asked Viscount Palmerston whether his attention had been called to section 37 of the Militia Act, by which the expense of providing a store-house for arms, accoutrements, and clothing, and quarters for a sergeant major and a portion of the non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff, is to be provided out of the county rate, while the boroughs, not contributing to the county rate, will be exempt from any portion of this charge?

said, the subject to which his attention had just been called had already been brought under his notice. The fact was that, owing to the peculiar provision of the law which exempted certain boroughs from county rates, those boroughs did not contribute towards the expense of militia stores. He had no hesitation in saying he thought that exemption was very unjust. The expense ought to be spread equally over all the property of the country; and he should endeavour, in the amended and consolidated Militia Bill, which he hoped to be able shortly to present to the House, to find the means of remedying that which was undoubtedly an injustice.

said, that on rising to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law of succession to real property in cases of intestacy, he would remind the House, that when he last submitted this question for their consideration, he did so in the shape of a Resolution. He was told on that occasion by many hon. Gentlemen who took a very great interest in the subject, that he would have done better had he then moved for leave to bring in a Bill, because he would have shown that he was really in earnest in directing the attention of the House to the question. It was for that reason that he now begged to move for leave to intro- duce a Bill to amend this law. He was certain he need not remind the House that this was a question of very great importance to a large number of people, more particularly to the middle classes, for when once the rights of property and the security of it had been established in a country, there could be no laws of much greater importance than those which related to the alienation of it, and to the succession to it on the death of the possessor. They had a great moral and political influence. They affected the whole feelings of the nation, and had a powerful influence on its domestic happiness. It had been well observed, that in proportion as the principle of just and equal laws had been established in a nation, its general wealth and its general happiness had been promoted: while by discouraging that great principle, although wealth might be concentrated in the hands of a few, still misery and poverty would be the lot of man. Happily, in this country we had the greatest security for property. Nowhere was the right to it more respected; and he was willing to admit likewise that we possessed the largest amount of wealth, perhaps, which the world ever saw. But side by side with that enormous wealth, with those concentrated riches, we had also the greatest amount of poverty which it was possible to imagine. If it could be shown that the greatest possible extremes in the condition of mankind were desirable, then we must acknowledge ourselves to have been eminently successful, for we could boast of laws, of comparatively modern invention, whose object was, with respect to one class of property, to keep it in the fewest possible hands—to make its alienation and its circulation as difficult as possible, and to discourage to the utmost extent the distribution of it at the death of the possessor. As if the natural differences and distinctions between land and other property were not in themselves sufficient, other and artificial differences had been invented by laws, which were originally introduced for the purpose of enabling a body of conquerors more completely to subdue a conquered nation. It might be said—and he would not pretend to deny—that those laws were in strict accordance with the feelings of a powerful and privileged class; but the question for that House to consider was, whether they were in accordance with the feelings of an equally powerful, but not of a privileged class; and, above all, whether they were in accordance with the times in which we lived, and whether they were not upheld by mistaken ideas of expediency and necessity rather than supported by justice. Those who possessed rights of long standing founded on antiquity rather than on justice, were now bound to give up promptly, and with a good grace, every indefensible privilege—every anomaly—everything that could in any way be construed into an act of injustice. Now, with regard to the property of those who died intestate, the law as it at present stood was full of the greatest anomalies and of many acts of injustice. If they took the case of a parent who died possessed of personal property, the Statute law came in, and forced a division of that property among the children; and that, he thought, seemed to be natural justice. But in the case of a parent who died possessed of real property, the Common law stepped in and snatched the whole of that property away from those who appeared to be the natural inheritors, and gave it to one child alone. In regard to the land itself, the law as it now stood was also full of the grossest anomalies. If they took the case of a freehold estate, they found it went entirely to one child; but if they took the case of a long leasehold, whether for 99, or 1,000, or even 10,000 years, which in many respects was equal to a freehold, they would find that on the death of the possessor the law divided the property among all the children, if the father died intestate. Again, what happened in the case of copyhold property where borough English prevails? Why, the eldest son got nothing, and the property went entirely to the youngest. He might also venture to refer to the case where the holder of personal property agreed to invest the whole of his property in a freehold estate. He signed the contract, he intended when he had completed the purchase to make a will, but dying before he had made a provision for his younger children, what happened? Why, the administrator was bound to disregard the intentions of the deceased, and the whole of the property went to the eldest child. Now, the Bill which he proposed to introduce would to a great extent, or entirely, remove all those anomalies, and a great many others. It was the province and the duty of the law to make for persons who died intestate such a distribution of their property as should not only be just to their families, but also be beneficial to the State. He did not suck in any way to interfere with the rights and privileges of any person; he only desired to apply the same rule to real property which was applied now to personal property. He knew there were many persons who would object to this measure on the ground that it had a tendency to do away with what they called the law of primogeniture. Now, he must confess, he was altogether ignorant of the existence of such a law. There was no law which compelled an individual to give the whole of his personal or real property to one child only. If this Bill passed, it would leave to every person the privilege of making by will, if he chose, his own law of primogeniture. There were others who might say that a measure of this kind would be dangerous to the aristocracy; that, by dividing the property of Peers among their children, it would tend to endanger the peerage. But here it must be recollected that, in the great majority of cases, the property of Peers was so settled, and perhaps so encumbered, that it did not matter whether a Peer made a will or not. If, however, any serious objection were raised on this ground, it might be very easy to remove it in a simple way—for example, by not allowing the property of Peers to be in any way operated upon by the provisions of the Bill. What he boldly claimed was, that there should be equal laws and equal justice for all, and he maintained that where a parent had not made any distinction or difference between brothers and sisters in the same family, it was an act of great injustice for the law to step in and deprive children of their inheritance when they were left most unprotected, and when they ought to look to the law for justice and protection. Even in feudal France, before the first great revolution, a local custom prevailed all over the country, except in Normandy, which compelled the elder brother to make a provision for the younger children. In that country all the younger children, as had been observed by an eminent writer, were looked upon as little else than illegitimate; yet a sort of blood relationship was allowed to exist, and a provision was made for them accordingly; but by the common law of England an elder brother might inherit the greatest part of a county, producing tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, yet he was not compelled to make any provision either for his brothers or his sisters; and even now in the upper classes of society there was a very strong feeling, that if a parent made a will, and left a portion of his freehold property to any than the eldest son, he would be guilty of an act of injustice. That was very different from what the feeling ought to be. There was an affecting story told of the family of M. Dupin, whose eldest son, at a time when it was proposed to alter the present law of succession in France, abjured, in favour of his other brothers, any right which any future law might give him to the exclusive possession of the whole of his father's property. It seemed to him that the only argument which could be used to keep up this system would be that of expediency; but that argument was answered very ably by Adam Smith many years ago, when he said that in the present state of Europe the possessor of one acre was as safe as he who possessed a hundred acres. Now he would ask was it wise or expedient, in a country with democratic institutions, to keep up laws whose object was to create not only the greatest inequalities in the nation, but inequalities in the wealth of one and the same family? But, perhaps, in a question of this kind it was well to look back and see what had been the law and practice in past ages and in different countries. If they turned to the Jewish law and to the institutions of Moses, they found that there the eldest son did not inherit anything approaching to the whole of the property. At the death of the father the property was divided into equal portions, and the eldest son had a right to only two portions, and this was called the right of the first-born. But then there were peculiar institutions, such as the year of the jubilee, and other occasions, when all the debts were cancelled, and when land reverted to the former owner, no matter on what conditions it was parted with—which all tended to keep up equality in families, and to promote that moderation which was the best guard of their liberties and their rights. He mentioned this because there were many persons who ran away with the idea we took our law from that of the Jews. No difference was made in the Jewish law between freehold and personal property, or between moveable and immoveable property. There was also among these people a very stringent law with regard to usury, which was not at all adapted to a commercial nation, and which those persons who upheld the present system of the eldest son taking all the land would perhaps find very inconvenient if it were adopted in this country. If he turned to the Grecian law, he found that there the property was divided among all the sons, who were co-heirs; and in Blackstone there was a passage in praise of the old Athenian law as keeping up equality and preventing the accumulation of estates. According to the Roman law, the property was divided into equal and even shares, and distributed among all the children and the widow. Sir James Mackintosh remarked, with respect to the Roman law, that the nineteenth century had at length brought us nearly to the same point which the Roman reached at the time of the legislation of Justinian. Our materials were ample, and our skill in reducing them to order, ought not to be behind that of any former age. Now, all he proposed to do was to carry out the principle of the Roman law. They had already adopted that law in respect to personal property, and he only asked them to extend it to real property. Among the Saxons, again, he found the eldest son had no right over his other brothers. In short, neither amongst Jews, Greeks, Romans, nor Saxons, was there anything so unjust as our law in this regard. The next question for consideration was, how were these laws introduced, and for what reason had they been maintained for so long a period? There was no doubt as to their introduction. They were introduced with the view of completely subjugating the Saxon people; but why they had been maintained so long he should leave to others to answer. He could show abundant reasons why every vestige of feudalism ought to be abolished, and it became a question for that House to consider whether it was wise for them any longer to treat this great nation as a conquered people, and whether the time had not arrived when the law of succession to real property, as well as every other law, should be submitted to the light of reason and of justice. As long as a remnant of the feudal times existed, there always would be what was termed by Sir William Jones a war of jarring principles.

