gardening, A large garden establishment, with hothouses and expensive plants of all kinds, had recently been commenced at Battersea Park, the cost of which had increased upwards of £2,000 this year. It would be well if the Treasury would put a check on the exuberant fancy of the right hon. Gentleman. He should like to have an explanation of the Ranger's Department, as distinguished from that of the Board

  245
  of Works. If a Ranger were not needed for Kensington Gardens, what did Hyde Park or St. James's Park want with one?
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, the Committee might at all events rest satisfied that sufficient money would be expended upon those parks so long as the metropolis was represented by such able Gentlemen as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lewis). It appeared by a foot-note in the Votes that the income derivable last year from the Royal parks and gardens, and which was paid into the Consolidated Fund, was £3,584 odd. Now a whole crop of parks had lately burst upon us. He wished to know how many of them contributed towards the amount of income to which he had referred.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) that it would be very desirable to enable carts and omnibuses as well as cabs to go across from Bayswater to Kensington during the day and night, provided that object could be attained without any sacrifice of the pleasure and enjoyment of the parks. The matter was thoroughly discussed in 1862—the Exhibition year—when it was proposed to make a sunken road across Kensington Gardens, and strong objections were urged against making a gash, as it was called, across Kensington Gardens. The reception which the proposal met with was not an encouragement to repeat it. That scheme, however, was much less objectionable than that now proposed by the hon. Baronet, which was to have two tunnels or sunken roads, one on each side of the bridge. One would have to pass under Rotten Row, and would make a disagreeable feature in that part of the park. His hon. Friend had pointed out the disadvantage to which Rotten Row was exposed by not leading anywhere; and, no doubt, it would be very desirable if Rotten Row could be prolonged round the outskirts of Kensington Gardens. It had been considered, and was feasible, but he was not prepared to do anything at present. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) had studied the Estimates more carefully, he would have seen that there were no new parks. Battersea Park was fifteen years old. The expenses of making it were defrayed out of a loan of money made by the Public Works Commissioners, and would be repaid in the course of time. When the land set apart round the park for building purposes was built upon there
  246
  would be an ample sum to repay the money advanced. The delay had arisen from the slowness of building operations in that part of the town, and perhaps also from the fact of there being a loll bridge there. He did not remember the date of Kennington Park, but certainly no new park had been made since he was in office. This was not an increasing Vote, and though it was slightly higher this year than last, it was lower than it had been in previous years. The expenses in the way of gardens and hothouses really formed a very small part proportionately of the whole expense. The great burden lay in the expense of maintaining the roads and watering them, and in keeping order by constables. There were seven miles of road in Hyde Park, and seventeen miles of walks. He was glad to find that the House was of opinion that the parks should be kept up in a perfect state. They were enjoyed by people coming from all parts of England, Ireland, and Scotland, they belonged to the Crown, were used by the nation, and ought to be worthy of the Empire. The £3,584 set down in the Estimates was the amount of receipts for grazing sheep in the parks. The grazing had the double advantage of improving the herbage and producing some revenue, and he must say that Battersea Park had contributed its full quota in that respect.
  SIR FRANGIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the ornamental water in the Regent's Park smelt so badly in hot weather that it was injurious to the health of the neighbourhood.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the £99,000 was all for the metropolis, with the exception of £2,000 for Holyrood Palace. There was nothing for Ireland in the Vote, though there was a magnificent park of between 6,000 and 7,000 acres in extent, close to Dublin, and though the Government were at this moment about to make a gross infringement on the public rights by handing over the Curragh of Kildare to the War Department.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know which of the metropolitan parks was self-supporting, and which of them contributed something towards the sum of £3,584 referred to.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that all the Royal parks contributed something to this amount, though not one of them was self-supporting, When they came to the Votes

  247
  for Ireland it would be found that a sum would be taken for Phoenix Park.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, they paid much more money than they got back.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that it would appear that none of the metropolitan parks were self-supporting, and that while some of them contributed a small sum towards their maintenance, the others were entirely kept up out of the public purse. He was glad to get the admission from his hon. Friend that they annually voted a large sum out of the public purse for the benefit of the metropolis. He hoped to live to see the day when there would be a successful resistance to this Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £49,456, New Houses of Parliament.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask for explanations on two or three points connected with this Vote; and first as to the clock tower, and the mode in which it was to be completed. Part of the original design was a large enclosed square between Westminster Hall and Bridge Street, and it was intended that the clock tower should form part of the block of buildings instead of rising from the ground independently. In consequence of the view of Westminster Abbey which was obtained from the open space in New Bridge Street it had been determined to depart from the original design of Sir Charles Barry, and have the clock tower springing from the ground instead of rising from a square, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) would give some explanation of the plans for the modification, and name the architect who was to carry it out. He considered, too, that plans of the proposed change should have been submitted to the view of hon. Members. The next question he wished to ask referred to the Peers' Robing Room and its decorations, especially, "Moses Coming Down from Mount Sinai," and the "Judgment of Daniel." He wished to know what was the arrangement between the Government and Mr. Herbert with respect to the "Judgment of Daniel." Had Mr. Herbert received full commission for the completion of the design? Were they in future years to have a painful controversy respecting the sum which should be paid to that most distinguished of modern artists? Had any negotiation been entered into with reference to the completion of the full design for the decoration of the
  248
  Robing Room? Two other pictures having been planned by the artist, he wished to ascertain whether any arrangement had been made in reference to the entire execution of the comprehensive plan first conceived? Another question he wished to ask referred to the Royal Gallery—namely, whether Mr. Maclise's picture of the "Battle of Trafalgar" was nearly completed?
  MR. COWPERsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that after the discussion last year respecting the remuneration of Mr. Herbert a Commission was appointed to consider the whole subject of remuneration for the wall paintings. That Commission recommended that the payment of Mr. Herbert for "Moses delivering the Law on Mount Sinai" should be raised to £5,000; and it also recommended that the agreements for those wall paintings should be cancelled, as they were inapplicable to present circumstances. The Government had acted on these recommendations, and were prepared to propose to Parliament the Vote now necessary in order to raise the payment for "Moses delivering the Law on Mount Sinai" to £5,000. They had asked Mr. Herbert what sum he should expect to receive for his next picture, "The Judgment of Daniel," and he named £4,000, which sum the Government were advised would be a proper one to give him; accordingly, an agreement had been entered into with Mr. Herbert for that amount. The design for this picture had been approved by the Fine Arts Commission, and was a fine composition, and there was every reason to hope that the next picture would equal the former in power, and expression, and impressiveness. Mr. Macliso had nearly finished his picture, and would shortly be entitled to receive payment, which was to be raised from £3,500, as it stood under the original agreement, to £5,000. The future paintings of Mr. Cope and Mr. Ward were to be raised by £100 each, according to the recommendation of the Fresco Commissioners, and each picture would in future be made the subject of a distinct agreement. The sum proposed for completing the clock tower and New Palace Yard was intended to be spent in this way:—The side of the clock tower which was now imperfect would have the same front as the sides towards Westminster Bridge and towards the river. It was proposed to take advantage of the higher level of

