said, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Parliament had imposed duties on the existing companies which they ought, to be allowed time to fulfil; and no new water company ought to be sanctioned until the House had seen the effect of the present arrangement.

said, that he hoped this Bill would be allowed to go before a Committee.

said, that there was this objection to the Bill going before a Committee, that the whole subject of the supply of water for the metropolis had been already examined by a Committee. If the present water companies could not properly supply the metropolis with water, Parliament ought to abolish them and entrust the duty of providing an efficient supply to some municipal body. He hoped that no other company would be allowed to be established, as its existence would only add to the difficulty of the ulterior measures which might be necessary in the event of the private companies being hereafter found incompetent to meet the requirements of the public.

said, the great opponent of this measure was the Grand Junction Canal Company; and why? Because a new company would destroy the monopoly which the Grand Junction Company at present enjoyed. The noble Lord (Lord Seymour) had spoken of sweeping away the present companies. Why, they ought to have been swept away long since. They had long enjoyed a most unjust monopoly.

said, that last Session it was attempted to put the existing water companies under regulations for the benefit of the public. The House was now asked to break faith with those companies before there was any opportunity afforded to the companies to show what the result of that attempt would be. He should vote against the second reading.

thought it would be unwise for the House to sanction the introduction of another competing water company into the metropolis. A Committee of that House took the whole question of the metropolitan water supply into the fullest consideration last year; and an engagement having been entered into with the existing companies, who had agreed to expend a large amount of capital, nearly 1,000,000l. sterling upon improvements, and were to be allowed three years to carry their arrangements into effect, it would be a moral injustice for the House now to depart from that engagement.

said, he must protest against the doctrine laid down, that because Parliament had placed the old companies under new obligations, it had no right to sanction any fresh scheme.

wished to state that the supply of water under this Bill was to come from an entirely now source, in fact, from an artificial well; and it was the opinion of competent authorities, that the water would be of a very superior kind. He had heard no reason urged against referring the Bill to a Committee, except that the scheme would interfere with the monopoly of the existing companies.

said, the opposition got up against this Bill was on behalf of a monopoly by the metropolitan water companies. Having got their own Bills passed last Session on the most advantageous terms—terms which were very injurious to the ratepayers and inhabitants of the metropolis—they did their utmost to prevent any other company coming into the field.

said, that in some instances competition was beneficial, but in others it was injurious. He thought that in the present case competition would be injurious.

said, he wished to state to the House, for their guidance, this fact—that the water companies in Marylebone were originally independent of each other, and it was understood that they were not to combine. But no sooner did those companies get their Bills than they did combine, and divided the metropolis into divisions, to which they afforded a limited supply of water. He originally paid 3l. a year for his water supply, but it had been since raised to 11l.

thought that as there were other water companies besides this, the Government ought to inform them whether or not they had any locus standi, or if they were precluded from bringing their Bills before the House.

appeared at the bar with the Report of the Select Committee of Inquiry on the petition against the return for the Borough of Cambridge. The Report stated that the Committee have determined that Kenneth Macaulay and John Harvey Astell, Esqs., were not elected Burgesses to serve in the present Parliament for the Borough of Cambridge; that the last Election for the said Borough is a void Election; and that the Select Committee had come to the following Resolution:—That Kenneth Macaulay and John Harvey Astell, Esqs., were by their agents guilty of bribery at the last Election. He had further to state that the Committee were of opinion there was reason to believe corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Cambridge.

had a question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War with reference to a statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) on the preceding evening, that no reduction had taken place in the emoluments attaching to the Colonelcies of the Grenadier Guards, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which sat upon military affairs in 1833. He wished to ask whether or not the recommendation of that Committee had been carried out?

said, he was very glad that the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite had asked him this question, because it would give him the opportunity of making a short statement, which he hoped would be satisfactory to the House, and which, he thought, was owing to the character of his Royal Highness Prince Albert. It was quite true that in the report of the newspapers that morning giving an account of the observations made by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, it did appear as if that hon. Gentleman had asserted that his Royal Highness was enjoying the same emoluments as had been received by the late Duke of Wellington, although the Committee of 1833 had recommended that upon any future appointment those emoluments should be reduced. So far, however, as his memory served him, this was an inaccuracy in the report. The hon. Member had not complained that the emoluments had not been reduced, but had said that the colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards, as the Committee recommended, should have been retained as the reward of veterans who had seen long service. So much as to what had last night fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose. But for the right understanding of the facts of the case, it was important to call the attention of the House to what really were the recommendations of the Committee. First of all, let him say that the recommendations of the Committee, so far as regarded the amount of emolument of the three colonelcies of the Guards, had been strictly carried out, and, this being the first year during which the command of the Grenadier Guards was vacated by the death of the Duke of Wellington, the emoluments attached thereto had been for the first time reduced in accordance with the recommendations which the Committee had given. Now, upon turning to the recommendations of the Committee in question, he found that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose was not quite accurate in his recollection of what the Committee recommended. He (Mr. S. Herbert) had no doubt it was perfectly true that the views of his hon. Friend were actuated by some of the arguments which might have been used in the Committee in favour of retaining the commands of the regiments in question for officers of very long service; but no such recommendation was made by the Committee. If the House would allow him, he would state what their recommendation was. The Report of that Committee, after stating that they recommended that the emoluments of the Grenadier Guards should be reduced from upwards of 4,000l., which they then were, to a sum which they computed would amount to 3,000l., and that the two other colonelcies should likewise be reduced until they amounted to 2,000l., went on to say—

"This Committee are of opinion that, taking into consideration the great and glorious services of the Duke of Wellington, an exemption should take place in his person from the operation of the rule, and that no change should he made in the emoluments of the Grenadier Guards so long as His Grace shall continue to hold the colonelcy."

That was the whole of the recommendation of the Committee, and there was, therefore, no mention, one way or the other, as to the manner in which the Crown should dispose of the regiments. He might also add that this was a case for the discretion of the Crown, and not for the consideration of the Committee. The fact was, that it had been the practice from time immemorial to give the colonelcies of these regiments to members of the Royal family. Since 1805 there had been ten vacancies in the colonelcies of the three regiments of Guards; and out of those only four had not been bestowed on members of the Royal family, the Duke of Wellington, who held one of those commands, being, of course, an exception to all rule. He would also point out to the House that if there had been any such understanding as that alluded to—he would say that recommendation there was none—it would have been carried out at an earlier period, ten years ago, when his Royal Highness Prince Albert was first appointed to the command of the Fusileer Guards. Instead of this, twenty years had elapsed since the Report of the Committee, and to the first appointment made after the publication of that Report, which would have been the time to call attention to the circumstance, no objection was taken, nor was there any expression of opinion on the part of members of the Committee. His Royal Highness Prince Albert was the senior colonel of the Guards when the Duke of Wellington died, and it was natural, therefore, that he should succeed to the vacant colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards. The House would permit him to say this with regard to his Royal Highness—that during the time he held the appointment of Colonel of the Fusileer Guards he never drew to the full amount of the 2,000l. which it had been intended by the Committee should be the emolument of the post; and his Royal Highness, who took a very great interest in the comforts of the men, had always behaved personally with great liberality with regard to that regiment. He thought it was but right he should call the attention of the House to the fact that his Royal Highness was appointed ten years ago to the colonelcy in the Fusileer Guards, that no objection was taken to the appointment then, and that the succession of his Royal Highness to what he might call the senior colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards had been in the ordinary course of military promotion. He (Mr. S. Herbert) was anxious to make this statement for the sake of Prince Albert and of the Duke of Cambridge, who stood upon the same ground with his Royal Highness, and who had proved himself a most active, zealous, and efficient officer. He confessed he should have been pained if, from any observations which were made in that House, an imputation totally undeserved should appear to have been cast upon his Royal Highness Prince Albert, and if his position as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards should have been the cause of his appearing to the public in a light which was certainly the very reverse of that in which he was entitled to stand—entitled by that sense of public duty and by that public spirit which had always marked his Royal Highness, and which had justly endeared him to the people of this country.

said, what he had asserted was, that when the Committee of 1833 came to the question of leaving the emoluments of the Duke of Wellington untouched, but determined that a change should take place on his death, which was the only thing they could look to, the point then arose, and a recommendation to that effect was proposed by an officer connected with the Navy—would it not be fair to reserve the appointments to the Guards for men of long services and of the highest professional character? Although the divisions which took place in the Committee were not given in the Report, it was on that ground, and on that ground alone—and the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) would confirm the statement—that the Report of the Committee was made; and therefore he repeated, that the intention of the Committee at that time had been violated by allowing Prince Albert and the Duke of Cambridge to fill these appointments. He begged to say that in making these observations he had not intended to throw any reflections upon either of their Royal Highnesses. On the contrary, he had stated his belief that Prince Albert had done honour to the situation he filled; but still that was not enough to warrant him in being placed over the heads of others whose services had been of longer duration; and he blamed the Government of the day and the parties who ought to have carried out the intentions of the Committee.

said, he had no doubt the hon. Member's recollection was correct; but the hon. Gentleman must remember that the intentions of the Committee were only to be judged of from their Report.

said, that they had had the authority of the Secretary at War of the day, who had concurred in the opinion he had expressed.

said, he would now put the question of which he had given notice, and though the noble Lord the Member for London was not present, he trusted he should have an answer from some other member of the Government. It had been very currently rumoured that demands had been addressed by certain Foreign Powers to the Government of this country for the removal or expulsion of certain political refugees who had come here for an asylum. He would wish to ask of the Government whether there was any foundation for the rumour, and what was the course it was intended to pursue should such an application have been made?

Sir, in answer to the question of the noble Lord as to whether an application has been made by Foreign Powers to the Government of this country for the expulsion of foreign refugees now living in the United Kingdom, I have to state that no such application has been made. In reply to the other question of the noble Lord, as to what course would be pursued in the event of such an application being made, I can only repeat that which I think has been stated on former occasions in this House, that any such application would be met with a firm and decided refusal. It is, indeed, obvious that it must be so, because no such measure could be taken by the Government of this country without fresh powers by Act of Parliament; and I apprehend that no Government could, even if they were so inclined—and the present Government are not so inclined—apply for such a power with any chance of success, inasmuch as no Alien Bill, I believe, either in former periods or within the course of this century has been passed ever giving to the Government the power of expelling foreigners, except with reference to considerations connected with the internal safety of this country. The British Government has never undertaken to provide for the internal security of other countries; it is sufficient for them to have the power to provide for the internal security of their own. But I cannot confine my answer simply to that statement. I will ask to be allowed to add, that while, on the one hand, the British laws and the spirit of the British constitution give to foreigners, of all political opinions and of all categories, a secure and peaceful shelter within this country, I think that those foreigners who avail themselves of the hospitality of England are bound by every principle of honour, as well as by every regard, not only to international law, but to the law of this land—are bound to abstain from entering into any intrigues, or from pursuing any courses, intended for the purpose of giving umbrage to foreign Governments, and of disturbing the internal tranquillity of any foreign country.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his Budget, he (Mr. Williams) proposed as an amendment to that part which increased the duty on houses, that the deficiency should be supplied by an extension of the probate and legacy duty to real property. In deference to the expressed wishes of the House, he withdrew his Motion, stating at the same time that he would take the earliest opportunity of introducing it again as a substantive Motion. It had been to him a matter of great surprise that the country had so long permitted the exemption of real property, which consisted of freehold land, houses, lay and impropriate tithes, manors, quarries, and mines, from the payment of legacy and probate duty, while those duties were imposed on every other description of personal property. Thus when all other property was compelled to pay the tax, this property was exempt from probate. It was in consequence of this, legacies charged on land being generally left to the younger children of the landed aristocracy, that the owners were enabled to evade the law. But, although it was unjust to exempt these classes from the payment of probate duty, it was still a vast deal a greater hardship to exempt the first inheritor of land from the payment of any duty whatever. But in short the Acts of Parliament which imposed these duties were from the beginning to the end a violation of every principle of common honesty, to prove which, he would give one or two examples, out of a great many which he had prepared. The Act which imposed the probate and legacy duties was passed in 1796. Mr. Pitt, apprehending successful opposition from Members of both Houses of Parliament to subject their estates to those taxes, brought in two Bills—one to subject personal property to pay them, and the other to impose the same duties on real property. On the introduction of the first Bill, Mr. Fox objected to the separation into two Bills. He said—

"There was a great deal of force in the objection about not bringing forward the other Bill, with regard to the tax on landed property. He saw no good reason why they should be separated, but many why they should be kept together."

Mr. Pitt agreed that the principle on which the two Bills was founded was much the same, and if this Bill passed it would be very desirable that the principle should be extended to real property. The first Bill passed with little or no objection, only sixteen voted against it. It passed the House of Lords without opposition, and soon received the Royal Assent. That Bill having been secured, the other Bill was proceeded with to impose the same duties on real property; on which occasion Mr. Pitt said that—

"The principle of the Bill having been already recognised in the personal property succession tax, and also on the duties formerly existing upon legacies, it never could be paid with reluctance, because persons would feel little or no hardship in paying a tax out of that property which they did not expect to enjoy."

The Bill passed with little opposition to the third reading, when a Motion made by Mr. Pitt, that it be now read a third time, was lost by a majority of two. He then moved that it be read a third time next morning, when the numbers for and against were equal. The Speaker gave his casting vote for the Motion, but Mr. Pitt seeing no chance of passing it through either House, withdrew it—the Personal Property Bill having already become law. Lord Lauderdale brought in a Bill in the House of Lords to suspend its operation, "in order," as he said—

"That their Lordships might have an opportunity of preventing that injustice which must ensue if one sort of property was to be taxed, and land was not."

This Bill was rejected, and he entered a Protest on the Lords' Journals, condemning in strong terms the injustice of taxing personal property, and wholly to exempt real property. In the years 1804, 1805, and 1815, Bills were passed to extend the area of these taxes. Prom 1815 they had continued the same to the present time. In the Act of 1805 legacies left by will, chargeable on land, and also the proceeds of sales of land, directed by will to be sold for the more convenient distribution among the family, were both made subject to the legacy duty, but not to the probate duty. He would recapitulate some of the partial and unjust provisions of the Acts which impose these taxes:—Leases on land for a term of years, including outlay for improvements, must be valued, and both probate and legacy duty paid on their full valuation, while leases on land for lives, and the land itself, paid nothing. Another case still more worthy of reprobation was, that houses built on building leases paid both duties on their full value, but the ground landlords paid no duty. Neither were those taxes paid on the value of the same houses when they fell into the landlord's hands, after the expiration of the leases. He would ask, was there anything more unjust than such a system of legislation? Houses built by landlords on their own land were exempted from paying both of these taxes. Lands sold on a lease of 1,000 years for a peppercorn rent, although as good as freehold, paid both duties on their full value; this was accounted for by the estates of the aristocracy not being held by this tenure, having principally been acquired by confiscation of Church property. But there was another case still more oppressive. If a landed estate was left to a person, which was charged with mortgage or other debt, and along with it funded or any other personal property, he could apply the latter to pay off the debt on the landed estate, without paying upon it either of the duties. The value of a farmer's lease, including outlay on improvements, of his stock, crop, implements of husbandry, furniture, and even wearing apparel, must pay both probate and legacy duty, while the owner of the land paid nothing. Probate duty must be paid on the full value of an insolvent estate, and the whole amount is not returned. Property left by a husband to a wife, or a wife to a husband, paid neither of the duties. Personal property of every kind, of the value of 20l. and upwards, pays both duties. He had many more cases with which he would not weary the House, but merely mention one or two to show the way in which these cases were evaded. Numerous means were resorted to of evading the probate and legacy duties; for instance, persons possessing large landed estates save large sums of money for their younger children, which, to avoid the duties, they give to them generally towards the latter end of their lives. For instance, one of the most eminent Judges of modern times (the late Lord Stowell), the Judge of the Admiralty Court and Consistory Court of the Bishop of London, where wills are proved, in order to save these duties under his will, transferred large sums in the public funds to his son, whom he required to give him (Lord Stowell) a power of attorney to receive the dividends, which he did during his life. The son died a short time before him, and a Chancery suit was instituted to ascertain to which of the two the property belonged; so that the old Judge had to pay probate and legacy duty upon all. Property given by deed of trust or deed of gift was, after death, or by deed of settlement, exempted from these duties. Above all, he was told that fraud was carried on by funded or other property being registered in joint names, the survivor taking possession of the whole without paving any duty. The evasions from these causes going on in different parts of the country exceeded credibility. Mr. Porter, in his work, The Progress of the Nation, states that less than three-tenths of heads of families who die annually leave property subjected to these duties. The fact was, that the probate duty, like our whole system of taxation favoured the rich, and threw its heaviest burden on the poorest class. A legacy of 20l. pays 2½ per cent probate duty, which is reduced as the amount increases to 1½ percent, but it is limited to 1,000,000l.: above that sum nothing is paid; and on letters of administration taken out, where there is no will, the probate duty is 50 per cent more than those which were taken out under a will. As a proof of the favouritism of this duty, be might mention, that in the year 1848, 26,463 letters of administration were taken out, and of that number, 17,600 were for property varying from 20l. to 200l.; showing not only that it pressed most on the poor, but also that they were more honest than the others. The House could not but admit that the exemptions he had pointed out exhibited an amount of oppression and injustice scarcely to be credited as existing in a free country that boasted of its institutions securing equal justice to all classes and to all men. The exemption of landed estate from those duties which were imposed upon the savings of a poor man, if they happened to amount to 20l. and came to be divided, was an injustice so palpable that it was, he believed, impossible to find its parallel in the history of any modern nation except, perhaps, during the ancient regime of France, under which the rich were protected from paying their due share of the taxes, and which produced consequences which, as they were historically known to every one, he would advert to no further than to express a hope that the example would never be followed in this country. But perhaps the most remarkable part of the subject was, that the exemption of the large estates of the rich from the tax, was urged on the ground that a large amount was levied upon that description of property in the stamp duties on conveyances, which fell exclusively en land sold. But the fact was, that the conveyance of land sold paid exactly the same duty as the conveyance or transfer of shares in railways, canals, docks, harbours, joint-stock banks, gas companies, water companies, steam navigation companies, and all other descriptions of property. The stamp duty on the transfer of shares in such properties was exactly the same as that on the transfer or the conveyance of land; they were so by Act of Parliament, and consequently there could be no dispute on that question. The only exceptions were the stocks of the Bank of England and Ireland, and of the East India Company, which paid only 30s. for the transfer of all accounts, however large or small, and the whole of which paid the duties of from 2½ to 1½ per cent on probates, and from 1 to l0 per cent on legacies. Why this exemption existed in favour of these great companies was well worth the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and as the Charters both of the Bank and the East India Company were about to expire, the right hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity of giving the subject the consideration it deserved. But, talk of the charges on land, why, was it nut well known that a duty of 200 per cent was charged on ordinary insurances against fire, while farm stock and farming implements paid no duty whatever on insurances. He would now refer to the opinion of a gentleman whose authority would be received with favour and with confidence in that House: he meant the late Mr. Porter. That gentleman, who it will be remembered, for many years was head of the statistical department of the Board of Trade, and afterwards promoted to be Secretary of that Board, said, in his able work, The Progress of the Nation—

"The probate and legacy duties are accompanied by the advantage which generally attends direct taxation, that a much larger part of their produce than taxes indirectly collected finds its way into the public treasury; they are also free from the evil effects commonly ascribed to direct taxation, that it engenders irritation, and is regarded as a greater burthen than the payment of duties to a greater amount on consumable commodities. The probate and legacy duties are, in truth, not felt as a tax; objections to them, as levied in this country, might be brought forward, namely, the partiality shown in excluding from their operation that description of property which, from its greater comparative value and security, is called real property. This partiality has always been felt as a grievance, and the sense of injustice which it is calculated to awaken is of mose moment than any temporary irritation that may accompany any demand for money taxes."

