said, he should take that occasion to call the attention of the House to the burdens upon land, and the mode of alleviating them. He hoped that the House would hear with him for a few moments. He did not frequently trespass on their patience, and he could assure them that he had no intention of now abusing their indulgence. He was anxious to be permitted to state his views with respect to the grievances which appeared to him to press with unreasonable severity on the landed interests of this country, and he hoped to be enabled to submit certain suggestions which would tend most materially to the relief of those interests. The Government proposed to appeal to the country before long, upon a topic of great importance, in respect to which there existed great diversity of opinion—namely, protection. Now, it could not be denied that that question was one of peculiar importance to the landed interests, and that was the reason why he would venture to say a few words upon it. As an humble member of those interests, and as one who was connected with them by habits, education, and association, he could not but feel an anxiety on all questions which concerned their welfare. It was maintained by some that the landed interests had not suffered from the changes which had recently taken place in the commercial policy of this country, but he could not concur in that opinion. Many of those with whom he was connected had suffered very much by those changes, and he, himself, as an humble individual, had found it necessary to reduce his rents 15 per cent in order to meet the times. That being the case, he confessed he felt a sincere anxiety that the particular grievances which now weighed so oppressively on the landed interests should be removed or alleviated. He believed that it was quite possible to give relief to those interests without in any degree interfering with the welfare of the rest of the community. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had proposed to go to the country and inquire what the sentiments of the people were on the subject of a duty on corn. Now, he had been an advocate for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, and still approved of that measure; but he still retained the opinion which he had frequently expressed, that the change was brought about too rapidly, and that it would have been much better for the country if a fixed duty bad been imposed merely for a limited period, to enable landholders to look around them to examine the new burdens about to be imposed upon them, and to make their preparations accordingly. However, that had not been done, and things having gone as far as they had, he was bound in candour to say that he did not think it would be politic, safe, or in anywise expedient to re-impose a tax on the food of the people, in order to restore the rents. But without resorting to any such measure, it might he possible to afford great relief to the landed interests. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated repeatedly in that House that the local burdens on land were borne, by one-half of the taxpaying community. Surely this was a state of things that ought to be rectified; and he proposed to recast those burdens fairly, so as to relieve the landed classes. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) said to that proposition that it would relieve one class by throwing their burden upon another; but if that burden was unfairly apportioned at present, it ought to be more equally divided. It was the duty of that House to consider whether it might not be possible to adjust the taxation in such a manner as to give fair play to all parties, at the same time that an adequate revenue was secured to the Exchequer. Now, what he was especially desirous of was, that the free-trade principle should be extended as equally as possible, and that it should be applied not only to corn, but to land, and all the products of land. If freedom was given to land, the landed interests would be strengthened and invigorated—the burdens of taxation would be more equally distributed, and all classes of the community would have more of that fair play for which they were not unnaturally so desirous. The cost of the transmission of a given amount of land was enormously greater than that of the transmission of an equivalent amount of private property. This was an abuse and an injustice, and he could not understand upon what principle of fair dealing it could be permitted to continue. Such was the cost and complexity of the law as it regarded the landed interests, that those who were connected with those interests paid, one way or another, on account of their property, above five times as much as those who possessed personal property. Those who were at all conversant with the enormous charges that were made for mortgages, sales, conveyances, and other such matters, would find no difficulty in accepting this statement as true. By the simplification of titles and conveyances, and by the institution of an easier, less expensive, and less circuitous mode of raising money on land, an amount of relief would be afforded to the landed interests the importance of which it would be difficult to estimate too highly. At present, a special Act of Parliament was required for each particular sale instituted by order of trustees; but why not have a general Act to enable all sales by trustees? If a series of general enabling Acts were passed to supersede the necessity of a special enactment in each particular instance, a very great saving would be effected, and landed proprietors would be enabled to do for 30l. or 40l. what now would cost them 500l. Under the present system it was necessary to have a separate Act of Parliament for every kind of local improvement—for gas works, waterworks, and market places. All these kind of constructions enhanced the value of land, but they were impeded in all parts of the country by the enormous expense of obtaining a special Act of Parliament in each particular instance. The Legislature had passed a General Inclosure Act and a General Exchange Act, which enabled a hundred things to be now done for the expense which one would formerly have cost; and why, on the same principle, should not a general Act be now passed, with proper clauses, to enable a landlord to improve his estate in whatever way might appear to himself most desirable. If there was free trade in corn, there should be free trade in capital also. If a few small capitalists were now to combine together for the application of their capital to any common object, and any dispute arose among them, it was only by plunging into the fathomless abyss of Chancery that they could hope to set it right, and Chancery to decide the dispute, dissolved the partnership. This was a great evil, and clearly demonstrated the necessity of a tribunal, cheap, simple, and easily accessible for the arrangement of such difficulties. He threw out these suggestions for the consideration of Government, confident that, if they were adopted, great relief would be afforded to the landed interests, without the infliction of the slightest injury on any other class of the community. Capital is now increasing at the rate of a million and a half a week, seeking investment; much of it would be turned to the purchase, or improvement and culture, of land, if not impeded by legal obstacles, and the laws of partnership and unlimited liability. These things should be altered to give fair play to the landed interest.

said, it was his duty to move the Ordnance Estimates for the year, and in doing so on the present occasion he would make a few observations. They were so plainly set out in the Votes, that, in fact, they required very little explanation. They had been framed by his predecessor in office, and appeared to have been framed with that attention which was necessary and consistent with a due regard to the service. He was confirmed in this, for he might safely state that no department in the State was in better order than that in which he had the honour to serve. He had it on the authority of the present Master General of the Ordnance to state that nothing could be more efficient or economical than the state in which he found this department; and he felt deeply indebted to the late Master General for its high state of efficiency. He (Col. Dunne) hoped for the indulgence of the Committee if he should not be sufficiently informed on every point on which explanations might be required, seeing that he had so recently been appointed to the office which he had the honour to fill. Some he should be able to give; and he was certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had preceded him in office would be quite ready to assist him. With the exception of an increase in the number of men, which the feeling excited in the country a short time ago in favour of greater security had demanded, there had been a reduction in almost every Vote. The increase of men had been most judiciously effected in such branches of the artillery as required it—a proof that his predecessors had been perfectly aware of the exigencies of the occasion, and had distributed with economy the additions made to the forces of the Royal Artillery and the Engineers. With the exception of the increase of men, which necessitated an increase of expenditure, there was but one vote, No. 9, that for the scientific branch, which had been increased by a sum little exceeding 10,000l. In all the others reductions had been made, and made in his opinion most judiciously. Last year a Committee of that House had sat on the state of the Ordnance and the Army; many of the suggestions made in their Report had been carried out, some wholly, some in part; and they were still under the consideration of a Committee of military men.

said, he looked in vain at the Ordnance Estimates for any evidence of economy. It was true that there was a decrease upon the Votes of late years, but this arose from the diminution in the number of barracks. The present Estimates, however, were double what they were in 1835, when the present Master General formed part of the Government of the late Sir Robert Peel. The amount of the present Estimates was 2,437,000l., in 1835 it was 1,552,000l., and it was still less by 100,000l. in 1834. He was of opinion that the recommendation of the Commission which sat in 1837 ought to be carried out, and that the Army and Ordnance departments ought to be united under one responsible Minister. There were at present no less than six different departments under the Commander-in-Chief: the Master General of the Ordnance, the Secretary at War, the Commissariat, which was under the Treasury, the Adjutant General, and the Quartermaster General. Expense and delay in the execution of necessary orders and reforms was the consequence of this complex system, and the sooner these different departments were consolidated under one responsible head, the better would it be for the service of the country. He would also recommend the abolition of the practice of allowing colonels to provide clothing for their regiments. When the present system was done away with, these regiments would he clothed more economically, and the clothing would be of a better description. He was afraid that the system of patronage which the present system permitted, was the real obstacle to these useful reforms being carried out.

would suggest that the comforts of the soldiers should be attended to, by providing them with more comfortable barrack accommodation.

said, that as a soldier, he was of course anxious about the comforts of his fellow-soldiers; but the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman would necessitate an increased expenditure; and it depended upon that House whether it gave the money for this purpose.

said, he was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite express himself satisfied with the general efficiency of the Ordnance Department, and he was quite prepared to take upon himself the whole responsibility of the Estimates now before the House. They had heard the old story, which was repeated year after year, of the difficult and complicated nature of these Estimates; but he was quite sure that, if separately considered, they would be as easily understood as any of the other Estimates. It was said that the amount proposed had doubled since 1835; but that was a very exaggerated statement. The present Estimates amounted to 2,437,000l.; and the Estimates for 1835, to 1,552,000l. It would be well if hon. Gentlemen made themselves masters of these Estimates, before they began to discuss them. It was riot the fact that there were six different departments connected with the Army. The Adjutant General's Office and the Quartermaster General's Office were in the same department. There were but three different departments, and he believed that they were conducted with great efficiency. Then they were told that a great opportunity for exercising economy would be found by following the recommendation of the Ordnance Committee; but he was of opinion that the present was the best system that could be followed, and that there would be some danger of injuring the efficiency of the service if all the departments were placed under one head. He would not go into the question of the clothing of regiments, because, if hon. Gentlemen read the evidence which was laid before the Committee on this subject, it would be seen that the result of their deliberations was, that it was not advisable at present to make any alteration. The increase in the present Estimates was owing to the increase in the artillery—an increase which, he was sure, no Member of that House would object to—and to the transference to these Estimates of the Commissariat.

said, there was no doubt a great difference of opinion amongst the Members of the Committee on the Estimates; but several changes had been suggested, which he thought could be carried out with great benefit and economy: and he hoped the present Government would simplify the extraordinary anomalies which existed in this department. He would not say that they were kept up for patronage. He believed it was rather owing to the fact that when once persons entered into a bad system it was very difficult to get out of it. He believed no man was more anxious to promote the public advantage than the late Master General of the Ordnance; and that no man was more desirous of doing his duty both to the soldier and the public. He wished to blame no one; but the present system was bad, expensive, and complex. His decided opinion was that there should be a Minister of War, having the control of the whole War and Ordnance Departments—one master mind to direct all their movements, as was the case in every country of Europe except Great Britain. As the Estimates before the House were those of the late Government, and the present Admintration could not have had time to look closely into them, he would not oppose any difficulty to their being passed, but would simply throw out the points he had noticed, as worthy of the best attention.

said, he thought the Committee ought now to have some explanation with respect to the arms supplied to the Army. On a former occasion it was stated in that House that during the last four or five years, while other countries had been improving the arms of their soldiers, we had been remaining quite idle; and it had been asserted in the public press by some who ought to know better, that our soldiers were actually incapable of doing their duty when required. Having been on the Committee, and knowing what a large expense was incurred annually for the renewal of arms, he begged to state that he believed none of the old arms were now used by any of the corps, with the exception of the retired veterans at home. This was a subject on which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dunne) should afford some explanation. They ought not to appear before the world with a character for remissness in placing in the hands of the Army the best weapons that could be obtained.

said, that since he entered upon the office he had the honour to hold he had discovered that there was no foundation whatever for the statements to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. For many years past the Commander-in-Chief had directed his attention to the new arms. The present Master General of the Ordnance was devoting his attention to the same subject; and he had no doubt that the British soldier would be found to be armed, not only as well as, but even better than, foreign soldiers.