  249
  the ground in Bridge Street to make a subway, by which Members proceeding from Palace Yard might escape the danger of the present passage, and reach the other side of the road without crossing the causeway. This subway would open into the station of the Metropolitan District Railway, which was proposed to be made on the other side of Bridge Street, so that persons coming to and from Westminster would be able to pass into and out of the station without crossing the road. With regard to the open space, he would not adopt the suggestion of Sir Charles Barry of converting New Palace Yard into a quadrangle. It was proposed not to erect any more buildings around New Palace Yard. He preferred the grand effect of combining New Palace Yard and Parliament Gardens in one large open square, laid out as a whole, and securing a good view of the Abbey. The whole extent of space would therefore remain open; but it was proposed to put an iron fence where the wooden one now was, to cover the sloping ground with green turf, and to plant it with trees, for trees would flourish there if they were of the proper sort and well taken care of. Some expense would be incurred in levelling Palace Yard. In another year the arrangements would be completed for laying out Parliament Square, he had not been able to include all that in the Estimates this year. The architect intrusted with these matters was Mr. Edward Barry, who had shown much of the talent and power of his father, and the Department had entire confidence in him. The hon. and learned Gentleman would see clearly what was to be done from what he had stated. He had no specific plan to exhibit; but the plan the Government proposed would be gladly shown to the hon. Member.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, one question he had asked had not been fully answered, with regard to the pictures for the Peers' Robing Room. He had asked what arrangements were made with Mr. Herbert for the paintings to decorate that room, and whether the "Judgment of Daniel" was to be executed on the walls of the room, or on canvas, to be fixed after its execution.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the Fine Arts Commission had estimated for eight pictures, but Government were unwilling at present to commit themselves for that number. The last agreement was for the picture of "The Judgment of Daniel;"
  250
  but the complete series would, of course, be painted by Mr. Herbert. He had prepared designs, and they had been approved by the Fine Arts Commission. Although, therefore, the Government had not asked the House to commit itself by the approval of a new agreement for many pictures, yet it was generally understood that there was no intention to deprive Mr. Herbert of what the Fine Arts Commission had committed to him—namely, the completion of that room, whenever Parliament provided the funds. "The Judgment of Daniel" was not to be executed in the room, but in Mr. Herbert's studio, on canvas, and to be placed on the wall when completed. This arrangement had been submitted to Sir Charles Eastlake, who entirely approved it.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he was glad to think there could now be no doubt as to the future intentions of the Government, that Mr. Herbert should have the opportunity of completing the other pictures pointed out by the Fine Arts Commission in the room in which he had already achieved such success.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to ask, if the Government were determined not to allow a station on the Metropolitan Railway near the House of Commons? It had formerly been proposed to construct a railway close to the Houses of Parliament, but an objection, he understood, had been raised that it would interfere with the rights of the Crown. He wished to have some explanation upon this point?
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to know, if Mr. Herbert had abandoned fresco and adopted canvas?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the room in the Lords where "The Judgment of Daniel" was to be placed required by the Peers, who could not give it up to enable Mr. Herbert to paint the wall; the only alternative therefore open to him was to paint on canvas and carry it into the room after being completed. Mr. Herbert, who was the best judge of what his pencil could execute, had told him that the new painting would exectly harmonize in colour, tone, light and general appearance with that now on the wall. The Government had not objected to the station of the Metropolitan Railway, but to the railway taking possession of the tunnel from Palace Yard. The station would be not in Palace Yard, as was proposed, but opposite the tower, on the other side of Bridge Street.

  251
  The railway company had power to take the houses on the north side of Bridge Street, provided they obtained the assent of Government, and that assent would only be given on the condition that any houses which might be erected in lieu of those to be pulled down should be built in a style which would harmonize with the architecture of the Palace.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask, whether the houses were to be built in the Gothic style?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that they would be in the Tudor, not in the Gothic style.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished for information as to the large sum asked for the housekeeping expenses of the Houses of Parliament, amounting to £22,761. There was a sum of £4,775 for gas, the greater part of which, he understood, was consumed in the private residences in the Palace. This appeared to be an enormous sum for the purpose, and he was desirous to know whether the amount of gas was accurately measured by proper persons appointed for the purpose, as he thought there must be great waste somewhere?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the large amount of gas consumed had been already brought under his notice. Dr. Percy, under whose superintendence the Houses were lighted and warmed, had been making a careful measurement of the amount consumed, and they were rather surprised at the office to find how much gas was used in the private residences. The attention of the occupiers of the private residences had been called to the fact, and a considerable saving had already been effected. He had no doubt that next year they would be able to make a further reduction.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to ask what amount had been expended in the restoration of St. Stephen's crypt. There was an entry of £2,055 only in the Votes for that purpose, but he understood that it had, in fact, cost £30,000.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the chief expense connected with the crypt at present was incurred in lighting it with gas, and the gasburners would be expensive, as they were obliged to be in harmony with the rest of the structure. He could not say exactly what the restoration had cost, as it was included in contracts for the whole building; the stone work had been calcined in the fire, and had required to be renewed. He should say that a sum of
  252
  £3,500 would cover the cost of the decoration in painting, marble, and in painted glass. The charge for painting and gilding was £630.
  MR. DILLWYN: What is to be the use of this crypt?
  MR. COWPER: It is a place of worship, and I presume it will be used as such.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he wished to draw attention to the letters which appeared in the Standard, from a former officer of the House, complaining of the state of the boilers, and the danger likely to ensue from the want of proper superintendence. There were four steam boilers, connected with the warming and ventilation of the House, immediately underneath where they were sitting. He wished to know whether they were under proper scientific superintendence. He might also say that the ventilation of the House was most unsatisfactory, it being alternately either too cold or too hot. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to direct the officers of the House to attend to the matter, and, while he was seeking to surround hon. Members with the fine arts, would not altogether forget their comforts. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House often suffered considerable personal inconvenience.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would attend to the health and convenience of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches as well as of those occupying seats on the Government side of the House. The fact was, there were frequent complaints as to the ventilation on both sides of the House; for from some mysterious cause between the hours of four and six in the afternoon many Members were in a state of semi-asphyxia. He believed it was owing to the imperfect state of the ventilation.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the hon. Member need not have the slightest fear respecting the boilers, as Mr. Fairbairn had reported as to their entire safety, and had undertaken to keep them in order. He was sorry if the drowsiness of hon. Members were attributable to the ventilation, but everything possible should be done to supply pure air and to prevent hon. Members feeling any unpleasant effects from bad ventilation.
  Vote agreed to,
  (6.) £5,708, Embassy Houses, &c. at Paris and Madrid.
  (7.) £3,455, Embassy Houses, &c. at Constantinople.
  (8.) £60,000, New Foreign Office.
  (9.) £9,139, Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
  (10.) £17,893, Probate Court and Registries.
  MR. COWPERsaid, in answer to a question, that the buildings in Doctors' Commons stood in the way of the proposed new street from the Mansion House to Blackfriars, and would have to be pulled down. No expense would be immediately occasioned by pulling them down, because the Metropolitan Board of Works, which would purchase the property, would be bound to supply another registry, to which the deeds would be transferred until they could be removed together with the whole of the probate registers to one building in the proposed new courts of justice. Then the site of that registry would be for sale, when owing to the opening of the new street it would be more valuable.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £28,750, Public Record Repository.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask whether the same style of architecture would be adopted for the enlargement as in the present building, and whether there would be adequate provision made against the casualty of fire?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that one complete design had been made of the whole building, and this Vote would enable one wing and also a tower to be completed. The reason for proceeding with the tower in preference to the other parts was because it would give them a reservoir for water, which would be available against any outbreak of fire in the buildings in Rolls Court.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £12,000, New Westminster Bridge.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that there were very large estates the funds arising from which were applicable to the building of Westminster Bridge, but those estates had been taken by the Government, and were now merged with the other estates under the management of the Office of Woods, and the present expenses of that bridge would far exceed anything which those estates would yield. The history of the new bridge illustrated the unfitness of Government for the execution of such
  254
  works. The contractor having failed the Government undertook to build it themselves by measure and value. He thought what had been done showed that the Government were unable to construct a work which required skill. It cost a very large sum, and was certainly a very handsome structure; but although the bridge was a wide one, it was divided into narrow roads, along which it was intended that the traffic should go. Those Government grooves were so inconvenient that the police had great difficulty in compelling the public to keep to them; and now the trams were being taken up. The level of the bridge had also been altered, and some hundreds of tons of useless material with which the arches had been loaded were now being removed at an expense of nearly £10,000. He hoped that there would be no Vote of the same kind in the Estimates for another year. Moreover, there was a further expense to the State of £2,500 per annum for watering, cleansing, and lighting the bridge. As the bridge had been built at the cost of the country, it was surely not too much to expect that the local districts should pay for its cleansing, watering, and lighting as in the case of country bridges.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Member admit, although he said the Government could not construct a bridge that required any skill, that Westminster Bridge was a handsome structure. He declined to be responsible for what the hon. Member termed "the Government grooves," or trams on the bridge, because from the beginning he thought it a mistake to place them in the middle of the road, and they were now being removed to the sides. His motive for not at once insisting on the correction of the mistake of the engineer in that respect was, that it would have delayed the opening of the structure to the public. The present Vote would cover all the expenses that could be incurred for these alterations. The change in the level was required through Mr. Page the engineer not having strictly adhered to the Parliamentary plan. It would be very desirable that the parishes should undertake to pay for the cleansing and lighting of the bridge, but they could not easily be induced to do so. The answer of the parishes on that point was, that since its erection the bridge had been maintained out of trust funds. Although the item of £2,500 might be an annual

