Sitting of 8 July 1869

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE —Report— Witnesses (House of Commons) [No. 305]; Contagious Diseases Act (1866) [No. 306]; Clerk of Assize [No. 213].
SUPPLY— MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—Resolutions [28th June] reported—Considered in Committee— CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Warehousing of Wines and Spirits, &c.
Ordered—First Reading—Public Works (Ireland)* [202]; Clerk of Assize* [203]; Warehousing of Wines and Spirits, &c. * [201].
First Reading—Heritable Rights * [204].
Second Reading— Land Tax Law Amendment, &c* [188]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [191]; Railway Construction Facilities Act (1864) Amendment* [94].
Committee—Valuation of Property (Metropolis) (re-comm,) [100]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [192]; High Constables' Office Abolition, &c* [195].
Report—Witnesses (House of Commons)* [129].
Considered as amended— Sunday and Ragged Schools* [170].
Third Reading—University Tests* [15]; Pensions Commutation * [187]; Stipendiary Magistrates (Deputies)* [176]; High Constables' Office Abolition, &c. * [105]; Medical Officers Superannuation (Ireland) * [185], and passed.

INDIA.—BARRACKS AT MORAR.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a large expenditure has been incurred in erecting permanent Barracks at the cantonment of Morar, near Gwalior, with the view of making Morar the principal Military Station in Central India for European as well as Native Troops; and, whether the Government are satisfied that the climate of Gwalior is such as to permit of Europeans being safely quartered there in force?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: It having been determined, in 1864, by the then Government that for military and political reasons it was most desirable to have a strong British force cantoned at or near Morar, a very carefully composed Committee was ordered to examine into the question of site. A paragraph from the Eeport of that Committee is the best answer that I can give to my hon. Friend, and will show that the extremely important point which he has raised has been carefully considered—
  "The members unanimously concurred in opinion that the force should be located it the present cantonment of Morar, which must necessarily be greatly extended. In thus recommending the extension of Morar, they desire to place prominently on record the individual opinion of Surgeon-Major Laing, not only because that officer's medical reputation stands so high that any professional opinion given by him on sanitary matters must, per se, be of great weight, but also because he, being a stranger at Morar, brings to bear on the subject a mind unbiassed and free from prejudice for or against the locality. Alter a careful examination, this officer recorded his opinion that he had seldom, within his Indian experience, seen ground which, taken as a whole, possessed in a higher degree the essentials requisite for a healthy location for troops. Dr. Auchinleck, who has had two years' experience of the place, concurred in this opinion, and gave the weight of his testimony in favour of the salubrity of the place."

CATHOLIC CHILDREN IN WORKHOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether there is any truth whatever La the assertion made at a meeting

  1419
  of the Guardians of the Marylebone Union, on the report of a Cockermouth paper, respecting some boys in the Union there, who were ordered by the Poor Law Board to be sent to the Roman Catholic Schools; that the boys told the priest that they did not believe the Roman Catholic faith, and would not go; that the Poor Law Board, it is reported, then ordered the boys to be whipped?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, the cock and bull story about the whipping of these two little boys having been ordered by the Poor Law Board is one of those gigantic falsifications which seem to grow with more rank luxuriance on the field of religious controversy than anywhere else. It has not even that substratum of truth which generally underlies the grossest exaggeration. The facts of the case are these — A little urchin, a Roman Catholic inmate of the Cockermouth Workhouse, on reaching the ripe age of twelve, went to his priest and informed him that he had changed his religion, and that he had the authority of an Act of Parliament for withdrawing himself from the priest's religious instruction. This is, however, not exactly the case. The law has made a difference between children of twelve and children of fourteen years old. The latter may change their religion at their pleasure, but the former only if the Poor Law Board consider them competent to form a judgment upon the subject. There was in the same workhouse another boy of thirteen, who had also changed his religion. The Poor Law Board despatched an Inspector to examine these two boys with regard to the circumstances of their conversion, and on their theological knowledge. The Inspector reported— and I was not surprised to hear it— that they were utterly incompetent to form a judgment. But several circumstances came out at this inquiry, and at a previous inquiry held by the Guardians, throwing light on the conversion. There had been no pressure put on the boys by the workhouse authorities, and there had been but little teazing on the part of the other boys. But the Protestant boys used to be taken every Sunday evening to a neighbouring church, dressed in their Sunday clothes, and there was music, which the boys liked very much. Meanwhile, the two little Roman Catholic boys were left at home by themselves, and were fright-
  1420
  ened and unhappy at being in the yard alone. On one occasion one of them had been found crying. So they changed their religion in order to change their clothes, and go with the other boys to hear the music in the church. The Poor Law Board informed the Guardians that they considered the boys theologically incompetent, and added—
  "The Board, therefore, consider it advisable that the boys in question should recur to the religious instruction which they were receiving up to the time of their alleged conversion, and request that the necessary instructions may be given to the workhouse master for the purpose of securing this object."
  This was the whole of the pressure put by the Board on the Guardians, which has been distorted into the story that the boys were to be whipped. The Guardians replied—"that under the circumstances they must respectfully decline to use forcible means to compel the boys to attend the Roman Catholic chapel." This letter appears to have been a civil paraphrase of a speech by one of the Guardians of Cockermouth. He is reported to have said—
  "I move that the Poor Law Board be informed that the Guardians cannot carry out their order with regard to the boys, and if the Poor Law Board require them to be sent back to the Catholic Church and to be whipped, they must send somebody down to do both."
  It is easy to see how anyone who did not scruple to omit the word "if" could twist this speech into an extravagant story. The hypothesis of the Guardian of Cockermouth looked like history to the Guardians of Marylebone, and the Chairman of their School Committee read the following to an excited meeting—
  "He read a report from a Cockermouth paper respecting some boys in the Union there who were ordered by the Poor Law Board to be sent to the Roman Catholic schools. The boys told the priests they did not believe the Roman Catholic faith, and would not go. The Poor Law Board, it was asserted, then ordered that the boys were to be whipped if they did not go, and the Guardians sent back word that if the Board required the Guardians to do whipping they could come and do it, for the Guardians would not. This was scandalous."
  Scandalous, if true, but the House will judge in how far it is, if not scandalous, yet most improper, that anyone should make bad blood, by giving publicity to such a story without inquiring into its truth.
  MR. KEKEWICHsaid, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was very satisfactory.

ARMY—RELIEF OF REGIMENTS IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any, and what, steps are being taken for the more speedy relief of Regiments at present serving in India, which proceeded thither for the suppression of the Mutiny in 1857, and have not returned home since?
CAPTAIN VIVIANreplied, that in consequence of the large number of regiments sent out to India during the Mutiny in 1857 and 1858, it was found impossible, as only five regiments could be relieved per annum, to bring home all the regiments. But in selecting the order in which the regiments should return home, his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had shown the greatest consideration to them. By continuing the relief at the rate of five regiments per annum, all the regiments which went out in 1857, with the exception of two, would be relieved by the end of 1871, and by the end of the following year all the regiments which went out in 1856 would be relieved. If, however, more than five regiments were relieved every year, a hardship would be inflicted upon regiments serving upon other foreign stations. In conclusion, he must remind his hon. Friend that, although the battalions had remained in India during this long period, there were very few officers or men left there who went out in 1857.

IRELAND—CLERK OF THE CROWN FOR KING'S COUNTY.—QUESTIONS.
SIR PATEICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the office of Clerk of the Crown has not hitherto been regarded as patronage appertaining to the local Members for the County when supporting the Government; whether the joint recommendation of the Members for the King's County has not been disregarded in the late appointment; whether such disregard had arisen from any deficiency in personal character, or of any want of professional aptitude to fill an office involving the performance of nominal duties, or if it had arisen from
1422
want of social status or professional standing? Would he state his reasons for supposing Mr. Bergin deficient in these respects; whether Mr. Dalton, the gentleman now Clerk of the Crown for the King's County, is connected otherwise than by his appointment with the King's County; and, if he has been recommended by Members of Parliament or Members of the Government, will he state who they are who have interfered with the County Members' patronage; and, whether Mr. Bergin, who was recommended by the County Members, received a certificate from the head of the legal profession in Ireland—the Lord Chancellor—through his Lordship's Secretary, which was forwarded to the Chief Secretary?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that the patronage of the office of Clerk of the Crown pertains to the Lord Lieutenant. It is, of course, usual to consider the wishes of the County Members supporting the Government, and those wishes were very carefully considered on the present occasion. It was, indeed, a matter of deep regret to the Lord Lieutenant and myself that in this particular case we were not able to agree in the view taken by the Members for the King's County; but I must remind my hon. Friend that the wishes and recommendations of Members of Parliament, however important, do not bind the discretion of the Executive; nor can they do so, inasmuch as they in no degree relieve the Executive from the responsibility which falls on the Lord Lieutenant in filling up public offices. With respect to the next part of my hon. Friend's Question, I must say that I regret he should have thought it necessary to ask it, and I must decline to answer it, because it requires me to explain in the minutest detail the reasons which have influenced the Lord Lieutenant in the performance of a most responsible duty. Such an answer would be one which it would be as improper as invidious in me to give. As to the next part of my hon. Friend's Questions, I have to state that I do not know that Mr. Dalton is connected with the King's County beyond the fact that he was the conducting agent of one of the Members for that county at the late election—the Colleague of the hon. Baronet. In reply to the next part of the Question, I have simply

1423
to observe that I am not aware that anyone has committed the crime of having interfered with the County Members' patronage. So far as I know, in the first instance Mr. Dalton recommended himself, but the Lord Lieutenant, on full inquiry, was perfectly satisfied that in choosing him out of the list of candidates before him he had done what was best for the public service, and, to put the matter on a lower footing, even what was best for the general interests of the party with which my hon. Friend and myself are connected. As to Mr. Dalton's want of connection with the county, I must remind my hon. Friend that it is by no means an unprecedented event that clerkships of the Crown, particularly in counties, should be filled by gentlemen not otherwise connected with the county. In the case of the King's County itself, the last occupant of the office but one—who, I believe, was appointed at the request of the hon. Baronet, at a time when Lord Lieutenants and Chief Secretaries were more fortunate than they happen to be at this moment, and than, I hope, they will be in future, in being able to comply with the request of my hon. Friend—had no connection with the county except that he was his own conducting agent at the previous election. In answer to the last part of the Question I have to state that a letter has been communicated to me, written by the private secretary of the Lord Chancellor, which is of a most formal kind, and does not at all come up to the description of a certificate.

INDIA—APPEALS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Letter in the "Times" newspaper of the 25th June, from Mr. Forsyth, in which it is stated that, owing to the want of a sufficient staff of translators, a period of four or five years generally elapses after the admission of an appeal from India to the Privy Council before the report reaches England, and that at the present moment there are between two hundred and fifty and three hundred appeals from the Presidency of Bengal alone awaiting transmission to England; and, whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State for India to direct any measures to be taken to expedite the transmission of appeals to this Country?
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, that the Secretary of State in Council lately called the attention of the Bombay Government to delays in the transmission of appeals from the High Court there, and he intended presently to address the Government of India as to the expediency of hastening the transmission of appeals from all the High Courts.

INDIA—RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the question of the construction of Railways in India, If he will include, with the Despatches to be laid upon the Table, the Minutes of the Members of Council thereon?
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, that his hon. Friend was evidently under a misconception. It was not the practice for Members of Council to write Minutes on despatches. They had the right to record dissents from proceedings in Council, and these dissents were entered in a Minute Book. None had yet been entered with reference to this railway question. If his hon. Friend was pointing at anything which existed he must be pointing at certain confidential opinions, given long before these despatches arrived, to the Secretary of State by Members of Council for his information. These were private documents, just as private as anyone's private letters.

INDIA—MEDAL FOR BHOOTAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would also beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, If there is any sufficient reason why the Frontier Medal should not be given to the Officers and Men engaged in the Bhootan War in 1864 and 1865, which Medal has been awarded to Officers and Men engaged in the Frontier Wars of a similar character?
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, that the North-West Frontier Medal, about which his hon. Friend had asked him, was conferred at the suggestion of the Government of India, but the Government of India had not recommended the grant of any medal for the Bhootan War.

SPAIN—TREATY OF COMMERCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Akroyd), he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has received any intimation that the Spanish Government is willing to enter into negotiations for a Treaty of Commerce, to be based upon a reduction of their Duty on British Goods, accompanied by a modification of our Duties on Spanish Wines above 26 degrees of proof?
  MR. OTWAY MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, it was true that the Spanish Government had lately expressed their willingness to negotiate a commercial treaty with this country. One of the bases of that treaty was the reduction of the duty on Spanish wines. The question was now under the consideration of the Government, and no reply had been made to the Spanish proposal up to the present mement.

RECENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that by the indulgence of the House, he wished to be allowed to make an appeal to his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Henry Bulwer), in whose name a Notice stood on the Paper for to-morrow evening, to the effect that he meant to call attention to the recent negotiations between the Government of this country and that of the United States, and to move an Address for Papers. He must, in the first place, render his acknowledgments on the part of the Government to his right hon. Friend for the considerate manner in which he had hitherto regulated himself upon this subject, he having more than once postponed the Motion in consequence of representations made to him on the part of the Government, founded on what they believed to be the public interest, and a period of the Session had now arrived when his right hon. Friend was in a position to ask either that they should offer no further impediment to his Motion—even in the shape of an appeal to postpone it—or give sufficient reasons why they thought it would not be advisable to bring it forward. He hoped his right hon. Friend would receive favourably the overture he was
1426
about to make, and would come to the conclusion that he could best serve the interests involved in this great question by refraining from asking the House to discuss the question at this period. The grounds upon which he made this appeal were these—The House was well aware that it was the general rule of Parliament not to discuss matters of foreign negotiation while they were in progress. Some months ago the important matter in question reached a new stage by the rejection of the treaty originally framed between the two Governments, and at first sight this had the aspect of the cessation of the subject. The Government of the United States brought on that cessation; but Her Majesty's Ministers had no reason to believe that the United States Government regarded the question as having been definitely dropped, because it was known to Her Majesty's Ministers that the Government of the United States thought it highly desirable that some interval should elapse, in reference to the state of opinion and feeling in that country, before any negotiations on the subject should be resumed. He was inclined to think that it was their duty to concur in that sentiment of the Government of the United States, and to favour the prevalence of the view upon which they had acted. He might also observe that that was not only the view of the Executive in that country, but it was the fact that this important and delicate subject had not been made the theme of discussion in either of the branches of the Legislature of the United States. He was well aware that a speech of great length was delivered, expressing the views of the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that speech, delivered in confidence, was afterwards published by license of the Senate, but no general debate had been held in the two Houses of the American Legislature on the question. Under these circumstances he felt —and he thought the House would sympathize with him in the feeling—that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers, as it was their anxious desire, to endeavour that nothing might occur to impede the resumption of the negotiations between the two Governments with favourable prospects at the proper time. It therefore became his duty to renew the application he had on former occasions made to the right hon. Gentleman,

1427
and to request that he would refrain from now asking the House to enter on the general discussion of this case, which was still substantially pending between the two Governments.
SIR HENRY BULWER: Sir, I am sure the House will feel that I am most desirous, on personal and public grounds, to comply with any request made by my right hon. Friend, who is the head of the Government and responsible for its acts. But, Sir, I think I may say without presumption that I am, perhaps, not altogether unqualified to form an opinion for myself. I have wished to form an opinion conscientiously, and I have been somewhat strengthened in the opinion I have formed by looking j back to those which I have previously expressed, and finding that they have been found correct Now, Sir, I say this, because upwards of two years ago I had a conversation, which I think I may repeat, as it relates to a public matter, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who is not now in his place, on these very affairs of America; and everything I said at that time has proved true. When my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) accepted the appointment of Minister of Foreign Affairs, I took the liberty of requesting an interview with him, and from my experience in the affairs of the United. States, and of the Constitution of the United States, I impressed upon him my opinion that the negotiations which we were then carrying on with Mr. Johnson in this country would not be brought to a successful close. Now, Sir, I say, with the same confidence with which I expressed that opinion to my noble Friend at that time, that I am convinced that if we leave the question as it now stands between us and the United States of America, we shall have cause to repent our silence and inaction. I am for leaving well alone, but I am not for leaving ill alone.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be discussing the subject, though there is no question before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the House will allow to the right hon. Gentleman a reasonable latitude; but I think also that I must lay emphasis on the word "reasonable."
SIR HENRY BULWER: As I desire, if necessary, to put myself in conformity
1428
with the forms of the House, I might say that I would conclude with a Motion; but, after having this Notice frequently before the House, and having stated that I would bring it under discussion, I think, in justice to myself and my feelings, and in justice to my duty to my country, I should be allowed to state why, if I do give way to the wish of the Prime Minister, it will be with extreme reluctance.
MR. SPEAKER: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that it would be contrary to the rules of the House that he should enter now upon the discussion of a question on which he proposes a discussion on a future day. He is limited to an answer to the question which has been put to him, with a reasonable latitude for explanation.
SIR HENRY BULWER: I perfectly understand that, and I have not the least intention of speaking on the general matter. All I wish to address myself to is the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. Am I in Order? ["Hear, hear! "] Well, then, I give as my reason for thinking that this matter ought to be discussed, that without discussion it is in a very unsatisfactory condition. I do not attach much importance to the speech of Mr. Sumner, to which my right hon. Friend has alluded, or to the rejection of the Treaty by the United States; but what I do attach great importance to is, that, as the question now stands before the public, one country thinks it has suffered a great wrong for which no redress has been offered, whilst the other considers that a most exaggerated demand has not been abandoned, but merely suspended, to be brought forward at any time, when it would be as dishonourable as now for us to grant it, and more dangerous for us to refuse it. When I refer, moreover, to past negotiations in which our Government has exhibited almost every variation from the extreme of resistance to the extreme of concession, I cannot but feel that it is time for this House to steady the policy which we should henceforth pursue, and leave no doubt with the American people as to the feelings of the people of Great Britain. At the same time, I admit that it is for the House itself to judge of this matter, and I should be exceedingly sorry to bring before it any subject which it was not well disposed to receive, and which, exercising

1429
the same judgment as myself, it thought it was inexpedient at this time to discuss. Of course, I cannot expect any very great party support, because all parties were mixed up in these matters, and perhaps some of the acts which they committed I should not be indisposed to condemn. But I shall bow to the general sense of the Gentlemen around me; and if it is the general desire that I should not now bring this question forward, certainly I shall not do so. But then I must add, that if I am so unfortunate as to prove a true prophet—as I have done on one or two occasions before—I must throw the responsibility on my right hon. Friend, and feel free to add to the observations I have to make on the past conduct of preceding Administrations those which I may feel myself called on to make on the conduct in this instance of the present one.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES

  RESOLUTIONS [28TH JUNE] REPORTED.
  First Five Resolutions agreed to.
  Sixth Resolution read a second time.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose to move that the Vote for altering the edifices of the Houses of Parliament and decorating the walls of the central hall with mosaic work be reduced by £5,500. A similar Amendment had been moved in Committee of Supply by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), though the Amendment was different, and he (Mr. Dillwyn) had challenged the decision of the Chairman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), but there was considerable confusion at the time, and the Chairman, passed to the next Vote. The Vote was for "increasing light, decorating walls, and other service; "but he did not think we ought to decorate these walls any more, his impression being that they were over-decorated already. The experiments in Art in this building had not been so successful as to encourage them to go further in the same direction; and he objected to the Vote also because it seemed to be the beginning of an attempt to pull the House about in a way which might lead to a much larger expenditure than that now proposed. If the central hall were altered materially, other parts of the structure must be altered, and there would be an outlay of which they could not foresee the end. The Chief Commissioner of Works, he believed, was
  1430
  willing to reduce this Vote by a small amount, but he (Mr. Dillwyn) would not be satisfied with that; he objected altogether to the proposed expenditure on the central hall. An enormous sum of money had been spent on the building; it was proposed now to spend much more money in providing additional accommodation, which was very much wanted, and he moved the reduction of the Vote with a view to resist expenditure for mere decoration. If anything was wanted for the necessary repair of the walls, let the money for that be voted.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£34,026," in order to insert "£28,526," instead thereof.—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MT. BENTINCK, who had given notice of a similar Motion, supported the reduction of the Vote. He said there had always been an understanding, since the Fine Art Commission was Brought to a close in 1863, that no great scheme for the decoration of the House should be proposed by the Government without a full explanation of what was intended to be done. The present Vote had taken the House by surprise, especially since it was accompanied by no explanation. The Members of the Government, at the hustings and elsewhere, declared that they were great friends of economy, and yet this addition of £8,000 to the Estimates was proposed without any explanation. On investigation, he believed, it would be found that a great part of that amount was to be spent, not in architectural work, but in decorations of the central hall. It seemed to him that the proposed alterations were unnecessary and mischievous. The central hall was one of the best features of the building. There was no want of light, and if more was required, the west window overlooking St. Stephen's Hall, could be easily altered at very little expense. Additional light for the telegraph and other offices round the hall could also be provided at very small cost. What made this expenditure more objectionable was that, even according to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) himself, a style of decoration with which he was unacquainted was to be resorted to. This matter really required more inquiry; this new experiment in decoration ought not to be attempted without full explanation on the part of the Government,

  1431
  with the beginning, middle, and end of what was proposed set before the House. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have originated in. a very unbusiness-like manner, for, in reply to the Question he had put, the First Commissioner said he could not produce any Estimate, because the money had not been voted, whereas he had always understood that the first thing to determine was whether the proposed work was proper to be done, and then how much should be voted for it. He should vote with his hon. Friend.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he regretted he had not had an opportunity formerly of fully explaining this Vote, in consequence of a division having been called, and he had not anticipated the discussion. He desired to be perfectly frank with the House in his explanations with regard to the matter. Some years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the completion and decoration of the Houses of Parliament, and they made a very elaborate Report, which was drawn up under the presidency of the Prince Consort, recommending certain things to be done to complete the ornamental part of the building. Since the Report was made each Chief Commissioner of Works in his turn had carried out the recommendations of the Report; and it was not accurate to state that the House had determined that nothing more should be done without its direct sanction. On the contrary, many new works had been commenced—such, for instance, as the crypt and others— without coming to the House for their sanction. Whenever that House had interfered—and it had only done so on one or two occasions—it had been not to check the First Commissioner in carrying out that scheme, but to augment the remuneration given to celebrated artists —Mr. Maclise and Mr. Herbert, for example—for the very remarkable works they had executed for the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was altogether opposed to decorations, both in that House and elsewhere. Objecting altogether to the interference of the Government for the promotion of the Fine Arts, his hon. Friend had always voted against South Kensington, which was one of the glories of the country. He could, therefore, understand the objection of the Member for Swansea. When he (Mr. Layard)
  1432
  came into the Office which he had now the honour to fill, he found that the Queen's robing room had just been finished, and that the chamber of access between the robing room and the House of Lords had been finished with the exception of certain panels which still remained to be filled with frescoes, and had become a very magnificent apartment. There remained, however, some other things to be done, and amongst them was the decoration of the central hall and the Queen's staircase. His attention was called to the state of the staircase and the central hall by Mr. Barry, who showed him that the latter, which was the very turning point of the whole building, was in a very unsatisfactory state. Mr. Barry pointed out that the spaces intended for paintings were covered over with paper, which was peeling off; that the hall was so dark that a large expenditure of gas was constantly required, and that the columns and walls had been most unfortunately painted in a very disagreeable manner. He (Mr. Layard) was compelled to admit that all which Mr. Barry said upon these points was correct; and he came to the conclusion that it was advisable to do something for the central hall, the only point in question being what should be done. The Royal Commission had recommended that the blank spaces in the hall should be filled up by paintings in fresco; but his experience of paintings in fresco had led him to the conclusion that they were not suited for decorations in this country, and much money had already been thrown away upon them within the walls of that House. Not relying on his own judgment, however, he called Dr. Percy and Mr. Barry into council, and with them he examined with the greatest care all the frescoes in the Houses of Parliament. He regretted to say that the result of the examination was that they did not find one which did not show some signs of decay. Dr. Percy further made a Report to his (Mr. Layard's) Department upon the subject of wall painting, in which he stated his deliberate opinion that no wall painting could exist in London, owing to the action upon the lime of the sulphuric acid generated in the air by coal smoke and gas. The question then was, what was to be done? and Mr. Barry suggested that it might be advisable to try the mosaic method of decora-

  1433
  tion. His hon. Friend spoke of mosaic work as being a new experiment; but he must surely be aware that it was not so. In order to satisfy himself as to its merits, he (Mr. Layard) had examined that magnificent structure, the Wolsey Chapel, at Windsor, and more recently the Prince Consort Memorial in Hyde Park. The result was, that he came to the conclusion that mosaic work would be both effective and durable. It was, moreover, a cheaper method than fresco painting; for no artist of established fame would consent to fill one of the large spaces in the central hall with a painting without receiving a very large remuneration for doing so. They could, however, get an artist of recognized merit to make a drawing, and they could have that drawing re-produced mechanically and executed at one-third or one-fourth of the cost of a fresco. It was alleged that he had entrusted the work to artists who were unknown. That, however, was not the case. He had asked Mr. Moore and Mr. Poynter to supply the designs for these mosaics, and though Mr. Moore was personally unknown to him, he had been led to give him the commission from seeing some very able works of his in the Royal Academy; whilst the very remarkable painting which Mr. Poynter had exhibited two years ago, and which had been adapted to a well-known political caricature—he meant the picture of "Israel in Egypt"—would be remembered by most hon. Gentlemen. Both these artists were young men, but both were men of genius in their profession, and he thought that it was time the younger men had a turn in the decoration of the building. He was almost ashamed to tell the House what he was paying these gentlemen for making their cartoons; but there was no doubt that the honour of taking part in the decoration of the Houses of Parliament was itself of some value. As to the roof of the central hall, Mr. Barry had suggested to him that daylight should be admitted into the building by opening the lantern. Why daylight should ever have been excluded he was unable, he confessed, to make out. It appeared, however, that there was a deliberate attempt to exclude it from the building and to substitute gaslight. He was convinced that the carrying out of this alteration in the hall would not only
  1434
  be a great improvement in the hall itself, but would effect a considerable saving in the gas, which had now to burn morning, noon, and night in that part of the building. Mr. Barry had also suggested that the columns which had been painted in so disagreeable a manner should be removed, and re-placed by marble columns. This was the only structural alteration in the hall which it was proposed to make. He thought that the House would be surprised to learn that the total cost of the whole of the alterations and decoration in the central hall would be £8,000. Did the House know what the two small corridors between that House and the House of Lords had cost for frescoes only? The amount had been nearly £12,000, and he had been asked this year to give another £1,000 for glazing the frescoes, which, however, he had refused to do. He would like briefly to call the attention of the House to the state of the Estimates. That building was one of the great attractions of London, sometimes as many as 30,000 persons visiting it in a single day, and he thought that no one would doubt that they ought to make the central part of the building worthy of the whole structure. In 1856–7 the estimate for works in the House was £49,000; in 1866–7 it had risen to £61,000; in 1867–8 it had fallen to £55,000; in 1868–9 it was £54,900; and he had reduced it this year to £50,056. Upon works alone he had reduced the Estimate from £23,948 to £17,085, and this year, for works of Art, instead of £3,000, only £1,450 was asked for. He had gone most carefully into these Estimates, which had been proposed before he acceded to Office, and had done his best to reduce them as much as possible. As to one point which had been alluded to, he was bound to admit that Mr. Barry, in the hope of getting the work finished during the coming Recess, had entered into some arrangements which no doubt led him to incur certain liabilities. He (Mr. Layard), however, must alone be considered to blame in that matter, and if they cut off the Vote now the responsibility must rest upon him. He was prepared to meet the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) by reducing the Vote for Coals and Candles by £500, and he would endeavour to reduce the expenditure as much as he possibly could, though he

  1435
  did not think that, upon the whole, it was prudent to reduce it to too low an amount.
  MR. WHITEexplained that he had originated the discussion by proposing in Committee of Supply that £2,500 should be deducted from the Vote. In doing so he did not intend to effect merely a cheeseparing reduction. He did it from an apprehension of the consequences of embarking in a new scheme of decoration. He also thought the House should have been consulted on the subject. He made not the slightest objection to the proposal to admit light to the central hall. On the contrary, he sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He only wished to oppose the putting of mosaic in the blank places there.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that after the touching explanation of the First Commissioner that he was responsible for the contracts entered into if the House did not agree to the Vote, it would scarcely be proper to divide the House against it. At the same time, he was bound to say that if the incidents which the right hon. Gentleman had so frankly related to the House had occurred whilst he (Lord John Manners) was in Office, he felt perfectly certain that the hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) and the right hon. Gentleman who sat next him (Mr. Gladstone) would have been very loud indeed in denouncing such a course as that which had been taken by the First Commissioner of Works. The right hon. Gentleman had taken great credit to himself for having reduced the Vote for decorative works; but in the early part of his speech he had very fairly and properly said that in the Queen's robing room, the Peers' corridor, and various other parts of the Palace, works which had been in progress for a number of years, had now come to an end. In the Vote taken last year for decorative works there was a sum of £1,500 to pay Mr. Maclise, according to the recommendation of the Royal Commission. If they took away that £1,500, the House would see that even last year there was no greater sum voted for decorative purposes than was proposed to be taken in the present Estimates. He did not wish, however, to press that controversy further. He regretted that more time and opportunity
  1436
  had not been given to the House to consider whether mosaic would be a desirable and useful decoration. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had given some good reasons why the House should agree to the Vote; and he hoped that, under the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, they would see the central hall and other parts of the building decorated in a creditable and lasting manner.
  MR. TITEsaid, that all foreigners agreed that the central hall was the finest part of the building, and in this opinion he entirely concurred. He was sorry to see it remain unfinished; but he should be equally unwilling to see a new style of decoration adopted. The Hall was octagonal, four sides being lighted with enormous windows, and the other four being blank spaces, which were intended to be filled in with frescoes, but which were now simply papered, and presented a most discreditable appearance. Some decoration ought to be applied, and the mosaics of Professor Salviati had been largely and successfully used in Rome and other places. He feared the experience gained had shown that English artists did not understand frescoes, and that a style of decoration which had been very successful in Italy had failed here. He must protest, however, against any change in the architecture of the central hall. He would remove every fragment of paint and paper, but he would introduce no marble columns into it. He quite concurred in the proposal to open the lantern, which would give increased light and render the gas less necessary. He should be glad to see the four panels filled in, so long as no alteration was made in the magnificent architecture of the central hall.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he did not enter into the question as a matter of taste, but he wanted to ask a question with respect to the financial responsibility incurred. What he understood from the admission of the right hon. Gentleman was, that he had contracted for the work before Parliament had given its sanction to its being done. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would defend that course?—for it was one that, except under very extraordinary circumstances, the House had a right to resent. He wanted to know whether application was made to the Treasury to sanc-

  1437
  tion that expenditure; and, if so, what answer was given by the Treasury?
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought that all new works ought to be discussed, and their plans laid before the House before contracts were entered into and agreements made that were binding, instead of coming for a Vote after this was done. When the Vote was previously before the House the right hon. Gentleman told them that it was a question of light; but it now turned out that it was not a question of light at all, but of decoration. It was not fair to take a Vote of the House for one purpose, when another purpose was intended. He would recommend that this Vote should stand over; for he believed that this new decoration was but the beginning of fresh expense, and would prove to be like the letting out of water.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he did not sympathize with the strong language that was often used in that House with regard to the decorations of the House—he thought much of it was very good. With regard to the question now before them, he understood it meant the substitution of mosaic for frescoes in the decorations of the central hall. Now, he had examined the mosaics in the buildings to which his right hon. Friend referred; and relying—not upon his own judgment, but upon that of competent friends — he considered that the effect was very fine, and that it might be properly introduced into that House. He thought, after the clear statement that had been made by his right hon. Friend, the work should be allowed to proceed.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEtrusted that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not persist in going to a division, after the fair and clear exposition they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Works. This was not opening the floodgates of a new expenditure, as some Gentlemen seemed to think. It was the decoration of one specific apartment, the very central apartment of this palace, which, from the very beginning, was intended to be decorated. A cheap mode of doing so had now been discovered, which had not only been introduced at Windsor, but in the octagon chapel at St. Paul's, under the sanction of the late Dean Milman; and all who had seen the process spoke of it with admiration. Nothing brought this country more into ridicule and disrepute abroad, nothing
  1438
  more tended to fix upon us the reproach of being a nation of shopkeepers, than the habit of baiting the Minister for every new decoration in the capital, whether in parks or gardens, or public buildings. This habit went on year after year in Committee of Supply—certain Members attending for the purpose from seven to nine — while the rest of the House was engaged in the more rational amusement of eating their dinner. But when the same habit was brought up at that hour, with the Speaker in the Chair, it was hardly creditable to the character of the House. A question had been asked—it was answered—and to carry it further, would be injurious to the character of this House.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that a larger principle was involved in this question than the mere voting of £5,500. The question raised was this:—ought the public money to be disposed of, before it was voted by that House? It was not long since he had made an appeal on behalf of some overseers at Birmingham, who had been distrained upon for £12, spent in assisting some paupers to emigrate, and the answer he received from the President of the Poor Law Board was that they ought not to have spent the money till it was voted to them. Now, what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. If the right hon. Gentleman had exceeded his expenditure, they could not help it. The present was only one example of the wasteful expenditure which was going on, with or without the sanction of Parliament, in every Department of the Government, and which could no longer escape the notice of that House. With regard to the architectural character of the House, and the estimation in which it was held by foreigners who visited it, he would content himself with repeating what he had heard that very day from a foreigner in the lobby—who said to him, "I wonder that you English, who think yourselves the most practical people in Europe, should spend such vast sums upon ornament in this place, when you have not a House fit to hold you." If an alteration in the building was to be made, let it be done all at once, instead of by these odds and ends, which were a constantly-recurring source of expense. If the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) carried his Amendment in this instance, its effect would be most salutary.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon.

  1439
  Gentleman who had just sat down said with great truth that that question, which raised the question of the general relations of the House to the public expenditure, and to its control over that expenditure, was of more importance than the sum in dispute, though that was not insignificant. He had postponed answering the question of the right hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) till the arrival of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (who had just entered the House). On his authority—for, of course, he had no knowledge of the matter himself — he had to say that the expenditure in question was recognized by the Treasury as a fit one to submit to the House in the Estimates. That was an answer to the first question put by the right hon. Gentleman. The more important question related to the subject of contracts—whether they ought to be entered into before a Vote of the House was taken upon the expenditure. Now, with respect to that subject, he must guard himself by saying that, though nothing could be more easy than to lay down a general and inflexible rule upon this subject, yet it would not be wise to lay down the general and inflexible rule with regard to all our public Departments that it should be absolutely necessary before a contract for any service is entered into that a Vote of Parliament should be taken for that particular sum. That was a matter of great delicacy and importance to determine; and he should be glad if the House itself at any time would institute an inquiry and endeavour to define more accurately than had ever yet been done by authority what the descriptions of contracts were which might be entered into on the discretion of the responsible Departments before a Vote of that House had been taken. Subject to certain exceptions, he thought the practice that had hitherto prevailed was improper, and ought not to be continued. Now, let them apply the rule as fairly as they could. He did not claim this to be an exceptional case, as the noble Lord thought. What he took to be the state of the ease was this—Where the service was continuous, and carried on from year to year—where the services were well defined, and where they involved no novelty, either in principle or action—then, though he was far from saying that, even in such cases, contracts
  1440
  ought to be entered into before the Votes of the House were taken, yet such had been the practice, and therefore he thought that, whether it was right or wrong, they ought not to visit with severity that particular case. Where there was any service to which a novel character was attached, it was beyond the discretion of any official or of any Department, except under very peculiar circumstances indeed, to order the execution of any part of the work before a Vote of the House was taken. Now, how did this apply to the two questions before the House—the decorations and the alterations in the structural arrangement? The question of decorations fell under the first of these classes, while the structural arrangement did not. The decorations were authorized by a series of annual Votes of that House, all of which originated in the recommendations of a Royal Commission appointed twenty or thirty years ago, in reference to the decorations of the Houses of Parliament. He was aware that a question had been raised by his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works very recently as to the kind of decoration, and whether they should adopt a process other than that of frescoes. That was a question upon which a Vote of this House might fairly be taken if the House thought fit; but in respect of contracts for decoration, when Votes had been granted from year to year, and when there was nothing unusual in the extent of the decorations contemplated, they assumed the character of a continuous work, and though it might be wise to establish prospectively a more stringent control over contracts made in such cases, yet, as the habit and custom were established, he thought the House ought not to exercise its power severely in this particular instance. With respect to structural alterations, however, he drew a broad distinction. If it were intended to cut out the ribs or piers in the central hall, that would be a structural change of a totally new character, and he did not think the House could be called upon to acquiesce in a contract formed with regard to it before a Vote of that House, or when only a Vote on Account, had been taken, for it would strike at the very foundation of Votes on Account if the House had not a security on the responsibility of the Government that money voted on, Account