said, that so many misrepresentations had been put forth upon the subject mentioned by the hon. Member for Montrose, that it was necessary some explanation should be given. In the year 1838 we had changed our arms from flint to percussion locks; and the muskets which had been deemed most efficient by the highest authorities upon such a subject had then been adopted, and were still in use in this country. We had a simple percussion musket, and every hon. Member must be aware that for military service a peculiar description of arm was required. It was frequently asked why the soldier should not have as good a fowling-piece as any private gentleman. But the soldier had to go through a peculiar service; he had harder work to perform than private gentlemen, and his fire arms were exposed to the danger of accidents from which other fire-arms were exempt. In the years 1846 and 1847 some novelties were introduced on the Continent in the manufacture of fire-arms; and after some experiments had been made for the purpose of testing their utility they had been adopted rather hastily, as he thought, by certain foreign Governments. Of these novelties the principal was the musket that loaded at the breech, which had been adopted, as he understood, by the Prussian Government only. That Government had supplied 10,000 or 12,000 of their troops with that musket. The invention was a very ingenious one, and to any one not conversant with military service it would appear that such a weapon would give a great advantage to the soldier who employed it, in consequence of the much greater rapidity with which it enabled him to discharge his fire. But he believed it had been found so inefficient in the Prussian army that the Prussian Government had ceased to furnish their troops with it. In the year 1847 the attention of the authorities at the Ordnance Department and at the Horse Guards had been directed to the improvement of our arms, and his noble Friend the late head of the Ordnance Department, and the noble Duke the Commander-in-Chief, suggested the appointment of a Committee, consisting of the most competent officers, for the purpose of inquiring into the matter, and receiving any proposals that might be made for the improvement of the muskets placed in the hands of our soldiers. That Committee had met at various periods since the year 1847. They had made trials of several descriptions of muskets which loaded at the breech, produced by seven different makers. But all those muskets had failed. They could no longer be worked after they had been tried for twenty rounds, in consequence of an escape of gas, or of some derangement in the machinery; and yet they had been made of the very best materials. Since that time various other inventions had appeared—there were, for instance, the muskets of the Chasseurs de Vincennes, which he understood had recently been supplanted by the Minié muskets. Those latter arms had been tried at Woolwich, and had there been found to succeed. But he believed that we ought not hastily to adopt any of those improvements. Complaints had been made of the great weight of our muskets, and of the great inconvenience which they caused to our soldiers; and it had been said that a musket with a small bore would be as effective as a musket with a large one. But the noble Duke the Commander-in-Chief had always maintained very strongly, and had told him (General Anson) over and over again, that he felt indebted in a great measure for the success of his armies in foreign countries to the weight and the size of the bore in our muskets. He (General Anson) found that the French were endeavouring to make their muskets of as large a bore as ours, and they felt satisfied of the greater efficiency of our muskets. He would not say that we were bound to adhere to the size of our bore; for it was at present ascertained that the weight of the ball was all that was required, and that, although the bore might not be as large as formerly, it would be as efficient as ever if it were to carry the same weight of lead. Attacks had daily been directed against the late Government for not having taken that subject into their serious consideration. But he would venture to say that there was not at this moment an army in Europe, or in the world, that could beat our troops with their present arms. He was satisfied that, although they might not load so quickly, and although they might not have so deadly an aim at 500 or 600 yards as the troops of some other countries—he was satisfied that, with their present arms in their hands, they would be found superior to any other soldiers in the world. He should observe that it would be ridiculous to suppose that two armies could fight at a distance of 500 or 600 yards. Much more depended on the discipline of the troops than on anything else. It had been said the soldiers did not receive enough of ammunition to make them competent marksmen; but there was great difficulty in finding ground near barracks for the men to practise in. He agreed entirely with the lion. Gentleman, that our army ought to keep pace with the armies of other countries; indeed, he thought we ought not only to keep pace but to excel; but, at the same time, it was better to investigate, deliberate, and test, in the first instance, than hastily to place in the hands of our soldiers new weapons which they might be afterwards obliged to lay aside.

said, he was to hear the statement of the hon. and gallant Member, and was quite ready to admit that it would be most inexpedient to put weapons into the hands of our soldiery which we might be afterwards obliged to lay aside. He hoped, however, that attention would be paid not only to the quality of the arms, but to the question as to whether they were sufficiently practised in the use of them. He apprehended that many persons were not aware of the allowance of ball cartridges to our regiments. For the purposes of practice, they only received thirty rounds per annum, allowing them the opportunity of firing a shot at a mark little more than once a fortnight. That seemed to him to be so unutterably ridiculous, that at first he could not credit it, but upon inquiry had reason to believe it was perfectly true. That surely was not the way to prepare a workman to handle his tool with dexterity, and that tool the clumsiest that could be supplied to him. He was afraid that this statement could not be contradicted; and he hoped that now, as public attention had been called to the subject, a more efficient system would be adopted and pursued. He felt certain that there existed a very strong feeling of disapprobation and dissatisfaction at the present arrangements. Every one acknowledged the gallantry of our troops; but the Committee and the Government would be greatly to blame if they neglected to adopt that machinery by which the gallantry of our troops might be made most efficient. He should not like to see our soldiers with inefficient weapons. It was not fair or just to trust entirely to the gallantry and endurance of those brave men; but it was the bounden duty of that House and of the Government to take care that the very best weapons of defence and attack were put into their hands, so that, if the occasion arose, they might compete at least upon equal terms with the armies of other nations.

said, he was glad to find that the rumour which had been so very generally circulated as to the inefficient condition of our troops, was by degrees being abandoned; but he saw that his hon. Friend (Sir W. Clay) believed that the British soldier carried in his hand a weapon which he was scarcely able to carry, or to use properly when its use was required. He (Mr. F. Maule) would say, as far as he was acquainted with the Army, and the weapons in the use of our soldiery at present, that there could not be a better description of arms than those now in use, in all the inventions that might be discovered. He wished to call the attention of the Government to one point. He had to express his earnest hope that they would not be led away by new inventions, nor attempt to reorganise a new system of weapons throughout the whole Army, because he felt persuaded that newfangled inventions, if carried out in our Army, would only cause reverses instead of the glorious successes which had hitherto attended our conflicts. He had no objection to see particular companies or detachments—sharpshooters, for instance, who might be sent out to skirmish in front of the main body—provided with the weapons spoken of, but he did decidedly object to the whole body of our soldiery being supplied with Minié muskets—an arrangement which would occasion very great expense—an arrangement by which we should throw away money, and only render our Army less efficient. Something had been said about the small quantity of ammunition supplied to our troops for the purpose of ball practice; but the hon. Gentleman with whom those objections originated did not consider the difficulty there was in procuring ground in the vicinity of barracks in populous towns for the purpose of practice. It was difficult enough to obtain ground for ball practice, even at a distance of 100 yards, but it would be much more difficult to find ground, more especially in the neighbourhood of our populous towns, where barracks were often most needed, where the troops could fire at a target 800 or 1,000 yards distant. It would be a great boon, no doubt, if such places were provided, but he felt certain the Government would devote its attention to the subject; and in the meantime he must express an earnest hope that the Government would not be carried away by gentlemen who wrote letters in newspapers without signing their names, and who found a delight in crying down the efficiency of our Army. He believed that ample testimony had been borne to the efficiency of our forces by the present and by the late Government; and his own belief was, that the British Army had never been in a more complete state than at present—never was better able to take the field, if necessity arose.

said, that the Master General of the Ordnance was prepared to adopt any improvement that might be deemed advisable, and was of opinion, like his right hon. Friend. (Mr. F. Maule), that it was not expedient to reorganise the whole Army in the manner some deemed advisable, but only particular portions of it. He entirely agreed with his right hon. Friend as to the difficulty of obtaining places near barracks for ball-practice; but the attention of the Master General was directed to the subject, which would not be lost sight of.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the state of the public works in the Channel Islands, and he would recommend the Government to send some competent person there who would make a survey of the fortifications which were now in progress in Jersey and Alderney. Two hundred thousand pounds had been already expended there, and he believed without any use whatever. They had been commenced in a panic, and ralshly and hastily decided upon. He believed these works would give no security whatever to the Channel. In his opinion they were only throwing thousands into the sea. He had also to complain that a sum of 45,000l. had been expended at Portsmouth, on the authority of the Secretary of State, but not authorised by Parliament.

said, he would make inquiry into the subject.

observed that the works at Portsmouth to which the hon. Member for Montrose had referred, were commenced on the express recommendation of the Committee on Ordnance Estimates, and every item contained in the Estimate was in strict accordance with the suggestions of that Committee. All questions respecting the defence of the country must of necessity be decided upon by the Government, who were the responsible parties. The Government had thought it expedient that there should be certain fortifications erected in the Channel Islands, and he felt sure that the Committee would unanimously agree in the adoption of a measure which had received due consideration.

said, that the objection which he took was on a point of principle. The Committee on Ordnance Estimates had recommended that whenever any expense should be incurred, the authority of the Secretary of State should be given; but he objected to any Secretary of State commencing fortifications without the previous authority of Parliament, except in cases of emergency.

explained that if necessity for any work was shown to exist, it was usual to lay a plan before the Government, and if the Government approved of the work, the sanction of the Secretary of State was given simply as an official matter. The plan was then put in the Estimates, and submitted to the consideration of the House of Commons, which, if it thought fit, might refuse a grant for the work.

said, that the Vote was framed in strict accordance with a recommendation of a Committee of that House, to the effect that before any new work or fortification should be inserted in the Estimates, a written order of the Secretary of State should be obtained. All that had been done in the present case was this—before the Estimate was submitted to Parliament, the sanction of the Secretary of State had been given to the proposal of that Estimate, but not to its adoption. It remained for the Committee to pass the Estimate if it thought proper.

said, he must express a hope that the scientific branch of the Ordnance Department would receive the special attention of the Government during the present year. He begged particularly to point out to them the large expenses attendant on the British surveys, and the small results hitherto obtained. Nearly 1,500,000l. had been expended on the survey of Great Britain, and only ninety sheets had been published of the Government survey, five years having elapsed since a single sheet had been published. A large portion of the northern part of England still remained unpublished. He observed that engineers, and sappers and miners were the only officers of the Army employed on the survey; but in every other country of Europe officers in every department of the Army were employed in this way. The work would be facilitated, and a saving of expense would be effected, if all classes of officers were employed in the survey. It was important, in a military point of view, that soldiers should have a good knowledge of a country, and should be able to take military surveys, and he would therefore suggest that officers and students in the military colleges should be employed in the survey of Great Britain.

trusted that the one-inch Ordnance map for Ireland would be shortly published.

wished to know if it was intended to abandon the six-inch scale for the Scotch survey, as recommended in the report of the Committee of last year?

said, that Ireland had been completed on the six-inch scale, which was now in progress of reduction to one-inch for geological purposes. In the British service it was only a particular corps of the Army which had to perform these surveys; but with regard to any measures for improving the scientific education of the officers of the Army generally, he should be happy to give them his support. With respect to the Ordnance survey in Scotland, the four counties had been surveyed on the six-inch scale, but the remainder of Scotland would be finished on a reduced scale. The sum of 15,000l. a year, hitherto voted for the survey in Scotland, had been increased this year to 25,000l., with the view of enabling the survey to be completed in ten years.

said, this discussion only showed the difficulty of pleasing all parties with respect to the Ordnance surreys. He had had an opportunity, from his late official position, of forming a judgment on this question, and he must on that occasion enter his protest against the principle of changing the original scales as proposed by the Committee which sat on the survey for Scotland last Session, because he felt perfectly certain that in ten years hence, after the whole survey had been completed on the one-inch scale, they would have the people of Scotland coming forward to ask for a six-inch survey; and it would be much easier to reduce a six-inch map to a one-inch scale, than it would be to raise a one-inch map to a six-inch scale.

said, that the Committee which sat on the Ordnance survey of Scotland last Session went carefully into the whole subject, and examined a number of scientific men, among whom were the names of Mr. Brunel, Mr. Stephenson, and Mr. Locke, who all gave it as their opinion that a six-inch scale would be practically worthless, and that if the country wished to have a map that would be useful, the scale must be reduced to one-inch. A six-inch map would be too large for general purposes, and too small for the requirements of the proprietors of estates. Besides, the adoption of the one-inch instead of the six-inch scale for Scotland, would effect a saving to the country of 500,000l.

said, he had every respect for the opinion of the scientific names quoted by the hon. Gentleman; but the evidence of Mr. Griffiths, who had perhaps had more practical experience of this subject than any other man, was in favour of the six-inch scale. This only showed the danger of altering the system that had hitherto been followed.

was willing to admit that the facility of reducing a six-inch scale to one-inch was greater than in extending a one-inch scale to a six-inch.

said, that having been a Member of the Committee which sat on the survey for Scotland, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charteris). The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence taken by the Committee was in favour of the one-inch scale; and the hon. and gallant Member (General Anson) stood alone in his support of the six-inch scale. The reduced scale was not only recommended by the consideration of its economy, but it afforded the prospect of a completion of the survey in ten years, instead of which, if the six-inch scale were adhered to, they could not hope to see it finished in less than half a century hence. The survey had hitherto been proceeded with in a very desultory manner, Wigtonshire, Kirkcudbrightshire, Edinburghshire, and the island of Lewis, having been taken after each other, instead of the counties being taken in their regular order. The people of Scotland were anxious to see the survey conducted in the different districts in proper succession, and to have the whole rapidly completed.

hoped that, if practicable, the price of the Ordnance maps would be still further reduced at once for the convenience of the public, and for the benefit of the revenue. The reduction which had already taken place in their price had been attended with a considerable increase in the sale. It seemed quite clear that the remainder of the survey ought to be executed on the one-inch scale.

said, he had his own opinion—and that a very strong one—as to the scale which ought to be adopted; but he would not state that opinion on the present occasion. It had been said that the six-inch scale was found very conve- nient for the proprietors in Ireland; but it must be remembered that the original design of the survey was not the exclusive benefit of the local proprietors; and he believed it had cost nearly 1,000,000l. sterling. With regard to the order in which the survey had been taken in Scotland, the Government intended that it should be proceeded with in a more regular manner hereafter.

was sure the people of Scotland would be perfectly satisfied with the announcement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dunne) as to the future prosecution of the survey. He should like to know what was the reason that the six-inch scale had ever been adopted? Mr. Griffiths originally proposed that the six-inch scale should be adopted for Ireland, because he thought the one-inch scale would not answer for that country; and the consequence was that the six-inch scale was not only introduced into Ireland, but the one-inch scale, which previously existed for the other parts of the United Kingdom, was changed, in order to assimilate it to the scale adopted in Ireland. But it should be remembered that the design of the survey in Ireland was to facilitate Mr. Griffiths' town-land valuation; whereas in Scotland these maps were not wanted for valuation purposes, but for general purposes. Besides, a very large proportion of the surface of Scotland was mountainous, and it was obvious that in such a country a map on a six-inch scale was totally unnecessary.