  255
  one, yet the State had received trust property which amounted, when taken, to £11,000 a year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £9,500, Nelson Column.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, that the designs for the lions for the column could not have been intrusted to better hands than those of Sir Edwin Landseer, but a long delay had taken place, and he wished to inquire when it was probable that the lions would be completed.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that Sir Edwin Landseer had been fastidious in doing this work, for feeling how much was expected of him, he was not content with anything which would fall short of the standard of excellence which he felt his genius could attain. He was happy to say that the model of the first lion was completed, and now in the hands of the casters, being put into metal, and he hoped that the others would follow very rapidly, so that, probably, next year they might see the whole four.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £4,500, Patent Office.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, it had been proved before the Select Committee of last year that the Patent Office was crowded and insufficient for its purpose, and he thought that spending any more upon it was like throwing good money after bad. It would be better to take the bull by the horns, and erect a suitable office and library at once.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to know if there was any present intention to carry out the recommendation of the Committee as to the patent library? With reference to the museum, he desired to be informed whether it was to be a museum confined to patent inventions, or including mechanical arts generally? Was the museum to be continued at Kensington, and was it to be upon the pattern of that in America or of the one in Paris?
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the Committee were unanimous that the Patent Office should be near Chancery Lane. They also thought that it was not desirable that the Museum should be in close proximity to the office. They also thought that it might be a museum of general mechanical inventions. The Government felt that accommodation should be at once provided for the Patent Office, while they thought that the museum might wait for further consideration. They also thought that no
  256
  better site than the present could be had for the Patent Office; and they therefore would continue it in the present building, to which, however, they would add another storey for a library room and for the convenience of reference. A portion of the house in Southampton Buildings, which was used for other offices, would soon be given up to the Patent Office, As to the Museum, the Government had not yet come to any decision upon it.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought the building in which the patent models were at Kensington was extremely inadequate for the purpose, and asked whether the Government would extend it.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that this building would soon be removed, but another might be erected.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not agree that the Museum should be at Kensington.
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) £10,000, Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
  SIR WILLIAM ERASERsaid, he believed it to be the general opinion that the duty of extinguishing fires in London ought not to be left entirely to the insurance companies, however meritorious their efforts had been, and however ready they were to assist in saving property, whether insured or not. It might be very desirable to establish a central fire brigade in the metropolis, but he thought it would be well if some explanation were given by the Government of this novel item amounting to £10,000.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the £10,000 would only be made use of if the House assented to a Bill which he should ask leave to introduce next week for the formation of a metropolitan fire brigade. At present the protection of the metropolis from fires was entirely in the hands of the insurance companies, which had proved efficient brigades for their own purposes; but the Committee of 1862 reported that the means now in existence were quite inefficient to protect the metropolis. It was, therefore, proposed to place the duty in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The insurance companies had agreed to contribute £10,000 a year towards the new brigade; the Metropolitan Board would levy a rate of not more than a halfpenny in the pound within the metropolitan area for the same purpose; and, in consideration of the large amount of Government property and

