brought up Her Majesty's gracious Answer to the Address presented by this House on the Birth of a Prince:—

"I thank you sincerely for your dutiful and affectionate Address; and I receive with much satisfaction your Congratulations on the Birth of another Prince, and the assurance of the interest you take in My domestic happiness."

entered into a defence of the proceedings of the London and North Western Company. He wished the House to understand that the London and North Western Company were not the promoters of the present Bill. The Bill had originated with the Chester and Holyhead Company, in the full belief that unless the leasing to the London and North Western was sanctioned, or unless Government came forward with assistance, it would be impossible to complete that great undertaking. He could assure the House it was not his desire or wish to see the Bill pass in its present form, for he thought it would be more advantageous to the London and North Western Company to have existing arrangements between the two companies remain in their present state. He objected to the insertion of the clause, as it had been sanctioned by the Committee on ex parte evidence, and would operate injuriously.

said, that this clause had been recommended by the Committee. He hoped it would be adopted. As for the stopping of the express trains, he was authorised to say the opposers of the Bill were ready to give up that point.

supported the clause. It had been unanimously inserted by the Committee, and had been expunged by an accident: if the House was not disposed to reinsert it, he thought they at least ought not to reject the proposition of the hon. Mover, and refer the question to the Railway Commissioners.

said, in such a case as this, where one railway ran into another, which formed the continuance and the line of communication of both, there must be conflicting interests, and it was possible that the interests of the public might be prejudiced. The question was one of great difficulty, and which, in 1844, had been considered, and the conclusion arrived at had been that it was impossible to settle it by any general regulation. It was now proposed to leave it to the Railway Commissioners to adjust and regulate the traffic at the point of junction; but he warned the House against deciding, in the case of a particular Bill, what ought to be decided on general principles. The House had, indeed, already declined to sanction a general measure founded on the same principle—the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke—and he thought they would do well to reject this clause.

wished Shrewsbury to be in close communication with Dublin, and apprehended that, if the clause were rejected, and the London and North Western Company were left to its own ideas of self-interest, the communication might be intercepted. The Committee had sanctioned the clause, and he should abide by it.

said, the Shrewsbury line had authorised him to agree to a proviso referring to the Railway Commissioners, not, indeed, as erroneously stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, the regulation of the traffic, but the settlement of such points of difference as might arise between the two companies.

said, he had before this had experience of the manner in which the larger companies were prone to oppress the smaller; and the London and North Western Company had actually made it a stipulation of their amalgamation with another company that all facilities should be withdrawn from the Shrewsbury and Birmingham line. The Earl of Dalhousie's scheme for giving the great companies the power of supplying the smaller lines had been rejected, on the ground of its interfering with competition; but if the House desired to retain a rag or shred of competition in this case, it must protect the Shrewsbury Company by inserting this clause.

wished to know whether the Committee who had sanctioned the clause were aware that it was in contravention of other decisions of Committees.

said, between conflicting decisions they had endeavoured to take the course consistent with common sense and justice.

said, the right hon. Member for Dungarvon had supported the clause for the sake of communication between Shrewsbury and Dublin. He (Mr. Roche) opposed it for the sake of communication between London and Dublin. The Chester and Holyhead Company were unable to carry on their line without the advance of 500,000l. from the London and North Western Company, who could not advance the money on the terms to be imposed by this clause.

said, he believed the Bill of the hon. Member for Stoke had been brought in because the London and North Western Company would not make some fair concessions to the South Staffordshire Company (of which the hon. Member was chairman), and had been withdrawn because, under that compulsion, the London and North Western Company had conceded what they had before refused.

proposed, as a compromise, that the clause should be withdrawn, if the Chester and Holyhead Company would give up its leasing powers.

acceded to this proposition, and declared that, if the Bill was not passed and acted on (as it could not be if the clause were agreed to), there would be no chance of the Chester and Holyhead Company completing their line. The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 137: Majority 19.

would move, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He did so for this reason—all the bonâ fide schemes for supplying the metropolis with water had been put off because the House was not in a condition to legislate, inasmuch as they were daily expecting some report from the Board of Health of some general scheme. This Bill did not propose to remedy the great defects of the existing systems of supply, but simply proposed to bolster up the existing companies, by diverting a large portion of the River Lee for the purpose of supplying the New River Company. It was supported on the false grounds of remedying the navigation of the River Lee, it being notorious that the River Lee, so far from not being in the position of affording sufficient accommodation, already furnished accommodation for three times the amount of traffic it could ever possibly have.

said, that only one out of the forty-seven clauses of the Bill related to the supply of water.

said, if that clause was struck out, he would withdraw his opposition.

contended that the objection to the one clause was the best reason for allowing the Bill to go before a Select Committee. He denied that it was a Bill for regulating the water supply; its great object was the improvement of the navigation.

said, the lowering of the bed of the river, and other improvements, would create a great surplus of pure river water, which the clause in question would empower the company to sell. It was in no respect a Bill for supplying the metropolis with water, like the Henley Bill, or the Watford Bill, to which reference had been made. The money received for the sale of the water would be applied to the improvement of the navigation. No ground whatever had been shown for interfering with the regular course pursued with private Bills. Should this Bill be carried in its present form, it would not at all interfere with any measures which the Sanitary Commissioners might adopt for the water supply of the metropolis.

saw no valid reason for opposing the second reading of this Bill. While improving the navigation of the Lee, it would give a better supply of water to the metropolis.

said, the Bill appeared to have come before the House under false pretences. Only a majority of two in a meeting of fifty trustees had agreed to promote this Bill; and of those present fifteen were ex officio trustees, and a great number took no active part in the business of the trust. The owners of mill property on the Lee complained that they would be seriously injured by the Bill in its present form. He should therefore second the Amendment.

, as one of the trustees, said, he should support the Bill. He denied that so large a number of ex officio trustees had been present at the meeting referred to.

said, he rose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, of which he had already given notice. On the 6th of April, four pauper children applied for and obtained admission into the Newry workhouse. When asked by the board what religion they professed, they replied that they were Roman Catholics. But it was almost impossible to believe that, after that plain avowal, the board put the religion of those children to the vote, and decided that they were Presbyterians—and that they should be treated as Presbyterians in the workhouse. One of these children, whose conscience the guardians thus cruelly ignored, was sixteen years old, according to her own statement: the guardians, he believed, had decided her to be fourteen. She was at all events arrived at the age of discretion. She might be hanged or transported if she had committed a crime at that age; and if the law hold a person of that age to; be responsible for his acts, it must be taken for granted that she had some notion of religious matters. A few days after the extraordinary decision of the board, she brought a charge against the matron of the workhouse, for dragging her, against her earnest entreaties and protests, into a Presbyterian place of worship. The case was inquired into before the board of guardians, and they decided that they had already voted that the girl was a Presbyterian, and that the matron was perfectly justified in dragging her to a Presbyterian I place of worship. As these proceedings on the part of the board appeared to be of a most extraordinary character, he should wish to be informed whether the right hon. Gentleman had inquired into the matter?

had made some inquiry into the matter, and the only information of an official character which had reached him was an extract from the proceedings of the board of guardians containing a resolution to the effect that, in their opinion, the charge brought against the matron was wholly unsubstantiated. But he was quite aware that that did not meet the charge against the board of guardians themselves, and he had already written for further information.

said, he found there was a considerable increase in the amount proposed to be voted as salaries and expenses of the House of Lords. Last year it was 21,900l; in the present estimate it was 32,400l. The amount required in aid of the fee fund was last year 14,000l.; in the present year 24,500l.

said, that the expenditure of the House of Lords was in process of progressive reduction. The cause of the increase in the vote this year was, that during the last few years there had been a balance of money received from fees, which was partly unexpended last year, and which was available for reducing this demand upon the Treasury. This balance having been expended last year, a greater proportion of the salaries and expenses of the House of Lords had to be met by the vote now before the House.