This was a most important statement as coming from such an authority. Here they found Mr. Porter denouncing in strong terms the system as most unjust and demoralising. In the year 1851, the amount of property which paid the legacy duty was 51,837,000l., and the amount of the duty was 1,315,380l., varying according to degrees of consanguinity from 1 to 6 per cent, and 10 per cent where no relationship existed; the average was more than 2½ per cent. In the same year the amount of the probate duty was 1,063,400l., varying from 2½ per cent on 20l. to 1½ per cent on larger sums, but limited to 1,000,000l.; all above that sum pays nothing. In some cases the legacy duty only was paid; in others, only probate duty; there being no official return of the gross amount on which the probate duty was paid in 1851, it was taken at the same amount as that on which the legacy duty was paid, which gave an average of more than 2 per cent—together, more than 4½ per cent. This was a most important fact to bear in mind. And with regard to the probate duty, the House should recollect that the probate duty on letters of administration taken out without a will was 50 per cent more than those which were taken out under a will. Next to the injustice of exempting real property from those taxes which were paid by personal property, was the amount on which the probate and legacy duties were imposed. He had made a calculation on this part of the subject, which he would presently read. It was a well-known fact that the probate and legacy duties were imposed on the gross capital—that was the principal—whereas the duty levied for the income tax was imposed on the annual rental of the property. Therefore, acting on the principle of the income tax, to arrive at the amount of real property which should be liable to the probate and legacy duty, that property should be reduced so as to ascertain its annual value. In the year ending the 5th of April, 1851, the rental of real property on which the income tax was paid in England, Wales, and Scotland, was 47,800,000l.; on messuages, 43,000,000l;. on manors, mines, quarries, and tithes belonging to lay impropriators, 4,430,000l., together 95,230,000l. Take the same description of property in Ireland at 12,500,000l., they amounted together to 107,730,000l., and it was important to bear in mind that no income tax was paid on incomes of less than 150l. a year; therefore the amount of the rental in Great Britain does not include land, houses, manors, mines, quarries, and lay tithes of less value than 150l. a year, except in cases of other property combined making up that sum. Now, to reduce these 107,730,000l. of annual rental to capital, and then to ascertain the amount which should be paid to the probate and legacy ducy, he had calculated this way. As the probate and legacy duties were paid on the amount of the principal, and the income tax was paid on the annual income, he took the 95,230,000l., the annual rental of Great Britain, at twenty-five years' purchase, and the average duration of lives in possession at twenty-two years. He was aware that upon this point much difference of opinion might exist; he had taken all the pains of which he was capable to arrive at a strictly accurate conclusion, but had found no means of attaining that result. He had consulted numerous persons acquainted with such subjects, and amongst them some of the most eminent actuaries connected with the assurance companies; but they had no data which might form the basis of such a calculation. He had also obtained numerous returns relating to property which had been in the same families for as much as 200 years back, and from all those various sources he found that twenty-two years was more than the actual average. But he adopted that term for one reason, because, amongst other reasons he found that the average period during which the various Sovereigns of England had reigned, from William the Conqueror down to William IV., was something less than twenty-two years. Some persons would think the average value of the lives in possession was more than twenty-two years—others that it was less. But, whether one way or the other, the principle was the same. Taking, then, 95,230,000l., the annual rental of Great Britain at twenty-five years' purchase, and the average duration of lives in possession at twenty-two years—and taking the rental of Ireland, 12,500,000l., at fifteen years' purchase, and the average duration of life in possession at twenty-two years, the amount on which these taxes would be paid annually would be 116,738,000l., which at 4½ per cent, the average amount of the duties, would produce on real property 5,250,000l. annually. From which deduction should be made of the amount of real property which pays those taxes, which Mr. Trevor, the Comptroller of the Legacy Duty, estimates at 500,000l., being-two-fifths of the whole amount of the legacy duty; but which Mr. Pressly, Commissioner of Stamps and Taxes, estimates at less than 400,000l. in reference to which he said, "I have endeavoured to arrive at something like a conclusion, but it is very unsatisfactory." Against this should be placed the value of land, houses, manors, mines, quarries, and lay impropriator tithes under 150l. a year, which are not included in the income tax returns. The amount under 150l. in Schedule A was 9,994,000l,, of which 11 per cent was personal property, leaving of that property 8,847,400l., which at twenty-five years' purchase and twenty-two years in possession on an average gives 452,400l., being a medium between the estimates of Mr. Trevor and Mr. Pressly. If the probate and legacy duties had been imposed on real property in 1796, and allowed to accumulate with interest and compound interest to the present time, the produce would have paid off the greater portion of the national debt. The iniquity of the existing system did not escape the penetration of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who when introducing his Budget, said on behalf of himself and his Colleagues—

"We have not neglected carefully to examine the question of the stamp duties and the probate duties, and we think it not impossible to bring forward on the right occasion a duty on successions that will reconcile contending interests and terminate the system now so much complained of."—[3 Hansard, cxxiii. 906.]

The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had left this question as a legacy to his successor, and, if he should not discharge his duty faithfully with respect to it, let the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire come forward and say distinctly that he was prepared to do justice by equalising this most unequally distributed portion of the public burdens; and, if he did so, the national voice in demanding his re-instalment in the place of Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be too strong for resistance. He could state numerous instances of the unjust and unequal pressure of the tax, and of the amount which was in consequence lost to the revenue. Not to weary the House, he would only refer to one. The late Lord Rolle left an estate not long since to a relation of his wife, worth 40,000l. a year; the value of that estate at twenty-five years' purchase would be 1,000,000l, upon which the legacy duty would be 100,000l., and the probate duty 15,000l. if real property were subjected to pay these takes. On the other hand, if a labourer on that estate by frugal savings left behind him property to the value of 20l., including his scanty furniture, and even his smock frock, it would be compelled to pay both probate and legacy duty, at the rate of 2½ and 3 per cent respectively if left to a brother or sister, or if to a distant relation of 10 to 12 per cent, while the property of his wealthy landlord escaped. Yet we called this a free and a Christian country, where men acted on the principle of doing to others as they wished to be done by. He called, therefore, on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for whom he entertained the highest opinion, and whose high moral motives and great ability no man appreciated more than he did—he implored him to take the subject into his most serious consideration, with a view to the removal of that which was a stigma on both Houses of the Legislature, rendering them open to the charge of grasping selfishness and of screening themselves from taxes which they imposed on those who were far less able to bear them. If these duties were levied on all property alike, it would produce probably 8,500,000l. a year. When Sir Robert Peel laid on the income tax he did so as a basis upon which he could remove those taxes which pressed upon the manufacturing industry of the country and the food of the poor. Sir Robert Peel made that tax, which amounted to 5,283,000l., the basis of repealing or reducing 13,000,000l. of such taxes; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the course he (Mr. Williams) recommended, it was difficult to over-estimate the great relief he might thus give to the country by the removal of those taxes which still pressed upon and fettered its industry. The division on the Resolution he was about to submit, would in some degree test the value of the Reform Act. The Parliament of 1796 had imposed these duties on personal property, but did not make them applicable to their own property, their estates. But that Parliament was said to have been returned by 180 Peers and other rich men, who consulted their own interest rather than the interest of the nation at large. But it would be said that was an unreformed Parliament. Well, since that period we had had reform in Parliament, and the division now about to take place would enable the country to judge of how much they had gained by the Reform Bill. He trusted the result would show that they had at least obtained in a reformed Parliament a majority against the continuance of such a gross and manifestly unjust system as that to which he had called attention.

Sir, the office which I hold would naturally inspire me with every prejudice in favour of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He does not propose, as is too often the case, to deprive the Exchequer of the funds which belong it, and for which it has ample employment, but he proposes to enlarge its funds, by imposing certain taxes not now universally applicable to the different kinds of property, upon a certain class to which they do not at present extend. Notwithstanding this, it is my duty to object to the Motion which the hon. Gentleman has made. And, first of all, with all respect to him, and frankly admitting the evident sincerity of his intention, and the perfect fairness of the manner in which he has stated the case, I cannot help pointing out to the House that there is much inconvenience and something like—I will not say evasion—but escaping from the rules of the House in discussions of this nature. The effect of a Resolution of the nature of that moved by the hon. Gentleman, is neither more nor less than to call on the House of Commons to depart from the work of legislation and practical business, and to content itself with the expression of abstract opinions. Supposing the House were to adopt the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman, the question of the probate and legacy duty would stand precisely where it did before. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are plenty of instances of Resolutions of this kind being adopted by the House, commonly with the same want of forethought; and which, notwithstanding that they related to measures of great importance, have taken no effect whatever. Now, these Resolutions are not merely of a neutral or negative character, but they do positive evil; because they tend to delude the country, and to make it suppose that we are doing the public business when we are in reality doing no such thing, but are merely expressing abstract opinions that do not affect that which should be done. The hon. Member must surely be aware that the proper place to have proposed this Resolution would have been when the House was in a Committee of Ways and Means. The hon. Member brought this same Resolution forward in the month of December last, when the Budget of the late Government was under consideration, and he was then perfectly in order; but at present he calls on us merely for the expression of an abstract opinion; and though I do not intend to take advantage of that objection to escape in any degree the discussion of the case, yet I do not enter on it without a protest at least to this extent, and without endeavouring to point out to the House the practical inconvenience that attends this method of procedure. The hon. Gentleman has expressed a kind opinion of me, and I beg to reciprocate the hon. Member's feelings by saying that I am convinced that the motives of the hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this Motion are perfectly fair and just. We are not disposed, either on this or on the other side of the House, to contend for exclusive privileges in taxation of one kind or the other. Such a privilege needs only to be named to meet with universal reprobation. The principle on which all parties act is that of equality in the taxation of property; I will not say perfect equality, because, unfortunately, the necessary defects of human legislation in these matters render it impossible to attain in practice perfect equality in taxation; but it is now universally admitted that that is the object to which your legislation should be directed. But then I must represent—and I think that I may ask the assent of the hon. Member to this proposition—that that perfect equality must of necessity be the result, not of one of your taxes only, but of your entire system of taxation. It is impossible to lay on any one tax which shall operate with entire equality. You must consider each part of your system of taxation with reference to every other vital and essential part of it, and must strive to attain a general result which will fulfil the great ends of justice by laying the burdens of the public taxation equally on men's shoulders according to their strength to bear it; and that is the principle I shall endeavour to apply to the consideration of this and of every other similar subject. I must say in the first instance that I do not think the statement of the hon. Gentleman is accurate as a general fact, when he represents the question—the important and difficult question before the House—as being a class ques- tion or a question of class interests. He spoke at one time of the exemption that "the great" had secured for themselves as against "the small." Now, it appears to me that that is a distinction eminently in contradiction to the actual state of the case. If he means to speak of the great owners of real property as against the small—

No, no, the owners of real as against personal property.

Well, I will come to that part of the question presently. The present state of the law as amongst the different holders of real property is unfavourable to the great and eminently favourable to the small owners; because it is generally proved that the land of the country is under settlement, and in the process of putting it under settlement it has undergone considerable changes, and that portion of the land which is not under settlement, and which is a small proportion of the whole, is, with the exceptions usually to be found, the land which is held by small proprietors. The hon. Gentleman will say that this is a question between the landed class and the owners of personal property; but that would be very far from being an accurate representation, for this is indubitable, that where exemptions now existed, whether those exemptions be just or unjust, politic or impolitic, they are exemptions that it is in the power of every man holding personal property, to secure to himself just as much as it is in the power of the owner of real property to do so. I do not mean to prove that by any elaborate argument, but merely by a statement that lies upon the surface of the case, namely, this, that considering the mode in which land is usually dealt with, and the mode in which the great bulk of the land escapes the payment of legacy duty as under settlements, it is as much in the power of an owner of personal property to put his property under settlement as in the power of the landowner. And indeed, personal property in this country does go very extensively under settlement. I have been making inquiries to see the extent to which funded property is placed under settlement, and it is impossible to attain anything like perfect accuracy in the calculation; but I will venture to say that a considerable portion of the entire funded property of this country is under settlement at this moment. The difference between the settlement of landed and personal property is this: the settlement of landed property is always made with perfect bonâ fides—it is made in reference to family arrangements—it is commonly made in the early part of the life of the actual possessor of the property, with reference to the contingency of his death, which is not likely to take place for many years. Many settlements of personal property correspond essentially with this settlement of landed property; but there are settlements of personal property, such as by deeds of gift, that do not correspond with this settlement of landed property at all. Leeds of gift are executed by parties in trust to reserve the proceeds and capital of the property to the absolute and unrestricted disposal of the person who constitutes the trust, and with power of revoking the trust whenever he pleases, with no obligation to publish the trust, so that it is in the power of any man, by writing certain things down on a sheet of paper which he keeps in his drawer, and makes known to nobody, to execute one of those voluntary settlements by deed of gift by which he carries his personal property beyond the range and sphere of the legacy and probate duty.

That is part of my complaint.

I do not describe this practice to justify it, which is positive cruelty as far as regards the Exchequer, but for a most important purpose, namely, for the purpose of showing that this great, and momentous, and very difficult question is not a class question in the way it is supposed, because it does not give the landed property those advantages over personal property which are too commonly assigned to it. The bad state of the law I grant—the absurd state of the law I am willing to concede—each in due time will be remedied—but the law has not that most odious and aggravated feature about it, namely, that those laws are laws passed by the class of landed proprietors for the purpose of securing to themselves exclusive privileges, which the commercial classes and the holders of funds are not at liberty to enjoy. Having thus made material deductions from the statement of the hon. Gentleman, I shall now make a few remarks on his sanguine expectations with respect to the enormous amount of landed property that may be brought under the operation of the law by the change which he proposes should take place. I did not precisely catch the actual figures he stated, but I thought his calculation was that several millions were to proceed from this proposed taxation of landed property. But the hon. Gentleman has made a most serious omission, because it is not true that nothing whatever is paid by landed property to the legacy and probate duty. Annuities and all sums of money charged upon land pay legacy duty; all lands directed to be sold for the purpose of dividing the proceeds pay legacy duty; and an eminent solicitor, Mr. Baxter, gave in evidence before a Committee of the House of Lords, that out of ten wills disposing of unsettled landed property, nine directed the estates to be sold and the proceeds to be divided.

That was in a particular district in Yorkshire.