  257
  of public buildings which would enjoy protection, it was thought not unreasonable that £10,000 per annum should be contributed in aid of the brigade from the general taxation of the country, that being the same proportion which was contributed to the cost of the metropolitan police. The total cost of the brigade would be £50,000 a year.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, there could be no objection to the imposition of a tax on the metropolis for the protection of the property of its inhabitants. But he saw no reason why the country generally should be required to contribute to such a charge. Were not the public buildings insured, and if they were insured, was it not the business of the insurance companies to provide against their destruction? That was a matter in which the great question of general and national, as distinguished from local and metropolitan taxation was involved, and he held such decided views upon the subject that he should feel it his duty to oppose the Vote.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the proposed payment was not in aid of the local rates of the metropolis, but in respect of the protection which would be enjoyed by public buildings in which the whole country had an interest. They were in London because London was the scat of the national Government. It was only reasonable that the Houses of Parliament and public offices in which the whole business of the country was transacted, should be protected from fire by the help of the public funds.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that the rate would be paid all over the metropolis, and why should not the Government pay as well as everybody else for the protection which would be afforded to the Government buildings?
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the explanation of the Home Secretary was more remarkable for ingenuity than for candour. He said that this Vote was for the protection of public property. But the proposed fire brigade was for the protection of property generally in the metropolis; and the protection of the public buildings was only a collateral circumstance. This was another attempt to dive into the public purse for the benefit of the metropolis; it would add to the profits of the insurance companies, amounting to a grant to them, so that they also would share in the general taxation of the country. There was no pretext for the Vote.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the House was not asked to vote the whole sum required for the protection of life and property in the metropolis, but only to contribute to the general charge in respect of the property of the nation, such as the Houses of Parliament, the Palaces, the public offices, and Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he should support the Vote, believing it to be a step in the right direction. He thought the Government ought to contribute their fair proportion towards the rates of the country.
  MR. BRADYsaid, if the Vote were agreed to, other large towns would ask the House to make them grants for the establishment of fire brigades. The reduction of the fire insurance duty would greatly improve the business of the fire offices, and there was the less reason for subsidising them with this Vote of £10,000 for that was the real object of the Vote.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that the existing brigade was supported by those who insured their property; the State did not insure, and it was not right that those who did, should have to bear the cost of protecting the national property. In Manchester and Glasgow the fire insurance offices did not provide brigades, but they were provided by the town.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he wished to know, whether the contribution of £10,000 would be repeated in future years? He thought it too large.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to inquire, what would be the character of the brigade which was about to be established?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Government could not attempt to bind the House of Commons in future years. The sum which was now asked for was intended as a contribution towards the establishment of a fire brigade of a more extensive character than that which now existed. That brigade would be placed under the management of the Metropolitan Board of Works; the insurance companies would contribute a sum towards the general expenses, and would hand over their plant and engines; and the brigade would be supported partly by a general rate and partly by a contribution from the insurance offices and a grant from the public revenue in consideration of the protection which would be afforded to the national buildings.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that hon. Gentle men talked of the necessity for insuring the Houses of Parliament, but they had already done that by a Vote of £1,650 which the Committee had passed that evening.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the Vote which had been already passed was merely for means for the extinction of fire within the Houses of Parliament; but the £10,000 now asked was to provide for fire brigades outside. One of its purposes was to secure fire engines for the security of property on the banks of the river, including docks, such as those at Woolwich; and a Government contribution was necessary. When hon. Gentlemen considered what the loss would be if Woolwich Dock yard were consumed by fire; and the various public offices, barracks, arsenals, that were to be preserved, they would not grudge the sum required.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that £10,000 a year represented an insurance upon £4,800,000, and he thought this a most expensive method of insuring public property. He wished to know why the brigade was not to extend to all Government establishments throughout England?
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he hoped it would be remembered that it was not merely buildings, but valuable records and public papers that were to be preserved.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) £20,000, Public Offices Site.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to ask, whether this included the purchase of the block of houses extending from opposite the Duke of Buccleuch's house towards Westminster Abbey?
  MR. COWPERexplained that he had intended to introduce a Bill for the purchase of the property opposite the Duke of Buccleuch's house and down to Upper Charles Street. Arrangements could not be made in time for the introduction of a Bill this Session, but he hoped that it would be submitted to the new Parliament.
  Vote agreed to.
  (17.) £1,559, Legation House, Tangier.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
  Committee to sit again on Monday next.

ECCLESIASTICAL LEASING ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 140.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. W. LESLIEsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation of its objects.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Bill was framed to remedy an anomaly which now existed in regard to chief rents and quitrents arising out of property in the north of England.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday next.

  DOCKYARD EXTENSIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Lord CLARENCE PAGET, Bill to enable the Admiralty to contract for certain works in connection with the extension of Her Majesty's Dockyards, ordered to be brought in by Lord CLARENCE PAGET and Mr. CHILDERS.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 145.]

  CROWN SUITS, &C. BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to amend the procedure and practice in Crown Suits in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sir GEORGE GREY, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 146.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Isle of Man Disafforestation (Compensation) * (91); Metropolitan Houseless Poor (70).
Committee—Marriages (Lambourne) (83) [H.L.]
Report—Marriages (Lambourne) (83) [H.L.]; District Church Tithes * (101) [H.L.]
Third Reading—Record of Title (Ireland) * (97) [H.L.]; Sheep and Cattle * [58]; Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation * (52), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL GANGS.

  MOTION FOR ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to request that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that the Commission appointed in answer to an Address of this House on the 18th February, 1862, to inquire into the employment of Children and young Persons in Trades and Manufactures not already regulated by Law, do include within its Inquiries Children and young Persons employed in some parts of the country under an organized system known as that of Agricultural Gangs, said, that of late there had been constant reference made in newspapers and other publications to the agricultural gangs in different parts of the kingdom. He had not been able to institute himself much personal inquiry into the subject, but he had received information of an important character with reference to these agricultural gangs of children, upon which he could rely, and he should be able to show that it was a subject well worthy of attention. His statement rested mainly on a paper read by the Rev. Thomas Hutton, rector of Stilton, before the Social Science Meeting at York in 1864, a gentleman who had devoted a great deal of time to this matter, he related—and his testimony was confirmed by that of many other persons—that this abominable system had been in operation in Norfolk for upwards of twenty-five years, in relation to gangs of women and children; but what he wished more particularly to call attention to were the gangs of children—some of boys, some of girls, and other mixed gangs of boys and girls of tender ages. They prevailed to a great extent in the Fen district, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, and in parts of Northamptonshire and Norfolk. They were to be found also in other parts of the country, but not so

  175
  widely. The children were of very tender ages, varying from five years to sixteen years of age, and they were formed into gangs of from ten to sixty, according to circumstances. The children were hired from the parents by a person who was called by the names of "gang-driver" or "undertaker," and the mode of transaction was this—that he contracted with the parents for the services of the children and then he afterwards let their labour out to the farmers at so much per score, and at other times by the acre. The children were employed in different kinds of farm labour, and they frequently had to walk long distances, and from parish to parish to their day's work. The "driver" or "undertaker" was generally a labouring man, who was not seldom of very dissipated habits, and his conduct towards the children was very severe, his object being to get as much labour as he could out of them. The effect of this system upon children of such tender years was of the most pernicious and demoralizing character. Being away from their natural protectors, and having no power of appeal, and no help against the oppression to which they might be exposed, these children were no better than slaves; in fact, they were slaves to all intents and purposes. They had all the conditions of slavery—with a slave-market and a slave-dealer—the children were sold by the parents to the "undertaker," who took charge of them, and set them to work wherever their services were required without any responsibility attaching to them. The system had a most serious effect, both physically and morally, on these poor children. The same rev. gentleman further stated in a brief description of the gang in a parish where the system had been in operation, though not to its present extent, for twenty years—
  "The population is about 3,000. Here all the farmers encourage the gangs. There are eight gangs at work, containing about forty children each—five of these are mixed gangs of boys and girls; two consist entirely of girls, and one is formed of boys only. During the three winter months, the average attendance at school is 100 boys and eighty girls, but when the gangs are in full work, these numbers are reduced to forty and twenty respectively. The association of the younger children with the hardened, wicked, and corrupted boys and girls of fifteen and sixteen years of age is described as most demoralizing. Their language is awful; vice and immorality in every form are the fruit of the system. These children may be frequently seen on a Saturday night, as late as ten o'clock, going from one beer-shop to another, in search of their driver, for their week's wages. The educational status of this
  176
  parish is represented to be 50 per cent lower than that of the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire."
  That description exactly agreed with the testimony he had received from all his correspondents in all other parts of the country where the system prevailed. When children of tender years, especially girls, were employed under such a system, and frequently in all weathers, they were exposed to most serious injury to their health; but the moral contamination to which they were exposed was positively frightful. Gangs of one sex, having no proper superintendence over them, were bad; but when the two sexes were combined in the same gang the vice and immorality which resulted were fearful to contemplate. Of course such a life unfits girls for domestic service, or for their future position as wives and mothers. The difficulty of obtaining suitable female domestic servants in those districts amounts to an absolute impossibility. Where the system prevailed many parents had no choice, but must either send their children to the gangs or lose employment for them altogether. This was a state of things utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the age, and entirely at variance with the principles of recent legislation as applied to other branches of industry. He thought, therefore, their Lordships would agree with him that the case called for an inquiry, in order to see whether the facts were as they are represented to be, and whether the evil does not admit of a remedy. Such an inquiry was due to the manufacturers, whose employment of children and young persons the Legislature had subjected to regulation and investigation. They are accused of having been exceedingly sharp in looking after the abuses of factory labour, while they had sheltered those connected with agricultural industry. An opportunity was now presented to them of showing the reverse to be the fact. He, therefore, appealed confidently to their Lordships to accede to a Motion having for its object the extension of the inquiries now being made by the Commission to which he had referred to the employment of children and young persons in agricultural gangs.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to request that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that the Commission appointed in answer to an Address of this House on the 18th February 1862, to inquire into the Employment of Children and young Persons in trades and Manufactures not already regulated