  1441
  should only be applied for the established services, and not by any means for new works. The proposition of his right hon. Friend was founded upon a principle, because he undertook that the alterations which had been referred to should not be executed; and the Vote was simply for the purpose of giving effect to that principle. In regard to the continuation of a series of decorations, the case was wholly different. The Government thought the series ought to be continued, and if any partial contract had been entered into with respect to it it did not appear to him to be a matter for retrospective censure, and therefore he recommended the House to accept the reduction of the Vote tendered by his right hon. Friend.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would repeat the question which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of "Works had not answered. Whether before the right hon. Gentleman made the contract he made application to the Treasury, and whether the Treasury gave their sanction? He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Treasury approved of the Vote being submitted to Parliament; but he asked if the Treasury was concerned in the contract?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he did not think that any application had been made to the Treasury before the conclusion of the contract.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had fallen into an error in saying that the decorations were ever made the subject of contract previous to the Vote of that House. He believed that on examination the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Vote was always taken before the contract was made. He therefore doubted whether the decorations ought to be regarded as a continuous Vote.
  Question, "That '£34,026' stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That '£28,526' be there inserted."
  MR. LAYARDmoved that the sum be £31,026.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out "£28,526," and inserting "£31,026," —(Mr. Layard,)—instead thereof.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had told them the name of the artist who had been contracted with. But he had not told them what the nature of the contract was. This was the more important as they had not hitherto been fortunate in the Fine Arts. They did not want any more statues which were too large for their niches and which had to be placed somewhere else. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to tell them who was to execute the mosaic.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the question was entirely in the hands of the two gentlemen he had named. The artist was to furnish the drawing, and to prepare the cartoon, and Mr. Barry was to see it carried out. The mosaic work was purely mechanical.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought this question had now assumed a serious shape. It was not a question of mosaic or fresco; it was a question as to the relations between the Executive Government and the House of Commons in matters of finance. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had laid down too vaguely the rules with respect to contracts for works which had not been sanctioned by Parliament, and in his opinion precedents would not warrant such doctrines at all. He did not say that there might not be circumstances in which the Government might enter into a contract without consulting the House. It might be necessary that part of some works should be executed in one year and part in another, and under such circumstances a Department would be justified in making a contract with the consent of the Treasury, the Government taking, of course, all the responsibility. This power, however, ought to be exercised as seldom as possible. Could anyone say that the public service would suffer if this Vote had been postponed for another year? If the President of the Board of Works had applied to the Treasury for their sanction and they had granted it they would have done wrong. But here they found a subordinate Department entering into a contract without referring the matter to the Treasury at all. [Mr. LAYARD made some remark across the table.] It might not have been the right hon. Gentleman himself, but it was done in his Department, and he was responsible for it. He could

  1443
  hardly conceive that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have given their sanction to such a proceeding when they found a subordinate Department thus entering into contracts without authority, and for which there was no necessity. It was a case on which the House of Commons ought to put down its foot.
  MR. LAYARDconfessed he had done wrong in permitting Mr. Barry to enter into the contract—which he had done, however, without his (Mr. Layard's) knowledge. But Mr. Barry had represented to him that by entering into these contracts and making his preparations, he would be able to complete the work during the Recess, and thus save much inconvenience to Members; the scaffolding could be put up the very day the House adjourned, and the work would be finished before they sat again.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he regretted that his right hon. Friend had left this matter so entirely in the hands of Mr. Barry. In former times complaints used to be made of the elder Mr. Barry having been allowed to carry on works without sufficient supervision. In the present ease his right hon. Friend confessed that he had committed great irregularity. It would, he thought, be unreasonable, after the statement of the Prime Minister, to give what would look something like a vindictive Vote, and because his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of "Works had made a slip, to refuse to grant the money.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, that if the House were to refuse to agree to the Vote they would be punishing, not so much the First Commissioner of "Works as those innocent persons who had undertaken the work in question under the contract. It was absolutely necessary for the public service that the House should support those who were its agents, for otherwise the credit of the Government would be greatly injured. He had also a word to say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) who was so severe on his right hon. Friend. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he, when in Office, was not a party to the granting of a certain sum of £53,000 for increasing the Industrial Museum at Edinburgh? The right hon. Gentleman maintained that the Government ought
  1444
  not to enter into a contract without the consent of the House, and that was, no doubt with some exceptions, a very sound doctrine to lay down. But what had the right hon. Gentleman himself done? He had undertaken that if the Corporation of Edinburgh widened certain streets, he, on his part, would give an additional sum to increase the Industrial Museum in that city. The people of Edinburgh put themselves in a position to perform their part of the contract, and held the Government to their bargain, and the result was an expenditure of £53,000 on the contract entered into by the right hon. Gentleman, without the consent of Parliament.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the contract which he had made was this—that if the Corporation of Edinburgh would widen certain streets he would submit a Vote to Parliament for increasing the grant to enable the trustees of the Edinburgh Industrial Museum to add another section to that building.
  MR. HIBBERTsuggested the withdrawal of the Vote, which was asked for merely to try an experiment in a prominent part of the building. If such experiment were necessary he thought it ought to be made in some other portion of the building.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, the real question was not whether the conduct of the First Commissioner was or was not open to censure; but whether, the contract having been made, those who had entered into it should be compelled to sustain an injury.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, that if he had had any doubt as to supporting the proposal of the hon. Member, that doubt would have been removed by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the House overlooked the conduct of the Government on the grounds stated by the right hon. Gentleman a fatal blow would be struck at the responsibility of the Executive to Parliament.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONprotested against an experiment being made in decoration on such a place as the central hall. One of its advantages was not certainly abundance of light.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, it was clear that those who were in favour of rejecting the Vote took that course not so much because of æsthetical considerations as because of an irregularity which,

  1445
  however, he must remind them was not likely to occur again.
  Question put, "That '£28,526' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 187: Majority 90.
  £31,026 inserted.
  Resolution, as amended, agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

CANADA RAILWAY LOAN.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUN, in rising to call attention to the manner in which a portion of the money authorized to be raised under "The Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867," had been applied, said, in 1867 an Act was passed for the purpose of enabling the British North American Provinces to unite themselves under one Government. The House was told that it was essential to the Confederation of these Provinces that the railway communication should be completed between Halifax and Quebec. Amongst other provisions contained in that Act, it was enacted that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury should be empowered to grant a loan of £3,000,000, to be raised by the Government of Canada, for the purpose of completing the Intercolonial Railway. Certain conditions, however, were imposed by the Act—one for the conveyance of troops; another that the line selected should be approved by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State; and a third that the Treasury should not guarantee the loan until the Legislature of Canada had passed an Act for the appropriation and expenditure of the money upon the works of the Intercolonial Railway. A Bill was accordingly passed in the Dominion providing for the fulfilment of the conditions required by the Imperial Act. Mr. Rose, the Financial Minister of Canada, was in London is June and July, 1868, and expressed his wish that the British Government would afford the means of speedily raising the money sanctioned by Parliament. He stated that he was
  1446
  informed that the condition of the money market was favourable for raising the loan. In consequence of communications addressed to the Colonial Office and to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Hunt), the Duke of Buckingham approved the line, and the loan was then guaranteed. In a Memorandum to the Governor General of the Dominion, Mr. Rose stated that it would not be possible to lay out the money obtained under the guarantee at interest unless the Government of the Dominion were prepared to accept a very insignificant rate of interest, and he thought a preferable plan would be to employ a portion of the money in redeeming the debts of the Dominion. That Memorandum was approved by the Governor General, and the plan was carried out. It appeared from the Budget speech of Mr. Rose to the Parliament of the Canada Dominion that he had invested in the sinking fund at 6 per cent 270,000 dollars. He paid off the Imperial loan for constructing canals, 681,330 dollars, and had paid 985,562 dollars due to Messrs. Glyn, and 2,500,000 to the Montreal Bank." Altogether he had thus employed 5,808,595 dollars, being an annual interest of 350,000 dollars of the money raised under the Imperial guarantee, and he stated that there had been a total gain of over 126,000 dollars in the interest account. He (Mr. Aytoun) contended that such a disposition of the money was in contravention of the Canada Loan Act, the condition of the granting of that Act being the appropriation of the money to the construction of the line of railway in question. He did not call in question Mr. Rose's conduct, because Canada was virtually an independent country, and Mr. Rose was only responsible to the Parliament of Canada. All he wished to show was that Mr. Rose had contravened the Act of Parliament in spending the money raised, and that if the Intercolonial Railway was to be made, it must be made out of other money than that raised on the Imperial guarantee. The very fact that Mr. Rose talked of recouping the loan showed that he had appropriated it to other pur-| poses. The late Government were in Office at the time of these transactions, but they were not responsible for the non-compliance with the conditions of the Act of 1867. The principle of that Act was that the line should be approved

  1447
  by the Secretary of State. That was done, and the Act of the Canadian Parliament was passed, containing a clause for the raising and appropriation of the money; but the late Government would have acted in a more judicious manner if they had followed precedent, and raised the money here in small instalments, sending it over as required. At the same time there was no reason to believe that they in any way sanctioned the mode of appropriation adopted by Mr. Rose. They had acted strictly within the conditions laid down by the Act, and could not be blamed, nor could the present Government be held responsible for what was done by Mr. Rose; but what appeared extraordinary and reflected little credit on our public Departments was this, that the Memorandum recommending the application of this money in the redemption of a portion of the debts of the Dominion was submitted to the Governor General, and approved by him in August, 1868, without his communicating the fact to the Government at home. Another circumstance which was not creditable was this —that while the 4th section of the Canada Railway Loan (1867) Act required that there should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, within fourteen days of the beginning of every Session, a statement and account showing what had been done from time to time in execution of the powers of the Act by the Commissioners of the Treasury and the Parliament and Government of Canada, no such statement had been laid before Parliament till within a very few weeks. He had put a Question to the Under Secretary for the Treasury on the subject, and the answer he received was that the Session having commenced in November, and sat only a few days, there had not been time to lay the account on the table. Now this appeared rather an extraordinary way of interpreting an Act of Parliament—to say that because a thing could not be done within a certain time it should not be done at all. The statement ought to have been laid on the table in February, or, at all events, in March. He had now stated to the House the facts of this case, and his reasons for thinking that there had been a contravention of the Canada Railway Loan (1867) Act. If he was right in his conclusions, the occurrence appeared to be one of a very serious
  1448
  nature. What was to become of the control of that House over the public expenditure if, after Acts passed providing for that expenditure on particular objects, or guarantees of money to be expended in a particular manner, the conditions under which those Acts were passed were disregarded? He therefore hoped the House would not refuse to express its disapprobation of the manner in which the money raised under this Act had been applied. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. MONKseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out. from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that the application of money raised under the Imperial guarantee, in pursuance of 'The Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867,' to the redemption of a portion of the debt of the Canadian Dominion is contrary to the intention of that Act; and that no further guarantee should be given by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury under the above Act, except in such form and manner as shall ensure the direct application of the money so guaranteed to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway,"— (Mr. Sinclair Aytoun,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HUNTsaid, he should merely call attention to the provisions of the Act under which the loan was guaranted, and according to which the Commissioners of the Treasury under the late Government had acted. The Act provided that the Commissioners of the Treasury were to guarantee a loan at 4per cent of a sum not to exceed £3,000,000, to be raised for the construction of railways within the Canadian Dominion, provided they were satisfied certain conditions specified in the Act had been complied with. Under that Act it was the Canadian Government, and not the Imperial Government, that was concerned in raising the loan. If the conditions named in. the Act were found to have been complied with, then the Treasury was to give the guarantee, and it appeared to him that the conditions had been complied with. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Aytoun) stated that the Treasury had acted strictly in conformity with the Act; but that instead of guaranteeing this large sum to be raised at

  1449
  once, it should have been by instalments. It was left under the Act to the Canadian Government to raise the money, and not to the Imperial Government; and they thought they acted in accordance with their interests, and in furthering the interests of Canada, by enabling Canada to raise the money on the most favourable terms. It was stated to the Imperial Government that the then state of the money market was exceedingly favourable for the raising of the money, and it was also advantageous both to this country and Canada that the money should be raised on good terms. Under these circumstances the late Government did not hesitate to accede to the request of Mr. Rose on the part of the Government of Canada, that the money should be raised on our guarantee in the way it was done. The question raised was whether it was the duty of this Government to see to the ad interim investment of the money? That question was considered by the Government, and it appeared to them that the Act did not cast that duty upon them, and that if they had imposed that condition it would have put terms upon Canada in addition to those imposed by the Act. The late Government maintained that the Act imposed no such duty upon them, and no such condition upon Canada; and if the bonds had been given with that conditional guarantee they would have been much prejudiced in the market. The late Government being satisfied that the conditions had been duly complied with, considered it was their duty to give an absolute guarantee, so that no question should be raised in the money market. That was the view taken by the Treasury at the time, and he had no reason to suppose that it was not a sound view. He did not, however, understand that the hon. Gentleman impugned the conduct of the late Government in that matter, but the question was whether Canada had acted in violation of the Act. It was unfortunate that the hon. Member should have brought forward this question before the Papers on the subject had been presented to the House. He (Mr. Hunt) had no official knowledge of what had been done in the matter; but he understood that two most important documents that contained a full statement of what had actually taken place had reached this country, but that they were not before the House,
  1450
  and, consequently, he was not prepared to form an opinion upon the subject until he had seen them. He thought the Canadian Government were justified under the Act in investing the money they did not actually want at the time for the railways, in good securities; but in the absence of official information he was not prepared to give a positive opinion. He had stated frankly what had taken place under the late Government in that matter, and what were the considerations which had influenced them in reference to it, and he hoped that statement would be satisfactory to the House. He regretted that he had been compelled thus early to address the House; because if the conduct of the late Government in respect to the matter was impugned, he would be prevented by the forms of the House from addressing them again upon this subject.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he had not gathered from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who brought forward that question anything but these two points —first, that he condemned the mode in which Mr. Rose had employed the money obtained by the loan; and, next, that he wished that Her Majesty's Government had exercised a stronger control in the matter. It was unnecessary to go into the history or objects of that loan. It was well known that our North-American Provinces held an intercolonial railway to be a necessary condition of their union. It was thought in those provinces that their union would strengthen their power, and at home that it would lessen their dependence upon this country. When the loan for the making of the railway was proposed to be guaranteed by the Imperial Government, the idea was scouted that the Imperial Government should exercise any interference in the disposal of the money. It was stated that we should give the guarantee for the loan; but that we should not be responsible for its disposal —that Canada must dispose of it and would employ it for the purposes for which it was given. It was hardly just, and certainly not generous, to throw a suspicion upon the Canadian Dominion as to the application of that money. Canada had shown its power to redeem it, and its readiness to meet its engagements fully after the loan of 1842. Every penny of that loan had been re-paid; this country had not lost a fraction by

  1451
  that advance to Canada, and there was no reason to doubt that the same course would be pursued in the present instance. Then, how was the Dominion of Canada to make contracts for an expenditure of £4,000,000 sterling without having something more than a promise to send the money? The money must be there, and must be forthcoming when wanted. Contracts had been entered into in various quarters of the Dominion to the extent of about £1,000,000 sterling. By the Act the raising of the money was left entirely at the option and decision of the Government of the Dominion. It was not attempted to borrow the whole amount, but one-half of it, or £2,000,000 sterling; and a more favourable time for raising it could not have been chosen. The hon. Gentleman supposed that all the money had been disbursed, and that there would be nothing at the command of the Canadian Minister; but he believed that the whole amount would be at the command of that Minister, who had placed it in securities on which he could borrow again if desirable, or which he could sell whenever he wanted the money. Supposing the case were the case of this country, and they had a large loan, say for the West Indian Indemnity, or for the relief of the Irish, or for fortifications. The money raised by the Government would, he supposed, in the interim, before it was wanted for its specific purpose, be employed in some way or other; and what better investment could they have for it than the security of the country itself? The credit of Canada was good; there could be no doubt that that money was available and would be forthcoming when wanted; and the contracts that had been made would be gradually met. Mr. Rose, the Finance Minister, had, he thought, acted very judiciously in the way in which he had employed the money. If the guarantee had been accompanied by such restrictions as the hon. Member thought desirable, either the guarantee would have been declined and the whole arrangement upset, or, if it had been accepted on those terms, this country would have made it more onerous for Canada to carry these operations into effect, and more difficult for her to fulfil the objects of the Act. The object was to facilitate the operations of the country in obtaining the money on the best terms. In conse-
  1452
  quence of the operations of Mr. Rose, the charge incurred in consequence of the loan would be much lightened, and he might add that the general result of the transactions had been, up to the present time, extremely successful. It was, he thought, unjust for them to exhibit constant suspicion and distrust with regard to the colonies in matters of that kind. He believed that the English people did not approve of such a course, and he was confident that the people of Canada deserved different treatment. As to Mr. Rose, those who knew him must be perfectly aware of his personal worth; and anyone who had watched his political career must know that he would be the last man to violate the law, or do anything inconsistent with good faith. He (Mr. T. Baring) thought it desirable that the House should know that the raising of this question of morality—for such it was viewed in Canada —in this country had created a feeling of soreness in the Dominion which it was most desirable to remove.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) had not much to say on this subject, I think I have still less to say. But there are two purposes for which I rise. One is to state what I conceive to be the nature of the question now raised. The hon. Member who has just sat down has replied with a warmth and generous feeling, which everybody must commend, to the attacks made upon the Government of Canada, and has deprecated a repetition of such attacks; but I apprehend that he has been making an answer rather to criticisms which have been made elsewhere than to anything said in this House. I do not think my hon. Friend intended in any manner to impugn the good faith of the Government of Canada; and I hope it will be understood that, as far as Canada is concerned, there is no question of imputation or aspersion, great or small. Indeed, I should no more think of casting doubt upon the good faith of the Government or Ministers of Canada than I should of casting doubt on the good faith of the Government or Ministers of this country. In that place both Governments ought to be recognized as standing upon one and the same footing, and topics of such a nature ought to be excluded from discussions like the present. It is perfectly true, however, that there is such a thing as punctuality in