I am going through the deductions one by one. And this gentleman gave it as his opinion that this quantity of land was liable to be sold, and to pay the legacy duty. I have also had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Trevor, an intelligent witness who gave evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, and I asked him the proportion he now forms of the legacy duty that is paid by real property under the provisions of the Act of 1805, and he computes it as seven-sixteenths of the whole amount. Your machinery does not enable you to state with perfect precision the actual amount paid by real property, but a good judge tells you that it amounts to seven-sixteenths of the whole. Though it is true that a great deal of real property escapes the legacy duty, yet this is also unquestionably true, that if you had the power to levy your legacy duty uniformly and equally over the whole property of the country, and if you succeeded in levying that legacy duty over the whole of that property, I doubt very much if you would get so good a proportion as seven-sixteenths out of the land as you do now under the present system. I think you might get more than nine-sixteenths out of personal property, and less than seven-sixteenths out of landed property. But another important deduction is to be made from the statement which the hon. Gentleman has made to the House. The hon. Gentleman has not adverted to one enormous deduction which he must make from the representations he has made to the House: he proceeds on the supposition that the great bulk of the landed property escapes altogether the operation of this duty; but those who adopt this line of argument appear to forget the subsisting mortgages upon land. Now what proportion of the land of the country is under mortgage? I believe I should be estimating moderately if I said the land of the country was charged with mortgages to the extent of a fourth part of its value. It may be more, but I assume it is one-fourth, so that the beneficial interest to that extent pays probate and legacy duty. Now, the hon. Gentleman could not intend to say that if this new system which he proposes were established, the parties should pay the tax twice over. Suppose there is an owner of landed property which is valued at 20,000l., and the income from which is 700l. a year; suppose, also, there is a mortgage for 7,000l. charged on that land on account of which the owner pays 400l. yearly; surely the hon. Gentleman does not intend to say that the owner of that land is to pay the probate and legacy duty on the 700l. a year and on the 400l. a year too. To come, therefore, to a true judgment in the case, you must deduct from the whole mass of the landed property of this country the portion of it that pays probate and legacy duty in the shape of interest upon mortgages. Thus far I have only spoken of the deductions that ought to be made from the statement of the hon. Gentleman; further, I will go on to say, that it is one of those subjects that cannot be viewed as an isolated question—we must take into view many other circumstances and provisions with respect to the landed property of the country. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the stamps on conveyances. No doubt it was the policy of the Legislature comparatively to burden the transfer of land, and to facilitate the descent of land—on the other hand, to burden the descent of personal property, and to make the transfer of personal property easy. That statement has been often made, and the hon. Gentleman impugns it by stating that the same stamp duty is levied upon the transfer of railway shares that is levied upon the transfer of a piece of land. That is true, but he should recollect that there is between 70,000,000l. and 80,000,000l. of property—no small portion of personal property, namely, the funded property of this country—that pays nothing at all upon transfer, and when settled to a considerable degree pays nothing on descent. Although you may choose by your system of stamp duties to fix the same rates for landed and personal property, it will happen that your personal property will go scot-free as to transfer, where the landed property must pay the stamp on transfer. The reason is, that the great bulk of personal property is capable of passing by delivery, and being so capable it requires no legal transfer; it has no legal transfer, and the stamp duty is not paid. It is quite true it is paid upon railway shares, and on some limited descriptions of personal property; but as to the vast proportion of the transfers of real property they are subject to no tax whatever but the receipt stamps; and I believe it is but too true that that trifling amount is in many instances not paid at all. The sum of 10s. is enough to cover the transfer of 1,000,000l. of money, and the fact is that the great bulk pays nothing or next to nothing upon transfers. That the tax upon conveyances is a compensation for legacy and probate duty, is not entirely to be put out of view, and when you are adjusting a system of taxation for real property and personalty, you must not forget the facility of transfer which personalty so entirely enjoys, and that, although you may enact that an equal rate is to be paid upon it, yet in practical operation the great bulk of it escapes from the payment of the tax. You cannot put that out of view in considering what justice demands in dealing with the taxation on real property. I am the last person to claim any favour for real property—but it should not be subject to unequal taxation; and the amount should be estimated, not by any one duty, but by the operation of your general fiscal system, and it is utterly impossible to exclude from the view of that general fiscal system your system of local taxation. You cannot forget that in England alone 10,000,000l. a year is levied off real property, about which personalty knows nothing at all.

Houses are charged.

It is the realty pays. Houses may be real property as well as land.

Railways are also charged.

I always looked upon the case of railways, in respect to the rates they pay, as one worthy of consideration; and I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely, that railways and the unfortunate holders of tithes are very unfairly treated, as com- pared with the owners of other property. In the consideration of your fiscal system you cannot put out of view the fact that in England something like 10,000,000l., and in the whole United Kingdom 12,000,000l. or 13,000,000l., are levied off real property for the purposes of local taxation, about which personal property knows nothing whatever. That is not the principle of your law; according to the principle of your law personal property is just as much subject to those local charges as real property. I do not, however, wish to see personal property subject to those charges. It would lead to confusion, tyranny, and a multitude of evils, if you attempted to subject personalty to those charges; but I do not doubt that if plans of reform are driven to an extreme extent, you may bring that personal property within the scope of local taxation. Instead of endeavouring to reach mathematical precision in each item of taxation, we should look on the result of taxation as a whole, and endeavour to establish fairness in its operation. The time will soon arrive for the discussion of the income tax, and at present I am not going to open it prematurely, but I wish to advert to a single point. I am not going to speak of the income tax at this moment in so far as it falls upon skill and labour, but I am only going to look at it in so far as it falls upon property, and upon property, too, which is the subject likewise of legacy and probate duty. Confining my view to that subject, I say boldly you cannot defend the present incidence of the income tax upon real property. The interest arising from money in the funds, and the interest payable on mortgages, pay the income tax according to the income actually received; but real property pays the income tax, not according to what is received, but it pays the income tax on repairs, it pays the income tax on arrears, it pays the income tax on vacant farms, and in half-a-dozen other cases where no income is received.

It will be very easy to amend that.

That is easier said than done. No man will be so grateful to the hon. Gentleman as I shall be, if he will produce a good and practical plan to amend it. The melancholy conclusion I am driven to is, that we must perforce make up our minds in many cases to put up with inequalities, and be satisfied that on the whole the ends of justice are attained if those inequalities are found to balance one another. I think these are all most important facts that bear upon this discussion, and without taking them into view, you cannot arrive at a fair estimate of the question. Therefore, to look at some isolated question—to look at the operation of the law with regard to one description of property, without considering the operation of other systems of taxation upon it, is, I will not say a reprehensible practice, but it is a practice that requires to be corrected and qualified, and, considered in reference to other topics, if we are to arrive at a general conclusion that will be a safe guide in practice. It is stated in the Reports of the Lords' Committee, that the land tax, the poor-rate, and the county rate, were equivalent to an income tax of 11 per cent. This is a most important fact to bear in mind in this discusion, and I hope it will be kept in mind in the consideration of all these questions. On one point I think the hon. Gentleman has made out a strong case, and that is as to the present scale for probates. The absurdity of that scale is admitted by all. Why are we to stop when we have reached 1,000,000l. of money, as if there were not in this great country fortunes made exceeding that amount? And if nothing else be done, that scale should be readjusted. It is clear that an immense amount of personal property escapes duty, which, according to the present law, should not escape, and especially through deeds of gift the operation of the present law is most unsatisfactory. There has been an enormous increase in the personal property of this country, but the legacy duty does not grow larger. The entire amount that has paid legacy duty for a series of years is about 45,000,000l., and there is very little doubt that if you did not alter the principle of the law, looking to personal property alone, instead of 45,000,000l., out of which seven-sixteenths is derived from real property, you should get something very near to double that amount. The hon. Gentleman has adverted to the case of the poor man; he says his property pays the full probate duty, and I agree that it does, and that it is a case of great hardship. The wealthy man, who has legal assistance, is enabled to avail himself of the means of escaping the burdens of the law; but the man who leaves 40l. or 50l. has no such means. The scale is so constructed that it falls upon him with a disproportionate weight. And these are all things which call for that serious investigation which he invites me to give the subject. With regard to the further question, whether or not the land ought to be subject to the payment of legacy and probate duty, it is impossible, in my judgment, for the House to come to any safe conclusion upon the subject until we have some fixed principles laid down and adopted with reference to the rest of our taxation. Before the House can consider the question as to what is to be done with the probate and legacy duty, I think it should have more fixed and definite intentions on the subject of the income tax than have been as yet expressed. The hon. Gentleman says, "Here is a system of law that operates in favour of real property against personal property;" but when you come to the income tax, and compare its effect on real property and personal property, it is quite as clear and undeniable that the income tax is unequal, in favour of personal property and against real property. It appears to me that the course which the House may take with reference to the income tax, must necessarily be made the pivot on which the whole of this controversy shall turn. As to the question of laying duties on land, I will say as strongly and decidedly as the hon. Gentleman himself, that the land has no claim to special favour. It has only a right to be justly taxed; but of course, in considering that question, it will be necessary to take a review of all the circumstances by which land is affected. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not make it a matter of censure upon me, that after my recent accession to office, and when the whole of our system of taxation is open from one cause or another, I am not now prepared to state to him what may be the ultimate course of the Government. Much must depend—almost everything must depend, with regard to the fiscal policy of the next two years, on the course taken by the House with reference to the income tax. When the time shall come, it will be my duty to state the views of the Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole of the question shall undergo from me the most careful examination, and that the results which we may arrive at will be results to which we shall be led by no desire to favour this or that class, but by the desire to do full and impartial justice to all classes. Whether the hon. Gentleman ought or ought not to be satisfied with this explanation, I leave the question in his hands. It is from no disrespect to him that I point out the inconvenience of adopting this Resolution, and I hope it may be consistent with his views not to press it upon the House for adoption. At all events, I have done my duty by stating the principles on which we are prepared to deal with this question, and which has led us to the conclusion at which we have arrived upon it.

said, this was a most important question, and his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) was quite right in bringing it forward. It had been his (Mr. Hume's) lot to hear many Chancellors of the Exchequer say that it was not convenient to bring forward such questions as this, in this shape. But he thought the time had come when it ought to be stated what was to be done with regard to these duties. The Government had taken time to consider what plan of taxation they should adopt; but, nevertheless, the present Motion was quite consistent with all practice, and his hon. Friend was quite justified in bringing it forward at the present time. His hon. Friend had very clearly shown the inequalities in those duties. There were one or two points on which he (Mr. Hume) differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth said, that this was a class question, and that the law relating to these duties was passed by the landlords to benefit themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that. What was the real state of the case? Mr. Pitt brought in a Bill enabling the levy of probate and legacy duty on all property, real and personal. The Bill was read a first and a second time, and when it came to Committee then came the pressure of the landed proprietors, who compelled Mr. Pitt to divide the Bill into two parts, one relating to real and the other to personal property. When the question was put as to the part relating to personal property, the Bill passed; but when it was put as to landed property, there was a division, and the numbers were 30 to 30, and there it ended. A personal friend of Mr. Pitt's had assured him (Mr. Hume) that Lord Sidmouth, who was then Speaker, had declared that the Bill ought to have gone to another division; but such was the pressure put by the country Gentlemen on Mr. Pitt, that he was told that if he attempted to move further in the Bill, he must take the consequences, and so it was never brought forward again. The Bill relating to the duty on personal property was passed, but real property was never made liable. If the right hon. Gentleman said that was not a class proceeding, he (Mr. Hume) knew not what was a class proceeding. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) had shown the great inequalities of this duty. Take the case of bequests. If a man had 10,000l. in landed property left him he was not liable to these duties, but if it was left in personal property he was subject to them. It appeared by the calculations of Mr. Spackman that the value of real property in this country was 2,000,000,000l., of which 1,500,000,000 was the value of the land, and 500,000,000 the value of the farmers, and the necessary machinery for the cultivation of the land. Those 2,000,000,000l. passed without paying any of this tax, except on the portion which was the personal property of the cultivators. The whole proceeding therefore appeared to him to be of a class character. Since that time there had been various Acts passed exempting real property, while personal property—such as copyhold houses, railroads, and other species of property—was made liable to the tax. The result was, that while landed property escaped this peculiar taxation, personal property, on the other hand, had paid legacy duty in England during the year 1851 on a capital amounting to 49,402,000l., and in Ireland, during the same period, on a capital of 2,435,000l. If Mr. Spackman's estimate was taken, there were about 80,000,000l. of real property which ought to be subject to the tax. That amount therefore escaped, and 52,000,000l. of personal property was assessed. The House ought to know the extent to which personal property was subjected to this tax. The amount received last year for legacy duty was 47,502l., and for probate duty 38,360l. No less a sum than 85,763,000l. of personal property was levied on for this tax, and not one farthing of real property. The amount levied by these duties since their imposition had been 1,588,000l. This was sufficient to warrant his hon. Friend in bringing the subject forward for discussion. It was their duty to remove inequality of taxation. Taxation ought to be laid as equally as possible on all kinds of property. It was an insurance which persons of property paid for the maintenance of order, and they ought to pay that insurance equally, and in proportion, in the same way as they would pay a fire insurance. The large sum of 85,000,000l. had, however, been levied, on one description of property only, in consequence of one Act passing, and another Act not passing. He believed that personal property, if fairly valued, was equal to real property, if not more. With regard to local taxation he believed that personal property paid its full share, and that it was quite a mistake to say that landed property alone paid. He could substantiate the assertion that personal property paid as much as real property. But that was not the question. The question was, was there anything peculiar in this tax that land ought to be exempted from it. He could not think of anything. There were stamps, but personal property was equally affected by them; as in bills of exchange. He wanted to confine this tax to a tax on descent. With regard to mortgages, he could not understand the right hon. Gentleman. Mortgages were personal property, and were charged as such. How, therefore, he brought that in as an excuse, he could not understand. Then look at the increase of railroad property to the value of 200,000,000l. to 300,000,000l, which was all held to be personal property. He fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that there were gross inequalities in our system of taxation. He had no hesitation in saying, that indirect taxation bore on the industrious and middle class so hardly that he scarce ventured to state it. It amounted, on the average, to 40 per cent on the consumption. A statement was published about two years ago, on the effect of taxation in the United States. The writer stated that federal taxation in the United States was raised by import duties, which in 1849–50 amounted to 29,000,000 dollars; and he showed that those 29,000,000 dollars amounted to 100,000,000 to the consumer. He proved it step by step and article by article, and showed how the increase amounted to that sum. In the same manner our indirect taxation fell very heavily on the middle and industrious classes. He fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that no income tax they could impose could be considered truly equal, until an inquiry had been made into the incidence of all taxation, and all had been made as equal as possible. But he believed the House had no idea of the enormous amount paid by indirect taxation by the middle and industrious classes. It was on that ground that he invited the Government to institute an inquiry forthwith. With a taxation of 56,000,000l., it was their duty to see that it was levied in a manner least burdensome to the community at large. In the matter of transfers, the right hon. Gentleman said personal property was exempt. What property was exempt except stock, and that was one of the terms and conditions on which they borrowed the money? He thought the time had come when that House should declare that justice should be done. He should support the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) with the greatest pleasure, this being a question which over and over again in former times he (Mr. Hume) had endeavoured to press on the consideration of the House and the various Governments of the day with the view to a remedy.

said, he could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted to state some of the elements which ought to be brought into consideration. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, in common with others who had filled his office, had a great sympathy with the public Exchequer, and looked with great disfavour on anything that would tend to empty it. He (Mr. Henley) believed that any alteration in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), so far from benefiting the Exchequer, was calculated most certainly to empty it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that with regard to personal property it had been the object to lay the tax on descent, and that on landed or real property it had been the object to lay the tax upon the transfer. He had no doubt that any one looking fairly at the subject would see that if the tax were laid on the descent of real property it would be unproductive, whereas the tax on the transfer of real property was very productive. The descent of real property passing as it did mainly under settlement, and not by will, could not be productive to the Exchequer, because they would get into the difficult question of reversions; and how were they to deal with them? With regard to personal property, the vast mass of it, not being under bonâ fide settlements, or even colourable settlements, escaped the tax on transfer altogether; still there was a good deal of that kind of property which might be brought within the operation of the tax, which did not now contribute anything to the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had alluded very strongly to the case of America with regard to the incidence of direct taxation; but he thought the hon. Gentleman would hardly venture to quote the evidence they had before the Income Tax Committee on that very subject. The American witnesses, one and all, stated that the federal revenue of America was raised by indirect taxation, and that it was State taxation only that was raised by direct taxes, and which was as nearly as possible like what we called local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the local taxation as being a tax distinguishable on real property. He (Mr. Henley) did not wish to go into that question, because he was prepared to deal with this matter on the question of Imperial taxation, and He believed that on Imperial taxation the balance would be found on the whole not to be in favour, but against, the real property of the country. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the stamp on conveyances of real property. If he mistook not, the large item on what were called deeds and instruments, amounted to something like 2,000,000l. annually. No doubt the whole of that did not affect real property. They had never in that House been able to obtain from the Stamp Office a return which would show how much of that amount affected real property; but he believed the opinion of many was that at least one half of it affected real property. That was mere opinion; but if it was one half, that was a large sum to be taken into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman had truly stated the evidence before the Income Tax Committee, and be believed before the Committee of the House of Lords, that seven-sixteenths of the existing duties were paid by land; and if they took that and the amount of stamps, there was a large gross amount. But the right hon. Gentleman had omitted one very important element, and that was the land tax. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman remembered that some 2,000,000l. a year was paid by the land tax, and principally by the Southern and Midland counties of England. That was a very important element to be considered. It was equal in amount to the whole of the legacy and probate duties. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman said "No." [Mr. HUME: A portion of it was redeemed.] Well, if it was redeemed, those who redeemed it had paid hard cash for the redemption, and it was hardly fair that another tax should be laid upon them immediately afterwards. Putting the income tax wholly aside, he believed that the land of this country paid, under the three heads he had stated, a great deal more than compensated for the exemption from the probate and legacy duty. These were matters which could not be dealt with in a single tax. They must look to the whole incidence of the taxation of the country. He was one of those who thought that when it was fairly looked into it would be found that the land paid its full share; and he believed, taking the land tax into account, not only its full share, but a much larger share than its fair proportion. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) said the only personal property that escaped transfer duties, was the funds. Why, he surely could not be aware of the facts of the case. The whole agricultural produce of the country passed from hand to hand without any tax whatever, and the same took place with regard to all the merchandise of the country. It was very true that merchants, for their own convenience, by way of raising capital, chose to pay for all these transactions in bills, and therefore it answered their purpose to pay the stamp. But there was no necessity for them to do so, unless they liked. Agricultural produce, then, and merchandise paid no tax on transfer; but they could not sell a piece of land the size of that table without paying a tax, and not a very light one. He denied that landed property had escaped this tax in consequence of the opposition of the landed interest. The fact was that nine-tenths of all the land in the Kingdom was in settlement, and that was the reason why it escaped taxation. He was opposed to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, and if the Motion was pressed to a division, he would certainly vote against it.

