said, that the House the other evening unanimously expressed a strong opinion that railway companies ought not to be allowed to alter the terms on which preference shares were granted under the guarantee of an Act of Parliament, and that to come back to Parliament and ask leave to depart from those terms was in point of fact a breach of faith. Several Bills having that object in view had excited a strong feeling in the country, and it was considered desirable that the House itself should reject provisions which so manifestly violated all the principles of justice. He proposed, therefore, that the House should direct its Committees as a general rule not to interfere with those preference shares. At the same time, there might be cases where the interests of the owners of preference shares themselves might warrant the Committee in departing from the general rule. He should require in those cases that it should be incumbent on the Committee to state to the House the special reasons for so departing from the general rule. The right hon. Gentleman then moved the following Resolutions:—

"That in every Railway Bill by which it is proposed to authorise a Company to grant any preference or priority in the payment of interest or dividends on any shares or stock, there be inserted a Clause providing that the granting of such preference or priority shall not prejudice or affect any preference or priority of interest or dividend which shall have been granted by the Company by or in pursuance of any previous Act: unless the Committee on the Bill shall report that such provision ought not to be required, with the reasons on which their opinion is founded.

"That no Railway Company shall be authorised to alter the terms of any preference or priority of interest or dividend which shall have been granted by such Company under any previous Act, unless the Committee on the Bill report that such alteration ought to be allowed, with the reasons on which their opinion is founded."

seconded the Motion, and stated that the only object which the directors of the Caledonian and Edinburgh and Glasgow Amalgamation Railway had in view in introducing the Bill, to which he presumed the right hon. Gentleman had referred, was that of consolidating the interests of the shareholders.

approved the resolutions, and expressed a wish that the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a clause into all Railway Bills prohibiting the companies from increasing their fares.

said, the question as to the increasing of fares had already been referred to the Railway Commissioners.

hoped that great watchfulness would be exercised over any special reports of Committees on the subject of departing from the general rule to be established as to preference shares, otherwise it was possible great disadvantages might result to certain companies, and proportionate benefit accrue to others.

had no objection to the specific clauses proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but there was a point connected with this subject which appeared to him to be a matter of considerable difficulty, and at the same time of such great importance as hardly to be fit to be referred to the consideration of a private Committee, unless assisted by some general rule of the House in regard to it. He would suppose a case, that where a company like that of the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway had contracted—as was the case—with a company like that of the Great North of England to purchase its line, and that under altered circumstances the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Company came to the Great North of England to ask for a modification of the terms, and that the latter company held a meeting and agreed to such a modification; and that the York, Newcastle, and Berwick Company then brought in a Bill—as they had done—to give effect to such altered terms—now, in this case, he wished to know how the rights of the dissenting minority of the Great North of England Company ought to be dealt with? It was difficult to say whether Parliament, in passing such an Act, ratified the contract on behalf of only one part of the selling body, namely, those who consented to the contract, or on behalf of the whole. This was a point, nevertheless, of great public importance, and one upon which he did not think a Committee of the House would be justified in forming a decision without some previous general declaration on the part of the House.

said, that without expressing any decisive opinion at this moment on the point, his first impression was that the cases referred to by the right hon. Gentleman involved so many various interests, that it would be difficult for the House to lay down any general rule upon the subject.

presented a petition, which he expressed a wish to present in the presence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, from two Peers, the Earl of Bradford and the Earl of Clancarty. The petitioners stated that they were entitled to seats in the House of Lords; that one of them, the Earl of Clancarty, had a title to vote in the election of representative Peers in Ireland, and that they were debarred from the exercise of their privileges by certain conscientious scruples which they entertained with respect to the oath of supremacy. The petitioners stated that they were most willing to attest their own undivided allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms in all matters civil and ecclesiastical; but they objected to the form of the oath of supremacy, as containing allegations which appeared to them inconsistent, and more especially they objected to the statutable recognition of ecclesiastical power in this country other than that of the Sovereign Power of this realm, as contained in an Act recently passed for the regulation of charitable bequests in Ireland. They submitted that the form of oath of supremacy should be made more simple and unambiguous, and that it was not necessary, in their judgment, to maintain a form of words which only under peculiar circumstances would have been proper and expedient. The petitioners went on to say, that their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects having been relieved in this particular—the form to which the petitioners objected not being contained in the oaths taken by Roman Catholics—a like relief ought to be extended to them, and prayed the House to afford such relief as in its wisdom it might think fit to adopt.

said, that as the Brick Duties Bill was on the paper for the evening, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government had determined to do on the subject of drawback? He would also ask him to state at what time the brick duty would cease, because at present there was a complete stagnation in the brick trade, the brickmakers being afraid at present to proceed with their operations. He also begged to ask his right hon. Friend what the Government proposed to do with respect to contracts for the supply of bricks entered into under the idea that the duty would be charged?

said, that with regard to the first question put to him which related to the drawback, he saw a deputation three or four days ago, and on reference to what had been the practice on the repeal of other excise duties, he found that there were only two cases in which a drawback had been allowed. The usual course had been to allow some time to elapse before the duty was taken off, in order to enable parties to dispose of their stock, but generally there had been no drawback, and in no case had the full drawback been allowed. No new bricks could be made, so as to enter into competition with those which had paid the duty for some time, and, therefore, the brickmakers could not be prejudiced to the full extent of the duty paid on existing bricks. Of course those who would reap the principal benefit from the repeal of the excise duty were those who had been paying it hitherto; as he had been constantly told that the brick-makers did not so much complain of the amount of the duty, as of the interference of the exciseman. They had the advantage of their plant, and of a perfect knowledge of the trade, so that whatever happened, they must derive the greatest amount of benefit from the repeal of the duty. When he saw the parties to whom he had alluded on Thursday last, many of them, or at least some of them, said that it was not reasonable to expect the full amount of the drawback, and a proposal was made that the duty should not be taken off till the 1st of June, to enable the parties to dispose of their stock, and that a drawback should be allowed on the stock then in hand. Expectations were held out that by that time they would probably have disposed of half their stock in hand, and it was suggested that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should allow half the amount of drawback. On considering this matter, he had come to the conclusion that an extension of the time was most undesirable, because, of course, he could not but perceive that stagnation must ensue in all those employments which depended on the brick trade, embracing not only bricklayers but carpenters and joiners, and other parties. He therefore thought it far better, admitting that some allowance should be made, to do whatever he found it necessary to do at once. He proposed to allow at once a drawback of 50 per cent on the stock in hand, and that on all bricks hence-forward made, the repeal of the duty should be immediate. The duty on all existing bricks had been paid, and he proposed to take no more. The only difficulty was as; to the taking of stock. He had seen the deputation before referred to on Thursday last, and on Friday and Saturday there had been made a survey of more than half the brickyards in England. Orders: would go off that night for an immediate survey of the remaining yards, and every; care should be taken that not a single hour's delay should take place in ascertaining what the amount of stock in hand was. With regard to other parties, he had received several applications from parties who had already bought bricks, and who represented that persons who might build houses with untaxed bricks would have an unfair advantage over them. He was afraid that it was out of his power to afford relief to those parties, and all he proposed, therefore, was to give a drawback to the makers of bricks. An hon. Friend had put into his hands a remonstrance against an inconvenience of another kind, but for which he did not see any remedy. A gentleman had a large quantity of brick earth, for which he was paid a royalty, and he had derived the greatest benefit from the supervision of the excise officer, who kept an account of all the brick earth which was used; and he had been asked to introduce some provision in the Bill by which that computation might be still effected. He must say that it appeared to him that the benefit which this gentleman would derive from the repeal of the duty was so great that he was not entitled to receive any compensation. The last question to which he had to refer regarded contracts. He had been asked to introduce a provision into the Bill to relieve parties who had entered into contracts for bricks, as if they were to be duty-paid bricks; and he proposed, therefore, to insert a clause making an abatement in favour of contracts heretofore made to the amount of the drawback. He believed that on the whole this arrangement would meet the justice of the case.

regretted the trouble and inconvenience to which his right hon. Friend had been exposed, and inquired whether he would have any objection to limit the amount of the window duty?

thought that the repeal of the window duty was not so desirable as that of the duty on bricks.

said that, after hearing the statement made by his right hon. Friend, he would not press the instruction to the Committee which stood in his name on the paper.

did not understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that the drawback would be allowed to persons having bricks in their possession, but who were not the makers of them. Supposing a person to have bricks actually delivered to him, would be be treated on the same terms as the maker of the bricks?

said, that the same question had been put to him by an old lady, who had been buying a great number of bricks, and he had been obliged to tell her that no drawback could be allowed upon them.

had a question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of an encroachment on the Green Park. Some discussion took place on the 1st of March, on the subject of a wall, which had been built without the knowledge of the noble proprietor, round the garden of Bridgewater House, and the right hon. Gentleman then gave him an assurance that the wall should be removed. The wall, however, had not only not been removed, but an embankment had been raised, and he wished to know whether the embankment in question was within the terms of the lease?

said, that before the Secretary to the Treasury answered that question, he wished to state that his constituents would regard the completion of that structure as a very great hardship and grievance.

said, that immediately after the 1st March a communication took place between the architect of the Woods and Forests and the architect of the Earl of Ellesmere; and the architect of the Woods and Forests had been directed to prepare a report, which had not yet been presented. Not, only, however, had the wall of which complaint had been made not been proceeded with, but a great portion of it had been taken down, and it would undoubtedly be a great detriment to the public, and a great injury to the beauty of the park, if no means could be found by which the stringent provisions of the lease could be in some respects modified. If, however, they could not be modified, it would be the duty of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to have that structure levelled. With regard to the embankment, there was nothing in the covenants of the lease which would prevent its being made.

begged the noble Lord at the head of the Government to state whether it was intended to place the collection of paintings left to the country by the late Mr. Vernon in any part of the building called the National Gallery; and whether it was intended to adhere to the intimation made by Mr. Spring Rice, when Secretary to the Treasury, to the House in the year 1834, that the part of the National Gallery now occupied by the Royal Academy was only to be retained by that body as long as it was not required for the extension of the national collection of works of art?

understood the substance of the hon. Member's question to be this—whether that part of the National Gallery now occupied by the Royal Academy for the exhibition of pictures, and for the purposes of their schools, was henceforth to be appropriated to the reception of the pictures given to the nation by the late Mr. Vernon, and of others which might hereafter be given by individuals to the national collection. Taking that to be the sum of the hon. Member's question, it was his (Lord J. Russell's) duty to state in reply, that an arrangement relative to this subject had for some time been under consideration, which there was reason to expect would soon be brought to completion; and in the meantime he would, for the satisfaction of the House, state generally what were the intentions of the Government. It was the wish of the Government that the National Gallery should be devoted to the reception of works of art, at present belonging to the nation, including the pictures of the late Mr. Vernon, and any others that might be given to the country. At the same time, George III., having given the Royal Academy rooms in Somerset House, and various privileges, with a view to the founding of a national school of art in this kingdom, by means of which the Academy had been enabled to maintain schools both of sculpture and painting, it was due to the Royal Academy, as well as desirable in a national point of view, that the Academy should have it in their power to carry on their schools. The Government, therefore, did not think it right to ask the Royal Academy to give up the rooms which they possessed in the National Gallery for the reception of national works of art, without proposing that the House of Commons should grant that body a sum of money to enable them to obtain a site for a building which they might devote to the purposes to which the rooms they now occupied in the National Gallery were ap- plied. As this arrangement could not be effected immediately, it, of course, implied that room could not, at once, be found for the Vernon collection in the National Gallery; but in the course of the present Session the Government would introduce a Bill into the House to accomplish the object at the earliest possible moment. In the meantime Marlborough House, which was recently in possession of the late Queen Dowager, had been given up to the Crown, and was destined to be the residence of the Prince of Wales; but Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to declare that for the present, and for two years to come, the pictures of the late Mr. Vernon and any others that might, within that period, be added to the national collection, should be placed in Marlborough House for the purpose of being exhibited to the public. That was a general outline of the arrangement which the House would hereafter be called upon to sanction.

