Sir, it will be in the recollection of the House, that last year a Committee was appointed, to whom all the propositions with regard to supplying the metropolis with water were referred. After a very long, patient, and laborious investigation, that Committee made a Report, and the result was, that a Bill was brought in, giving power to the old water companies to continue to supply the metropolis with water, upon their undertaking to reduce their rates, and to layout a large sum of money in making certain improvements. Until they had an opportunity of proving whether or not they intended to perform those conditions, it was proposed that those old companies should have a sort of monopoly in supplying the metropolis with water, but no such stipulation was inserted in the Bill of last year. At all events it was understood that no new Bill should be introduced into Parliament the object of which would be to interfere with their privileges, until it was seen to what extent the old companies would meet the wish of the Legislature. From a conversation which took place the other day on the London Waterworks Bill, it transpired that the opinion that such delay should take place in favour of the old companies was shared in by the Chairman of the Committee of last year, and also by Her Majesty's late Government. On that occasion I took the liberty of requesting that some member of the Government would inform the House what is the opinion of Her Majesty's present Government with respect to this important question. It so happened on that occasion that no member of the Government was present, and I therefore gave notice of the question which stands on the paper in my name, to the following effect:—"What are the intentions of the Government with regard to Bills for the Supply of Water to the Metropolis, introduced or to be introduced in the present Session?" I now take the liberty of putting that question to my noble Friend at the head of the Home Office, and I hope that his answer will be satisfactory to all parties interested in this subject.

said, that undoubtedly there was no positive stipulation between Parliament and the existing water companies, which should preclude the House from dealing as it might think fit with any Bill for establishing any new water company which might be brought in this year, or at any other time. But if he were asked what the opinion of the Government was on the subject with regard to the expediency and discretion on the part of Parliament, he should say, that the Act of last year having imposed upon the existing water companies the obligation of undertaking large works, which could only be executed at very great expense, and there being, apparently, reason to think that, if those works were executed in the manner prescribed, and the supply of water was given in accordance with the provisions of the Act, there was a reasonable probability that the metropolis might be supplied with good water, he should say, on the part of the Government, that they would recommend the House to abstain from establishing any new company until the existing companies had had a fair trial as to whether they could or could not accomplish the purposes under the provisions of the Act for which that Act was obtained.

said, that, in putting the question on this subject of which he had given notice, he would remind the House that in 1810 there was laid upon the table the Report of a Committee, into which Committee Sir Robert Peel was put by the Government of the day to support their erroneous opinions. Sir Robert Peel, however, became a convert to the sounder principles of Mr. Locke and Sir Isaac Newton, and from that time sound principles had been followed by the various Administrations, and by no member of those Administrations more remarkably than by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) during the Government of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. Since that time circumstances had occurred of a totally un- precedented character, and unreferred to in the Report of that Committee, disturbing the currency, and he therefore begged to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government had taken into consideration the effects of the reduced value of gold; the consequences of this reduction of value upon the industrious classes, and especially upon contributors to savings banks; and whether he did not think it advisable to appoint a Committee to inquire into the altered value of the standard, and to suggest some remedy for any evil that might be likely to arise?

Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend I have to state, that Her Majesty's Government have carefully watched and observed the course of monetary transactions, and especially with respect to the influx and efflux of gold into and from this country during a recent period; but they do not see the proofs of the reduced value of gold by any means so clearly as they have appeared to my hon. Friend; and they have no intention, under present circumstances, and as at present advised, of appointing any Committee to inquire into this subject.

, on rising for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Attorneys and Solicitors Annual Certificate Duty, said, before he went into the merits of this case, which he was afraid he should be compelled to do, he wished the House to take notice of the position in which this question was now placed. So much had the profession felt the grievance of this tax, that for the last twenty years they had never ceased to petition the House to be relieved from it. He had given notice of his intention to move for the repeal of this tax in 1849. He was not, however, able to bring the question before the House until the following year—the year 1850. Then, however, he did so; and although opposed by the Government of the day, the House acquiesced in the propriety of the Motion, and he carried it, with their assistance, through several stages, until at last he lost it towards the end of the Session, owing to one of those difficulties which are incidental to every private Member of the House who attempted individual legisla- tion. In the following year, 1851, on account of the Ministerial crisis, and of the debates upon "the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill," be was unable to bring the Motion forward as soon as he could have wished, but he brought it forward late in; the Session; and although again opposed by the Government, the House confirmed its former decision by a still larger majority; and he had some reason to believe that, had his friends remained in office, he should have been spared the trouble of bringing this question again before the House, for he thought they would have deferred to the decision of the House, and also to what he conceived to be the unanswerable claims of the attorneys and solicitors to be relieved from this tax. Last year, during the short interval that elapsed between the accession of the new Government and the termination of the expiring Parliament, it was impossible for him to attract the attention of the House to the subject to any useful purpose. If that were the same Parliament, or if the same Members had been returned, he had so often and so successfully troubled the House before on the subject, that he should simply have read the notice that stood upon the paper of the House, made the Motion, and sat down; but as there were something like two hundred new Members in the present House, he should scarcely do justice to those whoso interests were committed to his charge, if he did not briefly call the attention of the House to an outline of the history of the tax, and the principal arguments on which they relied for its repeal. At the close of the last century Mr. Pitt was in great distress for money, and was compelled to raise funds to meet the exigency of the time, not in pursuance of any fiscal system that he approved of, but by levying any taxes he could persuade the House to vote; and he stated in proposing this duty that he could not justify it on any principle. So sensible was he of the unjust manner in which it was likely to operate, that in order, as he stated, to make the tax tolerably fair, he attached to it the duty upon warrants—an ad valorem duty to the amount of business transacted by each attorney. That part of the Act, he said, would render it to a certain extent fair and equitable; but he was sorry to say that that fair and equitable portion of the Act had been long since repealed, and that the most objectionable part of the Act, the Certificate duty, had not only been continued, but increased more than once, until it had arrived at the present amount—12l. a year for the metropolitan, and 8l. a year for the country solicitor. The operation of the tax was this: whilst the more wealthy portion of the profession paid about one-half per cent, or one-fourth per cent on their earnings, the poorer portion paid five or six, and in some cases even seven per cent. But he would not dwell upon the unequal operation of the tax, because no doubt, if that were the whole of their case, it would be said that that injustice was also shared by certain trades that paid a personal tax; and therefore it might be urged that if the tax were repealed, they should also repeal other personal taxes to a large amount. He meant the taxes upon auctioneers, brewers, hawkers, and various others; but surely at that time of day it would scarcely be contended that, because principally for fiscal purposes and for the protection of the revenue, certain trades paid a licence, therefore it was fair and just that a profession, or rather a part of a profession, should pay certificate duty. People would hardly exclude from their consideration that the one business required a long, expensive, and laborious education, whilst the others, comparatively speaking, required little, if any, special education of any description; and they, moreover, might be laid down and taken up again at any moment without the slightest detriment to the individual exercising them. But if that was their principle, and if they were so enamoured with that method of taxation, and thought that the tax was really justifiable, why did they not increase the revenue, and put a tax upon barristers, surgeons, physicians, sculptors, and architects? But even if they did put a tax upon them, he would presently show the House that they would be dealing with them much more equitably than they were then dealing with the attorney and solicitor. The collector of taxes meets him upon the very threshold of his professional career, and asks him to pay 120l. before even his parent, if he has one in the profession, can communicate to him the rudiments of professional knowledge. When he has gone through his clerkship, before he can practise, the Government comes to him again, and levies an additional toll to the amount of 25l.; then when he begins to practise, he is invited to pay the income tax of 3 per cent on his earnings, and the law charges him with certificate duty, which, on the aggregate returns of the profession, amounts to at least 3 per cent additional. And then it was the fashion to revile this part of the profession, and call them extortioners, and bloodsuckers, and vampires, and he did not know what besides; indeed, he was informed that an hon. Member of a former Parliament, being interrogated as to the difference between a solicitor and an attorney, said it was the difference between a crocodile and an alligator. But he asserted that it was the Executive Government that was the extortioner; for, if an example of extortion was wanted, what stronger example could be shown than the fiscal system that exacted 120,000l. sterling yearly in the shape of certificate duty, and 80,000l. a year in the shape of stamp duty on articles of clerkship and admissions, making altogether 200,000l. on the industrial earnings—he should say, "mental exertions" of one portion of a learned profession. He said he could strengthen his case much were he to detail to the House, from individual instances which had come to his knowledge in examining this question the injurious operation of this impost; but he forebore to do so, because when he first introduced this measure the House was kind enough to listen to him, while at considerable length he went into the matter. However feeble that statement was, the Law Society of England adopted it, printed and circulated it, and probably a copy had been sent to every Member that then did him the honour to listen to him. When this question was originally proposed by Mr. Pitt, there was a Member for Wiltshire (Sir Edward Astley) at that period who was delighted with the proposition, and at the notion of skinning an attorney; and he said he thought the law was a luxury, and that those who used it ought to pay for it. He was not at all of that opinion. He-did not think the law a luxury; he thought it a necessary evil. He hoped that the administration of the law would hereafter only be another term for the administration of justice, and would be made cheap and open to all. He thought, and he had always voted accordingly, that the best means of relieving the people, so far as legal matters were concerned, was to simplify the law, and render the law as cheap as possible. That was a far better plan than the circuitous route that was now pursued of extracting, for the benefit of the public, through the solicitors and attorneys, that which a complicated and antiquated system of law enabled them to obtain from the pub- lie, apparently for their own benefit. After many long delays, he was happy to say that the Government and the Legislature had at length entered boldly upon a career of law reform. He need not tell the House that what had already been done had enormously curtailed the profits of the legal profession—the profits of those whose interests he was now advocating. He thought that the proper and legitimate method of curtailing the profits of the attorneys; but in doing what the House had done, it had cut from under it all pretence and ground for the continuation of this onerous tax. He had hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have spared him the trouble of making, and the House the trouble of listening to, his speech by at once acquiescing in the demand of the profession; but it appeared he was mistaken. He did not know what objection to this Motion the very ingenious mind of his right hon. Friend might have suggested to him; but he could conceive that if he entertained an objection to the repeal of this tax, he might desire to have the opinion of a new Parliament expressed on the subject before dealing with it. When that opinion was pronounced—and he hoped it would be coincident with that of the old Parliament—he trusted, whatever it might be, his right hon. Friend would show respect to that opinion. He would now remind the House of the small amount which he proposed to take away from the revenue of this country. The amount of the tax was 120,000l. a year, and that was the whole and sole amount that would be abstracted from the annual income by the repeal of this tax. This was a solitary exception in taxation. No other class of people, if the tax was repealed, could say that they were aggrieved by a tax that stood upon the same ground and ought to be relieved in like manner. He defied any man, however ingenious he might be, to say that he could discover a tax which stood upon the same ground; and therefore, in voting for his proposition, all they had to do was to diminish the revenue by 120,000l. a year. He thought the tax was so objectionable in principle and operation that it should be removed, even though there should be no surplus. As it was, however, there was no reason for supposing that the revenue was not in a position to bear this trifling inroad; and this being the ease, he trusted that his right hon. Friend would not object to a Motion pledging the House to the repeal of a tax so objectionable in principle, and so unjust and unequal in its operation. But of this he was sure, that his right hon. Friend would not object to his bringing forward the Motion at that particular period. It would be better that his right hon. Friend should know the mind of the House on the subject before he brought forward his Budget, than that he should remain in ignorance of the fact, and should make his fiscal arrangements, and afterwards be compelled by a vote of the House to make reductions for which he might not have provided. The objection of the former Chancellors of the Exchequer was, if the proposition was brought forward before the Budget, that it would be too soon; and if it were brought forward after the Budget, that it would be too late. That objection was happily excluded on the present occasion by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cardwell), on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), the other day; and he was sure that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not make such an objection on the present occasion. He apologised to the House for having trespassed so long upon it, and he should now do no more than merely read the Motion as it stood on the paper.