said, that in no department had greater reductions been effected than in the Commissariat, the Vote for which last year amounted to 514,442l. while the Votes for the present year only amounted to 481,201l., making a reduction of 33,241l. There were two exceptional cases, however, in the Estimates this year, where there had been an increase, namely, with reference to the Cape of Good Hope, and Western Australia. With regard to the Cape, 49,776l. had been applied for and had become necessary, as an increase caused obviously by the recent peculiar circumstances of that colony; and with respect to the Vote for Western Australia, an item of 6,276l. arose from the establishment of a convict depôt there.

said, that he wished to know at what rate of interest the Exchequer bills were to be issued. He believed that these securities at present bore too high a rate of interest, considering the value of money in the market, and indeed that the interest should have been reduced on the occasion of the last issue, by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, that the rate proposed was 1½d. per day, which was the rate adopted by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which he believed was the lowest rate they had borne for more than a century.

said, that money was never known to be procurable at so low a rate as at present; and he was sure that if these bills were issued at 1d. a day, which would give an interest of 1l. 10s. 5d. per cent, they might be circulated to the full extent which the Government desired. He did not see why Government should not obtain the full advantage of the present abundance of money.

said, that he quite agreed in the opinion that Government should obtain money at as low a rate as they could; but at the same time he did not think that the rate of interest on Exchequer bills should vary according to the variations of the value of money in the market, because the greatest possible inconvenience would arise from these fluctuations. Nothing could be more inconvenient than to have Exchequer bills at a discount, or even at par. He thought the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly right in not reducing the rate of interest on Exchequer bills at the time referred to by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), because, although the money market had certainly been easier since, and it had turned out that he would have been right in lowering the rate of interest, still the operation would at the time have been attended with considerable risk, which he thought the Government were quite right in not running. The rate of interest on an Exchequer bill, which was issued for twelve months, could not be compared with that on a bill of exchange, which had only sixty or ninety days to run. It might be convenient to a capitalist to advance money on the latter class of securities but not on the former, because he might want his money within a limited period. He thought it was, therefore, wise in the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to run the risk of having Exchequer bills pressed on him, or having a great amount of revenue paid in them, perhaps at a time when there was no great sum in the Exchequer. It was a great point not to allow the public securities to sink below par. Money, indeed, was now at a low value, and was likely to remain so, for there were large masses of it in the City of London for which there was no employment.

wished to know that if money was so low, why should not the nation benefit by the circumstance? Exchequer bills were now at a premium of 70s., and he contended that the country should not continue to borrow money at a rate of interest at which these securities actually bore a premium amounting to a year and a quarter's interest.

said, that such was the abundance of money that it was with the greatest difficulty that large capitalists could get 2 per cent for it, and the smaller capitalists had hardly a chance of getting any investment at all, in consequence of the existence of laws which prevented capital seeking investment in our own country.

would suggest that, considering the importance of the subject, the discussion upon it should be postponed to a subsequent stage.

said, he would allow the Resolution to pass, but he should again call attention to the subject upon the bringing up of the Report.

said, that he rose for the purpose of moving that this Bill be read a second time that day six months. This was a Bill to enable the Crown to carry into effect in the British ports certain arrangements made with foreign Powers, for the reciprocal extradition of seamen deserting from the ships of such Powers. It would be in the recollection of the House that a few years ago considerable sensation was caused in this country by the circumstance of some Poles, who had been unwillingly pressed into the service, deserting from a ship belonging to the Czar of Russia, which was lying in Southampton water. An attempt was made by the officers of the ship to induce the English authorities to give up these men, but the law was too strong for them, and they were sheltered from pursuit. But it now appeared that arrangements had been made—for anything he knew with the Czar of Russia—which, if Parliament authorised them to be carried into effect, would for ever deprive such persons of protection on the like occasions. The purport of the Bill was, that upon any such contingency occurring again, as that to which he had just referred, every justice of the peace, under some Order in Council to be published on the subject, not only might, but should, aid in recovering foreign deserters, and in apprehending those persons and sending them on board; in other words, consign to what, he had no hesitation in saying, would be certain death. If any such "arrangement" had been made with any foreign Power, he could only say it was eminently disgraceful to those who had made it, and he trusted that Parliament would be careful not only to avoid the disgrace of sanctioning it, but to punish the authors. He wished to know who was the Minister that made it, and upon whose application it was made, and upon what inducement? He wished to know who were the "certain" Powers referred to? Did they include the autocrat of Russia, the tyrant of Austria, or the usurper of Prance? On these points Parliament were left quite in the dark, and all they were told was, that these Powers had bound themselves by similar stipulations to surrender deserters from our service. But there was no parity between the two cases. An English deserter was restored to a jurisdiction which was regulated by law; of that law he would have the benefit, and by it alone he would be punished. But, on the other hand, in the cases of these foreign Powers, there was no security that these unfortunate persons would have a fair trial in the countries from which they had fled. What could we think of Austrian courts martial, when we were told by the Austrian Government itself that it was a point of honour in the Austrian army for an officer at the head of a regiment under arms to cut down an unarmed English gentleman in the face of day? It was such miscreants as these who would constitute the courts martial for the trial of those persons who would be declared culprits by this Bill. It could not he said that this Bill was only intended to extend to deserters from merchant ships, for it was only the second clause that referred to the laws now in force for the prevention of desertion from merchant ships. But the first clause armed magistrates with the same power over deserters from all ships belonging to a foreign Power as they had now in the case of British seamen deserting from British merchant ships. For the first clause provided that—

"Whenever it is made to appear to Her Majesty that due facilities are or will be given for recovering and apprehending seamen who desert from British ships in the territories of any foreign Power, Her Majesty may, by Order in Council stating that such facilities are or will he given, declare that seamen who desert from ships belonging to such Power, or to a subject of such Power, when within Her Majesty's dominions or the territories of the East India Company, shall be liable to be apprehended and carried on board their respective ships, and may limit the operations of such order, and may render the operation thereof subject to such conditions and qualifications, if any, as may be deemed expedient."

If this was the fruit of any changes which had taken place in the Foreign department of the Government during the past month, or in the month of January last, he thought the country had cause to regret them. If England was to make herself the gaoler of the Holy Alliance, not to immure a Napoleon (he wished that we had him now in durance—the Little not the Great), but for the oppression of the unfortunate and the innocent, the day of England's dishonour was drawing nigh indeed, and the sooner we receded from the position we had hitherto occupied at the head of the first-rate Powers of Europe, the better for the happiness and liberty of the world. He was sorry that any extradition treaties had ever been concluded; their necessity had never been proved, and he was quite sure they were unconstitutional. But this Bill would go far beyond those treaties; for it was now proposed to punish not merely desertion of a scandalous character, but to mate desertion per se criminal, and then to punish it. An, arrangement had no doubt been made with Portugal some time ago to prevent desertion from merchant ships and from vessels belonging to Portugal, not upon the British soil, but to the British service; and it was provided that if a foreign sailor deserted the service of the Power whose subject he was, and entered our service, our Government should be bound, on the fact being notified to them, to cause such deserter to be discharged from the service, but not to be given up. But that was all. It was no precedent for this Bill, nor could any precedent in fact be found to justify it. Upon all former occasions of a similar character to the present, it had been usual to specify the conditions and terms of the arrangements which had been entered into, and, above all, to specify with what foreign Powers they had been concluded, that we might know whether they were constitutional or absolutist, whether they were Powers whose performance of their stipulations might be relied upon, or Powers with whom it consisted with the dignity and independence of the country to treat upon such a matter. On the whole he asked the House to agree to his Amendment.

in seconding the Amendment, said, that the Bill appeared to him open to very grave objections, although, he confessed, it was plausible enough, and might recommend itself on the first blush to many hon. Members; because this being a nation which depended in a great degree on commerce, and whose ships went to all parts of the world, it was desirable that the sailors belonging to them should not he allowed to violate their contracts, and desert from the service of their employers, and it was convenient that there should be ready means of forcing them to return to their engagements, or to be punished if they did not. If the Bill simply referred to sailors in the merchant service, he did not know that there would be any objection to it. But he concurred with his hon. and learned Friend (M. C. Anstey), that we ought to look with jealousy at all treaties which were in the nature of treaties for the purpose of extradition. This Bill sanctioned a proceeding similar to extradition. Nor thing could be more proper than that criminals should be given up by different countries in whose territories they took refuge, provided that their laws were all the same, and as just as the laws of this country, and if there was no greater danger of injustice and abuse than here. But inasmuch as this was not the case, and there was a great danger of injustice, and greater probability that lives would be taken away in other countries than in this, we ought to look with jealousy at all treaties of that description, and if they were agreed to, it should only be in a case of the greatest necessity. He distinctly said he did not see such a necessity in the present instance, and he did see the danger that if this Bill became law in its present shape, great injustice might be perpetrated, and that House and the Government would, in point of fact, be made the tools of foreign despotism. Did they mean to do that? and were the sympathies of the present Government with the despotic Powers of Europe? Such was the general supposition, which he hoped was an untruth and a calumny; but the introduction of a Bill of this kind was very likely to confirm that impression. In the case of merchant ships there was no great objection to a measure of this nature; but there was the greatest possible objection in applying it to ships of war, although if the navies of other countries were manned as ours now were—and he was sure always would be—by voluntary enlistment, the Bill might be less objectionable. But were hon. Gentlemen aware of the mode in which the navies of some countries were manned? In despotic countries men were compelled to enter the service, whether they would or no, and were forced to become sailors by way of punishment. In Russia it happened that, when persons were obnoxious to the Government, they were compelled to perform military service, into which they were entered by force, and not voluntarily; and they were frequently compelled to serve in the navy, because the duties were more severe, and because it was more disagreeable and the hardships greater. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Anstey) had referred to the case of some persons in the service of Russia which had occurred some years ago. He (Lord D. Stuart) was familiar with the case, which he would describe. In 1842 a Russian man-of-war, bound from the Baltic to Kamschatka, was driven by stress of weather into Portsmouth. There happened to be on board of her a certain number of Poles, who had taken part in the war in Poland, and, being obnoxious to the Russian Government, had been compelled to enter the navy. When the ship's company came on shore, they came too; and meeting some Polish refugees who were located at Portsmouth, heard for the first time that they were not, as in their ignorance they supposed, at Kamschatka, but in England, a free country; and they were told there was no reason why they should go on board again, and were advised not to do so. On their refusal to return, the Russian officers demanded them, and wished to force them on hoard; but, according to our laws, no such thing could be done, and if they had been seized, a "habeas corpus" would have been moved for. The Russians, therefore, abandoned the attempt to get the poor men into their clutches, they did not go back into the Russian service, but had remained in this country ever since, and were now employed in some factories in Birmingham. If such a Bill as this had been then in existence, these men would have been claimed, and the magistrates would have been compelled to assist in their apprehension, and they would have been given up. Let not that House or the Government make themselves the tools of despotic Powers, or lend them the assistance of our laws to enforce their tyrannical measures. If this Bill was passed, the Government would do that, and although they would conciliate their friends (if they were so) the despots, they would not conciliate the opinion of the people of this country, or raise themselves in public estimation. It was said by the Government, which had confessed itself to be in a minority in that House, over and over again, that there was an understanding that they would not insist on carrying measures which were not necessary to the business of the country. He did not think this could be called such a necessary measure. Things had gone on for many years without the Government requiring such powers; and was it necessary, just before a dissolution, to occupy the time of the House with a measure of this kind? Surely it could wait. They might be told that this was not exactly the measure of the present Government, and that the plan was prepared by their predecessors. If they were told that, he should take leave to doubt whether the late Government did intend to bring forward precisely such a Bill as this, although they might have contemplated a Bill something like it. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Anstey) had adverted to a measure which had a similar object, which was a treaty with Portugal, sanctioned by that House, with regard to the delivering up of deserters. He had that treaty now before him, but it was not like the Bill before the House. It was not a question with regard to giving powers to the Queen in Council, but it was a special treaty for a particular purpose. He believed it had been felt by former Governments to be inconvenient to come down to the House to sanction a special treaty in every case, and they thought it best to have a Bill giving power to effect the required object by the Queen in Council. The treaty in question referred entirely to sailors in the merchant service, and not to those employed in men of war. It could not be construed otherwise, because it contained two sections, one of which applied to ships of war, and stipulated that this country and Portugal should neither of them receive into their service sailors from the men-of-war of each country. Then, with regard to sailors in the merchant service, there was a stipulation that, in the case of apprentices or sailors who should desert from their ships, being subjects of either of the contrating parties, while on the territory of either, the magistrates of that country should render every assistance in their apprehension, on application being made by the consul. This only applied to the sailors of merchant ships; and he had hoped that this course would have been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and that it was not the intention of the Government to make any stipulation with regard to the apprehension of sailors on board a man-of-war; and he (Lord D. Stuart) yet trusted that they would take them out of the operation of the Bill. He was sure that there would be many cases if this Bill was agreed to, in which great cruelty would be practised, and that House would be a party to it. He had adverted to the case of the Poles in the Russian service, because what had there happened might happen again. But that was not the only case. Even so lately as last year a sailor from on board a Turkish man-of-war took refuge in Haslar Hospital, and was claimed by his officers; but, as he (Lord D. Stuart) was informed, he was not given up, as if he had he would have been put to death. If this Bill had then existed without any alteration as it now stood, that man must have been given up. If this Bill passed the House, the Government would be only making themselves the humble servants of foreign Powers—and doing their dirty work. He hoped that would never be, and that he should hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that it would not be. If not, he should by every means in his power support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he had no intention of following the example set by the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey) in deprecating delay, and charging Gentlemen on his side of the House with delaying the public business, and yet making speeches which brought in every subject, from Kamschatka to Poland, and which had nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. It was his duty to tell the noble Lord, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this Bill was prepared by the late Government. There had been a general complaint from the owners of merchant ships of the inconvenience attendant on the desertion of seamen in foreign ports. There had been constant communications made by the shipping office of the Board of Trade on the subject. There was no power or means by which seamen in foreign ports could be got back to their ships, and this country could not ask foreign countries to give their assistance in the matter unless similar aid was afforded to them in this country. All that had been said by the noble Lord of the inconvenience and injustice of compelling men, who had once set their foot on the shores of this country, to go back to their own ships, seemed to apply as much to merchant seamen as to those on board of men of war. If the House, however, thought it advisable, the Bill might be made applicable to merchant seamen only, although he thought that the ships in Her Majesty's service would thereby lose a great advantage. [Lord D. STUART: In the one case there is no bargain.] There was no bargain, but still it was desirable to assimilate the two cases. If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it desirable to deprive Her Majesty of the advantage of getting back seamen who had deserted from Queen's ships, let them pursue their object. The Board over which he had the honour to preside, had only to take care of the merchant seamen; but the officers of Her Majesty's service had made great complaints of the difficulties of reclaiming those men who had deserted in foreign ports; and as our ships, which visited foreign ports, were about one hundred to one as compared with those which came here from other countries, the balance of inconvenience would not be against us. As far as he was concerned, he had no objection to make to the alteration proposed. The only addition he had made to the Bill, was a provision by which he took care that the men were not apprehended, except on information or oath, and not, as was provided by the Portuguese treaty, merely on the request of the Consul. If the House, when in Committee on the Bill, chose to make its provisions particular and not general, he should not object; but he thought it would be better to give Her Majesty's ships the same advantage as that which would be enjoyed by merchant vessels. As to the declarations about liberty which had been made use of, he thought they might just as well have been spared on the present occasion, and he believed that often those who were loudest in such protestations were not always the most sincere.