"There has been a continual war in the Constitution of England between two jarring principles: the evil principle of the feudal system, with his dark auxiliaries, ignorance, and false philosophy; and the good principle of increasing commerce, with her liberal allies, true learning and sound reason. The first is the poisoned source of the abominations which history too truthfully records; it has tarnished and polluted wherever it has touched the fair form of our Constitution, and for ages even contaminated the spirit. While any dregs of this baneful system remain, you cannot justly boast of general freedom; it was a system of niggardly and partial freedom enjoyed by great barons only, and many bad men, who were perpetually insulting and giving check to the king, while they sacked and harassed the people. What caused the absurd yet fatal distinction between property, personal and real? The feudal principle. The same infernal principle, which then subdued and stifled the genuine equalising spirit of our Constitution."

That many jarring principles were still in operation, was a fact of which there could be little doubt. There still remained in connection with the land many vestiges of feudal oppression. We had lords of the manor, with their oppressive rights—for the forest laws, we had the game laws—and we had a system of entail which, though nominally not perpetual, was to all intents and purposes perpetual—a system by which the father was made subject to the son, and by which property was frequently locked up in the hands of persons unable to improve it. Of the cruelty and misery of the time when these laws were introduced, history was full. At one time we found that large tracts of country were depopulated for the sake of making parks for the amusement of royalty; at another it was thought to be necessary, for the sake of preserving the monopoly of land, to make what was called "a zone of desolation." In this way the whole country between York and Durham was laid waste, and an immense number of people—not enemies, but subjects—were slain to increase the monopoly of land. Not many years ago some 15,000 of the peasantry in the north of Scotland were ejected, and their places supplied by sheep; but he understood those who had so acted were now very anxious to get rid of the sheep and to get back the human beings. We had seen the same thing extended to Ireland, where the monopoly of land had ravished the country. He would not trouble the House by going into statistics, but it was worth the while of hon. Gentlemen who approved the monopoly of land to examine the subject, and they would find that while there were fewer proprietors in this country than in any other, we had, in consequence of the laws to which he had referred, a greater amount of pauperism, of crime, and even of insanity. For it was a remarkable fact that in the agricultural districts of England there was not only more insanity than in the towns, where naturally insanity would increase to a greater extent than in tho country, but there was more even than in the agricultural districts of other countries. In the agricultural districts of England I out of every 700 inhabitants was insane, whereas in the agricultural districts of France there was not above 1 in every 3,000. He thought that the natural desire for land was quite strong enough without the artificial stimulus of the Legislature to excite it. When he looked at what had been done in late years—when he recollected that the zeal and eloquence, and the honesty of purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had induced that House, with scarcely a murmur, to give up one of the greatest privileges which the landed interest enjoyed—its freedom and immunity from the legacy tax—when he remembered that the same right hon. Gentleman had boldly declared the principle that henceforth all claims should be treated with equal justice, he felt that the Government, at all events, could not oppose a measure of this kind, which was not asking the House to impose any new tax, but simply to do away with an unjust privilege, and to resolve that real property should be dealt with in the same manner as personal property. It was now 300 years since any great alteration was made in regard to the laws of succession, and great mitigation was then effected, by power being given to persons to make wills; but he thought it was now time for that House to do something more—to make in fact in the middle of the nineteenth century, a more just will for those who die intestate, than that which was dictated by the spirit of the eleventh and which we still retain. He trusted that there would be no objection to his laying the Bill before the House, as he believed the effect of passing it would be to remove an act of injustice which was dishonourable to the Legislature, and a disgrace to a free and civilised country. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of succession to real property in cases of intestacy.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he was exceedingly glad that a measure of this nature had been introduced, as it would, if successful, remove a great and serious inconvenience. The House would perceive that it attempted no interference with testamentary power, but merely referred to cases in which the possessor of property died intestate. He believed that if an accurate calculation were made, the personal property would be found to exceed the real, so that it was only the minor section of the property of the country that the law sought to be repealed referred to. As regarded personal property, the law stood as it was now sought to make it with regard to real, and the persons interested had never complained of inconvenience or injustice. In the case of intestacy in real property, if the children were all females, they became co-parceners in the land; but if there were one boy, not only were his sisters, but all his younger brothers, cut off, and he was solely entitled to the inheritance. Was it not most unjust, absurd, and unfair, and contrary to every principle of equity and reason, that if a man died suddenly by the dispensation of Providence, and had not time to make his will, those whom he most loved, and who were the chief objects of his affections, his wife, and all his children but one, should by the law be deprived of what was their natural inheritance.

said, that when, on a former occasion, his hon. Friend had brought forward this proposition, he (Mr. Bright) had said a few words in its favour, and he could only suppose the neglect of the House to arise from its not being considered a great or practical question. The law as it at present stood was exceedingly unjust; and if he were in the position of an elder son, or of any son receiving an estate on the death of his father, thereby depriving his sisters or his brothers of a participation in it, he should think it just as criminal to take the property as he would to abscond from his creditors or forge a will. He solemnly declared, that in his opinion the thing was so atrocious, so scandalous, and so unnatural, that he did not know of any offence of a pecuniary character which appeared to him so great as that involved in the present law of succession. An hon. Member to whom he had recently expressed these opinions had stated to him, in reply, that there were people who saw the matter in a very different light, and who believed that the Constitution of the country was, somehow or another, bound up in the younger child having nothing and the eldest taking all the property of his father. The Bill now proposed referred only to cases of intestacy. Now he thought that if a person died without a will, the law might at least be allowed to assume that he would have done that which was most just and consistent with parental feeling to all his family. The law took that view of the case with respect to personal property, and there was no reason why the law should not assume the same in cases where real property was in dispute. One effect of an alteration in the present state of things would be to make land more accessible to a large portion of the population than it was at present. The whole question was one which he felt as difficult to argue at any length, or with any force, as he would do if required to argue for or against the multiplication-table—a subject upon which all were agreed. It appeared to him to be a great proof of the depravity of our system, that this relic of feudal times and of the prejudices of past ages should still remain on the Statute-book, and that it should be the duty of any Member to propose in the present day an alteration in the law in this respect. The opinions which he held with respect to this subject were, he knew, the same as those which were widely spread among the middle classes of the country, while the contrary feeling prevailed chiefly among those who had profited by the present mode of settlement and entail, and a very miserable class of persons, not of their rank of life, but who aspired by all means to attain to their elevation and to get into the same circle. He hoped that the noble Lord the Member for London would permit this Bill to be brought in. It did not propose to do much, but he believed it would be received as a great boon by many families throughout the country.

said, that he had no objection to offer to the introduction of the Bill; but, with respect to the question itself, he could not agree to some of the propositions which had been laid down by the hon. Members who had spoken on it. He must reserve to himself the right of taking such measures as he might think proper on the future stages of the Bill.