begged to second the Motion. The city with which he was connected was not distinguished for its commerce and manufactures, but depended upon the law and literature for its prosperity. He had that day had the honour to present a petition from the solicitors of Edinburgh, signed by 111 members of that body; and there were no fewer than 445 persons who paid the tax in the city | of Edinburgh, which amounted to about one-twentieth part of the whole sum contributed to the Exchequer by that duty. He objected to the tax, and he had always voted for the repeal of it, because it was a burthen which those gentlemen had to bear in addition to their share of all other taxes; but with regard to the principle of taxing professions, in his opinion no fairer tax could be demanded than an annual licence or certificate duty, provided it did not merely embrace a class small in number but was extended to all trades and professions alike. He gave notice two years ago of a Motion which he intended to submit to the House on that subject in connexion with the income tax; but he was prevented from doing so in consequence of the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), which had the effect of bringing the whole consideration of the income tax before a Select Committee. There were only twenty trades and professions which, under the Excise, pay licence duty; there were twelve or thirteen trades and professions which, under the stamp department of the revenue, were liable to an annual certificate duty. The amount of the licence duty in England, including post-horses, was 1,042,976l.; in Scotland, 113,000l.; in Ireland, 113,000l.; being altogether about 1,269,000l. derivable from Excise licenses alone. Then go to the other department of revenue to which he referred (the Stamps), and they would find, on looking to the amount received in England, Scotland, and Ireland, for licences under the Stamp duties, that it amounted to 215,000l., making a total for Excise licences and Stamp certificates, of 1,485,000l. The income tax derived from trades and professions amounted to very little more than this; he believed it amounted to 1,650,000l., and looking to the small fraction of traders that were now liable to the licence duty, he would submit to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was not well worth considering, that the Schedule D tax on trades and professions should be repealed, and that the Government should take into consideration the propriety of commuting that tax into an annual licence and certificate duty, so as to embrace all trades and professions. They had under the present system every possible variety of amount from 5s. to upwards of 50l. There were a number of licences at about 5s. a year; for instance, the dice makers only paid 5s., and the entire revenue from the tax only amounted to 30l. He begged to state that this was an exceptional case; a young man on entering the profession must pay 6l. for the first three years, and afterwards 12l., besides his share of all other burdens, and he knew it was felt to be a very oppressive and cruel tax.

said, it was very plain that whatever might be the interest of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in the question now before the House, he did not esteem it so highly as the general principles of public interest and patriotism; because, while he contended that this certificate duty now under consideration was a tax of an exceptional nature, he strongly recommended that it should be extended to all trades and professions. There was no doubt a great deal to be said in argument for the doctrine that it should be extended to all trades and professions. He did not say that he would so extend it; but if the House should think that it was a question that, under possible circumstances might deserve consideration, whether that should be done or not, he would submit that nothing would be more incongruous and impolitic than to destroy the portion of the system they had already, in order that hereafter they might start afresh. Surely, before abolishing a tax that already existed—when there was a question whether it should be made universal or whether it should be extended—it must first be recollected that nothing could be more foolish than to remove that tax, in order to reimpose and extend it. He could not subscribe to the argument that appealed to the generosity of the House, on the ground that the body with whose interests they were dealing consisted of a limited number of persons, and, therefore, limited in power; on the contrary, whatever might be the value of the argument, most certainly no question could be brought before the House that was so sure of a fair hearing—and he would add, of something more—than the question of the repeal of the attorneys' certificate duty. His noble Friend had said that he had hoped that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have acquiesced in the proposition for abolishing this tax; but he would be sorry to make any abstract declaration on the subject; he would go further, and say that no person holding the office which he did, ought, under any circumstances, to consent to the abolition of any tax until he had had an opportunity of comparing the arguments for its abolition in conjunction with the arguments for the abolition or reduction of other taxes that were pressed upon him. Even had the Government come to a positive decision to remit this tax, and not to propose the renewal of it, as a part of the fiseal arrangements for the year, he would have opposed the Motion of his noble Friend, and called upon the House for its rejection. There was a case, he admitted, in the annual duty paid by solicitors and attorneys which called for some consideration; but he did not think that the question of the annual certificate duty of the attorneys and solicitors was the most unjust of these duties. No doubt it was open to all the various objections that might be urged against every other similar tax; and he thought that the whole of the taxes which were levied upon certain trades and professions were among the worst parts of our fiscal system. He did not think it an objection to any possible or conceivable tax, that it was a tax laid on a trade or profession annually: when the circumstances of those trades and professions, after a long series of years, had become adjusted to that tax, it was amongst the worst cases of objection. That it was an unexceptionable duty or a good duty, he did not undertake to say; but there were duties for whose abolition stronger claims could be made. There was certainly some force in the observation of his noble Friend as to the variety of duties that fell upon that particular profession; and that there were questions as to the amount and adjustment of those taxes which deserved the consideration of Government, that was, they deserved its consideration when the Government really knew the financial position of the country, and whether they were in a position to do equal justice to all classes who had claims for the adjustment of their taxation. At present the solicitors and attorneys in London paid 12l.; and in the country the solicitors and attorneys paid 8l. annually. It might be considered that this difference in the amount of the tax had reference to a state of things under which the London attorney possessed an advantage over the country attorney, and was supposed to have a larger and more lucrative share in the business than the country attorney; but that railroads have caused a great change in that respect, and in a great measure had removed the inequality; and that, therefore, that point should be reconsidered, and whether the same amount should not in future be charged on all certificates. Again, it migh be right to consider whether they should effect a readjustment of the tax, and arrange it for the future according to the extent of business that was done by the respective parties. There was another question of more importance still, and that was, should not the House, whether it agreed to the levying or abolishing of the annual certificate duty, make an important modification of the stamp duty upon the articles, and on the admission of gentlemen who became solicitors and attorneys? He did not think that the parties who had obtained the valuable assistance of his noble Friend, laid that point before him; at any rate his noble Friend had not laid that part of the case very fully before the House. He wished the House to understand, that, although he thought the fiscal principles involved in conceding this Motion were most serious, there were other questions besides the amount which by the repeal of this duty would be lost to the revenue which must not be overlooked. Let the House consider whether it was to say to the youth who was at the door or threshold of the profession, that he should pay 120l. before he entered within that door. The effect of that would be to create a virtual monopoly; but his noble Friend made no Motion that would have the effect of deranging that monopoly. He hoped the House would take this fact into its consideration, for it was a most serious one. They had erected a high fence and wall before the entrance to the profession of an attorney, and we placed certain burthens upon those within it; and the proposal was to remove the burthens from those who have got within, but to leave, the fence to prevent others from entering. He hoped the House would come to no such conclusion: when the proper opportunity for considering the case of the attorneys and solicitors should arrive, this question should be considered, and specially and carefully examined into. It should be considered whether the most proper method of affording relief to the profession, would not be by the means of an important reduction in the duty on the Articles, and an admission which would give the public the benefit of a free competition in the exercise of this profession, rather than by the measure proposed by his noble Friend, which went to render more stringent whatever monopoly belonged to the profession and the law respecting it. His noble Friend went further and said, "Why not lay a tax upon barristers?" But he knew very well that even if there was a disposition to go further, there was all the difference in the world between keeping a tax they had got, and getting a tax they had not. The question then before the House, was, not their abstract opinion with regard to the merits of that particular tax—and be did not say that tax singly, but the entire taxes that af- fected that profession—but the question for their consideration was, whether the state of the finances, and the claims of other classes, permitted them to accede to that Motion; and altogether irrespective of the strength of his party, and of the formidable following which his noble Friend had behind him, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) protested against a practice that would prove destructive to the finances of the country—the practice of taking a particular tax on the claims of a particular class, and dealing with it as an isolated case. His noble Friend said, he hoped he would not hear the argument urged against his proposition on this occasion which he had heard on former occasions, namely, that it was the wrong time for bringing it forward. He would hear it nevertheless, for it was the wrong time. Another hon. Member, on a former occasion, and on a different question, said that a Chancellor of the Exchequer always declared "it was the wrong time" when any proposition for reducing taxation was made. He would not always say it was the wrong time; but he would tell his noble Friend what was the right time. The right time was when they had gone so far in determining the public expenditure of the year that they should be in a condition to say what would be necessary to meet it; then they should know whether they should have taxes to repeal or not, and when they knew that, they would then be in a condition for considering and determining upon the ordinary claims of the various classes of the community, and with reference to the whole system of taxation; and then if they thought a tax so grievous as to call for its repeal irrespective of any surplus, they would be in a condition to consider whether it should be renewed, and what they would substitute for it. But what he objected to in this Motion was, that it called upon them to act at random and at haphazard, and to pledge itself to the concession of the claims of the attorneys and solicitors, overlooking those of all other classes of the community: if they did so, the House would be looking to the case of the attorneys and solicitors alone, and not to any other case, and they could not come to a right decision if they acted upon such a principle as that. At the right time it would be his duty, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to propose any remission of taxes that might seem to be expedient; and if the tax to which his noble Friend's Motion referred, had greater claims to be removed than any tax to which he might call attention, then would be his opportunity to put his claim before the House, and ask the House to judge whether in his case there was not a fairer claim for remission than in any other. That would be the proper and straightforward mode of proceeding, and his noble Friend was, no doubt, of the same opinion; for in the year 1850, his noble Friend was advised to postpone a similar Motion, because the financial statement was about to be submitted to the House; and his noble Friend himself had admitted that he succumbed to the opinion of those who suggested on that occasion that the Motion should be postponed; and he trusted that he should not in vain indulge the hope that his noble Friend would take the same course on the present occasion. The main question, after all, was this:—what was the view the House took with regard to the duty of the Executive Government in reference to the finances of the country. Did the House think that the opinion of the House ought to be expressed—that it was for the advantage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should know the opinions of the House beforehand on each tax, the removal of which might be proposed, before the financial arrangements of the year were made—and that he should be guided by that opinion in drawing up his financial scheme for the year? He would not say whether that was a good system or not; but if it was, the Chancellorship of the Exchequer should be abolished altogether. He did not see the use of a Chancellor of the Exchequer if the House should adopt this mode of dealing with the finances of the country—that the principle should be "first come, first served"—that each Member should bring forward a tax for remission; and because he did so, and not because of its merits, he would move for its repeal—and that the chance of the ballot-box should determine the order of precedence in which each separate scheme for reduction should be considered and determined by the House, without reference to the whole financial system, and the claims of the country at large. The business and functions of the Government, he conceived, imposed upon them this obligation, that they should take the claims of each class, and deal with them in a comprehensive spirit in reference to every class of the community; and having done so, should then sum up together the whole fiscal case of the coun- try—that they should consider what it was they should propose to Parliament, that Parliament might be able carefully to weigh and balance the claims of each class, and having done so, select for remission those classes they deemed best entitled to it. Then they could make their proposals to Parliament. Parliament could hear them sifted and argued in open debate as against any others that might he brought forward by individual Members, and take it into their hands to decide to what class, in preference to others, the remissions should be given. That was his view with regard to the duties of a Minister of Finance as to the present question; and whatever might-be the opinion of the House and of the Government hereafter in reference to this particular tax, he called upon the House to join him in meeting the Motion of his noble Friend with a negative, however plausible his arguments might be, and however transcendent they might be rendered by the power of the following, of which he was the representative.