called upon the hon. Member for Nottingham to state whether he intended to bring in to-morrow the Bill of which he had given notice for winding up the affairs of the Land Company with which he was connected; and also whether the Bill was to be a public or a private one?

said, he had given notice of his intention to bring in the Bill on the earliest possible day after Easter; he was so reported in all the newspapers, and in that sense he was understood by all the Members present on the occasion, and therefore he was astonished to find that his Motion was set down as for to-morrow in the Votes. As to whether the Bill would be a public or a private one, he would say now, as he had before said, that before he introduced it he would consult the best conveyancer, the best equity lawyer, and the best common lawyer, in order that it might be drawn systematically, and not according to his own caprice. He would bring in the Bill as soon as he could after Easter, and he hoped it would be satisfactory to the House, and beneficial to those who had invested money in the scheme.

said, the hon. Member had not informed the House whether the Bill was to be a public or a private one.

said, that would depend entirely on the advice he might receive from the persons whom he meant to consult. Perhaps the hon. Member, who was more expert at such matters than he (Mr. O'Connor) was, would condescend to give his advice. [Laughter.] When the hon. Member interested himself so much in the affairs of others, and was able to set things right, the appeal which he had made to him ought not to have been followed by a laugh.

begged to move for a Committee to inquire into the management of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. His Motion had two distinct objects, public economy and private security. He claimed that the property should be managed as productively as possible, consistently with due regard to the rights of tenants. But with regard to the past, neither object had been secured, not that there had been no amelioration. He believed the inhabitants of these two Duchies were exposed to greater hardships than those of other parts of England. It was perfectly true in the county of Cornwall there had lately been some alterations, but these had not been carried nearly so far as they ought to be. Seeing that the country would at no distant day be called upon to provide an income for the Prince of Wales, it was desirable that his property in the Duchy of Cornwall should be improved to the utmost possible extent in order that a considerable fund should be accumulated by the time His Royal Highness required a separate establishment. The right was questioned, and the Morning Chronicle claimed for the Prince the power, if he pleased, to play "ducks and drakes" with the property, or "to spend its revenues on Christmas trees and plum-cakes"—a remarkable circumstance when it was considered who was reputed to influence the counsels of that paper. He had given notice of a Motion on this subject so long back as 1844; but in consequence of a Bill having been brought in by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth to promote the settlement of disputes between the owners of properties in these Duchies and the Government, until he saw what compromise would be made between these parties, he had deferred bringing forward his Motion. As be could not get primary evidence on this subject, he should be obliged to resort to evidence which, however, was not of so satisfactory a nature as he could wish. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read a number of returns which he had prepared of the income derived from these Duchies, and the expense of management, and also all the lawyers' charges.] The hon. Gentleman's secondary evidence consisted partly of returns regarding the management of other Crown property, by which he showed that on 122,000 acres of forest property there had been no balance in favour of the public; that the High Meadows woods had been bought for 160,000l., and had last year brought an income of only 68l.; that the lawyers' bills had been enormous, especially on the occasion of a certain lawsuit with Lord Churchill, which after years of litigation and an expense of many thousand pounds, ended without decision, in consequence of the death of one of the parties; and he argued that as these things occurred in the management of the other Crown property, what was likely to be the case with the Duchies, and was it not suspicious that inquiry was refused? With regard to the Motion which he submitted to the House on this subject last year, the result in one respect had been such as to induce him to bring forward the subject again; for, on his return to the country, one of the first persons he met was a gentleman who was interested in the matter, who told him that since the subject had been brought before Parliament, the officers of the Duchy, from whom formerly decent attention could not be obtained, were now more considerate. The accounts which had been laid on the table for the present year, were also somewhat more detailed, a result which he attributed to his last year's Motion, and encouraged him to continue agitating the question. Further accounts, however, ought to be furnished, and he conceived the House had a right to demand that they should be prepared in any way it pleased, because an Act of Parliament existed, providing that returns of the income and expenditure of these Duchies should be annually presented to Parliament within a month of the meeting thereof, and in such shape as the Treasury required. As ancillary to his argument, he might be allowed to allude to what occurred in 1795, when the House was applied to to pay the debts of the Prince of Wales, amounting to 161,000l. On that occasion, His Majesty George III. sent a message down to that House, in the course of which he said—

'Anxious as His Majesty must necessarily be to relieve the Prince of Wales from these difficult- ties, His Majesty entertains no idea of proposing to his Parliament to make any provision for this object, otherwise than by the application of a part of the income which may be settled on the Prince; but he earnestly recommends it to the House to consider of the propriety of this proceeding for the gradual discharge of these incumbrances by appropriating and securing for a given term the revenues arising from the Duchy of Cornwall, together with a proportion of the Prince's other annual income."

At that time direct assurances were then given by the Crown and by the Minister of the day, that the Prince would not run into debt again. But a few years elapsed when the Minister again came down with a message for the payment of the Prince's debts, which amounted to 600,000l., chargeable on this revenue, but which the faithful Commons again paid. It might be said there was no probability of anything of this kind occurring again, but it was the duty of that House to provide against the possibility of any charge of the kind being made on the revenue of the Duchy. In these days of economy, the House would be wanting in duty to the public, if it did not prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding. It might be said that the public had no interest in the matter; but this was an erroneous view of the subject. The House might not be aware that formerly there were certain dues on tin, when raised, to which the Duchy had a right. These dues had been abolished, and Parliament had given compensation in lieu of a charge on the Consolidated Fund to the extent of 15,000l. a year and over. It was a question with him whether the Duchy would have had any considerable balance to show but for this annual windfall. The public who paid this sum had a right to know how the Prince managed his estate, as any further grant would be greater or less accordingly. The accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster were generally more systematically kept, but they exhibited an extraordinary number of minute items, many of them for as little as 1s. and 1s. 6d. Why not consolidate such a property, and thus diminish the enormous expenses of agency and supervision? He found in one year there were 500 items for small sums varying from one shilling to ten shillings. It was obvious that no estate managed in such a way could be conducted in a satisfactory manner; and it was the duty of the Government to bring in a Bill to enable the Crown to get rid of all these small charges in the shape of rent charges. Such a course would be infinitely better for both the Crown and the public hereafter. The property of the Duchy of Lancaster was scattered over not less than twenty-one counties, and it was impossible that it could be properly managed. He complained, also, that the officers of the Duchy refused to give information as to this property, beyond what was strictly stated in their annual report. He was happy to find that the Government had ordered Mr. Anderson, the able and intelligent accountant, to examine into the accounts of the Woods and Forests, who had shown how irregularly they had been kept; so much so that the accounts had not been regularly made up for five years, and the utmost confusion was the consequence. He (Mr. Trelawny) had no doubt a similar result would take place, if a similar investigation was made into the accounts of the Duchies. He had been informed that recent sales of property belonging to the Duchies had taken place at Dorchester, Exeter, Kennington, and other places; but no account of these sales was given in the report, nor was any information furnished as to the terms which were obtained. He did not mean to say that there was anything dishonest in these proceedings; but he thought the House was justified in calling for an explanation, and requiring the details to be furnished to it. He had to complain that in two years 20,000l. had been wasted on Tywarnhaile mines, on pretence, he supposed, of kindness to the rural population—a pretence very inconsistent with the charge against the Duchy in the letters of the Morning Chronicle Commissioner, with regard to the Duchy's treatment of poor cottagers. Farther, he complained that their still remained a want of complete security of title in districts where the Duchy had property. In ten counties in England there were parcels of this property which lay scattered in every direction, and the alleged rights of the Duke were a trap to unwary purchasers. It was successfully contended that the nullum tempus Act was not applicable to Duchy property, and till the Act of 1844 nobody was safe; but even that Act was partial and insufficient. Before that Act the payment of 4d. a year to King John was deemed sufficient to shake the firmest title as against the Duchy; and even now in any county but Cornwall it would do so, and, as to Cornwall, it would still do so, in the case of estuaries, royalties, and franchises. Under these words the Duchy were claiming wrecks and arms of the sea. Lord Coke called the Duchy "a great mystery," and a great mystery they seemed determined it should remain. The rating of minerals was a point he had noticed in his resolution. The House might not be aware that the reservation of dues in money saved them from being rateable, so that miners might be attracted to a district, and be made chargeable on the property there; and then the mine might fail, and have contributed nothing to the support of the population it had fostered. He had heard the Duchy had so reserved their dues. If so, it was their right to do so, no doubt; but it was again not very consistent with their vaunted interest in the state of the poor. The right of Parliament to interfere could not be pretended, considering the numerous instances in which Acts of Parliament had been passed directly interfering, and even compelling the annual returns of the state of the income and expenditure in such form as the Treasury required. The Treasury was therefore responsible for any mismanagement; and, if so, how could it be said that it was not the duty of the House, to whom the Treasury was responsible, to insist on full attention being paid to these matters. Again, he had to complain, that before 1844 the officers of the Duchy had neglected to hold assessionable courts for the renewal of leases, which had occasioned great dissatisfaction. These were courts existing from time immemorial, and it was only at these that transferences of properity could take place. The neglect to hold these was a breach of implied faith to tenants. However, he merely mentioned that as indicative of the past spirit of Duchy management. But he had a more serious charge to make. He held in his hand a letter from a Cornish magistrate, of high character and station, distinctly charging the Duchy with having refused to fill up leases with new lives, which had from the earliest times been the custom in the property, and on the faith of which improvements had been made—which would now be lost. This was primâ facie a gross case, and at least demanded explanation. There were many matters connected with the Duchy of Cornwall which required consideration, and with which the House ought to deal, and he hoped the House would grant the inquiry for which he moved: on every ground, public and private, it ought to be conceded.