said, he would now beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill to appoint public prosecutors. As be believed there would be no objection to the introduction of this Bill, he should not feel it necessary to detain the House any great length of time by going into the reasons which had induced him to bring it forward. The Bill had for its object to simplify and facilitate the course of public justice, which had been hitherto in a most discreditable state. Under the present neglected state of our law, after the proceedings before the magistrate closed, it was left often to the ability or zeal of a private prosecutor whether the greatest criminal should be brought to justice, or whether he should, as was too frequently the case, escape with impunity. There was little doubt but, if the Bill became law, the country would be relieved from great and unnecessary expense; for under the present state of things, frivolous prosecutions were of frequent occurrence, by which expenses were multiplied exceedingly. Arrangements of the most scandalous kind were frequently made between the attorney who had charge of the prosecution, and the policeman who was bound to prosecute, and it constantly happened that the policeman did not discharge his duty, and was induced to overlook some material part of the evidence, and the criminal was thereby suffered to escape. He might quote two or three instances, which were of public notoriety, as strong proofs of the scandalous state of the existing law. The House must well remember, that a great trial took place in this country some years ago, which ended in a manner perfectly ridiculous—in a manner indeed, which would disgrace a Court of Quarter Sessions. He alluded to the case of a nobleman who was tried some years ago on a charge of fighting a duel. He did not mean to say that there might not have been very valid reasons for the acquittal of that nobleman, but this he would say, that the failure of the prosecution, for no other reason than that there was no identification of the person shot at, though there were two or three hundred individuals present, who could easily have identified him, was such an event as could not have occurred if the management of the case had been entrusted to a public prosecutor. He might instance another case, in which a person of high position was indicted and convicted of obtaining money under false pretences. A new trial was moved for, on the ground of the improper reception of a witness; but the prosecutor was poor, and could not support the expense of a new trial. Had there been a public prosecutor, it would have been impossible that so scandalous a thing could have occurred. The object of the present Bill was to withdraw from a sphere of private animosity, caprice, and revenge that which ought never to be left to such chances, and to see that justice was properly administered. The main provision of the Bill proposed that the Crown should distribute the different circuits into a certain number of divisions, and appoint to each division a public prosecutor, who should hold office upon the tenure of good behaviour. In addition, he also proposed the appointment of district agents to collect and examine evidence, to transmit all cases to the public prosecutor for his opinion, and also to conduct the proceedings before the magistrates. He had thought it proper to add another clause to the Bill for the security of innocence, and he proposed that it should be in the power of any prisoner to send to the public prosecutor a list of the witnesses he proposed to call, not as to character, but those merely who could speak to any facts the prisoner thought material for his defence. The expenses of such witnesses should be allowed upon the certificate of the Judge that the witnesses were material. Nothing was more painful than to hear a wretched prisoner twenty miles away from home state before a Judge—"I could have called such and such a witness to prove that I was in such and such a place, but I am poor, and could not afford it, and the expense of remaining in an assize town is more than my friends could bear." Such a state of things was improper, and called for amendment. He had been reading carefully the sections in the Code Napoleon upon this subject, and he found that in France the Procureur General summoned, at his own risk, the witnesses of a prisoner, except those who were called to speak to character. In the preliminary discussions which took place upon that point, and in which the Emperor joined, the objection that was urged against that course was the danger of jobbing being perpetrated in calling witnesses as to character. To remove any objection of that nature, he (Mr. Phillimore) proposed that the expenses of a prisoner's witnesses should not be allowed, except upon the certificate of the Judge. He now wished to allude to a point in which the assistance of the district agents would be particularly valuable, and that was in acting as superintendents of the local police. He did not say the police were worse than any other body of men, but they often had temptations to act in an oppressive and violent manner, and those temptations were not always resisted. He thought it of the ut- most importance that the minds of the English people should retain that love for the administration of justice, and that confidence in their own security, for which they had hitherto been distinguished from the people of other countries. The violence and oppression of the police in some cases tended very much to sour and poison the minds of the people, and he would, without mentioning names, quote an instance of improper conduct upon the part of the police, which occurred not long ago in London. The facts were these:—Two persons were disputing about a very old relation, and, in the absence of one, the other brought a constable and took away the relative in question, the policeman threatening to take into custody any servant who dared to leave the house or interfere in the matter. That was a state of things which ought not to be endured, and, if it could happen in London, it was much more likely to occur in remote districts. For the reasons he had now given, he thought there should be a change in the administration of the law; and that means should be taken to put the law itself upon a sounder, more liberal, and more enlightened footing, so that it should be enabled to correspond better with the exigencies of the age. They should not be content with making the Sovereign the nominal prosecutor, but they should recollect that a criminal offence was an offence against society, and that society was bound to interfere in administering justice to the offenders.

seconded the Motion.

said, he fully approved of the measure proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Phillimore). In Scotland public prosecutors were appointed, and he had long been of opinion that the practice, if introduced into England, would be attended with great benefit.

said, the subject which his hon. and learned Friend had brought before the House was one of great importance, and Her Majesty's Government certainly felt that an opportunity ought to be given to his hon. and learned Friend to bring in a Bill, in order that the matter might have ample discussion. At the same time, giving his hon. and learned Friend all the credit due for the measure he proposed, he did not think it was so perfect and complete as might be devised. He was ready to give the most careful consideration to the measure, and he took this opportunity of saying that the matter was now under the most serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who felt that the principle of appointing a public prosecutor ought to be adopted.

said, he must express his approval of the principle of appointing a public prosecutor, but he thought the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman might be attained without any statute whatever, as in Ireland, where Crown solicitors were appointed upon every circuit to conduct prosecutions. He thought the assistance of some properly-appointed person in investigating a case previous to bringing a party to trial was a matter for important consideration. He considered that a prosecution ought not to be left to the caprice or malice of a private prosecutor, who would not have the same responsibility and interest in arriving at the truth as a public prosecutor, but who would be frequently actuated by indirect motives. There were certain matters which he would suggest for the consideration of the House if the Bill came before them for further discussion. He thought that a plan should be devised which would make the system in this country act in complete harmony with that of Ireland, and he believed it of the greatest importance, whenever it was possible, to have a common system of procedure for both countries. In Ireland there were Crown solicitors for the circuit, and sessional prosecutors also, who were attorneys. Crown barristers prosecuted on the circuit, and had Crown solicitors under them. The circuit staff managed the most important business, and the sessional staff that of a more local character. It was his decided opinion that in the appointment of public prosecutors the public ought to have the best assistance that could be procured, and that it should be properly paid for. While on the subject of the administration of justice, he would beg to draw the attention of the House to the office of coroner. Speaking of Ireland, he could say that most unquestionably when the coroner interfered with the criminal department, justice was almost invariably obstructed. There was a great want of preliminary investigation by medical men in cases of a certain nature before they were sent for trial, and in many cases where parties had been convicted, it had been subsequently proved that no crime had in reality been perpetrated. With regard to coroners' inquests, during the last twenty years, about 50,000 had taken place in Ireland, in no one of which had the course of justice been assisted, but in more than one it had been seriously obstructed.

said, he approved of the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member, and thought that in any measure to be adopted provision should be made for having offences tried nearer the spot where they were committed, than they were at present.

said, he rejoiced at the intimation which had been given by the hon. and learned Attorney General that this question, which he regarded as one of great importance, was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. They had many precedents and examples of institutions analogous to that which his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Phillimore) proposed to establish, of public prosecutors. Without going to France or any foreign country, it was only necessary to refer to the machinery for carrying on the criminal jurisprudence in Ireland and Scotland, to find instances of the existence of such institutions. But with regard to the modes in which the preliminary investigation in criminal cases was conducted in the two countries, he must say that the mode pursued in Ireland was not such as to induce him to prefer the course indicated by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier) of refraining from legislating in the matter. And he altogether objected to the proposition of placing in the hands of the Attorney General of the Crown so large an amount of patronage as would attach to that office if the appointments were all left in his hands. Of the two examples which had been adduced of public prosecutors in Ireland and Scotland he certainly preferred that of the country with which he was connected, where the duty of making the preliminary investigation was in the hands of an officer known to the Scotch law as the procurator fiscal, who reported the result of his examination to the advocate depute in Edinburgh—an officer appointed by the Crown, and upon whose responsibility the prosecution was carried on or not. The necessity of some such measure for this country, no one who had had any experience of the administration of our criminal law could, he thought, for a moment doubt, for nothing could be more scandalous and mischievous than the negligent manner in which criminal prosecutions were at present conducted, nor anything more scandalous than the defeat of justice in numerous cases that consequently resulted. His experience had also taught him that prosecutions were, in too many instances, brought for the mere purpose of gratifying animosity and revenge, and that in others corrupt motives induced their abandonment. Under these circumstances, he thought legislation on the subject absolutely necessary. With regard to the other point that had been referred to—the assisting of prisoners who had not the means of employing counsel, he must say that that was a subject of great difficulty, and he would not then dwell upon it, nor would he suggest to what extent the Government should go in remedying the evil. But he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that nothing could be more painful to a judge or to the bystanders than to hear that a defence which might be true was behind, but that the prisoner at the bar, for want of means, could not adduce it. With these views, he congratulated his hon. and learned Friend in having drawn public attention to the subject. He believed that this was the only country in Europe that stood in the disgraceful position of having no public prosecutor. It was ludicrous to suppose that the coroner stood in the position of a public prosecutor, for, instead of assisting, he feared, as had been stated by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Napier), that these functionaries often stood in the way of public justice.