said, he really did think that, under the circumstances, it was important that they should understand precisely the position that the Motion took; and from what he had learned from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was quite clear that if the noble Lord agreed to postpone his Motion until some indefinite period, when his right hon. Friend should have taken into consideration the pressure of different taxes upon different classes of society, the noble Lord would share the same fate that all others had mot who had acceded to a request for postponement made under such circumstances by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would ultimately fail in accomplishing his object. The right hon. Gentleman said this was not the proper time to bring forward this question; that it was not proper to consider in an isolated way one particular tax pressing upon one particular class. With great deference to his right hon, Friend, he said, that if there was a peculiar tax that pressed heavily on a peculiar class, that was a subject worthy of consideration. It was to be distinguished from other cases, and was deserving of being brought under the attention of the House; and that it might he useful for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he prepared his Budget, to know what the feeling of the House was on a certain tax. This was a very peculiar tax, and nobody had ever suggest- ed that there was the slightest ground, in fairness or justice, for the imposition of it. They were rather curious, and if they would forgive him for one moment, he would call their attention to the arguments that were used when the tax was originally proposed. As his noble Friend had stated, in the year 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed to lay a tax upon all shops. This was objected to; and in the course of the debate, Alderman Watson, who was reported to have made a very feeling speech, said he remembered that a right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench, on a particular occasion, said that the Church at one time had its share of the good things of the State—the Lord be praised for it!—hut at this time the Law had taken care of itself, and what he would propose was, that the State should have some share of the lawyers' fees. He said the attorneys were computed to be 5,000 in number, and that a tax of 30l. on each would produce 150,000l., which was 30,000l. more than the tax on shopkeepers would produce. On this suggestion Mr. Pitt spoke; and, in reviewing the suggestions for taxation, when he came to that part of the case, he said, that although a tax upon attorneys might be a popular one, no person could be sanguine enough to suppose that it would be productive to the extent of 150,000l.; that it was not improbable that many Gentlemen were desirous to see such a branch of taxation adopted, and he could understand that many motives of various kinds might induce them to wish it. Some might urge it from their zeal for the revenue, others would like to see that body of men who drew so largely from others made instrumental to the service of the State; but there was another set of gentlemen that would still more warmly embrace the proposition for a tax on attorneys, from resentment. There was no doubt that there were many gentlemen in the State who, when they compared the amount of losses they had sustained through that set of men, with the sum now proposed as a tax on them, would not think that sum by any means considerable; but whatever their opinion might be attributable to, certainly no Gentleman would be sanguine enough to say that it would be productive to the extent of 150,000l. The tax upon shops was imposed, and the tax upon attorneys was also imposed, and for three years afterwards Mr. Fox never ceased urging the House for the repeal of the shop tax as being unjust and harsh. But he found that the tax on attorneys was from time to time decreased, until it amounted to the sum they now paid, namely, 12l. for attorneys practising in the metropolis, and to 8l. for country attorneys. Now, besides this most excessive and partial tax on this class of persons, they paid, in the first place, 120l. on their articles of clerkship. No other persons paid anything like that amount on articles of clerkship. But in addition to that 120l. they had to pay a sum of about 25l. on being admitted. So that, altogether, they paid no less a sum than 145l. in the shape of duty before they could be permitted to practise their profession. Now the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) did not propose to take away from the State the charge which was made on attorneys to that enormous extent; and the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said, by adopting the Motion of the noble Lord, they would in some way or other establish a monopoly, and make what he called a fence round the present members of the profession, and prevent other persons from joining it. He could not for the life of him understand how such a result could arise. Those persons who entered the profession would still have to pay what others had paid before them; and how there could be any monopoly, he repeated he could not understand. Now, the case of attorneys with regard to this duty was a peculiar one. It was not like that of any other person who had a licence to purchase for carrying on any trade or business. They took from the attorney 145l. at the very outset. His case was therefore peculiar; it was an isolated case; the tax was originally established under the circumstances he had mentioned; this grievous burden he had still to bear, and therefore he thought it was desirable that this question should be brought forward in an isolated way, and discussed upon its own merits. He did think, under the circumstances, that at all events the House ought to agree to the noble Lord being permitted to introduce this Bill, to remove what he said was a gross and shameful injustice.

said, he thought the arguments that had been urged against this measure were by no means an answer to the case which had been made out by the noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor); and it was his duty to state the reasons why he supported that Motion, and why he thought it ought to be pressed to a division. He had been but a short time a Member of that House; but within that time there had been two Chancellors of the Exchequer; and he had not heard a single instance, when a Motion of this kind was brought forward, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not answer that it had been brought forward at the wrong time, and the noble Lord had of course been told so now. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told them that by reason of the duties paid by attorneys on their admission to practice a monopoly had been produced; but did he not propose now to give force to that monopoly by continuing this annual certificate duty, which would interfere with competition, and deter other parties from entering the profession? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had held out a prospect that the duty on admission and the Certificate duty would be repealed or reduced, there might have been some reason why the noble Lord should withdraw his Motion; but no one who had listened to the right hon. Gentleman could for a moment deceive himself as to what were the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. He might say, on behalf of the profession in Ireland, that the tax there pressed with peculiar inequality. It was proposed in 1816 to meet the expenses of the then terminated war; and duties on mortgages, leases, and agreements were imposed at the same time. Some of those duties had been removed altogether, but nothing had been done to relieve the attorneys; on the contrary, the duty had been increased. This tax, in addition to its irregularity, was, in fact, a tax on the administration of justice; and whenever he found such a tax he felt it his duty to raise his voice against it; for no such tax could be defended on any true principle of political economy. In whatever light they regarded this tax, it could not be for a moment defended. On those grounds he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the noble Lord.

said, he had always been an advocate for the remission of taxes wherever it could be justly done; and if the noble Lord would move that all the existing taxes on licences for carrying on particular trades and professions should be repealed, he would cheerfully vote for such a Motion. The question he put to himself was simply this, "Is this the worst tax of this kind now existing?" He had in his hand a list of about thirty- five different trades and professions, in order to practise which it was necessary to have a licence; and would it not he wise and proper to remove all those taxes together, instead of singling out this one in particular for remission? For example, the soap-boiler and the paper-maker were each charged 4l. 4s.; and there were a variety of others who dealt in articles that were useful to every man. Now, law was not the food of every man, but soap was an article which was used, or ought to be, by all. Believing, then, that there were other more unjust taxes than this of the same kind, he could only vote for the repeal of the whole, which this Motion did not contemplate.

He only wished to say a few words before they divided. He was sorry to find there was a division of opinion among his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet as to this being the proper time for bringing forward a Motion of this kind. The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Cardwell) was certainly not of that opinion the other night when it was proposed to reduce taxes to a far larger amount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that on a former occasion he had acceded to a request made to him by the Government to postpone his Motion for a while. He certainly had done so; but he would beg to remind his right hon. Friend that the question was then in a very different position from that in which it now stood. This Motion had already been received with favour six or seven different times by the House of Commons; and therefore his right hon. Friend ought not to have been in the least degree surprised at his bringing it forward again. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) said if he (Lord R. Grosvenor) would bring forward a Motion for repealing all taxes of this nature, he would support him; but he liked, if he could, to propose something practicable; and if he had taken the course recommended by his hon. Friend, he did not think he could fairly have counted upon the support of the House. He objected to all taxes imposed on the administration of the law. "But," said his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "why did he not object to the duty on articles of clerkship?" He certainly did object to that; but his objection lay far more against the annual tax. All poll taxes of this kind were objectionable; but he thought this the most so, and therefore it was that he now brought it again under the consideration of the House.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of oaths. He said he attached a paramount degree of importance to the Motion of which he had given notice. It was eminently a question of truthfulness, and concerned the stability of our political and social institutions. Now, he ventured to state, that the period of the greatest untruthfulness in our history was that when the greatest number of oaths were taken; for instance, in the reigns of Henry VIII., Mary, and Elizabeth, before the Reformation was completed, when the prelates especially distinguished themselves by taking and revoking antagonistic Oaths. His object was to obtain a Committee armed with ample means of inquiry and investigation on this subject, in order that they might be enabled to arrive at the ultimatum which many in that House desired, namely, that they should have one uniform declaration for persons of every religious persuasion. It was his desire, in connexion with this great subject, to furnish the Committee which he sought to obtain with ample means of inquiry, and with full instructions, in order that they might arrive at a proper conclusion upon the subject. The present condition of the law in reference to this question abounded with inequalities. The people called Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, objected to oaths on principle, and they had been relieved; but there were numerous other classes of subjects to whom no relief had been granted. Lord Brougham, in a discussion on the oath administered to Jews, said that ''he wondered so much was said about oaths. He found in Scripture the direction, 'Swear not at all,' and he disapproved of oaths; but as he found them on the Statute-book, like a good citizen he conformed to them." The various Reports which had emanated from the House of Lords had thrown considerable light on the subject. In 1834 the Lords made a Report, in which they concurred in following out the principle which had been adopted with very considerable success in the Customs and Excise, namely, the substitution of affirmations for oaths in almost all cases, from which a large amount of commercial benefit had accrued. Our present form of oaths was strictly analogous to those historic curiosities, the Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman modes of asseveration; several of which the hon. Gentleman quoted from the elaborate work of the Rev. J. E. Tyler; as also the Parliamentary oath on the crosses of Canterbury and Shrewsbury (A. D. 1398), never to suffer the transactions of Parliament to be changed. The Romans used, on occasions of uncommon solemnity, to take a flint stone in their right hand, saying, Si sciens fallo, turn me Diespiter, salva urbe arceque, bonis ejiciat, ut ego hunc lapidem; hence Jovem lapidem jurare, for per' Jovem lapidem. Henry VIII. complained to his Parliament that he had only half the hearts of the prelates, who, when promoted to bishoprics and deaneries, divided, by their oaths, their allegance between the Pope and the King. He also alluded to the university oaths as stopping the progress of reform. Neither did Paley approve of oath-taking generally, but especially not of our particular form, which he considered more disrespectful than any known form—he greatly preferring affirmations. The House would have to go back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth to meet with the origin of its Members being obliged to take oaths; and from that period up to the reign of William III. there existed an ex-officio oath of a most cruel form; for the parties refusing to lake it, no matter what their objections, were liable to an indefinite period of imprisonment for so refusing. The constant practice of administering oaths in Courts of Justice, and especially in the various Police Courts, had the effect of bringing the ceremonial into contempt. In the year 1831 an Act was passed which opened a better prospect with regard to the abuse of oaths. He need not remind the House, that before this time oaths were taken by the bushel, as it were, and without discrimination, not only in public offices, hut in counting-houses and other private establishments. This Act of 1831 afforded relief in this particular to members of the Society of Friends, and other Separatists, by enabling them to affirm. In reference to this subject, he would take the liberty of asking the House upon what ground the Society of Friends were to enjoy a superior degree of freedom to himself and other Dissenters, who might wish to have the option of affirming? There was no justice in preserving such distinctions, especially as their continuance was a sore injury to tender consciences. There was a case which had occurred in our Courts of Law, no long time since, in which a Brahmin had an oath administered to him in the manner prescribed by his religion, thus establishing the principle of law, that the form of oath which a man was to take was that which was most binding on his conscience, and which principle had been carried out of late years in the City of London. He might here mention, as an illustration of the hardship of compelling a man to take an oath who had objections to it, in cases where an affirmation would equally well answer the purpose, that it was not at all improbable the House might that evening he called upon to send a victim to prison for refusing to swear in a Committee upstairs. The House of Lords Committee, in their report in the year 1834, alluded in striking terms to the impropriety of oaths on trifling subjects. They said, for instance, that they could not hesitate to lay down the position that recourse ought not to be had to the sanction of an oath where it could be safely dispensed with, where the objection was not of sufficient importance to warrant a direct and solemn appeal to the Deity, nor in any case where those objects could be equally well attained by other means. And then the Committee expressed their conviction that oaths which were not considered necessary in one branch of the public service, might be dispensed with in every other. In the evidence upon which this Report was founded, Mr. Stafford, who had been a magistrate at Bow Street, and Mr. Wedgewood, who had held a corresponding situation in the Southwark police court, described from theirown experience the serious evils resulting from the indiscriminate system of oath-taking in the police offices. Mr. Wedgwood, in his evidence, deplored the then existing state of the law by which oaths were taken, even in so small a matter as the loss of a pawnbroker's duplicate for goods of the value of a shilling or two, and considered that affirmations might be substituted for oaths in courts of justice. Some days there were twenty, or even fifty, oaths administered in his court concerning pawnbrokers' duplicates. Many of these remarks were applicable to the present practice in those offices, though a great and beneficial change had taken place. The hon. Gentleman here ad- verted to the resignation by Mr. Wedgwood of his lucrative situation, owing to his objection to oaths. In 1837 another Committee sat, before which Mr. Peacock, one of the officers of the East India Company, was asked whether the accounts of that corporation, which used formerly to be verified upon oath, were equally satisfactory upon a simple declaration. His answer was, "I think so, certainly." The oath, then, was useless, and ought not to have been imposed. Connected with this branch of the subject, the report proceeded to say, that" many hundreds of thousands of declarations have been taken during the past year, where oaths were heretofore required, and no practical inconvenience has arisen from the change. "Indeed, the Committee added," we are strongly of opinion that it is expedient to carry into still further effect the recommendations of the Committee of 1834, and to abolish every unnecessary oath. "This opinion, which the Committee formed after hearing witnesses, was fully confirmed by the evidence. The Report of the Committee of 1842 was substantially to the same effect. So that, on the whole, the House might depend upon it that this was a rising question, and one which public opinion before long would compel them to take into serious consideration. The Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons upon the oaths of Members, though made with special relation to the admission of Jews into Parliament, contained much information upon the subject. The following was a remarkable passage:—

"There is no trace in the journals of the House of any oath being required to be taken by Members of the House of Commons upon taking their seats in the House, previously to the Act of the 5th of Elizabeth, cap. I, which directs, by sec. 16, that Members shall take the oath of supremacy (as set forth in I Elizabeth, cap 1), and which oath is thereby directed to be taken corporally upon the Evangelists before the Lord Steward or his deputy, before entering the Parliament House."

