expressed the objections he felt to the present clause, and protested against a larger area of rating being adopted than that which now existed. He thought that the parochial system should be encouraged as much as possible. In the rural districts great endeavours had been made to employ the poor, even when their services were not absolutely requisite, in order that they might be dealt with fairly. Facility ought to be given to the poor man to go to any part of the country where his services might be most required — and, indeed, emigration at present proceeded to a considerable extent. He approved of the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt); but would reserve to himself the right of opposing the clause in any manner he might think fit. He should be glad if the Home Secretary would postpone the Bill till next Session.

said, that he had found that in many unions a great abuse existed in the exemption of what were called close parishes from paying towards the union rating. That abuse was obviated by this clause, and it, therefore, should receive his support. He could not give his assent to the principle of the Amendment—namely, that the parish with the smallest population, though of the same rateable value with another, ought to pay less. That would hold out an inducement to landlords to get rid of the poor out of their parishes in order to escape the charges to the common fund and the general poor rate. One of the greatest wrongs now perpetrated was that landlords availed themselves of the labour of the poor when they were able to work, and turned them out of the parish when their labour was no longer available. This was a wrong so grievous that he would do nothing to encourage it, as the Amendment, by making population an element in the mode of contribution, would be certain to do. He was not in favour of union rating, because he thought there should be some recognition of the merits of parishes which were well managed, but he thought there might be such an extension of the system as was proposed by the present Bill.

felt compelled to differ from his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) on the Amendment he had proposed. He thought his right hon. Friend was right in saying that the Bill would work unfairly; but he anticipated that the cheek proposed by his right hon. Friend would be as likely to work against his object as for it—for example, when there were two adjoining parishes, one small but composed of rich landlords, the order large but almost solely composed of the poor; in such a case the poor parish would, by the Amendment, have to pay largely; while the rich one, which had a small population, would escape with a very small payment. But though he was opposed to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend he was equally opposed to the 9th Clause. His opinion was that the more they equalized these burdens the better. There was much that was good in the measure, but the fist part of the Bill and the second were inconsistent. He suggested to the Home Secretary that he should proceed with the Bill, omitting the present clause.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not abandon the 9th Clause. He had, with great reluctance, come to the conclusion to vote against the Amendment, as he thought it would prove injurious rather than otherwise to poor parishes. The more he considered the question, the more he thought that some change of the present system was called for. He strongly deprecated the system of turning the poor out of parishes when their labour was no longer available, and mentioned, as a proof of the power which landlords possessed in this respect, that in his own parish he might, if so inclined, turn every poor person out of it. He would vote for the clause, because he thought it would remedy this evil.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give his assent to the Amendment. The clause as it stood would in his opinion, go far to remedy evils that now existed.

accepted the Bill, with the conviction that on the whole it would, be beneficial to the country; and he could not support the Amendment, because he did not believe it would tend to the advantage of poor parishes. Under the present system the strength and vigour of the poor were taken advantage of for the purposes of labour; and then, when old age or infirmity came on, they were left to be supported by those who had not enjoyed the benefit of their labour. He thought the 9th Clause would tend to alleviate this evil, and as he considered it the marrow of the Bill, he would give it his cordial support.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) would not press his Amendment to a division. The 9th Clause would, in his opinion, operate most advantageously for the poor. It was proved before the Committee that in York, and other towns, one street was found to be in three, four, or five parishes, and in those cases the poor were turned out of one parish into another without knowing anything about it. The clause would remedy such an evil as that, and, therefore, he gave it his support.

thought that in legislating on this subject they ought to consider present usage, and what were the customary payments. The evil complained of was that which arose form what were called "close parishes". The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman touched these cases, but dealt tenderly with them. He could not consider this Bill, and especially this clause, as anything but an attempt to get in the thin edge of the wedge of union rating. In the euphonious language of the President of the Poor Law Board, it meant equalization of rates. He was perfectly satisfied that if it were adopted union rating most follow. He had no objection to the former part of the Bill. He had some doubt as to the remedy proposed by his right hon. Friend. He should like before they legislated in the sense of this caluse to have returns from every union as it now stood, as it would stand under the alteration proposed by the President of the Poor Law Board, and as it would stand under the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) He should like to know what Gentleman meant by a close parish. He knew that under the parochial system the interests of the poor were considered, and the interests of the ratepayers also. If they passed this clause they would give the power into the hands of those who, not having any direct inducement to economize, would pursue a course that must eventually increase the pressure of the rates. He should probably vote in the first instance for the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, but if that were not carried he should vote to leave out Clause 9, which he considered one of the most violent attacks on vested interests that he had ever remembered, and considering that it was a most insidious step taken towards union rating, under which a great check to the increase of the rates would be taken away, he would give it his most determined opposition.

gave his support to the Bill on the ground that it encouraged the labouring men to live upon the estates upon which they worked.