thought that very much of what had been said might have been avoided, if the course had been followed in this instance which was usual in all cases where a Bill was founded upon arrangements made with foreign Governments. The preamble of the Bill distinctly set forth certain arrangements concluded with foreign Powers and this country; and the proper course was to have laid these arrangements on the table of the House. He understood that neither the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey), nor the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart), objected to powers compelling seamen to go back and fulfil the contract which they had entered into, and therefore the Bill was very properly made applicable to the mercantile marine. But if words were put into it which would apply to Russian ships of war, for instance, on board of which the men were put by compulsion, he did not see how, in case a vessel from Martinique were to put into a British port with a cargo of slaves on board, if these should escape, the British Government could avoid sending them back again into slavery. He warned them against the effect this measure might produce upon the character of this country, upon which Earl Granville when in office had so ably taken his stand, and of which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) boasted as affording security and protection and hospitality to all who sought an asylum on our shores. He was quite satisfied the object of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could be secured without the objectionable words referred to, and hoped he would give his attention to making the necessary change when the Bill went into Committee. He would not on that ground oppose the second reading.

could not agree with the last speaker that this Bill would be harmless if confined to merchant seamen. He believed there was not so unprotected an animal as a merchant seamen on the face of the earth, or of the waters under the earth. He might be cut in pieces by the captain, and have his remedy afterwards; and if the captain was not in the way, he might be cut in pieces by the mate. Hon. Members knew he was referring to distinct cases, proved before the courts. A merchant seaman did not desert in a foreign port, except under the pressure of ill treament; because he left his wages. The pith of the objection to the measure lay in the fact that it related to merchant seamen. He had great doubts whether the third clause of the Bill, imposing penalties on those who harboured deserters from foreign ships of war, would be obeyed in England. Suppose the occurrence of any of the cases which had been put by the noble seconder. He was sure he would not obey it himself; he would pay the 10l. fine over and over till somebody was tired of exacting it. History would show, it was a fearful spirit that was evoked, when laws were made which put obedience into opposition with the private honour and sense of duty of individuals. Things wore going badly with us when an extradition treaty was proposed to this country, as if we were Switzerland, or Belgium, or Piedmont. He feared the Government was in league with the proposers; and the people of England would only have themselves to blame, if at the approaching period when they would have the power in their own hands, they did not take order for amending it.

said, he should be sorry if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose should labour under any mistake on the subject of this Bill. The present stage was the second reading, and the point which had been pressed could not be considered till another stage of the Bill. He feared the hon. Gentleman had misconceived what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. All that the Government could do would be to consider the point. The alteration proposed would throw difficulties in the way of the object which the Bill was intended to accomplish. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, and the other Gentlemen who had taken part in the discussion, had mistaken the origin of the Bill. It originated not in the wish or from the dictation of any foreign Power, but from a necessity which had been felt by the Government, by the English Government, with regard to the accomplishment of English purposes; and in order to that accomplishment it was necessary to offer such terms to foreign Powers as would enable them to effect the desired object. There had been no treaties of this description except that with Portugal; and, as regarded all other countries, the Government must act by means of legislation; and if the Bill was limited to merchant seamen, great difficulties would be thrown in the way of the object they wished to attain. He wished it to be understood that the Government were very ready to consider the point, but he did not pledge himself to adopt the alteration. This was not the stage for making any alteration in the Bill, and the question must be considered more widely than it had hitherto been, for, by limiting the Bill, the object of the Government would be defeated.

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not unnaturally, as he was newly in office, had misconceived the circumstances out of which the Bill had arisen. The right hon. Gentleman inferred that the Bill only carried out the intentions of the late Government, and which were entertained when he (Lord Palmerston) was in office. The circumstances were these: The late Government received an application in November from the Swedish Government, asking them to conclude a treaty containing several provisions with regard to the surrender of seamen, and with the same stipulations as those of the treaty with Portugal of 1842. The treaty with Portugal provided that each of the two contracting parties should agree not to retain in the service of the State deserters from the ships of war of the other party, but that they should be discharged. There was, however, no engagement to surrender them. The treaty further stipulated that the magistrates and consuls of either country should give every facility to the apprehension of deserters from merchant vessels who were subjects of either Power. This was the sort of engagement that the Swedish Government wished to enter into with regard to Sweden. His right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade thought, and he concurred with him, that it would be better, instead of entering into formal treaties which involved matters Of delay; to ascertain if similar engagements would be convenient to other Powers as well as Sweden, and if it was found to be convenient to them, that it would be better to propose to Parliament a Bill giving power to the Crown, or rather to the Queen in Council, to enter into the same kind of treaties with other Powers as had been contracted with Portugal. He (Viscount Palmerston) acquiesced in that view, and it was the intention of the late Government to prepare a Bill to that effect, and he presumed that this was the Bill which had been prepared by the late President of the Board of Trade in conformity with that intention. To that extent a legislative enactment would be expedient. The addition seemed to be an inadvertence, and undoubtedly this Bill went beyond the intentions to which he at least was a party, and he would, therefore, venture to submit to Her Majesty's Government that it would be advisable, when the House was in Committee on this Bill, so to alter the provisions of the Bill as to make it identical with the stipulations in the treaty with Portugal. That would not be an arrangement for the mutual surrender of deserters from ships of war, but simply an engagement not to retain them in the service of either State; and in regard to deserters from merchant vessels, it would be simply, not a surrender of them, because that would be difficult in point of execution, but an arrangement that the magistrates should give every facility to the Consuls of other countries for the purpose of apprehending them. A case had happened last summer in regard to a deserter from a foreign ship of war, which, had this Bill been the law, and had we been under an engagement, founded upon this Bill, with the State to which that ship of war belonged, would have placed us in a very disagreeable and embarrassing position. A Turkish frigate came into Portsmouth, and remained there for some time. One of the persons attached to that frigate, in consequence of a dispute with the captain and other officers, and being liable to severe punishment, escaped from the ship and got into the streets of Portsmouth. He made good his escape, but afterwards, in consequence of illness, he was sent to Haslar Hospital. It would have been exceedingly unpleasant to us in that case, had we been obliged to deliver up that person to the Turkish frigate; for that individual did not conceal his apprehension, that if delivered up, he would be taken to Constantinople, and that in fact his life would be sacrificed. It would therefore be painful to be under the necessity of delivering up such persons to other States; and he thought the commercial purposes would be sufficiently accomplished by the stipulations contained in the treaty of 1842 with Portugal, and therefore he recommended the Government to reconsider this Bill, and to adopt the alterations suggested in Committee. But there were no reasons why the second reading should be postponed. The second reading was necessary in order to get into Committee, and he hoped that the House would adopt the second reading without a division.

thought the discussion ought to have been conducted without launching those harsh and severe invectives against foreign and friendly Powers which had characterised some speeches that night. Such language did not strengthen us with Foreign Powers; and the silence with which it had been received showed that it obtained no approbation in that House. He should be ready to support the real interests of liberty as stanchly as any one else; but it was derogatory to Parliament to suffer such unnecessary invectives against rulers in amity with this country. With regard to the Bill, if the Government had gone beyond the point required, it was probably from the instructions not having been sufficiently defined; he trusted that with the assistance of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), the commercial interests of the country, and the cause of freedom, and the maritime police of the country, would be sufficiently guarded.

would give no opinion as to whether or not it was expedient to apply this Bill to ships of War; but he could positively assure the House that some such measure was absolutely necessary to the mercantile marine of this country. We had gone on long enough, certainly, without this Bill; and it might be said that we could get on still very well without it. But of late years new circumstances had arisen rendering such a measure indispensable. For instance, British ships going to San Francisco might lose their crews, and could have no means of regaining them; and might, therefore, be laid up for months, while foreign ships would take their cargoes for China and the East Indies, and continue their trade. Then the new mercantile marine laws required that on a ship sailing the captain should sign an agreement with each seaman, which agreement could be anywhere enforced. Why was there not to be a mutuality in such agreements? This Bill was to give to the shipowner the protection already granted to seamen.

considered that the Bill ought to be read a second time, but he thought there was a good ground of objection to the form of the Bill as stated by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). The preamble ought to have set forth the nature of the arrangements on which the Bill was founded. He would have first stated the treaty with Portugal on which that Bill was founded, then he would have inserted an enactment to enable Her Majesty to carry that treaty into effect, and then another enactment giving power to enter into treaties of a similar nature with other Powers. He thought that ought to have been the form of the Bill, and then they would have seen how it was to be carried out. The measure, he admitted, was of great importance to our mercantile marine, and he hoped it would be read a second time, reserving the details for the Committee.

would have had no difficulty in voting for the second reading, if it had not been for the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had thrown some doubt on what was the real intention of the Government. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that he meant to withdraw the clause relating to ships of war.

would like to know whether, if this Bill passed in its present shape, and a Brazilian vessel came here with slaves on board, some of whom got on shore, we should not, in accordance with this Bill, be bound to put them on board again?

said, he should vote for the second reading, believing that the Government would not object to that por- tion of the Bill which applied to ships of war being struck out in Committee, or at all events, reserving till then, according to the practice of the House, the objections to that part of the Bill.

would vote for the second reading, and suggest that an endeavour should be made in Committee to assimilate the provisions of the Bill to the Portuguese treaty.

did not think the Government were agreed amongst themselves on the question. As they had not declared their opinion, he considered it was only fair to postpone the second reading.

thought the rational mode to take was to read the Bill a second time, and consider the objections in Committee. He considered it was unreasonable to oppose the second reading because Government would not pledge themselves to make certain alterations.

was understood to say, that the object of the Bill was simply to carry out certain arrangements made with foreign Powers, in reference to deserting seamen. Whatever those arrangements were, it was desirable that they should be fully understood. There was the treaty with Portugal; and there were other arrangements made with Sweden—both being nearly alike. The documents detailing those arrangements might be laid on the table of the House; the treaty being known, need not be produced; and the House would then be in a situation to go into Committee, and to see how far those arrangements could be carried out. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Thornely) appeared to think that in the case of Brazilian slaves deserting from Brazilian ships, and taking refuge on English soil, such persons, under this Bill, would have to be delivered up by the English authorities. But there really was nothing in the Bill applying to such a case. The Bill applied solely to "seamen."

did not see that that was an answer. Slaves sometimes were used to man Brazilian vessels, and such slaves would be "seamen." Now, he wanted this, that when a slave touched British ground he should be free for ever.