said, he rejoiced that the subject had been brought under the consideration of Parliament. He quite agreed with what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. S. Wortley), that the system that prevailed in Scotland was a better one than that which prevailed in Ireland. As regarded the giving the prisoner some means of defence, he did not object to the arrangement upon principle, but the matter required to be carefully looked into, and due precautions taken for the proper administration of justice. As regarded the office of coroner, he must observe, that he did not quite agree with the remarks of his right hon. and learned Friend. The coroner did not stand in the light of a public prosecutor, his duties were of a totally distinct nature, and he should not like to see the office done away with. In many cases where a crime had been committed the preliminary investigation before the coroner was calculated to further the ends of justice. As regarded the measure of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Phillimore), he hoped to see it carried out to a successful issue.

said, he wished to add his testimony as regarded the value and importance of this measure to what had been stated by the hon. Members who had preceded him. He confessed he was rather alarmed when he heard that a measure of the present character was under the consideration of the Government, as the legal reforms they had undertaken had seldom come to anything.

said, although they had in Ireland a public prosecutor, yet his experience of the working of the law had convinced him that the system was defective in one important and essential particular, the not providing a proper machinery for the preliminary investigation of cases brought forward for trial. The result had been that justice had been defeated, and that criminals had escaped in cases, where, if the machinery for the prosecution had been properly organised, the result would have been conviction. He would, at the same time, beg to refer to the mode in which prosecutions were carried on in Ireland, where it often happened, from the improper manner in which they were got up, that the prosecuting counsel only received his brief when the case was called on for trial, and consequently knew little or nothing of the facts and merits of the case.

, in reply, said, he was grateful for the manner in which the measure had been received by the House. He was delighted to hear that the Government intended to take up the matter, and, under these circumstances, he would cheerfully resign into the much abler hands of his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) the conduct of the measure, his only hope being that the public good might be brought about in any way. His hope was that the time was come when, instead of policemen and jail attorneys, homines idonei atque integri causam reipublicœ legumque susciperent.

said: Sir, I rise, according to notice, to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the present rate of duty charged upon Foreign and Colo- nial Wines is excessive and impolitic, and that the same be reduced to one uniform rate of 1s. per imperial gallon."

During the course of last Session of Parliament I had the honour of submitting to this House my views and opinions upon the important question of the wine duties, on which occasion I urged upon Her Majesty's Government the expediency, upon many considerations of policy and finance, of reducing those duties from their present prohibitive rate to a point that would bring this useful and necessary auxiliary to modern life into universal consumption. I was then, as I am now, of opinion, that a large and immediate diminution of the duty upon this "great gift of Providence to man," as the Chancellor of the Exchequer so aptly called it, would, by its increased consumption very soon produce a much larger amount of revenue than it yields at present; and this conclusion is so natural an inference from the results attending the removal of high duties upon other articles that no one in the present day will attempt to contradict it. Another consequence that I ventured to anticipate from a relaxation of the high duty paid upon wine by Great Britain was, that those countries which would benefit by the increased demand for their chief productions, would as well, from motives of reciprocity as from a necessity to supply their wants, become large importers and consumers of the manufactured products of England through the very British shipping that would frequent their ports to obtain wines—thus giving employment out, as well as home, to shipping and seamen of Great Britain. Another and a great benefit I suggested as necessarily to follow, would be that the working community of the United Kingdom would, by the substitution of a wholesome cheap beverage, be improved in their moral tone and general character; for it is universally admitted, that the use of ardent spirits brutalises man, and leads to the commission of crime and its subsequent evils. These, Sir, were briefly the grounds upon which I advocated an immediate and considerable reduction of the wine duties, to which may be added that stimulus to international commerce, and the extension of amicable relations between various countries of the world, which must necessarily flow from this extension of the principles of free trade. But, whilst pressing my own special views, as applicable to one branch of the revenue derived from a single article of importation affecting the comforts of the community, I did not hesitate to admit that there were several other subjects which might be urged upon the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as having prior claims to reduction, being of more domestic and immediate concern to the people, when compared with an article of foreign growth, and as yet little known to the bulk of the community—and even designated by some as a luxury reserved for the upper classes only. On the one hand, these considerations had their influence upon me: still weightier causes, on the other hand, led me to with draw till the present Session a trial in this House of the amount of support my proposition would receive. These causes were contained in the reasons adduced by the right hon. Gentleman, who had at that time before him the very onerous and difficult task of producing a financial scheme, at the very commencement of his official career, with a Government but newly formed, exposed to the hostile attacks of an Opposition, discomfited by defeat, and bitter from the signal failure of its own ill-prepared and unpopular budget, when in power. The reception given by the right hon. Gentleman to my proposal was such as to obtain my ready acquiescence in its withdrawal. For upon that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though concurring in the general soundness of my proposal, had prior claims upon his generosity, and, looking to the amount of revenue involved, he thought it would bear postponement. At the period when the right hon. Gentleman gave expression to those sentiments, 5th April, 1853, the House was not in possession of his intentions with respect to his general scheme of finance. But, taking these declared opinions as an earnest of the direction in which his policy would tend, I believe that I exercised a wise discretion, as well as a proper confidence in the Administration, by not pressing my motion to a division. Let me now call the attention of the House to the condition in which we find the question after the lapse of a year; and, as a necessary introduction to that inquiry, I must make some general reference to the state of the national resources at that period, and the course adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in providing for the annual expenditure of the year, and the causes which, in my opinion, led him to postpone (I hoped till this present Session) a reduction of the wine duties. On the 18th of April last the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted to the House his general statement of the finances of the country, in a speech which all who heard it must admit to have been one of the most comprehensive and masterly compositions ever pronounced in this House. If its composition and its effective delivery were of the highest order, it must be considered likewise as one of practical and minute detail into all the branches of revenue and sources of taxation, examining, in a masterly spirit, all the complicated and varied items of our national income and expenditure—readjusting with a critical and fair discrimination many branches of revenue hitherto unequal in their operation, and effecting so many reductions and total removal of duties and taxes, that whatever disappointment might have felt at the wine duty being left where it was, I conceived that the same genius and energy which dictated the reductions then proposed, would in due time he applied to a source of wealth only requiring to be developed by a large diminution to render it one of the most productive contributors to the national income. Upon the last occasion when I had the honour to address the House upon this topic, I presented a detailed table, showing that the wine duty had remained stationary in amount for the last twenty years, notwithstanding the vastly increased wealth that had been acquired in the same period, and that the population had more than doubled. We have now passed through another year of general prosperity, remarkable for the stimulus imparted to consumption in these articles subjected to a reduction a duty. I will take four of these articles most used by the community at large:—

Cocoa.—The amount entered for home consumption in
1851—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	2,843,755 lbs.
1852—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	3,121,435 lbs.
1853—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	3,898,070 lbs.
Sugar entered for home consumption in
1851—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	5,840,940 cwt.
1852—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	6,467,404 cwt.
1853—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	6,824,893 cwt.
Tea.—Amount entered for home consumption in
1851—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	49,764,193 lbs.
1852—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	51,043,518 lbs.
1853—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	54,507,834 lbs.

Coffee.—Amount entered for home consumption in
1851—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	30,170,020 lbs.
1852—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	31,873,462 lbs.
1853—eleven months ending Dec. 5, was	34,143,156 lbs.