thought it would be contrary to the whole course of legislation of that House to give an interest to parishes to discourage the increase of the labouring population, which would be the effect of the Amendment. He thought the clause would operate very fairly in equalising the burdens of parishes, and calling upon those which had hitherto escaped to contribute their share to the support of those in whose services they shared the advantage.

said, that by the clause as it stood they would be paving the way for the introduction of union rating, and so soon as they came to that system they would increase the burdens of the Poor Law to the country by 50 per cent. He admitted that some great advantages would be derived from this clause; but on the other hand the disadvantages were so considerable as to justify him in voting for its omission. He should in the first instance support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and if that were rejected he should vote against the clause.

said, it was always satisfactory to argue with Gentlemen who stated broadly and in and unreserved manner the reasons by which they were guided. The hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) stated that their objection to the clause was that it would introduce union rating. It was for that very reason he supported the clause. Ever since he had been able to pay attention to this question the conviction had been growing stronger and stronger on his mind that union rating was not only the system to which they must arrive, but that it was the only fair and equitable system. Nothing could be more arbitrary than the division of parishes; they were mere ecclesiastical divisions, and no reason could be given a priori why they should be divided in the unequal and arbitrary way in which we now found them. The hon. Member for the North Riding asked what was "a close parish?" He (Mr. Walter) lived in a neighbourhood where there were parishes so "close" that they belonged to two or three persons; and he could point to parishes in which it was not possible for any person to build a cottage—that was to say, parishes in which those who resided in them had the power of preventing the poor from living in those parishes. He could mention a parish in his neighbourhood in which, up to a recent period, the population had not increased one single soul for a century. [" Name, name! "] He could easily name the parish if it was desirable to do so.[" No, no! "] Many Gentlemen could confirm the accuracy of what he had stated. He could confirm from his own knowledge that the hon. Member for South Cheshire (Mr. Tollemache) had stated as being the case in his parish—that there were parishes in which landlords had the power of not allowing a single poor person to live in them. Now he asked on what principle of justice they should be exempted from bearing their proper share of the burden of supporting the poor, and so throw the burden on neighbouring parishes? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire complained that in his part of the country the towns absorbed the labouring population. He should like to know whether there was any deficiency of cottages in the parishes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? His experience was that wherever cottages were built the population was to be found. They had heard a good deal about the parochial system; but he, for one, was unable to discover what the parochial system consisted of. He had always understood that the new Poor Law system destroyed parochial management. He would give an instance to prove this. He never but once attended a meeting of a Board of Guardians, and he went on that one occasion to look after the case of an old woman seventy years of age, whose allowance had been struck off. He found the meeting attended by guardians from other parishes, and on a division they beat him by a majority of one. He thought it right, however, in these circumstances to avail himself of his privilege as a magistrate, and, getting a brother magistrate to act with him, they exercised the right which the law gave, and made an order that the poor woman should be relieved, to the great surprise and disgust of the guardians assembled. Where was the parochial system there? The guardians of the neighbouring parishes refused the relief to this poor woman; but, if the guardians of neighbouring parishes could control the poor in other parishes than their own, on what principle could they refuse to bear the burden of the poor in those parishes? This state of things had very much influenced him in forming an opinion in favour of union rating. He held that whatever the area of management was that should also be the area of rating. Nothing could be more fair, nothing more logical, than this conclusion; and he did not apprehend that there would be any danger of extending the area of rating beyond what was found necessary for good and economical management.

said, the hon. Member for Berkshire supported this Bill because he thought its tendency was towards union rating, and he evidently thought that that was the result to which it would lead. The hon. Member also thought that nothing could be more absurd than the division of parishes; but he (Mr. Henley) would ask, whether anything could be more absurd than the division of unions? There was the greatest possible difference in the size, the population, and the wealth of unions; so that the same objection would apply to them that the hon. Member had raised to parishes. The hon. Member mentioned the case of an old woman of seventy who was denied relief; but that occurred under union management. Fortunately for her, the poor woman found a humane individual in her neighbourhood, who attended to her case; and it would be found that in most cases the poor had the assistance of persons in their own parishes, who went to the union and interposed in their behalf. He believed that if they once extended the area over a large space they would soon have the same state of things that they formerly had in the large parishes. It was likely enough, as the hon. Member for Berkshire observed, that no increase had taken place in the population of some parishes for many years. No doubt that was the case, and he would probably find some which had even less population then they had a century since. That was no argument, however, for or against the claim, for this apparent stagnation was not to be ascribed to pulling down cottages, but was done, in a great degree, to the absorption of small farms into larger ones. There was, of course, a smaller population in the case of large farms the small holdings; because, in addition to the number of labourers employed, there were also the families of the occupiers who lived upon the small holdings. He thought that in the present Bill the House was legislating prematurely in the dark. All the discussion that had taken place on this clause showed that information was wanting as to its precise operation, and in the absence of information it was not very unwise to look to authority. From a comparison of the very conflicting opinions which had been expressed by persons qualified to form an opinion upon the subject, he took the balance of authority to be in favour of the retention of the clause with Amendments. Upon the question immediately before the House he should give his vote for the Amendment.