thought that there was a distinction. A slave, being a slave, could make no agreement, and was, therefore, not a "seaman" in the sense of being a party to a bargain—the only case to which the Bill applied.

would, of course, vote for the second reading. But he suggested whether it would not be expedient to increase the powers of magistrates under the Bill. It proposed to give them no alternative: they could only deal with a case in one way, by delivering up the deserter. But he thought the magistrate should be empowered to inquire into the causes of desertion—ill treatment sometimes justifying desertion; and in such instances the magistrate might usefully have a discretionary power.

had heard the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) very indistinctly. Had he said that the Bill, in Committee, would be made consonant as with the Portugal treaty; and that the distinction would be made between ships of war and mercantile ships?

was understood to say, that Her Majesty's Government did not wish to do more than carry out the principles of the treaty with Portugal.

said, that, having received that intimation, he would not press the Amendment.

said, he thought that a Bill of this importance should not go into Committee without an explanation being given to the House of its scope and object. Circumstances had occurred which prevented the statement being made in the usual stage or stages of the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General of the late Government, on the night upon which the division took place upon the Local Militia Bill, had introduced the present measure; but feeling that after what had occurred there would be a natural impatience on the part of the House if it were then called, upon to listen to any statement, however clear and interesting, and however important the subject, he merely introduced the Bill, and it was read a first time without any observation being made. The Bill stood for a second reading on that day fortnight; but he (the Attorney General) did not feel that, as it was a Bill introduced by the late Government, it would be becoming in him to take it out of the hands of those who had introduced it, without an invita- tion being given to him for that purpose. But on application being made by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir George Grey), that the present Government should take charge of the Bill, he (the Attorney General) intimated his readiness to do so, and he proposed to postpone the second reading to that day. A suggestion was, however, made, that the Bill had better be read a second time pro formâ, and rather hastily and unguardedly he had adopted that suggestion. He was not aware at the time that the Bill had not been printed, and as the Bill had been read a second time under those circumstances, he owed an apology to the House for having allowed it to go to that stage without a statement of the objects and scope of the Bill being presented to the House. He felt bound to state that the whole origin and merit of this important measure were due to the late Government. Those who had turned their attention to this question—who knew the urgent necessity of a measure of this kind—who were aware of the vast importance of the subject, and the large amount of property that was to be affected by it—who knew the inquiries that had taken place at a vast expense to the country, year after year—the experiments that had been made in legislation, and the failures that had accompanied them—must feel that those who had been able to frame a measure which would accomplish the benefits they believed it was so desirable to attain, and avoid all the objections that had been urged against former measures, certainly were entitled to a large debt of gratitude from the country. Hon. Gentlemen who had turned their attention to this subject would be aware that the Bill dealt with a large amount of property, the annual income of the charities embraced in it being very nearly 1,500,000l.; and amongst those charities there were no less than 21,000 which had incomes of less than 20l. a year, and out of that number there were upwards of 13,000 that had incomes of less than 5l. a year. Now with regard to charities of this description, it was quite obvious that the machinery at present existing was wholly inapplicable to them. The Court of Chancery was the only tribunal which had the control and jurisdiction over charities; and it was impossible for any of those smaller charities to resort to that Court for any purpose whatever without having the whole of their property entirely absorbed. He admitted that with respect to largely endowed charities it was impossible to conceive a tribunal better calculated to carry into effect a system of control and administration than the Court of Chancery; but with respect to the smaller charities, they were really wholly unprotected, and they continued to be so, notwithstanding the repeated suggestions on the subject which had been reported to the House by Commissions which had been issued time after time, and at very considerable expense. In introducing a measure of this kind it was important the House should bear in mind what was the existing state of the law on the subject, and what were the evils which had arisen out of that state of the law, because then they would be better able to appreciate what was the remedy which was proposed to be applied to the grievances that exist. It was extraordinary that upon a subject of this immense importance, the law at the present day should mainly depend upon a statute that was passed so long ago as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "The Statute of Charitable Trusts." Under that statute, the control over all charities was given to the Court of Chancery. That Court had power to issue a Commission to the bishop of a diocese and to other persons, empowering them to summon a jury of the county in which the property belonging to the charity was situate, to inquire into any abuses or malversations of trustees, and upon the inquisition of the jury to make reports for rectifying those abuses or malversations. That order was subject to an appeal to the Court of Chancery, and, in point of fact, all questions with regard to charities ended where they began—in that Court; and the Commissions of the description provided by the Act of Parliament had become practically obsolete, because, in point of fact, they were utterly useless. From that time down to 1786 nothing whatever was done in the way of legislation on the subject. He need hardly advert, by way of exception, to the Act of James I., which merely regulated charities for binding poor boys as apprentices. In the year 1786, the Act commonly called Gilbert's Act was passed, which required the minister, church-wardens, and overseers of every parish to make returns to Parliament of all the charities existing within the parish; and under that Act returns were made of charitable property to the extent annually of 200,000l. or 300,000l. a year. The re- turns were of no great value, except as showing the extent of the charities. They gave no information as to the state of the charities, but they served as an index to different charities, and greatly assisted the Commissioners who were subsequently appointed. In 1812 an Act was passed, through the instrumentality of Sir Samuel Bdihilly—a name always to be mentioned with respect, especially in reference to reforms of the law—the object of which Act was to provide a summary remedy for correcting abuses in charities, by rendering it unnecessary to file an information in the Court of Chancery, and enabling parties to apply by petition. But, as had been well observed by a noble Friend of his, the word "summary" must be interpreted according to the glossary of the Court of Chancery; for although it might be cheaper and more expeditious to proceed by petition rather than by information, it was, with the costly machinery of the Court of Chancery, little adapted to the cases of the poorer charities. In the same year, 1812, another Act Was passed, compelling returns to be made of the different existing charities throughout the country, and the amount of real and personal property belonging to them, and also provision was made in that Act for obtaining a return from charities that might be Created after the Act. After that Act of Parliament, various returns were made as to existing charities, but, with regard to the charities subsequently erected, the Act was in point of fact a dead letter; moreover, it applied only to charities that were charged upon the land. Having given that sketch of the legislation on the subject down to 1812, he had informed the House of the whole state of the law in the year 1816, when a Committee Was first appointed to make inquiries, not into charities in general, but with respect to the state of education of the lower orders of the metropolis. That Committee incidentally mentioned that, beside the abuses they found to exist in the educational charities, great negligence and malversation also existed in the management of other charities. In consequence of that report, in the year 1818 an Act of Parliament was passed, establishing a Commission of Inquiry into the condition of educational charities, which in the year 1819 was enlarged, giving the Commissioners power to extend their inquiries to all charities throughout England and Wales; and there having been in those Acts of 1818 and 1819 a power given to the Commissioners only to certify to the Crown, and to Parliament; in the year 1819 another Act Was passed which empowered the Commissioners, where they saw the interference of the Court of Chancery was necessary, to certify to the Attorney General cases of abuse of trust in which they thought it was necessary he should interfere, and call the parties to account. Those Commissions were renewed from time to tithe by various Acts of Parliament down to the 1st of July, 1834, when the last Act was passed. The Commissioners made no less than 32 reports, which were contained in 37 folio Volumes. Anybody who referred to those reports would find the fullest and most important information with regard to the charities. But it Was very remarkable that so early as the year 1820, in one of the reports of the Commissioners, they pointed out distinctly the absence of any efficient jurisdiction with respect to small charities; and he (the Attorney General) must confess it appeared to him that one could hardly read that Report without a feeling of shame that thirty-two years ago those evils having been distinctly pointed out to the attention of the Legislature as having existed from the very time of the establishment of those charities, such a period should have been allowed to elapse without the application of some effectual remedy. Nothing had been done up to the present moment, and the smaller charities remained precisely in the same state, utterly out of the protection of the law. Now, inasmuch as he knew there would be some opposition made, not to the general principle of the Bill, but requiring some exemptions to be made, he thought it important the House should understand precisely what were the exemptions that were made in the different Acts of Parliament to which he had adverted, between the years 1818 and 1834, When the last Act was passed. There were exemptions introduced into all the Acts in favour of the Universities, Collegiate and Cathedral Churches, some of the public schools, and with regard to charities where there Was a special visitor; but from the year 1818 down to the year 1830 there was no exemption whatever with regard to the great London hospitals or any of the City companies. In 1830 an exemption was introduced in favour of the great London Hospitals; but in the year 1834, in the Act of Parliament that was passed re-establishing the Commission, that exemption which had been allowed to exist for four years, and four years only, was taken away; and if hon. Members would turn to the Act of 5 & 6 Will. IV. they would find no such exemption existing; yet he had been given to understand that such an exemption was to be strongly contended for on the present occasion, notwithstanding he believed that the Withdrawal of that exemption was essential to promote a full investigation. Those great bodies were liable to all the injuries to which other charities were exposed; and he believed considerable benefits had arisen from the inquiries directed to those institutions, and that from the suggestions made to them reforms had taken place that were beneficial. He only used that circumstance in answer to the case that would be made on the part of the great London hospitals, and to show that the Legislature, having originally exempted them, had taken away that exemption, and exposed them to the inquiry that was applicable to all other charities. Independent of those various Commissions, a Committee of the House was appointed in the year 1835 for the purpose of examining and considering the evidence and the reports presented by the Commissioners, and the course that should be adopted to complete the inquiry relative to uninvestigated charities, and to report by what mode charitable funds might be most efficiently, promptly, and economically administered. That Committee made a Report of the greatest importance; and he would, with the permission of the House, read a portion of it, as showing what were the recommendations of that Committee, after careful deliberation on the subject. He would take the last head of the inquiry on which the Committee had reported their opinion, namely—the mode in which charitable funds might be most efficiently, promptly, and economically administered. The Report contained many recommendations of great interest, and when it was considered that the funds amounted to a million and more, it was evident that their proper management was a matter of national concern, and applied to a great extent to the education and comfort of the poor. In that Report the Committee expressed the following opinion:—

"Your Committee are inclined to recommend that the superintendence, and in certain cases the administration, of all property devoted to charitable uses, should be entrusted to a permanent Board of three Commissioners, or some other independent authority, on whom should be imposed the duty of superintendence and control over the administration of all property devoted to charitable uses; that such Board should have Authority to call for, from time to time, and to enforce, a return or an account of the annual funds and property of any charitable institution, and have power to summon before themselves, or other persons specially authorised by them, all parties concerned in the management or administration of any charitable institution or funds; in case of necessity to appoint, and, upon adequate cause clearly established, to remove, trustees; to take care that no sale, mortgage, or exchange of charity property be effected without their concurrence, and that all funds applicable to charitable purposes be invested upon real or Government security. … The Board to be empowered to suggest schemes for the government of all charities, and for the management of all estates and funds belonging to such charities, and to correct any abuses therein, subject to the like concurrence in cases where there are special visitors."