It thus appeared that until the time of Elizabeth no oath was required upon taking a seat in that House. It was found at a Subsequent period, that the taking of the oath did not in all cases secure veracity and in order to obtain it the holy sacrament was superadded, and thereby degraded. This state of things remained until the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) carried, and thereby showed his boldness and determination in favour of the great principle of civil and religious liberty. In those days there was a good deal of persecution on account of oaths. Roman Catholics were for a long time under persecution; so were dissenters and other recusants. At one period the Society of Friends had no resting place owing to the requirement of oaths; and nearly 500 of their members were on this account confined in prisons in various parts of the Kingdom, some of whom only obtained their release upon the accession of William and Mary. The present mode of administering the oath at the table of the House was most objectionable. Surely that portion of it might be dispensed with which was levelled exclusively against one class. Would it not be better to have an affirmation which could he taken by all—which all would consider binding—which would ensure unanimity—and which would, at least, go as far towards ensuring truth as the present oaths? Why should not all British subjects take the same affirmation, since all were equally loyal to the Crown, attached to our institutions, and willing to support the State in any capacity? He did not think their loyalty would be the less, or that they would be less anxious for the promotion of the interests and the happiness of their fellow-subjects. He was anxious, then, to extend the principle which had been recognised in 1849. The truth was that oaths were not wanted. They did not increase truthfulness. They were only demanded by Governments and Corporations for purposes of their own, and were totally unnecessary between man and man- -between merchant and merchant—between banker and hanker. At the same time he must admit that the Corporation of the City of London had in this respect set an example to the Commons House of Parliament, inasmuch as they had enabled any person to take up his freedom and settle in London upon taking an oath according to the form sanctioned by his own religion, and in the manner most binding upon his conscience. Previously to this, they would not allow a Jew to trade in the City, although he might he British born. In one case a Jew had been converted to Christianity; he had a son who was born in London and married a British woman, yet the son was refused the freedom of the City because his father had been a Jew. This man was put to an expense of 1,000l. before he could get he of City persecution, and he enabled quietly to occupy his shop in White-chapel. However, this was a question which was about to come directly before the House, and he did not wish, by any indirect means, to anticipate its full discussion. He enumerated various cases of persons who had endured imprisonment, and all its consequent losses and miseries, because they had a conscientious aversion to an oath. One case in particular was well worthy of notice—that of a respectable gentleman, who, because he could not reconcile himself to the taking of an oath in certain bankruptcy proceedings, endured incarceration for three years, and was eventually only liberated through the agency of a special Act of Parliament, passed purposely with a view to his relief. In former times there were no fewer than 100 oaths imposed in the City of London. The woodman had to swear he would not steal wood from the wharves; the waterman had to swear he would not transgress certain civic regulations; and, in fact, oaths were to be encountered at every turning. It was the frequency of oaths and the irreverence with which they were regarded that caused their violation. The system was a disgrace to a country so enlightened and so highly civilised as ours. It was time it should be put an end to, and for that purpose he invoked the assistance of the House. He appealed to public opinion as embodied in the Legislature to assist him in unrolling this dark mummery of bygone superstition.

seconded the Motion. He said, he entirely concurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. Pellatt) in the opinion that the time had arrived when it was incumbent on the Legislature to take some effective measures to prevent the desecration of oaths by their irreverent and too frequent administration. Our laws were intended for the good of the community, but they too often operated to their disadvantage. A bad man would take an oath; while a good and conscientious man would refuse it, and yet the law as at present administered favoured the bad man, and tended to the persecution of the good. Unnecessary oaths were a great evil, and the effects of them were to diminish a regard for truth. He considered the present system was extremely injurious, and he therefore hoped that, whatever opinions hon. Members might entertain, they would not object to the inquiry proposed by his hon Friend.

said, that the attention of the House had been directed for a long series of years to the subject of unnecessary oaths, and great advantage had attended the operation of the measures that had been passed in reference to them. He perfectly agreed with both the hon. Members who had spoken, and he believed he had the concurrence of the House in the opinion, that unnecessary oaths were great evils; that they, first, positively offered temptations to bad men, and even to others who were not quite bad men; and, secondly, that they had a most important effect in diminishing the reverence for the sacred name of the Deity. He was sure that as far as regarded that proposition, and the proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. Pellett) that for the promotion of truth he might count upon the universal sympathy of the House. He would venture, however, to express a hope that the hon. Member would rest satisfied with the opportunity afforded him of enforcing his views, and that he would not at present call upon the House to assent to his Motion. In the Motion the Hon. Gentleman pointed at three objects which he had in view. First, an inquiry "into the subject of oaths, and the operation of the Act 1 & 2 Will. IV.; c, 4; and the Act 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 62, for the substitution of declarations in lieu of oaths in the Customs, Excise, Public Offices, and Corporations named in the said Acts." In the second place, he proposed to inquire into "the advantage of extending the principle of those Acts to the Courts of Law;" and in the third place, "to inquire into the oaths now taken by Members of Parliament at the table of the House, with the view of substituting one uniform declaration for Members of all religious persuasions." With regard to inquiry as to the substitution of declarations in lieu of oaths in the Customs, Excise, and other public departments, that, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought, would be almost a labour of supererogation. That substitution had, he believed, given universal satisfaction; and as it could hardly be made matter of argument, it was not necessary that it should be made matter for inquiry. Then, as to the second branch of the Motion, the hon. Gentleman proposed to examine into the advantage of applying the same principle to the Courts of Law. Now, he thought he could submit to the judgment, of the hon. Member in a few words a conclusive reason for not referring that subject to a Select Committee. The hon. Member was no doubt, aware that some time ago a Commission was appointed by the Government of which his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) was the head, to inquire into the procedure of the Courts of Common Law. That Commission had already presented its first Report, and he (Mr. Gladstone) was in a condition to state upon the authority of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, that he was about to present the second Report, in which the very question the hon. Member proposed to inquire into was fully considered. When that report should be laid upon the table, the hon. Member would find that the subject he had been referring to, and which was confessedly surrounded by difficulties, had been dealt with by the Commission in the most comprehensive and effectual manner. With regard to the third portion of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman—namely, an inquiry concerning the oaths now taken by Members of Parliament at the table of the House, that, he submitted to the hon. Member, was not a fitting subject for inquiry by a Committee of this House. The question, whether the oaths now taken by Members at the table should continue in their present shape, or whether they should be altered or altogether abolished, and a uniform declaration for members of all religious persuasions substituted, was no doubt a question of the very deepest, importance; but then it was a question rather of public policy, which it was competent for the House itself to entertain from time to time. And they had actually before them in regard to that what was, in a practical view, a most important application of the principle, in the form of a Bill which stood for second reading tomorrow. It was a question of importance—immense importance; but it was one of those matters which it was not the practice of the House to entrust to Select Committees. Indeed, it would be a sort of abnegation of the functions of the House—it would be placing the functions of the House in abeyance, if a question of that kind were banded over to a Select Committee. It would, however, be an entirely different matter if it depended upon a mi- nute examination of facts; but here they wanted no examination of facts. The arguments were open to he discussed by all persons of intelligence, and the House of Commons was perfectly competent to deal with them in debate, without requiring the assistance of a Select Committee. He believed the appointment of a Committee would rather tend to perplex than enlighten the House; in fact, he very much doubted whether a Select Committee could be appointed representing every part of the House, and justly and impartially composed, that would ever agree to a Report in favour of any certain plan. For these reasons he ventured to hope—without raising the slightest objection to the principle of instituting an inquiry relative to the possibility of further restricting the application of oaths, with a view to their being taken with greater reverence, and to avoid the monstrous evil of perjury—that he had stated sufficient grounds for not acceding to the Motion in its present form; and, inasmuch as a division on the subject would lead to the supposition that a difference of opinion existed where there was none, he trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would not press the Motion to a division.

begged to express his con currence in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a division on this Motion at that time would only weaken the cause the hon Gentleman had in view; hut being one or those who felt very strongly as to the position in which Roman Catholic Members of the House stood from the present state of the law on this subject, he felt it his duty to say that at the earliest opportunity, which he believed would be upon going into Committee upon the noble Lord's Bill, be should bring before the House the question of oaths taken by Roman Catholic Members, with a view to carry out the object of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt)—namely, to assimilate the oaths taken by all Members of that House.

said, that the oaths required to be taken by Roman Catholic Members of Corporations in Ireland were felt to be a great grievance. In a corporation with which he was himself officially connected, that of the city of Cork, a Roman Catholic Member bad refused, some time ago, to take those oaths; and considerable discussion had arisen on the point whether he could fulfil his duties until be had done so. Upon that occasion it was the unanimous opinion of the Corporation that the oath ought to be abolished. That oath was the most odious in its terms that could be devised; and if unnecessary oaths were an evil, insulting oaths were a manifest injustice.

said, he thought there was one great objection to the appointment of a Committee, namely, that so many Committees were already sitting that it would be almost impossible to find a sufficient number of proper Members to compose it; so that the effect of such a step would rather injure than assist the cause of which the hon. Mover of the question was the advocate. He doubted whether the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball) could move such a Motion as that of which he had given notice in Committee on the Bill. In 1849 he (Mr. V. Smith) had proposed to make but one simple oath for all Members of the House; and though he had found himself in a small minority, he yet thought that that would be the proper course to take. So far from the taking of the present oaths being a religious or a solemn rite, he looked upon it as one of the most revolting and disgusting ceremonies that could take place. When hon. Members came to the table and gabbled over oaths which every one took in a different sense from his neighbour, it was impossible to look upon the scene with anything like awe or respect. The question was not one involving any necessity for inquiry, but it was one upon which every Member was as capable of giving an opinion in full House as in a Committee upstairs.

said, he rose to express his concurrence in the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it would be the better course not to press this Motion at present, lest a division upon it should indicate to the public a difference of opinion, which really did not exist in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that unnecessary oaths were a great evil, which should form the subject of some remedial legislation, but did not require to be investigated by a Select Committee, because the facts were already well known to Members of the House. He wished, however, to direct the special attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to some few facts, in order to illustrate the mode in which unnecessary oaths were administered at contested elections in Ireland under the existing laws. During the last election for the county of Tipperary, he had remained in the town of Cashel, where about 900 voters were polled, to each of whom three distinct oaths were administered for the mere purpose of delaying the poll, by which contrivance many electors were prevented from voting within the limited period of two days. In that single county of Tipperary near 15,000 oaths were administered to about 5,000 voters within the two days; and in the whole of Ireland, during the same time, upwards of 200,000 oaths must have have been taken, every one of which was unnecessary. Those oaths were all of them practical blasphemies, and flagrant infractions of the divine law—"Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain." He trusted that whenever the Government should come to legislate on the subject of unnecessary oaths, they would not forget the abuses he had just pointed out, in reference to the recent elections of Ireland—abuses which might, at any contested election, be also introduced into England, under the English election statutes. With regard to the oaths taken by the different Members of that House, they presented at least equal difficulties to the consciences of Protestants as to those of Roman Catholics. Under the Catholic oath, members of that religion were insultingly required to denounce their detestable opinions, which they never entertained, and were subjected to infamous imputations and insinuations in reference to the construction of the disavowal of "any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law." Those imputations were familiarly made out of doors, and were sometimes even insinuated in this House by Gentlemen who either did not understand what was due to their fellow Members, or were hurried on, in the heat and acrimony of debate, to use offensive expressions, which any person of right feeling must afterwards deeply repent of. For his own part, he was resolved that no amount of provocation should ever induce him so far to forget his own position or the feelings of Protestant Members of that House, as to retort offensively upon them the words of their own oath; but he might be permitted to observe that some conscientious Protestants had felt very great difficulty in taking the oath of supremacy, which required them to affirm that "no foreign prince, person, prelate, State, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ec- clesiaatical or spiritual, within this realm." He believed that those words had, for a long period, prevented a distinguished Conservative Member of the other House (Lord Clancarty) from taking his seat there. He had, some years since, read a pamphlet from the pen of that noble Lord explaining his grounds for conscientiously objecting to take that Protestant oath. The scruples which he then entertained were, no doubt, now removed, for he was at present a sitting Member of the Upper House; but there were other Protestants who still felt great difficulties about the words of that oath. He trusted that such legislation might soon be introduced as would entirely remove all difficulties and ambiguities from both the Protestant and the Catholic oaths, and prevent any indecent insinuations against Members of this House, either outside or within its walls. In conclusion he might observe it was a curious circumstance that whilst no Jew could swear to the Protestant form of oath, "upon the true faith of a Christian," every word of the Roman Catholic oath might be conscientiously taken by a Jew—but they were, nevertheless, excluded from Parliament by the Protestant oath.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of saying one word with respect to the oaths taken at the table of the House, which he had always thought very objectionable, and, indeed, absurd. He had a strong feeling against both the oaths, as they now stood—that taken by Protestants, and that taken by Roman Catholic Members of the House. As to the oath of supremacy, it was a relic of a state of things which had ceased to exist, and was either a truism or unmeaning; and an unmeaning oath was an irreverent oath. Then as to the Roman Catholic oath, he was persuaded that they had no right to impose such an oath on the consciences of any particular class of the Members of that House. He had a strong feeling that they had no right to protect any particular institution of the country, however sacred its objects, by such means. No such limitation of their constitutional right was imposed upon other Dissenters from the Church of England. The members of the Anti-State Church Association were not fettered in their crusade against the State Church by any such obligation. The Established Church of Scotland was not defended by any such contrivance. He hoped to see the time when one simple oath, promising allegiance to the Sovereign and the faithful performance of their duties in that House, would take the place of the present objectionable forms.