said, he rose merely for the take of stating one or two points which, it appeared to him, placed the probate and legacy duties on personal property in a particularly odious light with a large portion of the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said they could not go against the feelings of the people. Now, he believed if there was one thing more than another in which the large majority of the people were agreed, it was on this very point that the taxes they were discussing to-night were laid on in a most unjust and unequal manner. Now, he understood—for he was not in the House the whole of the time—that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fully admitted that, in the speech he had made; and he was not the only Chancellor of the Exchequer who admitted that. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli), in a speech he made on that side of the House, admitted that this tax was a very great grievance, and that a remedy was required; and, more than that, he intimated that if he had remained in office he would have dealt with this tax, or have made it equal on all property. Now, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had got some singular notions on this question. He seemed to think there was something in the stamp duties which made them, in some degree, a balancing tax; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget altogether that leasehold property was liable to this tax, it being personal property, and was also liable to all the stamp duties of every kind to which freehold property was subject. Now, the great hulk of property in this metropolis was leasehold. Take the ease of Bedford Square or Belgrave Square, one the property of the Marquess of Westminster, and the other that of the Duke of Bedford. At this moment the property was leasehold. Mr. Cubitt, or some other builder or builders, had invested capital and built houses on it, and they had leases. During the whole time that these leases continued, the houses were liable to this tax. The leases continued, say for ninety-nine years, and during that time that property might pay two or three times over a probate and legacy duty of from 1 to 10 per cent. But at the end of the lease, the whole property being vested in the Marquess of Westminster or the Duke of Bedford—and he believed that in Bedford Square the property was rapidly falling in—when all this property, which had been paying probate and legacy duty since 1797 fell into the possession of the Duke of Bedford or the Marquess of Westminster, it would cease to pay this tax at all. Here they had men of colossal wealth, whose property, under this system, was exempt from the payment of this tax, which came down to 20l. on the property of poor men in every part of the country. But there was another point which he wished to state, because it happened to come under his own observation, showing how oppressive this tax was. He knew of a case in which an old man died in 1836, and left shares in a public company, and other property. He left the property to his son, who paid the duty of 1 per cent. The son died, and left it to his mother, and then it paid again. The mother died, and left it to another son, and then it paid again. That son died about a year ago, leaving the property to his children, who are now living, and then the legacy duty was paid again. There was a case in which the probate and legacy duty was paid four or five times since 1836. If it had been left, as might have been the case, to persons not in so near a degree of consanguinity, it would have been by this time half absorbed by the tax, which would have amounted altogether to 50 per cent; but in the case he had put it amounted only to 5 per cent, besides the probate duty. He maintained that that was a great injustice when other property in the neighbourhood, just as accessible to the tax-gatherer, was altogether excused. These things were happening constantly in all parts of the country, and men knew and felt the injustice of it; and if he were the possessor of property of any amount, he should say the cheapest insurance for the property he possessed was the most entire justice and equality in taxation that could possibly he obtained; for he did not know anything that could be more unfavourable to order than a general belief among all classes of the people that there was an interest in the governing power which laid the taxes heavily on one class, and lightly on another. The right hon. Gentleman alluded, he understood, to the question of local taxation as being in some degree a balance or compensation. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to it, not, however, because there was anything-in it. He was quite sure he would not have alluded to it if he had not felt what an exceedingly difficult question he had to argue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) always fell back on the question of stamps. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer fell back on local taxation. Neither of these arguments had any force in it. Local taxation was based very much as it now was long before the probate and legacy duties were imposed; and Mr. Pitt was as tender to the landed interest as any Chancellor of the Exchequer in that House. He had not intended to say a word upon this; but he had seen the greatest inequalities in this tax, and he thought it for the interest of the country that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be encouraged, for he looked on all these discussions as encouraging to him to take the right course. The question he understood was going to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the whole incidence of taxation was considered. That meant that the whole thing was to be shelved or ever. He remembered the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) saving the very same thing when they were discussing the tax on corn. He said, there were a great number of things to be considered, and that it had a bearing on all our taxation. Well, they had got rid of that. They found that it was a question by itself. This was a question by itself; and when the right hon. Gentleman set about considering it, he wished he would consider the question of consanguinity. He thought nothing could be more barbarous than charging 1 per cent to one relative, and 5 per cent to another, and 10 per cent to a stranger, although the latter might be an illegitimate child. It was making such child pay for his illegitimacy. Nothing could be more barbarous. The right hon. Gentleman said the land was all in settlement; but that had nothing to do with the question. Did he suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not get hold of property under settlement as well as property left by will? A tax on succession would be a tax on property changing hands by death, not by wills alone, but by settlement, or in any other way that legal ingenuity could point out. But the main question now before the public was, that within the last fifty or sixty years from 85,000,000l. to 90,000,000l. had been raised by this tax, the greater proportion of it being raised from a class very inadequately represented in that House. He begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who he believed wished his tenure of his office to be useful to the country, not to be afraid of those hobgoblins which hon. Gentlemen opposite had raised, but that he would grapple with the question, and deal fairly with all the taxpayers in the country.

said, he was afraid that at the time the tax was imposed there was an intention to favour landed property, as against personal property, because they knew that the Legislature of this country then consisted of landowners. He should vote for the Motion.

said, he considered the speech of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer required an answer. The right hon. Gentleman had displayed his vast fund of ingenuity, but he had failed to overthrow the case made out that it was unjust to impose a tax on one de- scription of property alone. He had referred to Mr. Trevor's evidence on the income tax. Mr. Trevor said he believed that as nearly as possible nine-sixteenths of the real property of this country was under settlement, and he came to the conclusion that the other seven-sixteenths paid the legacy and probate duties. Anything more monstrous could not have been uttered.

said, he begged to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the petition of M. Bonacich, relating to the improper seizure of the ship Novello, and also whether he was entitled to compensation. M. Bonacich, an Austrian subject, was the master of a vessel trading in the Levant, so far back as the year 1804. Hearing of the war which had broken out, he armed his ship; he then sailed from Malta with a cargo, and having beaten off a French privateer, he took his ship safe into Gibraltar. He afterwards sailed for England, where he delivered his cargo, and laid up his ship for repairs. When they were nearly completed, the Government seized the vessel, under the impression that she was not an Austrian ship but a French privateer. The dock owner then brought an action against M. Bonacich for his charges, and the consequence was that he was thrown into prison, where he remained from 1806 till 1810, in which year he was released by the Act of Grace at the Jubilee. The Government had for a long time refused him redress on the ground that the ship had not been seized by them; but within the last three years the Austrian ambassador at his (Mr. Muntz's) intervention had obtained from the Admiralty documents proving that she had been seized as a French privateer. The Government then said that, as M. Bonacich was not the owner of the vessel or cargo, he was not the party entitled to compensation. Now he (Mr. Muntz) did not think that that was a very worthy position for the Government to take. To this day, M. Bonacich, though ruined by the transaction, has received no compensation whatever from the British Government. They had heard of late great complaints of the severity of the Austrian Government towards British subjects, but the Austrians had never done anything so severe as this; and how could we expect the Austrian Government to indemnify British subjects if we refused compensation in a case like this to an Austrian? The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had nearly involved this country in a war on account of the wrongs suffered by Don Pacifico; but those wrongs were a mere fleabite compared with those endured by this poor man. He begged therefore to move for a Committee of Inquiry.

seconded the Motion. In 1806 M. Bonacich was young, strong, and independent; but if they could see him now, they would behold an old, decrepit, and almost heartbroken man. He trusted that the House would grant the Committee, and so prove to the world that there was no act of justice too minute for Englishmen to inquire into and to perform.

said, there was no man more ready than he to do justice to the fair claims of any foreigner who had received detriment from England or from English subjects. He had himself, in his former official capacity, been so fre- quently called upon to demand justice for English subjects from Foreign Powers, that he could never refuse to concede justice to the aggrieved subjects of Foreign Powers. He did not think, however, that it was expedient that the House should, unless upon very strong grounds being shown, take up the consideration of claims which had been frequently and maturely considered by the Government, because, if such a course were adopted, the time of the House would be completely occupied by the consideration of such matters. With respect to the claim of M. Bonacich, however, it did not at all come within the category; it had been carefully investigated over and over again, both by the Foreign Office and by the Treasury, and its ground assertained to be altogether untenable. M. Bonacich was, indeed, at the period in question, master of a brig, despatched with a cargo from the Mediterranean to this country; but he was in no degree or way the owner, as was suggested by the hon. Gentleman's statement, either of the ship or of its cargo, which belonged to a merchant at Venice, the cargo being consigned to a merchant at London named Levy. After the vessel had reached London, it required, in the opinion of M. Bonacich, certain repairs, and he accordingly placed it in the hands of a shipwright named Hailes to have those repairs made. While the ship was in this person's hands, an opinion having been started that it was in reality a French privateer, it was seized by the Admiralty Court; but, on its being shown to be bonâ fide an Austrian ship, it was forthwith released. M. Bonacich was then called upon to pay for the repairs which had been made by his orders. He refused to pay; and certainly he was thereupon sent to prison, but at the suit of the shipwright, not at the instance of the Government. The ship was afterwards sold, doubtless for a sum below its value, to pay the charges which had been incurred by M. Bonacich's own order. These were the facts of the case, and it appeared to him (Viscount Palmerston), as it had appeared to the Foreign Office and to the Treasury on several occasions already, when the case had been brought before them and carefully investigated, that M. Bonacich had no sort of claim whatever upon the British Government. Even were there any claim tenable as regarded the seizure of the vessel, M. Bonacich had nothing to do with that, for he had nothing to do with the property of the vessel; and as to his imprisonment, it was simply an imprisonment for debts which he had thought proper to contract, and the Government had no conceivable connexion with the matter. He would repeat that he had always been ready to concede any just claims upon us by foreigners; but were the Government to grant a Committee upon every claim that might be started by foreigners, the House would have nothing else to do from the commencement of each Session to its end. M. Bonacich, he believed, had received an advance of money from a benevolent society in this country that had been formed for the purpose of assisting foreigners in the prosecution of claims of this kind; the society, no doubt, conceiving the claim to be a valid one, and that they would get back their money out of the compensation anticipated; but he could assure that society, as he had assured the House, that, after repeated and impartial investigations, both by the Foreign Office and by the Treasury, it had been clearly ascertained that M. Bonacich had no sort or degree of claim whatever.

said, the noble Lord had done what he was sure to do—he had made a very ingenious defence; but he had failed to convince him, and probably the House, that a great act of injustice had not been committed through a mistake of the British Government. The noble Lord had argued, that M. Bonacich's arrest took place, not at the instance of Government, but on a private debt. That might be true: but, if so, under what circumstances was the debt contracted? It was contracted in consequence of the utter ruin brought on M. Bonacich by the expenses of a suit instituted by Government, on grounds which ultimately proved to be unfounded. It was proved that he was unjustly proceeded against; and yet, by the expenses of that confessedly unfounded prosecution, he was ruined. That being the case, he (Lord Stanley) thought that Government, though it might not be primarily the cause of his arrest, was indirectly so, and was responsible for it. Then the noble Lord had rested on the ground of prescription: he had said that the case had been repeatedly looked into, that it was one of very old standing, and that it was now too late for redress. Certainly his (Lord Stanley's) feeling was, that where injustice had been done, the greater the delay that took place in obtaining reparation, the more effectual ought that reparation to be. Prescription was undoubtedly a strong argument against reopening a suit between two private individuals: the law held it so, first, because it might be difficult for an individual proceeded against to produce rebutting evidence after a considerable lapse of time, and thus some security was required against fraudulent and vexatious suits: and, secondly, because it was presumed, in cases where property was concerned, that such property might have changed hands in the lapse of years, and thus that the person originally responsible could no longer be proceeded against. But neither of these objections applied to the case whore a Government was defendant; for a Government had in its archives all the evidence required for its defence, no matter how remote the period; and it was a recognised principle, that every Government must be responsible for the acts of its predecessors. He thought, therefore, that the length of time which had elapsed was no bar to the case being now investigated. Of course it would be for M. Bonacich to explain why he had never been able, until the present time, to obtain the evidence required to make good his claim. He (Lord Stanley) would not enter into the merits of the case, which the House was not a fit tribunal to examine. All that they had to do was, to consider whether a primâ facie case for inquiry before a Select Committee had been made out. It was his decided opinion that such a primâ facie case existed: and he had come to that conclusion when called upon officially to investigate the case last year. Therefore he should support the Motion.

said, he had been concerned in pressing the claims of a good many persons both against the English and Foreign Governments; and he had always felt that an individual merchant, and more especially a foreigner, always laboured under very great difficulty in endeavouring to enforce claims of this kind against so strong a power as the Government of a country. He (Mr. M. Gibson) thought they ought to take a favourable view with regard to this case; and not require to be satisfied as to the amount of compensation due, as if they were a judicial court, but simply to look upon themselves as a jury, seeing whether there was a primâfacie case for inquiry. In this transaction he thought there was such a case; because the Admiralty Court, having seized the ship by mistake, M. Bonacich had a right at least to be reimbursed for the fees he had paid into the Admiralty Courts. He thought they should be dealing very hardly with M. Bonacich, if they attempted to set up a statute of limitations in this case, and refuse him justice because the transaction complained of had happened so long ago.

, in reply, said, that the vessel, in consequence of having been detained so long, only fetched 1,000l., and of that all was absorbed by the proctors, except 130l, which went towards satisfying a claim against it of 600l. The case of the Baron de Bode had been brought before the House of Lords by one of the ablest men God had blest this country with; and though it was on a greater scale, it was not nearly so cruel.

said, the Government had themselves been the occasion of the lengthened time which had elapsed setween the seizure of the vessel and the claim for reimbursement.

said, that last night the House had come to the following Resolution:—

"That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury of the said United Kingdom be authorised to pay out of the said Consolidated Fund any costs, damages, and expenses attending seizures of ships, detained; but not condemned."

If this ship, the Novello, had been seized by Government officers, detained for five years, and had not been condemned, surely it was a case to which that Resolution was exactly applicable.

said, he was glad of the opportunity to explain that Resolution, and an Amendment which he proposed to introduce on bringing up the Report. The power of the Treasury was intended to be confined to granting such expenses merely as should be awarded by the Court before whom the case might be tried; and he intended to introduce an Amendment to make that clear.

hoped that the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston) would relent, since there seemed to be a very strong impression in favour of the Committee.

said, he had only performed his duty in stating to the House the reasons why the Government thought the claim was not well founded, and therefore why he thought it would be an unnecessary occupation of the time of Members to appoint this Committee; but, as it seemed to be the general opinion of the House that an inquiry should be gone into, and as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), who had officially viewed the subject, was of the same opinion, although he had not explained why he himself had not admitted the claim, he should not object to the Committee.

said, he rose to bring under the consideration of the House the grievances of the letter-carriers of Great Britain and Ireland. He brought forward this subject in consequence of the numerous petitions which had been presented to the House from the letter-carriers of upwards of 400 towns and districts in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, complaining of the inadequacy of their pay, a grievance which had been greatly aggravated in consequence of their having been prohibited in July last by an order of the Postmaster-General from receiving Christmas-boxes, and of other hardships. He admitted that paying public servants by gratuities of that nature was a bad and vicious principle, and the letter-carriers agreed with him in that view; but that which had been sanctioned by time should not be suddenly taken from them without some increase being made to their miserably small incomes. The order of the Postmaster General, which, as he said, was issued in July last, applied of course to letter-carriers in all parts of the country; but a great deal of influence was brought to bear upon the Government in the case of the metropolitan letter-carriers, and the order was suspended with regard to them, though it was enforced upon the provincial letter-carriers. With regard to the London letter-carriers, there was a distinction maintained among them which he never could understand. The letter-carriers in the metropolis numbered about 900 district or blue-coated letter-carriers, and 300 general or red-coated carriers. Hitherto, as he had previously stated, the prohibition from receiving Christmas gratuities had not been enforced in the metropolis; but still there were inequalities and hardships which they suffered which ought not to be continued. If there were any difference to be between the two bodies, the blue-coated men ought to receive the highest pay, on account of the larger amount of work they had to perform. But the contrary was the case, for while the general postman's duties were generally over by 10 or 11 o'clock in the forenoon, and he received a salary of from 23s. to 30s. a week, with a very good superannuation salary, the blue-coated men, those that used to be known as the twopenny postmen, were employed delivering letters from morning till night, and in point of fact delivered as many letters from the country as the general letter-carriers did; and yet these men were worse paid and received a less superannuation allowance than the others did. The strongest case, however, which he had to submit to the House was on the part of the provincial letter-carriers. One of their complaints was, that if they fell ill, or were wounded in the public service, their pay was stopped during their absence from sickness. Here was a case from Deal in illustration of this. A man writing to him from Deal said—

"On the 10th of January, 1852, I was, while in the execution of my duty as a country letter-carrier, on my return to the post-office, Deal, knocked down by a horse and cart, the night being very dark, when two of my ribs were fractured, and I sustained other severe injuries, which prevented me from attending my duty for four months, during which time I received no allowance whatever from the Post-office; but as soon as I was able to write I petitioned the Postmaster General for relief, from whom I received the enclosed answer. I further beg to state that I perform a distance of 20 miles daily, commencing at 6 a.m. till 8 p.m., for which I receive 14s. per week, and no superannuation to look forward to in case of old age."