He had considered it important to call the attention of the House to the statements contained in this Report, because the framers of the Bill had adopted the recommendations made by the Committee so long ago as 1835. The House must not Suppose that these Commissions were utterly fruitless. Inquiries were carried on at a large expense to the country, amounting to very near 300,000l.; but the Commissioners, in the course of their labours, recommended certain cases of abuses of trusts to the notice of the Attorney General—he believed there were no less than 386 cases which were so certified by the Commissioners. In a great number of them the Attorney General proceeded against the parties; and the result of those suits—some of them being carried to an ultimate determination—some of them being compromised—some parties having submitted without any suit being instituted at all—the result was, that great benefits were conferred on the charities by means of those proceedings—funds were recovered to the amount of upwards of 600,000l. and schemes were established in respect to grammar and other schools, the income of which amounted to 28,000l. Although the Commission had expired in July, 1837, let it not be considered that nothing had been since done to correct abuses of trusts or the maladministration of charities. The country had not been largely taxed upon the subject, and an erroneous opinion seemed to prevail concerning it. He believed that, with very considerable benefit to a number of charities in the kingdom, the amount of expense to the country had not been more than 1,000l. a year, a great part of which was returned by means of the costs obtained from the parties against whom they had proceeded. But undoubtedly, the Commission having expired in July, 1837, it was a matter of astonishment that this state of things which was described so forcibly in all the Reports of the Commissioners, and in the Report of the Committee, should be allowed to exist, and that no attempt whatever should be made to legislate on the subject from the year 1837 down to the year 1844. In the year 1844 a Bill was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst, then Lord Chancellor, for the purpose of establishing a jurisdiction in cases of small charities. That Bill was read a second time in the House of Lords in that Session, and then was dropped. In the year 1845 a similar Bill was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, read a third time, came down to that House late in the Session, was read a first time, and then dropped. In the year 1846 another Bill was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst. After very considerable discussion, and being exposed to great opposition, the result was, that on the second reading of the Bill it was thrown out by a majority of two in the House of Lords. It was not unimportant that the House should understand the nature of the Bills that had been introduced by Lord Lyndhurst. In these Bills he adopted generally the recommendations of the Committee, as to establishing a Board not merely of advice, assistance, and supervision, but of absolute jurisdiction over charities of a small amount. The charities to which the rule extended were various in the different Bills. In the first Bill the blanks were not filled up; in the second Bill it was proposed to extend its operation to charities under 50l.; and in the third Bill the jurisdiction was enlarged to charities with incomes of not more than 100l. The Commissioners were to be entrusted with large and ample jurisdiction over these charities. They were empowered to make schemes, change trusts, even to alter the destination of the charities, and where in their judgment the intentions of the founder could not be beneficially carried out, they had power to substitute some other objects. Both Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell strongly objected to such arbitrary and despotic powers, as they described them to be, given to a secret and irresponsible tribunal. There were powers, also, in all those Bills of imposing a tax upon the charities, for the purpose of supporting the establishment of the Board. In the first Bill of 1844, the amount proposed, was 3d. in the pound; in the second Bill it was raised to 6d.; and in the third Bill, there being a general jurisdiction, given, in addition to the jurisdiction gives, over the smaller charities, which enabled them to call the larger charities to account, a tax was proposed of 3d. in the pound on the smaller charities, l½d. in the pound, on the larger charities; thus adjusting the, tax in proportion to the benefits which it was anticipated the different descriptions of charities would derive from its establishment. This Bill, however, found no favour with the House of Lords, and the result was what he had stated. A change of Government took place in the year 1846, and Lord Cottenham became Lord Chancellor. Lord Cottenham had unfortunately offered a fierce and resolute opposition to that portion of the Bill of Lord Lyndhurst which provided for the establishment of a Board, and therefore it was, hardly possible for Lord Cottenham, however disposed to legislate on the subject, to introduce any measure of a similar description. That noble and learned Lord introduced Bills on the subject in the years 1847, 1848, and 1849; and a Bill similar to those measures was introduced into that House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Master of the Rolls in the year 1850. These Bills were all of a similar character, and got rid altogether of the Board; but they established a difference between charities of different amounts. Where charities existed with an income of less than 30l., the Judges of the County Courts were empowered to exercise jurisdiction over them; and in those whose incomes were between 30l. and 100l. a Master in Chancery was enabled to do all that in the case of the larger charities the Court of Chancery might do. An appeal was given from the decision of the Master in Chancery; and with respect to appeals from the decision of the Judges of the County Courts, they were only to be permitted with the sanction of the Judges themselves. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) opposed the Bill of 1850, considering that the Judges of the County Courts were not likely to be competent to execute the duties that were imposed on, them; and he more particularly objected that they should have the absolute power, without any check except that which was, afforded by appeal which had been sanctioned by themselves. However, notwithstanding the opposition of his right hon. Friend, and that of the present Vice- Chancellor Turner, the Bill was read a third time. It went up to the House of Lords; but on the 5th of August it was withdrawn. In the mean time a new Commission had been established for the purpose of making inquiry into those cases of charities which had not been certified to the Attorney General. That Commission, he thought, was issued in 1849. They were Commissioners appointed to inquire into those cases which were investigated by and reported upon the Charity Commission, but not certified to the Attorney General, and to report what proceedings, if any, should be taken thereupon. On the 29th June, 1850, that Commission made their first Report, in which they said that in addition to the information communicated in answer to their inquiries, they had received numerous complaints of maladministration, and in other instances their advice had been asked by parties desirous of correcting defects of irregularity; and from those several sources of information it was made evident that the evils and abuses pointed out by former Commissions and Committees of Parliament were still in existence to a very wide extent, and that no sufficient remedy had as yet been provided for their correction. They stated that in order to apply an effectual remedy to those various abuses, it was necessary to create by legislative enactment some public permanent authority, which should be charged with the duty of supervising the administration of those charitable trusts. In the second Report of that same Commission they said they had continued to prosecute their inquiries into charities, and had selected thirteen cases which they recommended to be laid before the Attorney General, in order that he might deal with them in such a manner as he might think necessary; and they repeated, what they had already stated, that some legislative measure was necessary to secure the due administration of charitable trusts, and said that they had, by the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, prepared a Bill for facilitating and better securing the due administration of the charities in England and Wales, which they had submitted to the consideration of the House. Now, the Bill which was so prepared was, in point of fact, the Bill which was now presented to the House. It was brought into the House of Lords in 1851, where it was received with almost unanimous approbation so far as its principles were concerned; there was merely an application on the part of a noble Duke to introduce some exemptions with regard to the great London hospitals, which proposition was negatived. The Bill was read a third time; but it came down to the House of Commons at so late a period of the Session that it shared the fate of all its predecessors: there was no time to pass it; and therefore there was yet no law for the correction of those abuses which were admitted to exist, or to prevent the recurrence of those abuses which had occurred from time to time. He (the Attorney General) feared that he had trespassed too long on the attention of the House in making this detailed statement; but he thought it most important that the House should be fully alive to all the difficulties that surrounded the subject, to the greatness of the interests involved in it, and to the objections which had from time to time been urged, in order that they might be able to appreciate the value of this Bill, and to understand the mode in which those various objections were now met, and, as he trusted the House would consider, completely overcome. The general character of the Bill was this. Adopting the recommendations of the Committee of 1839, and following out the precedent of the Bills of Lord Lyndhurst in 1844, 1845, and 1846, it was proposed to establish a Board which was to consist of five Commissioners, two of whom were to be paid. Whether those two would be sufficient or not would be a matter for the anxious and attentive consideration of the House. A power was proposed to be reserved, supposing the Commissioners to be found insufficient, for the Lord Chancellor to appoint a third paid Commissioner; but his (the Attorney General's) belief was, that when the Board was first established, their labours would he so considerable, to bring matters into train, and to establish a general system applicable to all the charities throughout the kingdom, that it would be found the proposed number of two would be insufficient. He merely threw that out for the consideration of the House. It was a matter of very great importance, because he thought it would not be desirable that this experiment—for such it would be at the first—for want of sufficient strength in those appointed to the duty of carrying it out, should turn out to be a failure. The proposed Board was not to be invested with any jurisdiction over the charities at all. It was to be a Board for the purpose of supervision, of control, and of advice. It was proposed that no suit or proceeding should he instituted with respect to any breach of trust, or to any matter connected with those charities, without the consent of the Commissioners who formed the Board. The object of that, and the effect of it, would he to prevent a number of suits which had unfortunately from time to time been brought, notwithstanding the check and control of the Attorney General, by parties in the character of relators, merely for the purpose of costs; and it was a check which would be infinitely more beneficial in the case of the large charities than that of the smaller ones, for the large charities were the more likely to tempt the cupidity of speculators, since they would have the better chance of obtaining the costs in the event of a decision in their favour. With respect to, charities with an income under 30l., it wag proposed to give jurisdiction to the County Court, or to the District Courts of Bankruptcy; and as to charities with an income between 30l. and 100l., to give jurisdiction to the Masters in Chancery; not, however, compelling the parties, as now, to go with a petition to the Court before they could he sent to the Master, but enabling them simply to carry in a state of facts to the Master, and to have his decision on the matter. There was also a provision, on which he laid great stress, for enabling trustees and persons interested in charities to obtain the advice of the Commissioners of the Board as to their proceedings under the trust: and it was proposed to render those persons who resorted to the Commissioners for their advice safe in acting under it, by giving them an indemnity for their acts, although there might be an ultimate decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction on the subject, and although that Court might decide that the Commissioners had taken an erroneous view of the course that ought to have been adopted. The Commissioners would have power to send questions relating to charities under 30l. a year either to the County Courts or to the District Courts of Bankruptcy; and they had power also, or it was proposed they should have power, to interpose to stay any proceedings which they thought were improperly conducted. At the same time, in order to provide a check against any improper interference on the part of the Commissioners, they were to have no control at all over the Attorney General, and when he thought proper to proceed ex officio no certificate of the Commissioners was to be necessary before any suit could be instituted either in the County Court or the District Court of Bankruptcy, or any proceedings before the Master or before the Lord Chancellor. He (the Attorney General) thought the system which was proposed by the present Bill would obviate some of the objections which had been urged against former measures. In the first place, the Commissioners would be strictly a Board, and would not be a Court. They would have a power to advise, and of directing proceedings to be taken; they would have a power of ordering the Court in which those proceedings were to be instituted, subject of course to the limitations he had already mentioned; and they would also have this power, which might operate as a salutary check on the decisions of the County Court Judges, that if they were dissatisfied they might remove the case from the County Court, and might direct it to be carried before the Master or the Lord Chancellor. Now, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for the University pf Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) would be of opinion that that would remove the objection which he raised in the case of the Bill of 1850, to the absolute and uncontrolled power given to the Judges of the County Courts. There was one part of the Bill on which, from what he had heard, he expected very considerable opposition: he meant that which proposed to tax the charities indiscriminately, from 10l. or upwards, with the amount of 2d. in the pound, providing at the same time that no charity should pay a larger amount than 50l. It had been estimated that that would raise a sum of 8,500l., which would probably be sufficient for the maintenance of the Board of Commissioners and the staff which would he necessary for carrying out the objects, of the Bill. He had heard it said, that with regard to the small charities, this Bill was absolutely essential; they would otherwise have no protection, and that, therefore, it was perfectly right that they should be called on to pay for the great benefits they would derive from this, measure; but with respect to the larger charities, it was said the means which they had to remedy any abuses which might exist—if abuses did exist, which was Stoutly denied—would remain precisely the same, and that, therefore, they derived no advantage from the machinery provided in this Bill. He must confess that this, appeared to him to be a very great misapprehension, and he was sure a little consideration would convince those who were. interested on behalf of those charities, that they would at least derive a benefit from this measure commensurate with the rate it was proposed to impose on them. In the first place, they would find provision was made by which the necessity of resorting to Parliament for Bills to accomplish various objects absolutely necessary under the existing state of the law, would be entirely removed by the measure it was proposed to introduce. He had before him a short time ago a list of the various Private Bills which had been applied for during the present century from 1800 to 1850, and he found there were no less than 135 Private Bills which had been passed for various objects which could not be carried out without the intervention of the Legislature in different charities. The average cost of each of those Private Bills was estimated at 600l., so that there had been no less a sum than 81,000l. spent on them during the last fifty years; and he found that among the Bills which had been applied for, the Hospital of St. Bartholomew bad applied for three, and the Hospital of St. Thomas for three, not to mention others of the great London hospitals. Now, if this Bill only prevented the necessity of their applying at such enormous expense to accomplish objects which were desirable for the purposes of the charity, he should venture to submit to their consideration whether they would not admit that the benefit to them would be very considerable, and whether it would be reasonable to object to the payment of 50l. a year to get rid of what might indeed be a contingency, but which might again happen as it had done before, entailing on them costs to a large amount. Was it nothing to them that there was a Board established to which they might resort in any case of difficulty or doubt as to the extent of their powers, and whether it would be expedient to exercise them? Would it be said that those great bodies were so entirely free from any liability to difficulties of that kind, that this machinery, which was so carefully provided to extend its protection over all the charities throughout the kingdom, should not be applicable to them? This brought him to the exemptions of various kinds which he was aware would be called for by various parties, but the introduction of which, in his opinion, would go far to disable a Bill of this kind. The exemptions at present proposed were these: The Universities, which had been always exempted, cathedral and collegiate churches, the British Museum, and institutions which were supported wholly by voluntary contributions. Now, on former occasions—he thought in some of the Acts establishing the Commission—institutions which were supported principally by charitable contributions were exempted from their operation; and in 1846, upon some application which was made. Lord Lyndhurst proposed to introduce into his Bill a proposition to that effect; on which Lord Cottenham said it would be fatal to the Bill, because every charity, by merely obtaining a small subscription, would immediately remove itself entirely from the operation of the Bill. They had, therefore, endeavoured to avoid any objection of that kind; and it was stated in the exemption clause that where institutions were supported partly by charitable contributions and partly by endowment, that portion of the funds which arose from charitable can tributions should not be liable to the supervision of the Board; but that which depended upon endowment should, like all other endowments, be liable to its supervision. With respect to the exemption of the great London Hospitals from the Bill, he believed such Hospitals were never exempted before except from 1840 to 1844. They were not exempted by Lord Cottenham in the Bill of 1847; they were not exempted in the Bill of 1848, nor in that of 1849. He believed that in 1850 the Master of the Rolls, feeling the importance of passing the Bill then before the House, and that it was essential that some jurisdiction should be established for the administration of the smaller charities, yielded to an application that was made to him, and introduced an alteration into that Bill which he (the Attorney General) thought would be contrary to the principle of the present measure, and which, notwithstanding the pressing appeal that was made in a statement which no doubt was in the hands of most hon. Members, he should feel it his duty most strenuously to resist. He did not know whether it would be necessary for him to enter into a more lengthened detail of the provisions of this most important measure. His object in doing so was, that when they went into Committee hon. Members might be alive to all the details of the Bill, and might be prepared for any objection that might be urged, and for the reasons that would be offered to them in support of its different provisions; and he must confess he did look with considerable anxiety to the re- suit of the investigation to which the Bill would be submitted in its passage through the Committee. Everybody admitted the necessity for legislation; it had been called for repeatedly, and year after year all the objections which existed in the present system had been pointed out in the most forcible language; all the abuses which prevailed had been over and over again brought to the attention of the House; repeatedly had they been asked to interfere for the protection of charities, many of which, he believed, had been annihilated in consequence of there being no protection at all; and if after all the various attempts that had been made, and the failures that had taken place, this measure, which had been prepared with the utmost care with reference to every suggestion that had ever been made on the subject, with regard to the necessities of almost every case, and with respect to the objections which had been at different times urged against various provisions; if, after all that, this measure should fail like its predecessors, he (the Attorney General) should utterly despair of ever being able to carry through Parliament any Bill whatever for the administration of charitable trusts. He must also say that when the urgent necessity for legislation had been admitted year after year, it would be a reproach to the House of Commons if they were to lose this, which he might almost say was the last opportunity that might present itself of passing a measure which tad been framed to meet every case, and to answer almost every objection, and which would undoubtedly be of the utmost benefit to the country.