These figures I extract from the official tables issued by the Board of Trade. The wine duties produced, as per return No. 817, moved for by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Mr. Williams:—

In 1851	…	…	£1,821,123
In 1852	…	…	1,776,247
In 1853	…	…	1,795,013

Showing the languor which still affects this article as regards revenue, notwithstanding the remarkable increase in other consumable items. The period When other reductions and alterations in duties, as the stamps and assessed taxes, have taken effect is too limited to be able to form any correct data as to the ratio of increase; but it is obvious that all consumable products have been largely enjoyed by the people all over the kingdom: a result as gratifying in its effect upon the comfort of the population as it is clearly an indication that these wise and just removals of imposts must have had their favourable action in many ways, and through various channels upon the revenue of the country. And taking the aggregate reduction upon articles subject to duty or excise, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman himself in October last, at two millions, there was in the quarter ending at that period a sum of four hundred thousand pounds aver the same quarter in the preceding year, and the surplus upon the past year is of a most encouraging character. The right hon. Gentleman last year removed all the impediments which stood in the way of this question. First, he reduced the duty upon tea by a scale of gradual diminution which, whilst it will give time for the production of increased supply, and not suddenly disturb revenue, will, in its beneficial and commercial effects, be felt and appreciated in every cottage throughout the land. The same may be said with reference to the total removal of the excise upon soap—a most objectionable and impolitic tax—and felt to be a grievous burden to the masses of the people. I will not detain the House by going into an analysis of the numerous articles upon which the right hon. Gentleman either abolished or reduced import duties, by which commercial affairs have been facilitated and benefited, and vexatious restrictions abolished. Neither will I occupy unnecessary time by dwelling upon the advantages of the reduction in the stamp duties or other topics, not immediately connected with this subject, except as proving that the Government has most clearly adopted the principle of reduction in the amount of duties, with a view to their increase, and that the increase has followed as a corollary to the proposition in every ease where it has had time for fair development. During the interval which has elapsed since this House last met, I have given my exclusive time and attention to the study of this question in all its varied and complicated bearings. I have done this from a conviction of the grave responsibility which attaches to the disturbance of any great commercial subject embracing, as this does, interests vitally affecting private enterprise, the investment of large capitals, the negotiations and productions of foreign countries, and a considerable branch of the imperial revenue. I view With a due regard the precautions to be observed by a public man in venturing to carry on an investigation into topics of this serious and important nature—and I hope to be acquitted from the charge of premature and inconsiderate discussion by this House and the public. Having a due regard to all the interests concerned; looking to the revenue of the country; taking into account the mercantile firms whose fortunes are invested in this trade; considering the advantages likely to accrue to many branches of English industry; looking also to the benefits that may ensue through the increased intercourse with foreign countries; and being convinced of the immense results that we may anticipate in improving the social and sanitary condition of the people by an immediate and very large reduction in this duty—viewing, on the other hand, the evils which now prevail, as shown by the trade being a virtual monopoly, the poisonous compounds drunk by the community under the name of wine, the adulterations of home-made articles, and substitution of British wines, whereby the revenue suffers to a prodigious extent—I have thought it expedient—nay, incumbent—upon me to use my most strenuous efforts to obtain a final decision upon the question this Session. My total independence from party in this House or in public, and the support which this question has elicited from gentlemen of all political views, and all sections of the community out of doors, encourage me in the vigorous prosecution of the design. Having a cause a such undoubted soundness, admitted by the leading statesmen of the day to be ripe for discussion and prompt action, and being personally free from any motives but those of advantage to the country, benefit to the revenue, and the paramount considerations of extended international good, combined with the comfort and ultimate amelioration of the British people, I confidently and most earnestly anticipate a favourable and a final determination of this great question on the part of Her Majesty's Government. In illustration of the various heads of inquiry, I will briefly give the House some few facts from which I have drawn my conclusions. Taking first in order the financial bearing of this question. I think the startling results shown by the tea, coffee, sugar, Post Office, and other heads where large reductions have taken place, must convince all unprejudiced minds that the same result will naturally follow with wine; and although it will be necessary to consume six times the present quantity, I adhere to my opinion of last year, that in two or three years that would be accomplished. [The hon. Member here referred to the evidence of Mr. Shaw, Mr. Forrester, Mr. Porter, Mr. Redding, and others, before the Committee of 1852, showing that the revenue would be vastly increased by the reduction of the duty.] I find in the Montreal Weekly Herald of September 3, 1853, the following curious facts respecting consumption. Perhaps the most remarkable article in our catalogue, however, is wine:—Annual British consumption of wine per head, two and a quarter pints; annual Canadian consumption of wine per head, five pints. Here we see a very large consumption of wine in the province, when it is considered that the calculation is made per head for the entire population. It is probable that the difference in this respect is caused by the comparative lowness of the provincial duties upon the cheaper description of wine, which enable them to be used freely in Canada by classes who only taste wine as a rare luxury in England, where the duties are so contrived as to keep out all but the high-priced wines. There is so general a concurrence of opinion amongst all practical impartial judges upon this point, that I think I may safely dismiss that branch of the inquiry without further observation, with the conclusion, that the House will admit with me, that the revenue, after an interval, would recover itself to the same or a greater amount. It may be well to make a passing reference to a point intimately connected with revenue—I mean the subject of British wines. This branch of commerce has been on the increase for many years past, and the annual consumption of these wines is calculated at more than 600,000 gallons. Many of these wines approach so nearly to the appearance and character of foreign wines, which they imitate, that a very large quantity of British port, sherry, and champagne are so consumed, by which, of course, the revenue suffers. This is particularly the case with champagne made of foreign grapes, having foreign labels and corks. The manufacture of this wine is carried on to a large extent in many parts of the country, especially at Reading and at Leeds, as well as at the manufactory of Messrs. Walker, of Goswell Street, who have a very large demand for these wines. The very obliging head of this establishment told me some time ago that their business was increasing to such an extent that it was necessary to add a 20,000-gallon vat to their establishment. This gentleman was examined before the Committee of 1852, and said that his sales were 45,000 gallons per annum, of which 10,000 were British Port, and 9,000 gallons British Sherry. So that, assuming other British manufacturers to sell an equal proportion of these imitations of foreign wines, they displace an equal quantity of duty-paying wine, and there is a loss of 50,000l. to the revenue, without taking into account the champagne, by far the most generally consumed, but of the amount of which I have no accurate data. Mr. Walker was of opinion that if the wine duties were gradually reduced from 5s. 9d. per gallon to 2s. per gallon in four years, existing interests would not be injuriously affected. I will now solicit the attention of the House while I endeavour to enter upon the second branch of this inquiry, though, probably, the first and all-important in its effects and consequences—I mean, the social, the moral, the sanitary bearings upon the community, and the operation thereby effected upon our national character. Sir, I think the day has gone by when any Minister will declare in this House—even one enjoying the deserved esteem and popularity of the right hon. Gentleman—that the moral and social character of the people are matters of indifference, and that he desires to raise revenue, though it be from sources which tend to the vice, the demoralisation, and the debasement of the people. The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, both from his own kind nature, and his large experience, advocate an opposite theory.—[The hon. Member here read extracts from the evidence of Mr. Porter and others, showing the better moral condition resulting from the use of wine instead of spirits.] It is well known that this is the case on the Continent, where wines are produced, and generally consumed by the people. My experience, which extends over very many years, has led me to observe that you rarely witness any symptoms of intoxication amongst the lower orders of these countries—and when Englishmen of the same class go to these countries, they form the exception. This is strikingly the case with British seamen, when they land in foreign parts where wines are cheap. In the large manufacturing towns of France, I was informed on a recent tour, that the working classes drank wines in moderation; that drunkenness and spirit-drinking were scarcely known. Referring to the great uses and benefits derived from wine in a sanitary point of view, it is impossible to enumerate the immense number of advantages to the human frame which this great production of Providence yields to man. In the course of my inquiries throughout this and other countries, I find one universal opinion amongst gentlemen of the medical and surgical professions, that the use of wine, whether as a general supporter of the system, as a tonic, as a restorative after sickness, or to fortify and strengthen the constitution, may be considered as the safest, the most efficacious, and the most beneficial in its results; and it is a remarkable circumstance, that in the course of a pretty active communication with those learned professions, both personal and by correspondence, I have met with universal support, numbering, as I do, amongst my general committee a list of distinguished names, which shows the lively, disinterested, and practical interest which that learned body take in the question; all the more valuable, that it is free from the most remote suspicion of interest or prejudice. The right hon. Gentleman himself has, in my estimation, passed the strongest commendation upon wine as a useful article in the general economy of man's dietary, when he said,

"Considering that wine was one of the great gifts of Providence to man, considering what a place it occupied among the means of subsistence, considering how many useful and wholesome ends it subserved in connection with his physical temperament, considering the manner in which it may be used as a competing article with alcoholic spirit, he must confess that it was most desirable, if it were possible, to make an important change in the duties upon wine."—[3 Hansard, cxxv. 634.]