said, that after the very handsome manner in which the question had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of Exchequer, and seeing that they all concurred in the same opinion, he should he very sorry to divide the House.

said, he rose for leave to bring in a Bill for the better prevention and punishment of aggravated assaults upon women and children. In making this Motion it would not be necessary for him to trespass upon the attention of the House at any length, because the evil which the Bill was intended to remedy was one so generally felt, so universally acknowledged, so rapidly growing, and constituted such a blot upon our national character, that he was convinced that any measure which he should attempt to introduce for the purpose of amending it would meet with general favour, or that, at all events, he should not subject himself to the charge of having needlessly rushed in to provide an unnecessary and uncalled-for remedy. No one could read the public journals without being constantly struck with horror and amazement at the numerous reports of cases of cruel and brutal assaults perpetrated upon the weaker sex by men who one blushed to think were Englishmen, and yet were capable of such atrocious acts. One's mind actually recoiled when he thought of the dastardly and cowardly assaults which were being constantly perpetrated upon defenceless women by brutes who called themselves men. There was a case which appeared in the public journals a short time ago, where a brute in the form of a man assaulted his defenceless wife, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, and, in order that he might wreak his fury upon her with greater effect, he put his foot under her clothes, and struck her with great violence on the lower part of her person. It was in vain to hope that he could introduce into his Bill any penalty which would be an adequate punishment for so brutal an offence. Nothing but the most ignominious kind of penalty, such as corporal punishment, or something of that sort, which he did not feel justified in proposing to the House, could mark the sense of indignation which was entertained by every Englishman who read of such an atrocity. What was the present state of the law with respect to such outrages? Unfortunately, the summary power granted to magistrates to adjudicate in such cases was confined to the infliction of a penalty not exceeding 5l., or, failing payment of that fine, an imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months. He asked the House if such a punishment was a fit retribution for such an offence? It went against his feelings to ask the House to listen to a description of some of these outrages; yet he was convinced that unless he was prepared to show that the evil which he had just been commenting on required an immediate and an efficient remedy, it might be thought that he had not made out a case for asking for an increase of summary powers. He would, therefore, with the permission of the House, read one or two cases which had been brought before the magistrates of this metropolis within the last few years, and in which a most inadequate punishment had been inflicted:—

"On the 8th of December, 1852, a man named Henry Bennett was charged at the police-court, Bow-street, with assaulting his wife. It was proved that the defendant's wife had ceased to live with him for some time; that on the morning of the 4th of December, 1852, she was walking in Drury-lane, when she met the defendant. He asked her how she was getting on. She replied 'Pretty well.' He then called her aw—,and, without any provocation, struck her as hard as he could, and knocked her down, and injured her back severely. With the assistance of others she got from him, and went home. He followed her there, and struck her repeatedly with all his force on various parts of her body. On the following morning he again went to her room, seized her by the hair of her head, drew a knife from his pocket, opened it, and attempted to cut her throat. She endeavoured to prevent his doing so, and her fingers were severely cut. The magistrate, fearing the wife would not appear at the sessions if the prisoner were committed for trial, fined the prisoner 5l., and, in default of payment, committed him to prison for two months.

"On the 7th of January, 1853, at the same court, James Coghlan, a floorcloth-worker, was charged with beating his wife. The husband, between twelve and one o'clock at night, was outside the house in which they resided, and the wife, fearing he might go and drink with the persons who were with him, went to him and begged him to come in. He shortly after entered the room in a passion, and began to beat her with his fists, gave her two black eyes, and then beat her severely with the tongs, saying that 'she had made him appear little in the eyes of the persons with whom he had been outside of the house.' Her screams were heard, and a policeman went to the spot and saw the husband strike her, and, observing that she had been severely beaten, took him into custody at the instance of the woman. Punishment, fined 5l., or two months' imprisonment.

"At Marlborough-street police-court, in December, 1851, Thomas M'Millan, a tailor, was-charged with beating his wife. It appeared that at twelve o'clock at night she returned home and found him there. He immediately began to abuse her, and struck her several blows with his fists on and about her head; on her screaming 'Murder, he took a bit of iron, used as a poker, and struck her with it on the arm and on the head several blows. Her screams were heard by a police-constable, and he went to her assistance; the man was in liquor, but the woman sober. The magistrate, seeing the disposition of the woman to screen the husband, summarily convicted him—5l., or two months.

"On the 5th of January, 1853, John Mullett was charged at the same court with beating his wife. The man missed a small bit of cloth of the value of 3d., became angry, and was about to break open a drawer, when she endeavoured to prevent his doing so; he thereupon beat her most severely. When she appeared to give evidence before the magistrate, one of her eyes presented a shocking appearance, and one side of her face was discoloured and swollen, and she appeared a sad spectacle. She pleaded for her husband, and, lest the man should go unpunished if committed for trial, he was fined 5l., or two months' imprisonment.

"On the 23rd of November, 1852, at the Westminster police-court, Frederic Giles appeared to answer the complaint of Susannah Preston, who had been living with him for two years. After being out all night, she returned in the morning, and saw Giles putting into a basket some food which she had provided, in order to carry it away; she remonstrated; he struck her; and on her then abusing him, he beat her with the buckle end of a strap about the neck, arms, and hands, till she was one mass of bruises, and covered with blood. A constable heard her sereams, went to the spot, and found her clothes saturated with blood, and a ring on one of her fingers beaten into-the flesh to the bone; she was conveyed to a hospital, and the ring was cut out.—Punishment 5l., or two months.

"At Worship-street police-court, on the 23rd of November, 1852, was a charge against Jeremiah: Donovan. It appeared that about half-past one o'clock in the morning, the cries of 'Murder' and 'Police' were heard in Prince's-street, Mile-end-road; that a police constable proceeded to the-room whence the cries issued, and found the wife-sitting in a chair, attended by two women; she had a large cut over the left eye, which was bleeding much; her eyes were blackened, and she appeared to suffer great pain in her stomach. The wife was taken to a hospital and remained there for some time. Both parties were sober. It appeared in evidence that the defendant had brutally ill-used her, and when she was on the ground had jumped upon her and severely injured her. She was unable to attend before the magistrate for some time; when she did attend she endeavoured to make it appear that she had been very slightly assaulted, and from her conduct the magistrate perceived that unless he disposed of the case in a summary way the husband would go unpunished.—Fined 5l., or two months, and to find two sure- ties in 20l. to keep the peace for six months."

Now, he would ask the House whether such a state of things did not bring the administration of justice in this country into disrepute? Whether it did not constitute a flagrant blot upon our criminal code? and whether, in addition, it did not tend to prejudice the mind of the public, who were not aware of the state of the law, against the magistrate who inflicted such inadequate punishment? He might be told, in answer to this, that the magistrate had the alternative power of remitting to the sessions; but he need hardly remind the House of the coaxings, and intimidations, and all the different influences which were usually brought to bear upon the soft and kindly nature of the unfortunate woman who was placed in such circumstances in order to induce her to abstain from appearing against her husband—if, indeed, she was not forcibly conveyed out of the way. At all events, the adoption of this alternative was practically to allow the offender to escape altogether. And, even if she did appear, it was obvious that after the lapse of some weeks she would present a very different spectaelo to the magistrates and jury at the sessions, from what she presented to the magistrate before whom she appeared immediately after the brutal assault. The marks of the assault would be greatly obliterated, and it was probable, therefore, that the jury would be induced to attach less importance to the case than the magistrate did before whom the case was first brought. He therefore humbly ventured to suggest to the House that the time was come when they should increase the summary powers of magistrates to deal with persons who were capable of committing such flagrant crimes. He was aware that in most cases the feeling of the House was against increasing the summary powers of magistrates; but he thought they would agree with him, that the cases he had brought before them were exceptional cases, and ought to be dealt with in a different manner from other cases. When he mentioned that all the extent to which he asked the House to go in increasing the powers of the magistrates in these cases was to inflict a penalty of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding 20l., he thought they would admit that he was not asking them to take any very extraordinary step, or to go further than necessary in that direction. Neither was he asking the House to do anything very new. He was only asking them to extend the same protection to defenceless women as they already extended to poodle dogs and donkeys, for cruelty to which, a person subjected himself, under the Cruelty to Animals Act, to three months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour. Then again, by the 8 & 9 Vict., c. 47, commonly called the Dogstealing Act, the penalty for the first offence was imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine (over and above the value of the dog) not exceeding 20l. He only asked the House, therefore, to extend the same protection to the weaker sex, as they now extended to a lady's lapdog, or a spaniel of King Charles the Second's breed. He bogged to mention also, that he proposed to introduce into his Bill certain alterations in the law, not perfectly analogous to the one to which he had just called their attention; but at the same time he had no doubt it would appear to the House that, when they were improving the law, at any rate the alterations which he had to propose might fairly be included. One of the alterations he proposed was, to take away the power of removing indictments by writ of certiorari, except upon affidavit that a fair trial could not be had in the Court in which the indictment was originally laid. He understood that a similar clause was introduced by the late hon. and learned Attorney General into the Metropolitan Grand Jury Bill; but owing, no doubt, to the pressure brought to bear upon him from the bar, he withdrew it. It had been his (Mr. Fitzroy's) fate before to encounter the prejudices of that learned profession, he hoped with some little advantage to the public, and he should feel it his duty not to shrink from the same course on this occasion; because, now that they had established a Criminal Court of Appeal, there was no reason for facilitating the removal of trials for misdemeanor from the ordinary courts. Another alteration which he had to propose was, to enforce the payment of recognisances in cases where persons, after being hound over to keep the peace, had forfeited those recognisances by again committing an assault. At present the recovery of such recognisances was so cumbrous and expensive, that in effect they were a dead letter, and could not be enforced at all. He proposed, therefore, to place them on the same footing as recognisances in the case of failing to appear to give evidence. He also proposed to introduce a clause which would save considerable expense—namely, to enable the Secretary of State to issue a warrant to bring up a prisoner who was in custody under a civil process, and who might be wanted to give evidence—and thus do away with the necessity of the writ of habeas corpus in such cases. Such were the main provisions of this short Bill, the principal object of which was to give protection to the defenceless female; and he had no doubt the House would aid him in according them protection.

said, he thought the country and the House were much indebted to his hon. Friend (Mr. Fitzroy) and the Government for introducing the present Bill; but he very much regretted that they had not gone further, and introduced the principle of corporal punishment to persons convicted of such offences. He candidly confessed that he was not an advocate for corporal punishment in ordinary cases. He believed that it both brutalised and degraded the objects to whom it was applied; but in cases of this kind, where men were already reduced below the level of the brute, when all moral sense had gone out of them, he believed it might be applied with good effect in the way of a preventive of such crimes in future. He might refer to two cases of recent legislation in proof of this. It was well known that at the commencement of Her reign Her Majesty was subjected to more than one brutal attack by persons who had no treasonable designs, but who were merely anxious to acquire notoriety. Well, these attacks had been entirely put an end to by the application of corporal punishment to the offence. Then, again, there was the other case of the destruction of national monuments and objects of priceless value by reckless persons. That, too, had been put an end to by the threat of corporal punishment; and it had never been necessary to apply it. He hoped it would have an equally good effect in the present class of cases, and he begged to give notice that, in Committee, he should move a clause introducing the principle of corporal punishment, being satisfied in his own mind that it would operate, not as a punishment of crime but as a preventive. He knew that there was a strong feeling against intrusting a single magistrate, or even two magistrates sitting together, with the power of corporal punishment. So far as regarded this metropolis, where the magistrates were under the ken of the public press, it was not at all likely that the power would be abused; but, as regarded remote districts, he believed public opinion would be against it. It was well worthy of the consideration of Government, however, whether it was not possible to introduce some clause allowing the cases of an aggravated description, where corporal punishment was likely to follow, to be tried either by the magistrates themselves, or with the assistance of five persons as a jury at the option of the accused. He agreed with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy) that it was highly desirable that the punishment should rapidly follow the commission of the offence. He thought magistrates ought to have the power, not only of punishing breaches of the public peace, but also of granting compensation to a person who had suffered by that breach. At present the prosecutor must first summon the party before a magistrate to vindicate public order, and then he must go before a County Court for compensation. The French law was more consonant with reason: one Court served both purposes; and he saw no objection to the magistrate being entrusted with the power of granting compensation to a limited extent—say 20l. He would also give the power of certifying that the costs of transferring the case to the sessions, when necessary, should be paid by the public. His hon. Friend need not fear any opposition from the bar to the proposition to take away the power of removing indictments for misdemeanors by certiorari, for he believed that in no case of legal reform would they allow any consideration but that of public justice to operate upon their minds, for he believed that the interests of the profession were identical with the interests of the public. He thought, however, they should be very cautious in taking away the power from the Judges altogether; and in boroughs particularly, where there was limited jurisdiction, and cases of a political or party complexion were likely to occur, it might be better to allow cases of the nature in question to be removed by certiorari, in order to avoid the excitement to which they generally gave rise. He hoped the hon. Member would consider that sweeping-change he seemed to suggest unnecessary, unless it was justified by some better reasons than had yet been given to the House.