wished to explain that he had referred to the case of his own parish merely to show the power which landlords possessed of turning the poor out of their parishes—a power which no class of men ought to have.

said, that as the alteration now proposed was a very mitigated one, and although it would interfere slightly with the incidence of the burden of the poor rates, he would not on that account be deterred from doing what he considered an act of justice, and attempting to remedy an admitted evil. If he were certain that the Bill would be the end of the wedge in favour of union rating, that would be no ground for his declining to support the measure. But he did not think that the Bill went the length of any union rating; while as a tentative measure he considered it deserving of the support of the House.

freely owned that if this 9th Clause were a step towards union rating, that would be no objection to his mind. In close parishes the cottages had decreased, few were built, and the great proportion of the labour came from the open parishes, and he considered, therefore, that there was a necessity for some gradual alteration in the incidence of the rating, and that the close parish should contribute to the support of the poor. But this clause did not go so far a union rating; it introduced no great change, and the change it did introduce would, in his opinion, he very beneficial.

said, he had been in the habit of attending the meeting of boards of guardians for twenty-six years, and he was bound to say, from all the experience he had gained, that he had not that dread of union rating which was generally entertained on his side of the House. He agreed with the hon. Member for Barkshire (Mr. Walter) in thinking that, however excellent parochial rating might be for ecclesiastical proposes, it was not a beneficial system for the relief of the poor. It was their duty to improve as far as they could be position of the labouring classes, and he believed that nothing would tend more to that end than doing away as far as possible with the law of settlement and extending the area of rating. Entertaining these wishes he could not object to the clause. He was ready to admit that it was, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for the North Riding, putting in the thin end of the wedge with regard to union rating. His experience of the working of the Poor Law was that there was no disposition on the part of unions to deal with the common charges in a way different from the parochial charges; and he believed that, if they adopted union rating, the sane motives to economy would prevail that existed under parochial rating. He should support the Amendment of his right hon. Friend for the reasons that it would make no material change in the incidents of taxation; that it would very much tend to reconcile the country to the introduction of union rating to this extent, and that it might have some effect in promoting the passage of the Bill elsewhere.

, speaking from considerable experience, thought that it would be a great advantage to the poorer and working classes to have a settled residence provided for them, and he, therefore, gave the Bill his hearty support. He believed that if union rating were generally adopted, it would not be for the benefit of the working classes, but thought that the principle of union rating, so far as it was carried in this Bill, would be beneficial to them.

was confident that Poor Law charges would be much enhanced by the present Bill. How would this particular clause operate with regard to the poor in future? It would much decrease the interest taken in the poor in the places in which they resided, and they would have the poor more often rendered subject to hardships than now, inasmuch as the Poor Law charge over the whole country would come to be considered as something like a common fund. He objected to this Bill also, because it would tend to break up the parochial system. He should give his support to his right hon. Friend, and if his Amendment was not carried, he should retain to himself the right of opposing the clause.

said, his constituents were reconciled to this Bill mainly by the 9th Clause, and he believed, if the Amendment were carried, it would cause very great regret.

, in reply, repeated his objections to the clause, and replied to the objections urged against his Amendment. He submitted that in coming to a decision in regard to it the Committee had to choose between two points. If they adopted the clause as it stood they would give their votes in favour of union rating, and union rating not confined to the particular clause of this particular Bill; and if on the other hand they voted for the Amendment the results would be small—they would establish a check upon the universal application of the system of union rating, and retain in their hands that which had been hitherto a most wholesome check upon extravagant expenditure by keeping in the knowledge and in the hands of the parishioners of different parishes some hold upon the purse held for the relief of the poor.

admitted that in its pecuniary result this Amendment was a matter of comparative indifference, but he agreed with those who had said that the right hon. Gentleman's plan did offer a direct premium and inducement to those who held land in small parishes to get rid of their population. There was no evidence given before the Committee respecting the operation of this joint system of assessment, except that of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who afterwards, as a member of the Committee, gave judgment upon his own statements. A great practical injustice had been suffered for the last twelve years, and constant remonstrances had been made as to the mode in which the common fund of the union was charged, and all that the Committee had now to decide was whether this Bill met satisfactorily the long complained of grievance. What it proposed was simply that the poor chargeable upon the unions should be provided for out of the common funds of the union, instead of by the parishes separately. The plan proposed was no new one, and, it was a fact, the same as that brought forward by Mr. Charles Buller twelve years ago. There was already abundant evidence before the Committee to enable them to decide upon the question, and he hoped that there would be no public delay in its settlement.

denied that any such propositions as that contained in the Bill had been brought before the House on any occasion.

begged to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Reports which had been laid before the House previous to the debates in 1848, and to the discussion itself.

proposed the following addition to the clause:—

"Provided also that the contributions of extra-parochial places to the common fund of the unions in which they are comprised, shall, notwithstanding anything herein contained, be calculated as heretofore."