  1453
  complying with the provisions of an Act, and any neglect in such compliance might deserve the censure of the House. But, independently of any reference to Canada, it is no doubt the duty of the House to watch strictly over the application of Acts of Parliament, and most of all over those which deal with the subject of guarantees. This subject will, doubtless, be brought forward again at some future time, and I wish to say, on the part of myself and my Colleagues, that if any of the correspondence now going on between the different Departments of the Government and the Government of Canada should appear, I hope it will be considered subject to the general principle I have laid down— namely, that the whole question raised is one of technical and strict compliance with an Act of Parliament. It is the duty of the Government to raise the question; but they have raised it simply as a matter of business, without in the slightest degree impugning the good faith of the Canadian Government. Independently of that, I desire to point out to my hon. Friend some reasons why he should not take a vote on his Motion to-night. In the first place, the Motion, though it does not directly impugn the good faith of the Government of Canada, is certainly in the nature of a censure on the proceedings of that Government. My hon. Friend is not justified, however, in taking up such a position, because he is not in possession of the information necessary to enable him to form a correct judgment as to the conduct of the Government of Canada. In his Motion my hon. Friend speaks of a reduction of a portion of the debt of the Dominion of Canada as a thing to be censured; but the hon. Gentleman who sits opposite (Mr. Baring), who is perfectly acquainted with the subject, speaks not of a reduction of debt, but of investment and security; and he says it was quite right that the Government of Canada should provide that its balances should not lie idle. My right hon. Friend near me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is a Commissioner for the Reduction of the National Debt, and is one of the largest holders of his own securities, but he does not thereby redeem any portion of his own debt. The two things are perfectly distinct. I think my hon. Friend will do well not to press his Motion at the present time, on the simple ground of the respect due to the Canadian Go-
  1454
  vernment, and the total inadequacy of the information possessed by us. The second part of his Motion says—
  "That no further guarantee should be given by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury under the above Act, except in such form and manner as shall ensure the direct application of the money so guaranteed to the construction of the intercolonial Railway."
  I think it would be very unwise for the House to commit itself upon this latter part of the Motion, because the House is very imperfectly acquainted with the dealings of the Canadian Government, and still more unacquainted with the proceedings of the Government at home. The Government at home have thought it their duty to examine into the question whether all the proceedings have been conformable with perfect regularity, and whether the intention of the Act has been complied with; and that being a legal question, we intend to be guided by legal advice. They are in deliberation at the present time. With regard to the form of the loan, of course they will be responsible on that subject to my hon. Friend and to the rest of the House. Considering that these proceedings have not been brought to a close, I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that assurance. One word more in relation to the Government of Canada, in addition to what I have said with respect to the unquestionable good faith of that country. This Act of Parliament itself, I must own, is not a very clear and satisfactory Act of Parliament. I am not casting any blame on anyone. I do not know at what time the Act of Parliament was drawn, but I think it is drawn in less distinct terms than it ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, truly, the main question was respecting the first of the conditions in the 3rd clause—that is, the condition that the Treasury should not give a guarantee under the Act until an Act had been passed in Canada providing for the appropriation and expenditure of the money for the purpose of constructing the railway. I cast no censure upon the late Government, nor do I know whether the late Government were cognizant of that to which I am about to refer; but if the late Government were cognizant that this money was to remain in the custody of private firms— [Mr. HUNT said, that the late Government had not been cognizant of it.]—I understood they were not cognizant of

  1455
  it, but there was nothing in the Act of the Canadian Parliament to prevent it, because it left an entire discretion as to the management and investment of the loan; and if that Act of Parliament were judged satisfactorily here, I am not surprised that the Canadian Government should not have taken upon themselves to question it. All they were required to do was to pass an Act that would meet the approval of the Government here; and whether their proceedings were consistent with the Act or not, it is no wonder that they should use without control their discretion, as if we had nothing to do with it whatever. The question is not ripe for discussion. If discussion shall at any time be required— on which I give no opinion at all—but if a discussion should arise, it is a question more particularly connected with the duty of the House respecting the custody of public trust funds than a subject bringing under censure the conduct of the Legislature and Ministers of the Canadian Dominion.
  MR. MONKsaid, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Baring) as to the credit of the Canadian Government. Nothing less than an act of bankruptcy could prevent the expenditure of a sum of money equivalent to the loan which had been guaranteed by this country on the formation of the Intercolonial Railway. A portion of his hon. Friend's Motion stated—
  "That this House is of opinion that the application of money raised under the Imperial guarantee, in pursuance of 'The Canada Railway Loan Act, 1867,' to the redemption of a portion of the debt of the Canadian Dominion was contrary to the intention of that Act,"
  and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the House had no information on the subject. In the Papers laid upon the table the House had no information. They were indebted to the Press of this country and of Canada, and to a speech of Mr. Rose for the information they possessed. Mr. Rose said that the Government of Canada invested a portion of the guaranteed loan in the Intercolonial Fund at 6 per cent, thus reducing their debt by 270,500 dollars, and then he proceeded to say that they paid off the Imperial loan, the advances from Messrs. Baring and Glyn, and the Bank of Montreal, bearing 7 per cent interest, and the balance owing to the Ontario Government. Now,
  1456
  if that was not a redemption of debt, he did not know what was. Instead of being applied to the construction of the railway it had been—temporarily he granted—applied towards the redemption of the debt. That could not be controverted, as it had been stated by Mr. Rose himself. The fact was, that the Canadian Government found itself in the possession of considerable funds, and they thought it would be a convenient opportunity for reducing their debt. He believed, with the information furnished by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, his hon. Friend had been perfectly justified in bringing forward the subject; but he did not think it would be desirable that the House should, at the present moment, express any opinion upon it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £91,045, to complete the sum for Post Office and Inland Revenue Buildings.
In answer to Mr. Alderman LUSK,
MR. LAYARDsaid, the General Post Office in St. Martin's-le-Grand was not equal to its requirements, and an entirely new office was to be erected opposite to the present building.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked what was to be done with the present building? Was any part to be utilized for extra offices that would now be required for telegraphic purposes?
MR. AYRTONsaid, it would be kept up. The new building was to be in addition to the existing one.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £58,475, to complete the sum for Harbours of Refuge.
MR. ALDERMAAN LUSKobserved that last year the Committee was told only a few thousands more would be wanted; he could not, therefore, understand why demand was here again made for £22,000. The original Estimate for Alderney Harbour was £755,000; but £1,324,000 had been spent upon it.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this was

1457
the last Vote that would be required for harbours.
MR. DODDSsaid, he was delighted to hear it. In the North of England people were going begging for means to improve really useful harbours, while vast sums were being frittered away to no purpose, comparatively speaking.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £3,300, to complete the sum for Portland Harbour.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, it was worthy of notice that this harbour had cost £14,000 less than the original estimate.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £7,000, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Fire Brigade.
(5.) £19,839, to complete the sum for Rates on Government Property.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that while the whole Vote for four years past had only amounted to £27,000, it was this year £2,000 more. Moreover, an office seemed to have grown up in connection with the Vote, and that office and the salaries it involved cost £900 a year. He wished some explanation about this office, or he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £900.
MR. AYRTONassured the hon. Member that he was in error in his reading of the Votes. The rates, during some years past on Government property, amounted to £36,000, and the different appearance the Vote assumed now arose from a transfer of part of the charge to another Vote. The total charge on this account amounted, as the explanatory Vote showed, to £39,175, which, however, was not a real increase on recent Votes. The Government long since agreed with the House that it would decide at what rate public property should be assessed to local rates, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of local officials. To carry out this arrangement an officer in the Board of Works was appointed with assistants, as described in the Vote; but the arrangement led to a vast amount of circumlocution in cases of rating property belonging to the Army and Navy, and it appeared to him that it would be better to have the officer in the Treasury, and settle the matter without departmental correspondence. It had been decided to charge the rates to the Department whose property was rated, and next year the items would appear in the Army and Navy
1458
Estimates. He could not say he liked separate establishments, and hoped in time to get the officer and his assistants incorporated in the Treasury; but Departments were sometimes stronger than reformers, and prevented beneficial changes.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not know what the hon. Member meant by "Departments being stronger than reformers," and he did not know to what Department he referred; but the Office of Works had nothing to do with the rating of Government property, and had become mixed up in the matter only because the Government, in casting about for an officer to superintend and control that novel service, found Mr. Austin, the then secretary of the Office of Works, who was experienced in rating and had also gained experience in the office of the Poor Law Board, and appointed him to the office. When Mr. Austin retired from the Office of Works the connection between that Office and this Vote ceased.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that his objection was not to the largeness of the Vote; but that the public offices did not contribute their fair share to the taxation of the metropolis. He wished to know upon what principle offices occupied by the Civil Service were entitled to exemption? The Home Office and the new Foreign Office had the advantage of good drainage, but they did not contribute anything towards it.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he was glad to hear that some reform was contemplated in the matter of this Vote. It appeared to him that the Government offices, as well as all other offices, should pay a fair proportion towards the local rating. As to the Departments being stronger than the Treasury, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was all-powerful in that Department, and surely an inspector, his clerk, and an extra clerk were not too formidable for the prowess and courage of the hon. Gentleman? He hoped that the item for the salaries of these officers, who existed to investigate claims for contributions, would disappear from the Votes, and that we should have a general rating Bill, applying to every species of property, not excepting Sunday schools.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that the Government property in Edinburgh was not rated, and no contribution was made at

1459
all by it. That principle he considered to be most unjust. Government property everywhere should be placed on the same footing in regard to rates.
MR. CARTERsaid, Government establishments ought not to be exempt from rates, for in many instances they contributed largely to pauperism. No doubt there were many large establishments that would like to appoint their own officers to determine what rates they should pay, as the Government did; but he hoped the Government officers would be abolished, whether they were compensated or not, and that all Government establishments would be subjected to all rates, local and Imperial.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, that Salford contained a large extent of Government property, and received nothing, although the streets around the barracks had been paved. He should, therefore, like to know on what principle contributions were made?
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcomplained of the Vote being increased over that of last year. He should move that it be reduced by £1,000, unless some satisfactory explanation was given by the Secretary of the Treasury.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had not the rules with him, but there were rules, and they were strictly administered; but the chief consideration was the proportion which Government property bore to the whole amount of property in a parish, and it was in cases in which, a certain proportion was exceeded that a contribution was made. When the system was re-arranged each Department would be responsible for the expenditure which belonged to it, subject to the control of the Treasury.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was not satisfied with this explanation. He thought that Government property, wherever situated, should be made liable to the payment of its fair proportion of local rates.
MR. CAWLEYtrusted that the Government would, at some future time, explain to the House the rules by which these matters were regulated.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £1,800, to complete the sum for Wellington Monument.
(7.) £267, to complete the sum for Palmerston Monument.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
1460
" That a sum, not exceeding £95,455, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that this was a large Vote, and contained a vast number of items. He desired to know how and by whom these Estimates were prepared, and what machinery existed for thoroughly analyzing them before they came into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury? He observed £46,362 for New Works and Alterations in Ireland. Although there was a reduction in the sum total from the. Vote of last year, there was a considerable increase amounting to £7,788 in sub-sections B C D E and F. Believing that the Department would not suffer if the amount granted did not exceed that asked for last year, he should move the decrease of the Vote by £7,788.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £87,667, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Candlish.)
MR. MONKasked the meaning of the £500, which for the first time was asked for on account of "contingencies" in connection with Phoenix Park, Dublin? It was, of course, impossible for the House of Commons to investigate such Votes as these, complicated as they were by so many items; but he could not help thinking that the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland was a very pertinent one, and that was, under whose supervision were these Votes prepared, and who guaranteed the accuracy of the sums which the country was thus called upon to pay?
MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), said, that the original estimate was prepared by the Board of Works in Ireland—a Board which exercised in regard to Ireland functions very similar to those which his right hon. Friend performed in England. That Board was in direct communication with

1461
the individual establishments on whose behalf this expenditure was called for. It received from them a statement of their individual requirements. These statements it carefully investigated, and then a schedule, very much more in detail than the statement in the Votes, was prepared, containing an explanation of every minute item. The Chief Commissioner in Ireland came to London with this mass of papers, and he (Mr. Ayrton) went through every item with him, acting on the principle that it was for him to show the necessity of each item, and challenging him to make good every claim upon the public purse. Many of the items originally demanded were struck out, in consequence of the explanation proving unsatisfactory. It was only those against which he could find no objection that he had allowed to remain. The original claim was much larger than it now appeared, and he could assure the Committee that the result of the examination to which it had been submitted had created great dissatisfaction in Ireland. With regard to the items of increase, one increase was occasioned by a change having been made in the supply of water necessary for Dublin. The £500 for contingencies, however, had hitherto been voted under the head of "Civil Contingencies," and had been re-paid. The Vote for contingencies was put into this Estimate rather than into a supplementary one. If no contingency arose the money would stand to the good.
MR. CARTERasked an explanation of the item of £170 for Irishtown Church, and the item of £18 for furniture and fittings of the said Church? He believed that in the Army Estimates a Vote was taken for the salary of a clergyman, a clerk, and a sexton of the Irishtown Church.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought the item of £14,835 for furniture for the public buildings in Ireland a very extravagant one. Last year the amount under the same head was £10,168, making a sum of about £25,000 for two years. No such amounts were ever asked for public buildings in Scotland, though that country contributed £2,000,000 annually to the Imperial Revenue more than was contributed by Ireland.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKcalled attention to the item of £1,777 for maintenance and repairs of metropolitan police courts and stations in Dublin, in addition
1462
to the large sum voted last year. The total amount required for courts and stations was £7,916. He found that for the Chief Secretary's lodge and gardens in the Phœnix Park £1,432 was required, though £1,465 had been voted for them last year.
MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he did not know that Scotland contributed more towards the Imperial Revenue than Ireland, but he did know that Ireland had more inhabitants than Scotland, and he presumed, therefore, that the Irish required more furniture than the Scotch. It was a subject of complaint in Ireland that the people there did not receive enough of the public money. Since he entered Parliament he had. frequently been asked by his constituents and others to whom was to be attributed the Imperial stinginess towards Ireland. He thanked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury for enabling him to answer the question. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) would show the same economical spirit when the Votes for this metropolis came to be considered as he was manifesting in the case of those for the Irish metropolis.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped that the expenses of the police courts in London would receive the attention of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk). He thought some explanation was required as to why the expenses of the six prisons had been placed in this class, rather than in the one to which the prison departments more properly belonged.
MR. MONKinquired how it was that all educational Votes for Ireland did not come under the general educational Votes?
MR. RYLANDSremarked upon the large sum, £3,165, required for furnishing the Dublin police courts.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that the offices in Dublin must regularly sell their furniture on the last day of December and purchase new on the first day of January each year to require £14,000 per annum for movables.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it was quite impossible for him to carry in his head the details of all the items of the Vote, which had been considered at the time. With regard to the item for furniture, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) so strongly objected, he might remind him that

1463
fittings as well as furniture were included, such as glass cases for museums and the fittings of new buildings. Under the system which prevailed in Ireland, all requirements for buildings, furniture, and fittings were placed under the Irish Board of Works, and it therefore became necessary to group them in some such way as they appeared in the Estimate. With regard to the item for the Church he had not taken upon himself to commence the work of disestablishment, and therefore he had continued the Vote which had been annually granted ever since the Union. Dublin was supplied with water under an Act of Parliament which fixed the amount of the rate to be charged.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) £2,362, to complete the sum for Ulster Canal.
(10.) £26,810, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
MR. CANDLISHcomplained that no account had been rendered to the Audit Office of the expenditure of the money voted for 1868.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked, why it was that there was every year a re-Vote of some £10,000 or £20,000; and he also asked whether it was the Board of Trade or the Trinity House that was responsible for spending this money?
MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied that the Board of Trade spent the money, though the Trinity House was occasionally employed to render services. The contracts were made abroad, and that often led to delay, and caused a re-Vote of the money. The cause of the accounts of expenditure not having been furnished for 1868 arose from some delay on the part of the Indian Government.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £687, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Maintenance and Repairs of Embassy Houses Abroad."
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTobserved that a large sum was asked for year after year for the Embassy House at Paris, and he thought it better that
1464
a certain fixed amount should be allowed the Ambassador for repairs.
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, that if they went on spending money in this fashion on the Embassy House at Paris the building would soon be full of nothing but furniture. A clerk of works was also constantly employed at the Embassy House, at a salary of £185 a year. To bring these things under the notice of the Committee, he would move that the Vote be negatived.
MR. MONKsaid, he thought that the sum of £1,787 for the repairs of the Embassy House at Paris was more than they should vote. For an annual rent of that amount an excellent house for the purpose might be obtained.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that the Embassy at Paris required a house of a high character, and some years ago, as the charges for the Embassy House were great, the Government undertook to make whatever changes in it might be necessary gradually. However, it was one thing to spend money for repairs and another to keep an officer in Paris as clerk of the works; and if these works were carried on by contract, the permanent officer in Paris might be dispensed with, and an officer of the Board of Works might occasionally visit Paris to survey the works, providing himself with a return railway ticket for a month.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was greatly mistaken in supposing that a fit house could be obtained for a rent of £1,700, for in Paris the rents were higher than in London. He had been over to Paris lately, and he was thoroughly ashamed of the state of the furniture in the upper rooms of the Embassy House. It was an expensive house to keep up, and constantly required repairs, and perhaps the best plan would be to have a new house. A clerk of the works had been appointed for some years, because the House desired that there should be some one in Paris to look after the expenditure; but he would consider whether arrangements might not be made for sending a person to Paris occasionally to inspect the building.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought the statement just made was discouraging. There was £3,600 spent in 1868, £1,900 in 1869, and now £1,700 more was asked for. He should like to know what security they had that the sum they were