, in resisting the Motion, trusted to be able to convince the House that there was no ground for granting a Committee of Inquiry into the management of this property. The grounds alleged by the hon. Member for Tavistock for his Motion, were that the property was mismanaged, that it was managed so as to injure the public, and that acts of oppression were exercised under the mode in which it was managed. It was manifest that the House had no right to inquire into the management of any property unless it was of a public character. They had no right to inquire into the management of property purely of a private nature, and the hon. Gentleman himself had admitted that this property was primâ facie strictly private. The original grant was by Edward III. to the Black Prince; it was not connected with the Crown in any way, except during a time when there was no heir-apparent; but as soon as one was born the property vested in him entirely, save that he could not dispose absolutely of the fee-simple. The heir-apparent was born Duke of Cornwall, and he had complete power of disposing of the revenues of the Duchy, from his birth till his accession to the Throne, exactly as he might think fit. He (the Solicitor General) could not therefore see the distinction between this case and that of any other private property, except that it was held in this instance by a personage of the most exalted rank, save one, in this country. The case was strictly one of property belonging to an individual in his private, and not in any public capacity. The hon. Member, in justification of his proposal for inquiry, had contended that in the Act of the 1st and 2nd of the Queen, there was a clause directing the accounts of the Duchy to be annually submitted to the Commissioners of the Treasury. But it might be very proper for Parliament to provide for the security and preservation of the property of the heir-apparent; but that Act did not make the property public property, or impress upon it a character which should impart to the public any concern in it. They could only have the right to inquire into the disposal of any revenues in which the public was directly interested. The hon. Gentleman had argued that when the Prince of Wales became of age it was a matter of considerable moment to know what were his private sources of revenue. The mere contingent possibility that the Prince of Wales might ask an allowance to be paid out of the taxes, did not confer a right on Parliament to inquire how he managed or applied his private property. It did not appear that the property had been mismanaged. The salaries for six years previous to Her Majesty's accession amounted to 8,677l.; they were now 2,500l. Savings had been effected to the extent of 10,672l.; but, making allowance for superannuations, the reduction might be estimated at 8,126l. The returns from the property had progressively increased, and had amounted to 22,000l. a year since the management had been transferred to the Council. In the absence of any specific charges, it was sufficient to show the great decrease which had taken place in the expenditure, the reasons why that expense should be incurred, and the improvements which had taken place. With respect to a diminution of stock from 600l. to 800l., it had been directed when the Assessionable Manors Act was passed, that certain stocks should be applied to defray the expenses. To prevent the accumulation of water, it had been thought advisable to work certain mines till the price of copper and other circumstances should allow the property to be let again. That had been done for two years. The House would bear in mind that the property was now managed by a council, who conducted the affairs of the Duchy with great care and attention, and who were well acquainted with the subject; and although the charges might appear considerable, it must be remembered that the nature of the property was peculiar, consisting of small portions, scattered over a great number of places. It might be desirable or not, that the property should be otherwise situated; but there were no means of altering it, and the hon. Gentleman did not propose to do so, but merely to inquire into the mode of management; and he (the Solicitor General) had shown how it was managed, and that the amount of charges for managing had of late considerably diminished. As to the improvement of the property, a considerable amount had during the last few years accrued from fines, and the granting of a number of new lives, and for a period of many years the property had increased in that respect. In 1750 the amount received for fines was about 9,000l., but during the reign of George IV. the sum had risen to 19,000l., and during the reign of William IV. the sum of 32,000l. was produced by fines. These facts proved that a very great improvement had taken place in the property, while, at the same time, he had shown that there had been a great decrease in the expenditure. The hon. Gentleman stated that oppressions were practised in the management of the property. Now, as he had before said, this property was not public, but absolutely private; but if it were so managed as injuriously to affect the property in a legal or illegal way, it might be a fair subject for the House to inquire into, with a view to protect the property; but the hon. Gentleman was bound to specify what those acts of oppression were, and to be prepared with the details. As regarded the persons who had advanced money on improvements, and on the lives failing were unable to obtain a renewal, the House very well knew that that was an every day occurrence in the case of renewable leaseholds, and he thought they would be hardly induced to institute an inquiry upon the complaint of a tenant that had been ill-treated by the exercise of his landlord's undeniable right of not renewing a lease. This was a case which it appeared to him must be left to the working of the law, or else leave must be moved for to bring in a Bill for the alteration of the law. The hon. Member did not do that, but merely moved for inquiry, saying that he had abundant evidence to produce before a Committee. But that would not do. It was necessary for him to specify the particular grounds upon which he meant to rely in order that the House might judge whether it was a case for inquiry or not. He confidently submitted to the House, therefore, that this Committee ought not to be granted, because the property in question was absolutely private property, and managed for a private individual, although one of exalted position; and because the fact of accounts being laid before the Treasury and Parliament did not take it out of the category of private property. If the House considered the circumstances of the case they would find that the property was really well managed, and that there was nothing before them to warrant a suspicion that this was a case for inquiry.

said, that the question was of a double character—first, the right of making the inquiry, and secondly, the expediency of making it. He had heard the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor General with great surprise upon this being private property, into which the House had no right to inquire. Why, if there was any one property in the whole country of a character to justify a public inquiry, it was the property of the Duchy of Cornwall. It had been created by Act of Parliament; it had been constantly dealt with by Act of Parliament; and it was now under the management of trustees created by Act of Parliament. His hon. and learned Friend must know full well that this was not a matter of doubt or dispute—that the grant by Edward III. which constituted the Duchy of Cornwall was an Act of Parliament, and could only stand as an Act of Parliament. But not only had the property been created by Act of Parliament, but it had been constantly dealt with by Act of Parliament. At the time of the establishment of Queen Anne's civil list it was expressly assigned by statute to the Crown for the maintenance of its honour and dignity; and it had been specified in subsequent civil lists, either in terms or specially excepted, but excepted by name—thus showing the right of Parliament and the public to take a direct interest in it. If, as he earnestly hoped, the Prince of Wales should come to man's estate, the House of Commons would be asked to make provision for him. This Duchy was an appanage of the Prince of Wales, given to him by Act of Parliament, and to which he had no right but by Act of Parliament; and it was therefore a very material public question in what manner the property was managed, and how the revenues were disposed of, for it might be that the property was so valuable, and the revenues so growing and productive, that in the course of some fifteen years the produce, if discreetly managed, might yield so large an in- come as to render it unnecessary for Parliament to make further provision for the Prince of Wales. He might add, on this subject, that besides the returns being annually laid before Parliament, the office of the Duchy of Cornwall was a public office in Somerset House, for which no rent was paid. Under such circumstances, it could not, he thought, be justly contended that this property was in the same position as private property. At all events, he should like to know what difference there was between the right of Parliament to deal with the inheritance to the Crown lands, which were under public management, and with the property of the Duchy of Cornwall. It stood peculiarly in the position of a property belonging to the public, into which the public was entitled to inquire. What then was the case for inquiry? The truth was, it was rather a difficult matter to make out the case, for the materials were not laid before them; but there were strong grounds for supposing the management would not he found so creditable if the light of public investigation were thrown upon it. He had before him the accounts, and an abstract of the returns of the Duchy of Cornwall laid before the House for the last eight years, from which it appeared to him that the trustees had been doing that which they had no legal power whatever to do. He found by the last account that 4,333l. 1s. 4d. had been received in repayment of balance of advances previously made from the revenues of His Royal Highness to the corpus of the estate, for the expenses of the Assessionable Manors Commission. The Duchy Act gave the trustees power to appropriate the revenue to the general purposes of that Act, or to apply money arising from sales and exchanges to pay certain expenses therein specified; but, he contended, that the trustees, when they once had made advances out of revenue, had no legal power to recoup themselves out of the inheritance. Then he found the following entry among the expenditure:—

"Payment to the account of the Duke of Cornwall at the Bank of England, under the Act 7 and 8 Vict., c. 65, of a portion previously paid to the revenue account of His Royal Highness, of the purchase-money for the enfranchisement of copyhold property at Kennington, required by the London and South-Western Railway Company, 3,750l."

What had become of the remainder? How much was the original sum? Surely, the House, to whom the account was presented annually, had a right to inquire into these circumstances. He asserted, then, that upon the face of the accounts there seemed to have been transactions which did not appear to be justified by the Act of Parliament under which the power had been taken; and surely they formed a legitimate subject of inquiry. There was another subject connected with the accounts upon which no information was afforded. Credit was given for a payment of 952l. 12s. 2d., "by the assignee of the lease of toll tin, for interest on money expended in the purchase of lease." Tin toll was a sort of royalty, but no information was given respecting this transaction. It appeared that the trustees had been advancing money to some one, the purchaser of this lease, to enable him to purchase it; but they had no sort of power under the Duchy Act to do this. These were slight instances, it was true, but they showed that this great property was not managed in the same correct and accurate way that a private property well looked after would be managed. In the eight years during which the returns had been made, he found that the income had amounted to 354,000l.; in the same period the expenditure, on account of salaries and establishments had been 71,000l.; on account of law charges, surveys, &c., 22,000l.; making a total of 93,000l. for managing a total sum of 354,000l.—a circumstance affording an indication that there had not been a careful management on the part of the trustees. He could not tell what other inference could be drawn from the facts. One word with regard to the Duchy of Lancaster. The account of the revenue and expenditure, as laid before Parliament for that Duchy, was, he must say, even more extraordinary and unsatisfactory than that of the Duchy of Cornwall. He found from the annual return laid before Parliament, that the gross receipts had been 273,224l. in nine years; out of which had gone to "salaries and allowances to officers—not including receivers and agents—62,558l., to "audit expenses, books, and stationery," 32,251l., law charges 14,948l., while Her Majesty had only received 112,000l. The revenues of this Duchy were part of the Crown revenues, which Parliament had assigned to Her Majesty. That was true; but it was quite a new doctrine to hear a Whig Government, the representatives of Burke and Fox, contend that Parliament had no right to inquire into the management of this property. Just seventy years ago, Mr. Burke brought into that House a Bill to improve the management of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster, and "to provide for the application of the rents thereof to the public service," and a similar Bill for the Duchy of Cornwall. Very warm discussions took place in the House of Commons on those Bills. It was then said, as at present, that the revenues were the private property of the Crown, and that it was therefore impossible the House could deal with them. But in those discussions Mr. Fox said—

"He could not help declaring, if it should be resolved that Parliament had not the right to interfere, to reform, or, if necessary, to resume the grants they had made to the Crown for public purposes, in short to see to the proper application of the money, there was at once an end to the liberties of the country; such a vote would in its consequences amount to a dissolution of the Government as modelled at the period of the Revolution."

When, then, the practical result of the management of this great property was, that an average revenue of 32,000l. was obtained, but that only 12,000l. a year found its way to Her Majesty's privy purse, it struck him there was a strong primâ facie case for inquiry. In conclusion, he must repeat, that under these circumstances, he felt bound to vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend.