All he asked was that the extra-parochial districts should be treated with justice, and not subjected to extraordinary burdens. He was himself proprietor of an extra-parochial district, and for years it had contained no poor whatever, a state of things which applied to many other extra-parochial districts. Under the system of averages nothing was paid for those places, and all he asked was that they should not be included in the charge now proposed with reference to the common fund.

could not see on what principle these places which, by Act of Parliament, had ceased to be extra-parochial, should be exempt from this burden, and, therefore, opposed the Amendment.

explained the nature of the legislation which had taken place four years ago on this subject, and stated that the Act then passed applied only to those extra-parochial places which had no poor. He thought the right hon. Baronet had a case in favour of the extra-parochial places that had never any poor, and he ought to confine his proposal to those places alone.

could not understand why there should be any ground for exemption in favour of these extra-parochial places.

said, the introduction of those extra-parochial places was just one of many hardships that would be imposed by this clause upon-property.

thought it would be a fair and reasonable settlement of the question if those places that had not hitherto been charged for the poor were still to be exempted.

would agree to alter the terms of his Amendment to the effect that the exemption should apply only to those extra-parochial places which had not hitherto been chargeable for the support of the poor.

saw a wide distinction between those extra-parochial places that had poor and those that never had them. He thought those places that had never been charged for the poor hitherto should be exempted from the charge under the Bill, and, therefore, he would vote for the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.

did not look upon the matter as one of very great importance: but they were in the dark as to the numbers and extent of the places which it proposed to exempt. The same claim might, a few years ago, before the late Act was passed, have been put forward by a great number of parishes that could not now be exempted.

said, that whether the number of places affected was 20 or 100 was immaterial. The question was whether or not it was just that these claims should be considered.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it be his intention to move, in Committee on the Election Law Amendment Bill, a Clause for the disfranchisement of Gloucester for five years, and whether that penal sentence is to date from the last election, or to be prospective?

replied that if the Bill should come on for discussion in the present Session of Parliament, which, from the late period of the Session, he was afraid was somewhat doubtful, it was his intention, in the event of the House agreeing with the clause in the Bill with respect to the mode of dealing with Boroughs as to which corruption should have been reported by a Commission, to move that that proposition should be extended to the Boroughs of Gloucester and Wakefield. Of course, the time which should have elapsed subsequently to the Report of the Commission, and during which the Writs should have been suspended, would be allowed in computing the period of disfranchisement.

said, he should withdraw his notice for a new Writ for Gloucester, and would give notice that in the event of the Bill coming before the House he should feel it incumbent on him to move for a new Writ, and in case the Bill should not come on, he should bring the whole case of Gloucester before the House.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, In what manner it is intended to deal with the large balance in hand and annual surplus which, as appeared by the Accounts of the Mercantile Marine Fund annually laid before Parliament, now stood to the credit of the fund?

replied that the revenue from the Light Dues in 1860 was £282,300. Taking the average of the last seven years the expenditure for the maintenance of Lights was £207,900, leaving a surplus of £74,400. From that surplus must be deducted the expenditure for life-boats, for rewards for saving life and so forth, amounting to the sum of £6,000, leaving an annual surplus of £68,400. It was proposed to apply this annual surplus to the redemption of the Light Dues in this way. It was proposed to take 15 per cent off coasting voyages, which would cost £12,856 per annum, and 10 per cent additional off both coasting and oversea-voyages, making £54,120, the two sums together making £66,976; in fact, giving a relief to the shipowner of nearly £70,000 a year. Perhaps he might be allowed to show the effect by a few short figures. After these reductions had had full effect, a shipowner who paid £100 for a single ship in 1854, and who now paid for over sea-voyages £50, and for coasting voyages £65, would pay in future only £40. In this way it was intended to dispose of the surplus of income over expenditure. With regard to the balance in hand, arising from the accumulation of the surplus, it was thought it might be employed, and that it would not be more than sufficient for the erection of new buildings and new Lights, which from time to time were rendered necessary by the requirements of the trade.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will postpone the Inland Revenue Bill, which stands for Friday at Twelve o'clock, until some day next week. There were important enactments in the Bill, and many hon. Members, as well as himself, wished for time to make themselves fully informed of its contents before it came for discussion. He also thought it would be more agreeable if the Bill was taken at the evening sitting?

said, his wish had been to name a day which would give ample time for hon. Members to consider the provisions of the Bill, but he had no objection to fix it for the 19th. He could not name a later period consistently with going forward with Supply. He did not expect that the Bill would take any great length of time, for, although some of its provisions were important, yet in his view they were almost all of them provisions of relaxation and accommodation. If any question should give rise to much controversy he should be inclined to postpone its consideration to a future Session.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which he had given notice, as Whether it is his intention to proceed with this Bill this Session; and, if so, whether he can state to the House positively on what day there will be an opportunity given for discussing it? His question had already been partly answered; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would name a day after which he would not proceed with it.