1465
asked to vote for that building would not be exceeded.
MR. MONKsaid, he thought that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works with respect to the state of the Embassy House in Paris was discreditable to the Ambassador. They had been annually voting £1,600 or £1,700 for the building, and yet it appeared that it continued in a very dilapidated condition. Some years ago it was said that economy would result from having a clerk of the works always at Paris, but the consequence was that there had been an increase of expenditure.
SIR HENRY BULWERsaid, it seemed to him extraordinary that they should every year have to vote that sum. He suggested that the Vote should not be rejected, but that the Government should be asked to give some details; so that the House might be able to judge what the expenses consisted of, and whether they were likely to go on year after year to the same amount. No facts had. been stated on which this Estimate was founded.
MR. HERMONsaid, they had last year voted on that account something like £2,000, and they had no assurance that by granting a similar sum this year they would not be throwing good money after bad. He attributed this continual expenditure to the clerk of the works at Paris, who would generally find work to do.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that subject had engaged the very serious attention of the Committee up-stairs. That Committee had called for a detailed account of the expenditure under that head; their Report would soon be published, and he had no doubt that when hon. Members read it they would be very much surprised, as the Committee had been, by its details. That expenditure had often been discussed in the House, but he did not think it had been understood; and when it was understood he believed that hon. Members would see the significance of the statement made by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that an inquiry would be instituted into the outlay with a view to the introduction of a new system. His right hon. Friend had told him that the subject would be carefully considered by his Department, and after that assurance he (Mr. Ayrton) hoped they would be prepared to pass the Vote.
MR. HIBBERTagreed with the hon. Member (Mr. Hermon) in attributing the chief part of the expenditure at Paris to the presence of a clerk of the works in the Embassy House there, and said he should move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £185, the allowance of this officer.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £185, for Salary of the Clerk of the Works in charge (including allowance for Lodging), be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
LORD JOHN MANNERS, said that every sort of system had been tried to produce economy in the two Embassy Houses of Paris and Constantinople, and all alike had failed. But he certainly believed that Lord Lyons, the present Ambassador, did not deserve the censure which had been cast upon him by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He had himself always found in Lord Lyons a zealous co-operator in every attempt to keep down the expense of the Embassy.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTexpressed his surprise at the description given by the First Commissioner of Works of the discreditable state of the Paris Embassy House.
MR. MUNTZsaid, the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) had told them that every plan had been tried for keeping down the expenditure. But there was one plan they had not yet adopted, and that was to discontinue the Vote. It was absurd to suppose that £2,000 could be really required every year to keep that house in repair. He believed it was all to be attributed to the appointment of a clerk of the works, for while they had such an officer he would naturally be always finding something to do. He was persuaded that, if they discontinued the Vote of £185 for the clerk of the works, and employed an eminent Parisian architect, the expenditure under the present head would be diminished by at least one-half.
MR. SEELYsaid, he thought it was very undesirable that they should vote separate sums for every kind of petty work at the Paris Embassy House, because such a system was sure to tend to careless and extravagant expenditure. He would suggest that that system should be abandoned, and that, for the future, the Ambassador should receive a lump sum which should cover the entire of his outlay.
MR. OTWAYsaid, the Embassy House at Paris was a very large and expensive one, and from its size and condition must always require a considerable amount of annual expenditure. He could corroborate what the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners) had said of Lord Lyons, than whom there was no man more disposed to economy or more likely by observation to prevent any improper expenditure on the house in which he lived.
SIR HENRY BULWERthought, with reference to the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton), that the Committee should have means of understanding the Vote before they were called upon to pass it, and it should rather be deferred until this information was supplied.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, that a reduction had been made a few years ago in the Vote for the Embassy at Constantinople by expunging from it the salary of the clerk of the works. Whether owing to that reduction or not he could not say, there had since been a decrease of £1,335 in the Vote for that Embassy, and, perhaps, an equally satisfactory result would follow if the item were struck out in the present instance.
LORD JOHN MANNERS LORD JOHN MANNERS, referring to the advice which had been given by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) to the effect that the office of clerk of the works should be abolished, and that the services of a first-rate Parisian architect should be secured in his place, observed that some years ago an eminent Parisian architect had been employed, and that he should never forget the length of his bill.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsuggested, that as the present Embassy House in Paris was an old tumble-down building, it should be sold and a new house obtained in its stead. The public would, he thought, be gainers by the transaction.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he saw no great objection to having the office of clerk of the works done away with, which he believed was established at the suggestion of the House. If, however, the Committee would leave the matter in his hands, he would take care that it should be looked into, and if he found the abolition of the office was likely to lead to economy, the charge for it should not appear in the Votes next year.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, that being satisfied with that assurance, he should not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(12.) £37,585, to complete the sum for Embassy Houses, and Consular Buildings, Constantinople, China, Japan, and Tehran.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the balance which the Committee was asked to vote was less by £10,000 than the original Estimate.
MR. MONKsaid, he was not aware whether any part of that reduction referred to the Embassy House at Constantinople. Presuming that it did not, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to explain — for he knew that, as an independent Member, he objected to the sums which were expended on some of our foreign Embassies—how it was that the sum of £10,000, which had been voted for the purpose of building a country house for our Ambassador at Therapia, had been exceeded by £3,000? He desired also to call attention to the large sums which year after year the House was asked to vote for the Embassy House at Pera, in building which a sum of £80,000 was not many years ago spent. It was true, as had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), that the office of clerk of the works at Constantinople had some time since been abolished; but then he found that there was a salary for a superintendent put down in the Estimates, and he wished to know whether he was not much the same functionary as a clerk of the works, for he had a very strong suspicion that such was the case? He desired further to say that there appeared to be two sets of plans for the house at Therapia, the original plans of a local architect having been superseded by those of Colonel Gordon, whose plans, he understood, had since been modified by those of some other official at Constantinople. He hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would inform the Committee which of those plans had been finally fixed upon.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he entirely sympathized with the dissatisfaction which his hon. Friend seemed to feel at the expenditure which was incurred in con-

1469
nection with the establishments which we kept up at Constantinople. It had, however, been the policy of this country for some years to keep up great establishments in that city. His hon. Friend was right in stating that he (Mr. Ayrton) had constantly protested against so large an expenditure; but he was obliged to take matters as he found them, and to accept the expenditure which was deemed to be necessary for the purpose of making our Ambassador comfortable. Not only had he a mansion at Constantinople, but a country house at Therapia also provided for him at the public expense. Provision had, besides, to be made for his secretary, as well as for the maintenance of an hospital and courts of justice. The whole of the expenditure for keeping up these and other establishments amounted to £32,816, the item of £4,000 being for the completion of the building at Therapia. It was impossible for the Government, dealing with this question in the advanced stage in which they found it, to do more than they had done. The expenditure was as final as expenditure usually was. He did not know what demands might be made from Constantinople another year; all he could say was he would do his best to resist them.
SIR HENRY BULWERobserved that previous to the change of the clerk of the works the Ambassador had no control whatever over the expenditure. The clerk of the works made a job of the whole business. It was found very advantageous to do away with the clerk of the works altogether. As to the house at Therapia, he should like to have some idea of the work done and what there was still to construct. He thought that the house now provided would not be a very satisfactory one. He did not think the expense would be confined within the £10,000, and there would be always a constant and useless expenditure upon it.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he was altogether at a loss to understand how there! had been a diminution under this Vote of £10,000. There was a great fallacy in the statement of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury as to that reduction. He strongly objected to the sum of £174,000 proposed to be taken for the purchase of land in China and Japan. He was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman below him
1470
(Sir Henry Bulwer), who had occupied so distinguished a position in Constantinople, that the clerk of the works had not been restored, and that subsequent to his dismissal a considerable saving had been effected.
MR. STANSFELDbegged to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that the Treasury had. sent out an extremely able and economical public servant (Major Crossman) to make inquiry with reference to the erection of the proposed consular establishments in China and Japan. He had very nearly completed his inquiry and survey to ascertain the cost, and had given the Government information on which they reduced the demand for the present year. He also informed them that, unless the demands were sifted, criticized, and reduced, they would lead ultimately to a considerable increase above the original estimate. Major Crossman had asked for leave of absence, and it was deemed advisable to comply with his application, consult with him personally on the subject, and devise some means for the reduction of the Estimate. He was expected daily to arrive in England; it would be his duty to communicate with him on the subject, and he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend the Vote would not remain at its present amount unless he were satisfied it should.
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he had always understood it was the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to consider what sum was necessary before proposing a Vote; he was therefore rather surprised to hear it stated that the proposed sum was as final as expenditure usually was, and no hope was held out that it would not be ultimately exceeded. Unless some Member of the Government gave a more satisfactory explantion he should move to reduce this Vote.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had stated that this money was required to complete plans and estimates made before the present Government came into Office. At the same time he must say he did not admire the policy of keeping up an expensive establishment at Constantinople.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he had never heard a less satisfactory explanation of a Vote; for if any one could explain those Votes it was always the Secretary to the Treasury. He hoped some assurance would be given that no more money would be asked for.
MR. MONKsaid, he thought the Committee had a right to know whether £4,000 would be enough to complete the buildings. Last year he had taken the sense of the Committee on this subject, but he had been beaten by 2 to 1.
MR. W. F. COWPERgave credit to the Government for a general intention to be economical, but he had no confidence in their power of being economical at Therapia. The clerk of the works who used to be there was paid, not by fees, but by salary, and being responsible only to the Office of Works it was his business to enforce economy. What machinery had the Government for enforcing economy, since the Vote of the House would disestablish him? If matters were left to the local architect or to an engineer officer, that would account for the fact that no one knew what the new buildings at Therapia would cost. At so great a distance the Government at home could exercise no control, but they ought to have some one on the spot.
MR. AYRTONsaid, there was a superintendent at £300 a year, who was responsible for the expenditure. The sum now to be voted was to complete the house and to furnish it. Of course, demands were always made for keeping up these establishments, but it would be the duty of the Government to resist any further expenditure for these buildings.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would like to know something about the expenditure in China and Japan. Last year the Government asked for £37,000 for Japan, without giving any explanation as to what it was for; and now £10,000 more was asked for buildings, but no one knew anything of the details, which were yearly promised but never given.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was sorry to hear the remarks made by the right, hon. Gentleman (Sir Henry Bulwer) with regard to the clerk of the works at Therapia. His differences with that officer were tolerably well known. [Sir HENRY BULWER: I never disagreed with the clerk of the works, but I did not approve what he did.] Well, the clerk of the works was not there to explain. His position was felt to be incompatible. He was necessarily a man of comparatively humble position, and no great amount of good was likely to flow from his efforts to keep down
1472
expenditure. The abolition of his office was therefore rather beneficial than otherwise. He had been succeeded by a simple superintendent, and perhaps it would be advisable if some explanation were given from the Treasury Bench as to the relationship subsisting between that superintendent and the Embassy. His own opinion was that at present there was no connection between the Office of Works and the Embassy House at Constantinople, and that it lay either with the Foreign Office or Treasury to decide what money was required for the Embassy House. The Secretary of the Treasury had given the Committee to understand that although it had been his duty to defend the Vote, he had no great sympathy with it, and that, indeed, he rather disliked the whole system which regulated our international affairs at Constantinople. That, however, was a large question of policy which could not be discussed in Committee of Supply. He thought the Committee need have no difficulty whatever in agreeing to the Vote under discussion, because it was only intended for the carrying out of the plan sanctioned by the House last year.
SIR HENRY BULWERsaid, that in his time the clerk of the works appeared to have entered into many unnecessary expenses; but when the office was abolished a much smaller sum than was previously expended was allowed the Ambassador, within which he was to keep the outlay. During the year he had the management of that sum he left a considerable balance unexpended. He thought it a far better and simpler plan to have one man who was responsible than to have a person sent out from the Board of Works, at very great expense, over whom the Ambassador had no control, and over whom it was impossible for one residing in London to have any.
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNinquired whether the superintendent really performed the same duties as the clerk of the works had done. When the clerk of the works had disappeared it looked very much as if a new office of the same kind had been created. He wanted to know how the superintendent differed from the clerk of the works?
SIR HENRY BULWERsaid, the clerk of the works was sent out by the Board of Works, and had the entire control and management of the expenditure; the superintendent, who in his time was

1473
suggested by the Ambassador, and confirmed, of course, by the Government at home, was appointed at a much less salary; his business, no doubt, was to keep down the expenditure, and to go over the accounts, but he had not the unlimited control that the other possessed.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Henry Bulwer) that a great deal of good would be done if a fixed sum was granted for all the European Embassies. The sum asked for was not very large, but it was a constantly increasing expenditure. He could not vote for the proposed reduction; but there was one item which required explanation—that of £800 for "adapting old buildings. "When we were erecting new buildings, why were not the old ones sold?
SIR JOHN HAYasked whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth would add this further information, who this superintendent was? "Was he the old clerk of the works transmogrified?
SIR HENRY BULWERsaid, he could speak only for what had occurred in his own time. The superintendent that he suggested was an Englishman and an architect. He was certainly not the same person as the clerk of the works.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the superintendent was the Vice Consul at Constantinople.
SIR JOHN HAYwished further to know what qualifications he had for the discharge of the duties to which he had been appointed?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had not been appointed by the present Government; but he presumed that those who had selected Mm were satisfied with respect to his fitness for the office. It was no doubt a difficult task to know how to meet all the requirements of Consuls and Ambassadors, but the policy in question did not begin with these Estimates. Her Majesty's Government, on assuming Office, could not undertake to solve all the difficulties. As to the £800 to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Muntz) had referred, it was for putting part of the former house into a state fit for occupation by the secretary, because when the Ambassador went to Therapia he was accompanied by his secretary.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the Govern-
1474
ment were not satisfied with the present arrangement in connection with the Embassy at Constantinople, and that the charges would not appear in the Estimates next year without some modification. He would make the same statement with respect to the Embassy Houses in China and Japan. Colonel Grossman had been sent out specially to report upon the subject, and was now on his way home with information for the direction of the Government. He could assure the House that the charges in connection with the Embassy Houses in these countries would also be revised before the Estimates were made up next year. With respect to the new buildings at Teheran, that was an arrangement made by the late Government, and, as far as he could judge, it was a reasonable one. A proposal came home as to the old buildings, which were in an extremely bad and ruinous condition, and would cost £15,000 to repair. But the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought that a better site could be chosen, upon which a new residence could be built, while the old property might be sold. It was important to have a good supply of water, and that would be obtained at the new site, and he had reason to believe that the Estimate of £20,000 would not be exceeded.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £31,438, to complete the sum for House of Lords Offices.
MR. WHITEasked for some explanation of this Vote. For some years, when there were a large number of Private Bills before Parliament, the House of Lords had more than sufficient to pay its expenses; latterly the reverse had been the case, but he wished to know what had been done with the surplus of those years. Among the items requiring explanation he noticed two principal door-keepers, £900, one of whom was a receiver of fees with another salary; and there was a "necessary woman," with a salary of £208.
MR. LOCKE KINGinquired whether the sum of £4,000 paid to the Lord Chancellor was intended as his salary as Speaker in addition to his salary as Lord Chancellor; how it happened that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received£2,500, while the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons received but £1,500; and what

1475
salary Black Rod received in addition to an amount of £90 for fees mentioned in the Votes?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would view with satisfaction the appearance of the particulars of this Vote for the first time in the Estimates; the demand of the Upper House could now be compared with the charge on account of the House of Commons. As the salaries would, no doubt, be reviewed as vacancies occurred, there was a chance of the Vote being reduced. He could not explain the language describing an official referred to; but believed the designation justified the appointment, since she was described as "a necessary woman." The surplus funds had been carried into an account to secure superannuation allowances for retired officials of the House of Lords, in accordance with the wish of the Committee of the House which dealt with such matters. The payment of £4,000 to the Lord Chancellor as Speaker was in addition to the payment made to him out of the Consolidated Fund as Lord Chancellor. The salary of Chairman of Committees in the Lords was fixed a long time ago, and it was not for the Treasury to require the reduction of such salaries under the circumstances. With reference to the item for the Usher of the Black Rod, the salary paid to him was very small; but he was an officer belonging to the Household, and as Usher he was placed by Her Majesty in the House of Lords, receiving certain fees for the performance of his duties. He did not know what the fees amounted to, but whenever the office became vacant the present system would be discontinued. The Treasury had been in communication with the Lord Chancellor with the view of fixing a certain salary for the Usher of the Black Rod, instead of payment partly by fees and partly by salary. The arrangement would be a considerable saving to the public.
COLONEL SYKESobserved that they were upon the first of forty-one Votes in Class II., in twenty-seven of which there were increases amounting altogether to £386,000. He was sorry to find this increase under an economical Government when two great Departments—namely, the War Office and. the Admiralty—had managed to retrench. The prospect of twenty-seven wrangles drove him to despair, and he gave it up.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthought if they compared the Estimates for the two Houses those for the Lords would favourably contrast with those for the Commons.
MR. GOLDNEYwished to know whether the receiver accounted for the whole of the fees, or for those that remained after certain payments were deducted—whether, in fact, he accounted for the gross or the net amount of the fees?
MR. AYRTONsaid, that under the new system he would account for the whole gross amount of the fees.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £36,482, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.
MR. LOCKE KINGwished to know why the salaries of the Speaker and the Serjeant-at-Arms were not included in this Vote?
MR. AYRTONreplied that they were charged on the Consolidated Fund.
MR. DENTasked for an explanation of the charge for four Referees of Private Bills at £1,000 each?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that by the lamented death of Mr. Hassard a vacancy had occurred in the office of one of the Referees.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the vacancy which had occurred would not be filled up. There would, of course, be no objection on the part of the Government to re-consider the amount required for Referees of Private Bills. The expenditure of that money was, in fact, not under the Treasury but under the House of Commons itself. The exact sum that was necessary for the services of the Referees during the present Session could be ascertained before the Report was brought up.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, it would depend on the Report of a Committee now sitting whether there would be established a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons upon Private Bills; and in that case it was very probable that the office of Referee would be done away with. Until, however, that point was decided, he thought the Speaker should have a discretionary power as to the number of Referees to be appointed to assist Committees on Private Bills.
MR. BOWRINGcondemned the system of paying officers of that House by fees, and animadverted especially upon

1477
the item of £1,500 for fees upon Private Bills.
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, there were great complaints of the enormous cost of carrying Private Bills through that House; but as the amount put down for those fees was only £17,000, he could not understand why the cost of such Bills should be enormous.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, the fees to counsel in the case of Private Bills were often exceedingly heavy; and the Parliamentary expenses of certain small railway companies, with which he had been connected, actually amounted to no less than £4,000 per mile; or, as nearly as possible, about what ought to have been the natural cost of constructing their lines. That was the result of the House retaining the existing tribunal for dealing with those questions.
MR. AYRTONexplained that the item of £1,500 for fees on Turnpike Bills was merely a matter of account. In regard to the fees paid to the officers of the House, the fees were not received by those officers for their own benefit. The officers of the House were paid by salary.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the fees were paid by the public on Bills partly of a private and partly of a public character, and they were accounted for to the House.
MR. MELLORasked for information relative to the Vote for ventilation.
MR. AYRTONstated that the Establishment charges of the House of Commons were not regulated by the Treasury, but by a Committee of this House, who forwarded the Estimate to the Treasury, and who, he presumed, carefully considered the requirements of the House before making the Estimate.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, there was no such Committee appointed by the House.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the expenditure was regulated by statute, and a Committee was appointed by the statute, consisting of the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Home Secretary.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was not aware of the existence of such a Committee appointed by the House.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he saw this item in the Votes—one of £724 and another of £500 for messengers. He wished to know whether the Votes included the salaries of the men who de-
1478
livered the Votes and Papers at hon. Members' residences, and whether they were so insufficiently paid that they had to ask hon. Members for gratuities?
MR. DILLWYNwished to know who was responsible for the Vote for lighting and ventilating the House, as the present and late Secretaries of the Treasury differed in opinion upon that point?
MR. AYRTONsaid, the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Home Secretary were a Committee for that purpose, and they were appointed by statute, and they were responsible for the salaries, and not the Treasury.
MR. BROGDENasked for an explanation of the item of £500 fees to the clerks for attending divisions. He objected to the clerks being paid by fees.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it was a sum paid in addition to their regular salary, for their attendance at the divisions of that House. They had, of course, to remain so long as the House sat, and. this sum was distributed amongst them for those extra and special duties. To them it was an extremely arduous service, because they did not take the same interest in divisions that hon. Members did.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £39,275, to complete the sum for Treasury and Subordinate Departments.
MR. DILLWYNasked for an explanation of the sum of £460 for audit clerks.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked for an explanation of the item for the salaries and office of the Parliamentary draftsman. Although an increased sum had been awarded to that Department, he still found an item of £1,000 for additional services.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that it was quite impossible for one or even two persons to draft all the Bills required by the Government, and the arrangement now made was this— the counsel for the Home Office was appointed Parliamentary counsel for the whole Government, and was provided with as much extra assistance as was necessary for drawing all the Bills for the different Departments. There was some economy in this arrangement, as compared with the old system; but, what was of still greater importance, there would now be uniformity in the drafting of the Bills of the Government. Last year, while the