, being in some degree connected with the Duchy of Lancaster, thought it his duty to make some observations with regard to the terms of the Motion, and the object it had in view. His hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock had contended that this property ought to be distinguished from private property on several grounds. No doubt, in one respect, it was distinguished from private property, inasmuch as, at certain periods, it might be right for Parliament to take its amount into consideration, such as at the settlement of the Civil List, or of an appanage upon the Prince of Wales. But there were no such questions now before the House; and the property of the Duchy of Lancaster was, at this moment, vested in Her Majesty for Her private use, just as in like manner the property of the Duchy of Cornwall was vested in the trustees of the Prince of Wales for his private use. It was not the mode in which a property was created, but the purpose to which it was applied, that made it belong to the public; and with regard to the property of the Duchy of Lancaster, his hon. Friend was in error if he assumed it had been created by Act of Parliament. It was originally a private property, and it had always been kept apart from the general property of the Crown, under different Acts of Parliament. But the real question for the House to look at was, how and on whose behalf was it managed? It was not in either case managed by public commissioners or public trustees. True, the trustees were appointed by Act of Parliament; but for whom were they trustees, and to whom did they account? For the Prince of Wales, in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall, and the money was paid over to the treasurer of his Royal Highness. It was not the fact of the trustees' accounts being laid before Parliament that made them accountable to Parliament; the persons to whom they were accountable were those who were entitled to receive the money. Everybody knew the Duchy of Lancaster was the private property of Henry IV., who, when he acquired the Crown, being afraid the property would merge in that of his higher title, took care to have an Act of Parliament by which they were kept distinct. So it continued until the time of Edward IV., who declared the Duchy of Lancaster forfeited; but he kept it distinct from the possessions of the Crown, though in a somewhat different form to that in which it had been placed by Henry IV.; for he settled it upon himself and the future kings of England, to be for ever separate and distinct from the property of the Crown. If it had not been for that Act of Parliament, a question might have arisen at various periods of our history, particularly on the marriage of Philip and Mary, and the Revolution of 1688, whether the property had not passed to other owners than the Crown. The real and true point, however, was, whether, supposing the property to be grievously mismanaged, the public was wronged to the extent of one shilling. If any one was wronged, who was the person most entitled to complain? Her Majesty in one case, and the Prince of Wales in the other. In what respect had the public been wronged? Reference had been made to the amount of legal expenses of the Duchy of Lancaster. With reference to the office he had the honour to hold—that of Vice-Chancellor of the Duchy—the income of which was 600l. a year, he had no hesitation in saying, that unless the court was put upon a much better footing than it was at present, he would not continue to hold the office; but he hoped the Government would be induced to assist him in the endeavour, with the consent of the council, to put the court upon a better footing. There had been presented to him a memorial signed by a large number of the solicitors of Manchester, forming the Law Association of that borough, stating their desire that the court should be continued, but requesting efficient reforms to be made in it commensurate with those already effected in the High Court of Chancery. At the present moment the court was actually behind the High Court of Chancery in point of reformation; but he hoped it would soon go beyond it, and keep pace with the projected reforms about to be extended to the Irish court, which must eventually be introduced into the English Court of Chancery. There was one particular advantage in the Lancaster Chancery Court—it had not the enormities of the Master's Office. Cases were not kept there year after year; accounts were taken de die in diem; and, on the whole, after some improvements, he had no doubt but that the court would work most satisfactorily to the public.

said, that some experience in Parliamentary discussion had led him to the conclusion that he was an unwise man, who, speaking in the House of Commons, should deny the absolute right of the House to do anything it thought proper. The power of the House of Commons was very wide and expansive. In this case the question was not the abstract right, but the justice and the expediency of exercising that right—namely, of instituting certain inquiries, and doing certain things. If any one had used the expression that the House of Commons had no right to institute an inquiry, he apprehended it was meant thereby to draw a distinction between inquiry into that hereditary property of the Crown, which the Crown had assigned to the public in lieu of a certain allowance for the civil list, and into such property as that of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which had been specially reserved by the Crown, and which continued under the exclusive management of the Crown. In the case of the Crown property assigned to the public during the endurance of the civil-list arrangement, there was clearly a right, on the part of the House to institute inquiry; for they had a direct, manifest, and present interest in swelling the revenues of such property so far as they could, and in seeing it properly administered. But the case of the property of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, especially that of Corn- wall, stood upon a different ground. At the period when the civil list was made, those properties were reserved by the Crown, with the full assent of Parliament; the management was left to the Crown; and it would conduce much more to the good management of that property if it were left to the administration of the Crown, than if the House of Commons were to interfere with it, unless, indeed, there were clear and signal proof of a necessity for such interference. He did not moan to deny, notwithstanding the special nature of the property, that if the House had reason to believe that the revenues were applied to corrupt purposes, or were profusely squandered, or that the law expenditure was wasteful and profligate, that there would not be a case to justify the institution of an inquiry; but he positively denied that there was ground for the slightest presumption of any such abuse. He had some slight connexion with the Duchy of Cornwall, having the honour to be a trustee of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, for the purpose of receiving the accumulations of property invested in the funds; and he must express his firm belief that there was no property, public or private, which, speaking of late years, had been better administered. Look at the persons concerned in its management. When he saw men of such eminince as Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and other gentlemen of high character and station, willing to devote their services to the administration of the affairs of the Duchies, he must deprecate an inquiry that would infallibly tend to prevent the Crown from having the invaluable services of men of such eminent station. What were the facts with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall? No doubt, during the last reign, there had been instances of very high salaries; no doubt there were persons holding Parliamentary office connected with the Duchy. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tavistock had shown that during the reign of William IV., the charge for salaries was 8,677l.; but the present charge for salaries was only 2,500l. The law expenses averaged, for nine years ending in 1840, 4,100l.; but they were now conducted with far greater economy. The greater part of the law business connected with the Duchy, under a recent arrangement, was done in the Duchy Office; and the charge incurred for 1849, in respect to solicitors' bills, and law officers, had not amounted to more than 37l. An increase had certainly taken place in respect to superannuation allowances; but they had been granted for the express purpose of diminishing the number of officers, and retaining only those who bonâ fide were concerned in the administration of the Duchy. Complaints, it was true, had been made of hardship with regard to leases. In former periods, he believed, the Crown properties were regarded as a sort of public domain on which all might safely trespass; every one took what he could get. The convenient doctrine was, that "the Crown must be liberal," and "the Crown must deal with great indulgence and forbearance to all claimants." A different system was now acted upon. It was now thought desirable to make the most of the Crown property. Instead of granting leases on small rents and extravagant fines, the full annual value of the property leased was now realised. Of course, this change of system led to complaint; but the House would see, that if they were to administer the property justly, and diminish the future charge which the country might have to bear in making provision for the Prince of Wales upon attaining his majority, it was impossible to do this, and, at the same time, silence the complaints of those who had local interests, and had been accustomed to a very different principle of administration. The hon. Member for Tavistock had given as a reason for the inquiry, that those who made hypothetical charges ought to be satisfied. It was surely enough to have an answer for every charge that had some sort of foundation. One of the hypothetical charges rested on the allegation that some portions of the Duchy property bad been sold to a railway company. If it had, he ventured to say that the whole money so received had been strictly applied to the purposes of the trust. Was there the slightest presumption of mismanagement, or the slightest ground for Parliamentary inquiry, because the Duchy of Cornwall, having property through which a railway passed, bad sold what was required for the purposes of the railway, and received a sum of money in lieu? Such a charge was not even hypothetical. The hon. Gentleman had introduced a new principle of debate. His (Sir R. Peel's) noble Friend the Earl of Lincoln last year, upon a Motion of the hon. Gentleman, made a most satisfactory and convincing speech, which he (Sir R. Peel) had hoped settled the ques- tion. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of replying to that speech, but he did not avail himself of it. With that the House was entirely satisfied. The whole of the arguments, repeated to-night, were refuted; the distinctions between the property of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and the other hereditary property of the Crown were clearly stated. If the hon. Gentleman had said to-night, "I will answer the speech of last year now;" this, though it might not be a very Parliamentary course, would not have been a very irrational one. But the hon. Gentleman said, "I will take a newspaper which I think deals hardly with me, and will presume that it contains the sentiments of the Earl of Lincoln, and will proceed to reply not to the speech made by Lord Lincoln, but to an article in the Morning Chronicle, which I will substitute for the speech. This was an example of the hypothetical charge to which the hon. Gentleman had attached importance. But he hoped the House was satisfied as to the administration of the property of the Duchy of Cornwall, and as to the total absence of any, the slightest, presumption of abuses. No property, public or private, was managed more carefully, or with a greater desire to meet every just claim of the tenants, or of those with whom the Duchy had been in contact or collision. There was no estate on which greater desire had been manifested to prevent the possibility of abuse, to abolish useless patronage, to substitute bonâ fide working men for great officers with high titles and large salaries. There was no department of the State in which there could be found greater purity of administration, greater desire to do justice, or greater economy. Under these circumstances, instead of discussing the abstract question whether the House of Commons had a right to enter into an inquiry into the affair of the Duchies, he protested altogether against its justice or its policy. They could not institute an inquiry without weakening the authority of those who were conducting these affairs with entire success. Inquiry would imply suspicion; and he hoped the House of Commons would not consent to disturb, by a needless investigation, an arrangement which was working perfectly well, and with regard to which there was not a presumption of abuse or negligence.

said, the House had been told by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford that the courts of the Duchy of Lancaster were so defective, that if they did not amend their ways he should be under the necessity of leaving them, or of coming to Parliament and asking its assistance to reform them. He thought this question very important, for he had often heard it complained that these separate jurisdictions, clashing with the laws of the realm, were very undesirable, and whenever Acts were passed dealing with particular counties, clauses were inserted in them reserving the rights of the Duchies. The effects of this state of things were often very vexatious, and not in the main favourable to the public welfare, and were therefore, he thought, fit subjects for inquiry. The fact of such powers being exercised over Her Majesty's subjects, gave the House a fair right to inquire whether any portion of the funds of the Duchies should be applied to the maintenance of those jurisdictions.

said, of the power of the House in this matter he had no doubt; public property was within the cognisance of Parliament on all occasions if they saw ground to make an inquiry. Twenty years ago he had brought the case of the Duchies before the House; and he could recollect the time when nearly the whole revenue was employed in paying salaries. In the management of the Duchy of Lancaster much improvement had taken place; but as there were still charges which absorbed 20,000l. out of 32,000l., there could be no doubt that this was a very heavy amount. There was still a multiplicity of offices—receivers with 1,100l. a year, and the like, and all these matters should become subjects of inquiry. Many small dues were levied, of which he ventured to say the proceeds were absorbed in the expenses of collection; these were attended with very great inconvenience to the parties who paid, and with no profit to the receivers. If he could have been the adviser of the Crown on this occasion, he should have said, "by all means let the inquiry take place. "The inquiry into the management of the Woods and Forests had been productive of very great public benefit, and he thought that now proposed would also be attended with good results. There might be in the minds of some a delicacy about showing accounts; but there ought to be no delicacy; they were public accounts. The House had a right to know how the accumulating funds paid to the trustees were invested, and how they were applied. In one year these had amounted to 41,000l., in another to 12,000l., in another to 7,000l. They knew what took place during the period of George IV.'s minority. The property of the Duchy of Cornwall, he believed, was misapplied, and never accounted for. The House ought to be vigilant that no portion of the property was misapplied, and the public had a right to know how it was applied, looking at the call that would be made upon them when the Prince of Wales came of age. He thought the Government, by consenting to lay the accounts before the House, had opened the door to any inquiry, and afforded opportunity for discussion. As an instance of the necessity there was for giving due attention to this subject, he might mention the tin duties, which formerly yielded a sum of 15,000l. to 16,000l., and were paid by the mining proprietors of the Duchy of Cornwall. All at once he found a Bill brought in by which they had been relieved of that impost, and the amount was placed on the Consolidated Fund.

said, as the inquiry into the management of the Woods and Forests, over which he had the honour to preside, had been alluded to, he would take that opportunity of thanking the Government for the very abundant information they had laid before the Committee. He was unable to give his assent to the Motion now submitted to the House. If anything had struck him more forcibly than another in connection with the inquiry in which he was engaged it Was this, that of all the institutions in the world the House of Commons appeared to be the worst steward of the property placed under their charge. He would not inquire into the reasons why or how; but had that property been more diligently looked into, and had it been placed in pure hands, he believed they would have found much less to complain of. With respect to encroachments made on the property of the Crown, though it might have been oppressive in former times, it appeared to him that in modern times the Crown had been more sinned against by the neighbouring proprietors, than the neighbouring proprietors were sinned against by the Crown. The present resolution was drawn up in a way which might lead to the impression that the managers of the Duchy of Cornwall had been oppressive to the tenants; but he firmly believed that they had done no more than their duty to their employers, as the steward of any private estate might have done. With respect to the question whether the mode of managing the property was fair as regarded the tenants, he thought it one which a Committee of the House should not entertain.

thought it impossible to grant the Committee, as it would be to confound the distinction between public and private property.