replied, that in consequence of the slow progress of Supply and the necessity of giving the Estimates precedence, and seeing that time would be taken in discussion, and that the Bill could not properly be taken in the morning, he was unable at present to name a time after which the Bill would not be taken.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to proceed with the Municipal Corporations Amendment Bill? On the last occasion it came on at a late hour, and there was a general feeling that that was not the time for discussion; he therefore, hoped it would not be taken so late again.

said, it was true that the House had last night shown an unwillingness to proceed with the Bill; but two hours later the House thought proper to proceed with other business, and they certainly proceeded in a decided and deliberate manner. He was afraid it would not be in his power to bring the Bill on at a morning sitting, and he certainly could not consent to give it precedence over Supply. Therefore, he must ask the House to take it, as a matter of urgency, late at night.

said, he wished to ask, Whether the President of the Poor Law Board will name a time after which this Bill shall not come on?

said, all he could say was that it should not be brought on after two o'clock.

Before that time I shall move the adjournment of the House.

said, he would beg to inquire, Whether, inasmuch as it has been the invariable practice for thirty-five years for the House of Commons to adjourn over the birthday of the Sovereign, and the Government Offices and the Banks to have a holiday, it was the intention of the Government to persist in their declared intention of not adjourning over to-morrow?

It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to move an adjournment over to-morrow.

There are Orders of private Members of considerable importance which the Government are unwilling to postpone.

said, that he was about to ask the House to refer the case of the Captains placed on the Reserved List by Order of Council in 1851 to the Attorney General for his opinion. He felt in necessary to take this step in consequence of the dissatisfaction felt in the Navy with an answer given on a former occasion by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. So strong, indeed, was the feeling that a certain class of officers had been treated with injustice that he felt called upon before the House broke up to ask its opinion. He spoke from what he believed to be well-founded information when he said that the late Attorney General had expressed very strong views as regarded the justice of the claims of those gallant captains, and he had no doubt that the opinion of the present Attorney General would be in their favour. Up to 1851 there was promotion by brevet. In that year it was thought advisable by the Board of Admiralty to put and end to that system. It was naturally thought that a great injustice would be done to the officers of the Navy if there were nothing analogous to promotion by brevet; and so strongly was this felt that permission was given to a certain number of captains to have their names placed, not on the Retired List— and this was the point—but on the Reserved List. The stipulation was that they were in every respect to be considered officers on the Active List, with this difference—that they were not to expect active employment except in case of war; but in all other respects—promotion on to the Admiral's List, scale of payment in regard to Greenwich pensions, and so on— they were to be to all intents and purposes on the Active List. Several of these captains afterwards received Greenwich out-pensions, which they could not have done if the view of their position now adopted by the noble Lord were the correct one. After ten years, when they would have been entitled to receive 18s. a day half-pay, they heard all of a sudden from the Board of Admiralty that they were not to receive additional pay because they were not on the "Reserved" but on the "Retired" List. The noble Lord the Secre- tary to the Admiralty had admitted in previous debates that the Order in Council was ambiguously worded, and he added that, "whether these officers thought at the time they were to rise pari passu with officers on the Active List was a matter on which he would offer no opinion." But the very question at issue was, "what was understanding with these officers?" and it would not do to delude them into accepting conditions which were not to be afterwards fulfilled. The noble Lord added, that the Admiralty, "deeming that the Order in Council was rather ambiguously worded, had allowed these officers to count their sea time both as lieutenants and mates." They did not, however, remedy the injustice in a straightforward way, but gave seventy-seven out of ninety-nine a pittance of 1s. 6d. a day; but the remaining seventeen, who were approaching the rank of Admiral, were left without any remuneration at all. He now asked the House to do justice to these men. He should like to ask the noble Lord whether three or four years ago he was not of opinion that these officers had been most unjustly treated? The noble Lord was not only an active and energetic officer, buy who had also been very fortunate in the service, was of another opinion then; but a seat on the Treasury Bench appeared to have changed the noble Lord's feelings and opinions. The noble Lord stated that no great services had been performed by these men; but many of them had performed magnificent services. Take, for instance, a brief summary of the services of Captain John Pearse—

"M.—Captain John Pearse.—Lord Hotham's action; wrecked; capture of Nemesis and Sardine; action off Cape St. Vincent; bombardment of Cadiz; Lord Nelson's expedition of Teneriffe; battle of the Nile; capture of Civita Vecchia; bombardment of Alexandria; capture of privateers and gunboats; bombardment and capture of Copenhagen in 1807; numerous captures of privateers and Danish convoy and smuggling vessels; meritorious services in the protection of the revenue. Twice wounded. Active service twenty-three years."

Captain Spencer Smyth's services were also long and distinguished—

"M.—Captain Spencer Smyth. — Sir Robert Calder's action; battle of Trafalgar; destruction of three French frigates, 1806, and of two French frigates and brig in 1812; capture of Le Jason and two French frigates in 1814; operations against Martinique and Guadaloupe; employed in protection of the revenue; battle of Navarino, wounded; inspecting commander of the Coastguard; supplied plan by which battle of Navarino was fought. Active service twenty-five years."