Pliny says—

"Vino aluntur vires sanguis calorque hominum."

With respect to the use of wine and spirits, the great chemist, Liebig, says:—

"Spirits, by their action on the nerves, enable a man to make up the deficient power at the expense of his body. He draws, so to speak, a bill on his health, which must always be renewed, because for want of means he cannot take it up. He consumes his capital instead of his interest, and the result is the inevitable bankruptcy of the body.

"Wine, as a restorative, as a means of refreshment when the powers of life are exhausted, of giving animation and energy where man has to struggle with days of sorrow; as a means of correction and compensation when misproportion occurs in nutrition, and the organism is deranged in its operations; and as a means of protection against transient organic disturbance, wine is surpassed by no product of nature or of art. The nobler wines of the Rhine, and many of those of Bordeaux are distinguished above all others by producing a minimum of injurious after effects. In no part of Germany do the apothecaries' establishments bring so low a price as in the rich cities on the Rhine, for the wine is the universal medicine for the healthy as well as the sick; it is considered as milk for the aged. The commercial value of wine is directly proportioned to its immediate effects, and inversely proportioned to its disagreeable after effects."

The senior surgeon of Middlesex Hospital said:—

"Every one experienced in the medical treatment of the sick, knows the great value of wine properly administered. Its healing effects are more marked in them than in the rich. In many lingering illnesses, when the stomach will scarcely tolerate food or medicine, we rely principally on wine for preserving the life of the patient. In an hospital, the wine merchant's bill is always a serious item of expense. In the Middlesex Hospital the average daily number of patients is 250; the average annual consumption of wine is two pipes. Speaking for myself; were wine cheaper, I should prescribe it more frequently than I do, in lieu of porter or spirits."

I will take the liberty of reading a short but very expressive letter from my hon. Friend, the Member for the West Riding, on being applied to as to the best mode of "opening the trade in spirits:"—

The hon. Member has set a precedent, which I hope will not be followed. He has spoken at considerable length, and has left the House with no question before it to which a reply could be made.

said that, in pursuance of a Motion he had given, he begged to call the attention of the House to a subject which, whatever might be the feeling in England, was most seriously regarded in Scotland; he alluded to the present state of the guano market of this country. He believed hon. Gentlemen were most probably aware that the late Government received deputations from Scotland, and he had no doubt from England also, on this subject, as there was then a very general feeling that the guano islands did not rightly belong to the Peruvian Government; it had, however, been since admitted that they undoubtedly did, and this feeling had consequently ceased. This country, therefore, having no power to seize on these islands, it was left for its supply of guano entirely dependent on a system which be could but call one of the most grievous monopolies that had ever existed. Within the last few weeks, he might state, a despatch had been received from the Admiral commanding on the Pacific station, in which it was stated that the supply of guano on the Chincha Islands, belonging to the Peruvian Government, could not last longer than eight or ten years. If this were the case, he could only say that the farmers in his part of the country, and he believed those of England also, would find it very difficult to procure a substitute for it. He was glad, however, to find that, from a statement made a few days since in the Times, a better account was given of the supply, which was said to be 8,000,000 tons, and, from a report made by a French engineer on behalf of the Peruvian Government, the supply was estimated to exist, sufficient to supply this country, at the present rate of importation, for a century to come. Now, if the latter opinion was at all well founded, or if it were so far true that an increased supply of this invaluable article of manure could be procured, it would be of the greatest possible benefit to agriculture and to that of the population generally, from the great increase that the application of guano gave to the producing power of the land. He thought that House would consider this question one well deserving the attention of the Government. He had called the present system a grievous monopoly, and he would state why: some eight or ten years ago the Peruvian Government made arrangements with, and appointed Messrs. Gibbs and Bright their sole agents in this country, so that no ships received a supply of guano unless chartered by this firm; the consequence was, that at present the guano market was closed. He had received a letter from a friend in East Lothian, stating that, in answer to his request to be supplied with 400 tons of guano, Messrs. Gibbs and Bright had said that the demand having been greater than supposed they could not supply him. He also had good authority for stating that, to meet the extraordinary demand at Liverpool, there were but 1,500 tons on hand, although the orders in that place alone amounted to upwards of 8,000 tons. He could not avoid alluding to the impetus that the present state of things gave to companies in endeavouring to procure an article that would answer the same purposes as guano, and the serious situation the Peruvian Government and Peruvian bondholders, who were entirely dependent on the guano supply for their payments, would find themselves in, should an article be produced that would be sold for 5l. per ton instead of 11l., the present price for guano. That which gave the greatest importance to this question was its connection with the food of the people. He could only speak, from his own experience of Scotland, of the benefit derived from guano, though, he believed, it had been attended with similar results in England. He would beg to read the following extracts from the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, on farming in East Lothian:—

"The acreable produce of this county has been greatly increased from two causes, thorough drainage and application of guano; without its aid, manure for the breadth of land growing root crops could not have been obtained. The average produce of wheat, from the two causes combined, would have been raised not less than eight bushels an acre. If ten were named it would not exceed the real increase. Barley and oats have been increased at least twelve or fourteen bushels; beans by eight bushels an acre."

The following was a statement by Mr. Brodie, a gentleman well known to all connected with East Lothian:—

"The amount spent on guano in this country is very considerable; there are several farmers who purchase guano annually to the extent of 1,000l., and 400l. to 600l. is a common expenditure. The produce of the county has been greatly increased since the introduction of guano. Mr. J. Brodie is of opinion that guano has increased the average quantity of the wheat crop seven bushels an acre."

He would now read a calculation made by a gentleman whom the House would regard with all respect and consideration as an authority on this subject. The calculation he had alluded to was made by Mr. Caird, and was to the following effect:—

"Taking the annual imports at 150,000 tons, the value of guano to this country may be reckoned equal to an annual increase, beyond the natural produce, of 10,000,000 bushels of wheat, more than the whole wheat produce of Scotland."

The President of the United States in his Address declared that measures had been taken to secure a more abundant supply of guano for that country. This showed the importance that Government attached to this subject, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would also take such steps as would enable the agriculturists of this country to procure a more easy and abundant supply of guano than they at present are enabled to do. He would now beg to read an extract from a letter written on this subject by one who bad devoted to it much of his time and attention. He said:—

"Perhaps nothing could show more strongly the disadvantage to all parties in this country of the system in which the trade is at present conducted than the fact that, so great are the annoyances to which shipowners are subjected by the English monopolist agents, that nearly one-half of the 70,000, tons imported into the United States in 1853 was carried in British ships. To accept a charter from that house, while other freights are good, is a kind of last resort, there being many fine British vessels now lying at the Chincha Islands, worth 20,000l., which have been kept lying there for 80 days and upwards and can't get loaded—the arrangements are so absurdly restrictive. A scarcity of shipping is therefore no sufficient plea for the present short supply. Had the 30,000 tons of British shipping which carried their cargoes to the United States been encouraged to come home, as they naturally would have preferred, and if the ships chartered for England received proper despatch in loading, we should have had at present an abundant supply. There seems a general conviction that the effective mode of dealing with this question would be to send out from the British Government some confidential officer in their service on a special mission to Peru. The opportunity should be embraced while that Government is in a transition state; and such an officer, on the spot, and communicating direct with the Peruvian Government, would be able to get beyond the circle of dishonest interposition, and so might succeed in convincing that nation of the enormous loss they sustain by a system which limits the sale of their guano and multiplies restrictions on the trade for the mere object of private gain."

If by negotiations on this question they could reduce the price of the article, they would confer a boon not only on agriculture, but, by increasing production, they would cheapen the price of provisions in this country. He also wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he had received or knew of ally information respecting the discovery of new guano islands, and if any step had been taken to secure them for this country? He would now beg to move for—

"Copies or extracts of any correspondence which the Government have had with the Peruvian Government, on the subject of the importation of guano."

Sir, I have only to say, with respect to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, that the papers he has moved for shall be laid upon the table. Far be it from me to differ from the arguments in favour of free trade which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to the Government of Peru, and I hope, when that Government comes to see that these arguments fall from Gentlemen on both sides of the House, they will attach more importance to them. Our desire is that those arguments favourable to free importation may have their due weight with the Peruvian Government, and that those advantages may be more fully secured which the hon. and gallant Gentleman shows have already accrued to British agriculture from the importations that have up to this time taken place. I can only say that every argument which could be addressed to the Peruvian Government on this subject has been addressed to them by the successive Governments of this country. I am prepared to lay the correspondence that has recently taken place upon the table of the House, which will show that Her Majesty's Government is perfectly alive to what they conceive to be the interest of the country on the subject.