said, he very much regretted that he had not had an opportunity of bringing forward the Ordnance Estimates in their regular course, and that he was now obliged to have recourse to the unusual proceeding of asking the House to vote a sum of money on account, for the purpose of defraying those branches of expenditure which might come into course of payment after the close of the financial year. This was not the first time he had stated that he thought it would be very desirable that those estimates should be brought forward at an early period of the Session. He admitted that there was very great inconvenience in the delay which had taken place. It was inconvenient to the Government, to the department, and, he believed he might add, to the House. But however desirous the Government might be to get through the public business, and however anxious the department might be to have the sanction of Parliament, in order to be enabled to carry on those services placed more immediately under its control, the House must be aware that there were circumstances which the Government could not control, which might occasionally intervene to prevent business of importance being brought for ward, from the time occupied by debates on other subjects, and also by measures introduced by independent Members of that House entirely unconnected with the Government. He only mentioned this to prove that the Government was not at all to blame, and that the department was not at all accountable for the delay that had taken place, and, also, that he was obliged to resort to this unusual proceeding before any general statement had been made of the services to be provided for and the expenditure to be incurred. The House was aware that no funds were available for public services, unless sums were provided by votes on account after the termination of the financial year; and as this would take place during the recess, and some accounts must be paid at that time, it would be evident to the House that the course now adopted was unavoidable. He was as conscious as any one of the very deep interest taken by that House in matters connected with the public expenditure, and he felt he should not be doing justice to the department he represented in that House if he were to enter into any explanation of the details of these matters on the present occasion. He trusted that the House would agree in the propriety of the course he now took, and that they would give him their permission to place in the hands of the Chairman certain votes on account, amounting to about 600,000l. in the aggregate, to enable Her Majesty to provide for the services which would come into course of payment at the close of the financial year. He had the permission of his noble Friend at the head of the Government to say, that on the first day of supply after the recess the Ordnance Estimates would be brought forward, when ample opportunity would be afforded of discussing them. He should now place the votes in the hands of the Chairman.

observed, that as the hon. and gallant Member had very properly reserved his general statement, and these votes were proposed merely to enable the Government to carry on the service of that department, he (Mr. Hume) would defer any observations he might wish to make on the subject until the estimates came regularly before the House.

stated, in reply to Mr. B. Osborne, that on the first night after the recess the Ordnance Estimates would be placed first in Committee of Supply, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Staffordshire would enter into a full explanation.

thought this arrangement would be inconvenient; for it was desirable that these estimates should be discussed in a full House, and it was probable that for the first day or two after Parliament met many Members might be detained in the country by their duties at quarter-sessions.

was ready to admit the inconvenience mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but if he were to accede to the various requests that were made to him, much of the public time would be lost. He had postponed several measures which were to have been brought forward to-night; and if he also gave up the first night after the recess, two would be lost, so far as important Government business was concerned.

said, he had intended to move an instruction to the Committee "that they have power to make provision for the prospective reduction of the salaries and emoluments of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellors, the Chief Baron, and all the Puisne Judges;" but in consequence of the notice given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government of his intention to propose the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into these subjects, he (Mr. Christopher) would not press his Motion. He wished, however, to ask the noble Lord whether, under these circumstances, he thought it advisable to press the present Bill, because if the House acquiesced in all its enactments the proposed Committee would be prevented from taking into consideration the salaries of the present Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and of any other legal or diplomatic functionaries who might be appointed before the Committee made their report. It appeared that the Lord Chief Justice Denman had been entitled, under an Act of Parliament, to receive during the time he held that office a salary of 10,000l. a year. Lord Denman, however, was one who would never place his own personal interest at variance with the public good, and he willingly agreed to forego his right, and to receive a salary of 8,000l. a year. He (Mr. Christopher) could not conceive why the present Lord Chief Justice should not agree to some similar arrangement; and he thought that till Parliament had decided what the future remuneration of these officers should be, it would be decorous in the present Lord Chief Justice to be satisfied with the salary received by Lord Denman, subject to the future control of Parliament with regard to any alteration that might be made.

said, that this seemed to him an occasion which ought not to be lost for fixing the salary of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Lord Denman took that office with an understanding that the salary should be 8,000l. a year; but the only record of the understanding was contained in a Treasury minute. Some time afterwards, Lord Brougham stated that he considered the principle of such an arrangement was objectionable; and he (Lord J. Russell) thought that noble Lord was right in observing that a Treasury minute, which might be revoked or altered at any time, should not be the authority for the amount of salary of the Lord Chief Justice, and that if that officer should resign, and claim the full legal salary, there should be a legal power to resist such a claim. In the case of a man of the high and unsullied integrity of Lord Denman, no practical objection to the plan which had been adopted could arise; but he thought that, in principle. Lord Brougham's objection was well founded, and the Government wished therefore to take this opportunity of making a permanent arrangement by law upon the subject. If they were to wait till the inquiries of the Committee, which might be very protracted, were completed, there would still remain to Lord Denman and his executors the legal right of claiming the full salary allowed by law from the time when that noble Lord accepted the office. He thought the House would agree that it was desirable to alter such a state of things, and he therefore took the opportunity of the appointment of a new Lord Chief Justice to introduce this Bill. He had consulted Lord Denman himself, and the present Lord Chancellor, as to the fit amount of salary; they were both of opinion that 8,000l. a year would be a sufficient sum, and he (Lord J. Russell) had given notice to Lord Campbell of his intention to introduce a Bill to regulate the salary at that amount. So far, therefore, Lord Campbell had had notice that 8,000l. a year would be the salary proposed by the Government while he held the office. The hon. Member for North Lincolnshire had suggested that persons who were appointed to offices while the Committee was sitting should take those offices subject to such reductions as might be made on the report of the Committee; and, understanding the hon. Gentleman to mean such reductions as might be made under the authority of an Act of Parliament, he (Lord J. Russell) considered that the proposal was fair and reasonable.

thought this Bill ought not to be pressed. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had told the House that recent appointments were made subject to such reductions as Parliament, on consideration, might think just. The Bill was wholly unnecessary in order to guard against any claim on the part of Lord Denman to the 2,000l. a year; for the Act 2 and 3 William IV., c. 116, was simply permissive; it did not fix the salary at 10,000l. a year, and the agreement with Lord Denman and Lord Campbell was binding. The Act authorised the Crown to grant a salary of 10,000l. a year; but if any one had power to grant 10,000l. a year out of the estate of another, a grant of 8,000l. or 6,000l. a year would be a valid execution of the power. The law was so laid down in Sugden "On Powers." In Lord Den-man's appointment, with a salary of 8,000l. a year attached to his office, the country had a full protection against any claim to more. But if this Bill should pass, the proposed Committee would not be likely to feel at liberty to touch salaries so recently fixed. Yet these salaries were very much larger than they ought to be. As to what was said about barristers making-more at the bar, the most successful nisi prius advocates did not make the best Judges; these were generally secured rather by the selection of the learned but more quiet lawyers, who were often chiefly known in chamber practice. The Bill ought to be postponed till after the report of the Committee, or the returns that were to be made. He believed that the effect of the Bill would be to prevent future reductions in these salaries, and as he thought the amount proposed to be given much too large, he was determined to divide against it in Committee, even if he were to go into the lobby alone.

did not feel it necessary to go into the question whether the salaries of the Judges were too great or too small; this—which was not the question now—would come before the Committee. But he apprehended that the law of the hon. Member for Cirencester was not correct; it would be a national misfortune indeed if the case were as he had stated it, and were so to remain. In the instance of private individuals, a person with power to grant a sum out of the estate of another might grant a less sum; but if that rule applied under this statute, a Government could reduce the salary of any Judge who offended them; whereas the leading object of the Acts upon this subject was to make the Judges totally independent of the Crown. The 2nd and 3rd William IV. ran thus:—

"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to grant the several and respective annual salaries hereinafter specified to the Judges hereinafter enumerated—(that is to say) to the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench at Westminster 10,000l.,"

and so on. The Crown, therefore, could not appoint any Chief Justice upon condition that he should have a right to 10,000l. a year, and no more. This was a Parliamentary power to grant 10,000l. and no other salary; the words were not "a sum not exceeding 10,000l. a year." It was easy to say that Lord Denman or his executor would never make a claim for 2,000l. a year; but, suppose his will were silent upon the subject, would not the executor be personally liable if he gave up the claim? This measure, therefore, was necessary.

did not think the law of the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Cirencester correct, as the Act of Parliament said that the salary shall be 10,000l.; but if this Bill were necessary to prevent any possible claim that might be hereafter put forward by Lord Den-man's executors, it was very easy to prevent the danger by obtaining a receipt in full from Lord Denman at present. If this were done, the Bill could be postponed, until the whole subject had been thoroughly sifted. He was glad the noble Lord had decided on appointing a Committee, and he hoped the salaries of all the Judges in the land would be referred to it. He held in his hand a return which he had obtained in 1844, from which it appeared that no less than 402,000l. was paid in Judges' salaries, exclusive of the charges for retired allowances. In 1792 the Chief Justice received only 4,000l, and the Puisne Judges 2,500l., and it was not until 1825 that the present salary was fixed. Judges were the last persons in the country that he would place under inadequate salaries; but he believed the time had arrived when every salary in the country must be reduced. By the return to which he had just referred, it appeared that the salaries paid to retired Judges was 67,000l. That was paid out of what was called the suitors' fund; but that fund was as much public money as the unclaimed dividends, and he did not know why it had not been brought under the consideration of Parliament before this. He hoped the retiring allowances would be brought before the Committee. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated last Session that all new appointments should be subject to such reductions and alterations as might be made by the House of Commons, and therefore the noble Lord who had lately accepted the office of Lord Chief Justice was bound by that arrangement. He was satisfied that this Bill was altogether premature, and he trusted that it would not be pressed forward at this moment.

said, he entertained no doubt but that the law of his hon. Friend the Solicitor General was perfectly correct; but in that case, what an instance of negligence did it not exhibit against the Government and all preceding Governments for the last sixteen years, because it appeared that if Lord Denman had died at any time during that period, his executors might have claimed the full amount of his salary. He considered that the salary in all such cases should be fixed, and that there ought to be no bargaining between the Government and lawyers looking for appointments. Such an arrangement could not, however, have been made with a nobler nature than Lord Denman. He thought it was premature to decide on what the salaries of future Chief Justices ought to be, until the Committee investigated the subject; and if now called upon to give a vote on the point, he felt unable to decide whether 8,000l. was the proper amount to give or not. He hoped that the Committee that was to be appointed would not be restricted in their inquiries to the salaries of the Judges alone, because there were many salaries put upon the Consolidated Fund which ought to be upon the estimates. As he understood from his noble Friend at the head of the Government that all salaries, as the offices became vacant, would be brought under the consideration of the Committee—an announcement that had given him great satisfaction—he thought, in consistency with that arrangement, the Bill ought not to be pressed further tonight.