Captain W.N. Taylor was at the bombardment and surrender of Copenhagen in 1807. Captain Robinson was in Sir Richard Strachan's action. Captain Thompson was at St. Jean d'Acre with Sir Sidney Smith, and with the army on shore, under Sir Ralph Abercrombie, in Egypt. Captain John Hills had been forty years in active service. These officers had been induced by the representations of the Admiralty to accept certain terms offered to them in the belief that they would rise to their flags, and would receive increased pay as if they were on active service. The case of these officers had been laid before an eminent Queen's counsel, and he would, with the permission of the House, read the opinion of Mr. Lush, which was such as to induce him to believe that if the noble Lord would refer the question to the new Attorney General, that hon. and learned Gentleman would be in favour of his view. Mr. Lush's opinion was as follow:—

"I feel some diffidence in offering an opinion upon the construction of the documents in question, as the matter is not one of legal cognizance, the ordinary tribunals of the country having no jurisdiction as between the Admiralty and the officers of the Naval Service. If, however, the Order in Council were embodied in an Act of Parliament, or were the language of a contract between parties, or otherwise were within the province of a Court of law, I should have no hesitation in advising that the claims of the captains on the Reserved List were well founded, and that they would be held entitled to all the advantages belonging to the rank of captain, except the expectation of further employment."

Was it worth while thus to destroy the confidence of the Naval Service in the Admiralty? One by one the Government was taking away from the Navy all the advantages they had formerly enjoyed. This year the increased pay for China and India had been taken away from them. Formerly half the colonial Governorships were given to the Royal Navy, now they had only one or two. He hoped the Admiralty would not add a breach of engagement to the other causes of complaint. He now asked the Government of refer the claims of these captains to the law officers of the Crown, and moved that the case of the captains placed on the Reserved List by Order of Council in 1851 be referred to the Attorney General for his opinion.

seconded the Motion. He had never held but one opinion, that those officers were entitled to the rank and increase of pay which they claimed, though he had no doubt in his own mind that when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth drew up the minute in 1851 it was with the perfect conviction in his mind that it was intended to exclude and did exclude them from these advantages. The right hon. Baronet said so, and no one who knew him would question his veracity. The officers who accepted it were not to receive increase of pay or the rank of Admiral. But still there was an ambiguity in the terms of the minute which had misled these officers, and, therefore, the officers were entitled to the benefits of the doubt. After the statement of his hon. Friend he would not trespass on the time of the House by reciting the gallant actions of these men, neither would he now refer to their advancing years and infirmities; but he would ask the House to recognize, by adopting this Motion, the energy, activity, and fidelity with which they had served their country during the long war. Let it not go abroad that art or science or architecture absorbed all the attention and all the interest of the House, and that they held out a niggard hand to those whose gallantry enabled them now to initiate those ornaments of peace.

said, he had moved for a Committee in the early period of the Session to investigate the claims of those officers; but that Committee had never yet been able to meet, and as there was no chance of their now concluding their labours this Session, and as many of those officers were between seventy and eighty years of age, and their commissions would so soon drop in in the natural course of events, he thought it very reasonable that the noble Lord should agree to the Motion of his hon. Friend, and refer the question to the Attorney General for his opinion. The Admiralty said it never was their intention that the officers who accepted these terms should rise in the profession. But these gentlemen themselves thought otherwise—they never had a doubt upon the subject—but they learned to their horror and astonishment, when their time for promotion came, that the Admiralty entertained a different opinion. They then referred the case to an eminent counsel, whose opinion had been read by his hon. and learned Friend. He urged the claims of those officers, because it was the spirit of their legislation to give the benefit of a doubt in the claimant's favour. But there was, he thought, more than a doubt in their favour. Let any man read the minute of the Admiralty, and if he did not come to the same conclusion with Mr. Lush he would give up the case. How the Admiralty could suppose that the officers would shut themselves out from every other advantages than that of active employment was to him an extraordinary thing. Here they were about to pass an Act of Parliament to bring masters and mates of the mercantile marine into the Royal Navy, and these men would not with this case before them trust the professions of the Admiralty; no man among them would believe a word that was said without first taking the opinion of counsel. He believed that an extra £2 or £3 a day was all that was required to do justice to these officers. He hoped the House would agree to the Motion of his hon. Friend, and he thought even the Admiralty could not object to refer the case to their own Attorney General.