said, that a very care-fid report bad been made by a Committee of the House of Lords upon the salaries of their officers. The Treasury ought to have put hon. Members in possession of this report, so that they might see how the money was voted.

proposed to reduce the vote by 32,400l., the amount of the salaries, &c, of the officers of the House of Lords, in order that the Government might have the opportunity of laying the report of their Lordships' Committee before the House. Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—

"That a sum, not exceeding 59,900l., he granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the two Houses of Parliament, and Allowances to retired Officers of the two Houses, to the 31st day of March, 1851."

said, the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates expressed a hope that the accounts and expenditure of the House of Lords would be submitted to a searching revision by a Committee of that House. This revision was going on, and he should therefore oppose the Motion.

replied, that the House had at present no proof of this searching investigation.

was in the receipt of information showing that his constituents, not by their own wrong, but by the occasion of a wrong inflicted on them, were 20 per cent better oft' now than they had been under protection. He considered himself, therefore, entitled to ask to be set off against the hon. Member.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire had very properly excepted the salaries of the First and junior Lords of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer from his Motion, because the salaries of those higher officers were now now under the consideration of a Select Committee. He thought, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to pledge himself to adopt the decision of that Committee, whatever it might be, and whatever reduction they might recommend in the salaries upon which the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had fattened.

would not enter into the question whether Her Majesty's Ministers had grown fat or lean since their accession to office. But if the Committee upstairs should recommend a reduction of the salaries paid to high political officers, those salaries would be reduced from that time.

should not be disposed to agree to a reduction of 10 per cent in the salaries of the forty-five junior and other clerks, who were now in the receipt of from 90l to 200l. or 400l. per annum. He was favourable to a redaction of the number of the clerks, rather than of their salaries. He trusted that some examination would be instituted into their qualifications before clerks were admitted, because young men, very unfit to enter the Treasury, were sometimes appointed. Was there any necessity to have twenty messengers in the Treasury, at a cost per an num of 2,315l.?

agreed with his hon. Friend, that the true principle of reduction in the Treasury was rather a reduction of numbers than of salaries. A reduction of 5,800l. in the salaries and expenditure of the Treasury had been made within the last few years. He did not think the number of messengers too great.

believed that at the Treasury, as well as at the Board of Trade, there were too few messengers, instead of being a superabundance.

said, the hon. Member who introduced the Motion could see from the manner in which it was received what were its chances of success. There were two circumstances which made any proposition coming from his side of the House, on the subject of economy in the public expenditure, not likely to be very successful. One was the existence of the Committee which was sitting on the subject, and another was the existence of the Reform Financial Association. As long as those two bodies were at work, it was not probable any economical proposition from the Opposition side of the House would be successful. He should therefore recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion.

said, that his hon. Friend had stated what he believed to be a melancholy truth, and as it was of no use to divide the House, he would withdraw the Motion.

hoped that the financial reformers would never, without great consideration, agree to any Motion for a reduction in the expenditure coming from the Opposition side of the House, which was prefaced by the assertion that the proposition was founded on the sufferings of the country arising out of the recent changes in our commercial legislation. The financial reformers were always ready to contend that the people were a great deal more able to meet any expense than they were before; though that would form no reason for needless expenditure.

protested against the doctrine of the hon. and gallant Colonel. He (Mr. Hume) would support a proposal for economy coming from any side of the House. The only question at present before them was, whether the salaries given were more than was necessary, considering the amount of business done.

said, he was anxious that the country should exactly understand the difference between the financial reformers and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and those who followed him. He was anxious that no mistake should exist on the point. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire was this, that the country ought no longer to continue to pay the same salaries to those who were in its service as formerly, because they no longer enjoyed the blessings of the corn law. That was the proposition; and the proposition of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire—for it all originated with him—was this, that they should reduce the wages of all their public servants, whatever was their yearly salary or weekly wages, and that they should not stop till they came down to the postmen who delivered them their letters at 10s. a week. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in thus discussing that question, founded their arguments on the assertion that the country was now less able to pay the same salaries in consequence of the recent change in their commercial policy. There he (Mr. Cobden) parted company with the financial reformers on the other side, and he was willing to join issue on the subject before the country. It was proposed to reduce the wages of all the servants employed under the Government, which was by far the largest employer of labour of all kinds in the country. They employed 8,000 or 9,000 men—shipbuilders, carpenters, and labourers in the dockyards, and tens of thousands were employed in the Post Office, and it was proposed to give the signal to the entire country of a universal reduction of wages. He called that a war upon wages. Unless hon. Gentlemen were prepared to carry the same principle into all the private establishments in the country, how in common justice could they propose to cut down the salaries and wages of the Government servants? Did they mean to deal with the servants of the Government in a different manner from those who were employed in private establishments? And if they meant that there should be a universal reduction of wages throughout the country, he would not be a party to any such reduction. It was not necessary, it was not just, and he doubted if it was practicable. So far from the late commercial policy of the country cheapening labour and diminishing the resources of the country, he believed the contrary to be the truth. With respect to the West Riding of Yorkshire, where a large amount of labour was employed, he could positively affirm, that never within his knowledge of that part of the country were the people so well employed, never had they such ample remuneration when measured by the command which their wages gave them over the necessaries and comforts of life. So far from there being a tendency to reduce wages now, the tendency had been during the last twelvemonths in the other direction. They were not, then, warranted in the assumption that the people were suffering from their late commercial policy. The facts were against them. If the agricultural labourers were in a different condition, why not get employment for them? There was plenty of scope for it. Let them be employed in increasing production. Let hon. Gentlemen find the means of bringing more capital upon the soil. If they did not choose to do these things, let them not come to that House and proclaim that wages were reduced, and free trade a failure, when the fact was, that with regard to employment and the general circumstances of the country, it was signally successful. He would join hon. Gentlemen opposite in reducing inordinate salaries, or any salaries where the services rendered were not sufficient for the payment made, but he would not join them in a cry for universal reduction of wages; he would never join in any sweeping and unreasonable proposition of this kind; he would never join them in a spiteful and malicious vote, designed in a miserable spirit of retaliation, in order to make the system of free trade unfavourable in the country.

said, there appeared more excitement on the side of the House of the hon. Member for the West Riding who had just sat down, than on the Opposition side. The hon. Member had assured the House of the prosperity of the country, and the great success of the commercial changes which had lately taken place. Now, although the present discussion was not called up by the matter then under consideration, he was sure the House would be glad to hear that, although, as was admitted, there were some districts—particularly the agricultural districts—which were not in so flourishing a state as was imagined, there were others which were not in a similar condition. But if the hon. Member for the West Riding appealed so triumphantly to the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes, he would refer the hon. Member to the hon. Member for Manchester for information on that point, and would recommend the hon. Member for the West Riding to ask the hon. Member for Manchester whether or not his mills were at that moment closed? That was not a circumstance, however, of an isolated character. The hon. Member for Manchester was not a man of that want of enterprise or capital who would unnecessarily resort to such a proceeding as the closing of his mills. Now, that was a fact which was not exactly consistent with the general prosperity in the manufacturing districts which the hon. Member for the West Riding described. He thought the hon. Member for the West Riding was entirely mistaken in the line which he supposed hon. Gentlemen at the Opposition side of the House were taking on the subject of retrenchment. They did not call themselves financial reformers, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding and his friends did. They did nothing of the kind. What were the circumstances of the case? They found great distress prevalent amongst those classes—the middle classes he meant—which the hon. Member for the West Riding told them were the most important classes of the community. The hon. Gentleman could not deny that. The agricultural middle class were in a state of distress, and they were told that the middle class connected with trade and commerce were equally so. An hon. Member had lately told the House that no less than a hundred millions sterling had been lost in the large towns which the hon. Member for the West Riding described as in such a state of prosperity. It being the fact, then, that the great body of the middle classes was in a condition of great distress, they who represented the middle classes, and, for his own part, he could say he represented about 60,000 of that body, felt it to be their duty on every occasion to support such measures of just and rational retrenchment as might be brought forward, founded, not upon statements merely hypothetical, like some propositions brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but upon arguments based upon a full know-lodge of the ease. They had never introduced these propositions for retrenchment upon the allegation of the condition of one particular class, but upon the consideration of the general state of the country. What, then, had they done? The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had proposed a measure for the reduction of all fixed salaries to a certain extent. The hon. Member for the West Riding had come forward upon that and every similar occasion, confounding the question of wages with fixed salaries. On the present occasion, also, the hon. Member had risen and said, they at his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the House were attacking wages. He could assert that they were not attacking wages. What they said was this, that seeing the altered position of the country, and the paying power of those classes which the hon. Member for the West Riding had described as important, having been reduced—that class having been sunk to great distress—all fixed payments of public salaries and expenditure ought to undergo rational, effective, and just revision. But no one had said a word about salaries; and the hon. Gentleman on that as on every other occasion, had confounded wages with fixed salaries. He (Mr. Disraeli) had said that the middle classes were suffering, and he supposed no hon. Gentleman would deny that statement. Would the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford deny it? Had not his constituents lost a good deal during the last few years?