The reply was as follows:—

"General Post Office, March 1, 1852.

"Sir—The Postmaster General having had before him your memorial, praying to be granted pecuniary assistance during your absence in consequence of an accident received by you while performing your duty, I am directed by his Lordship to inform you that he has no power to afford you the relief for which you apply.—I am, your obedient servant,

"J. TILLEY, Assistant Secretary."

Now, he contended that was a very hard and cruel answer. They complained, also, of the unequal amount of labour which they had to perform. In Manchester, with a population of 350,000, there were 80 carriers, besides messengers; in Leeds, with a population of 181,000, there were 20 carriers, besides district messengers; in Sheffield, with a population of 70,000, there were 15 carriers and 6 messengers; and in Bradford, with a population of 120,000, there were 7 carriers, with 5 district messengers; so that the Bradford men must have at least ten times the work to do that die Sheffield men had. They complained, also, that they received no superannuation allowance after many years' service. He begged the attention of the House to the following singular case, which had been sent him by a person residing at Bridport, who stated that it had occurred in that neighbourhood (namely, at Beaminster), and was strictly true. The extract was from the Southern Times of the 26th of February:—

"One of our local letter-carriers—an old woman, who for 40 long years has been a servant of the public, and who is now in her 74th year—is, by a recent change in the postal arrangements for this district, about to be dismissed, and we fear without any kind of superannuation, after her long servitude. During the term of her official life the old dame must have walked a distance nearly equal to four times the circumference of the earth, a feat which surely entitles her to some little provision for the comfort of her few remaining years, and we sincerely trust that some earnest efforts will be made to secure this for her. At the present time her daily circuit is not less than eight miles, which distance she continues to get over with but little inconvenience."

If the Postmaster General and the Government were sincere in their professed desire to act justly in this matter, as he believed they were, the Resolution which he proposed would strengthen their hands and fortify them in their good intentions, for the Government, having stopped the Christmas gratuities of the postmen, would be obliged to tax the public in another way; and the public, he was sure, would not object to that, because they wished to see the public service properly remunerated. How could they get honest servants if they did not do so? He held in his hand an article which had appeared in the Dundee Advertiser upon this subject, in consequence of certain defalcations which had lately occurred in the Dundee post-office. It said—

"The office of deliverer of letters is one of considerable trust, and ought always to be held by intelligent and respectable men. If the Post Office authorities think that 13s. a week is a proper payment for this class of public servants in a town like Dundee, we must altogether dissent from their opinion; and, although no breach of trust on the part of a carrier can be excused by the mere lowness of his wage, we think the recent defalcations in connexion with the Post Office here should be a warning that the present system is unsafe for the public, and places the carriers under the influence of temptations to which they should not be exposed. Why is not the delivery of letters properly regulated throughout the kingdom by the letter-carriers being paid at a fixed scale, and their number adjusted to the population of each town? There appears to be at present no system at all. Edinburgh has 70 letter-carriers, while Glasgow has only 48, although Dublin, which is no larger than Glasgow, has 98. That administrative reform which Mr. Disraeli pledged himself to have carried out, had he remained in power, seems to be nowhere more needed than in the Post Office."

He believed it was a good principle that the number of letter-carriers should be, as nearly as possible, adjusted to the amount of population in each town, because the population afforded a pretty fair measure of the number of letters. But, with reference to the subject of getting honest servants, he wished to say that while nothing could justify an act of dishonesty, and while, when it occurred, it ought to be severely punished, it ought at the same time to be recollected that we ought never to place temptation in the way of any one. The letter-carriers ought not to have an opportunity of saying that they were underpaid. But the fact was that in most cases the moment a letter-carrier was placed at the bar of a court of justice on a charge of dishonesty he pleaded guilty to the charge, and urged the smallness of his wages by way of excuse, though the answer of the Judge was generally a sentence of transportation for ten or fifteen years. He submitted that the petitions which had been presented to the House on this subject within the last few weeks were well worthy the attention of the House and the Government. The case of the letter-carriers, he was happy to say, had been warmly taken up by the middle classes and gentry out of doors, much to their credit, and he hoped it would be taken up no less cordially in that House. It was true that the class whose cause he was then pleading had no political claim upon their attention—they had no votes at elections—but he confidently relied upon the justice of their case, and with that feeling he begged to propose the Resolution which he had placed on the paper, and to which he hoped there would be no objection.

, in seconding the Motion, said he had received strong representations from his own constituents with respect to grievances affecting individual letter-carriers, and he hoped the present Motion would be the means of leading to the redress of those grievances. There was nothing more remarkable in this subject than the difference of letter-carriers' wages in different parts of the country. In Bath the wages were 15s. a week, Glasgow 16s., Liverpool 20s., Dundee 13s., and London 20s. In a memorial from Liverpool he found it stated that there were four deliveries a day in that town; that the letter-carriers were employed from a quarter before six in the morning until eight o'clock at night, and that, although the town was full of noble institutions for the mental improvement of the working classes, the letter-carriers had not a moment left for the cultivation of their minds, and very few for the repose of their bodies. They also complained that they had no superannuation fund. He hoped that means would speedily be adopted by the Government to remedy these and similar grievances.

said, he had felt so strongly on this subject that he had twice ventured to represent to the late Postmaster General (the Earl of Hardwicke) the great hardship which the order prohibiting the Christmas gratuities had entailed upon the provincial letter-carriers—a hardship which was aggravated by the fact that the London letter-carriers were still permitted to receive them. In many instances the receipts of the provincial letter-carriers had been reduced 20 per cent by that order; and the consequence was that the men were now unable to pro vide anything to fall back upon in their old age. He could not understand what reason there could be for allowing the London letter-carriers to receive gratuities, and forbidding those of Birmingham, Liverpool, and Glasgow to receive them. This was an anomaly on the very face of it. He had no desire to urge anything which could be called extravagant on the Government; but he wished to impress upon them that the result of curtailing the emoluments of the provincial letter-carriers would be, that the people in the provinces were likely to be worse served than the inhabitants of the metropolis.

said, that in a great deal of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) he entirely concurred. He admitted, that taking into consideration their number and situation in life, there was, perhaps, not a more respectable and praiseworthy set of men in the country than those upon whom devolved the responsible and important office of carrying and delivering the letters of the public; and that, considering the responsible position which they held, and the actual amount of work which they per formed, and considering, moreover, that the description of work which they had to perform was more nearly akin to common la- bour, and was therefore paid at a lower rate than other kinds of official employment, there was much to recommend them to the consideration of the House. His hon. Friend had referred to three distinct cases of hardship on the part of the letter-carriers. In the first place, he had called attention to the regulation which had been issued, not, as his hon. Friend supposed, for the purpose of prohibiting them from taking Christmas-boxes, but merely from soliciting them, which he admitted, however, amounted practically to very much the same thing. In the second place, he had called attention to the case of the London letter-carriers, and the differences which subsisted between the district postmen and the inland postmen. And, in the third place, he had called attention to the inequalities of emolument which prevailed in the different provincial towns. With regard to the country letter-carriers, who had been prohibited from soliciting Christmas-boxes, he begged to say, on the part of the Postmaster General and the Government, that he very much concurred in the observations and opinions which had been expressed by his hon. Friend, and he begged to state to the House that the Postmaster General had at this moment the case under his consideration, with the view of rectifying it in such a way as would best afford redress. He was sure that the House would not ask him to go further at present, feeling, as they must, that in a case like this involving an enormous sum of money, and the interests of thousands of individuals, it was only fair that the department should have full time to consider the various circumstances of the case. With regard to the second case, he begged to say, also, that the Postmaster General was quite prepared to admit that there were greater inequalities in point of emolument than could fairly be justified by the different duties the letter-carriers had to perform; and that the grievance complained of ought to be met in one way or another. The distinction between the two classes of letter-carriers which at present existed, as the House could easily understand, had arisen when the circumstances of the country were extremely different from what they were now. His hon. Friend had very properly called the attention of the House to the difference between the duties which the district postmen performed now, and those which they performed when they were twopenny postmen, The more frequent arrival of both home and foreign mails now during the day, had naturally added considerably to the labours of the district postmen. But one of the original reasons of the difference between the inland and district postmen still existed in the fact that the former were obliged to attend at the General Post Office at very early hours in the morning, before the deliveries commenced, in order to assist in the indoor business, such as the sorting of letters, and the like. There was not, perhaps, so much difference in the wages of the two classes of postmen, as in regard to the superannuation to which they were entitled—the superannuation allowance of the Inland postmen amounting to between 20l. and 50l., according to the length of service; and the superannuation allowance of the district postmen amounting only to between 15l. 12s. and 23l. 8s. This small remuneration worked disadvantageously for the public service, for it rendered men unwilling to retire even after they were incapable of discharging their duties. This subject was also under the consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office, and he felt quite sure that his hon. Friend, with this assurance, would rather be disposed to leave it in the noble Lord's hands than to take a vote of the House upon it. With respect to the differences of emolument existing in different parts of the country, he begged to remind the House that nothing could be more unfair than that services which varied in amount in different parts of the country, should be paid at the same rate. And, again, he would say that nothing could be more unreasonable than to pay the salaries of public servants in different parts of the country without regard to the ordinary wages prevailing in those districts. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) had quoted the case of Bath, Glasgow, Liverpool, and London; but it was evident that no fair comparison could be made between the case of a quiet town like Bath, and a large manufacturing town like Glasgow; and he was sure the House would agree with him that the Government were bound in duty to the public to consider at what rate the public service could best be performed, and that they would fairly expose themselves to blame if they paid the postmen at Bath 20s. a week simply because the postmen at Liverpool—whore wages were higher and the duties more onerous and more responsible—were paid at that rate. The House would see that the Government could not, under circumstances so various, introduce anything like a system of uniformity, either as regarded numbers or emoluments. With respect to the number of postmen, he maintained that population afforded by no means an accurate test. It was evident that at Liverpool, where foreign packets were arriving at all times of the day and night, and at Birmingham—which was a kind of thoroughfare for the mails—a larger number of postmen, in proportion to the population, was necessary than at other places differently situated. He begged to remind the House, too, that this was a question involving very serious provincial considerations. He was quite sure that the House of Commons had no desire to be parsimonious in the case of such a deserving body of men as the letter-carriers; but, at the same time, considering the hundreds of thousands of pounds which this country paid annually in connexion with the Post Office, and the large proportion of the postal receipts which were annually sacrificed—he did not say improperly—for the public convenience, the House should bear in mind that in the case of so vast a body as the letter-carriers, the slightest increase in. their wages must form a large charge upon the small balance of postal receipts which at present remained. He hoped that the answer he had given his hon. Friend would be found satisfactory. The first and second cases were under the consideration of the Postmaster General: and, with regard to the third, it was impossible that any general rule could be laid down where the circumstances were so various; but he assured the House that the Government would be ready to deal with each case on its merits.

said, there were cases in the provinces much harder than those in London. At Bodmin, the letter-carrier, who gave his services seven days a week, and for many hours a day, received only 7s. a week, paying 3s. for his rent and taxes, and living, he and his family, on the remaining 4s. Twice, however, he had made application to the Postmaster General in vain, notwithstanding that this case was aggravated by the late prohibition of the gratuities.

said, in Dundee, defalcations were taking place to a considerable extent, and he attributed it entirely to the small amount of remuneration received by the letter-carriers. As an instance, one of them walked twenty miles a day, and the pay was only 13s. a week, He must also complain of the small number of letter-carriers in Dundee—only seven—for a population of about 80,000. At Edinburgh the number was seventy; if it were in proportion to the population of Dundee it would be only twenty-seven, The matter required, and he hoped would receive, the attention of the Government.

thought it would be most unreasonable on his part to occupy the time of the House one moment longer after the satisfactory assurance given by the hon. Secretary of the Treasury, and with their permission would withdraw his Motion.

, amid loud cries of "withdraw," said, he wished to state that he was obliged to the hon. Member for Finsbury for having brought the subject forward, and that he was glad to find the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) admitting that there existed a necessity for revision, and promising that such a revision was about to take place. The provincial letter-carriers claimed the attention of the Government, and were entitled to higher remuneration.

said, that while satisfied with the assurances that had been given to the House by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury, he would wish to draw their attention to an order which had been issued within the last two or three days to the receivers of letters, that instead of closing the letter-box, as at present, at 8 o'clock in the evening, that hour would be discontinued, and 10 o'clock substituted in lieu of it. He was anxious that the interest of the receivers of letters should be attended to, and yet that there should be no disposition on the part of the Government to prolong the hours of the postmen.

said, it was true that a later hour had been fixed on, instead of 8 o'clock, but it was also true, that for the performance of that additional duty, and for other duties, the Postmaster General had just applied for additional men. He was also desirous that no misunderstanding should go abroad on a subject like the present, and, therefore, wished to state, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Colonel, that he had not spoken of the general condition of the servants of the Post Office—[Col. SIBTHORP: Then you ought to do so]—but only as to the particular eases brought before the House by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He had stated that each case would be considered on its own merits.

said, he must claim the consideration of the Government for the letter-carriers of Ireland. He knew an instance of an old man who for the last twenty years had walked 7,300 miles a year, the salary for which was 10l. a year, or just a penny for every three miles, a less rate than they would ask an Irish donkey to travel at, and yet this man might be dismissed and would have no pension. The postal arrangements in Ireland were miserably defective. Several days were occupied in the transmission of a letter from Dublin to Kilkenny, and that was not an uncommon case. There was an immense deal of cheeseparing in the Irish postal department.

said, he did not think the answer of the hon. Secretary of the Treasury satisfactory. In the south of Ireland there were many cases in which the duties of the letter-carriers had been greatly extended, while their pay remained inadequate. He knew an instance of two towns, distant from each other only seven miles, in which it took three days for the transmission of a letter from the one to the other.

said, he thought that this discussion showed the danger of meddling with the Executive Department of the Government. The hon. Member near him (Mr. V. Scully) had talked of cheeseparings. Was it not the fact that for one vacancy in the Post Office service there were fifty applicants? Government were bound to obtain labour on the same principle on which private persons acted, He did not object to additional allowance where the duties justified it. He thought the assurance of the hon. Secretary for the Treasury satisfactory, and was glad his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury proposed to withdraw the Motion.

said, that between Drogheda and Dundalk there were two trains passing each way daily, but a letter took two days in getting from one place to the other. He wrote a letter one Friday, and he received an answer on the Tuesday, and in the interim he had been to London and back again.

said, he suggested the adoption of a scale of remuneration according to seniority, so that a man who had been twenty years in the service might have something more than the man who had only been two or three.