said, that the hon. Member had given the best possible reason for not referring this question to the law officer of the Crown, when he read the opinion of the learned gentleman to whom the question had already been referred, and who stated that it was not matter for legal cognizance. He thought, too, that the hon. Member must, on reflection, see that it would be very unadvisable that Her Majesty's Order in Council should be referred for the purpose of having a legal opinion taken on it. The hon. Member was incorrect in his allusion to what had taken place on a former occasion, for he really had not said that the Order in Council of 1851 was ambiguous, but only that in the opinion of these officers it admitted of doubt, and that they claimed the benefit of the doubt. But he never stated in that House that the view which the officers took of their case was correct. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) had over and over again stated that the intention of the Admiralty of that day was that these Reserved officers should not rise pari passu with the officers on the Active List; and he rested on what that right hon. Gentleman had declared that it was not the intention, and could not possibly be the intention, of the Admiralty to place these Reserved officers on the same footing as officers on the Active List. Any one would see in a minute that it would be fatal to the service to allow officers to accept the Reserved List, and never being called on to go to sea, to have all the benefits of the officers on the Active List. He would not enter into the case further than to say that a very large proportion of the officers of the Reserved List had benefited by the arrangement made by the Admiralty, under which those who had served long and faithfully had got an increase of pay. As the general question of the retirement and promotion of officers in the Navy would come under the consideration of the Select Committee now sitting on the Board of Admiralty, and as the case of the Reserved officers would, no doubt, be also taken into consideration, he trusted that the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.

desired to know whether he might be allowed to propose a Motion, of which he had given Notice, for the adjournment of the House on its rising over to-morrow, when the Queen's birthday was to be kept?

said, the Notice was only given a few minutes before the rising of the House at four o'clock that afternoon; and that was, in point of fact, no notice at all. The rule of the House for the last forty years had been that one day's Notice of a Motion was required; indeed, Mr. Speaker Abbott had declared, that he considered Notice to be an established rule of the House in his day, which it would be his duty to maintain until he should be otherwise directed by the House. He (the Speaker) considered it his duty to maintain a rule supported by uninterrupted usage from that time, and to inform the hon. Member that it would not be in order for him to propose the Motion, of which no sufficient Notice had been given.

suggested that as the list of claims would be made up to and published on the 14th October, no list should be revised earlier than the 15th October, but after some discussion the clause was, without Amendment, agreed to.

moved an addition to the clause, to the effect that no person whose name should appear on the register of any county should be entitled to vote in the election of Member if he should have become divested of and ceased to hold that qualification in respect of which he was registered.

objected to the proviso, believing that it would be wholly unnecessary. The person whose name would be on the roll would vote in respect of the rates which he would have to pay.

submitted that the voter ought to be entitled to the franchise in respect of the possession, and not because he paid rates and taxes.

said, the principle of this Bill had been force in Scotland for several years in boroughs, and he saw no reason why it should not be applied to the counties.

moved the omission of the clause.

moved, as an Amendment to Clause 2, to insert after the word "afore-said," in line 23, the words "to erect into a separate colony or colonies, or." The object of this Amendment was to give the Government the power to alter the existing boundaries, so as to form those colonies into smaller communities. The territory in question was larger than France and England united, yet there was scarcely such a thing as a local Government in its limits. Everything was done by the central Government at Sydney, who were landlords over nearly the whole of the soil. They owned 47,104,000 acres, the occupants of which were not merely tenants at will but tenants on sufferance. Jobbery was, consequently, enormous. All the situations, from the highest officers and the State down to the telegraph clerk and the railway porter, were filled by the Government. Members played into each other's hands, "You help my church, and I will aid your road." Precisely the same thing prevailed in America, where it was known as "log-rolling," from the circumstance of neighbours assisting each other in the raising of their dwellings. The immense extent of the business of the Legislature rendered long sittings necessary—in fact it was all but perpetual; they lasted nearly all the year round. The form of Government was strict democracy. Vote by ballot, universal suffrage, and nearly equal electoral districts, were not tempered by any of those legitimate influences which were so necessary even in this kingdom—such as kindness from employer to employed, generosity from landlord to tenant. This democracy seemed to have a sort unnatural spite against property. Communism prevailed there. Emigrants sent out at the public expense thought they had a claim on the Government for maintenance, and works had even been set on foot for the sole purpose of giving them employment—much after the manner of Louis Blanc's ateliers nationaux. He had known the colony for fifteen years, during which time he had never seen a beggar. Now the people themselves stated that they were in a starving condition, and actual beggars were to be met with. The number of sheep, which in 1855 was 8,602,499, had diminished in 1858 to 6,662,671. No cause could be assigned for the existing evils but bad government. Severing the colony into smaller communities would be a remedy for some of them. It would diminish the mischief arising from the non-attendance of Members from the distant constituencies. Small democracies were always better than large ones. The corporations of England had proved most useful. In Switzerland some of the cantons were extremely democratic; but the Governments were effective and met the public wants. The moment, however, democracy was tried in France on a large scale, it broke down. He would not say anything of America at the present moment, for he believed he should best consult the wishes of the House by refraining from doing so. Separation had already taken place in the colonies of Australia, Van Diemen's Land and New Zealand formerly belonged to it. Now both are separate colonies, and in the case of Victoria and Queensland separation had been perfectly successful.