I rise, Sir, to answer the question which has been put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Blair), and I can assure him and the House that I entirely agree with him in the opinion that there is no matter upon which the agricultural interest of the United Kingdom is more dependent than an enlargement in the supply of guano, the great source of which is at the present moment a monopoly in the hands of the Peruvian Government. I am afraid that no argument which the British Government can address to that of Peru will prevail, so long as they possess that exclusive monopoly. At all events, they will continue to exact the largest possible price for the article. The real remedy lies in enlarging the sources of supply, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Officer that directions have been given to the Admiral on the Peru station that every exertion should be used by the captains of the ships upon that station, if possible, to discover in that quarter some fresh sources of supply. There is another quarter, also, from which we have some hopes of obtaining a further supply of guano; and Her Majesty's Government have accordingly given particular directions to the officers on the station to institute a most minute search; and there are reasonable hopes for believing that some discovery will be made which will enlarge the source of supply.

said, he hoped that endeavours would be made to get the Peruvian Government to do away with the monopoly which they had granted to one commercial House; and if they desired to raise a revenue, to raise it upon an export duty, and let the proceeds of that duty be paid to the bondholders. He knew that the President of the Board of Trade in every successive Government had endeavoured by every possible argument to induce the Peruvian Government to give up their monopoly, but in vain. He hoped, however, that this Government, along with the Government of the United States, would induce the Peruvian Government to substitute an export duty for the present vicious and vexatious arrangement.

said, the subject to which he now begged to call the attention of the House was one of much importance to agriculture, to those who were breeders of animals, as well as to the purveyors and consumers of meat in the metropolis. It related to the mode in which the Corporation of London was about to carry out the "Smithfield Removal Act," and to a clause which he contended had been inserted by the Corporation of London, enabling them to carry out the Act, and build this new market. When the Act passed, the public believed they had got out of the clutches of the Corporation, but, unfortunately, there was a clause in the Bill which gave them the option within six months of taking on themselves the carrying of it out, It was clear that the spirit of the Act was that there should be one great metropolitan market for animals, and attached to it a dead-meat market, and it was the opinion of the trade, that the dead-meat market should be near that for live animals. It was apparently the intention of the Corporation that there should be no dead-meat market near that for live animals, but that the former should be opened on the site of Smithfield. This was opposed to all the recommendations of the Commissioners on the subject, and contrary to the Act itself. But unfortunately the Corporation on the very last day of the six months allowed them, took on themselves, much to the regret of the meat producers, the carrying out of the market, having shown their ignorance on the subject by the models they produced before a Committee of the House of Lords, which did not give the necessary space for animals. Fortunately the 39th section of the Act gave power to the Home Secretary, if it seemed desirable, to interfere with the proceedings of the Corporation in carrying out the market. Now, what was the Corporation going to do? It appeared that Mr. Taylor, the chairman of the Corporation Markets Committee, a wholesale ironmonger—not the person apparently most fitted to deal with a meat market—was summoned before the Commission of Inquiry into the Corporation of London. He (Sir J. Shel- ley) should perhaps have left this question to the Commissioners, as had been done by the Coal Tax Committee, in the hope that they would report in reference to the tax on coals in such a manner as to prevent the Corporation having any further control over those funds; but it happened that the Commissioners had no power to report as to what was to be done with the meat market, and his object now was, that the Home Secretary might do something to put a stop to any evasion of the Act. Well, Mr. Taylor stated in his evidence with regard to the meat market, that under the sanction of Mr. Secretary Walpole, the Corporation had purchased the largest quantity of land they could obtain, and afterwards, under the sanction of the noble Lord the Home Secretary (Lord Palmerston) had tried to obtain more, but had not been successful. Mr. Taylor then proceeded to inform the Commission how it was proposed to apportion this land, stating that the model on the table "showed a space of fifteen acres allotted for bullocks and sheep, the present market being only six acres and a half." Now he maintained that it was impossible, at the present rate of supply, to put the animals into the space allotted for them except by the greatest cruelty and injury to the animals, and consequently at the expense of a great waste of food; but how could it be expected that these gentlemen, who it was proved before the Lords' Committee did not know the size of a short-horn, should be able to make the proper arrangements in a case of this nature? It was worthy of remark that the Corporation had purchased the land at Copenhagen Fields at a much cheaper rate than otherwise they could have done in consequence of its not being bought as building land; but now when they had got possession of the land they were about erecting on it taverns and public-houses. He (Sir J. Shelley) was sorry to see that one of the Commissioners—Mr. Cornewall Lewis—had said to Mr. Taylor, "that it was impossible the Corporation could have done more than they had," which would tend very much to encourage the Corporation in their proceedings, who never went out of their way to do anything for the public good. Mr. Taylor was delighted with this, and went on to say, that it was proposed to erect "taverns and public-houses" on the ground, which would be very valuable; and that on the land which the Corporation had stated was only intended for pens and stalls. The trade were of opi- nion that the building of taverns and public-houses within the market would be a nuisance; and that all that was necessary in the way of taverns would spring up in the neighbourhood, and that the only buildings within the market should be the branch banks and other offices for the transaction of business. Mr. Taylor also said that in the seventy-eight acres which had been purchased, there would be space for a hide market. Now there was no necessity for a hide market to be near the meat market. Mr. Taylor calculated that the produce of the market to the Corporation would be 14.000l. a year on an expenditure of 300,000l. Looking to the increased consumption of meat, and the facilities of transit projected by railroads into the market, and the improvement in agriculture and breeding, there must be an enormous increase of animals, for which it would be necessary to provide space. Mr. Taylor afterwards stated "that in course of time it was proposed to erect a dead-meat market in Smithfield, Newgate market being a great nuisance." It seemed extraordinary that such an attempt should be made in the teeth of the provisions of the Act of Parliament, and that a dead-meat market was to be established in Smithfield; but it turned out that if Smithfield was not used as a market, it reverted to the Crown, and the Corporation would lose the site unless by some dodge they retained it; and this they proposed to do by depriving the metropolis of that space which would afford air, health and exercise to the inhabitants. He (Sir J. Shelley) thought it his duty to bring this matter before the House, in order that it might be seen, that if the evidence of the Chairman of the Markets' Committee was correct, it was the intention of the Corporation to commit a breach of faith, and to elude the provisions of the Smithfield Removal Act. The public looked to the Home Secretary to exercise the power given him by the 39th section of the Act, and it was desirable that the noble Lord's attention should be directed to the matter before the proposed taverns and public-houses were erected, so that a market worthy of the metropolis should be obtained. The noble Lord the Home Secretary had so often acted in a manner conducive to the public welfare, that it was only necessary to point the matter out to him; and he could assure the noble Lord and his Under Secretary that the public looked to them for protection against the Corporation of London. He would therefore beg to move for—

"Copies of any Correspondence which may have passed between the Government and the Corporation of the City, in reference to the providing a dead-meat Market in conjunction with a live-stock Market at the new Market in Copenhagen Fields."

said, that the document on which the hon. Baronet had founded the greater part of his speech being at present only an ex parte statement laid before the Commissioners, now sitting to inquire into the state of the Corporation, was not one upon which any legislative proceedings could be founded in that House. To obtain such a force it must be accepted by the Commissioners, and incorporated by them as evidence in their Report. There was no man, he was bound to say, who was better acquainted with the whole question of the removal of Smithfield market than Mr. Cornewall Lewis, and certainly any observation which might have fallen from him was worthy of attention, for the House was aware of the active part he had taken in carrying the Bill through the House. There could be no objection to the production of the correspondence desired by the hon. Baronet, though he must warn him that the answer would be nil, since no correspondence on the subject had taken place between the Home Department and the Commissioners. It appeared, however, that no meat market could be established by the Corporation until the situation of it had been approved of by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The site of Copenhagen-fields had been approved of by the Secretary of State for a cattle market; but, so far as he was aware, no application had been made to the Home Department with regard to the sanctioning of a site for a meat market. Therefore, if there was any plan in contemplation of turning what was the site of Smithfield into a meat market, it would have to be laid before the Secretary of State for the Home Department for approbation, and the promoters of it would have to show that the public interest would be benefited thereby before they could carry it out.