1479
Parliamentary counsel of the Government had £2,000, another counsel, not regularly employed by the Government, had £3,500. It was time to put an end to such a system; and the fresh arrangement, by which all the work was put into one hand, would he believed, be found both more economical and more efficient than the old one.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the new system did not appear to get rid of the anomaly of engaging other counsel to assist the Parliamentary draftsman of the Government, who did not therefore appear to have gone far enough to make his department complete in itself.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the object now was to keep the fixed establishment of the draftsman at the lowest possible point, and obtain extra help when it was wanted. In answer to the hon. Member's (Mr. Dillwyn's) question, he had to state that the clerks referred to did not audit accounts, but they examined the accounts before they were sent by the Treasury to the Audit Department.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, that in this Vote there was included a sum of £14,000 for the salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Third Lord of the Treasury, and two Junior Lords; a third Junior Lord serving without salary. Now, he was not about to object to that amount, which he thought a moderate one; but, on the contrary, what he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee was the objection which existed to the principle of accepting the services of one of the Junior Lords without a salary. For the Marquess of Lansdowne he had the greatest respect. He believed it was notorious that his Lordship had devoted himself with much zeal to the duties of the office which he had undertaken, and that he had done so with considerable advantage to the country; but, notwithstanding the hereditary claims of the noble Lord, and his own estimable character, he thought the Government ought not to have accepted his services as a Lord of the Treasury, without insisting on his receiving a salary. The receipt of a salary by a public servant made him more directly responsible to the State. Besides the precedent of allowing a member of one of the great families who could afford to fill a public
1480
office without a salary to give his services gratuitously would destroy the principle of competition. Lord Grey had refused to allow a noble Duke to hold office in his Government without salary. He believed Lord Grey had adopted a constitutional course in acting in such a manner, and he thought the present Government would have done well to have adopted the same principle.
Vote agreed, to.
(16.) £57,696, to complete the sum for Home Office and Subordinate Departments.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONScalled attention to the fact that £5,000 or £6,000 was charged for expenses connected with the Local Government Act. Cities and towns applied to the Home Office for assistance in borrowing millions of money, and they obtained it without expense and without stamps. He disapproved of this practice.
MR. BRUCEthanked his hon. Friend for bringing this important matter before the House. When the Public Health Act was passed it was thought undesirable to prevent local authorities seeking advice and assistance from the Home Office by fixing a scale of fees. But now the time had come to re-consider this question, and say whether localities, whose work was done by the Home Office, should not be called upon to make some contribution to the expenses. A scheme had been for some time under consideration in order to effect this, and in due time it would be laid before the House.
MR. SCLATER- BOOTHremarked that this subject was an old one. He was glad to hear that the Government intended to move in the matter. There were half-a-dozen other departments in connection with the Home Office and the Treasury which ought to be considered with a view to an arrangement similar to that referred to by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
MR. GOLDNEYcalled attention to the question of travelling expenses allowed to the Poor Law inspectors and the inspectors of schools. In the case of the Poor Law inspectors their travelling expenses were commuted for a payment of £300 a year each; but the school inspectors, who had much more travelling to do, and who were paid their actual expenses, averaged only £91 a year

1481
each for the cost of travelling. He suggested that the Poor Law inspectors should also be paid their actual travelling expenses; and then it would be seen whether their inspections were really made, about which sometimes some question was raised.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the school inspectors were paid a fixed salary of £250 over and above that which they otherwise received for all expenses incurred during absence from home, other than travelling expenses; and it was a fair matter for consideration whether that was the best arrangement, for it acted at present very unfairly, as some were necessarily more frequently and for longer periods absent from home than others. The question of applying the same system to mine and factory inspectors had been under the consideration of the late and the present Government; but it was found that the variety of their circumstances was so great that it was found impracticable to arrange any uniform system of fixed payments in lieu of travelling and other expenses.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he thought that all inspectors should be placed upon the same footing, and that the owners of the factories, mines, or salmon fisheries inspected should pay the expenses of the inspectors.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that in the case of mines and factories the inspectors were appointed in the interest not of the owners, but of the people working in them, and that, therefore, it would be unfair to call upon the owners to pay the expenses of the inspection. The case of the salmon fisheries, however, was different; the expenditure of the Government in that respect conduced to private advantage, and if a way of doing it could be found, it would only be just and equitable to make the owners pay.
MR. HIBBERTcalled attention to the Vote for the superintendent of roads in South Wales, and asked why that payment was kept up.
MR. BRUCEsaid, a great experiment was made in South Wales in the turnpike system, and he hoped the time would come when it would be followed in this country. The money advanced by Government would be re-paid in about ten years.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, the experiment tried in South Wales had been thoroughly successful, and he did not see
1482
why turnpikes should not be put an end to altogether.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he merely declined to bring in a Bill on the subject in the present Session.
Vote agreed to.
MR. VANCEmoved that the Chairman report Progress, as it was not customary to go on with the Estimates after twelve o'clock.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

VALUATION OF PROPERTY (METROPOLIS) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 100.]
(Mr. Goschen, Mr. Arthur Peel, Mr. Ayrton.)
VALUATION OF PROPERTY (METROPOLIS) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 100.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 11 (Grounds on which persons may object before assessment committees).
  DR. BREWER DR. BREWER moved in page 5, line 3, at end, add—
  "That the Assessment Committee of each parish or union shall hear and decide all appeals under this Act against the Valuation list of the said parish or union, and that an appeal from the decision of such committee shall be in the court of petty session within the sessional division of the metropolis to which such parish or union belongs."
  No harm or difficulty whatever could follow from the course which he suggested, and he had received representations from various parts of the metropolis in favour of it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 3, at end, to add the words "that the Assessment Committee of each parish or union shall hear and decide all appeals under this Act against the Valuation list of the said parish or union, and that an appeal from the decision of such committee shall be in the court of petty session within the sessional division of the metropolis to which such parish or union belongs." —(Dr. Brewer.)
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, inasmuch as the 11th and 18th clauses would practically effect the object which his hon. Friend wished to attain.
  MR. PEEKcomplained of the very unequal way in which different parishes were rated in the City.
  MR. GOSCHENreplied that the remedy was in the Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 21; Noes 80: Majority 59.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 52 omitted.
  Clause 53 (Deductions for rateable value).
  MR. GOSCHEN MR. GOSCHEN moved, in line 38, to leave out the Proviso to the end of the clause.
  COLONEL BRISEobjected to the Bill, as he understood many of the inhabitants of the metropolis objected to it, on the ground that it placed the valuation of property for local and Imperial taxation on the same basis. He could not doubt that if this principle were adopted in the metropolis it would soon spread all over the country.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that all controversial matter had been dropped from this Bill, and the opposition of the metropolitan. Members had been in consequence withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 54 and 55 omitted.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill to extend the period for the repayment of Advances of Public Money for the construction of certain Public Works in Ireland; and also to incorporate the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for certain purposes, and to vest in the said Commissioners Lands and Premises held on Public Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 202.]

  CLERK OF ASSIZE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. AYRTON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the office of Clerk of Assize and offices united thereto, and to certain Fees upon Orders for payment of Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 203.]

  WAREHOUSING OF WINES AND SPIRITS, &C, BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a
  1484
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Warehousing of Wines and Spirits in Customs and Excise Warehouses, and for other purposes relating to Customs and Inland Revenue.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 201.]

  HERITABLE RIGHTS BILL.
  Bill to abolish the Law of Deathbed, and to make certain other changes in the law of Scotland relating to Heritable Rights, presented, and read the first time. [Bill 204.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— First Reading— Contagious Diseases Prevention (Metropolis)* (176); Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment* (178).
Second Reading—Bankruptcy * (154); Imprisonment for Debt * (168); Municipal Franchise (200).
Third Reading—Life Peerages (113), negatived.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Earl of Bantry a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Earl of Wicklow, deceased, with the certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto—Delivered (on oath), and certificate read.
REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR SCOTLAND.
The Clerk of the Parliaments delivered a certificate of the Clerk of the Crown that the Earl of Kellie had been elected a Representative Peer for Scotland (fifteen Peers of Scotland only having been duly elected at the election of the Peers of Scotland to sit in the House of Peers in the present Parliament of the United Kingdom): Certificate read.
LIFE PEERAGES BILL—(No. 113.)
(The Earl Russell.)
LIFE PEERAGES BILL—(No. 113.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl Russell.)
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I have given notice, even at this late period of the Session, that I shall feel it my duty to oppose the Bill of the noble Earl (Earl Russell), and to move that it be read a third time this day three months. It is now exactly three months since the noble Earl introduced it, and it is for him to explain why he has allowed it to remain so long under your Lordships' consideration; but I believe the more you have seen of it the less you have liked it. The object of the noble Earl in bringing forward this Bill is no doubt a very worthy one. It is, as I understand, to strengthen the practical powers of this House and increase its prestige, and to enable emi-
  1388
  nent men who do not possess a large fortune to sit in the House without transmitting to their descendants the expenses, or supposed expenses, of an hereditary peerage. Now, I venture to think that this House requires very little increase of practical power and prestige. I am aware that many persons, both in their speeches and writings, have represented that this House is not on a level with the opinions of the time, and that it cannot, therefore, march pari passsû with the House of Commons; but that does not appear to me to be the case. What, let us consider, is the composition of this House as the oldest legislative body in Europe, and as the highest in character and general respect? Some persons have said that it is a House of mere landowners—that is, men of a sort of upper-class farmers; and being so, that they are not as fitted as they might be for the consideration of the general questions which agitate the political world. But is that the fact? Of course many of us are landowners, and are not, I think, as such, incapacitated from considering general questions; but it is not true that we are only landowners. Property of every kind belongs to Members of this House. We are not only owners of land, but owners and even lessees of mines and other industrial property. Among us there are also bankers, railway directors, and men most eminent for their knowledge of commercial affairs, such as the Marquess of Salisbury and other Peers. There are others who are eminent officers of the Army and Navy, who are ready to enter upon discussions of interest to your Lordships relative to those professions. There are more than fifty Peers who have been eminent and distinguished Members of the House of Commons. There are eminent diplomatists, like Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and Lord Cowley. There are historians, among whom I may name my noble Friend behind me (Earl Stanhope), who, if ever your Lordships were mistaken on any point of history, would set you right. There are writers both of prose and poetry, including my noble Friend opposite (Lord Houghton) and another noble Lord (Lord Lytton), than whom no English writer can be more distinguished. There are twelve or fifteen Peers, who possess immense property in this metropolis, and who can assist us in discussions on property, and who are

  1389
  conversant with the wants of the middle and lower classes. There are eminent lawyers, and a great number of magistrates accustomed to judicial decisions, many of them being chairmen of quarter sessions. Now, if your Lordships consider this catalogue of Peers with various qualifications, is it possible to suppose that a legislative Assembly can be more complete in its construction than the House of Lords is? This Assembly, as I understand it, has existed for about three centuries, and I am not aware that at any period it has done anything to derogate from its character and dignity. It is not for a Member of the House to say much on the subject; but during the last few days or weeks your Lordships — according to the opinions of the public Press, and of public opinion everywhere expressed—have most creditably in the eyes of the country maintained your powers of debate and your general capacity in considering important subjects. Well, that being the case, I ask your Lordships whether you think there is any necessity for altering one of the fundamental rules of our Constitution—namely, that peerages should be hereditary. I venture to think there is not. When I consider the opinion of the noble Earl himself, that such a measure as he has proposed is necessary in order to popularize this Assembly, I feel compelled to differ from him altogether. We have had what may be considered the test of the opinion of the people transmitted to us recently by a Gentle-man supposed to represent the more popular opinions of the day, and one at the same time representing Her Majesty's Government. That right hon. Gentleman has publicly declared that this Bill is but a childish tinkering of legislation. It is no less a person than Mr. Bright, a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government, who has expressed himself thus. Now, I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government generally agree with Mr. Bright on this point? At all events, so far as the argument of the noble Earl goes as to the necessity of such a Bill in order to make this Assembly more popular, I think the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman in question is worthy of consideration, for he is supposed to know pretty well what the popular opinion is, and it would be hardly fair to make this an exception, and to assert that he cannot answer for
  1390
  popular opinion on this subject. The noble Earl's second reason for introducing the Bill was that it would give an opportunity to men of eminence and ability, but without fortune, to enter this House. Now, he has not given any names to prove that any eminent men who would have done good service in this Assembly have refused peerages on account of their being hereditary. It would be hardly becoming to mention the names of living persons; but I may mention two very eminent men who declined entering this House because they had no children; and I have always thought it one of the noblest feelings of human nature, that a man should not be ambitious of a seat in your Lordships' House, from any selfish vanity, but in order that he might transmit the honour to his descendants. Your Lordships will probably recollect the very touching letter written by Mr. Burke to Mr. Pitt, when, being offered a peerage, he said that ambition and life had lost all interest in his heart since the death of his only son. On that ground, he refused a peerage; and Lord Kingsdown—whose death has been so great a loss to this House—to my knowledge, more than once refused to accept a peerage—although he was so eminent in his profession, and was so calculated to confer honour on the House—because he had no family. It is true that, ultimately, he felt it his duty to accept it. It is supposed that there are men who would accept life peerages; but I very much doubt whether any such men as your Lordships would wish to enter this House would do so. Of course, there are persons ready to accept anything that is offered them; but these are not the men whose admission the noble Earl contemplates. It appears to me that they would stand in such a false position that no men, with the usual amount of pride and self-respect would accept these peerages. They would not be your Lordships' Peers, according to the true sense of the expression, because they would not be your equals in respect of privileges. They would not transmit the title to their descendants; and they would, therefore, be on a different and lower footing from the rest of the House. They would not be nobles, because the very essence of nobility is the succession of the title to posterity. They would thus be in a false position, to say nothing of the equivocal position of their families,

  1391
  both sons and daughters. I do not think, therefore, the noble Earl would easily get such recruits as he wishes, and such as your Lordships would like to see added to this Assembly. If, however, such recruits could be got, observe the political power which would be given to a Prime Minister. I have seen in the public prints a suggestion that a man with such a philosophic mind as the late Member for Westminster (Mr. Mill) might very properly be made a life Peer, if such a measure as the present were passed. Now, I do not think that that was a good illustration of the advantage supposed to be derived from this measure; for supposing the noble Earl had been Prime Minister, and had created Mr. Mill a life Peer under this Bill, he would certainly not have popularized this House by admitting a man who had just failed in an attempt to get a seat in the House of Commons by popular election. Life peerages would present a temptation to a Minister, much more than is the case with hereditary peerages, to create Peers in order to gain political strength; and, if they were courted, the result would be that the Minister would every year have before him a list of candidates for that distinction. Thus, if the noble Earl's expectations be correct, there would be great objection in a political point of view. Mr. Bright has spoken of the Bill in terms of the utmost contempt; and whether or not he is right in thinking this Bill would give no satisfaction to the middle and lower classes, it is my belief that persons who accepted those peerages would find them attended with such inconveniences that they would regret having done so. At all events, I think that it has not been proved that this change in our ancient Constitution is necessary or expedient; and, in the absence of such proof, I protest against a change in our Constitution, which has been in successful operation for more than three centuries. For these reasons it is that I move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now'') and insert ("this day three months.")— (The Earl of Malmesbury.)
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he could not for a moment conceive that the creation of life peerages would so completely alter the constitution of the House as seemed to be supposed. He agreed with the
  1392
  noble Earl that this House contained many valuable Members, men both of intelligence and wealth, nor did he think it was advisable to attempt to give it more of a representative character. This Bill would certainly have no such effect, for naval and military men were not generally conversant with the feelings of the people, nor did the legal profession induce men to acquire that knowledge, while diplomatists were accustomed to move in an altogether different sphere. He approved the Bill, however, not as being likely to add to the strength or reputation of the House, but on the ground of convenience. What was it that it was proposed to do? A seat in their Lordships' House was considered to be the greatest honour that a man could arrive at; but at present this honour could not be bestowed upon military men, who had attained to great distinction in the military profession, unless the country provided a fortune for the Peer and his two successors to maintain the dignity. This was virtually creating pensionary Peers, and was extremely objectionable, for it resulted in a pauper peerage, and the third succeeding Peer, being excluded from the profession of the Bar and from commerce, the two most honourable and easy means of making a fortune, had no fortune adequate to the dignity of the peerage, and was, therefore, reduced to a mercenary marriage, or to some other mode of achieving a fortune which was not creditable. It was very unfortunate that men should be placed in a position in which they could not sustain the honour that they had attained. He did not think that the creation of military peerages would increase the reputation of their Lordships' House; but he thought that there should be facilities for conferring that honour. The recent debates, as the noble Earl had remarked, had immensely added to the feeling in favour of the House, owing to the spirited and intelligent manner in which they had been conducted, and to the independence which their Lordships had shown, the right rev. Bench having shown that it included some of the first orators in the country. As to the legal profession, that stood, in reference to peerages, almost in the same position as the military profession. His own opinion was that the best way would be for the Legislature to make ex officio legal peerages, and confer such peerages, for instance, on the Chief Jus-