  177
  by Law, do include within its Inquiries Children and young Persons employed in some Parts of the Country under an organized System known as that of Agricultural Gangs."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLNsaid, he hoped their Lordships would accede to the noble Earl's Motion. He thanked the noble Earl heartily for bringing it forward. In the South Eastern part of his diocese he had received communications from clergymen which entirely bore out the statements of the noble Earl. He was quite aware that the inquiry was not to embrace female labour in general, but the two were intimately connected. The evils of early field labour haunted the girls who had been subjected to it through life. Females who had been brought up to gang labour were not only unfitted, but they were indisposed for home duties. Once having tasted what were called the sweets of liberty, they preferred field work to indoor domestic labour, and when they went to field labour their infants were "stilled" with laudanum and often, no doubt, unintentionally, poisoned to death. In Lincolnshire, the general death-rate was low, but the rate of infant mortality was high, where the system prevailed. His correspondents had informed him that this gang labour had the most demoralizing and profligate effect on the youth of both sexes, and fostered the most vicious habits amongst them. He hoped the attention which the noble Earl had called to this subject would put a stop to the evil, and if so, his Lordship would add another to the many claims which he had on the gratitude of the country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that although he knew of circumstances under which the gang system was of advantage to boys, nevertheless, on the whole, he did not think it was a practice to be encouraged. He, therefore, concurred in the propriety of the inquiry suggested by the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords, with White Staves.

CONFESSION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.—LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, who had given notice of his intention to inquire if the public report of the proceedings in the magistrates' court at Trowbridge, as held on Thursday, the 4th of May, were authentic, from which re-
178
port it would appear that the Rev. A. D. Wagner, described as perpetual curate of St. Paul's, Brighton, was as a witness before that Court when a prisoner was under examination on a charge of murder, and that the said A. D. Wagner declined answering a question pertinent to the case, alleging that what he knew was under the Seal of Confession; and to ask the Lord Chancellor whether such an outrage to the Court, unknown to the laws of England, should have been passed over; and also whether the said A. D. Wagner should not be made amenable for the same, and whether the said magistrates should not have thereupon committed him? The noble Marquess said, that although the facts were well known he thought it right to inquire from the highest legal authority in the realm whether any witness, clergyman or other, was justified in refusing to answer a legal question judicially put to him on the ground that he had received his information in confession? At the present moment the public mind was occupied with this matter, and, having been acting as a magistrate for more than half a century, he confessed that it appeared to him incomprehensible that the Rev. Mr. Wagner should have been allowed to decline answering the question put to him by a legally constituted Board of Magistrates. In the observations he had to make he would be cautious not to raise any question involving the unfortuate position of the young woman who was now so much the object of public solicitude. The matter was important enough in itself. He would anticipate the answer that might be given to him by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, so far as his knowledge of the law enabled him, and would say that there was nothing in laws of England in the Canons of the Church which would justify a witness in refusing to answer a legal question. All he knew was, that if in the course of his experience as a magistrate such a case had arisen, he should have known how to deal with it on the spot by committing the witness who obstinately refused to answer. He would now state how the matter arose. It appeared that the Rev. Mr. Wagner was examined at Trowbridge as a witness in the case of Miss Kent, charged on her own confession with murder, and it appeared by the newspapers that the rev. gentleman declared that he would decline to answer any question revealing any-

179
thing which had passed at the confessional. The Chairman of the Board of Magistrates reminded him that he had sworn before God to speak the truth; upon which the rev. gentleman replied that his duty to God forbade him to divulge anything which had been said in the confessional, and under the seal of confession. Under these circumstances, the refusal of the Rev. Mr. Wagner to answer certain questions suggested an inquiry as to what the law of England was on the subject, and he would quote two cases bearing on the subject. One was the case of a Roman Catholic priest in Scotland who, on refusing to give evidence, was committed for contempt of court. An application was made to the Home Secretary for his release before his term of imprisonment had expired, and Sir George Grey replied by Mr. Waddington, the Under Secretary of State, that if he were to remit the sentence without an admission of error on the part of the Catholic priest, and without an assurance that he would not again adopt in a similar case the same course, he (Sir George Grey) would be giving a sanction to the assumption of a privilege by ministers of every denomination which, he was advised, they could not claim, and which would tend, even in the most serious cases, to defeat the ends of justice. Another case was that of the Rev. John Kelly, a Roman Catholic priest, who at the trial of a prisoner at Durham for robbery in March, 1860, refused to reveal the name of the person who had given him a watch which had been stolen, for the purpose of restoring it to the owner, the reason assigned for his refusal to give evidence being that he had received the information in confession. The Judge, thereupon, committed him. A Question was then asked in the House of Commons by Mr., now Sir George Bowyer, when the late Sir George Lewis, then Secretary of State, said, that no privilege existed in this country with respect to the clergy of any denomination enabling them to decline answering a question on the ground that they would thereby disclose something confided to them in confession; and Sir George Lewis added that, in his opinion, the Judge in this case had acted with perfect legality and had no option but to commit the witness. The law had also been laid down by high legal authorities that confession to a priest, whether a Roman Catholic or Protestant,
180
was not privileged. In an address issued in 1862 by the Rev. J. Going, incumbent to the parishioners and congregation of St. Paul's, Lorrimore Square, Walworth, and signed also by his two curates, Mr. Helder and Mr. Abbot, these gentlemen recommended confession, one of the inducements being that "your clergy are bound by a most solemn oath never to betray your confidence." He should like to know from the highest authority whether such an oath was authorized by the Church of England or allowed by law. In judicial proceedings in England, whether a question was a pertinent one or not, was it possible that a witness could be allowed to turn round and say, "I will not answer it because what I know was disclosed to me under the seal of confession?" Such a reply made one doubt whether one was living in Rome or in England; and he should, therefore, be glad of an answer to the questions he had asked upon this subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I understand the notice of the noble Marquess, the first Question he desires me to answer is, whether the newspaper report of the proceedings before the magistrates is correct. That is quite beyond my power to answer, for I have very little time to read the newspapers. With regard to the remaining Questions—for whether they are one or more than one I cannot very well discover—I must congratulate the noble Marquess on the industry and success with which he has accomplished the understanding of the law of England upon this subject; an understanding so complete that it was quite supererogatory to put any question to the Lord Chancellor. The noble Marquess has very correctly stated the law, and with a much greater profusion of authorities than it would have been in the power of the Lord Chancellor to furnish. There can be no doubt that in a suit or criminal proceeding a clergyman of the Church of England is not privileged so as to decline to answer a question which is put to him for the purposes of justice, on the ground that his answer would reveal something that has been made known to him in confession. A witness is compelled to answer every such question, and the law of England does not extend the privilege of refusing to answer to Roman Catholic clergymen who have obtained the information in confession from a person of their own religious persuasion. There can be no doubt, therefore, that Mr. Wagner