did not think any debate should take place on the question before the House, but trusted the House would excuse his saying a few words, as he happened to differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester, and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. He apprehended the words of the Act had an imperative and not a discretionary application, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester seemed to suppose, and that the Crown was most clearly bound to grant the salary mentioned by the words, "it shall be lawful," &c. With great deference to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, he differed from him as to there being any danger from the executors of Lord Denman applying for the arrears of salary. No executor would be heard in any court of justice with such a claim after Lord Denman had received his salary for so many years; and, entertaining as he did such an unqualified high opinion of the honour, honesty, and upright character of that noble Lord, he was sure that if such an idea could cross his mind as that his executors could make a claim against the country for that which he (Lord Denman) had not asked, the first thing he would do would be to insert a clause in his will to preclude them from doing so. No man's honour or character could stand higher, and he had brought the bench and the bar of England to a pitch of reputation which would carry his name down to remote posterity. He could not sit down without correcting the statement of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the Suitors' Fee Fund in Chancery was public money. That fund was the floating balance of suitors' money paid into court but not employed, and belonged as little to the public as to the hon Gentleman's balance at his banker's. As to the proposition of the noble Lord, he was in a great dilemma. He felt there would be great difficulty in the Committee reducing the salaries of the other Judges, if the salaries of the Chief Justices were fixed by the House at the pre- sent moment. He owned a disinclination to go on with the Bill unless the noble Lord left out so much of it as referred to the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas to a future occasion.

explained, that he had no objection to leave out that part of the Bill which referred to the salary of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, as it would properly come under the consideration of the Committee, but he did not think it would be convenient to leave the salary of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench on the understanding on which it had rested so many years with Lord Denman, and, therefore, must ask the House to go into Committee on that portion.

said, the question was then narrowed to the salary of the Lord Chief Justice. He never could before understand the breathless haste with which it was attempted to settle this question, that had rested quietly for the last eighteen years; but now he thought the whole matter was too transparent, the real reason being to fix the salary of 8,000l to the present Lord Chief Justice. He could not see any other reason for going on with the Bill. If there was no covert motive, would it not be far more satisfactory to the noble Lord himself, as well as to the House and to the country, to find that his salary had gone through the ordeal of that Committee, which the Government admitted all other officers ought to go through? He confessed he saw no reason why the appointment of the present Lord Chief Justice was to be treated otherwise than as a prospective appointment, when the wax was hardly cold on the seal of his patent; and he would ask in what position would the other Judges of the Courts be, if the Committee were to recommend that their salaries were to be reduced, while the salary of the Lord Chief Justice was not to be touched? He should certainly vote for the postponement of the Bill.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, seemed to be of opinion that the office of Lord Chief Justice was to be excepted altogether from the investigation of the Committee. He asked what would be the position of the other Judges if their salaries were reduced, while that of the Lord Chief Justice was unaltered? The answer to that question was, that the Lord Chief Justice would be precisely in the same position with the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and all the other Judges, whose salaries might be prospectivly reduced. He hoped it was clearly understood that the Committee would be required to deal, not with immediate reductions, but with prospective reductions, of all the Judges. With respect to what his hon. Friend had said of the measure resting for eighteen years, that was true; and it was only when his noble Friend at the head of the Government was called on to look into the subject, on the appointment of the present Lord Chief Justice, that he discovered the inconvenient arrangement now subsisting.

thought the question was now brought within a very small compass. After the speeches that had been made, he was sure that the House would not believe this Bill was brought in to save the public the risk of being called upon to pay the extra 2,000l. a year. Neither was it brought in to save the salaries of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, because the noble Lord had now handed that salary over to the tender mercies of the Committee. [Lord J. RUSSELL: I brought it in for that purpose,] He would admit, for the sake of argument, that it was so; but the important object was the salary of the Lord Chief Justice. He would not now give an opinion whether that salary was too largo or not large enough, and that was the reason why he objected to go on with the Bill. If this Committee was intended to be an honest and searching one, making a fair inquiry into all salaries, then it was unreasonable to exclude from their consideration, as this Bill would virtually do, the salary of the Lord Chief Justice. Imagine that the Committee were sitting, and that that salary had come before them, it would be immediately urged that that salary had been fixed by Act of Parliament so recently that the Committee need not go into it. And more than this, if the Committee were to attempt to reduce the salaries of the other Judges, the salary fixed for the Lord Chief Justice would immediately be held up as a sort of standard of emolument that would be fair to the other Judges. On all these considerations he thought that the measure ought to be postponed, and that the salary should come fairly before the Committee.

said, there appeared to be some misunderstanding with respect to the intentions of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. As far as he understood the noble Lord, he proposed by this Bill to set at rest all questions with respect to Lord Denman's claims, and at the same time settling that Lord Campbell should have, in point of fact, 8,000l. a year. But after that was done, he understood that the Committee would be at liberty to take up all the salaries of the Judges, and, as he understood. Lord Campbell's among the rest. ["No, no!"] He begged to say that he was offering his own humble understanding of the question; but he certainly understand that his salary would stand in the same position as the salary of the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. The reduction would be prospective in the one case as well as the other, and no difference would be made between them by the Committee. He must say, for one, that Lord Campbell having taken his present office on the understanding that he should have 8,000l. a year, he would vote for the Bill.

could not suppose that the idea of a Committee had originated in the mind of the noble Lord this evening for the first time; it must have been in the mind of the Government for the last few weeks, and perhaps at the time of Lord Campbell's appointment. If so, then he thought it unfair that Lord Campbell's salary should be the only one excluded from the consideration of the Committee. They ought to have told him that while they conferred on him the appointment, his salary was to be determined by a Committee whom they intended to appoint. He thought, therefore, that the salary of Lord Campbell ought primarily to come before the Committee. They were not now dealing with the amount of the salary; but if the salary should come before the House that evening, then there was this important point to consider—that the noble Lord had not as in the case of other Judges, resigned an important profession or lucrative emolument. He had resigned an office, no doubt, with a seat in the Cabinet, but the office itself was neither of great importance nor of high salary, and he thought that was an element to be taken into account in fixing the salary. If they did appoint this Committee, it would be found that it was empowered to inquire into the salaries of all the Judges but Lord Campbell's.

said, the Committee would have as much power to inquire into his salary as into those of the Chief Baron, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and all the Puisne Judges.

admitted, that might be true; but as Lord Campbell had been so recently appointed, he contended that his salary ought to be treated as among the prospective ones that were to come before the Committee.

said, as he understood the noble Lord, all appointments made since the last Session of Parliament were to come under the consideration of the Committee. He would ask why there was such breathless haste in this Bill? He recollected that in 1841 Lord Campbell was appointed Chancellor of Ireland, which office the noble Lord filled for seventeen days and three hours, and for this the noble Lord received an outfit of 1,000l. He had taken the liberty since, of asking what became of these old materials, and the answer of the party was, he did not know. At that time there was a breathless haste to appoint him; and to turn out Lord Plunkett, who was unjustifiably turned out. It was a real job—a superior job; and he thought this was going to be a repetition of the same thing. He should vote for the postponement.

said, the question now came to this—was the House prepared to say that they would give Lord Campbell 8,000l.? He was not prepared to say so, and upon the same grounds on which, as he understood, the noble Lord proposed the appointment of a Committee. The feeling of the noble Lord was, that all great salaries ought to be reduced; the state of the country called for it, on account of the depression which was caused by their recent commercial policy. He could not understand, therefore, why they should insist on refusing to bring Lord Campbell's salary before the Committee, when it appeared that though he had been appointed to his office, yet his salary had not been fixed, for if it were fixed there would be no need for this Bill. In order that the noble Lord might have time to consider the question, and in order that the House might have time to see the returns of all the official salaries, he would move, as an Amendment, the postponement of the Committee to Friday the 12th of April.

supported the Amendment. He thought it would be more respectful to the feelings of the country not to press forward a measure of that kind with so much haste.

said, that the House, and especially the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, did not seem to understand the present state of the question. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire said, that it was very clear there was no salary fixed at the present moment for the Lord Chief Justice, and that the Government were now coming forward with this measure to enable them to give a salary to the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Now the fact was, that there was a salary fixed by an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1832, and that salary was 10,000l. a year. Lord Denman took the office with the understanding (fixed to a certain degree by a minute of the Treasury) that instead of 10,000l. a year, he should receive 8,000l. Now he (Lord J. Russell) would omit all reference to the legal question of which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had spoken; but he thought the House generally would agree that upon Lord Denman's taking 8,000l., instead of the 10,000l. which was fixed by Act of Parliament, that arrangement ought to have been carried into effect by another Act of Parliament eighteen years ago: and some blame had been thrown upon several successive Administrations for not having done so. However, when a vacancy occurred, it seemed to him that another arrangement of the kind ought not to be made solely upon an understanding entered into between the head of the Government and the newly-appointed Judge, but that it should be at once done by Act of Parliament; and, having proposed to do so, he (Lord J. Russell) asked the Lord Chancellor what he thought ought to be the salary of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench. The Lord Chancellor said, he thought it should be 8,000l. a year, and that the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas ought to have 7,000l. He then asked Lord Denman's opinion upon the subject, and he likewise thought that those ought to be the salaries. And now he (Lord J. Russell) was blamed for doing the very thing which it was considered a fault in a preceding Government eighteen years ago, not to have done. It was quite true that the proposed reduction to 8,000l. would be a reason for the Committee not to take into consideration the salary of the present Chief Justice, and for their considering it rather as a prospective matter; but he could not agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone, who said, that because Lord Campbell had been appointed only two or three weeks ago, his was therefore a prospective appointment. The hon. Baronet seemed hardly to understand the difference between a retrospective act to confirm an existing appointment, and a prospective act to deal with circumstances which had not as yet arisen. He took for granted that he (Lord J. Russell) had told Lord Campbell, that he had been appointed to the office of Lord Chief Justice, and that his salary should be dependent upon the opinion of a Committee of that House; but the fact was, as he had already stated. It was true (as the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln had said) that he (Lord J. Russell) had said last year, and this year too, that official appointments generally should be subjected to the consideration of Parliament; but he had said that that would not be an invariable rule, and more especially in the case of the Judges. For he had observed that that office could not be offered to any member of the bar if the salary were uncertain. Upon the present occasion he had stated no more than that Lord Campbell thought—and that the persons whom he had consulted on the subject thought—that the salary of the Lord Chief Justice ought to be 8,000l. a year, and he did not think that any Committee of the House would, under the circumstances, venture to reduce the salary of Lord Campbell. If they should think fit to recommend a prospective reduction with regard to the Chief Justiceship, and in regard also to the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas, and of the salary of the Chief Baron, that would be reasonable and fair; but if a Committee were to be of opinion that Lord Campbell's salary should likewise be reduced, he did not think that Parliament would sanction such a suggestion. It might really be a fault in him that he had not said to Lord Campbell that 8,000l. a year was the salary then attached to the office, but that a further reduction was proposed. However, the salary was as he had stated. And he thought a sufficient reason for going into Committee on the Bill was, that if they made a Chief Justice, they ought to have his salary fixed by Act of Parliament, and not by some understanding or arrangement. He thought it would be most dangerous if any Board of Treasury could send a message to the Chief Justice at any moment, and say, at first they thought his salary ought to be 8,000l., but that now the opinion was that it should be less. If such uncertainty would not absolutely affect the independence of the Judges, at least it would be very dangerous; and he, therefore, thought that the House should at once go into Committee on the Bill. Its object was to effect in regular form a reduction from 10,000l. to 8,000l; and if any arrangement should be made by the Select Committee—if, upon a review of the whole of the salaries, they should think fit to suggest that a general reduction should be made—such arrangement should take effect prospectively as regarded the Judges, but certainly not so as to interfere with those who held the office at present.

said, that his question was directed, not as to the salary but as to the particular appointment.

said, that he had stated that Lord Campbell had accepted the office upon the understanding that the salary was to be 8,000l. a year.

said, that he did not say the appointment was a prospective one. What he had said was, that, under all the circumstances of the case. Lord Campbell's appointment ought to be treated as a prospective appointment, because the noble Lord and the Government must have had it in contemplation to appoint the Committee for the revision of all the salaries.