On the contrary, they have gained a great deal, and they are in a better condition than they ever were in their lives.

The hon. and gallant Member has made a sally not quite Parliamentary; but he would ask whether the constituents of the hon. and gallant Colonel had not lost by railroads? Had it not been stated the other night on the other side of the House that there was not one great town in the north of England which had not been half ruined by these railroads? And if that were not so, the House ought certainly to view with suspicion the statements made by those financial reformers. He hoped he had clearly explained the motives which had induced hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to support reasonable measures of retrenchment. They were in favour of such measures, because they believed that the paying power of the country was reduced, and that it was reduced because the middle classes were not at present in a condition in which they could maintain those expensive establishments which they had maintained at a preceding period and under other circumstances.

said, he thought it would be a great misfortune if on every subject of public economy they were to recur to the questions of free trade and protection. The real point which the House had then to consider was, whether a certain sum would be an adequate payment for certain services. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire that the paying power of the country had of late years become reduced; on the contrary, he thought the state of the revenue showed that it had increased. He was quite ready, however, to admit that it would be just and reasonable that the House should from time to time diminish public salaries if it should be found that a reduction had taken place in the prices of commodities. But it appeared to him that the House had not yet had sufficient experience of the effects of free trade to justify its adoption of the proposal to effect a reduction of public salaries. In his opinion, a percentage reduction of salaries would be an unfair mode of proceeding, and he had therefore voted against the proposal of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire upon that subject. But he certainly thought that there were anomalies in the salaries paid to some public officers, which required revision. He found, for instance, that the salaries of the Secretaries of the Treasury amounted to 2,500l. a year, while all the heads of departments recently appointed were in the receipt of only 2,000l. a year; that latter sum being the amount of the salaries of the President of the Council, of the President of the Poor Law Board, and of other officers discharging duties of the highest importance. But he could not help thinking that there was a conclusive reason why the House should not adopt the proposal then under their consideration; and that was, that as they had at that moment a Select Committee inquiring into the question of public salaries, it would not be advisable that they should adopt any particular measure of retrenchment until they should have received the report of that Committee.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had entirely misrepresented the grounds on which his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had proposed the reduction he had submitted to the House. That proposal had been supported distinctly on this ground, that as a great and permanent reduction had taken place in the cost of all consumable articles in this country, it was just and reasonable that a proportionate reduction should take place in the salaries of public officers. The amount of these salaries had been raised in the years 1801, 1810, 1812, and 1816, in consequence of increased prices; and he thought it but fair, that as a fall in prices had recently taken place, the House should accommodate salaries to the altered circumstances of the recipients, and of the country generally. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had said that his (Mr. Newdegate's) hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had proposed a percentage reduction, without reference to the anomalies which existed in the amount of the different salaries, computed according to analogous cases of employment, and the labour performed. But his hon. Friend had done no such thing, He had merely proposed that there should be a reduction of salaries such as the altered circumstances of the recipients and of the country would justify, and that the cases should be taken singularly, one by one, into consideration according to their respective merits. He (Mr. Newdegate) should like to know on what principle the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding based his proposals for financial reform and retrenchment. The hon. Gentleman seemed to discard the principle that the public officers should receive remuneration accommodated to the circumstances in which those officers were placed, and to the nature of the duties they had to perform. Was this the fact? The hon. Gentleman was silent; but if he rejected that principle, then he (Mr. Newdegate) should ask, on what other principle he based his proposals for retrenchment? Those proposals, it should be observed, were almost exclusively confined to our military and naval defensive establishments; and no sooner did any hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House propose a reduction in the civil service, than the hon. Member shrank from the proposal, and declared that it was a malicious clap-trap got up by a discontented faction. Why was the hon. Member so tender to the civil service, and so severe to the military service? Was it possible that, speculating upon future contingencies, he thought the time might come when he should have reason to lament a reduction in the salaries of the civil servants of the country? Or was it that the hon. Member was animated solely by a desire to reduce our defensive establishments? Did the hon. Member wish to see our trade unprotected? The other night the hon. Member had certainly shown himself the advocate of pirates; but he had only been supported by a small minority of about twenty Members. Did the hon. Member wish to see our China trade unprotected? Or was he so jealous of the greatness of this country among the nations of the world that he was endeavouring, by destroying our defensive establishments, to verify his own saying in that House, that "it was time for us to leave off singing 'Rule Britannia?'" If the hon. Gentleman merely wished to adapt the salaries of public servants to the circumstances of the country, and of those servants themselves, why was he so hostile to any proposal for retrenchment that emanated from that (the Opposition) side of the House, and reject the co-operation which was spontaneously tendered to him in the cause of economy. One thing was clear, namely, that they should never look for the cordial co-operation of the hon. Member in any attempt to reduce the salaries of those who had reaped the full advantages of the reduction in prices consequent on the adoption of free trade—that was to say, of those public officers whose position, as residents in this country had been materially altered by the measures which the hon. Gentleman had promoted.