said, that as the Corporation of London was at present passing through a most searching inquiry before a Commission, as to its constitution, and the personal character of its body, he did not consider it worth his while to answer the greater part of the observations which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster. With regard, however, to the charge made by the hon. Baronet that the Corporation were ignorant of the size of a short-horned beast, and could form no idea of what accommodation to provide for them, he would only refer the hon. Baronet to the Report of the Commissioners, in which he would find the testimony of Sir Harry Verney, the breeder of one of the largest short-horned beasts ever known, and Mr. William Miles, a name not unknown in agriculture, where the plan of the Corporation was spoken of in the highest terms, as being most convenient, and conceived in a comprehensive and liberal spirit. The hon. Baronet blamed the Corporation for not having undertaken the duty of removing the market, except at the last moment which was allowed them, and then only to serve their own purpose. He (Mr. S. Wortley) was willing to take upon himself any blame which could attach to this transaction, for he had advised the Corporation to undertake the responsibility as a public duty, feeling that, on the whole, the Corporation had been well treated by Parliament; and, though many of the Corporation were of opinion that they could not carry it out without loss, yet the task was undertaken on public grounds only, and for the benefit of the public. With regard to the evidence of, Mr. Taylor, at present it was but a newspaper report, since the official evidence was not yet printed, and, consequently, was not the kind of evidence that House was in the habit of proceeding upon. Now the real state of the facts was simply this:—The Committee of the Corporation, looking to the suggestions and recommendations of the Commissioners on the subject, had desired the City architect to make a plan and estimate for the erection of a meat market upon the old site of Smithfield. If that plan were adopted by the Committee, it would have to be reported to the general body representing the Corporation of London—the Common Council, and there discussed and decided upon before any further proceedings could be taken on it. If, in the meantime, it should be found that any such proceeding was inconsistent with the Act of Parliament, of course, that would materially affect any decision upon the subject, and the greatest respect and deference would undoubtedly be paid to any suggestion or intimation which might be made by the Government on it.

said, he hoped that the Corporation would turn their attention to the propriety of changing the market day from Monday to Tuesday. In former times, when cattle were a long time on the road to market, perhaps the Monday market did not so much matter; but, now that a few hours was sufficient to bring them to market, the change which he had mentioned would not only be a great advantag to the feeder of beasts, but also to consumers. Many of the constituency which he represented were the largest cattle feeder in the kingdom, and it would be a great advantage to them if they could take their fat cattle straight from their fields into the market, instead of having to keep them in London over Sunday.

said, he would now beg to move the appointment of the Committee agreed to on Tuesday last, and to whom is to be referred the complaint of the paragraph contained in the Times of last Monday week. He would name fifteen hon. Gentlemen as the Members.

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not insist on the Committee consisting of fifteen members. There could be no doubt that it was the wish of everybody that there should be a full, fair, impartial, and searching inquiry; on that point there could not be a second question. It was equally true that Her Majesty's Government, as a Government, had no interest whatever in the question, inasmuch as it alone affected the honour of the House. The allegation which had been made simply amounted to this—that the Government having granted the nomination to an appointment to some one, that nomination had been sold. The only question, then, was, had the person who made the nomination sold it or not? That was an inquiry which touched the honour of the House, and it therefore we incumbent that a most searching investigation should be set on foot, in order either that the guilty party might be discovered, or, if no person had committed such an act, to affix the guilt upon those who, without due inquiry, or without probable grounds, had put forward so very grave a charge on imperfect information. Well, then, a searching investigation being the object in view, he thought it better to have a smaller number on the Committee, binding those, however, who were nominated to a daily continuous attendance. Such a course would be much better than appointing a Committee of fifteen, some of whom might or might not attend, as, for instance, himself, his duties rendering a daily attendance out of the question. For his part he thought that no one put upon the Committee ought to give his vote unless he had heard the whole of the evidence. For, let it be remembered, it was most important to observe the demeanour of witnesses, the mode in which their testimony was delivered, and how they acted while under cross-examination. Now, that could not be done without a continuous attendance. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would yield to his suggestion that the Committee should consist of nine members, and that it should be impressed upon those gentlemen that their attendance should be continuous. He understood, however, that the hon. Gentleman would meet with great difficulty in reducing the numbers to nine; that being so, he (Sir J. Young) would not object to their standing at eleven, but on the consideration that the quorum should be fixed at nine; and also that if any gentleman was forced, either by illness or press of business, to absent himself from attendance on the Committee for two days, that that gentleman should no longer consider himself a member of the Committee, and that he should not be entitled to vote at the termination of its proceedings. There might, perhaps, be some difficulty in reducing the list offhand, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would do him the honour of conferring with him (Sir J. Young) on the subject, probably the desired reduction could be brought about. For himself, speaking not as a member of the Government, but as an Irish representative, he earnestly hoped that if the charges which had been made were well-founded, that they might be brought home to the guilty quarter, and that the individual might meet with all the discredit which he merited. On the other hand, however, he trusted that, if the charges were groundless, the disrepute of having alleged such gross calumnies, without sufficient inquiry, against the whole body of Irish Members, would be attended with lasting disgrace.

said, he hoped that he, at least, might be released from at- tendance on an inquiry of so painful a nature. When the hon. and learned Genleman proposed his name originally, he (Lord Hotham) had informed him that he thought, having done his duty last year on a Committee of a very peculiar and painful character, that he was entitled to exemption on the present occasion, but that, as he had belonged to a profession which never shirked its duty, he would have no objection to be placed on the Committee, if the hon. and learned Member wished it. From what had previously passed he was led to believe that the Committee would consist of but five members; it seemed now, however, that it would be more extensive. However, be its numbers what they might, or no matter what its composition, he would beseech the House to lay it as an injunction upon each and every Member to be constant in his attendance. He hoped, also, that, whether eleven or nine, no quorum would be allowed, for the inquiry was a most important, as well as a most painful one.

said, he was quite ready to admit the importance of the inquiry; but he wished for a clear definition of what was meant by a continuous sitting. If they were to sit continuously for a month, it would certainly be excessively inconvenient to him to do anything of the kind, otherwise, however, he had no objection to serve on the Committee.

said, he thought the House ought to be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Young) for the course which he had taken. It was quite plain to the House that he (Mr. Butt) had had the advantage of a personal conference with the right hon. Baronet, and he believed that he had perfectly satisfied him that he had not pressed his original Motion without good reasons for doing so. At the same time he was now quite prepared to acquiesce in reducing the number of the Committee to eleven, though he still thought, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Hotham), that it would be more convenient to fix a quorum of nine. For otherwise, perhaps, even on their very first day of meeting, when necessarily their business would be but little beyond a formal character, they would be obliged most inconveniently to adjourn in consequence of the absence of one of their Members. With regard to the necessity of constant attendance, he trusted it would be unneces- sary to enforce that, or that if any Gentleman should be absent during the delivery of a portion of the evidence, that he should thereupon cease to be a Member of the Committee. But as to effecting a reduction in the Committee, that was a task which fell rather invidiously upon him, for there was not a single gentleman on it whom he had not personally solicited to serve. For himself, he would be perfectly delighted to be relieved from the task of serving; indeed, he had several times wished that he had never taken the matter up. Looking, however, to the names, for instance, there was that of the hon. and learned Attorney General, who doubtless would find it impossible to attend daily. He also found that the hon. and learned Member for Clonmel (Mr. J. O'Connell) had personal reasons for not wishing to serve. Then, again, there was his right hon. and learned Friend below him, Mr. Napier, who, though perhaps the most valuable name on the Committee, was still the last appointed to it. And that evening, the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. K. Seymer) had informed him of his inability to serve on the Committee, in consequence of his having been made Chairman of another. That would seem to bring about the required reduction.

said, he quite agreed that, as far as the House itself was concerned, it did not very much matter from what side the Members were appointed. But he was afraid that, if the Committee were to stand as thus constituted, it would not bear an impartial aspect in the eyes of the public, as there were perhaps too many gentlemen from one side of the House. He would, therefore, advise the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the nomination of the Committee until to-morrow, when an opportunity would be afforded of substituting some names. He must say it would be very difficult to find any name more calculated to inspire general confidence than that of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. K. Seymer).

said, he would consent to allow the nomination of the Committee to stand over until to-morrow, when the question would be taken up again as an adjourned debate.

then moved the adjournment of the debate.