said, in answer to the statement of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that for every vacancy there were fifty applications, he had within the last three weeks procured a situation in the Post Office of ten shillings a week for a poor man, and when he had been in a fortnight, he came to him and said he had to walk such a number of miles that he was obliged to resign it. There might he a great number of applications by persons who did not know what the employment was. He liked economy as much as any man, but to employ men at less than that for which they could afford to do their work well, was anything but economical.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring whether the Ecclesiastical Courts might not be advantageously abolished and their jurisdiction transferred to other existing tribunals. He had not given notice of the Motion till the intentions of the Government had been announced from the highest authority; and if that announcement had been as satisfactory with respect to the Ecclesiastical Courts as it had been in reference to the Law Courts and other subjects, he, would not have meddled with the question. But he understood the Government intended to wait till a Commission, appointed just before last Christmas by their predecessors, and which was only intended to inquire into the testamentary jurisdiction of those Courts—which had been inquired into over and over again, and uniformly condemned—had made its Report. The material point to consider was, what was to be done with the rest of the jurisdiction; and, inasmuch as the Commission could not settle that matter, it seemed far better that a Committee of that House should take the whole subject into their consideration. He might at the same time observe, without the slightest intention of disparagement to the Commission, that it might have been more satisfactory to the branch of the profession to which he belonged, and to the public in general, if the legal members of it had not consisted entirely of Chancery barristers and of civilians practising in the Ecclesiastical Courts, the latter of whom it was not too much to suppose somewhat in favour of the proceedings of the Courts in which they practised, and with respect to whom it might justly be said, they were likely to enter upon the inquiry with some prejudice. Now, he ventured to say, that of all the abuses at present existing in this country, there were none at all comparable with that of the Ecclesiastical Courts. There was already, curiously enough, a system existing in which law and equity were administered in different courts and by different Judges; but that a third system of administering justice—a third series of Courts, with doctors and proctors, clerks of the seats and deputy clerks of the seats, surrogates, apparitors, deans and judges—should exist also, was a reproach to the civilisation of this country. These courts had, with the most wonderful success and pertinacity, resisted hitherto every attempt to reform them. While the Chancery Courts and the Courts of Common Law had been reformed and amended, these Ecclesiastical Courts, which had been reported upon over and over again, and had been condemned whenever they were reported on, still subsisted without the smallest change. Not to weary the House with reference to ancient times, in 1830 a Commission of practitioners and Judges in these Courts was appointed, who, after examining as to the whole system, reported strongly in condemnation of them; but the measure they proposed was extremely inadequate, as it was only to abolish them all except the Archiepiscopal Courts of York and Canterbury. But in 1834 the Real Property Commission proposed that all these Courts should be, without exception, entirely abolished. In 1845 a Committee of the House of Lords, after finally considering the subject, reported that the testamentary jurisdiction of these Courts ought to be abolished; and a Bill was carried through the Upper House for the purpose of substituting a central tribunal for probate and administration of wills. Very possibly, if the County Courts had then existed, the Lords would have transferred a considerable portion of that jurisdiction to them. This and several other measures had been introduced into this House, but, by some influence or another, had been uniformly defeated. A Committee, appointed so lately as 1850, had reported in terms of the most unqualified condemnation of the whole system of these Courts. The Irish Ecclesiastical Courts likewise had been inquired into by a Committee, over which the present Solicitor General for Ireland had presided, and they had reported as strongly against them as the English Committees and Commissions had reported against the English Ecclesiastical Courts. Now, the question to be considered on the present occasion was, if it was worth while to stop short with the testamentary jurisdiction of those Courts, or with any measure short of an entire abolition of them? Let them see what the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts was; and, first, their jurisdiction in cases of wills and administrations of estate. This jurisdiction had been usurped origin ally, for our Saxon ancestors had been in the habit of settling all questions of that kind in the old County Courts; nor was it till the time of the Normans that the ecclesiastics contrived to seize on this jurisdiction over the effects of the deceased. The reasons assigned for their seizing these powers would probably amuse the House. It was said that an ecclesiastic, being commonly "in at the death" of the testator, would know his intentions better than any one else, and that if that was nut the case, he would at all events know what the testator ought to have meant, and would determine that his property should go in pios usus, or that, being more conscientious than a layman, he would take more care his estate should be devoted to the payment of his debts. But it appeared these anticipations were not altogether realised, for the ecclesiastics took possession of the estates themselves, and deprived widows, and children, and debtors of their rights, contriving to appropriate all the effects of the intestate to their own uses. In the great charter of John, an attempt was made to prevent this practice, but it did not succeed, nor did a subsequent provision to the same effect; so that it was not till the reign of Edward I. that a statute was passed, requiring the ecclesiastics to distribute the effects of the deceased to the creditors, nor till the time of Edward III. that that object was really effected and carried out. What was more to the point, however, was, how was the jurisdiction of these Courts administered at the present day. In this country there were no less than 372 Ecclesiastical Courts. They consisted of Archiepiscopal Courts in York and Canterbury, of Diocesan and Diaconal, and Archidiaconal Courts in each, of Prerogative Courts, and Courts of Arches Now, in the first place, it was difficult to decide in what jurisdiction a man died, so that probate should be taken out to his will or administration to his effects in the pro- per Court. Suppose, for example, probate was taken out in Exeter, but it turned out that the deceased was possessed of bona notabilia above the value of 5l. in any other diocese, the probate was utterly void, and an action could be maintained against the executors on the probate by showing there was 5l. of bona notabilia in another diocese. The consequence was, that in general it was necessary to obtain probate in the metropolitan Prerogative Court, which was attended with great expense and inconvenience. If, however, the deceased had bona notabilia in another province, the executor must go and get a probate in the Prerogative Court of that province also. Moreover, that probate was of no use in either Scotland or Ireland. Now, considering the great increase of personal property, and the doubts which existed as to the exact nature of bona notabilia, it was desirable that a person should be enabled to have perfect security in taking out probate—a security which could not now be had. Such a state of things appeared to demand inquiry. But, even in obtaining probate, supposing it to be secure, there was great expense. One had to pay in most cases not only an attorney, but a proctor; then came the fees charged by the various officers; and, in order to show what these were, he would read an extract from a return moved for by the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), with respect to the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. He would take the year 1849. First came the judge, Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, whose income was 3,904l. 13s. 8d. Next came the registrar, the Rev. Robert Moore. It appeared that this gentleman, the Rev. Robert Moore, received for the duties of this office no less a sum than 8,265l. 17s. 4d. a year. As to this gentleman, he was informed he had never performed a single duty connected with the office, but had discharged the duties of his various employments, which had for the last thirty years yielded an average of 8,000l. sterling per annum, by deputy. In the course of that period the Rev. Robert Moore had received an income of not less than 300,000l., without having performed one service attached to his office. Why, it was only last night that they had heard a long debate, and a discussion which lasted a considerable time, merely on granting a pension of 700l. a year to a gentleman whom all agreed to have performed important services with advantage to the country. How was it, then, that this mon- strous sinecure, a greater than which had never existed in this country, should have endured so long? Without the slightest disrespect to the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), he must express his surprise and wonder how he had been able to sit quietly and endure it. [Mr. HUME: I brought the case forward twenty-five years ago.] Why, that made his case against the hon. Gentleman the stronger. If the grievance had provoked the hon. Member twenty-five years ago, why had he allowed it to go on ever since? Besides this great sinecurist, there were the Archbishop's registrars, three in number, with 2,322l. 12s. a year; then came the three clerks, who in 1849 enjoyed an income of 833l. 12s. In 1850, however, for some reason or another, these clerks' incomes were reduced to 85l. 17s. 2d. each. Now, these were the men who did all the business. Such being the incomes paid to the officers of these Courts, the least the public had a right to expect was, that there should he decent accommodation for the wills in their charge, and that they should be kept in secure places. The Reports which had been laid before that House, however, showed that the records and muniments of one Court were kept in a room close to a carpenter's shop, and over a yard filled with billets of wood and shavings, so that they would all be destroyed if a fire took place; they were placed in bad, damp rooms, and up to the present moment no proper place had been provided for their custody. Besides, the registry was conducted on such a system that it was almost impossible to find a will' where it ought to be. A will could not be found by a rich man without considerable expense; to a poor man it was impossible. These Courts were destitute of all perfect jurisdiction—they could not pronounce final judgments in many cases—they could not try by jury, and, being unable to examine witnesses vivâ voce, the result was, that they caused great expense to the parties by taking evidence on interrogatories. They had also no power to order the administration of an estate, nor to order trustees or executors to pay legacies—powers which the Court of Chancery had. The Ecclesiastical Courts could take a bond from an administrator for the duo administration of assets, but they could not enforce that bond, for payment of which recourse must be had to the Courts of Common Law. The House would further observe that all the jurisdiction of which he had been speaking related to wills of personal property, for the Ecclesiastical Courts had no power to deal with wills devising real property, which was a great defect in the administration of the law. The consequence of this was, that a will could be contested in three Courts at once, and he would state a case which recently occurred as an example of this:—A gentleman in Devonshire died about three years ago, leaving to his widow, to whom he had been much attached, a handsome provision of between 200l. to 300l. a year. His will was contested on the ground that he was insane when he made it; but the Court came to the conclusion that he was perfectly sane at the time. Meantime, the estate had got into Chancery. Six years afterwards a jury was empanelled at Exeter to say whether the man was insane or not. They found him sane, and that he had been sane all his life. Now here was one will which became the subject of litigation in the Ecclesiastical Court, the Court of Chancery, and the Court of Common Law; and the widow, for whom the testator had made an ample provision, was imprisoned in consequence of the ruinous costs of these proceedings. The County Courts had been tried and had been found satisfactory, and there was no sound reason why Parliament should not intrust a portion of testamentary jurisdiction to them. He would suggest that probate should be granted within the jurisdiction of the County Court in the district in which the testator resided at the time of his death, without reference to the question of bona notabilia, and that one probate should do for all parts of the United Kingdom. It seemed to him, also, that the County Courts might be intrusted with jurisdiction over wills involving property to any amount if the parties chose to submit to that jurisdiction; but if more than 300l. were at stake, jurisdiction in disputed cases should be given to other Courts; and the question was, whether it should be given to the Courts of Common Law or of Chancery. It seemed to him more desirable to give that jurisdiction to the Courts of Common Law, because, for one reason, those Courts exercised their functions locally, while the Judges were on circuit, which was a great convenience to the suitors, and because the Court of Chancery at present had its hands full, and any increase of business would render necessary an increase in the number of Judges; whereas, if he were rightly informed, the Common Law Judges could perform the additional functions which would devolve upon them without any additional assistance. It would be very desirable for County Court Judges to have an equitable jurisdiction where estates were under a certain amount. At present, in cases where the estate was under 500l. in value, it was never worth while to go into Chancery; and he would therefore give a summary equitable jurisdiction to the Judges of the County Courts. He had a further suggestion to make relative to the instrumentality of the County Courts with respect to registration. One of the great desiderata of the day was a proper system for the registration of wills; and what he proposed was that the will should be taken in the first instance to the registrar—the Judge might appoint one of his clerks to the office—of the County Court in the district of which the testator dwelt at the time of his death, and, upon probate being granted, it should be transmitted to a central registry in London, where an index of all the wills in the country should he kept, and copies of the indices should be also preserved in the district Courts. He understood there was already a nucleus for the establishment of such a registry in the County Courts—namely, an office in process of formation for the registration of all judgments above 10l., and he would make that available for the purpose of effecting the registration of wills. He would now add a few words with regard to the remaining jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Those Courts had unlimited power of granting divorces à mensa at thoro, but not vinculo matrimonii. He thought, however, that when this country had recognised the right of Dissenters to be married out of the Established Church, and when marriage was recognised as a civil contract, there could he no reason why that jurisdiction should he confined to the Ecclesiastical Courts. Even in Roman Catholic countries, where marriage was a sacrament, the power of divorce à mensa at thoro was exercised by the civil Courts; and in France, and the Protestant countries of Prussia and Holland, that power was exercised by the ordinary civil tribunals. He was aware that a Committee had been sitting for two or three years to consider this question. He did not know when their Report might be expected, but he hoped it would deal thoroughly with the subject under their investigation. He would not now go into the question as to the mode of granting a divorce a vinculo matrimonii; but he would merely observe that it was a great hardship upon a poor man that it was utterly impossible for him at present to get rid of his wife. He recollected a case where a poor man was convicted of bigamy, who defended himself by referring to the fact, which was proved on the trial, that his wife had been guilty of gross misconduct. The Judge, however, pointed out to him that he ought to have gone to the Ecclesiastical Court in the first instance, afterwards to a Court of Common Law, and finally to the House of Lords, when he would have obtained a divorce; and finished by sentencing him to one week's imprisonment. The Ecclesiastical Courts had another jurisdiction over the enforcement of Church-rates, and he must express his hope that those Courts would not be long troubled with that jurisdiction, but that the subject of it would be abolished, and that, too, by the present Government. The other functions of the Ecclesiastical Courts were partly civil and partly ecclesisiastical; they had jurisdiction over heresies, fornication, solicitation of chastity, procuration, power of ordering penance, and the power of passing sentence of excommunication, but they were not allowed to exercise it. These Courts, in fact, were the mere shadow of what they were; they belonged to days gone by—to days when there was one Church to which every man man belonged, when people were unconscious of the meaning of Protestantism and of Protestant Dissenter, and to days when the Church had all the power, because she had all the knowledge. Those days, however, had passed by, and with them had passed the vitality of these Courts. Their influence had gone, their censures were laughed at, and he trusted they would be no longer allowed to play their fantastic tricks in Doctors' Commons, amidst, he might say, the contempt of the country, but that they would be abolished, and that the judicial institutions of the country would be placed upon a footing more consonant to the feelings and the civilisation of the age. A word now upon the subject of vested interests. He knew they were great favourites with that House and the country, and he was far from denying their claims. It would be necessary, therefore, that compensation should be given to those interests. It might also be said, that the civilians and proctors who practised in those Courts were entitled to compensation. Now, he did not desire to say one word in disparagement of those gentlemen. The Bar practising in Ecclesiastical Courts was a body of learned and honourable men; but he did deny the right of any body of practitioners to say that abuses should be perpetuated for their benefit. It seemed to him that it would be as reasonable for the members of the Common Law Bar to object to the County Courts, which certainly diminished their practice, and to demand compensation; it would be equally as reasonable for innkeepers on the post roads to demand compensation for the loss of business they had sustained by the introduction of railways. The fact was, they must all go on with the times, and it would be impossible therefore, in his opinion, to recognise the right of the practitioners in any Court to set up a claim of vested interests. He thought, however, the proctors should be admitted as attorneys, and admitted to practice in the Courts of Common Law, while the civilians should be admitted as barristers to practice in the other Courts, and he believed that if this were done, their learning and ability would secure to them the same amount of practice in the new Courts as in those in which they had been in the habit of practising. As to another jurisdiction possessed by the Ecclesiastical Courts, that of the Court of Admiralty, he had not the same complaints to make. In many cases that was a highly beneficial jurisdiction. The Court of Admiralty had powers which the Courts of Common Law had not. It had power over the vessel itself, which was an extremely useful power, and in cases of collision it had also the power of ordering an equitable adjustment of the damage between the parties, according to the extent to which they were blame-able. The Court had jurisdiction, too, over cases of salvage; and the practice of consulting two Trinity Masters was also in many cases extremely beneficial. It was felt, however, by the seaport towns, one of which he had the honour to represent, that the local administration of the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty would be very useful. They complained, and with some justice, that all cases had to be sent to London for trial; that there was the double bill to the parties of a proctor and solicitor; and that considerable delay and expense were incurred; whereas the shipowners in those towns said they saw no reason why this jurisdiction should not be administered by local tribunals. It seemed to him that it would be matter worthy of consideration by the Committee whether the County Court Judges might not exercise this jurisdiction very beneficially, or it might be conferred upon some of the Recorders of the seaport towns. He thanked the House for listening with so much patience to what he feared, from the nature of the subject, had been a very dry statement; but he had endeavoured to condense his observations into as small a compass as possible. If he were accused of rash and wanton innovations, and of destructiveness, as regarded existing institutions, he would adduce a precedent very strongly in his favour—namely, that what he proposed to do in this country had already been done substantially in Scotland, where the Commissary Court and the Admiralty Court had been transferred to the Sheriff's Court and the Court of Session. He had no desire to effect any rash and violent changes; he preferred that our institutions should be adapted to the progress of the times, and that they should be acted upon by public opinion. But public opinion had never been brought to bear upon law reform; the subject had been shrouded hitherto in almost impenetrable obscurity as far as the general public were concerned; they had been scared away from investigation by the sight of cartloads of law books in mediaeval jargon, and had left the whole question in despair in the hands of the lawyers. Those gentlemen, he confessed, were upon the whole chargeable with not having done what they might have done with regard to law reform, and they had never properly carried out the maxim well known—cessante ratione cessat lex. He trusted that the reforms so urgently needed would be thoroughly and satisfactorily carried out on the part of the Government; but he believed, with respect to our Ecclesiastical Courts, that they were the vulnus immedicabile of our judicial system, and one the only remedy for which was the knife.

, in seconding the Motion, said he agreed in every word of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and hoped the Government would give their sanction to the appointment of a Committee from whoso inquiries nothing but good could result.

said, he was exceedingly happy that this subject had been introduced to the attention of the House, and he thought they must all agree that a more vivid and striking delineation of the evils attendant upon the ecclesiastical branch of our judicial system could never be presented to the House than that which had just been given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was sorry to say that in the whole of that representation he recognised nothing but confessed, acknowledged truths, which had been ascertained for a long period of time, and about which they need no longer inquire; but there still remained a subject, the difficulty of which could not be exaggerated, and that was, to ascertain the mode in which the remedy was to be applied, so that it might be effectual, and that it might be applied even further than the hon. and learned Member had suggested—so that it should extend not only to the evil and anomaly of the jurisdiction of which he complained, but to the evils and anomalies which existed in an almost equal degree by reason of the establishment in this country of so many discordant and antagonistic jurisdictions. Would it be believed that in a country so far advanced in science and civilisation as our own they should have endured for ages this striking and ridiculous anomaly—that you elaborated justice by the monstrous process of allowing one Court to proceed upon principles, and by a rule of procedure which was confessedly opposed to the established principles of the highest degree of justice, and that you sought to remedy the evil by setting another Court to catch and arrest it in its career of injustice? He could assure the House that the evils were not confined merely to Ecclesiastical Courts, but they extended to other jurisdictions; and before an effectual remedy could be devised, there must be a consolidation of these conflicting jurisdictions, in order that justice might no longer be divided, as it was now, into different degrees and different qualities, but that there might be one kind of justice, derived from one common fountain, administered in all the tribunals. The intention of applying a remedy to the existing evils, would, he trusted, be completely acted upon by the present Administration. But it was undoubtedly necessary that, in accomplishing those measures which were required, the Government should proceed to effect them in a complete manner; and, though he was exceedingly reluctant to interpose any delay—though he was extremely unwilling to suggest a course which should savour, or appear to savour, of a disposition to put off investigation—yet he was obliged to remind the House that inquiries were pending at this moment on three most important subjects comprehended in this Motion. There was now sitting a Commission for the consolidation of certain branches of the law; and to the same body was referred the important subject of the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, not for the purpose of inquiry into the evils existing in that jurisdiction, for, he believed, they were generally acknowledged, but for the purpose of considering the manner in which that jurisdiction could be transferred to some other tribunal or tribunals, so that justice in that respect might be completely administered. Though he was perfectly well aware of the necessity of measures being brought before the House, yet he was deeply impressed with apprehension lest the progress of this great reform might be retarded if the matter were referred to a Committee of that House; and lest, when another body were of necessity prosecuting their inquiries, discordant Reports should be received for the suggestion of remedies wholly inconsistent with each other. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would rest satisfied with the assurance, founded on a conviction of the existence of the evils that prevailed, which was given when a noble and learned Lord in another place stated, that, after waiting a certain time for the Reports of the Commission, he should, if they were not presented, or the remedies proposed were not effectual, himself bring forward a measure, which, he trusted, would prove an effectual remedy for the cure of those evils which existed, and for the complete prevention of similar evils in future. Having thus reminded the House of that assurance, and having stated that which he thought would convince the House that the existence of those evils, and the necessity of legislating on the subject, were fully acknowledged by the existing Administration, he begged his hon. and learned Friend would not press the Motion, because he (the Solicitor General) was sure the House would agree in the opinion that further inquiry was not necessary. Inquiries they had had in abundance; but remedies they had not devised. Therefore it was that, if an effective Report were not laid before the House within a reasonable time, he should prefer much that the hon. and learned Gentleman should bring in a complete and effectual measure in the shape of a Bill. If the matter were referred to a Select Committee, the result would be no addition to the knowledge they already possessed. He (the Solicitor General) should say that his own anxiety was to see some measure brought forward which should at once provide a complete remedy for existing evils with reference to the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in divorces and other respects, and which should remove existing anomalies. Another reason for not pressing the Motion was, that a Committee had been appointed by the House of Lords to inquire into the Law of Divorce. The Report, with a sight of which he had been favoured, would be presented very shortly. The hon. and learned Gentleman would then have an opportunity of directing attention to the subject; and that course, it might be suggested, would be more conducive to the ends which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view, than the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry, which would add nothing to the conviction already entertained with respect to the necessity for legislation on this most important subject.