said, he should certainly give the hon. and learned Attorney General every assistance in his power towards passing the Bill. When it was recollected that the annual revenue of the charities of this country was a million and a half, which, at twenty-six years' purchase, gave a gross value of forty millions, everybody must be impressed with the importance of legislating on proper principles for interests so large. Considering the nature of the property, and the mode of its administration, no one could wonder at the fact, which was beyond contradiction, that the grossest abuses had prevailed in the disposition of the funds of these charities. For the most part, it had been bestowed by donors about to quit the world, for the benefit of poor persons, who had no means of asserting or enforcing their rights; so that there was no wonder that abuses had sprung up. A vast deal of it had been left in trust to municipal corporations, who had abused those trusts in an eminent degree. In many cases, local jobbing had absorbed the charity funds, and diverted them from the channels to which the donors had intended them to flow. Some idea might be formed of the nature and extent of those abuses, when it was known that, since the attention of the Legislature had been directed to the subject, upwards of 650,000l. had been recovered from corporations and individuals who had abused the trust confided in them. The case of the Hospital of St. Cross, at Winchester, was one of the most prominent of the manner in which the munificence of the founder had been abused and made subservient to individual and selfish purposes. That charity, one of the noblest in England—whose income would shortly amount to not less than 10,000l. per annum, and in twenty or thirty years would probably far exceed that amount—was founded by William of Rohan, the brother of King Stephen, and Bishop of Winchester. When William of Wykeham succeeded to the see of Winchester, he found that the Master had abused his trust; and after a lengthened inquiry, the charity was at last put on a proper footing. Five hundred years elapsed, and the same charity was again brought under the notice of the House, and a Commission was appointed to inquire into its affairs; and it then turned out that the son of the late Bishop of Winchester, being then Master of that Hospital, had followed in the steps of his predecessor. He had applied to his own purpose all the fines received on the renewal of leases, the whole had fallen into decay; the recipients of the charity had gone; and it had been made entirely subservient to individual purposes. He was happy to say a suit had been instituted, and, before long, he hoped that that noble institution would be made applicable to the higher order of charity for which it was intended by the institution of the founder. At present all charities were subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, which could only be put in motion by the Attorney General. But with his other occupations, it was impossible for the Attorney General to exercise an effective supervision over all the charities of the empire; all he could do was to cause proceedings to be taken where gross abuses were brought to light, or to allow his name to be used by relators when abuses were alleged to exist. In many instances abuses were not brought to his knowledge, and in others he was induced to sanction suits which turned out to be brought merely to put costs into the pockets of the relators. It was quite clear, therefore, that the existing jurisdiction of the Attorney General was wholly inadequate to meet the evil. Of the charities now existing in England, no less than 18,000 did not exceed 10l. per annum each, their aggregate income being nearly 60,000l. With regard to those, it was clear that an appeal to the Court of Chancery involved an amount of expense which they were utterly unable to bear. The present Bill provided a remedy for this, for it would enable the Commissioners to put the County Courts or the Courts of Bankruptcy in motion, so that the charities might he regulated with an amount of expense not disproportionate to their income. There was another important provision in the Bill, which was, that the Commissioners were to be tribunals in a certain sense, standing between the charities and those interested in them, and the Courts of Law. In many instances, abuses had grown up in consequence of the ignorance of trustees as to the history and affairs of their trusts, or of their powers and duties as trustees. A little guidance would have kept them right; they only required to be advised or warned. The Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill would occupy such a position that they could give proper directions in all matters affecting the charities. The Commissioners would be placed in such a position that they could exercise watchful superintendence and efficient control, while they would not be put in possession of any inquisitorial or arbitrary powers, nor was it intended to invest them with any judicial functions. They would be put in motion where necessary, and repress litigation where it was resorted to for selfish purposes. He believed the provisions of the Bill were calculated to repress abuses, and that, when they became law, they would have the effect of rendering the great charities of the country still more useful and efficient.

felt the disadvantageous position in which he stood in opposing this Bill, which had the advantages of the support of Her Majesty's Attorney General and of the late Attorney General, and who had preceded him in this debate. He was aware of the great amount of property involved, the abuses that existed in certain endowed charities, and the necessity of some more efficient control over them. But there was a wide difference between charitable foundations endowed in former ages, and the management of which was now intrusted to irresponsible individuals, and those which were in great part supported by the contributions of benevolent persons in the present day. He desired to see exceptions made in favour of those institutions which were supported by voluntary subscriptions, or many most useful institutions for the poor would cease to exist. He had no personal interest in opposing this Bill; but he had for many years taken a deep interest in the welfare and management of one of these great institutions. He alluded to Christ's Hospital, an institution deriving an income of 10,000l. a year from the munificence of private individuals, and which was managed by governors now living who had contributed not less than 200,000l. to its funds. Now, he asked whether it was just right under these circumstances that the affairs of Christ's Hospital were to be managed by the governors of the institution, or whether the management was to be taken out of their hands and transferred to the Commissioners under this Bill? In the latter event he felt confident that the revenue, or a great part of the revenue, now enjoyed by the institution, would very shortly disappear. There were 500 governors, every one of whom was summoned from eight to ten times a year to attend the business of the hospital. There was a committee of management, consisting of forty-eight individuals, elected by the governors annually, and there were twelve auditors elected by the subscribers, who audited and published the accounts in extenso, and sent a copy to every governor. With such a government what need could there be for the interference proposed by this Bill? It was not the paltry 50l. a year that Christ's Hospital would contribute to the general fund that he cared about; but the great majority of those benevolent individuals who now took a lively interest in its affairs, would be disgusted at the interference of the Commissioners, and would no longer feel the same interest in the management of the institution. Christ's Hospital clothed, maintained, and educated 1,400 children—the children of poor clergymen with large families, of half-pay officers in Her Majesty's Army and Navy, and the orphans of officers who had fallen in the defence of their country. He denied that any objection was made on the part of the Royal Hospitals to the most searching inquiry by the Commissioners. For more than twelve months they had been employed examining into Christchurch Hospital, and they published their report in 300 folio pages. No cases of bad management, or of abuse of any kind, had ever been urged against Christ's Hospital; and the only recommendation even suggested by the Commissioners was, that the 500l. qualification of governors should be increased to 900l.—a proposition to which he was decidedly opposed, because it would make that great public institution too exclusive. With regard to the other Hospitals—St. Bartholomew's, Bethle'm, and St. Thomas's—they were also managed by committees who met once in the fortnight, and whose proceedings were submitted in every particular to the court of governors, so that they could not appropriate 10l. without its being investigated and sanctioned. These institutions were the pride of the inhabitants of London, and the wonder of foreigners, who were utterly astonished when told that they were supported by voluntary contributions. In the Bills which had been brought forward in 1848, 1849, and 1850, a clause was inserted, excluding from their operation those charitable institutions which were supported by voluntary subscriptions, and the affairs of which were managed by persons elected to the office by the subscribers themselves. If a similar clause were introduced into the present Bill, he would have no objection to it, as he considered that some control was necessary over the small endowed charities where the trustees were self-elected; but he was satisfied that if all charitable institutions were indiscriminately subjected to the provisions of the Bill, it would go far to stop the stream of charity in this country. He thought, at the same time, that the expenses of the Commission, instead of being drawn from charities in the way of a rate, should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He did not see how it could be possible that a great and important measure like this could be properly considered in a Committee of the whole House. In his opinion the Bill ought to be referred to the searching and deliberate inquiry of a Committee upstairs, and he would, therefore, move, as an amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

seconded the Amendment. He did not deny that some legislation was necessary on this subject; but the evil of this Bill was that it would punish those who were unblamed and blameless; for every person who knew anything of the charitable institutions of this country knew that very few gentlemen would be found to work gratuitously as the trustees and managers of the Royal Hospitals, or of the voluntary charitable institutions of this metropolis, if they found not only that their accounts were to be open to the inspection of paid Commissioners, but that these Commissioners would have the power of summoning them at their pleasure, and of inflicting a penalty upon them for non-attendance. How far they might be right in the case of any one receiving pay for his services, it was not necessary to inquire; but here the power was to be exercised over men of the highest character, who rendered gratuitous services in these hospitals, day by day, and hour by hour, in the cause of Christian charity. He had presented a petition the other day from the Committee of the Royal Literary Fund, praying that that institution should be exempt from the operation of the Bill. The ground of exemption they set forth was this—that the Literary Fund was an institution incorporated for the purpose of relieving the distress of literary men, who, from the nature of their minds and occupations, were peculiarly sensitive and susceptible. It was considered a sacred duty on the part of those who administered that Fund not to communicate the name of any person relieved by the society. But if this Bill became law, and were made applicable to that corporation, the recipients of this Fund would have their distress made known as publicly as those who entered the union workhouse. The object which the hon. and learned Gentleman stated he had in view in not granting the exception now asked for was, that he could not otherwise find the means of inquiring into the abuses of the small charities. Was not this punishing the innocent in order to amend the guilty? And though the amount to be raised upon the income of the greater hospitals, for instance, was not to exceed 50l., yet he begged the House to recollect that even this sum excluded two patients annually and permanently from relief in each of these hospitals; and the entire cost of the Commission, as proposed by the Bill, was not so great that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that the Consolidated Fund could not afford it. It should be recollected that all the gentlemen who administered the funds of our great institutions, not only received no salaries, but the majority of them were large contributors to those funds. He thought that it would be better to pay the expense of the inquiry into the management of the funds of our charitable institutions from the Imperial purse, than to attempt to provide against the misconduct of trustees by a process so objectionable as this. If the amount were even double, he did not believe that the veteran economist of that House, who was then not in his place (Mr. Hume), would grudge it when the effect of a refusal would be to dry up the sources of private benevolence; for men would not be found to give their aid and their time to these charities if they were compelled to give an account of their own gratuitous stewardship to paid Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken told the House that living governors contributed the enormous sum of 200,000l. to one of these charities. He knew one governor (the late Mr. Hunt) who had bequeathed a sum of nearly 200,000l. to Guy's Hospital, from his confidence in the administration of that hospital. He had heard also of the case of a governor still living who had given 12,000l., and he knew another who intended to leave 5,000l. to one of the Royal Hospitals, but who had refrained from doing so till he learned whether those institutions were or were not to be exempted from the operation of this measure. The great charities of the metropolis were administered by men who themselves contributed so largely to the funds, that in the case of Christ's Hospital, they might almost be said to administer their own donations. There was no breach of trust charged against these charities; and the measure as proposed by the late Government could very well be carried out without depriving those who administered the charities of London of all personal interest in those great establishments. He hoped, therefore, that they might be exempted, and that they would not interfere with the healthy self-working of these great public institutions. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would reconsider that part of the Bill, and not drive them to the necessity of opposing the Bill in toto, for he admitted the necessity of legislation with regard to the small charities.