, on rising to address the House, was met with cries of "Divide, divide!" I must confess. Sir, that it is rather difficult to ascertain the mollia tem pora dicendi in this House. It would be very advantageous to have a "pathometer," or some instrument to test the amount of patience, or rather impatience of hon. Members at any given time, in order to regulate one's own course. But I must say, that this interruption by hon. Members who come down to this House to dine, or to sup, or to smoke, or to sleep, is most unfair to one who has been for hours patiently listening to an entire debate, and wishes to offer a few remarks upon the point under discussion, more especially as I never trespass at any unreasonable length upon the time of the House. I was about to observe, Sir, when thus interrupted, that if we lived in a superstitious age, the "prodigy" which we have this night witnessed would lead us to suppose that some great calamity was about to happen to this country. The "prodigy" is indeed portentous, of Ministers, and they Whig Ministers, coming down to this House with a Bill for the reduction of salaries, and to be met by a clamorous demand from the Conservative side of the House for still further reduction. I hardly can imagine that I am sitting on the Conservative side; but it appears that the hon. Member for Cirencester has caught up what may not be inaptly termed, "The Legend of Montrose"—magnum vectigal est parsimonia. On this one string the hon. Member for Montrose, like other great artistes, has played for years with great skill, and with every possible variation. I am far from being enamoured of taxation, or averse to retrenchment. I think, indeed, that real savings, however small, are as much more beneficial to the country, compared with the gigantic "projects" of economy of the hon. Member for the West Riding, as a penny roll to a hungry man is more satisfactory than the pictorial exhibition of a large loaf. But, Sir, the hon. Member for the West Riding is a "great" man, and therefore must indulge in great views—

"He doth bestride this narrow world

Like a colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs, and peep about

To And ourselves dishonourable graves."

We are but little men, and must, as befits little men, be content with small savings. But, Sir, this brings one to the real point at issue, namely, is this small saving proposed a judicious one? It can only be justified upon one or other of the two following grounds—that the salary of the Lord Chief Justice is "relatively" too great, or "absolutely" and positively so. Now, Sir, that it is "relatively" too great, I have strong reasons to doubt; for, comparing the salaries of other public servants with that of the Chief Justice, I find it only proportioned to the nature of the office. It is but fair that the House should bear in mind the nature of the qualifications required—the learning, the high character, the period of life at which the office is attained—an office also, let it be recollected, that is one of the few prizes of merit and integrity, and which unlike the diplomatic or Ministerial offices, is generally filled by men sprung from the bosom of the people. It must be obvious that one called to discharge such high duties, such grave and onerous functions, should not have his mind perplexed or disturbed by narrow means, or the cares of any petty household economy. He should, on the contrary, be enabled to discharge the rights of hospitality—to contribute to works of charity; in fine, adequately to sustain the dignity of the office. This could not be done without a proper salary, for this, I regret to say, is a money-worshipping country. ["Oh!"] Yes, I repeat the assertion. I do not contend that a "rich rogue" though a Member of either House, would be respected; but I am quite sure that neither the virtue nor the merit of a "poor" man will ensure him that respect. For these reasons I am induced to think that the sum fixed by this Bill, which is 2,000l. less than Chief Justices were entitled to receive, is not one farthing too much. I shall then, Sir, briefly state my views as to its being positively too great; this, indeed, is, after all, the chief argument upon which the case for still further reduction is grounded—by being positively too great I mean that whereas by the change in the price of the necessaries of life, by the removal of all restrictions upon the import of foreign grain, 1l. sterling will now command so much more of all the necessaries of life, therefore the sum paid before the repeal of restrictive duties is now too high. Well, Sir, if this hold, and I am not disputing this fact—then I say you must revise all salaries—you must reduce all sums paid out of the national purse—beginning with the largest, the civil list; then Her Majesty's Ministers, not forgetting the noble Lord the Premier. You must exclude none. What then will be the consequence? Why, that every poor clerk in a Government office—every recipient of public money—must have his pay proportionably diminished. There is no limit to the principle, if based upon the increased powers of purchase of the one pound. But the example will be followed by all public bodies—the Bank of England—the India House, and by every company and by every merchant, master, and tradesman. They will say, the Government have reduced all salaries, so must we. Well, is it not evident it will come down to the mechanic and the labourer, and that their wages will be likewise reduced. [Cries of "Question!" and "Divide!"] I can well understand these cries, but I shall not curtail the remarks which I feel it my duty to offer in consequence, but on the contrary, I shall rather be disposed to extend them. This being the natural, the inevitable result, where will be the advantages of free trade? You will have, by one measure, increased the purchasing powers of money, and then, in the exact proportion of such increase, you diminish the money itself; so that no man is one farthing a gainer, but rather the reverse. That hon. Members, then, on the free-trade benches should advocate this reduction, is indeed surprising, for they are palpably demonstrating the fallacy of their own doctrines, exposing, in the most bare and naked manner, the lie that has been enacted, the gross quackery that has been palmed upon the deluded people of this country, by means of the "great and little loaf exhibition." That my hon. Friends, sitting an this side of the House, might view this system of reduction with approbation, I can clearly understand, because it will test the soundness, or rather expose the rottenness of the free-trade system; and I shall with them be prepared to support such a measure for the general and proportionate reduction of all salaries to a scale suited to the altered circumstances of the times; but I will not consent to support oven my hon. Friends on this occasion, for the further reduction of one isolated salary, more especially when that salary is for the remuneration of one of the most important offices in this country, on the able discharge of which the life and liberties of the people are dependent, and more especially when the man who is almost always elected to it is one of the people, raised by learning, merit, and integrity, to its exalted position; because I don't think it a statesmanlike way of proceeding, this nibbling at economy. Let it be done upon a wide and well-considered plan; let it include all salaries, and let not this House be made the arena of petty party Motions, and still pettier Amendments, which will not effect any rational object, and certainly not tend to elevate this House in the opinion of the country.

did not think that any Bill was necessary. If he understood the noble Lord at the head of the Government aright, Lord Campbell had accepted the Chief Justiceship upon the same terms as those which Lord Denman had enjoyed. In that case the matter so far resolved itself into an affair of contract, and therefore he saw no necessity for hurrying on the Bill.

moved the omission of the words "and shall, as," and "be deemed to have been," in order that the clause might run thus, "shall be from the death of Lord Tenterden;" and then said it was his intention afterwards to move that the salary of the present Lord Chief Justice should be reduced to 7,000l., instead of to 8,000l. a year.

thought that there ought to be a general reduction in judicial salaries; but as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that he would bring all such salaries under the revision of a Select Committee, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would postpone the discussion of his proposition until the report of the Committee was before them. For his own part, he would rather that the salary of Lord Campbell should be reduced at once to 7,000l., than that he should have 8,000l. now, and future Chief Justices only 6,000l. He entreated the hon. Gentleman, however, not to press the matter to a division.

suggested, that all reference to the salary received by Lord Tenterden should be struck out of the Bill, and that the sense of the House should at once be taken as to the future salary to be paid to the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Instead of 8,000l a-year, he should propose that it should be 7,0002.

said, that he could not agree to such an arrangement as that.

thought the whole question for the Committee to decide was with respect to the power of the taxpayer to bear the enormous amount of taxation extracted by the present and other extravagant salaries. If for the last eighteen years the duties of the office had been discharged for 8,000l. a year, no solid objection could be raised against its reduction, in the present altered state of circumstances, to 7,000l.

considered 7,000l. a-year as ample remuneration for the duties of the Lord Chief Justice. The noble Lord who at present filled the office gave up all his emoluments at the bar a few years since to take office as Lord Chancellor of Ireland for a tenure of seventeen days, with a salary of 8,000l. Sir E. Sugden also gave up perhaps the largest professional emoluments of any man at the bar also for the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with a salary of 8,000l. and all the uncertainty connected with change of Ministers. The Government in 1832 having come to the conclusion that the salary of 10,000l. ought to be reduced to 8,000l., he considered that the circumstances of the present time were such as fully to warrant a further reduction to 7,000l. Another reason for this reduction was also to be found in the fact that the Peers, among whom the Lord Chief Justices would rank, had suffered already a considerable reduction in their incomes. Professional incomes at the bar had also, he believed, been latterly very considerably reduced. The hon. Member concluded by moving the introduction of several words, which, he believed, would carry out more completely the views of the hon. Member for Cirencester.

withdrew his Amendment.

wished to know whether the arrangement proposed by this Bill would affect the salaries of the present as well as of the future Lord Chief Justices?

would have preferred that a Committee had been appointed which should have considered together the subject of all the judicial salaries, with a view of considering whether any or what reductions ought to be made therein. With respect to the present Lord Chief Justice, he thought that the salary which had been agreed upon should be continued without reduction, and that this Bill should only apply to future Chief Justices.

said, that the noble Lord had informed him (Mr. Hume), in answer to a question put to him a short time since, that in the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice the salary should be fixed, subject to any alteration that might be made by the House of Commons.

had stated more than once—he was not sure that he had done so upon every occasion—that although that might be the general rule of making appointments, it could not apply to every case, more especially an office of this kind, which a Judge would not be likely to take upon an uncertain salary.

certainly had an impression that the question was put to the noble Lord as to the appointment then expected to be made of the Chief Justice.

would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and would do so, not because he thought the saving of 1,000l. a year much, but because he thought it was an earnest to the country of what the party, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, would do, if they were properly encouraged by hon. Members of his (Mr. Osborne's) side of the House, who, he must say, did not appear to treat the Motion in a manner very consistently with the professions which they made very loudly out of doors. He objected to the Motion for one reason, namely, that it did not go far enough; he would have preferred to have seen the salary reduced to 5,000l. rather than to 6,000l. or 7,000l. He thought, considering the patronage which was vested in the office, that 5,000l. was plenty. The salary of the Prime Minister was not more than that, and he was far more overworked, and had no retiring pension. He would tell the noble Lord at the head of the Government that he had no right to make a contract, or come to an understanding, that 8,000l. should be the salary of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, when that understanding was come to in the face of the House of Commons.

saw very little force in the reasons urged on the opposite side why salaries should be reduced in the way they desired. The statement was that prices had fallen: might not those whose salaries it was proposed to reduce, also state that prices had once risen upon them? If this were not so, a strong case would be made out against them; but he could not admit, that, because prices had fallen, and because there had been a cessation of what the majority of the country had determined to be a harmful and injurious monopoly—damaging, indeed, the interests of those who had enjoyed it, but producing great advantage to the nation at large, of which one most eminent proof was the surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared he had—under those circumstances, he could not admit that the liberals or free traders were bound to follow too absolutely the lead of hon. Gentleman opposite, particularly when one of them had, with great energy and eloquence, impressed on the Committee that the very intent, object, natural consequence of the Motion, was to declare and avow before the country that free trade was a fraud and a failure, and that here was the commencement of the proof by which that proposition was to be impressed upon the country. The inference, he thought, from this should be, that the Government was to blame in taking the first step in proceedings leading to such detrimental consequences. He was certainly glad to see the Government taking measures of economy, for such measures were always useful; but he would not admit the argument of the opposite side—that, because the country was avowedly in a state of increased prosperity, therefore this reduction in salaries ought to take place. He did not object to the reduction of salaries, but he repudiated and denied the argument used in favour of these reductions. He was sorry to say, that amongst free-traders there were two descriptions—there was the soft roe and the hard roe. The soft roe was that description which voted for Gentlemen opposite whenever an agreeable bait was held out, and when such a vote could damage the principles of those economists who sat on his (Colonel Thompson's) side of the House. For his own part, he was willing to leave the present question in the hands of the Government; and he hoped their success in economising would be such as to lead them to do more hereafter.