181
was under an obligation to answer the question put to him if it had been insisted on. I think it is a matter of regret that the magistrates did not insist upon an answer to the question, because an evil precedent may be set by the refusal to answer in such a case. It is quite clear, however, that in a matter so well settled as this is, the refusal by the witness to answer the question must have been known to be really a refusal on his part to submit himself to the law. Fortunately, the magistrates appear to have had ample material without the information which Mr. Wagner declined to give, and, therefore, I must assume that they acted upon good grounds in not visiting him with the consequences with which he might have been visited. An order seems to have been made for the commitment of the prisoner, and therefore there has been no failure of justice. It is unnecessary, then, to take any notice of what has taken place, because I am confident if it had been necessary for the purposes of justice the magistrates would not have failed to insist that this gentleman should answer the question put to him.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I do not know whether the law on this subject is quite clear to your Lordships. Mr. Wagner had no privilege at all to withhold facts which came under his knowledge in confession; but the question is, what power the magistrates have to deal with witnesses who are before them and who withhold evidence under similar circumstances. Now Mr. Wagner, as I understand, appeared voluntarily with Miss Kent before a magistrate; and it is rather extraordinary that, under these circumstances, Mr. Wagner should have refused to answer the question. But Mr. Wagner having refused to answer a question, it appeared to him (Lord Chelmsford) the magistrates had no power to make him answer it. We may, perhaps, find a reason for this in what is called the Justices' Act, 11 & 12 Vict., where it is provided that if the magistrate has reason to believe that a person will not voluntarily attend before him to give evidence, he may issue a summons, and if the witness still absents himself, a warrant may be issued to compel his attendance. But the words of the Act in the case of a witness refusing to answer are extraordinary. The Act goes on to say that if a witness so summoned or brought before the magistrates upon a warrant refuses to be sworn, or to affirm, or to answer any question that may be put
182
to him, then the magistrate may commit him to prison for seven days, there to remain unless in the meantime he shall proceed to answer the question. But Mr. Wagner voluntarily attended before the magistrates, and so the magistrates had no power to commit him when he refused to answer the question; they had no power to act as I think they ought to have acted supposing Mr. Wagner had come before them on a summons or a warrant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been told that in one of the morning papers there is a letter from Mr. Wagner, who, in answer to some complaint of his conduct, is made to say, or says, that he had received a subpoena to appear.
LORD CHELMSFORD: The words of the Act are—
"If on the appearance of such person so summoned either in obedience to such summons, or on being brought before him by virtue of a warrant, such person shall refuse to be sworn, or having been sworn shall refuse to answer such questions concerning the premisses as shall be then put to him, the justices of the peace may commit him to gaol for any time not exceeding seven days, unless he shall, in the meantime, proceed to answer the question which has been put to him."
So that the Act only applies to cases in which the witness appears on a summons or a warrant. If the fact was as stated by his noble and learned Friend, he regretted that the magistrates did not act upon the law and commit Mr. Wagner.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHcongratulated himself on the fact that the law could no longer be misunderstood. It had been explained very clearly by the highest authority, and he hoped that all those who had been meditating how to trade on the delusions they had been promoting in the country would be disappointed in the result. He would now proceed to ask another question, which was simply this—whether Her Majesty's Government, assuming that they knew, as they ought to have known, what had been lately going on in many parish churches of the metropolis and elsewhere—he could not say surreptitiously, for everything had been done openly; assuming that the audacious attempts which had been lately made by several ministers holding preferments in the Established Church to warp the services of the Church of England to their own Romanizing views were known to the Government, whether they intended to take any steps to prevent the continuation or recurrence of such practices? He should not be justified in bring-

183
ing the subject under the notice of the House were he not prepared to give some proof of the existence of the practices of which he complained beyond what was derived from the ordinary channels of the newspapers. He would now mention a few instances respecting which there could be no mistake. On Good Friday and Easter Sunday last, there were services and ceremonies in several churches in connection with the Church of England, altogether different from those required by the Book of Common Prayer, and in opposition to the doctrines of the Church. By the 2nd Article in the 36th of the Canons of 1603, which Article every minister of the Church had to subscribe, the minister declared, with reference to the Book of Common Prayer—
"That he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed, in public prayer, and administration of the sacraments, and none other."
It appeared that that declaration had not been adhered to, and the following was a brief statement of what had occurred in some churches in London and elsewhere. In the church of St. Alban's, Holborn, the sermon on Good Friday was followed by the chanting of the "Reproaches," which "Reproaches" constituted, according to the Roman Missal, a leading portion of "the Mass of the Pre-sanctified," on Good Friday, in the Roman Catholic Church; not one word of which was to be found in the Book of Common Prayer, or authorized by any of the Church's formularies. At two o'clock in the afternoon, after the Litany, a ceremony entitled the "Three Hours' Agony," which lasted three hours and a half, was gone through; the order of the service being the chanting of one of our Lord's words by the choir, a short sermon on that word, then a pause, after which the playing of soft music by the choir, this proceeding being gone through seven times, the bell tolling for each service. At nine o'clock on Easter Saturday evening the choir and clergy entered the church in procession, chanting and carrying banners, one of them being the "Banner of the Resurrection." For these processions and banners there was no authority in the Book of Common Prayer. The words used in the Good Friday ceremony, as taken from the Roman Missal, were, "Behold the Cross on which hung the Salvation of the World," and then the mode of uncovering the cross was prescribed—one arm of the cross being first unveiled, and then another, the choir each
184
time chanting the Ecce lignum. Then the cross being laid down before the altar, the priests and choir, two-and-two, went on their knees to kiss the feet of the crucifix. The noble Marquess then read passages from the Roman Missal and a Tractarian Prayer Book, in order to show the similarity of the ceremonies prescribed in both, and then proceeded to say that in St. George's-in-the-East, on. Good Friday, the sermon was followed by the "Reproaches" from the "Mass of the Pre-sanctified." Later in the day the service of the "Three Hours' Agony" and "Seven Last Words" wholly unauthorized by the Church of England—was gone through. In Holy Trinity Church, Vauxhall, the evening service on Good Friday commenced with a hymn, and then "Meditations on the Stations of the Cross," an essentially Roman Catholic service, not a word of which was in the Book of Common Prayer. In St Paul's Church, Walworth, on Good Friday, the "Reproaches" were gone through, the congregation being on their knees. In St. Mary Magdalene's, Munster Square, on Easter Monday, it was stated that a procession entered the church, chanting, in the following order:—Churchwardens with staves, Banner of the Cross, two thurifers in scarlet and lawn cottas, acolyte with navicula (incense boat), banner of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, choirmen, banner of our Lord, deacon and subdeacon, celebrant, vested in alb and chasuble. Incense was used in the church. In St. Matthias' Church, Stoke Newington, there was a service of six hours' duration, consisting of "Meditations on the Passion," on Good Friday, including the "Reproaches." On Easter Sunday incense was used. Ceremonies and services of a similar kind took place in Christ's Church, Clapham; the Church of St. Mary Magdalene, Paddington; St. Michael's, Brighton; and St. Raphael's, Bedminster, in the diocese of Gloucester and Bristol. In St. Lawrence's Church, Norwich, the sermon was preached from what is called the altar, and the large bell was tolled from nine a.m. till three p.m. On Easter Saturday evening there was a procession with a brass processional cross, incense boat, and thurifers. On Easter Sunday the rector celebrated in cloth of gold vestments, and in an arch of the church a gridiron was suspended, which was said to be the emblem of the patron saint. At St. Barnabas Church, Leeds,