said, he must, in the first place, thank his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) for having relieved him from a duty he had intended to impose on himself. As he had taken a part in the reform of ecclesiastical abuses, and especially of the Ecclesiastical Courts, it was satisfactory to him to find that the course he had taken for some years was now about to be taken by a gentleman occupying the high office of one of the law advisers of the Crown. What had fallen from the hon. and learned Solicitor General gave the House the assurance that a full and ample measure of reform would be brought forward; and he entreated the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth not to take a division, but to be content with the assurance which had been given. With respect to inquiry he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that it was quite unnecessary. There was a book full of evidence and information on the Ecclesiastical Courts. The sum and substance was contained in a few lines, which stated that the Committee, in conclusion, invited attention to the evidence taken before them, as showing that the attention of Parliament ought to be directed without delay to the necessary remedies. That Report was made in 1851. He had reason to believe that it had been under the consideration of the Government of which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was the head, and he knew that it was under the consideration of the present Government. He wished the House to see how the duties of Ecclesiastical Courts were performed, and he begged to call attention to a statement in the evidence, which showed that a Judge, whose name was given, had not been seen for twenty-eight years in his Court, and made his appearance in the diocese only at visitations; yet in all suits in the Court there was a heavy fee levied for the Judge, and for that fee the Judge did nothing. That was a fair sample of the Judges of Ecclesiastical Courts; and yet, because he had brought forward these abuses, he had been censured by persons holding high authority in those Courts. It was, therefore, a great satisfaction to him when a member of the bar brought this matter so clearly and concisely before the House, and when the hon. and learned Solicitor General acknowledged that those ecclesiastical tribunals were "striking and ridiculous anomalies," and thus proved that all his statements had been founded upon facts which now had become so offensive to the public that they would no longer be endured.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth would not consent to withdraw his Motion unless an assurance were given that the measures of the Government would apply to the Irish as well as to the English Ecclesiastical Courts. If those Courts were odious here, they were doubly so in Ireland, where they were entirely under the control of those who differed from the great body of the people in religion. Every Catholic attorney and counsellor was excluded. Those were not mere "shadows of a former grievance," as they had been described; they were substantial and real grievances. A Bill proposed by the present Solicitor General for Ireland had been referred to a Select Committee, before which Mr. Hamilton, a member of a celebrated firm in Dublin, gave evidence far more striking in regard to the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts than that which had been cited with reference to the English. In the case of "Downes v. Donovan" the assets were 600l., the costs exceeded that amount; and in another case while the assets were hundreds, the costs were thousands. It would appear that a proctor took three days to go from Cork to Dublin, a distance of 120 miles, though a railway existed by which the journey might have been made in a few hours; and the same time was taken to return. The proctor took care to charge four guineas a day, and was not able to travel more than forty miles a day. There were charges made for ideal briefs, for briefs that never had any existence, and the same briefs that had been used in one Court were charged again when used in a second and a third. A more perfect system of extortion and robbery did not exist. When Mr. Hamilton was examined on behalf of the proctors, he could not defend the system; he could only say that that was the custom—that he found these things existing, and he only did as other proctors did. There were many cases in which the conduct of Catholic clergymen had been before these tribunals, and it was not just that such cases should be investigated by persons all of a different persuasion. With the best intentions, they might view things through a different medium. It was not fair that there should be no Catholic Judge, or counsel, or proctor. He hoped he should learn whether it was the intention of the Government to include Ireland in their promised reform. It was wanted more there than in England.

said, he must bespeak the indulgent attention of the House under the circumstances which compelled him to address it; he was aware he was addressing an audience with minds, to a certain extent, averted beforehand, and with whom he could have very little hope of succeeding if he offered himself as one opposed to the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but he was happy to be able to state, that the charge brought by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Collier), that the profession had sedulously resisted all attempts at reform, was entirely unfounded. He could appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Midhurst and Morpeth (Mr. Walpole and Sir G. Grey) whether there was not laid before them a measure of reform drawn by himself and another advocate of the Ecclesiastical Court, which went, in many respects, quite as far as the reforms suggested by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Collier)—a measure comprising the abolition of all sinecures whatsoever, the abolition of more than 300 Courts, the insuring the appointment of proper officers, duly qualified by a legal education for those that remained, the introduction of vivâ voce evidence, a very great alteration in the mode of conducting suits in these Courts, tending to produce that which every man must wish to see—cheap, speedy and effective justice. He owed it to himself and to the profession to which he belonged, to say that they had long desired a searching, effective, and, if you would, a sweeping reform; but they asked that both sides should be heard before the House came to a decision, and he thought they had a right to expect that the House should be quite satisfied, on impartial evidence, that the tribunals to which they transferred this jurisdiction were in all respects, especially in the very material points of expense and delay, superior to those from which they were about to take it. It was hardly necessary for the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Collier) to go back to Magna Charta and Edward III. to raise a prejudice against these ecclesiastical tribunals; they had faults enough of themselves, God knew, without going back to that date, and he was not about to defend them. He never had been an advocate for those abuses; and the only question which he had thought could be fairly submitted to the House was, whether they were satisfied that by no possible reform could any part of the present system be made efficient for the administration of justice. If they were so satisfied, he, for one, would offer no opposition to their annihilation; but, if they were not so satisfied—if they thought reforms could be introduced which would preserve what was valuable in the system, and secure this blessing of cheap and speedy justice, let the House at least consider—let it at least hear both sides, which it had not been in the habit of doing on this question, before they came to an adverse conclusion. Perhaps it was a natural bias of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Collier), but so it was, that all his proposed reforms tended to bring business into those Courts in which he was a distinguished practitioner. He did not omit in his indiscriminate attack even the Admiralty Court, against which he was not able to bring a single allegation, and of which he (Mr. Phillimore) could prove that no Court in the Kingdom administered justice more speedily and effectually; and when he remembered and named its existing president, formerly a distinguished Member of that House, Dr. Lushington—when he remembered other names, those, among many others, of Sir George Lee, of Dr. Lawrence the friend of Burke, and another name, which, if he did not bear it himself he might mention, once not unknown nor unhonoured in this House. Then you could not take up an American law-book without seeing Lord Stowell described as the "spotless magistrate of nations," and his decisions as giving law to both hemispheres. The mention of these names entitled him to maintain, that the study of civil and international law had produced some of the most distinguished men this country had had to boast of. These and other considerations on which at this late hour he would not dwell, warranted him in suggesting, that these tribunals, with all their defects, might have something in them which ought to be preserved. There were two tests to which all were agreed that the efficiency of justice must be put—expense and delay. He certainly had heard with some astonishment that these evils as existing in the Ecclesiastical Courts would be cured by a transference to the Courts of Common Law. A few years ago he made some research into those cases in which he could compare the delays and expenses in the two Courts; and though he should be very sorry to be supposed not to be a hearty reformer of the Ecclesiastical Courts, he would give the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Collier) this challenge—where he would produce an instance of expense and delay in the Ecclesiastical Courts, he (Mr. Phillimore) would produce a much greater in the Courts of Chancery or Common Law. He said this, not as a reason why the Ecclesiastical tribunals should not be reformed, but because, when they were attacked, their defects ought to be judged by a comparison with those of other tribunals, and there ought not to be a prejudice created against them by pointing to such cases as that of the Rev. Mr. Moore—a scandal and abuse which Parliament had never enabled the Ecclesiastical Courts, though most desirous, to purge themselves from, or by alluding to the large number of public jurisdictions called Peculiars, as if they were any necessary part of the system, or as if it were the fault of the Courts in which he practised that they had not been long ago swept away. Let the House be just: who was really to blame for the continuance of these evils? Parliament itself, and no other institution. Sir W. Scott, in 1813, passed a Bill through that House for the abolition of the Peculiars: it was rejected by the Lords. In 1836 was passed the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 77, by a clause of which Peculiars were destroyed, and one Court left for each diocese. Why had it not taken effect? Because that House in its wisdom passed an annual Act to suspend the operation of this part of the Act of William IV., by itself, therefore, breathing every year vitality into the worst part of the system complained of, and which would be otherwise extinct, and thus allowing the existence of these detestable peculiar jurisdictions so continued by the House itself to be a ground for the indiscriminate demolition of the whole system. He could assure the hon. and learned Solicitor General that in no one would be find a more active, though in many a more effective, supporter of any reforms he might bring forward respecting his profession, than in himself (Mr. Phillimore). But when he heard it said that these Courts had been condemned by every Commission that ever sat, he could not forget that there was one in 1832, signed by illustrious names—Chief Justice Tindal, Lord Ten-terden, Lord Wynford—which, so far from condemning them, actually advised that the jurisdiction over real property should be tranferred from Westminster-hall to these very tribunals which were now stigmatised as sinks of iniquity; and Lord Lyndhurst in 1844 sent down to that House a Bill in which many of these reforms were adopted, but nevertheless the basis of the Ecclesiastical Courts was preserved. It was said that the expenses in those Courts were so enormous; let the House hear an instance or two. There were cases tried by common as well as ecclesiastical law, which therefore afforded a means of comparison. There was a case, unhappily notorious, the Braintree Church Rate case; the expense in the first cause was—in the Consistory Court of London, 111l. 14s.; in the Queen's Bench, on application for prohibition, 244l. 17s. 6d.; and in the Exchequer Chamber, 216l In the second cause, the expense in the Consistory Court was 153l; in the Arches (appellate) Court, 84l; in the Queen's Bench, 245l.; and there was the Exchequer Chamber besides. Let the House consider these things before transferring the jurisdiction of the Ec- clesiastical Courts to the Common Law Courts. In another case there was a very curious question of law upon the construction of the 21st of Henry VIII., c. 5s, 3; the same point was raised in the Prerogative Court and in the Court of Exchequer; the costs in the former were 35l., in the latter above 200l. [Harrison v. Harrison, 2 Robertson's Reports, 406; Venables v. E. I. Company, Exchequer, July 11, 1848.] A testator died in 1845 possessed of large personal property; there was a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court to ascertain the true will, spurious documents being produced; the genuine will was ascertained and pronounced for; the cost were 846l. The parties who had alleged the spurious documents were prosecuted for forgery; and the law costs were 1,500l. [Wintle and Dowding v. Slack and Others.] Again, the present Lord Chief Justice Campbell, a most distinguished Judge, did not exactly agree with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Collier) in the great advantage of transferring causes as the hon. Member proposed; for, in 1832, Lord Campbell stated before a Committee, after referring to the number of new trials granted in the Common Law Courts, that trial by jury would be absolutely intolerable if it were not for the power of granting a new trial; for, sometimes from ignorance, and more frequently from prejudice, juries gave verdicts which were absolutely unjust. Non meus hic sermo est. It was the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Campbell, and he (Mr. Phillimore) doubted very much whether any great advantage would be derived, either by the suitor or by the public, by handing over these cases to be tried by a jury. With respect to other portions of the attack of the hon. and learned Member, but from an apprehension of exhausting the patience of the House at that late hour, he could show, and would be prepared to show, when the proper time came, that they were characterised by much inaccuracy and great exaggeration. He could show, for instance, that there was not wanting the unbiassed testimony of eminent solicitors like Mr. Freshfield, as to the ease and celerity with which wills were found in the Prerogative Court, and that the custody of the wills was not in the condition described by the hon. and learned Member. But for these remarks there would be another and better opportunity. He should be sorry if, in the few remarks which it would have been pusillanimous in him not to have offered to the House, he should be regarded as the advocate of what he really detested—the many and great abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts. His had been no oratio pro domo meâ but there were more difficulties in the way of providing an effectual remedy for the evils which he admitted and deplored, than many hon. Members were aware of. It was impossible for Courts which were at least coeval with, if, indeed, they were not prior to those of Westminster-hall—which had existed for 800 years—not to have their roots intertwined with many interests and considerations which did not at first sight present themselves; and it was in the process of setting these Courts free from those interests, which were in the present instance of no light or unimportant character, and of preserving the advantages of the Courts while their abuses were removed, that, as his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General well knew, the difficulty consisted. He had to apologise to the House for the length into which he had been unintentionally led to occupy their attention; but it had proceeded from his anxiety not to allow the opportunity to go by of saying, that he and the branch of the profession to which he belonged, would eagerly hail an effective and searching reform in the Ecclesiastical Courts.

hoped the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), would allow him to prefer an earnest request, that he would not press this Motion to a division. From the whole course of this discussion, he believed he might say that they were all agreed as to one thing, that the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Courts were intolerable, and could no longer be suffered to exist. The only question was as to the remedy. In such cases the great matter was to ascertain the existence of abuses, for when once these were universally admitted, the difficulty as to the application of a remedy was no longer felt. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, that the knife should be applied, but they must apply it with discretion; and when it was said that they ought to transfer this jurisdiction to the Common Law Courts, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, that this was a measure which should not be adopted without the greatest deliberation. He was satisfied that at the present moment the machinery of the Common Law Courts, and their system of procedure, would not be adequate to supply the necessities of the cases. That their machinery might be greatly improved, and their procedure go remodelled as to include matters which now properly belonged to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, he entertained no doubt—indeed he hoped that before a very considerable time elapsed, they would have all the Law Courts acting according to one common procedure formed on the true principles of jurisprudence. But as matters now stood, if they transferred the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery, they would have a system not calculated to deal with questions of fact; and on the other hand, if they transferred it to the Common Law Courts, they would have a system well calculated to deal with questions of fact, but not such a procedure as was necessary in the cases that were tried in Ecclesiastical Courts. He thought that they must wait, and see how far they could improve the system and procedure of the Law Courts, and make them operate in one harmonious jurisdiction, before they decided to what quarter they would transfer the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical tribunals. He only asked for a short interval for consideration, and he was sure the House generally, as well as the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, must feel that the present Government could have no object in delaying for a single hour longer than was necessary the reform of so objectionable a system. He hoped the result would be satisfactory, and he recommended the postponement of a decision until the reports of the two Commissions now engaged in examining the jurisdiction in questions of testamentary disposition and divorce were received.

said, he felt bound to say that unless a measure were speedily introduced by Government for the improvement of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Ireland, he should think it his duty himself to introduce a Bill for that purpose. It was not merely the religious evil already alluded to of which they had to complain in Ireland, but the monstrous system of appeal which prevailed there, with all its manifold abuses. The facts of the case being all ascertained, and there being no necessity for further inquiry, he submitted that they were entitled to a statement of the intentions of Government on this head of the subject.

said, he would take that opportunity of answering the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentle- man. He trusted that what had been stated by the Lord Chancellor in another place, and what they had heard that evening from his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and Solicitor General, must satisfy both the House and the public that Her Majesty's Government were earnest in their intention to sweep away what he might call the Augean stable of the Ecclesiastical Courts. If the House placed confidence in the intentions of Her Majesty's Government to make those legal improvements which had been shadowed out, he thought they could not for one moment suppose that the Government would be prepared to reform the legal arrangements of England, and to leave the legal arrangements of Ireland unreformed and unimproved.

said, he wished to know whether the hon. and learned Solicitor General intended to bring in a temporary Bill, for making one probate sufficient for the whole of the United Kingdom?