said, there was a matter in connexion with this vote which seemed to him anomalous and defective, namely, the passports granted to Her Majesty's subjects about to visit foreign States. He made no charge against the Foreign Secretary, nor did he attach any blame whatever to him, for the fault lay in a system which was of old standing, and the predecessor of the noble Lord had taken the same course as himself. But for that very reason, the question being free from any party considerations, he (Viscount Mahon) asked the noble Lord and the House to consider whether the present mode of granting passports was not susceptible of great improvement. Happily and wisely, we required no passports from our fellow-subjects travelling from one part of the kingdom to another, nor from foreigners who landed upon our shores; but in all continental States a different system prevailed. They required a passport from British subjects. We, then, might take one of two courses: either say that the system was foreign to our habits and feelings, and that, therefore, we would take no part in granting passports; or else take such measures that, though not for ourselves nor for our own objects, our own authorities should grant them. We should either not grant passports at all, or, if we did grant them, let us do so under a proper and intelligible principle. The present mode was most inconvenient. We approved of foreign Ministers residing in England granting passports to British subjects, and we at the same time issued passports at the Foreign Office; but the passport was given gratuitously by the Foreign Minister, whilst by our own Minister a large premium was exacted. When he (Viscount Mahon) was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under the Duke of Wellington, he had an opportunity of seeing how the system worked; and it now remained the same. A fee of two guineas and a half on each passport was demanded at the Foreign Office. The result was that of the thousands or tens of thousands of British subjects proceeding yearly to the Continent, only an insignificant number obtained passports from the Foreign Office, being deterred by the expense. There were some, indeed, who thought it desirable to travel under the passport of the British authorities; but even these persons might easily evade the charge which the Foreign Office made. Suppose, for instance, that a person was desirous of travelling to Madrid or Vienna, and applied at the Foreign Office at home for a passport, the charge was two guineas and a half; but if he obtained a passport from the French Ambassador in London, so far as Paris, he might when once at Paris, obtain from the British Ambassador a passport to Madrid or to Vienna for nothing. Whilst 2l. 12s. was charged at homo, the British Legation abroad gave the passport free of charge. So that the present system was not only defective and anomalous, but led to evasion. He thought it would be much better to reduce the charge to 4s. or 5s., and then the passports of the Foreign Office here would be eagerly sought after, for British subjects would prefer travelling directly under the passport of the Foreign Office. The present high charge of two guineas and a half defeated itself; it was neither a source of emolument, nor a guarantee of security. It was also to be observed that Austria alone, of continental States, refused to receive a passport not regularly viséd by Her own Ministers and functionaries. One might travel from Munich to Berlin under the passport of the British Minister without any visé from any Prussian functionary, but could not proceed to Vienna without a visé by the Austrian Ambassador. The time which the granting of passports occasioned occupied a great portion of the time of our foreign legations, and it would be more cheaply, more efficiently, and more satisfactorily done at home. He had the authority of our late lamented Minister in Sweden, Sir Thomas Cartwright—whom he might be allowed to name as a most upright and most intelligent servant of the State—that while he was stationed at Frankfort as Minister, Frankfort being a central point where thousands of English passed continually, almost the whole time of one of the gentlemen in his legation was consumed in granting passports and visés. As regarded the system of passports generally, he would be very glad to see them entirely done away with by foreign Powers—for experience had proved that they gave no protection or security to the State which required them, and that they only led to inconvenience, annoyance, and delay to individuals. There was a disposition in France some time ago, he believed, to abolish the system; and the distinguished Personage who presided over France was anxious to get rid of it; he only regretted that his wishes were not accomplished. He was quite sure the noble Lord would give the subject his best attention, and in another Session of Parliament the question might, he thought, be not unworthy the inquiry and consideration of a Committee of the House, for which he (Viscount Mahon) might, perhaps, be inclined to move.

said, it was quite true, as his noble Friend had remarked, that there was an anomaly in the present system of arrangement regarding passports, and that the sum paid to the Foreign Office was higher than that required by any Foreign Minister residing here, if, indeed, the latter charged any fee at all. But his noble Friend must know that the sum charged for passports at the Foreign Office consisted partly of the stamp duty and partly of the fee which was paid into the aggregate fee fund, out of which the expenses of the offices of the three Secretaries of State were paid. If the charge at the Foreign Office was smaller, it would probably happen that a larger number of persons would seek passports there; but the consequence would be, that a greater number of clerks would be required there; indeed, a considerable addition would be needed to the present staff there, which was already inadequate to the performance of the duties at present imposed on it. Thus the adoption of the plan would interfere materially with the transaction of other more important business, and would increase the expense of the establishment. And even as to the convenience of individuals, he was not sure that it would be productive of any very material advantage. No British subject who at present went abroad was in want of a passport. He could obtain them from the Belgian, French, or Spanish Embassies when travelling to those countries, and exchange them abroad for British passports upon easy terms. A British passport might be easily obtained in Paris, and, considering the great number of British subjects who travelled only short distances on the Continent, he could not see any great improvement in the change proposed. Seeing, therefore, that the plan suggested by his noble Friend would occasion considerable additional expense in the establishment over which he presided; that there was not room there for more than the present number of clerks; and that no practical inconvenience existed—he did not think it would be desirable to alter the present system.

did not think it was consistent with the dignity of England that her subjects should travel under foreign passports. He remembered travelling on the Continent some years ago, and he was the only person out of a party of twenty- two who carried the passport signed by the British Minister at homo. Englishmen ought always to travel under their own, and not under foreign, colours. As to the expense, he thought a charge of two or three shillings on each passport would defray the whole of it. He knew no man in that House more anxious to maintain the dignity and honour of England than the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office; yet this was an anomaly which he thought the noble Lord had not given sufficient reasons for not removing. He wished to know from the noble Lord how many passports had last year been issued by the Foreign Office?

hoped the noble Lord would not answer that question. The person who travelled with a British passport travelled under the protection of the British flag, which guaranteed him a character. Now, he wished to ask, was that protection and that character to be obtained for half-a-crown, or a crown, or even two guineas? He advised the noble Secretary opposite not to place the British passport in the hands of every man who had money to command it. He (Mr. Roebuck) wished to see the system abolished altogether, and that the English nation would set the example to the rest of Europe, by declaring she would grant no more passports. England should proclaim the non-necessity of them, and declare that every man who travelled did so under the safeguard of the law, and that wherever he went, as a subject of England, the power of the law protected him, so that he consequently required no passport. They were not necessary, for the rogue and the evil-designed could ever have one. Throughout the thirty republics of America there was no passport; and he thought the same system should be adopted in England. Therefore, in his opinion, the noble Lord ought not to answer the question of the hon. Member for Montrose, because the fewer passports he gave the better.

said, his experience of the Foreign Office passports showed him that they were not superior or better in any way to the passports given by the Consuls. He had tried both, and, whilst having to pay 2l. 2s. for the Foreign Office passport, he had nothing to pay for the passport of the Consul.

said, that if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield were acted on, it might lead to great inconvenience to British subjects, and therefore the consideration should be, whether a better system of granting passports could not he adopted. As there appeared to be a general wish for the abolition of passports altogether, and as he understood there had been some negotiation on the subject with France, he would ask the noble Lord whether he had had any communication with any other Power of Europe, and whether there was any probability of that most absurd system of passports being abolished?

said, he certainly had a very good reason for not answering the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, as he was not able to do so; but he could say that a very small number of passports had been granted at the Foreign Office. As to the question of his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, there had been no communication made by Her Majesty's Government to any foreign Government in regard to this matter, which peculiarly belonged to their own internal regulations. He did not know of any ground upon which we should be justified in asking any foreign Government to dispense with regulations which they adopted for their own internal purposes; but certainly, some time ago, there was reason to think that the French Government was going to reconsider these arrangements. He had not heard that they had carried that intention into effect, nor had he heard that any other Government had any intention of abolishing the system of passports.

wished to know whether there was any passport between this country and Belgium?

believed that passports continued to be given.

said, the system to which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield referred still existed, but was leniently administered. Passports were required, but were not often asked for. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, however, had not met the objection of the facility of evading the expense of obtaining British passports at the Foreign Office under the present system.

begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to the charge of 22,000l. for Queen's messengers and extra couriers. He thought, since the facilities of travelling by railway had been afforded, that expense might be considerably reduced; though certainly, his desire would be to reduce the number of despatches.

said, that both at home and abroad considerable reductions had been recently made in the amount of travelling charges for messsengers and couriers.

understood that English messengers travelled much more slowly than foreign messengers; and that they generally arrived two days later than any other. The cause of that was, that the English messenger was paid a certain mileage, and instead of travelling like other couriers, on horseback, he travelled in a carrriage. Instead of going, like a Spanish or French messenger, to Madrid or Athens on horseback, be went in a carriage, and travelled like a gentleman, instead of travelling as a courier. If that could be done away with it would be a good thing.