  1393
  tices of England, Ireland, and Scotland, the Master of the Rolls, and other men eminent in their profession. This would add to the legal strength of the House, and would be a stimulus to the Bar, while the peerages being ex officio, there could be no inferiority attached to them. For the sake of convenience only, and not from any representative view or for the reform of the House of Lords, he should vote for the Bill. Shorn as it was of its fair proportions, he did not know whether it was worth while to persevere with the Bill, and he much regretted the decision of the House in the Wensleydale case. The limitation of the life peerages to two in a year would lead to a canvass and to pressure being brought to bear on the Government whenever there was one left open. He agreed, however, with the noble Earl that there would not be much eagerness in accepting these peerages. Still, there might be men who disliked undergoing contest for a seat in the House of Commons, but who would be useful Members of the Legislature. He remembered being told by a most eminent man, the late Sir Charles Metcalfe, on coming home from India, that he had every qualification for a seat in Parliament, his political views being of the most extreme kind, as they were then—twenty years ago—considered. He was in favour of the Ballot and household suffrage, and he had introduced a free Press in India, and had done other things which everybody else shrank from, but somehow he could not face a hustings mob, and was thus disqualified for a seat in the House of Commons. No man could have been more fitted for the House of Lords, and luckily, having no children, he was able to accept an hereditary peerage, but had he had a family he could not have done so. In a few cases of this kind the Bill would prove beneficial; but the annual creations having been reduced to two, he feared it would be of very little use.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that having lately addressed their Lordships upon this Bill, he would trouble them with only a few words upon the present occasion. He still retained the opinion that he expressed when the Bill was first introduced; and he thought that with the limitations that the Bill had now received, it was worthy of their Lordships' support. His noble Friend who had moved the rejection of the Bill (the Earl of Malmesbury) had laid great
  1394
  stress upon the fact that Mr. Bright had spoken very unfavourably of it. He, however, conceived that this was not an argument which should have weight on this side of the House. In the first place, he did not think that the fact that Mr. Bright was opposed to the measure would be a sufficient argument to induce their Lordships to persevere no further with it, for he feared it often happened that they contemned that which Mr. Bright honoured and honoured that which Mr. Bright contemned. But further still, if, as some Members of this House seemed to believe, Mr. Bright were in truth unfriendly to the hereditary branch of the Legislature, he would of course dislike and gainsay those very measures by which the stability of that branch would be best promoted. As to this being an experiment, he maintained that the Members of the right rev. Bench were, to all intents and purposes, life Peers. It was true that a noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), in his speech on going into Committee, while approving generally the principle of the Bill, contended that Bishops were not life Peers, because their peerages depended upon nominal baronies, but this was merely a technical distinction. The question was not by what tenure a Member of the House sat, but whether on his death his dignity and. seat descended to his heir, and if this was not the case it was, for all practical purposes, a life peerage. The example, therefore, of the right rev. Bench furnished a precedent for this proposal, and its very narrowness ought to commend it to their Lordships, since they would run no danger of being led on further than they wished. It would open the doors of the House to eminent men of the legal profession, and others who were highly qualified in every respect, but were not possessed of a sufficient fortune to enable them to accept hereditary peerages. Their Lordships were acquainted with the case of a most eminent and distinguished ornament of the House — he meant the first Lord Denman—who, for a long time, refused a peerage because his fortune was not, in his judgment, adequate at that time to the support of hereditary rank, and there were other cases in which life peerages might be useful. There had recently been a discussion whether the Bishops of the Irish Church should retain their seats in this House after the passing of the Disestablishment Bill,

  1395
  Now, had the principle of life peerages been in operation, the Crown might have conferred that honour on the two Archbishops of the Irish Church, whereas, under present circumstances, it seemed to him that for Prelates of a disestablished Church to retain their seats was repugnant to the principle of disestablishment as admitted by the second reading. He said this with regret, in the presence of one of those most rev. Prelates, and with the sincerest wish that by such a system as that of life Peers, he might continue to be a Member of the House; but, that a Prelate of a Free Church should have a seat in this House, could not be defended on any principle known to the present Constitution. This question was determined the other night without any division being taken; but, if a division had been called, he should have been compelled, with whatever regret, to vote against the continuance of the Irish Prelates in Parliament, after the passing of the Irish Church. Bill. He knew, too, that several Peers on his (the Opposition) side of the House took the same view. The Wensleydale case was the first question to which his attention was directed on becoming a Member of this House, and he thought then, as now, that an unlimited power of creating life Peers would be fatal to the independence of the House; but when the annual creations were restricted to two, and when the Government would be by the terms of the Preamble held responsible for the selection of qualified persons, he could see no ground for apprehension, and he should, therefore, vote in favour of the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLE: After the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) in so much of which I agree, I should not have risen if I had thought there was much question at this stage of the Bill of discussing its merits and demerits, for it appears to me we are beyond that. I shall certainly support the noble Earl (Earl Russell), not merely on account of personal and political ties, but because I think he has been treated on this subject in a manner which he had no reason to expect. There was a debate on the first reading of the Bill, which is not usual, and there was another debate on the second reading. On the latter of these occasions the noble Earl (Earl Malmesbury) was consistent, for he objected to the Bill, but otherwise there was a general concurrence of opinion in its favour. [Lord
  1396
  DENMAN: No!] It was shown by the vote in its favour. With regard to the speeches made, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) said he regarded the Bill as sound in principle [the Marquess of SALISBURY: Hear, hear!]; and though the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) gave a much less cordial support to it, he said it depended entirely on its details. What happened when we got into Committee? Formidable Amendments were proposed on different sides, but after a long discussion we came to a unanimous compromise. Since then nothing has occurred that I know of which should induce your Lordships to form a different opinion respecting the Bill, and I cannot therefore understand why we are now asked to reject it altogether. Allusion has been made to what Mr. Bright said in a letter which, I think, has received quite sufficient consideration in this House. I have great regard for the opinion of Mr. Bright, both as a Colleague and as a friend; but I earnestly protest against that sort of omnipotence being given to Mr. Bright that if he chooses to make a joke, whether your Lordships think it good or bad, on any of your proceedings, you are immediately to be diverted from a course which you originally thought it wise and expedient to take. Then it has been said —"But Mr. Bright is a Member of the Government," and all I can say is that if this Bill should go down to the other House, Mr. Bright would certainly vote for it. I stated from the first that this was not a Government measure, my noble Friend having introduced it as an independent Peer, in order to divest it of any party bearing. The Government have given it here the same support which it will receive from them if it goes down to the House of Commons, and I am at a loss to know what are the grounds on which your Lordships are asked to come to a decision exactly contrary to that at which you arrived on the last stage of the Bill, when you unanimously agreed to a compromise.
  LORD CAIRNS: The remarks of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) call for a few observations from me. This Bill was introduced into the House a very long time ago—I think before Easter—having regard to the length of the Parliamentary Session; and at that time the attendance in your Lordships' House was by no means so large as it has since

  1397
  become. The subject of it was very novel, for since the decision in the Wensleydale case this question had entirely slumbered, and in that case the point was whether the Prerogative of the Crown had been rightly exercised or not, and not whether an alteration of the law should be made enlarging the power of the Crown for the creation of life Peers. Under these circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that on the introduction of the Bill the opinions of your Lordships were very much unformed on the subject, and that very little debate arose. On the second reading, which, I think, was immediately after Easter, I remarked that the Bill might, under certain circumstances, have some advantages, that it depended very much on the details, and, although I should think it my duty to propose some Amendments, I reserved to those around me—who, I believe, were very few at the time—perfect liberty to take such a course as they might think fit on the third reading. I have never concealed my sentiments on this Bill; but I am not going into the matter over again. It appeared to me, in the first place, that the Bill had this about it—that you would by it be creating an inequality that is at present unknown in this House; for I do not admit that the position of the right rev. Bench is at all analogous to the present proposition. They hold their seats by virtue of their offices, and their successors in office are their successors in the Peerage. Then the next objection is this—that it being admitted on all sides that we must limit the Bill in some way, it was agreed that there should be provided an annual limit to the number of Peers created, and the question became one of degree. In the case of hereditary Peers, we all understand that there are at all times a certain number of applications to the Minister for the favour of the Crown. The Minister may, however, say—"I am not going to recommend the creation of any Peers at present," and that is a sufficient answer to the application; but when you say that the Minister shall have power to recommend the creation of two life Peers in any year, they become much more like offices than anything else. The inevitable consequence is that pressure would be put on the Minister every year to go up to the maximum, and if towards the end of the
  1398
  year two Peers had not been made there would be applications to which he would be obliged to accede, for he would otherwise have to tell them the reason why he did not recommend them. If some faithful adherent requests the favour of the Crown, a Minister cannot say—"I have great respect for you, but I must tell you that you are not the sort of person these life peerages were intended for. They were intended for men like Dr. Jenner, or Sir Joshua Reynolds, or Watt, and you therefore cannot have this life peerage." The consequence will be that, there being two vacancies to be filled up, filled up they will be, whether the persons promoted are those who rise to the standard of the noble Earl or not. My third objection was, that though, in some possible cases, there might be benefit from the Bill, it is extremely small, and for the purpose of obtaining that small benefit you are opening up the constitution of this House, and sending it down for discussion in the other House. I should not shrink from that danger if there were any great benefit to be obtained; but it is by no means desirable to run that great risk for the smallest possible amount of benefit. The only benefit suggested is that there might be some persons—for it has never been proved that there would be—who would be very desirable Members of this House, but who might be unwilling to accept an hereditary peerage. These are the views I have always entertained; but even with these views, unfavourable to the Bill, I should not, on the third reading, especially after what was done in Committee, have thought of voting against the Bill but for what has happened since. I do not say that the noble Earl has not pressed the Bill in every way in his power; but the third reading is not fixed till very nearly the middle of July, the House of Commons is very much occupied, and will probably be still more occupied for the remainder of the Session. If it goes down it cannot be considered there until just the close of the Session, and if alterations are made, those alterations, it is not unlikely, will be questions of great interest to your Lordships, but they will come back for re-consideration at a time when the attendance here cannot possibly represent the feelings or sentiments of the House. That is very undesirable. If our busi-

  1399
  ness were so arranged that the Bill could go down to the House of Commons for consideration at the beginning of next Session, and could come back to us early in the Session, it would be a different thing. Another circumstance which has changed the position of the question is this—It was understood at an early stage of the Bill that the Government, though it was not their Bill, thought great advantage would result from it and would be prepared to recommend it elsewhere with, the whole united force of the Government. Upon the Report, however, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) pointed out the great dangers and difficulties of legislation of this kind in a very able way, and though he did not announce his intention of opposing it, he took care to say everything which a very powerful speaker could say against it. He impugned the reasons on which many Members of the House had supported it, and argued that if it was to be supported at all it must be on the very narrowest grounds—grounds which hardly warranted supporting it in any degree. With regard to Mr. Bright's opinion, I do not wish to say anything invidious; it is sufficient to know that a Member of the Government has described it as a childish piece of tinkering. These two circumstances show that it is utterly impossible that it can be commended to the other House by the united support and approbation of the Government, for it will be in the power of Members of the other House to contrast the provisions of the Bill with the opinions expressed by two Members of the Government. Under these circumstances, we should be doing a dangerous and unwise thing, at this period of the Session, to send it down to the House of Commons; and for these reasons, and these alone, I shall vote for the Amendment.
  EARL RUSSELL: I have, at previous stages of the Bill, explained my objects in bringing it forward, and answered the objections which were taken to it. It is, therefore, unnecessary for me to travel over that ground. With regard to raising the reputation of this House, I never pretended that this House required anything of the kind, and after the debates which we have lately heard this would be about the worst moment for questioning its capacity or character in carrying on legislative business. There
  1400
  are, however, persons who from time to time would be very considerable ornaments to this House, and not only so, but would be very useful in the discussion of certain questions, some of whom might not happen to have sufficient means to enable them to accept the burden of an hereditary peerage. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) says such persons would refuse life peerages; but I do not see why this should be the case. The noble Earl mentioned the late Lord Kingsdown, who was a great ornament to this House and whose presence there was very useful, but who for some time refused a peerage, and if he had had any family would probably have persisted in that refusal. I do not see why the peerage should be confined to those who have large means, and to those who have neither large means nor large families. A man of great merit and great ability may happen to have a small fortune and a large family of children. I do not pretend that there would be any considerable advantage in making this change in the constitution of this House; but there are obviously cases in which it would prove very useful, and some of those who object to this Bill do so because they wish for a much larger change. The Wensleydale case has been alluded to, and I must say that the resolution which the House then adopted was a most extraordinary one. It appears to me entirely arbitrary, and to have been dictated by the spirit of party. A similar attack on the Prerogative of the Crown was made shortly after the Union with Scotland, for it was contended that no Scotch Peer could be created an English Peer. That Resolution, however, was ultimately reversed. I hope that, after the full consideration the Bill has received, your Lordships will not reject it at this last stage.
  LORD DENMANsaid, the noble Earl who introduced the Bill (Earl Russell) had been compelled to produce the Abyssinian Papers by a majority of only 1; and if there had been one soldier life Peer in the House the Motion would have been defeated. It had been stated that it would be an advantage to the House if certain Judges were to sit ex officio. He knew no learned Judge who would wish to sit in that way. There was a great dearth of Law Lords in

  1401
  the House, in 1856, when the question of life peerages was brought forward, but now there were a great number of Law Lords. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) had spoken of Hallam and other eminent persons, most of whom were bachelors, and who probably would have declined the honour of a life peerage; and as for Mr. Watt, he was so interested in the researches which he followed that he would not be likely to give up his time to political discussions. It was said by Mr. Drummond that if he were for any reform, it would have been for reforming that House, and he referred to the authority of Sir William Temple. He had looked into Sir William Temple's works, and he seemed to have wished to diminish the number of their Lordships' House, instead of increasing it. Sir William Temple appeared to think that no Duke should have less than £8,000, no Marquess less than £7,000, no Earl less than £5,000, no Baron less than £4,000, entailed on his family. In 1818, the subject of diminishing the Peerage was brought forward with the assent of the Sovereign; but an ancestor of the noble Lord who had now spoken in favour of life peerages said that it was so distasteful that it was put off for a year. Perhaps the best course, under present circumstances, would be if this Bill were postponed for twelve months.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion?—Their Lordships divided: — Contents 76; Not-Contents 106: Majority 30.

  CONTENTS

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Kimberley, E.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Powis, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Russell, E. [Teller.]

  Saint Germans, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

  Normanby, M.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Abingdon, E.

  Zetland, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Eversley, V.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Chichester, E.

  Hood, V.

  Cottenham, E.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Dartrey, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Lifford, V.

  De La Warr, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Fortescue, E.

  Sydney, V.

  Granville, E.

  Grey, E.

  Chester, Bp.

  1402

  Belper, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Clermont, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  De Tabley, L.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Rossie, L.(L. Kinnaird.)

  Ebury, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Foley, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Hastings, L.

  Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Keane, L.

  Stratheden, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Lurgan, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Vernon, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Selkirk, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Sommers, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Tankerville, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Rutland, D.

  Wellington, D.

  De Vesci, V.

  Gough, V.

  Ailsa, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Bath, M.

  Hawarden, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Melville, V.

  Exeter, M.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Tweeddale, M.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Winchester, M.

  Templetown, V.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Carew, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Churston, L.

  Derby, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) [Teller.]

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.

  Colchester, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.

  Congleton, L.

  Denman, L.

  Harewood, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  De Saumarez, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Home, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Kellie, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Manvers, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Morton, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Portarlington, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Hartismere, L.(L. Henniker.)

  Romney, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Headley, L.

  1403

  Houghton, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Hylton, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Kilmaine, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Monson, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Penrhyn, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Saint Leonards, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Truro, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 3a on this day three months.

BANKRUPTCY BILL—(No. 154)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
BANKRUPTCY BILL—(No. 154)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In bringing this Bill before the attention of your Lordships, I feel, in the first place, that a few words are due from me in explanation of the fact that the measure comes to us from the other House. It was the desire of some of your Lordships, particularly of my noble and learned Friend on the left (Lord Cairns), that the Bill should have been first introduced into this House early in the Session instead of into the House of Commons; but, my Lords, the motive which influenced me to adopt the course pursued has been justified by the result. This Bill pre-eminently concerns the interests of trade and commerce; and not only have we Gentlemen in the House of Commons eminently qualified to consider the subject in those interests, but we have also in that House a number of Gentlemen, members of the Bar and solicitors in practice, competent to form an opinion on the details of the Bill as affecting a mercantile community, and also upon its principles. I feel, my Lords, that no apology was needed for having brought the subject of bankruptcy under the notice of Parliament this Session, because for several years past Bills have been introduced for the purpose of amending the law, and I am thus very far from claiming any special credit for the particular Bill now before us—upon which, however, I have certainly bestowed great attention—because
  1404
  I have profited in my consideration of the subject by proceedings in reference to the Bills, first of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) in 1866, then of Sir John Rolt in 1867, and then by my noble and learned Friend who sits on my left (Lord Cairns) in 1868. I, therefore, claim no credit whatever for proposing any new scheme or system. All I do claim credit for is having most seriously considered all the information that I could obtain upon the subject. I simply endeavoured, from the various documents placed before me, aided by the results of my experience, to prepare such a Bill as might prove generally acceptable to that part of the community who were more particularly interested. Hitherto the Government has been successful with this measure, for, thanks to the very clear statement of the Attorney General, it has been received from the first moment to the last with considerable favour, and I believe none of its important provisions have been very seriously modified. After all the consideration the subject of bankruptcy has received I shall not weary your Lordships by any historical disquisition upon it, but will rapidly review the course of the Law of Bankruptcy since the year 1821, when the law was consolidated. In that year the laws relating to debtors engaged in trade—and it is to be observed that a distinction was drawn between traders and non-traders—were consolidated. Up to that period they were scattered over a variety of statutes and books of practice, but were, as I have said, consolidated at that time. That Bill worked well, and without any very great dissatisfaction being expressed, up till the year 1831; but at that period dissatisfaction was expressed at the constitution of the tribunal invested with the power of deciding questions in bankruptcy. I refer to the Commissioners in Bankruptcy, who fulfilled various functions, including that of being Judges. This system was very much disliked, and it was further found that the assignees did not answer the purposes for which they were intended as well as was desirable. Accordingly, in the year 1831, a Bill was introduced by Lord Brougham to establish a Court of Bankruptcy, and to introduce official assignees, in whom it was thought the general creditors might have more reliance. After this, things

  1405
  went on till the year 1849, when a considerable change took place with reference to the whole Bankruptcy Law. A new consolidation of the laws was effected, and there was introduced a principle which, at that time, was thought desirable, namely, the principle of giving several classes of certificates by which the Judge could regulate his punishments and inflict whatever measure of it he thought proper. After this had been done the Bankruptcy Acts were found to work so unsatisfactorily that, in the year 1854, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of the great diminution of the funds of bankruptcy used for the payments of the Courts, and also to decide what should be done with reference to the official assignees who did not prove so great a success as was anticipated. My noble and learned Friend near me (Lord Chelmsford) introduced a Bill, in 1859, founded upon the Report of that Commission, well calculated to remedy those defects; but, although it was read a second time, a change of Ministry prevented its further progress. After this Lord Westbury, in 1861, introduced a Bill, which passed and brought about many beneficial reforms, but brought with it also some serious inconveniences. It was beneficial, in the first place, by abolishing the distinction between traders and non-traders, but was defective in another point. Lord Westbury was very desirous that the debtor himself should have an opportunity of declaring, at the earliest possible moment, that he felt himself involved in difficulties, was unable to meet his engagements, was desirous of making an immediate abandonment of his property in favour of his creditors, and was desirous of making application for proceedings in bankruptcy, which, up till that time, it was not competent for him to do. But, unfortunately, though well conceived, the plan was found to work unfavourably to the creditor, because it left a loophole for fraud, and of this I can speak from personal experience, as president of a Court of Appeal in cases of bankruptcy. The fraud was committed in this way—A debtor was allowed to obtain the concurrence of his creditors to wind up his affairs by arrangement, instead of by passing through the Court; and it happened that if he were indebted on Bills of Exchange he managed to keep them
  1406
  out of his account, on the plea that he could not tell who possessed them, and the holders of them were not included among his creditors. Then, every creditor voted, and fraud was frequent by the bankrupt having given security for, say, £2,000 to a creditor for some £3,000, in order that he might go to the meeting and vote in the debtor's favour against those wholly unsecured. To meet this defect in the law Mr. Moffatt, who was then a Member of the House of Commons, selected particular clauses to deal with this particular difficulty, and in 1861 he carried a Bill providing that in all these arrangement deeds the debtors should not merely state the amount of debts, but should give the names and addresses of the creditors and swear to the truth of the statement. This was considered to be necessary, because it was found that fictitious debts had been manufactured in order to enable a debtor to pass through the court and to be whitewashed of his debts. That this species of fraud did take place I can prove by reference to some Returns that have been drawn up, which show the number of persons who availed themselves of these deeds before and after the gentleman I have referred to took the matter in hand, and the clause of the Bill of 1861 was passed. From the 11th October, 1867, to the 11th January, 1868, there were no less than 2,010 deeds executed; while from the 11th October, 1868, to the 11th January, 1869, only 804 were executed. During the first of these periods, again, only 33 per cent was divided among the creditors; while during the latter 66 per cent was divided. These figures show the extent of the fraud which was formerly perpetrated and the advantage gained by the passing of the measure. I now proceed to state what it was led me to devote my attention to the preparation of this one measure in preference to other measures of legal reform. I found that there had been all the measures upon this subject which I have named, and when I was called upon to take a part in public affairs, on the 9th December, there was only an interval of ten weeks before the Session. With the details of the Irish Church Bill to be considered, I did not feel it possible for me to undertake more than one other subject, and therefore I gave my attention to this. Consulting the opinion of