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that this branch of the subject had engaged their attention, and he was enabled to state that it was proposed to abolish the present practice of probate, and to establish in lieu of it one general system of registration.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald), would not bring in any Bill on the subject of the Irish Ecclesiastical jurisdiction until the entire subject now under consideration of the House should have been fully matured by the Government. He wished the House to understand exactly the state of the case as regarded Ireland. The Committee on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as the Solicitor General for Ireland, sat, and which investigated the subject of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and its abuses in Ireland, found no such abuses existing there as those which prevailed in this country. It was true that complaints were made that the proctors and advocates were of the Protestant religion; but there was no indisposition on the part of the Primate and the other authorities in 1837 to admit Roman Catholics to practise in those Courts, and there was no reason for not doing away with the exclusively Protestant character of those Courts. Again, one of the Judges of the Irish Courts was examined before the Committee, and asked whether Attorneys in the mass, should be made Proctors of the Court. He answered that he thought not, and that the limited number of Proctors effectually prevented the commission of frauds in respect to the transfer of money at the banks on administrations obtained by false documents. He admitted that the system was a monopoly which he should rejoice to sec reformed; but he hoped that measures with that object would be taken with due deliberation.

said, that as a Member of the Committee his general impression from the evidence was, that though the abuses in the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts were not of the same specific character as those which existed in this country, yet there were great abuses as to costs and expenses which called loudly for a remedy. The hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) came, he believed, from Doctors' Commons, and it was well that they should have Gentlemen from that place, who professed a desire to reform the Ecclesiastical Courts, in the House of Commons. He (Mr. Bouverie) must say, however, that he somewhat mistrusted the warm professions made by that hon. and learned Gentleman of the earnest desire for reform which existed among the advocates in Doctors' Commons. There was one reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts which would no doubt be extremely palatable to the hon. and learned Member for Tavistock—the abolition of 340 Courts, which had before been attempted in Parliament. Some eight years ago the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) was seduced into making that proposal in Parliament, in order that Doctors' Commons might have the whole Ecclesiastical business of the country. The right hon. Gentleman found, however, that he could not carry his proposal through the House. The hon. and learned Member for Tavistock might be assured, if there was such a feeling then, that that feeling was ten times stronger now. Such a reform as the advocates of Doctors' Commons were anxious to accept, would not go down in that House or in the country. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collins) would not press for the Committee.

said, that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was mistaken in supposing that the object of the proposal to which he had referred was to abolish certain Courts in order to transfer the business to Doctors' Commons. On the contrary, the measure went upon the principle of preserving all the Diocesan Courts.

begged to express his thanks to the law officers of the Crown for the very explicit statements they had made on the subject. If such statements had been made before, he would not have thought it necessary to bring the matter before the House. He might, perhaps, be allowed to suggest that it was desirable the Commission now inquiring into the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts should have power to inquire into the whole of their jurisdiction. With the permission of the House he would withdraw his Motion, and leave the question in the hands of the Government, on the understanding that if it was not dealt with as he had every reason to hope and believe it would be, he should think it his duty to take up the subject again. It was impossible now to contend that the Ecclesiastical Courts ought not to be reformed, for the only possible way of maintaining them was by reforming them; but he did not desire to reform them, because he believed a reform of those Courts would be one of the greatest evils that could happen, as it would continue them for twenty years longer. These Courts had been tried; they had been found wanting; sentence had been passed upon them, and they ought to be executed. It had been said that some of the advocates of Doctors' Commons were exceedingly anxious for reform. If that were the case, they had been grievously disappointed, and he sympathised with them, for, somehow or other, no reform had taken place. It was said that the abolition of 340 Ecclesiastical Courts out of 372 had been proposed. That arrangement would have left 32 Courts remaining, which he considered would be 32 too many. He thought these Courts should be altogether abolished, and that some new and simple Courts should be established, under Judges appointed by the Crown, for the purpose of dealing merely with questions of Church discipline. The hon. and learned Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore) had intimated that, as he (Mr. Collier) belonged to the Common Law Bar, he desired to transfer the jurisdiction from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the Courts of Common Law. Now, he (Mr. Collier) proposed transferring by far the greater portion of the jurisdiction to the County Courts, in which he did not practise; and, with regard to the jurisdiction in cases of divorce and other matters, he thought it would be far better to give it to the Courts of Chancery, instead of to the Courts of Common Law. It had been said in the course of the debate, that it was not desirable to try such questions as the sanity of a testator by a jury, but that it was better to leave such matters to the decision of an Ecclesiastical Judge. He (Mr. Collier) thought, however, that it would be found very difficult to convince the country that their rights were safer in the hands of an Ecclesiastical Judge than in those of a jury. In his opinion the power of trial by jury ought to be optional; but he would never consent to any one being deprived of what he regarded as one of our most valuable rights—that of trial by jury.

said, he rose to move that the evidence taken before the Election Committees for Bridgenorth and Blackburn be laid on the table; and that the writs for the said boroughs be suspended until Monday, the 4th day of April. The House was aware that the Committee which had sat to investigate the Bridgenorth Election Petition had reported that Sir Robert Pigot was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the last election; and that the Blackburn Committee had also reported that Mr. Eccles was, by his agents, guilty of bribery; and that they further found that treating to some extent had been practised at the election by the agents and friends of Mr. Eccles. He (Sir J. Shelley) did not know whether his Motion was to be opposed; but it certainly appeared to him, particularly at the present time, when there were so many Election Petitions before the House, that they should show the country they were determined to sift these matters to the bottom, and that in every case where an Election Committee decided that a sitting Member had been guilty of bribery, by his agents or otherwise, the evidence should be placed in the hands of Members of the House before writs were issued for the boroughs. It had always struck him that the Committees of that House were placed in an awkward position with regard to these questions. It was clear that the petitioners in such cases would go no further than suited their purpose, which was to prove sufficient to unseat the sitting Member. It was not to be expected that, for the sake of the general purity of elections, the petitioners would go one inch further than was necessary to prove their case. It therefore seemed to him that the House should take care to show the country that they were determined thoroughly to sift every case where it was proved by the decision of a Committee that bribery had taken place. He thought it was more especially the duty of the House to look carefully into these cases at this time, as the Government had given notice of their intention to propose next year what he hoped would turn out to be a thorough Parliamentary reform; and, as a sincere advocate of purity of election, he was extremely anxious that all these cases should be brought before the House and the country, in order that there might be no excuse for not making that measure of reform searching and effective. He did not think the delay of the writs for the time he proposed could be any great detriment to these boroughs; and, if it should appear from the evidence that no organised system of bribery had existed, it would be competent to the House at once to direct that the writs should issue. He hoped, however, that in every case where a system of organised bribery and corruption was proved to have prevailed, the House would issue a Commission in order thoroughly to sift the matter.

said, that, as a general rule, he thought the House was very shy of suspending the issue of writs, but that rule ought certainly to be liable to exceptions. Generally speaking, he believed, when an Election Committee found that evidence was adduced before them, showing that an organised and extensive system of bribery had prevailed in any borough, they reported the circumstances to the House. He did not know whether any such Report had been made in these cases, but he believed not. It was, however, perfectly true, as the hon. Baronet stated, that though the Committee might not have made such a Report, there might be in the evidence given before the Committee grounds which might lead the House to come to the conclusion that a system of bribery had existed. Therefore, and especially considering the impression which existed that bribery had prevailed to a great extent at the late elections—whether well or ill-founded—he would offer no opposition to the Motion of his hon. Friend, and would be willing not only that the evidence be laid before the House, but that they should suspend for a short period the issuing of the writs, so as to enable the House to consider whether or not further proceedings should be taken.

said, as Chairman of the Bridgenorth Election Committee, he thought it right to state that there was no evidence of such an extensive system of corruption in that borough as would justify the House in taking ulterior measures. If, however, the House thought it right to take the step now proposed, they would, in his opinion, be called on to adopt it as a general rule, and he would suggest, whether this might not lead to inconvenience. There could be no objection to the House seeing the evidence, but he did not see why five weeks should be asked for that purpose.

said, he would not offer any opposition to the Motion, but he called the attention of the House to the nature of the proceeding now proposed. They had devolved upon a Committee an inquiry into what had taken place at a particular election, and that Committee, having considered all that had taken place, had resolved that they were not called on to report any special circumstances requiring the consideration of the House. This was the case both with the Bridgenorth and Blackburn Election Committees; and he put it to the House, whether they should not be very cautious as to the precedent which they were now going to establish. Was it intended that the evidence should be printed in every case

said, as Chairman of the Blackburn Election Committee, he had taken the opinion of that Committee as to the propriety of ulterior measures being taken, and they unanimously concurred in thinking that nothing had come before them to make any special Report necessary beyond the Resolution which he had read to the House—that there were no peculiarities in the case to warrant them to ask for ulterior proceedings. It was also the determination of the Committee that it would not be desirable to print the evidence. He thought the caution thrown out by the two Gentlemen who had last spoken was one well deserving the attention of the House.

thought nothing could be more unfortunate than to suppose that the House was disposed to reverse the decision of any Election Committee with respect to seats in that House. A decision on that point by a Committee was final, and not to be reversed. Nor with respect to the mode in which they discharged their duty in Committee was any question raised. But it did become that House to have regard to the circumstances of the last general election. Not fewer than 109 petitions had been presented with regard to elections, and nearly all these petitions alleged the existence of bribery. He was not prepared to say that it would be expedient in all such cases to suspend the issue of a writ; but, on the whole, he did think that where Election Committees reported that bribery had been committed, the time had arrived when it was desirable, not with a view to consider the question of the decision of the Committees, but with reference to the conduct of the constituent body, that the evidence should in all such cases be printed. This he considered expedient, in order that the Members of the House might read the evidence, and see whether any ulterior steps ought to be taken, and whether it was not the duty of the House to inquire into the conduct of the constituent body, lie would suggest to the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley), that the time during which he proposed to suspend the writ was too long. He was in favour of printing the evidence, and of suspending the issue of the writs for a moderate period, until the House had time to examine the evidence; but he thought that a fortnight would be sufficient for that purpose.

, as Chairman of the General Committee on Elections, wished to state, before the House came to a decision, that there were above one hundred election petitions, seventy-nine of which involved separate cases—and of those seventy-nine only fourteen had been withdrawn, so that the House would be required to provide no less than sixty-five Committees for election purposes. About thirteen or fourteen Committees had been already formed, and in all of those which had presented their Reports, excepting one case, cither one or both of the Members had been unseated. He would therefore leave the House to form an opinion how its general business was to be carried on if a much larger number of Members were declared to be unseated, and their seats not to be filled up for some five or six weeks, when there would be an im- mense pressure of business upon the House. Why, it was only a day or two ago that a Committee of thirty Members was appointed; and as Election Committees had a compulsory power over their members, the effect must be the withdrawal of some of the most practical and useful Members from attendance upon Select Committees,

said, he felt bound to say that he was somewhat surprised that the Blackburn Committee had not recommended ulterior measures when he heard their Report read at the bar. They reported—

"That the last election, so far as William Eccles, Esq., was concerned, was a void election; that it was proved that George Clarke was bribed by an outlay of 5l. for the benefit of his son, John Clarke, the keeper of the Bird-in-Hand beer shop; that George Gorton was bribed by a promise of 5l. for the use of a room as a committee room; that Thomas Morris was bribed by an order for beer to the amount of 4l., and two tickets for more beer; that Thomas Bond was bribed by the consumption of meat and drink on the polling day to the amount of 37l.; that James Hurdle was bribed in a similar manner by an outlay of 47l."

Now, he (Sir B. Hall) remembered the time when such a statement would have instantly been followed by a Motion for further inquiry; and in these times of purity of election he thought they ought to have an inquiry whether even so large a borough as Blackburn ought not to be disfranchised. He hoped that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) would accept the proposal of the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham).

said, he thought no case had been made out for departing from the ordinary practice of the House, and establishing what might be a dangerous precedent. The fate of a Ministry had been known to be dependent on one vote, and while these writs were suspended a vote might be come to by the House deciding who should be the Ministers.

said, the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) revealed a most dismal state of things, and was calculated to produce considerable effect, not only in the House, but in the country. The right hon. Baronet had informed the House that fourteen Committees had been appointed to try boroughs for corrupt practices, and that about fifty more remained to be appointed, and he spoke of the difficulty there might be in finding Members enough in the House to constitute tribunals to judge the disputed elec- tions, and at the same time to form Committees for the ordinary business of the House. This looked as if the Parliamentary machine were coming to a dead lock; but it appeared to him (Mr. Cobden) that their primary and almost only business ought to be to show to the country that they were prepared to deal firmly and vigorously with the state of things which had brought the House to such an extraordinary position. He could not conceive any business—not even the Committee on Indian Affairs—that was of so much importance to the cause of constitutional government in this country, as that the House should show itself ready to deal with the frightful amount of corruption which seemed to have taken hold of the great bulk of our constituencies. The Reports of the Committees which had come to a decision upon the respective cases committed to them, showed that there had been attempts on the part of those who had conducted those petitions, to keep back as much as possible information as to the state of the different boroughs. If this state of things went on, petitioners would be content to prove only one case of bribery, because it would be highly inconvenient to parties who profited by this corruption to have their boroughs disfranchised. That would be as unwise as to cut up the goose that laid the golden eggs. With respect to the case at Bridgenorth he had received a letter from a constituent, who was also a voter for the West Riding, stating that an inquiry ought to be strongly pressed for; and affirming that it was exceedingly difficult to procure information as to the real state of the town, because it was a pocket borough; but that if the inquiry should be fairly conducted, it would reveal an amount of corruption that would cast even Sudbury and St. Albans into the shade. This statement ought to encourage them to persevere into a sifting inquiry into Bridgenorth. Did anybody deny that Bridgenorth was the place described there; or that Cambridge was one of the most notoriously corrupt places in the Kingdom? Did not everybody know the character of Canterbury? He might run through scores of small boroughs in the south of England equally corrupt. The public would expect that the first and almost only business which the House had to do was to show themselves honest in dealing with the question of corruption in the Parliamentary boroughs. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would persevere in the Motion he had made. He did not think a month too long to give to these abominably corrupt places to purify themselves, and to bring their minds to a proper sense of their debasement.

said, he preferred suspending the writ for a fortnight to the original proposition to suspend it for a month.

said, he concurred in the proposition to suspend the writs; but if an investigation were to take place, it must be general, and not one-sided. He thought that when proof was shown that bribery existed in a borough, time should be allowed for the inhabitants to consult together, in order that they might petition before the issue of the writ, if they were so minded, for a Commission of Inquiry. He should be happy to support the hon. Baronet if he would move that a fortnight should elapse between the printing of the evidence and the Motion for the writ.

said, he would adopt the suggestion for the postponement of these writs. He thought that, where bribery was proved, full opportunity should he given to consider the evidence, so that the House might judge for itself before the writ was moved.

said, he apprehended there was no Member of the House who would not say the evidence upon which they were to decide as to any further inquiry into a particular borough, must be the printed evidence before the Committee, and not vague and general statements made in that House as to there being gross corruption; but if they were to decide upon such printed evidence, who were the best judges of it—the Committee who had heard it, who had seen the witnesses and observed their demeanour, or the House who had not had that advantage? Were they prepared to reintroduce into the House, upon the case of every borough, the question whether the writ should should go or not?—a question to be decided by a party vote, the majority of votes being given by Gentlemen who had not read the evidence. If they adopted such a course they would soon get back into the state the House was in before Mr. Grenville's Act was passed.

said, it was competent for the House, on reading the evidence, to come to the conclusion that there were indications of bribery existing in these boroughs; but he was happy to believe that in every corrupt borough in this country a part of the constituency was hostile to such practices, and anxious for a remedy. He would assume there were such persons at Bridgenorth—he was sure there were at Blackburn—and if those persons should think a thorough inquiry was necessary, they might petition the House for such inquiry, and the House might appoint a Special Committee for the purpose. But if there were no such petition, and the writ were suspended for a fortnight, the time would be well spent in the borough, for it would be held up to public observation and obloquy on that account; but if they issued the writ at once, another Member might probably be returned by the same means, and the country would have ground for believing that their zeal for election purity was a sham, and that they did not care about the matter. He was astonished that any person should hesitate to adopt any measure that would put an end to such a state of things. Many men who were innocent were brought under temporary disgrace, and there were many sitting in the House at that moment, who, having seen what took place before these Committees, were in a most uncomfortable position, not only, and probably not chiefly, because they were in danger of losing their seats—for to an honourable man that was a small thing, as he had an opportunity of redeeming it—but because he felt liable through the corruption of our representative system of having his name recorded in a blue book connected with dirty and corrupt practices.

said, the House must either be content with the decision of the Committee, or begin de novo. In the case of every borough where bribery had been proved, he wished the House to express its disapprobation; but he thought it better to adhere to the course that had hitherto been followed. He considered it desirable in the present instance to settle beforehand the mode of proceeding; and he would suggest that the form of the Motion should be, that Mr. Speaker should not issue the writ until six days, five days, or three days after the day on which the evi- dence ordered to be printed should be in the hands of Members.

thought that an inquiry should be instituted, not only into cases where the petition had been compromised, but also into cases where the petitions had been defeated on mere points of form. As he considered that he was one of those against whom allegations had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, he challenged investigation, and therefore moved an adjournment, in order that there should he time for a full inquiry.

said, he would point out that one effect of the course now proposed to the House would be, that, in future, Election Committees having once got evidence enough on which to unseat a Member, would, so to speak, shut up shop, and whatever the further evidence within their attainment, give themselves no trouble about it, but leave the inquiry to be pursued by the House, if the House so pleased.

said, he certainly considered that where a Committee had received evidence of bribery, by a Member or his agent, justifying them in unseating that Member, it was expedient that the evidence of such bribery should be printed, so that the constituency involved might be made acquainted with the facts elicited; and, if they thought fit, petition the House that further inquiry might be made into the conduct of the constituency. The House might then have a further inquiry specially into the conduct of that constituency, under the Act already on the table; or, if these cases should multiply, when the House came to consider all the cases in which inquiry was pending—seventy in number, he believed—then it would be a question, with a view to future legislation, of suspending the writs, and of instituting an inquiry into the conduct of all the constituent bodies in which such bribery had been proved to exist.

said, he felt that this subject was one of too much importance to be decided at that late hour of the night. The House must not be driven to a hasty conclusion upon so large a proposition as that which had developed itself, on a Motion which, as proposed, had only reference to two special cases. He should, therefore, support the Motion for adjournment, not with any view to oppose the proposition of the hon. Member for Westminster, but to give the House a full opportunity of deciding fairly and properly on this important question.

said, he was quite willing to assent to an adjournment of the debate.