regretted he could not concur in the Amendment. His hon. Friend said that Christ's Hospital was managed with great assiduity. He admitted that such was the case now, but was it always the case? [Mr. Alderman THOMPSON: Yes.] He would show that it was not always the case. Not many years since an order was passed by the hoard of governors not to admit any boy whose friends had property exceeding a fixed amount, namely, 300l. The hospital was founded by Edward VI., for the education of the poor children of the City of London; but until comparatively few years ago, the sons of noblemen had been brought up within its walls; and there were many now in the hospital who were the children neither of the poor nor the indigent. He would fully admit the excellence of the present management; but what security had they that that good management would be perpetuated? He had had experience of a great many of the charities of the City of London, and they did certainly not in the aggregate carry out the intentions of the donors; and if Christ's Hospital were exempted from the operation of the Bill, the same indulgence must be extended to many others. The two Royal Hospitals of St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas certainly did an immense amount of good; but he could not forget that not many years ago St. Thomas's and Bridewell Hospitals were greatly inconvenienced by the defalcations of their treasurers. Again, the present hospital of Bridewell had very little extended its usefulness during the last 150 years, although its revenues had been tripled. It was founded by Edward VI. for the reception of idle disorderly persons, and of poor children, for the purpose of teaching them a trade; and, he would ask, whether the munificent intentions of that young but benevolent Monarch had been carried out pari passu with the wants of the present metropolis? Surely there were plenty of the sort of persons in London whom the establishment was intended to benefit; but the governors of the charity knew that it would be useless to put forth any appeal to the public while the present system of management was continued. Those who were disposed to give to those charities would feel yet more so when they knew that the objects contemplated would he properly carried out; and therefore he could not help thinking that it was rather a feeling of false pride on the part of Christ's Hospital that had dictated their opposition to the Bill. He never could see what disadvantage it would be to any charity to have a proper inquiry into the manner in which its trust was discharged. His great objection was against Clause 85, which exempted the universities from the operation of the Bill. He knew not why they should be exempt; but he knew that' there were several great charities connected with the Church of England, the objects of which were not legitimately carried out. There were many grammar schools and other trusts connected with the Church, which did not do anything like the amount of good which they ought; and, if he might judge by the charities with which he was connected, he should certainly ask hon. Gentlemen to pause ere they threw any obstacles in the way of this admirable Bill. Surely if the distinguished and benevolent individuals in the other House had not objected to the proposed inquiry, they of the House of Commons need not be so sensitive. It might not he generally known that in the time of George II. an Act was passed to enable either of the Lord Chief Justices or the Lord Chief Barons, with a number of the magistrates, to form a court of inquiry into benefactions for poor prisoners. That clause was embodied in an Act of George IV.; but he (Mr. Alderman Sidney) believed that it had never been put into operation till the 18th of February last. On that occassion the Lord Chief Baron and three aldermen formed a court of inquiry into the City prisons. The charities to the City prisoners had amounted two years ago to 700l.; but the very rumour of an inquiry had increased that sum the year after to 1,100l., and last year to between 1,400l. and 1,500l. It appeared that there were in the City of London no fewer than 1,224 endowed charities, independent of the Royal Hospitals. Out of that number they had already mede a partial inquiry into 53 connected with the City prisons, and a further inquiry was to take place into 30 more. The first that came under their notice was Ashton's Charity. The board of governors was the most honourable that could be conceived, comprising, as it did, the Chairman of the Bank of England, Sir Robert Inglis, the Rector of Dunstable, Dean Elliot, of Bristol, and other gentlemen. The charity was bequeathed in 1727, when Mrs. Ashton left the sum of 100l. a year to be paid (after deducting 5l. per annum for the expenses of the trust) to the poor prisoners within the City of London. From that time to the present year, the trust had not been complied with; and if they calculated 125 years at 95l. a year, with interest at 3 per cent, it would amount to the astonishing sum of 100,000l. That estate was still in existence, and the governors had some thousands of pounds in hand, as was proved before the Lord Chief Baron. Again, the Merchant Tailors' Company had no fewer than seven charities for the release of poor prisoners. For the last ten years the annual amount paid by the Company had not exceeded 40l.; but the Company's clerk, Mr. Fisher, deposed on oath before the Lord Chief Baron, that in 1850 a scheme had been sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor for the consolidation of three of the trusts; and that notice had been sent to the parties in prison, but that they did not appear. That scheme was entirely unknown to the City Solicitor; but the Company was willing to admit that they had 2,291l. 5s. 2d. in the funds, and an annual rental of 259l. belonging to the City prisoners. The scheme agreed to was therefore that, instead of 40l., they should pay 300l. a year. When hon. Gentlemen heard that such had been some of the fruits of so partial an inquiry, he would ask whether they were prepared to object to so excellent a Bill as that before them?

said, he could not allow one observation made by the hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Sidney) to pass without explanation—namely, that it had been the practice to admit the sons of noblemen on the books of Christ's Hospital. He (Mr. Alderman Thompson) was aware of only one instance of such an occurrence, in the case of a grandson of the great Lord Rodney, who was an orphan, and had been admitted on special grounds.

had no right again to address the House; but, as his name had been introduced by the worthy Alderman (Mr. Alderman Sidney) who had lately risen, he threw himself on their indulgence while he explained the case so far as he knew it. It was said that no respectability of names in the apparent government of a Charity constituted any real security for the faithful discharge of the original trust; and, as an instance, Ashton's Charity was quoted; and the names of the Governor of the Bank, of Sir Edward Ryan, and of himself, were announced as the trustees, while it was stated that the testatrix had, nearly a hundred and thirty years ago, directed that 95l. should annually be laid out in releasing poor prisoners from the City gaols, whereas no such money had ever been paid; and the aggregate they kept back amounted at compound interest to 100,000l.; and all this while respectable persons professed to discharge the duties of the trust. He had no reason whatever to admit the accuracy of the allegations, so far as related to the earlier administration of the charity; but whether they were unfounded, or whether they were exaggerated, that, at all events, he knew, that he himself and the two other gentlemen whose names had been mentioned had nothing whatever to do with that earlier administration. Three or four years ago, the Attorney General of the day stated to him in this House, that arrangements were in progress in Chancery for a new scheme for a charity called the Ashton Trust; and he did him the honour to ask whether he would allow his name to be inserted in the scheme as one of the trustees to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) asked, in return, who were to be his colleagues, and who was the solicitor; and, feeling the value of a compliment thus unsought and unexpected, accepted the office. But the proceedings in Chancery incident to this renewal of the trust were even yet scarcely completed. It was necessary, last year, to have the sanction of the Master to some alterations of the prisons named in the will. Two or three, Ludgate and the Compters, had been abolished since the date of the will, and the Master had already substituted the Queen's Bench. But it was likewise suggested to the Master that the sum of 5l., which had been expressly limited by the testatrix as the amount of debt to be relieved, beyond which her benefaction was not to extend, might be enlarged to 15l., as more equal to the measure of her intentions. This had been granted by the Court of Chancery; and in the present year the new trustees would, he hoped, be enabled to exercise their powers. He thanked the House for their indulgence in listening to him when he had no right to address them.

said, at that late hour he would not have risen to take any part in the discussion, wore it not that he was anxious to allay those apprehensions which appeared to be entertained by the hon. Alderman with respect to Christ's Hospital. The hon. Alderman seemed to suppose that, by the appointment of Commissioners, there was to be some control over the charity funds, which, as he said, and he (Sir W. P. Wood) believed correctly said, were so admirably exercised. By the Bill, the different charities were simply required every year to submit a statement of their accounts to the Commissioners; those accounts came before the Commissioners, who had the power, if they thought fit, of examining the different accounts of each charity—they had no power or control whatever, but simply the power to examine and report upon those accounts. The Commissioners, in fact, were simply a medium—and he (Sir W. P. Wood) thought a most beneficial one—between the charities and the Court of Chancery, in order to save the expense, which was always considerable, whether the parties came into Court in a friendly suit to administer a trust, or to contest a hostile suit. Another advantage which the Bill would confer on the charities was the power it would give of granting building leases without going to Parliament; for a few years ago the governors of Christ's Hospital had to obtain an Act for that purpose, and that Act could not have cost less than 500l. or 600l., every farthing of which would be saved by this Bill. The governors of Christ's Hospital ought to be the last people in the world to complain of the Charity Commissioners, for it was by their means that the Hospital had obtained a large endowment from the Reading Charity; it was the ulterior provision of a will that if certain trusts were mal-administered by the Corporation of Reading, the benefit of the trust should pass to Christ's Hospital. The Charity Commissioners discovered the maladministration of the Corporation of Reading; and Christ's Hospital claimed and obtained the reversion of the endowment, though not without a long and expensive Chancery suit. Indeed it was lamentable to see how the property of the charities was wasted in these Chancery suits. He recollected going accidentally into a church in the Strand—the new church opposite Somerset House—and he saw there an inscription, setting forth that Mrs. So-and-So left 600l. to the church for charitable purposes, but by a Chancery suit it had been reduced to 5l. When he saw such instances of abuse as that, it made him regret that a moment should be lost in passing this Bill.

who was almost inaudible, spoke in defence of the management of the Royal Hospitals, and said that the trustees of those charities were most desirous of being exempted from the operation of the present Bill. If they were liable to any charge, let them he proceeded against, and let them take the consequences; but do not call upon them year after year to send their accounts into the County Courts, to be copied by the registrar, and require them to contribute, however commendable their conduct, 50l. a year out of their funds to enable those Commisioners to carry out the Bill.

said, the Bill as it stood was in a very different form from that with which he formerly objected to legislation on the subject; and so far as the tribunal was concerned, he had nothing to say against it. He had before admitted the necessity of legislation, and he was prepared to support the principle of the present Bill, without pledging himself to the details. Neither could he see why the Committee on a question of public importance should be a select one. The exemption or non-exemption of particular bodies was a question well worthy of consideration. On the one hand, it might be made so general as to defeat the object of the Bill; and, on the other, narrowed so far as to make the Bill oppressive and tyrannical. The question was one, he thought, which could better be discussed by a Committee of the whole House, than by five or six gentlemen only. The objection to the Bill was in some of its details. He had presented a petition from an hospital which well deserved attention, namely, the Foundling Hospital; and the governors of that institution objected to constant liability to interference, on the ground that it would check the course of charity. He certainly thought it no more than right that there should be periodical visitations to all charities, to ascertain whether they were properly administered; but, on the other hand, they ought to be exempted at least from the daily and hourly interference which under this Bill would take place, and he thought some clause to provide for this ought to be introduced into the Bill. To secure a proper administration of these charities without offending the feelings of the persons concerned, was a most desirable object, and one which, he conceived, it would not be impossible to attain.

rose to put a question either to the late Attorney General or the present, relative to the misapplication, which he had alleged, of the funds of St. Cross's Hospital, at Winchester, Did the law afford any means to procure the restoration of those misapplied funds, and would those means be put into action to obtain that result?

said, that in the case of charitable institutions under private management, the greatest delicacy ought to be exercised in any question of legislative interference, and he thought it desirable to submit the Bill not to the desultory conversation of an open Committee, but to a Select Committee, which would enter deliberately into every necessary detail.

said, that considering the length of time which had elapsed during which Parliament had given its attention to this subject, he should be very sorry if any farther delay should take place. He, therefore, could not give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Alderman, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, fearing that that would furnish an occasion for fresh delay, and put it out of their power to pass the Bill in the present Session. He did think, however, that the circumstances which had been stated with regard to several of the Royal Hospitals were deserving of the attention of the Attorney General. If, as was said, 200,000l. was contributed to one hospital alone from private funds, it certainly did show that it was important that there should be no unnecessary interference with such establishment. He should therefore be inclined to agree with the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn), to insert a clause in the Bill to exempt such establishments, at least from a constant interference, and subject them simply to periodical visitation, conducted by Commissioners appointed for the purpose. Such a clause would go far to relieve the apprehensions now entertained by persons who had long been concerned in the management of these hospitals. With respect to the raising of funds necessary to carry out this supervision, he thought it would he very unjust to tax well-conducted establishments for the purpose of controlling those not so well managed; and rather than this, he would prefer that the public money should be applied to that purpose.

said, that being anxious that no delay should take place, he would withdraw his Amendment.

was understood to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Sir A. Cockburn) had several Amendments to propose to the Bill, and that it would be advantageous, therefore, to have the Bill reprinted.

approved of the course suggested by the noble Lord. There were two points in which the Bill required amendment. He alluded to the provision by which an inquiry was to take place on the presentation of an address, alleging that corruption had taken place in any particular borough. Some ground should be required for the issuing of a Commission, other than a mere address. Unless they did, a majority in the borough might always procure a Commission; and he also thought a clause should be inserted for the purpose of preventing an inquiry taking place without good and sufficient foundation for such inquiry. He objected also to the retrospective action proposed to be given to the Commission. Inquiry ought not to be allowed into proceedings that had occurred ten or twenty years ago. These subjects required amendment; but in consenting to the reprinting of the Bill, he did not pledge himself to sanction the Amendments proposed.

did not exactly see how words could be framed to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman; but if the right hon. Gentleman proposed any restriction or limitation on the power of the House of Commons in this respect, he hoped he would suggest such words as he thought would answer his purpose, and print them with the notices. With regard to not making the Bill retrospective, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman.

had an insuperable objection to the Bill altogether. It was a dirty, mean Bill, full of trickery, and intended to throw a veil over those who did not deserve to be veiled; nor would it in the least check the faults which it pretended to aim at. Why did not the noble Lord bring in such a Bill as soon as he was returned for the City of London? He detested Commissioners: the very name of a Commissioner stunk in his nostrils. He would ask the House if the Bill was intended to prevent vice? Not at all; but it was a direct encouragement to perjury. He never would believe that a man, however poor, could by such foolish and abortive precautions, be prevented from exercising the franchise honestly or dishonestly. He knew what the humbler classes were. Many of them were as honest, aye, and as respectable too, as the noble Lord, or any Member of the late Government. He was one of those who, notwithstanding any Bribery Act, would relieve his fellow in distress—relieve him like the good Samaritan. He was altogether adverse to the progress of the measure.

considered that this Bill, unless certain clauses were introduced, would encourage the practices it meant to punish. Their object should be prevention rather than punishment. Every person was sufficiently acquainted with electioneering to know that money would be spent, in order to make up a case for disfranchising a borough.