  1407
  men engaged in business, as expressed by the Chambers of Commerce, and having regard to the several Bills which had been introduced, I found one thing which accorded with my own experience pretty clearly established, and it was that there was a strong desire that creditors should be left more to the management of their own affairs, and that the object of the Court should be, first, to take care that justice was rendered to those who might be considered weak—namely, the smaller creditors, who, though a majority in number, might be a minority in the value of their debts; and second, to take care that there was a full disclosure by the bankrupt of all his assets and a secured realization of them. Subject to these two conditions, I found there was an increasing desire that creditors should be left to manage their own affairs upon a principle which was adopted some time ago in Scotland. For the sake of avoiding disappointment hereafter, I may say I do not find the Scotch system quite so cheap as it has been represented to be. As your Lordships are aware, there are three methods adopted in the winding up of companies; they may be either wound up by the Court of Chancery, or wound up voluntarily without the interference of the Court, or they may be wound up voluntarily under the supervision of the Court; and, as the result of my experience in every case that comes before me, I recommend, and, if I can, I enforce, winding up under the supervision of the Court, which I believe to be the best mode to adopt in the winding up of a company. The aim in bankruptcy is to secure a man's assets, as speedily as possible after he is known to be in a hopeless condition, for the equal benefit of all creditors; and the object of the Bill which sanctioned deeds of arrangement was to encourage a man to come forward, as soon as he discovered he was insolvent, and give up the property which was no longer his own to his creditors. Then we have to inquire how you may best induce the honest debtor to disclose his insolvency and prevent the dishonest debtor from withdrawing any part of his property. We thought it best to allow the debtor to call his creditors together, but not to put the Court in motion unless they decide upon doing so. We further propose that any creditor having security shall vote only in respect
  1408
  of the unsecured balance, and, further, to secure the minority of the creditors, we propose that the Court may approve or disprove the deed of arrangement. We proposed that a debtor should be entitled to his discharge when he had paid 10 s. in the pound; but the House of Commons fixed the limit at 6s. 8d. in the pound. Lord Westbury graphically described the swarm of people who poured down upon a bankrupt's effects. There are the messengers, who are not wanted at all. A number of respectable firms of Liverpool write to me to say that, in the great majority of cases, no messenger is required. They say that in most cases the bankrupt can be left in possession of his property. They say, further, the official assignee is a useless officer, and they need neither the one nor the other. The course we have adopted is to leave it to the creditors, immediately after a bankruptcy, to make an application for adjudication in bankruptcy; to hold a meeting immediately after obtaining this for the purpose of choosing trustees, and when they are appointed to hold another meeting. But, in order to secure against any improper dealing with the bankrupt, it was determined to get rid of the messenger immediately after adjudication. By doing this we think we have taken a good means of securing the realization of the assets, and also have held out inducements to the bankrupt to meet his creditors at the earliest possible period after he thinks he has become bankrupt. That having been done, the next thing to be considered was what was to be done after the discharge of the bankrupt. The Act of 1849 acted with great severity towards the bankrupt after he had surrendered his property. Having secured the assets, the question which we next considered was how we were to distribute them and not punish the bankrupt? If he is to be punished at all he should be punished in a different way, and with that object I shall presently say a few words on another Bill which I shall introduce to your Lordships by-and-by. We think that the question of awarding punishment and the handing over the assets to the creditors should be kept entirely distinct, and accordingly we have confined the power of imprisonment to the cases where the bankrupt, by not yielding up his property or neglecting to answer questions put to him, has been guilty of

  1409
  contempt of the Court. What we do is this—We place the property of the bankrupt in the hands of a trustee, who is selected by the creditors, and his proceedings are subject to the supervision of inspectors, who superintend what he does; and, what is still more important, the trustee is bound not only to render a quarterly account to the inspectors, but is under a heavy penalty in the shape of increased interest to hand over all moneys belonging to the bankrupt's estate within ten days of their coming into his possession. Again, a Controller will be appointed to superintend the whole of the districts of bankruptcy throughout England, and he will be required to render his account yearly. When a report is made to the Court stating that no more sums remain to be collected on account of the bankrupt's estate, the bankruptcy will be declared closed. A bankrupt whose estate pays 10 s. in the pound will be discharged from further liability; and the creditors themselves have power to grant a release where even less is paid, by coming to a resolution in open Court that the bankruptcy was due to involuntary misfortune, and was not attributable to any misconduct on the part of the bankrupt. If, however, the bankrupt be not discharged, and the bankruptcy be not declared closed, then this result follows—We have thought it right to recur to some extent to the provisions of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. As your Lordships know, an insolvent was never discharged from his liabilities, and his future property might always be demanded in payment of his debts. And certainly a great scandal has arisen from the fact that men who have paid little or nothing to their creditors have, after having passed through the Bankruptcy Court, been able subsequently to amass considerable property, while their creditors have remained unpaid and been—what I believe it is but just to term—defrauded. We propose that the bankrupt shall have three years in which to rehabilitate himself, during which period he shall remain unmolested by his creditors. At the end of the three years, unless his bankruptcy shall have been declared closed, any of his former creditors may apply to the Judge, and, on stating that he has ascertained that the bankrupt is in possession of considerable property, may ask for an order sequestrating a
  1410
  portion of it. I think that this will be a proper place to say how much reason there really was to be dissatisfied with the existing system. In 1868, out of 9,125 adjudications in bankruptcy, 6,679 were on debtors' petitions—a thing which we, of course, propose to abolish—and 817 on the petitions of the creditors, others being made by the registrars of prisons, and others in formâ pauperis. There were 1,714 cases in which dividends were paid, and, in 6,489 cases, no dividend at all was realized. It is obvious, therefore, that the existing system has given rise to a gross system of fraud. The next point I come to is the nature of the Court which we propose should preside over the administration of matters in bankruptcy. It is necessary that there should be some Court, as knotty questions demanding solution will occasionally arise. But such questions as will ordinarily occur, of law or otherwise, may be settled by the trustee, who is, however, amenable to the Court. While upon the subject of deeds I ought to mention that a very fruitful source of litigation hitherto, in courts both of law and equity, has been the validity of the deeds. We propose that the Judge in Bankruptcy shall settle that question once for all. It is only with regard to the Court that any change has been made in the plan I drew up. It was the opinion of the members of the Judicature Commission, though this particular subject did not come under their consideration, that it was desirable in the establishment of any new Court that it should be empowered to deal with questions both in law and equity. Representations, too, on this point were made by the Chambers of Commerce from Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns, and we therefore determined that the Court should have jurisdiction on all matters connected either with law or equity. I also thought, for the same reason, that it would be desirable that one of the Superior Courts in London should take charge of bankruptcy, and I found upon inquiry that a Common Law Judge was to be preferred. I found that, in London as well as in the country, there was a strong desire to get rid of a peculiar Court. On. this point, however, let me not be misunderstood. I do not mean to say that any complaint was urged against those by whom business in bankruptcy is ad-

  1411
  ministered. The demand in this direction did not arise from any dissatisfaction of that nature. Now, my Lords, I thought that a Common Law Judge was preferable because the duties could be performed by him without taking him away from his Court, because there would be an easy appeal to the Judges in banco, and because the plan would not entail any increased expenditure, inasmuch as the Judge would be relieved from attendance on circuit, and would thus find ample compensation in the increase of comfort and leisure which would naturally arise from this arrangement. In the House of Commons, however, Sir Roundell Palmer directed attention to the abilities of the learned Judge of the existing Court of Bankruptcy—and in the tribute that was paid to that learned Judge I entirely concur—and suggested that that learned Judge should in the first instance be appointed as the Chief Judge, and that the plan I originally drew up should be adopted upon Ms vacating his office. Of course the Government had no objection to the adoption of that course. As the matter now stands-he will receive the same remuneration as he now does; but that arises rather from the way in which the matter was introduced into the House of Commons, when this plan was recommended on the ground that it would not be accompanied by any increased expenditure. There will then be one Judge instead of three, but I believe that under this Bill there will be no increase in the amount of work that he will be called upon to perform, although if there should be there will be no difficulty in doing what is right and just. Under this Bill matters will to a great extent be in the hands of the creditors themselves, and we shall consequently cease to witness those unseemly disturbances which at times do occur under the existing system, and, indeed, as were witnessed yesterday in one of our police courts. I need not detain your Lordships by going further into the details of the Bill, every portion of which has been so fully discussed in "another place." I may, however, briefly refer to a Bill which is a corollary of the one to which I have been referring. The Imprisonment for Debt Bill will come before your Lordships immediately, and there is a third Bill—a repealing measure—to remove all the statutes which stand in the way of the
  1412
  two other Bills. In the Imprisonment for Debt Bill are matters which will be found to require much consideration from your Lordships. We propose to abolish imprisonment for debt. Where there is mere doubt we propose that there should be no imprisonment; but where a person has contracted debts fradulently there we give a power of imprisonment. At present the County Court Judges can imprison debtors against whom orders for payment have been made, and who, having the means to comply with those orders, refuse to do so. Out of 300,000 cases of debt coming before the County Court Judges each year about 7,000 persons are ordered to prison, or about 2½ per cent of the total number of debtors. We felt that either the powers of the County Court Judges to imprisonment for debt should be abolished, or the principle must be extended. We could not have one law for the rich and the other for the poor. We concluded, therefore, that we must introduce an analogous power in the case of larger debtors, because all the County Court Judges who gave any opinion on the subject were unanimously of opinion that it would be very dangerous to withdraw the power in the case of small debtors. At present the jurisdiction of the County Court Judges in respect to imprisonment reaches only to debts of £20. Under this Bill it will be extended to debts of £50, and the Superior Courts will have a similar jurisdiction in cases beyond that amount. My Lords, I do not conceal from myself that it is impossible to assert beforehand the success of any measure like this Bankruptcy Bill. I have, however, strong hopes of its success. In the House of Commons it received a very remarkable amount of support. It has been considered and approved by some of the ablest lawyers and some of the most eminent solicitors. Another great advantage is, that owing to the ability of the able draftsman who drew it up, the Bill contains only 130 clauses, and, coupling it with the Bill for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt and the repealing Bill, the whole of this new bankruptcy code comprises only 180 clauses—a number which, I believe, will be considered very moderate by all those who remember the history of our past legislation upon this subject. We proceed on the principle of saying to the creditors—"Take the whole thing

  1413
  in your own hands. We enable you to put in motion a machinery by which you may realize assets for yourself. More than that the Legislature cannot do." My Lords, if this attempt fails I do not at present see what else we can do; but I think there is everything to justify us in hoping that the attempt will be successful, and therefore it is with considerable confidence I ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, judging from the appearance of the House, I think the subject of bankruptcy as years roll on is not growing more attractive. But, be that as it may, knowing the difficulty of preparing Bankruptcy Bills, I congratulate my noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) on the fact that this measure has attained the stage it has now reached. In all the leading principles of the Bill I entirely concur. It is the principle on which the last three Bankruptcy Bills have been framed —namely, that the creditors should be made, as far as they can be made so with safety, the arbiters and masters of their own business and their own property. In other words that there should be a maximum of power in the creditors and a minimum of interference on the part of the Court. I must, however, make a complaint, not against my noble and learned Friend, but against the course taken by the Government with respect to the introduction of this Bill. Early in the Session we urged on the Government the necessity of introducing the Bill in this House in the first instance rather than in the House of Commons, and we foretold what has come to pass—that if the Government did not take that course the Bill would not reach this House until a period when to send it to a Select Committee—and a Bill of this character ought to be examined by a Select Committee—would be tantamount to rejecting it. Let me now make one or two observations upon the details of the measure. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that it is a pleasant thing to hear of a Bankruptcy Bill of only 180 clauses. But we should deceive ourselves if we judged the measure merely by the number of its clauses. This is, no doubt, shorter than other Bankruptcy Bills; but the reason of that
  1414
  is that it is not a Bankruptcy Bill in the sense of containing within itself the Law of Bankruptcy. It is rather one to empower the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy to make a Bankruptcy Bill. In every section the word "prescribed" occurs. Almost everything in it is something "prescribed," this word having reference to the orders which were to be framed by the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Judge. I think it is well to leave a good deal to be done by means of general orders, but I doubt whether this Bill may not carry that principle to an extreme length. Again, my Lords, while in the Bankruptcy Bills passed from time to time one uniform phraseology had been adopted, an entirely new phraseology is introduced into the bankruptcy system by the Bill now before your Lordships. I think it would have been well to preserve the old phraseology, because by the introduction of those new terms we run the danger of rendering the whole of the previous decisions on questions of bankruptcy perfectly useless. The question is—what is this House to do with the Bill? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that it deserves our most careful consideration. That a measure of this nature deserves the best consideration that your Lordships can give to it is undoubted; but it appears to me that, with questions of importance arising upon almost every clause, the Bill could only receive due consideration before a Select Committee. To refer the Bill, however, to a Select Committee at this period of the Session would be tantamount to saying that it should not pass this Session, and therefore I do not propose to ask your Lordships to adopt that course. I cannot, however, help feeling painfully that this Bill will pass—if it does pass—through this House without receiving that amount of consideration which it deserves at your Lordships' hands. I have to express my satisfaction with the excellent change which was effected in the other House of Parliament, by which Mr. Commissioner Bacon, the present head of the Bankruptcy Court in London, is to be appointed the Chief Judge of the new Bankruptcy Court, in place of one of the Common Law or Equity Judges. It is with no want of respect to the learned Common Law and Equity Judges that I say that in point of ability, efficiency and

  1415
  great and varied experience in bankruptcy matters, no better selection could have been made than that to which I have referred. By some oversight, however, the Bill provides that the salary of the learned Judge who is to be appointed to fill this responsible and arduous office shall only be the same as that he now receives; while the other Commissioners —happy men—are to be allowed to retire and receive their salaries for doing nothing. This is, however, evidently a mere oversight, and will doubtless be remedied in Committee. I also think that the question of the compensation of the other bankruptcy officers both in London and in the country should be considered in Committee, as, in my opinion, the Bill as it stands proposes to treat them rather hardly. Under the Bill, as it was originally introduced into the other House, all those officers who held their situations during good behaviour were to retire upon their full salaries; but just before the Bill had passed through Committee, on the Motion of a Member of the Government (the Secretary to the Treasury) an entire change was effected in the treatment they were to receive under the Bill. I feel assured that your Lordships will not approve this method of treating servants of the public, and that you will, in Committee upon the Bill, see that they have justice done them. In conclusion, I may state that I shall be glad to offer the noble and learned Lord all the assistance in my power towards rendering this Bill a satisfactory measure.
  LORD ROMILLY: I rise merely to express my general concurrence in what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and from the noble and learned Lord opposite. I may, however, point out that the orders to be issued by the Lord Chancellor under this Bill, if not found to work satisfactorily, can be varied with greater facility than the provisions of an Act of Parliament could be. There are, however, many matters in this Bill which demand serious attention. I am unable to understand why any distinction is made in freedom from imprisonment depending on the amount of the debt. The power of imprisoning the debtor for the purpose of enforcing the payment of debts recovered in the County Courts appears to me to be very objectionable, and to encourage tallymen and an injurious system of credit. I admit that all, or nearly all, the Judges
  1416
  of these Courts are strongly in favour of preserving to them that power; but they are not, in my opinion, the best judges. And it should be remembered that no adage of the law is more earnestly clung to by Judges than that—
  "Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem."
  Nor is there one which ought to be more carefully watched and defined. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will appoint such a day for going into Committee upon the Bill as will give those noble Lords who desire to do so ample time for preparing the Amendments upon the measure which they may desire to propose.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: I feel disposed simply to echo the observations of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down; but I may be permitted to remark that when I introduced a Bill upon this subject some time since the commercial world appeared to be divided in opinion as to whether the creditors should be permitted to have the entire control of the bankrupt's estate, or whether the matter should be taken out of the hands of the creditors altogether, and the power of dealing with the bankrupt's estate be given to the Court. From what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, however, it would appear that the commercial world has now come to the conclusion to place the matter altogether in the hands of the creditors, leaving the Court only a minimum of power to supervise their proceedings. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I will do my best to assist him in making this Bill as satisfactory as possible.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lords for the kind consideration they have promised to give to this Bill. The reason for the provision as to general orders is that those orders, if found unsatisfactory in practice, may be altered. With regard to the phraseology of the Bill, I may observe that it has been approved by the House of Commons, and by large numbers of eminent members of the Bar, and by solicitors generally. In order to afford ample time for the preparation of Amendments by your Lordships, I will fix Friday week for going into Committee upon the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday the 16 th instant.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE BILL.
(The Earl of Lichfield.)
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE BILL.

  (NO. 125.) SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it proposed an innovation in giving to women the right to exercise the municipal franchise; but when they paid the rates they had the same interest in an economical administration of municipal funds, and in the efficient management of municipal affairs, as any other inhabitants. The Bill would afford considerable convenience to persons claiming the right to vote, because they would go before one court instead of two, and it would be attended with a saving to the rate-payers.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PEEVENTION (METROPOLIS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better prevention of Contagious Diseases in the City of London and within the Metropolitan Police District—Was presented by The Marquess TOWNSHEND; read la. (No. 176.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.