could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was misinformed when he said that the British messengers were at all less expeditious than the messengers of other countries. They always went by railway when that mode of travelling was available, otherwise they travelled in carriages. It was impossible they could carry their bags containing despatches on horseback. As a proof of the zeal with which these messengers rendered their services to the Government of this country, he would mention an instance in which a gentleman (for they were gentlemen) performed his duty on an occasion when it was required that he should make an extraordinary effort. One of the Queen's messengers, Colonel Townley, in order to carry a despatch of very considerable importance from the Foreign Office to Constantinople at the time when a question was pending between Russia and Turkey, was three days and three nights in the saddle without quitting it, and performed that journey in the worst weather and under the greatest possible difficulties. This showed that these servants of the public were willing to perform, and capable of performing duties, when required of them, which one would think it was almost impossible that any human being would be able to go through. He was glad at having this opportunity of doing justice to that excellent courier whose great exertions he had mentioned, and whose zeal had not been surpassed by any person employed in that department of the public service.

had no doubt of the truth of the noble Lord's statement; still he understood that while the distance between Paris and Madrid was performed by foreign couriers in five days, an English messenger always took seven days to accomplish the journey. He was informed also that an English messenger always took some person with him, who paid the expenses of the journey to the messenger, although that messenger was paid by the British Government. This was a sort of stigma upon the public service of England; and, at the same time, made it appear that our messenger system was used to sub-serve the private interest of individuals, to the detriment of the public service.

said, it very often happened that it was of great advantage to the public service that the messenger should have someone with him. The messenger never allowed the bags containing the despatches to be out of his possession, and yet his presence was necessary at different places in order to show his passports, to hire horses, and so forth. It would be very difficult for him to do this and to carry his bags with him. It was therefore very convenient and useful to have some person with him. He did not believe that the British messengers were slower travellers than the messengers of other countries. They were required to state the time of their arrival at, and of their departure from, every place; and his impression was that the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not founded upon a true state of facts.

asked how it was that 1,345l. were charged for two librarians at the Foreign Office? He did not know that the extent of the library there required two librarians at such an expense to the country.

replied that these gentlemen, besides their duties as librarians, were employed to arrange and index the despatches and records of the office; and that the present staff, so far from being excessive, was inadequate to the duties to be performed.

considered that this was one of the most gross jobs that ever was practised by any Government. By Lord Monteagle's appointment to the office of Comptroller General, the noble Lord got what he (Col. Sibthorp) called something comfortable to pop into. When the noble Lord was appointed, a notorious defalcation took place with regard to the Exchequer bills; and he (Col. Sibthorp) moved for the number of days the noble Lord was in his office, and where he was when he was not in his office. He thought he had done some good; for since he had moved for those annual returns the noble Lord was to be found more in his office, and they should have more returns, they might depend upon it. He had made the noble Lord work for his pay. They had there a sum of 6,576l. put down, but the salary of the Comptroller General was charged upon the Consolidated Fund. He wished it was charged in that vote, for if it were he would take the sense of the House on a Motion that it be struck off forthwith. The expense of that office was, in fact, 8,576l., and the whole of the business might be performed by the Bank of England much more satisfactorily, and with more security, than at the present board. He would not object to give 500l. a year to the assistant comptroller if he could knock off the salary of the Comptroller General.

thought the hon. and gallant Member might with great propriety have struck off the assistant comptroller. [Colonel SIBTHORP: Oh, no, he is the better man of the two.] They could not remove the Comptroller, for the appointment was under Act of Parliament; but he considered that evils arose from the appointment of the assistant comptroller. By that means it had been made a sinecure office, and there should be no office now where duties were not done. There was a chief clerk at 900l. a year, and an accountant at 550l., and a considerable number of others. There were also the officers of weights and measures, and he did not see what duties they had to perform. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that considerable alterations and improve- ments might be made with respect to them.

was understood to say the subject was under consideration.

said, this vote ought not, in his opinion, to appear in the miscellaneous estimates. The Committee which sat on those estimates in 1848 had declared that the expenses might fairly be defrayed out of the funds at the disposal of the Commission. On the 15th of March, 1844, the Commission, in a reply addressed to a communication from the Treasury, agreed to throw on the property entrusted to them such portion of the salary and expenses as might be considered to be immediately connected with its possession and management; and as all the proceedings connected with the Commission had to do cither with the possession or the management of the property, that was virtually a consent to defray the entire cost of management. Since the report of the Committee of 1848 was made, the Ecclesiastical Commission had not been exhibited in such a light before the public as to justify the present demand. The time was come when they might very fairly ask the Commissioners to take this expense upon themselves. His only reason for not opposing the vote was, that there was a Bill pending with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and that it was not desirable to raise the question involved ill that Bill on that occasion. It was desirable, however, that the House should have some information with respect to the Bill to which he referred.

agreed with his right hon. Friend that the House should be informed when the Bill would be proceeded with. They should have as little to do with the Commissioners as the Commissioners desired to have to do with them. Three years had elapsed since the Commissioners had made any report. From the moment that the hon. Member for Cockermouth, in 1847, made any observations on the mode in which the Commission was managed, the Commissioners had declined making, as they were bound to do, their report to the House. On the first of that month orders for returns were agreed to by the House; within a few days after those orders were issued to the episcopal body from the Office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but as yet there was no result. Similar delay occurred last year. His hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield having moved for certain returns with regard to Welch bishoprics, nine months (not a very uncommon period of gestation) elapsed before those returns were obtained from the Bishop of St. David's. It was understood that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would bring forward the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission on Monday next, and this vote ought to be postponed until the Bill had been discussed. The episcopal body had expended 143,014l. in building their own palaces in eight dioceses, and during the period which had been thus occupied, they had applied only the miserable sum of 8,000l to the augmentation of the smaller livings.

said, that with regard to the Bill which had been referred to, he could assure the House that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government not to proceed with it. Whether they should do so or not on Monday next, must depend on the state of public business. As the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission had arisen, he was quite willing that the vote should be postponed until after the Bill had been discussed. With respect to the returns referred to by the hon. Member for Marylebone, he must say they were returns with which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as such, had nothing whatever to do; they were to be obtained by the bishops from the clergy of their respective dioceses.

said, the office of the Poor Law Commission had now been established about twenty years, and he would like to know what good it had ever done. Instead of nine assistant commissioners, there were now thirteen inspectors; but, though the names differed, the nuisance remained. When the poor fell under misfortune, they were still incarcerated in bastilles, and subjected to the most revolting treatment, and it was time that some check were put to the system. On the first establishment of the New Poor Law system, he had predicted that it would confer no benefit on the poor, but quite the contrary; and experience had proved the truth of his prediction. The time had come when some check should be put to the expenditure under this head; and if he did not despair of success, he would divide the Committee. The Treasury bench had, however, not only the aid of its own Members, but of those financial reformers who were great economists on the hustings at least, and said they would insist on a reduction in the expenditure of 10,000,000l He would content himself, therefore, with protesting against the vote.

wished to call the attention of the House, and of the Irish Members particularly, to the fact, that in England the amount of the salaries of the medical officers and schoolmasters and schoolmistresses attached to the poor-law were paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Such was not the case in Ireland, where the taxes pressed so grievously. No assistance of that kind was given in that country, and he would ask the House to consider whether it was not highly unjust that such should continue to be the case.

said, that he would rather have those charges withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund. He agreed, however, with the hon. and gallant Colonel that not a shilling should be charged on the Consolidated Fund in England, without a corresponding charge as far as Ireland was concerned. With regard to Scotland, he was sorry to say that such an establishment had been introduced into that country. It demoralised the people, and removed that care and prudence which were the peculiar characteristics of the Scotch character.

said, that he wished for a moment to make an allusion to the salaries paid to the secretaries of the Poor Law Commission. Looking at the estimates he found that the president of the Poor Law Board had 2,000l a year, while the two secretaries had 1,500l. a year each. He was sure that it would be no disparagement to the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth, who was one of the secretaries, and had a seat in that House, if he were to say that it was absurd that he, as secretary, received the salary of 1,500l a year, while the president had only 2,000l a year. The president should be a man of higher standing, and having a greater degree of responsibility. If the secretaries were to have 1,000l a year, and the president's salary to remain where it was, they would be abundantly paid. He was quite satisfied that the salaries of the secretaries were far too high, and he wished to bring the matter under the consideration of the Committee.