said, he approved of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath as to corporal punishment, because it was scarcely possible to conceive those feelings and sympathies which revolted against such a punishment should have any application to a person degraded by one of the savage assaults which this Bill was intended to prevent. There were two points connected with criminal jurisprudence which he hoped would also receive the attention of the Government. The first was the gross injustice of inflicting punishment on labourers for taking their masters' corn to give to their masters' horses. By a scholastic subtlety, the Judges held that to be precisely the same offence as if the person had stolen the corn and sold it for his own purposes; and he had never seen a case of that description tried in which the Judge, the jury, and the counsel did not all do everything they could to facilitate the escape of the accused person. Such a law was an abomination in itself, and ought to be altered. The second point was the disgraceful custom of exacting fines from persons acquitted of misdemeanors. It was the constant practice of police officers and others to prosecute parties for misdemeanors, and just before the time appointed for the trial to withdraw the charge; the accused persons had to pay a sum of money although they were acquitted, and he said that was an abuse disgraceful to a civilised country. The Government, he considered, by this measure would add another to their claims upon the gratitude of the public.

said, he considered that the House was greatly indebted to Her Majesty's Government for having introduced the present measure. He wished to ask the hon. Member (Mr. Fitzroy) whether any alteration was proposed with respect to the number of magistrates who would have to adjudicate upon these eases?

said, that he did not intend to alter the jurisdiction of the magistrates in respect to the offences included under the Bill.

said, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member to a recent case in the north of England, in a parish near Berwick-on-Tweed, where the magistrates had committed some labourers to gaol because they had refused to work up to ten or eleven o'clock at night. They were hired by the year, and as agricultural operations had been retarded by the Hoods, their master had insisted on their working all day, and up to a late hour at night, which the labourers had refused to do without extra pay. He considered this case one which called for redress.

said, I that there had been an understanding with the late Government that the Irish Members should be more fully represented on the India Committee. Their attention had been called to the subject by an hon.! and learned Member, who showed that while vast sums were paid to the Protestant clergy in India for the charge of about 50,000 people, as well as for the support of the Mahomedan and Hindoo religious, not one farthing had been given to the Roman Catholics, who were very numerous. The Roman Catholics were even deprived of the money left to them i for religious purposes by members of their faith. What he complained of more particularly was, that there was a systematic practice of excluding Irish Members from Committees of the House, unless on questions connected with Ireland. India had exerted an enormous influence over this Empire, and yet Irishmen had been as far as possible excluded from that country, though the names of Wellington, Keane, and Gough proved they had not been inferior to Englishmen or Scotchmen in promoting the interests of the British Empire on that great continent. The first man who ever gave a check to the system of peculation which had existed in India was an Irishman, who, when President at Mysore, had refused a bribe of 100,000l. to sign some State paper. But there were other reasons why Irishmen should be on this Committee, and they were, that the interests of the country at large were directly opposed to the interests of the East India Company, and that the Committee should be placed in a condition to I give an independent consideration to the | whole question of our Indian Government, The only Irish Member on the Committee was the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald). The way in which this practice of excluding Irish Members worked was well shown by the recent debate on Kilmainham Hospital, where it was adduced as a reason for destroying that establishment that a Committee of the House had reported against it. But, on inquiry, it turned out that the only Irish Member on that Committee had voted against the portion of the Report referring to Kilmainham. It was proved to the Committee that the cost of keeping a soldier at Kilmainham was 5 per cent less than that of keeping him at Chelsea, and yet the Committee, instead of following the natural course, and recommending the pensioners of Chelsea to be transferred to Kilmainham, advised that the latter should he abolished altogether. As to the two Gentlemen he proposed to add to the Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) possessed the full confidence of the Catholic clergy, was perfect master of the subject, and had been in communication with the learned prelate Dr. Carew with respect to the treatment the Roman Catholic Church received in India. The other Gentleman he wished to propose, was the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Kenneday) not alone for the protection of the interests of the Catholic Church, but really for the enlightenment of the Committee itself, as the hon. and learned Member was thoroughly acquainted with the want of the means of communication between different parts of India, and, would, therefore, be able to draw out information from the witnesses as "to the necessity of that want being supplied.

said, he really thought it very confusing to attempt to settle the question of adding two Members to the Committee on Indian territories by reference to what had been done with respect to Kilmainham Hospital. It was mixing up matters which had no relation whatever. [Mr. F. FRENCH: I submit they have everything to do with it.] Their only relation to each other was their being combined in the same speech. Besides that, he protested against any such connexion. The hon. Member pro- posed now the addition of these two Gentlemen to the Indian Committee. It was a matter of great regret to him to hear the hon. Gentleman propose them on grounds which it would be very much better not to introduce. The hon. Member, too, was not accurate in his statement that there was a systematic practice of excluding Irish Members from Select Committees, excepting on subjects immediately connected with Ireland, and he found the means of contradicting him in the very paper in which the hon. Gentleman's notice of Motion appeared. There was a notice on the paper of his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Wilson) to propose the names of the Committee on Life Assurance Associations. That subject was not exclusively Irish. It was extremely English, and very highly Scotch. There was a vast number of Assurance offices in England, and a large number in Scotland. In Ireland there were very few, and those few were doing business to a comparatively small extent. Yet, if the hon. Member looked at the names about to be proposed on that Committee, he would find there were those of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), and of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. J. Ball). He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) protested against trying the composition of this Committee upon the ground of the number of Protestants, or the number of Catholics. It was not really a question of what quantity of money was to be assigned to Protestants, and what quantity to Roman Catholics. It was not that they were going to consider, but the interests of nearly 120,000,000 of men, neither Protestants nor Catholics. They were, however, their fellow-creatures, whose interests they were bound to consider. The Committee, he contended, was carefully chosen and well-chosen. They had a selection of the best men for the examination of the subject. It so happened that Irish, Scotch, and English, had all their representatives upon it. He found the names of two Irish Members, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue)—[Mr. FORTESCUE expressed dissent.] It appears that the hon. Gentleman's name was withdrawn. At all events, there was the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), and the Irish Members had an able champion in him. He considered it absolutely necessary for the House, if they wished to pay due regard to the constitution and composition of Committees, to have fixed rules in the management of them. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. French) had ample opportunity, on a former occasion, to raise the question. A number of those previously on the Committee, himself amongst the number, accepted office under the Crown, and their names were consequently withdrawn. Why did the hon. Gentleman not make his proposal when their places were filled up? The hon. Gentleman had allowed the present opportunity to go by, and having allowed it to go by, he came forward now to propose to modify the rule of the House by an alteration of the number of the Committee. That alteration, he ventured to say, was very highly objectionable. They were under extreme pressure in obtaining Gentlemen to serve on Committees, The number of election petitions and private Bills was so great, that it was almost impossible to supply the demand. The Indian Committee was already composed of thirty-one Members, well selected, fairly representing all the various portions of the House, and containing the most competent men to deal with Indian affairs. The hon. Gentleman, having allowed the proper opportunity to slip by, now wanted to alter the number of the Committee. He therefore hoped the House would abide by the rule, and not consent to qualify it on this occasion. The number of the Committee was very large, and the inconvenience of an increase would be extreme. Encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's success, other Members, doubtless, would be proposing to enlarge the Assurance, and other Committees. He hoped the House, therefore, would stop the evil in the beginning and adhere to the rule, and reject the Motion of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French).

said, that his name had been placed upon the Indian Territories Committee, but he had consented to have it struck off the list, on the ground that the Roman Catholic Members were not sufficiently represented upon the Committee. The hon. Gentleman whose name was substituted for his own, was the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald).

said, he must assert that the Irish Members were excluded systematically from Committees, except those on Irish subjects. He believed that there bad been great dissatisfaction in India in consequence of the injustice done to Roman Catholics, and at Hyderabad there had been disturbances on the subject; and this formed one reason why Roman Catholic Members should have been nominated to serve upon the Committee. A distinguished Member of that House, the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), had never been on but one Committee of a general character. As to Assurance companies in Ireland, if there were not many offices, there were a great many agents. There was not an Irish Member on the Committee of Divorce—a compliment, he supposed, to the fidelity of his countrymen to the marriage tic

said, that he could have been the last to have objected to the admission of Irish Members to the Indian Committee if it had been proposed at the proper time; but he could not forego expressing his surprise that the Irish Members should have suppressed their indignation for twelve months. The Committee had already deliberated on one of the principal portions of the inquiry, and the introduction of two new Members would be a great inconvenience. He hoped, therefore, the House would not assent to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. He would say one or two words about the progress of the Committee, which he regretted the right hon. President of the Indian Board was not present to hear. The Committee were now continuing their inquiries, although an intimation had been given in both Houses by the Government that they intended to bring in a Bill on the subject during the Session. Now, the Committee which sat last year made a Report, in which they divided their inquiry into eight heads, the first of which, it was stated, would embrace the consideration of the Government in this country, and the other seven were of very considerable importance. They comprised the military and naval departments of India, the income and expenditure, the judicial establishments, the system of education, the local improvements, the ecclesiastical provision, and another head covering all these things—one of miscellaneous topics. Now, if the proposed Bill was introduced upon the first head, neglecting the consideration of the seven others, he contended, as one of those who served upon the last Committee, that that could never have been the intention of the Committee when they made their Report to the House; that they could never have contemplated the introduction of a Bill with reference to one head without including the others he had mentioned. The inquiries of the pre- sent Committee would be of no possible avail unless they led to practical legislation; and if that were not the case, it would be better, instead of adding to their numbers, to discharge them at once from further attendance. If his right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood) had been present, he should have been glad to know whether the Government were prepared to lay upon the table the Bill they intended for the government of India, or, if not, whether they would indicate to the House whether their intention was to bring in a Bill for the temporary or permanent government of that country—whether they intended to continue the Government, as it had been hitherto usual to do, for a period of ten or even twenty years, or only for such a period as would enable the Committee to continue their inquiry into the subject. The fact was that inquiry ought to have been instituted much earlier than had been done, if it was really expected that legislation was to be based upon the result of their labours. Owing to unavoidable circumstances there had been much less opportunities for the inquiry than were anticipated, even in the time during which the Committee had sat; but, if even this had not been the case, the period allotted for inquiry would not have been sufficient. There ought to have been a great many more examinations of natives of India and of persons who had been in that country. Even as it was, the news of the appointment of the Committee had brought from India many petitions, into the merits of which he did not mean to enter now, but which certainly deserved inquiry, whether the objections were reasonable or not. Opportunities for such inquiry, however, the Committee had had none, and would have none until the measure of the Government was brought in. Now, he was most anxious to see and discuss that Bill; and, in order to allay the excitement which prevailed upon the subject, and to show what the intentions of the Government really were, he did hope they would, before adjourning for the Easter holidays, either introduce their Bill, or, as he had said, state for what term—because that was the great point—it was intended to introduce the Bill at all. Upon that term would depend the value of the Committee; and he thought the Government might, before Easter, state their decision, not upon the details, but upon the duration of the term, which was a point that could not require so much consideration.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in thinking it undesirable at this stage to increase the number of the Committee; but at the same time he confessed it would have been more satisfactory to Ireland if there had been more Irish Members upon it. Allusion had been made to his being appointed a Member of many Irish Committees; all he could say was, that doing duty on a general Committee was the severest mode of secondary punishment that could be devised for Members. He thought, however, it was of great importance, in every point of view, that Irish Members should be encouraged to mingle with other Members in discharging the functions of Committees of the House. In the ordinary habits of business, English Members were; perhaps, more distinguished than they were; and he could not fail seeing, that by a cordial co-operation of both in Committees, Irish Members would acquire habits which would not only be useful to themselves, but give weight and assistance to the administration of the affairs of the country and that House. They were all Members of an Imperial Parliament, and it was neither right nor desirable that any particular section of them should be isolated from the rest. He entirely concurred in the importance of laying the Bill before the House at the earliest possible period.