observed that when prices rose, the salaries of the Judges rose with them. He thought it passing strange that three weeks ago the noble Lord should not have contemplated the necessity of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the salaries of public servants. If the noble Lord would get up and say that a light had suddenly burst upon him, he would perhaps be able to tell the House how his mind came to be enlightened on the subject; but till he heard the noble Lord say that he did not contemplate the Committee at the time of Lord Campbell's appointment, he should consider that it ought to be dealt with as a prospective appointment.

remarked that only one single member of the profession had spoken that night; and as a humble member of it himself, he should not vote, unless assured by his learned brethren that he might properly do so, for cutting down the rewards bestowed upon great professional services.

would like to take any dozen members of the profession, and ask them whether the profits of the profession were now what they were formerly. He was informed on good authority that lawyers made only one-third of their former incomes; but taking their receipts to be one-half less, that was a very great reduction. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bradford would look at a guinea, but he would not take it, unless it was offered by a friendly hand. The hon. and gallant Member should, however, recollect that he was not dealing with his own money, but that he was a trustee for the public. He hoped that those who had been professors of economy so long would not pause, now that they had arrived at the threshold.

said, that when he was called upon as a professed reformer in financial matters, he must beg to say, with all respect to the Committee, and without regard to any observations which might be made upon his professional status, that the Committee would act with singular indiscretion if they commenced by cutting down the salaries of those who had the highest and most important duties to perform. He confessed that he should have felt a difficulty about going into Committee on the Bill, but as the House had decided that it would go into Committee, he had no hesitation in saying that 8,000l. was a proper sum for the salary of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Wages rose or fell with the number of labourers in the market, and the competitors for the office of Chief Justice were very few. ["Oh, oh!"] He could find thousands of gentlemen who would take the office for 500l. a year, but were they such persons as the House of Commons would like to see in such a situation? Fit competitors for such an office were extremely few, and the salaries given to Judges ought not to be compared with those which were received by the holders of political offices. A Chief Justice must be looked for among men who had spent the whole of their lives in the prosecution of an arduous profession, and who, when fairly landed in a high judicial station, must still devote nearly all their time and the best of their energies to the discharge of the duties of their office. When he considered the duties the Chief Justice had to discharge, he felt they would not commence wisely if they commenced by reducing his salary. He had voted for reductions in the Army and Navy Estimates, and he received no support in votes from the hon. Gentlemen opposite who were now so anxious for reduction. The salaries of foreign judges had been referred to, and it was said that in some countries the judge had only 300l. a year; but there was an entire disrepect of all the tribunals in those States, and no person was satisfied with their decisions. They were looked upon with the greatest suspicion, but he did not say they were just suspicions that were entertained of the administration of justice in those countries. There was no country in which the ermine was so unspotted as in England. For the last hundred years or better, not a breath of suspicion had tainted any Judge on the bench. They must not forget the talents and services of those men, and they should consider that they gave up large incomes to take the position they occupied. Though that observation might not apply to Lord Campbell, there was scarcely an instance of a Chief Justice accepting office where he did not make a sacrifice in taking the office. In his (Mr. P. Wood's) own branch of the profession—the Chancery bar—6,000l. or 7,000l. a year had been given up by persons accepting the judicial office. It should be considered that at whatever sum they calculated the income of the Chief Justice, they must allow 1,000l. a year for expenses of circuits, and the hospitality he had to exercise on circuit, and the real income would not much exceed the 7,000l. a year to which it was proposed to reduce it.

said, that if anything were wanting to convince him of the extreme inconvenience and had policy of the course taken by the noble Lord on this occasion, it was to be found in the speech of his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down. The salary of the Lord Chief Justice would be the very last in which he should wish to make a change, for he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his opinion as to the difficulty of getting a fit and proper person to take the station; but when the only alternative left to him was either to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, or to support the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he should vote for the Amendment.

wished to know, as the Committee had determined that 8,000l be inserted, whether the Select Committee to be appointed on the subject of salaries would have power to report on the salaries of the Chief Justices?

said, the prospective salaries of Chief Justices would of course be a matter for their consideration. If a change should be deemed expedient, it would not affect the present holders of these offices.

proposed that a clause be inserted allowing this Bill to be repealed or amended during the present Session.

said, it would be better at once to bring in a Bill declaring that all Acts might be altered or amended during the present Session. He, however, had no objection to the insertion of the clause.

said, on bringing up the report he should propose a clause to the effect that nothing in this Act contained shall prevent such course being taken by Parliament respecting the salaries of the Chief Justices as it might deem advisable. What he wanted was, to make provision for altering the salaries of the Judges if the Select Committee should report to that effect.

hoped, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the House would allow him shortly to explain the provisions of a Bill which he wished to introduce to provide more ample and effectual securities for advances to purchasers of incumbered estates in Ireland, and which he was anxious to have printed, so that it might circulate throughout Ireland during the Easter recess. The House was aware, under the Incumbered Estates Commission, the operation of the Act on the subject had been very extensive, and according to the last report, property, upon which there were mortgages to the amount of 13,000,000, had come under the operation of the commission. The House would see that the Act operated in two ways. The one class affected were persons who had taken or inherited estates upon which there were not personal mortgages, but the land itself was subject to mortgage. It was very much to the interest of that class of persons to depress the value of such land, and then become the purchasers, with, in point of fact, reduced mortgages on it. They would borrow the money to purchase, and they would get the land at a reduced value. The other class was composed of persons who were liable for the payment of debts, who would be severely affected by the depreciation of property. It would have a serious effect, and cause land to be sold at a less value than it really possessed. In order to avoid this circumstance, they had devised a plan which it was hoped would induce capitalists from England to take an interest in these sales. Now, supposing we got purchasers for all the land, and had paid ten or twelve millions of these incumbrances, there would then immediately be persons possessed of ten or twelve millions all looking out for investments, and at the same time there would be drawn from other places ten or twelve millions to buy this land, and considerable depression in the money market might be the consequence. It was, therefore, desirable to provide an easy means by which these mortgagees would be able to find security for their property. It was also desirable to point out some clear mode by which you might have a mortgage on land, giving the form of it in the Act of Parliament, in which case it would not be necessary to go to a lawyer at all previously, but you would be able to get a plain and simple form under which you would be able to get a perfect security that should be chargeable on the property, and as transferable as a bill of exchange. To attain this, it was proposed that there should be a power to charge land sold under the Incumbrance Estate Act in favour of persons who had advanced part of the purchase-money, provided the charge did not exceed one-half of that purchase-money. A certificate of the charge would be granted by the commissioners, and the certificate would refer to a conveyance that would be registered, and the certificate would itself, or a duplicate of it, be registered in the registry office. The charge would not be a charge given by persons who purchase the land, but it would be a primary charge, subject to which a person would take the land; so that the House would see that no Act of his would affect or encumber that property. When a man sought to sell property in Ireland, he had to show, if there was a judgment against a person of the same name, that he was not that person. The effect, therefore, would be, that, under this conveyance, the interest, and indeed the principal also, might be made to be payable by instalments in any manner that might be thought advisable. The amount would be specified, and by reference to the register it would be seen exactly what lands were affected. Then, these certificates would be transferable by endorsement; and if the principal was payable by instalments also, there would be receipts attached to it which would be delivered up every time it was paid. Now, if these certificates could be made to circulate readily in the money market—and it was the opinion of persons possessed of the best information both here and in Ireland that they would—dividends for the interest should be paid by the Bank of Ireland on receiving some percentage for the purpose; and at the same time there would be a security of undeniable value, being of a Parliamentary character. The security could not be affected in any way, and would pass from hand to hand like any other security, by simple endorsement, with proper evidence of the endorsement in the registry office. Now, of course, this apprehension would strike everybody in the first instance—it would be said, this looks really like disencumbering land merely for the purpose of incumbering it again. But in the first place it was not proposed that there should be a change in anything but the land; it was no judgment against the owner; he could not be taken in execution; he could not be affected in any degree by reason of this change. It might appear at first to the House not to accomplish the objects he had stated; but he was satisfied, when they examined the measure, they would find that the ends were capable of attainment. Undoubtedly you could not prevent persons from borrowing money and buying land, or from mortgaging on the security of the land that they bought. It was impossible, when you gave persons a Parliamentary title, to prevent them from incumbering the land, or making charges upon it; in fact, the great object of giving a Parliamentary title was to afford the means of making land as far as possible a mercantile commodity. Therefore he proposed to make a particular species of incumbrance for this particular species of land; and this could only be done by giving a Parliamentary title in the first place, which should be something like debentures on land, to pass from hand to hand exactly or nearly like railway debentures; for they would be perfectly secure, because they could not extend beyond one-half of what the land sold for under the commission. While the land was charged with it, in case the interest on the instalments were not paid, the owner of the debenture might go to the commissioners and request the whole to be sold to pay the debenture; and that was his security. To prevent difficulty with regard to such mortgages as might exist beyond the five years for which the commissioners were appointed, it was proposed when that period expired to give the same powers to the Court of Chancery to sell property upon these applications, as was now conferred upon the commissioners. It was also to be observed that the commissioners or the Court of Chancery would give a perfectly indefensible title to property, on its sale, to meet the debentures.

said, that he entertained a high opinion of the legal knowledge and constitutional principles of the right hon. Gentleman, and in the absence of a legal officer for Ireland, could desire no; more fitting person to take charge of legal measures affecting this country; but now that one so highly gifted, and standing so high in his profession as the hon. Member for Windsor (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was in the House, he thought this branch should be left in his hands. The object of the Incumbered Estates Act was, professedly, to get rid of incumbered proprietors—to replace them by men who would have at their disposal the entire resources of the estates; who would be enabled to improve their properties, build farm-houses, and give employment to the people. For this, great sacrifices were made; but now it would appear all was to be upset by the present Bill, which was, in truth, designed to replace the present Celtic and Saxon proprietors by English purchasers, who were to be encouraged by a new incumbrance of the land to buy to double the amount of their capital. Why should the Government step in to give these purchasers assistance which they refused to the existing proprietors? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, last year, came forward to free the land from legal fetters, and to make it a marketable article at the cost of ruining the individual Irish owners. He now proposed to rebind the land, and to remove incumbrances from the persons of the proposed new English owners. It was true it was not possible to prevent the remortgaging of lands after they passed through the incumbered estates court; bat it was now proposed to hand them over directly to needy individuals who would begin the world with estates dipped, it might be, to one-half their value. Instead of bringing capital into the Irish land market, the measure would in fact keep it out, for, by permitting a moiety of the thirteen millions, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, to remain as a debt instead of being paid down in cash, it would prevent the immediate reinvestment of so much, which otherwise would at once take place.

said, 700 years of the worst legislation that had ever been inflicted on a country ought to prevent an Irishman being surprised at anything; but he must confess that the Bill he had just heard proposed had surprised him. Its object was not to relieve the proprietors, but to get rid of a race the proposers of it did not like. Did they wish to drive Irishmen abroad and to force them to another Fontenoy? He should oppose the Bill. It could not be brought in that night; and, in order to prevent it, he should move that the House be counted.