wished to impress on the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose the necessity of having some central board of authority. There would be very much neglect if such were not the case. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say, that he regretted that the establishment of the poor-law in Scotland was injurious to that country. He hoped that there were persons in that House who had read the reports which had been made on the working of the poor-law in that country, and heard the statement made by the learned Lord Advocate on the subject last year. They would, no doubt, hold a different impression.

remarked that, independent of salaries, the thirteen inspectors were allowed 700l a year each for travelling expenses. If they travelled 300 days out of the 365, this charge for travelling expenses was very much beyond what it should be.

said, the present secretaries, with the president, were to be considered as representing the hoard of commissioners which formerly existed. The former board consisted of three commissioners at 2,000l. a year each, that was 6,000l; whereas the expense of the present board was but 5,000l., making a saving of 1,000l per annum. With respect to the inspectors, the whole of the duties of the original commissioners had been thrown upon them; and to the exertions of that valuable body of men were to be attributed the degree of success which had attended the working of the poor-law. He was perfectly certain that those gentlemen who, in the capacity of guardians, had rendered most valuable and at the same time gratuitous services, would, from their being brought so frequently into contact with the inspectors, be exactly that class which would be best able to appreciate the value of the duties rendered by those gentlemen. The inspectors were, in fact, the eyes and ears of the central department in each of those districts to which they were appointed. They were constantly applied to by the boards of guardians for advice and information upon the most difficult and delicate subjects connected with the working of the poor-law. They were bound to investigate the conduct of the union officers, and the treatment of the paupers; and were, in fact, always on the spot ready to discharge their duties whenever any grievance existed of which it was necessary for the central hoard in London to inform itself accurately. In addition to these services, their time was fully occupied in looking after the general affairs of the union, giving advice to the guardians, in inspecting the unions to see that all things were properly conducted, and, in fact, in making the poor-law work as harmoniously and effectually in their districts as possible. His belief was, that at this moment there was not in England a body of more valuable and intelligent public servants than those employed as inspectors under the Poor Law Board; and those hon. Members who had had opportunities of personally witnessing their exertions, would know that he was not employing the language of undue eulogy when he applied that character to them. The number of assistant commissioners under the former Act was 9; under the present it was unlimited, and his predecessor had made the number 13. With respect to the travelling expenses, the rate of allowance, in addition to the salaries, was a guinea per day for travelling and incidental expenses, and the expenses of actual locomotion.

said, that the only complaint which he had to make of the inspectors was, that he did not see them often enough in the country.

said, that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Poor Law Commissioner had given a satisfactory answer to either the observation made by himself or by the hon. Member for Stafford. He stated, that at present there were two secretaries and a president, who were to be considered in the place of the board; that the board formerly cost 6,000l a year, while they now paid the president and the two secretaries only 5,000l a year. Why should they be satisfied to pay 5,000l a year because they once paid 6,000l. a year. These secretaries stood in the same position to the right hon. Gentleman as the Under Secretary of State did to his principal. It was absurd, then, that be should only have 2,000l., and he (Mr. Bright) did not propose to increase it, while they had 1,500l. He would not comment on the capabilities of these gentlemen. They might be as good as any they knew; but their salaries were too high. He intended, therefore, to move that their salaries be diminished by the sum necessary to bring them down to 1,000l a year each. With regard to the inspectors, he would ask whether the guinea a day was not an addition to their salaries, and whether they had not their expenses allowed besides—that was, whether they had not a guinea a day whether they travelled or not? If such were the case, it would be better to have it all charged as salary. With regard to the secretaries, he would ask the Government whether they I would not consent to the reduction he proposed?

said, that there were two secretaries, one in Parliament, the other not. The latter used to receive 2,000l. as a commissioner, had served thirteen years, and now discharged duties as important for 1,500l. It would be exceedingly hard to deprive him of that amount; a piece of more false economy could not be proposed. The salary of the secretary who held a seat in that House would come for consideration before the Committee on official salaries recently appointed, and pending the inquiry of the Committee, it would not be dealing fairly with the office for the House of Commons to interfere. The Government were prepared to act on the recommendations of that Committee when they were made.

admitted that there was some force in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to the salary in the second case being under consideration of the Committee on Official Salaries. All gentlemen were declared efficient when their salaries were made the subject of discussion. He should not divide the House on his proposition.

said, that the principle of allowing the poor-law inspectors a guinea a day whether they travelled or not was a bad one.

said, that he had no difficulty in stating that it was his opinion that the guinea a day should be considered as part of the inspectors' salary.

reminded the House of the observation which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington, referring to the payment of certain poor-law officials in England out of the Consolidated Fund, when such was not allowed in Ireland.

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had insisted, in connexion with the Bill for extending the jurisdiction of the county court, that the judges should not have more than 1,000l. a year, nor more than 15s. a day for their travelling expenses. Now, he (Sir G. Pechell) did not see why the poor-law inspectors should have a guinea a day for their expenses, if the judges of the county court were only to have 15s. He was gratified in being able to express his satisfaction at the manner in which the President of the Poor Law Board discharged his duties.

complained of so much money being paid to poor-law officers out of the Consolidated Fund, while no such assistance was given to Ireland.

said, that in 1846 it had been arranged to pay certain charges for medical officers, &c., out of the Consolidated Fund in England and Scotland, where the county police were not paid by the Government. But the cost of the constabulary in Ireland was paid out of the public Exchequer; for the year ending February last it amounted to 574,000l., having increased upwards of 90,000l. within the last two years.

said, that the police in Ireland ought to be reckoned as a military force. The expense of the poor-law in Ireland had much increased since the arrangement made in 1846.

reminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a portion of the constabulary expenses had always been borne by the Consolidated Fund. The portion borne by local taxation had never exceeded 160,000l, or 180,000l

did not think that Ireland was so badly used in this matter, after all, seeing that last year 62,800l. was voted for the poor-law establishment of Ireland, and only 35,000l. for that of England. With respect to general local taxation, he begged to say that a thorough reform of the grand-jury system would enable Ireland to obtain a reduction of that without coming to that House.

said, that supposing the grand jury system were reformed, the only saving that could be effected by that means was upon the 1,100,000l. of grand-jury cess; and of that sum the hon. Member would perhaps he surprised to learn the grand juries had the control over cue-fourth only, the rest being compulsory. Since the period when the right hon. Member for Tamworth made the arrangements which were alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the poor-rates in Ireland bad increased from 13,000l. to 14,000l. a year, which surely ought to be taken into account by the House; and it should be recollected that the local taxation in Ireland amounted to rather more than 5s., whilst the whole amount of local taxation in England, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, amounted to 2s. 4½d. in the pound.

was anxious that the President of the Poor Law Board should give the House some distinct assurance as to the emoluments of inspectors. A great number of gentlemen gave their time to the administration of the poor-law, and rendered great services without remuneration. He wished to know whether, of the thirteen inspectors, each inspector was to have a clerk allowed to him? There were other inspectors who had no clerks allowed to them. There were the inspectors of factories, and there was scarcely a union in England where they were not obliged to employ clerks for Parliamentary returns. He did not know what was the duty of inspectors, which should require them to keep a clerk. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state what was the fixed amount of salary which he would in future recommend, and whether he intended to discontinue all allowance for travelling expenses? There was one inspector for every four counties, and therefore the expenses of travelling were quite unnecessary.

said, that the poor-law was admirably managed in Scotland, and Sir M. O'Neile received only 1,200l. a year. He begged to ask why the Irish board should keep an architect?