said, the Committee had been appointed by the late President of the Board of Control, who had stated, not as had been alleged, that he would place Irish Members upon the Committee, but that if the number of the Committee was increased, he would then place additional Irish Members upon it. The present President of the Board of Control had simply substituted Members of the present Government for those who had gone out of office, and had continued the same number of Irish Members upon the Committee as his predecessor had done, and had substituted the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. Fitzgerald) for that of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue). If the appointment of the Committee had now for the first time come under consideration, he should have been I glad to see more Irish Members upon it; but, at present, any addition to the number which had been decided upon would be very inconvenient in itself, and a bad precedent for the future.

said, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. F. French) would not trouble the House to divide upon this Motion. As to the general question involved in the labours of the Committee, he deeply regretted to hear that the term talked of for the renewal of the charter was twenty or ten years, when they had from every part of India petitions from natives praying for an opportunity of stating their grievances. He contended that the Committee had no evidence, and were likely to have none, to show the real state of the natives of India, though he really had flattered himself that that would have been done which would have given content and satisfaction to a population so numerous and so important. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would reconsider the matter, and would pause before coming to any decision until that was accomplished which had been promised by two or three successive Administrations—namely, that before the renewal of this charter there should be a full and fair inquiry. It had been intended that the working, the judicial, and the revenue system of India should be fully entered into by the Committee; but it was utterly impossible to do that without hearing something of the facts of the case from the natives who were the sufferers in the event of any mismanagement, and yet it seemed the Government were determined to enter at once into permanent legislation on the subject. He knew there was a strong feeling in the country that permanent legislation ought not to take place until an opportunity was afforded for further inquiry.

said, that while he concurred in the observations which had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), he thought that, under the circumstances, the Motion ought not to be pressed. He agreed that Irish Members had hitherto been excluded from Committees; but he would remind the hon. Member (Mr. F. French) that no Committee could be appointed without due notice thereof being given upon the paper, and then was the proper time to oppose its constitution.

said, he regretted the absence of the right hon. President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood), which proceeded from unavoidable causes; but had his right hon. Friend imagined that reference would have been made in the course of the discussion arising out of this Motion to the general question of legislation regarding India, he would have no doubt endeavoured to be present. He would now only ask the House to suspend their judgment upon this very important question until to-morrow, when the whole question would come before them.

said, he was aware that when a Committee was named, it was invidious to get up and to take exceptions to a particular Member, He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whose politics he seldom coincided, had gone beyond his province in lecturing hon. Members. For his own part he felt himself quite as competent to bring forward any measure he pleased, as the right hon. Gentleman himself, his Parliamentary experience being quite as long and as extensive as that of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as the injustice to Irish Members was concerned, that was an evil which had long been felt. He pledged himself, however, so long as he had at seat in that House, he would not cease from his exertions to get this injustice redressed.

said, he rose to move for a Return of all cases in which either of the Superintending Inspectors of the General Board of Health have been employed as the engineers in carrying out the works which have been executed under the authority of the Public Health Ac!, 1848. In moving for these Returns he considered he was only doing that duty which fell to the lot of every Member of that House, namely, that of drawing attention to an abuse which had lately come to light. The way the abuse came to his knowledge was this: In 1851 Ryde was attempted to be brought within the operation of the Act, by the application of some anonymous parties against the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. Mr. Ranger was thereupon sent down to ascertain if it were desirable and expedient that this Act should be applied to the district. A public meeting was called by advertisement, and notices were sent to the ratepayers to tell them such a meeting was to be held. The meeting took place, and there was a large majority against adopting the Act. This was not thought sufficient, and the ratepayers were appealed to in another form. The result was a majority of forty-one against the introduction of the Act. Mr. Ranger went down to Ryde to make further inquiries, and on another appeal being made to the inhabitants there was a majority of 355 against the Act. The inhabitants, in order to remedy the complaints against the supply of water, formed a company for that purpose. No sooner was this done than a second company was set on foot, and Mr. Ranger was actually appointed engineer, and paid for his services on behalf of this second company, he having reported in favour of the extension of the Act. Now, he thought it was a gross abuse that the officer who was sent down to conduct an inquiry, and report whether it was right the Act should be enforced, should make himself not only a party to the case, but should benefit by the nature of his Report. He was also informed that the people of Cowes applied to the Board of Health as to the value of their waterworks. Mr. Ranger came down to see them, and in a short time a bill of 80l was sent in. Now, considering that Mr. Ranger, while employed by the Board of Health, received 3l. 3s. per day, he thought such a system of charges was a gross abuse. Again, at Southampton, Mr. Ranger was employed to carry out the works he had reported necessary. Nothing, however, was done to ensure a good supply of water, except the purchase of a piece of land for experimentalising. He thought that the abuses which had arisen from the conduct of those who were employed to carry out this Act, ought to be brought under the notice of the House, with the view to their remedy. He admitted there were many very good provisions in the Act: it had been said, England likes not coalitions; but he said, England does not like that such extensive powers should be confided to irresponsible persons or authorities. He had only the public advantage in view in bringing forward this question; and he trusted that the right hon. Baronet would not allow himself to be led by the representations of interested parties, but would exercise his own high talents and judgment, and cause a full and impartial inquiry into the alleged abuses.

said, he would not then enter into a statement of the duties of the Board of Health; but he would say that the reconstitution of the Board of Health was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and something would no doubt be done. He had no objection to the Returns being produced.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the above Resolution of the Chatham Election Committee; and to move, firstly, that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute the said Stephen Mount for wilful and corrupt perjury; and, secondly, that in all cases in which a Committee shall report there are grounds for believing a witness to be guilty of perjury, the Attorney General be directed to prosecute at once. It was a melancholy fact that there were many witnesses examined before Election Committees who took a solemn oath to tell the truth, but who entered the Committee-room with the fixed determination either to withhold the truth, or to say the very opposite. It had been truly remarked that it was easier to draw blood from a witness before an Election Committee, than the truth. He hoped the House would not allow such things to continue. Justice was now undermined by falsehood, and, unless some effectual check were devised, it would be said that they not merely allowed but almost encouraged perjury. He was on the Bridgenorth Election Committee, and a witness was produced who stated that he was a labouring man and often out of work, and that when at work his wages were 8s. a week; and yet that man was found to have gold in his possession during the election. He accounted for it by saying that when seeking for work he found a 5l. note several weeks previous to the election. He changed it, and kept it till the election. The fact was, that witnesses came into the Committee rooms blackened with bribery and perjury. With regard to the Chatham Election, he considered the House to be greatly indebted to the Committee for the straightforward way in which their Report was made. They stated that, in their opinion, "there were strong grounds for believing that Stephen Mount, in giving his evidence before the Committee, was guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury." The House surely could not require any stronger proof to warrant putting that man on his trial. It was not necessary to wait for the evidence to be printed. With regard to the other part of his Motion—that of directing the Attorney General, when a Committee reported that there were grounds for believing a witness to be guilty of perjury, to prosecute at once; his object in making that proposition was, if possible, during the time these Committees were sitting, to prevent the recurrence of perjury. If witnesses were certain that a prosecution would immediately follow the act of perjury, it would, in a great measure, check the offence. The question was so simple and clear that he would at once submit his Motion to the House.

begged, as Chairman of the Chatham Election Committee, to second the Motion. He had not been authorised by the Committee to make a Motion that the witness, Mount, should be prosecuted; at the same time, having heard that evidence, be had not the slightest doubt on his mind, nor did he think any Member of the Committee had, that the man while giving evidence was telling very gross false hoods, and that in point of fact he was guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. He thought it was of very great consequence that the character and dignity of the Election Committees should be held up to the utmost by the House; and that the witnesses and parties should know that they could not come before these tribunals and wilfully tell what was false without incurring the risk of the same punishment as would be inflicted upon them if convicted before any Court of Record in the Kingdom. It was also of great consequence to show witnesses the distinction which existed between Select Committees of Inquiry upstairs, and Committees of the nature of Elect ion Committees, which, by virtue of certain Acts of Parliament, had power to try the issue brought before them, upon oath, and were constituted in all respects as judicial tribunals. They should be made to feel that if they dared to tell falsehoods they would be subject to the severity of the law. He therefore cordially seconded the Motion. At the same time, he very much doubted the expediency of the second Resolution of the hon. Member. He thought it was of great consequence that a Motion for prosecuting a witness for perjury should be made by the Chairman of the Committee, under the direction of the Committee itself, who had beard the evidence and were cognisant of the manner in which it was given. They ought not to fetter the proceedings of these Committees, nor those of the House, by any sweeping and general Resolution of the description proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. L. King). If any Committee should declare a witness guilty of corrupt perjury, and did not choose to prosecute, there was no doubt many Members would be ready to take the matter up. It was better, therefore, in his opinion, to leave that part of the subject to the independent consideration and decision of the Committees and of the House.

said, he wished in the first place, to express his most cordial concurrence in the opinion delivered by his hon. Friend (Mr. L. King) as to the fair and impartial manner in which the Election Committees bad performed their duties. It was impossible to do more than common justice to them in saying that they had acted with the greatest impartiality, and, what was still better, had acted with becoming promptitude. He attached as much importance as any man could possibly do to punishing, and thereby preventing, perjury before these Committees, because it was obvious, if witnesses who were brought before Election Committees were permitted to pursue that course of perjury which it appeared some witnesses had systematically pursued, the functions of the House of Commons itself would be entirely defeated, and all the purposes for which these Select Committees were appointed would be entirely frustrated. Therefore it was the duty of the House to visit with every possible degree of severity every case of perjury which could be established against any witness. He therefore entirely concurred with that part of the Motion which directed a prosecution in this case. He believed, according to the ordinary course, it would have been the part of the Committee to resolve that their Chairman should make that Motion. So far as regarded the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion (Mr. Bramston), that the second Resolution should be omitted, he entirely agreed. It would no doubt be right to make good the omission of the Committee in the present case; but with regard to all future cases he thought it would be better to leave it to the Committees to pursue what was the regular course, and not to take out of the bands of the Committees functions which properly belonged to themselves; reserving, of course, to! the House, the power of making good any case of omission by the Committees of that duty which properly, and according to the usual practice, belonged to them. He therefore would suggest to his hon. Friend to omit the second Resolution: to the first he was sure he would receive the unanimous assent of the House.

begged to express his full concurrence in what had fallen both from the Chairman of the Committee, and from the noble Lord the Home Secretary. As a Member of that Committee, he regretted that the Chairman did not recommend a prosecution in this case, for there were several other circumstances connected with the evidence which made it appear to him one of the most aggravated cases of perjury that in all his experience he had ever become acquainted with.

said, that after the suggestion which had been made to him, he of course should not press the second Resolution; but he could not help expressing his regret that it should be omitted.

said, he hoped in coming to this Resolution, the House would carefully avoid attacking small men, without at the same time being prepared to attack the great. Among the Sessional Orders he found two, one of which he thought applied quite as much to the man who was unseated for bribery as the other did to the case of the individual then before the House. The Sessional Order, referring to the case of perjury, stated, that if it should appear that any person had given false evidence in any case before the House or before Committees, the House would proceed with the utmost severity against such individuals. He also found it resolved that if it should appear that any person was elected or returned to the House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery or any corrupt practices, the House would proceed with the utmost severity against such person for such corrupt practices. His object was to express his hope that the House would proceed with evenhanded justice in this case; and that this latter Sessional Order would be followed up; and, as Sir Frederick Smith had been found guilty of bribing voters at the Chatham Election, he hoped the Committee would recommend the same course to be pursued with regard to Sir Frederick Smith as was now recommended in the case of Stephen Mount, and that he would be visited by the House with the utmost severity, according to the terms of the Sessional Order to which he had referred.

said, the Committee appeared to have been guilty of more than one omission, for they ought to have stated in their report that the witness Mount was called by the petitioners, and not by the Member who was unseated. A misapprehension had gone forth in that respect. The sitting Member having been charged with bribery, and bribery having been proved against him, the evidence of the witness Mount might be considered to have affected him. But that was not the case. Mount's evidence was tendered by the petitioners, and did not at all affect the unseated Member.