185
the so-called altar was vested in black, and contained a large engraving of the crucifixion. There were fourteen services, one being held every hour. At the church of St James' the Less, Liverpool, the "Three Hours' Agony service" was gone through on Good Friday. On Easter Saturday there was a procession, headed by a cross-bearer, and incense was used. On Palm Sunday there had been a procession headed by the cross, which was veiled, boys and men carrying palm branches, which were elevated during the reading of the Gospel. At the church of Saviour and Cross, St. George's Mission (St. George's-in-the-East), there was, on Thursday, April 27, a procession with cross and banners, and the hymn Tantum Ergo (the Transubstantiation hymn of the Roman Catholic Missal) was sung. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether they thought this was a state of things which ought to be allowed to go on in the Kingdom of a Protestant Sovereign? They could not pretend to be ignorant of these abominable proceedings. Considering that they could not be acceptable to the Prelates of the Established Church, he should be glad to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to put a stop to them. He knew what was the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts. They only existed since the reign of Henry VIII. until a better state of things could be devised. As for the power which they had formerly exercised over probate and divorce cases, the Legislature had abolished their jurisdiction. The right rev. Bench knew that if they took proceedings they would be in the position of a person attacked by a nest of hornets, and would be stung to death. He very well knew that from this quarter they would meet with no redress. But the right rev. Prelates ought not to be called upon to put their hands in their pockets to put an end to such proceedings. He thought that Her Majesty's Government, if they were a Government at all, ought either to deny this state of things, or knowing them, devise some remedy to assist the right rev. Bench to redress these evils. He claimed for the Church of England that protection which he was sure that the head of the Church would extend to it. He hoped the noble Earl (Earl Granville) understood his question.
EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly do not quite understand the question of the noble Marquess as it appears upon the
186
Notices, and I should like to know whether the question the noble Marquess wishes me to answer is the question he has put upon the Notices or the question he has just asked. The Government are not prepared to deny the existence of certain innovations in the mode of conducting Divine worship by certain clergymen. The noble Marquess asks whether I am prepared to state that such things ought to be; and next, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any measures to put an end to such proceedings. Now, I am not in a condition to affirm, and certainly I am not in a condition to deny, the truth of the statements he has made, still less can I say that, in my opinion, these innovations are such as ought to be made. Neither am I prepared to deny the statement that the right rev. Prelates have no remedy except by putting their hands in their pockets. With regard to the question of the noble Marquess as to the intentions of the Government, I have to inform him that no measure on the subject is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: As the noble Marquess has referred to my diocese, I ought to explain the course which I have thought it right to pursue. I can assure the noble Marquess, both for my right rev. Brethren and myself, that if we were acquainted with any distinct violation of the law we should not be deterred by the consideration of any expense, however ruinous from bringing the offenders to punishment. There is, however, very great difficulty in knowing what exactly the law is, and my rule is not to interfere unless I am sure that I have the law on my side. There is, moreover, considerable doubt in most of these cases as to the facts. The noble Marquess read a document—I do not know on what authority—of a kind which is very often sent to me—either an extract from a newspaper, or a statement sometimes anonymous, and sometimes signed by a feigned name; and although I might be induced in certain cases to make inquiry, yet it would be out of the question to take proceedings on such grounds. The answer I immediately give when I have any means of communication with the complainant is, that I should be glad to know whether the person who sends this information knows the matter to be true of his own knowledge, and, if so, whether he will be ready to come for-

187
ward and substantiate the facts. There is, I have found, a good deal of zeal in writing anonymous letters, but not so much in coming forward to bring the matter to a test; so that there is first a difficulty in ascertaining the facts, and next in knowing the exact state of the law in these cases. The noble Marquess alluded to three of my churches. He said that in one of them something that he called a Tractarian Prayer Book was used, instead of the Prayer Book of the Church of England. There can be no doubt that any clergyman who might do such a thing would be suspended by the Courts immediately, and I do not think that any expense would be incurred in proceeding against any clergyman who should violate the law, either by using a Tractarian Prayer Book, or any other Prayer Book except that recognized by Act of Parliament. I very much doubt, however, whether such a thing has been done. I remember an instance in which I was told that such a case had occurred; but I found that what really took place was that a certain hymn had been used which was used by the ancient Church, and also, no doubt, by the Church of Rome. We know that great liberty is conceded as to the hymns sung in our churches; but if any well-authenticated case came before me in which another Prayer Book had been used I should immediately put the matter in the hands of my chancellor. It is stated in another document that three clergymen, two of whom are in my diocese, have taken an oath not to reveal what they heard in confession. All I can say is that they have not made such an oath to me, or, I believe, to any bishop who has ordained or instituted them. I will further say that any person whatever who should administer such an oath would be guilty of an offence against the law, and that to administer any oath except by a notary public or under an Act of Parliament is a misdemeanor, and punishable before a magistrate; and whether that oath was taken not to divulge anything heard in confession, or for any similar purpose, would make no difference. With regard to another matter to which the noble Marquess has referred—the service at St. Alban's—I have no means of knowing at this moment whether what occurred has been accurately stated; but I believe there is no impropriety in saying that, in consequence of information given to me lately, I did request the Archdeacon
188
of London to visit that church, and his report is at present in the hands of the chancellor of the diocese. What the result of those inquiries may be I cannot, of course, say; but I am not confident that any distinct violation of the law in its present state will be proved. I trust, however, that what I have stated will be enough to show that, for my own part, and I am sure I may speak for my right rev. Brethren, we are not unaware of the dangers alluded to, and that we shall not be deterred from maintaining the law by any fear of the expense or trouble which this may involve.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHprotested against an interpretation which had been put upon his words. He never said, or intended to convey, that anything in which the right rev. Bench took part must end in a bubble. What he had said, and he repeated it, was that the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court was such that it would lead to no satisfactory results. He did not suppose that the right rev. Prelates would shrink from any necessary expense or trouble in the performance of their duty; what he meant was that the right rev. Prelates should be relieved by an amendment of the law from such contingencies. With regard to the circumstances which he had put forward, it was true, as the right rev. Prelate stated, that there was always great difficulty in proving anything; but the facts themselves were in the knowledge of the public, and he was quite content to refer the matter to their judgment.

MARRIAGES (LAMBOURNE) BILL.