In addition to the general duties of visiting and inspecting buildings, there were now a number of workhouses in the course of erection, and his duties became very much increased. The building of workhouses was undertaken in this country by the board of guardians, who employed their own architect; In Ireland it was undertaken by a person in the employment of the commission.

supported the Motion. It was quite impossible that taxation could go on on the present system, and the Government ought to apply their minds to the question whether the property of the country should pay the taxation.

said, that the question was whether the board was too large for the purposes for which it was intended. In his opinion, the poor-law would be of little use if they in any degree diminished the power of the board in London. They should have a hoard of supervision to keep every part of the country under control until one general system was adopted. He bore his testimony in favour of the present law, and in favour of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the establishment, believing that he was doing his duty beneficially to the country, and with honour to himself. Although he did not say that it might not be possible to reduce the number of inspectors, he said that the House was not thoroughly conversant with the subject, and the board in London would be weakened if they took away a large part of its establishment.

said, that the increase of the number of inspectors was founded on the recommendation of the Committee, which went fully into the whole administration of the poor-law. They reported that the number of inspectors was insufficient to enable the central board to exercise that supervision which was indispensable to the due administration of the law. Government had proposed the limit at twelve, but the hon. Member for Somersetshire had said that it was indiscreet to fix the limit at twelve, thinking that a larger number might be necessary for the due administration of the law.

would not consent to vote for the proposition unless they had some more information on the subject. He thought that it was quite within the bounds of probability that thirteen inspectors were too many, but it did not appear that eight would be a sufficient number. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board would give his opinion that they could be reduced, he would vote for such reduction.

said, he had been assured that in the borough which he had the honour to represent, for every shilling spent in the maintenance of the poor, another shilling was spent in maintaining the executive.

said, that with regard to the number of inspectors all he could say was, that when the question came under discussion in 1847—there having been nine up to that time—Parliament came to the conclusion that that number was insufficient. The next proposition went to increasing the number to twelve, and a clause was introduced making that the limit; but it was the opinion of the House that the limit of twelve should be struck out, lest circumstances might at a future day require a greater number. When his predecessor (Mr. Buller) came into office, he considered maturely the question of the number of inspectors, and when examined before the Committee, gave it as his deliberate opinion that less than thirteen would not be sufficient. On his responsibility he made the number thirteen; and everything that had occurred to him (Mr. Baines) during the year and a half he had been in office, had led him to believe that thirteen was the proper number. But he confessed he was not surprised that this Motion should come from the hon. Member, because a short time since a petition had come up from Leominster for the reduction of the expenditure at Somerset House; and about a week after, the board was obliged to consider a plan, emanating from the guardians of that union, by which the salaries of all its officers were to be reduced 20 per cent, in consequence of the reduction in the prices of agricultural produce. The board, although anxious at all times to treat the recommendations of boards of guardians with respect, had declined to agree to that proposal, alleging that the salaries had not been raised with the rise in provisions, and that until the present state of things had become permanent, it would not be expedient to do anything calculated to interfere with the efficient working of the poor-law. They had given that opinion, and hence the present Motion.

was not disposed to support the Amendment, considering it necessary to have that efficient inspection, the want of which had been a complaint especially prominent in the Andover Union inquiry. There were, however, many items in this enormous estimate, which he thought objectionable. For example, he wanted to know how many auditors there were, and in what proportions the large item of 13,500l. was distributed among them.

could not exactly say at the moment how many auditors there were, but the salaries varied from 250l. to 500l. per annum, according to the districts. The increase in the charge under this head, from 13,000l. to 13,500l., was occasioned by the expense of advertising the various audits.

objected to the number and expense of the auditors. The expense of railway audit, which was so intricate, was only about one-fourth that of the poor-law. He moved that the sum be reduced by 8,000?., which would leave sufficient to pay ten auditors 500l. a year each.

said, that recently a great deal of additional duty had been imposed upon the auditors, who were not at all overpaid. The salaries of some were only 250l., while none were above 500l. He was of opinion that there was no room for retrenchment.

hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee, but still thought that the subject required investigation.

said, that the number of auditors had been the same ever since he had been on the Poor Law Board. [Mr. Alderman SIDNEY: How many are there?] Could not say exactly how many.

would undertake to let the hon. Member know by note to-morrow morning the exact number.

suggested that in future the estimates should be accompanied by a statement of the number of auditors, their salaries, and services. He must say, however, that they were a most useful and efficient class of servants in the working of the poor-law.

would support the Motion, on the understanding that the payment of the auditors should be thrown on the unions, and that each union should pay for its own auditors.

felt assured that, in that case, the accounts of each union would be audited for 50l. He knew it could be done in the union of Stoke-upon-Trent. Some of his constituents waited upon him last week, and stated that in that borough for every shilling applied to the relief of the poor the executive cost another shilling.

would oppose the Motion on the ground of economy, to which he considered the auditors contributed in a large degree. He believed that the executive only cost 20 per cent on the outlay for the poor,

said, that the hon. Alderman would find in the appendix to the estimates all the information he required respecting the districts, the salaries, and the number of auditors. The whole number of auditors was fifty, their salaries varied from 90l. to 450l., the average of salaries being 270l. The number of unions was upwards of 600.

said, that he should nevertheless divide, because, with only six auditors in Ireland, he did not see what was wanted in England with fifty.

thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner satisfactory. The hon. Alderman had said he would undertake to audit each union for 50l.; but as the unions were 600, it would appear by an easy calculation that the sum at present paid was only about 22l. There would, therefore, be no economy in adopting the hon. Alderman's offer.

said, hon. Members opposite gave a very singular support to Her Majesty's Ministers in that House on these questions, which contrasted very oddly with their reform and retrenchment speeches on the hustings. But wherever there was honey there would be found bees—or rather drones. The conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite showed them to be, as far as the principles of economy were concerned, mere shams and shadows. Every day he passed through the streets of the metropolis he met persons who cautioned him to beware of the traps of the free-traders, who would, he hoped, some fine morning he caught in their own traps.

said, with regard to the item of 35,000l. for the salaries of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in unions, that ever since the new system of the Government paying the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, came into operation in 1846, though alterations might have taken place in the salaries, this item had always remained the same.

regretted that not having had notice of the question, he was not in a position to answer it; and he was not aware that exactly the same sum had been voted since 1846. The right hon. Baronet who introduced the change in 1846 did it with a view of improving the character of the schools, and it was then proposed that the schoolmasters and schoolmistresses should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. The highest salary given was 60l. a year with rations, and he believed they ranged from 10l. to 60l. The greatest care had been taken to increase the efficiency of the schoolmasters; there had been communications between the Commission and the Committee of Privy Council on the subject, and he believed that upon the whole the character of the schools had been greatly improved.

said, it really did seem to him that on such a vote as this they should have the fullest information. When the salaries were adjusted, those schoolmasters and schoolmistresses who were inefficient, he presumed would be discharged. He wished to know whether that had been done, and whether the education of the poor was conducted in an efficient and proper manner? It was only with this view that he put the question.

could answer that that had been the case within the last two years. Of course these improvements were gradual. There was a constant course of improvement now proceeding.

thought that in the absence of information it was his duty to move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

hoped his hon. Friend would not take the sense of the House upon that question, because, though it might be the furthest from his intention, it might seem to amount to a censure on the right hon. President of the Poor Law Commission, of whose labours the House had the highest appreciation. It was to be lamented that his right hon. Friend had not had notice of the question.

agreed entirely with what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was not his intention to object to this vote, but he wished to get some information. As the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give it, but still said improvements were going on in the character of the schools, that to him (Mr. Miles) was perfectly satisfactory, and he could only say that the sum of 35,000l. to educate the 60,000 children who were in union workhouses could not be better spent.

withdrew his Amendment.

asked the Master of the Mint whether he had made arrangements for an increased issue of florins, and also whether it was intended to issue more of the small coin called threepenny pieces, a coin which he understood had been found to be exceedingly convenient?