then moved for a return of the number of actions or suits in the High Court of Admiralty of England for each of the six years preceding the passing of the Act 3 & 4 Vict., c. 65. His object in moving for this Return was to furnish the House with a practical refutation of certain statements with reference to the Court of Admiralty, which had obtained currency both within and without the walls of that House—statements which were false in most cases, and in all cases grossly exaggerated. He hoped to show that in time of peace justice between individual parties was as satisfactorily administered in this Court, as in time of war international justice was done, to the honour and credit of the country. The 3 & 4 Vict. furnished practical evidence of the efficiency of this tribunal, for while it largely extended its jurisdiction it gave parties who had suffered damage from collisions or other causes an opportunity to seek their remedy in a Court of Common Law if they preferred it. The object of this Motion was to show that that option had, since the passing of the Act, been almost invariably exercised in favour of the High Court of Admiralty.

said, that the clause which the hon. Member proposed to add to this Bill, constituted the main part of one which was thrown out on Wednesday week last.

said that this clause was withdrawn and not rejected.

said, that the fact was that this clause, which the House had already considered and decided against, was one so entirely foreign to the subject matter of the Bill upon which the hon. Member proposed to engraft it, that he was actually obliged to alter the title of the Bill. If the hon. Member had proposed to add this clause to the Bill for the repeal of the Attorneys' Certificate Duty, it would have had as much reference to that as to the Bill now before the House, which did not relate to the cure of souls further than by enacting that for the next two years any appointments made to fill vacancies occurring after the 3rd of March, should be subject to any enactments recommended by the Commission now sitting. He would not now discuss the clause on its merits, but merely remind the House that Parliamentary proceedings would be involved in inextricable confusion, if on the third reading of a Bill they allowed a clause to be inserted in it which had no reference to the matter in hand.

said he must characterise this Bill as containing some things which were certain, and others which were uncertain. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was to pay 130,000l. or 140,000l. (stated to be interest now in arrear) to the Commissioners of Works, who were to hand over the amount to the Commissioners of Woods by an operation which the right hon. Gentleman had described. The money would then find its way into the revenue of the Woods and Forests, which would be greater than it would otherwise have been by that 130,000l., or 140,000l., to which a sum of 30,000l. would further come to be added, the whole increasing the revenue of the Woods and Forests, and consequently the Ways and Means for the year 1853–54. That might be a very desirable process, but it would be equally effected by taking a substantive sum of money out of the balances in the Exchequer, and carrying that to the Ways and Means of the year. He did not think he misrepresented that part of the transaction when he said that the money must swell the revenue of the Commissioners of Woods, being paid to them in the shape of interest, and that that would increase the land revenue. He did not complain of the transaction, but that seemed the nature of it. Then came the other part of the transaction—taking funds from the Exchequer sufficient to pay off mortgages on which the land revenue of the Crown was liable to pay interest. The right hon. Gentleman said these could not be paid off at once, because they were under different agreements with the different parties in respect of notices. Those sums, he understood, could be paid off in two years; but on that point the right hon. Gentleman would doubtless give explanations in Committee. There was one other part of the transaction which did not seem so satisfactory. Those funds were originally raised and charged on certain duties which formed what was called the "London Approaches Fund." The right hon. Gentleman did not inform the House when that fund would commence recouping the money into the Exchequer—repaying the Consolidated Fund the money he was now going to take out of it. The taxation by which that money was to be recouped was not very patiently submitted to by those who had to pay it; and it was desirable to know whether it was intended to get rid of that taxation. The present transactions gave a great handle to those who desired to get rid of that taxation; and, had he (Mr. Henley) been one of the parties intent on getting up an agitation, he could not have wished a more favourable card to be played than that which the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had played.

said, he had on a former occasion moved for some returns connected with this subject, which he elicited at the time, but failed in accomplishing the object he had in view. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would afford the House that information which was so desirable on the subject. There was a debt of 1,200,000l., and the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that there were assets to the extent of 1,216,000l., but that debt had been created for a purely local purpose, namely, to make new streets in the City of London. He saw no reason, therefore, for placing this debt upon the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman had not explained how the 1,216,000l. was to be realised. It was true he had stated that he expected to get 250,000l. for building sites along the new streets; but, allowing him full credit for that sum, how was he to get the difference between 250,000l. and 1,200,000l. out of the London Bridge Approaches Fund? He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to charge the general revenues of the Crown with any sum for improvements in the City of London, He had also to complain of the short preamble of the Bill. A short preamble was all very well; but in this case the preamble was perfectly unintelligible, and he believed there were not three hon. Gentlemen in the House, with the exception of those connected with the measure, who could understand it.

said, he was decidedly opposed to this Bill, because the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that it would not make the slightest difference in the duty now charged upon coals. He objected to a tax being levied, not only upon the inhabitants of London, but upon all those who lived within twenty miles of it. The London coal duties were now charged upon 3,000,000 of persons; and not only had the citizens to pay it, but also those who lived in the metropolitan counties, and who derived no benefit whatever from local improvements. The inhabitants of Croydon, for instance—a town situated twelve miles from the heart of London—consumed 40,000 tons of coal annually, and upon that quantity they paid a tax of 3,000l. a year to the City of London. He saw no reason why the City of London should not pay for the maintenance of its own bridges. It had the honour of being a county as well as a city, and therefore, if it enjoyed the distinction, it ought also to bear the responsibility.

said, he rose to correct an error in his statement on the preceding day. He had stated that the consumers of coals would not have to pay a farthing more or less under this Bill, whereas he should have stated that the consumer of coals would pay considerably less under this Bill than he paid before. By the opposition of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, the consumer of coals might have to pay more than he would otherwise be subject to, for the amount he would have to pay would depend upon the slowness or rapidity with which the Bill should pass through the House, because the longer the debt remained in existence, the greater the interest upon it would be, for it went on accumulating at the rate of 150l. a day. The London Bridge Approaches Fund was liable for the whole of the principal and interest, and the natural operation of this Bill would be to accelerate the paying off of the debt, and thus to stop the accumulation of interest, thereby diminishing the burden upon the London Bridge Approaches Fund. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) said they had no right to charge the general revenue of the country for local improvements. That was a very just and sound principle, and this Bill was in no way inconsistent with it. There seemed to be some idea that they were going to place the principal debt upon the general revenues of the country; but he had already stated that the principal debt was now chargeable on the land revenues of the Crown. The Sovereign, who had a life interest in the land revenues, had been advised by the advice of Her responsible advisers, to assent to the Act which mortgaged part of the land revenues; so that, so far as the period of the Sovereign's life was concerned, a charge on the land revenues was precisely equivalent to a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. So far as anything beyond the Sovereign's life was concerned, he granted that the case was different; but he was sure that the House would never allow the Sovereign to be defrauded of part of the property of the Crown which had been mortgaged for a public benefit in which the Crown had no interest whatever. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) wished to know in what time the debt that had been incurred and charged upon the land revenues would be paid off, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had answered that question by anticipation. He had informed him that it was impossible to define the exact time within which it would be paid off, because it depended upon the productiveness of the London Bridge Approaches Fund. Although it might be very easy to form a fair estimate of the productiveness of that fund, yet it was impossible to form such an estimate as could be relied upon for minute accuracy, because it of course depended upon the state of trade in London, the progress of population, and other circumstances, which must be mere matter of calculation and not of positive statement; but he had the satisfaction of saying that it was very clear that the charge on the London Bridge Approaches Fund would be paid off some considerable time before the law for levying the coal tax expired. He thought he should be speaking within the mark if he estimated the sum which the Government might expect to receive annually from the London Bridge Approaches Fund at some 150,000l. or 160,000l. or so. At present there was a sum exceeding 80,000l. already available for the purpose of the process to which this Bill related; but it was not possible for him to make use of that sum for the purpose of diminishing the total charge on the Consolidated Fund, because there were two questions of priority as to the application of that money which it would be difficult to solve. He should hope that a period of five or six years, or perhaps less, would suffice to terminate and wind up the affair.

said, he understood the hon. Gentleman to say that every day they postponed the passing of this Bill they were increasing the charge on the London Bridge Approaches Fund, and so delaying the period when the coal tax would cease. To the extent of 34,000l., the interest on the 895,000l. which the right hon. Gentleman meant to repay to the several parties, we should be contributing out of the funds of the country for local improvements.

said, he wished to ask what was the sum that would have to be repaid to the Treasury from the London Bridge Approaches Fund before any reduction could take place in the coal duties levied from the public? Was it the 895,000l., the 961,000l., or the whole 1,240,000l.? It was impossible to make this point out from the Bill.

said, that he was now assailed on both sides with regard to this Bill; and he hoped that before the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Alcock) charged him with seeking to increase the burdens of the consumers of coals, he would first settle his quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), who objected to the Bill that it would relieve the London Bridge Approaches Fund of the sum of 34,000l. for interest, which was due to the Consolidated Fund. These were two contradictory charges, and it was impossible that they could both be true. It so happened that neither of them was correct. The Bill, by accelerating the liquidation of the debt, and so curtailing the period for which interest would accrue, would pro tanto relieve the consumer, and enable the duty levied from the people of London and its neighbourhood to be extinguished at an earlier period than would otherwise be the case; but the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the terms of the Bill when he said hat the interest was to be put an end to at the expense of the Consolidated Fund. The matter was exceedingly difficult and complex, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken in this view. The debt had been incurred and the interest accruing upon it was one thing, and the charge that existed for the purpose of replacing that debt was quite a different thing. The obligations of the London Bridge Approaches Fund was not to pay off the debt which the Commissioners of Woods and Works incurred, and the interest thereupon; what it had to do was to pay a certain principal sum, namely, 665,000l., and interest thereon at the rate of five per cent, until the whole was paid off. Now, he was sorry to say that he could not undertake the responsibility of those who originally made this arrangement, and he could not answer the question why, while the sum of 895,000 of principal debt was incurred, a charge of only 665,000l. was taken on the London Bridge Approaches Fund; but he presumed it was because there were other assets to look to. On the whole, considering the complexity and absurdities of the original operation, he was well pleased to find that the matter stood as it did, because whilst, if they did not pass this Bill, the accumulation of interest might be so great that he could not answer for the London Bridge Approaches Fund being able to discharge it, yet, on the other hand, if they did pass it, it would check the growth of interest in a manner which would render it perfectly certain that the Crown would recover all that was due to it, and at the same time the period during which the consumer would have to pay the coal tax would certainly be abridged. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said they were going to pay off the 895,000l., and the interest would cease, and he asked if the Consolidated Fund was to be at the charge of that interest? Now, the London Bridge Approaches Fund would pay off the 895,000l., and would get no interest; nor had the land revenues of the Crown any power of getting the interest. There was the charge of 665,000l. upon the London Bridge Approaches Fund, upon which 296,000l. of interest had already accrued. The proceeds of the sales of ground rents are estimated at 250,000l.; and there was also a repayment of 30,000l. expected from the Westminster Improvement Commissioners. These were the total assets against the sum of 1,250,000l., which was the maximum liability of the London Bridge Approaches Fund. The hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) asked which of the amounts was going to be paid into the Treasury—the 895,000l., the 961,000l., or the 1,250,000l. It was not the 895,000l. That was an obligation for the recovery of which they had no claim as such. That was simply a debt of the land revenues of the Crown, and must be liquidated. But then, the hon. Baronet asked, was it the 961,000l.? Certainly that was a part of it—that was a portion of the assets which were available for the Commissioners of Works, as the law now stood, towards releasing the land revenues of the Crown, and repaying the charge that had been incurred for interest. It was not the 1,220,000l.; that was the maximum of charge upon the Treasury; and the assets that would be available for the Consolidated Fund, and which he thought might be considered as entirely of a good and secure character, exceeded the sum of 1,220,000l.

said, he thought the statement made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the London Bridge Approaches Fund was quite satisfactory; but. he still contended that the Consolidated Fund did take upon itself a portion of debt for which there was no security.

hoped that the object of this measure was to reduce the interest upon the whole amount by one or one and a-half per cent, and that by that process the tax upon coals might terminate the sooner, for the benefit of the metropolis.

said, if the two funds were entirely distinct, he did not understand why the 130,000l. was to be carried to the Ways and Means of the year.

said, the land revenue was entitled to receive, as the law now stood, from the Commissioners of Works the reimbursement of all that was paid out in interest on the London Bridge Approaches Fund and other assets. He now proposed that they should be reimbursed immediately, instead of remaining longer out of their money This was not a payment that had been made by the land revenues once and for all and without return. The land revenues, although they could not recover that payment of interest, eo nomine, yet they were entitled to that charge on the Approaches Fund. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said, was it the object of the Government to put it to Ways and Means? Certainly he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no object of that kind. It was a postponed payment on account of revenue; and therefore when this Bill was passed the 130,000l. would come into credit, and become a part of the revenue.