  (No. 83.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed to insert in the Bill the following clause:—
  "And whereas by Error Banns have been published and Marriages have been solemnized in Churches and Chapels duly consecrated, but in which Churches or Chapels Banns cannot be legally published nor Marriages by Law be solemnized; and it is expedient to remove all Doubt arising from the Circumstances aforesaid touching the Publication of such Banns and the Validity of such Marriages: Be it therefore enacted, That all Banns already published and all Marriages already solemnized in such Churches and Chapels as aforesaid shall not hereafter be questioned on account of the said Banns having been published or the said Marriages solemnized in a Church or Chapel not legally authorized for the Publication of Banns and Solemnization of Marriages, and the Minister or Ministers who solemnized the

  189
  same shall not be liable to any Ecclesiastical Censures or to any Proceedings or Penalties by reason thereof, provided he or they be rightly ordained; and the Registers of all Marriages so solemnized as aforesaid, or Copies of such Registers, shall be received in all Courts of Law and Equity as Evidence of such Marriages respectively: Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to authorize the Publication of Banns or Solemnization of Marriages in any of such Churches or Chapels hereafter unless they be duly licensed for such Solemnization."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORasked the right rev. Prelate having charge of the Bill (the Bishop of Oxford), whether he thought it wise to insist upon the clause extending the retrospective operation of the measure, not merely to particular cases, but generally to all cases of the nature contemplated by the Bill, in which, as originally drawn, this particular clause was not included. Parliament had been careful, whenever it was called on to deal with cases relating to a matter so delicate as the solemnization of matrimony, to require that all the facts should be laid before it, and only to legislate in those particular instances where error or inadvertence was clearly shown. The Bill proceeded upon the general statement that banns had been in error published and marriages solemnized in churches and chapels duly consecrated, but in which banns could not be published nor marriages solemnized by law. Now, who was to decide whether this statement was accurate, or what was meant by the term "error?" There ought to be no vagueness or uncertainty in dealing with such matters as the legality of marriages and the legitimacy of children. The law of marriage was at that moment under the consideration of a Royal Commission, and it was probable that it would result in a general measure, by which the question could be much more satisfactorily dealt with. He feared that the too wide terms of this clause might be attended with mischievous effects, and he therefore suggested that it should be withdrawn.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he was quite in their Lordships' hands. He had not drawn the clause himself, nor was he wholly responsible for its introduction into the Bill; but he could not acquiesce in the statement that in now proposing it he was for the first time introducing something opposed to the spirit of previous legislation. The exact opposite was the case, because the clause was taken, word for word, from a clause of the 24 Vict. c. 16;
  190
  and therefore so far from desiring to stretch into a general enactment a principle which Parliament had hitherto reserved for exceptional cases, he was merely asking the House to repeat in 1865 words which they had adopted in 1861. To clear himself from the charge of apparent carelessness and boldness in introducing a clause that would form an utterly unheard of precedent, it would only be necessary that he should read a passage from the letter forwarded to him by the Registrar General in the interval between the first and second reading of this Bill. Mr. Graham said—
  "Will you kindly excuse me in taking the liberty of calling your Lordship's attention to Act 24 Vict. c. 16, for the purpose of suggesting for consideration whether in the Marriages (Lambourne) Bill, to be read a second time in the House of Lords on the 9th instant, it would be expedient to introduce a clause similar to the 4th clause in the Act I have above mentioned? Many of the clergy erroneously think that they are empowered to solemnize marriages in newly-consecrated churches, and when they apply to me for register books I invariably ascertain that marriages may legally be celebrated before I furnish them with registers. But it has come to my knowledge that there are instances where, the erroneous impression existing, and the register books of the mother church being used, marriages have been solemnized touching the validity of which doubts may be entertained. If in 1861 it was considered desirable by the Legislature to remove all such doubts as to such marriages up to that date, it appears to me equally unobjectionable that this similar opportunity should now he made use of to render valid all marriages celebrated under similar circumstances up to the present date."
  On receiving that letter from the Registrar General he took the liberty of consulting a leading Member of the Government, a noble Earl not at that moment in his place, and from him he understood that a clause giving effect to the views of the Registrar General would have the support of the Government. He repeated that on this matter he was entirely in the hands of the House; but he thought the evil to be cured was more wide-spread than the noble and learned Lord appeared to think. The fact was that clergymen in distant parts of the country did not know, or forgot, that after a church was consecrated it must be licensed by the Bishop for the solemnization of matrimony before that service could be legally performed. To refuse to follow the example set in the Bill of 1861 might be to expose persons who had acted with the best intentions to the terrible disaster of having their marriages questioned hereafter.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that if the clause were introduced it would be necessary to alter the title of the Bill, which, as it stood, referred only to Lambourne.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could assure the right rev. Prelate that he by no means desired to obstruct the passing of the Bill; but then, inasmuch, as the whole subject was under consideration, he doubted whether it was expedient to enact a comprehensive clause, such as that under discussion, except as portion of a general measure. Any church or chapel which was consecrated would come within the scope of the clause; but as there were many churches which, although they had been consecrated, were disused, he thought it was undesirable that marriages should be celebrated in such places as proposed. The right rev. Prelate might, no doubt, to a certain extent, have copied the clause from the Act of 1861, but the precedent was not applicable to the present occasion, and the question was whether it would be well to introduce it into the present Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he did not exactly know what the noble and learned Lord meant to convey by the words "to a certain extent." He could accept no such qualification, because the clause was not in the slightest degree different from the precedent on which it was founded. However, he did not wish to press a clause as to the propriety of passing which there was any doubt.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was most undesirable that anything personal should be introduced into the discussion. What the Committee really had to consider was whether a clause so wide in its scope should be allowed to form part of the present Bill.
  LORD CHELMSFORDagreed with the Lord Chancellor in thinking that it was not desirable that the clause should be introduced in this Bill. At the same time he thought it would be well that the Government should consider whether it ought not to be made part of a general measure, the only hesitation he had was lest innocent parties should suffer in the meanwhile.
  EARL GREYthought that as the Registrar General had stated that these irregularities had occurred, it would be hard if the remedy were postponed until the undefined period when a general marriage law should be introduced. On the other hand, perhaps the clause of 1861 went rather further that it should in one direc-
  192
  tion, and that was in relieving from consequences the clergy who, through their own negligence in not ascertaining the law, had gone into error.
  THE EARL OF DERBYmust say that he thought that it was objectionable in principle that they should habitually sanction violation of the law by ex post facto legislation. The Act of 1861 having passed gave sufficient notice to all parties with regard to the state of the law in reference to these marriages, and if, after that, such marriages took place, he did not think that it was desirable that every four or five years they should repeat the Indemnity passed in 1861. Upon a choice of evils, he thought that the risk would be less in not passing the clause, than in continuing by Act of Parliament indemnities for violations of the law. He thought that the clause should not be pressed.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD REDESDALEsuggested that if the Registrar General was aware that there were other parishes in the same position, he should communicate the fact to those who had charge of the Bill, in order that as the Bill was passing through the Commons the Bill might be made applicable to those places also.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

METROPOLITAN HOUSELESS POOR BILL—(No. 70.)—SECOND READING.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, its object was to render permanent an Act of a temporary character which was passed last year for the relief of the houseless poor in the metropolis. The Act had been found to work very satisfactorily, and was generally approved by the Boards of Guardians.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl de Grey and Ripon.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had no objection to the Bill, but wished to have some more detailed information as to the working of the Act which this Bill was to render permanent. He understood it had been successful; but he should be glad to be more fully informed of its general operation.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would make a full statement on going into Committee on the Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he understood that the Act had worked exceedingly well. He had received a letter from the rector of one of the largest parishes in London, giving a full statement of its operation. A very large number of cases had been relieved under it, and he did not know of one case which was worthy of relief that had not been attended to. It had been a great blessing indeed to the poor of the metropolis.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Monday next a quarter before Five o'clock.