replied, that with respect to the florin he had already upon a former occasion stated the reason why the issue of that coin was suspended. It was intended to issue the florin in another shape, with those additions which public opinion seemed to demand. With respect to the smaller coin to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, in consequence of communications he had had from the hon. Gentleman, and also from the hon. Member for Westminster, he had given directions that a large quantity be coined.

complained that magistrates had day by day persons brought before them for passing base coin, and they found that the Solicitor to the Mint alone was the arbitrator as to whether a prosecution should take place or not. Generally speaking it was not respectable tradesmen who were the sufferers, but the poor. Nine times out of ten the sellers of fruit in the streets of the metropolis were the sufferers by this base coin. Last week a case occurred before a Colleague of his, in which the Solicitor to the Mint refused, under any circumstances, to prosecute a party for passing base coin. In many eases where the Solicitor to the Mint had refused, the City had prosecuted, and to conviction. This was not a power which ought to be delegated to the Solicitor to the Mint. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General would attend to this matter, for it was a growing evil. It was a painful thing for him to sit as a magistrate, and find a poor woman not alone deprived of her goods—only a pennyworth of apples, perhaps—but also of 2s. 5d. in money. Sometimes, finding the deception practised upon her, she took the law into her own hands, and maltreated the man so much that he was kept to his bed for two or three weeks.

wished to know when the changes recommended by the Mint Commission, now a twelvemonth ago, would take effect? The public expected some fruit to arise from that inquiry.

said, that in consequence of the report made by the Mint Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had directed their attention to the subject; and the result was that a representation had been made to the moneyers and assayers, intimating that their relation to the Mint was to undergo a very speedy and considerable change. The Committee would not expect him to go into the details of the change, but no time would be lost in carrying it into effect.

asked if this change could be made without an Act of Parliament. If not, the sooner it was introduced the better.

said, the Government had decided on the nature of the changes, and one was that the body called the moneyers were to be deprived of what they called their privileges; and, therefore, whether the business was in future conducted by open contract or otherwise, there would be a great saving of the public expenditure.

said, the subject of the Mint prosecutions was well deserving the attention of the Government officers. The Mint stood in a different position, in some respects, from other bodies. If the magistrates recommended prosecutions, the officers of the Mint, on their own responsibility, either took that course or abstained from it. If they came into court without sufficient evidence, the court had no means of disallowing the expenses, as in ordinary cases; for as the costs of the prosecutions were defrayed by Government, the court had nothing to do with it. Thus, the Mint was in a position to refrain from prosecuting with impunity in cases where they ought to prosecute, and they might prosecute in cases where they ought not, and still be sure of their expenses.

said, he believed it was the universal practice for no Mint prosecution for felony to be instituted without his sanction. All the cases were laid before him, the circumstances deposed to, together with the character and description of the witnesses by whom they were supported. And inasmuch as it was of the utmost importance, in cases of this kind, to carry public opinion with them, as well as to punish the offenders, all the circumstances underwent a very careful consideration.

said, his observations did not apply to the prosecutions for felony; in none of the cases under the superintendence of the hon. and learned Gentleman had there been anything approaching to irregularly. He spoke of the ordinary cases of misdemeanour, uttering counterfeit coins—though the same offence became felony on its second commission. He had had upwards of twenty years' experience of these cases—he had been one of the counsel to the Mint some years ago, and though these cases had been better conducted of late years, he must say he had seen a great deal which he did not like. He spoke of the discretion which was ordinarily reposed, not in the Solicitor to the Mint, but in a person who was no solicitor at all, or even his clerk, the third party being the person who usually exercised this discretion.

said, the course which was pursued in all prosecutions was this: The evidence was laid before the Solicitor to the Mint. He roughly investigated that evidence, and he then appeared before the board to obtain their sanction to the prosecutions. No criminal was ever brought to trial without the sanction of the board. It would be found, upon inquiry, that there was hardly any instance—he believed not one—of a prosecution having failed. A change had been recently effected, by which the Solicitor to the Mint had been got rid of, and the whole of the business transferred to the Solicitor to the Treasury, whose salary was 800l. a year. The business referred to was now confided to Mr. Powell, a gentleman of great experience, in whom the Government had the fullest confidence. The Commissioners had recommended a great change in these prosecutions—amongst other things, that the first offence of uttering should be dealt with summarily.

said, that unless the practice had been totally altered within the last few years, many of the prosecutions had failed.

said, that unless he was very much mistaken indeed, there had been no instance of failure.

said, the complaint was, not that there were too many, but too few prosecutions. In the papers that morning a ease had appeared of a notorious smasher being placed before the magistrates on Saturday; and immediately on his being arraigned at the bar, it was intimated by the clerk of the Solicitor to the Mint that no prosecution would take place. The magistrates had, however, determined to hear the case, and had found sufficient evidence on which to commit him for trial. This was no uncommon occurrence in the city of London. At several recent sessions, when the Mint refused to prosecute, the magistrate committed the prisoners, who bad afterwards received sentence of transportation. The complaint was that the Government should by their officers connive at these cases.

said, that the Government did not connive at there being no prosecution. It had been the practice so long as he had been in office not to throw the weight of the Government prosecution into cases of a doubtful character; still, if the parties who had suffered, chose to prosecute, it was competent for them to do so. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government, or any other person, had withdrawn the witnesses in the case referred to by the last speaker. During the time he had been in office there had not been a single acquittal on a charge for felony; and he believed the case was the same with the misdemeanours. It was of the utmost importance for the public to know that the Government did not lightly undertake these prosecutions. Other people might do as they pleased; if a prosecutor thought he had a good ease, there was nothing to prevent him bringing it before the court in the usual way.

said, his complaint was not of the Attorney General, but of the Solicitor to the Mint exercising his own discretion whether to prosecute or not. These cases occurred to the extent of a thousand in a year.

protested against the vote, on the ground that their condition was not satisfactory. Some of them were kept in the Chapter House of Westminster, others in the Tower of London, others in the riding house at Carlton-ride, while the building erected for the purpose was wholly insufficient. There was a fire-proof chest in every parish church in England; but on the Carlton-ride a policeman was kept as the only preservative against fire. It was a disgrace to the country. He should not, however, divide the House on the subject.

had stated, at an early period of the Session, that it was his intention to ask a vote to erect a building for keeping the records on the Crown estate. He trusted, therefore, that the House would agree; to the vote then before it.

said, the records were at present in a worse state than they were forty years since. Many of these estimates consisted of "miscellaneous and "contingencies," so that he was utterly at a loss to understand what such general terms meant.

objected to the vote, upon the ground that these inspectors unnecessarily interfered with the owners of factories.

had a word to say with reference to these inspectors. He said it somehow happened that whenever a Home Secretary was appointed, a relative of his went down to inspect the factories of Lancashire. The inspectors were probably very respectable, but they knew little of factories, and though they might allow infringements of the law sometimes to go unpunished, yet, in other cases, their ignorance caused parties to be unnecessarily interfered with. He could furnish details of the blunders they had made, but he would forbear from troubling the Committee at that late hour. He thought men who understood their business should be appointed to the office, and that the relatives of Cabinet Ministers ought not to be selected.

said, that one vacancy had occurred since he had been Home Secretary, and that he had consolidated the offices rather than appoint a relative or any other person.

objected to the amount charged in this vote for "contingencies." The charge under that head in the Chief Secretary's office alone was 2,701l., and the total charge for contingencies in the vote was 3,321l.

said, the item of "contingencies" covered a variety of miscellaneous expenses which it was impossible to state in detail. In the charges for the offices of the several Secretaries of State, and every other public department, a similar item occurred. Among the expenses defrayed under this head were the salaries of extra clerks, the payment for occasional assistance in the offices, and other charges.

proposed that the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be reduced from 5,500l. to 5,000l.