said, that the Bill was one of a very practical and modest character, intended to meet certain wants experienced in the Australian Colonies, but his hon. Friend would give a much more extensive character to the measure. In the opinion of the Colonial Secretary, however, sufficient reasons were not given for adopting the proposition. The Amendment had reference to the part of the Bill which enabled the Crown to erect into new colonies or annex to existing colonies regions still uninhabited and unorganized. His hon. Friend proposed that the Crown should have power to redistribute existing colonies, which so far from being uninhabited, unorganized, and ungoverned, were already partitioned out and occupied by great communities possessing independent representative Legislatures. His hon. Friend wished to confer on the Crown a general power of withdrawing from any of these Colonies a district forming part of it, and to erect it into a new colony, or to attach it to another colony. But this power had not been asked for by the Governments or by any body of the people in the Australian colonies. Under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government thought it was far safer to leave things as they were, and to deal on its own merits with any case of the kind that might arise hereafter. The difference between the proposal in the Bill and that of his hon. Friend was this, that if his hon. Friend's Amendment were adopted the Secretary of the Colonies would have power to detach any portions of these territories form one colony for the purpose of attaching them to another; whereas as the Bill stood he would be obliged to ask Parliament for any such power. He thought it better not make divorce in this matter, as in unions of another kind, too easy, and not to hold out temptation to particular districts of a colony which might have causes of complaint against their Government, to look to separation as the remedy for such complaints.

said, that if the Amendment were adopted, the central Government of any of the colonies affected by it would see that the Secretary of State would have power, without going to Parliament, to erect a new colony or attach any of the districts to another colony, and would, consequently, be compelled to do justice to these districts through an apprehension that such power would be exercised.

said, the power he proposed to confer had been already asked for, and petitions had been adopted in favour of the proposal. He did not propose by the Amendment to separate the colonies at once, but only proposed to confer a power on the Crown which would enable those colonies to effect a separation when such a course was considered necessary.

in the Chair. (In the Committee.) The following Votes were agreed to:— (1.) £63,357, Mint. (2.) £16,350, to complete the sum for Inspectors of Factories, &c. (3.)£6,284, Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, &c. (Scotland).

objected to the items charged to the Caledonian Hunt and the Queen's Edinburgh Plate. Voteagreed to. (4.)£6,431, Household of the Lord Lieutenant (Ireland).

could not understand what the Lord Lieutenant, who was not a military man, wanted with "four Aidesde-camp," or with "two gentleman at large." Some explanation ought also to be given of the charge for the Master of the Horse and the Sergeant of the Riding School. He also found that fifteen Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland amounted to £1,574, and he wished to know why the country should be taxed with such a charge?

did not understand why the hon. Member made an annual attack on the Lord Lieutenant's Household. He ventured to say that for one sinecure office of State and dignity in this list there were at least a thousand attached to the Royal Household which never came under the observation of the Committee, and he thought it would be advisable to place those Irish offices on the Consolidated Fund, together with the offices connected with the English Court. The Prince of Wales had recently gone to Ireland, which country was also to be honoured shortly by the presence of Her Majesty, and this was not the time to reduce these offices, which were necessary for receiving the Queen with due state and dignity.

said, that the Queen of England was also Queen of Ireland, and it would be better for the people of the latter country to be content to be governed by the Queen of Ireland rather than by the sham Royalty of the Lord Lieutenant. There was no such office as "Gentleman at large" in the Queen's Household, and there were many others in the Lord Lieutenant's Household equally unnecessary and inexplicable.

hoped that an early opportunity would be taken to obtain the opinion of the House on the expediency of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant altogether, but as long as it was kept up there was no use quibbling over the expense of his attendants. As the hon. Member for Lambeth had evinced some curiosity to know what the "two Gentlemen at large" has to do, he could inform the hon. Member that he had learned from a friend of one of them that their duty was to water the camelias of the wife of the Lord Lieutenant, and to attend to two or three State balls.

observed that as there was at present no Lady Lieutenant the watering of the camelias could not be the business of the "Gentleman at large." Voteagreed to. (5.)£10,339, Chief Secretary to Lord Lieutenant.

objected to the allowance of £425 per annum to the Chief Secretary, and of £375 to the Under Secretary, for fuel. He thought it a very objectionable way of adding to the salary of a Minister of State. He did not object to the salaries received by the Secretary and Under Secretary.

explained that the allowance referred to was made not only for fuel but for several items of expense which used to be defrayed by the Chief Secretary and the Under Secretary before their salaries were reduced. The salary of Chief Secretary had been reduced from £7,000 a year to £4,000. Vote agreed to; as was also (6.)£2,508, to complete the sum for Lunatic Asylums (Ireland). (7.)£21,570, to complete the sum for the Board of Public Works (Ireland).

observed that there was an increase of £1,000 over the Vote of last year.

explained that certain duties heretofore performed by the Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland had been transferred to the Board of Public Works, and that occasioned an additional charge.

said, that the clerks transferred from the Paymaster's Office to the Board of Public Works had suffered some hardship. In the Paymaster's Office they had the opportunity of rising to certain salaries, and of this opportunity they were now deprived by the regulations of the office of Public Works. Vote agreed to; as was also (8.) £33,092, Audit Office. (9.) £17,029, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.

said, he thought that the duties of the Tithe Commissioners must have long since ceased, and he was of opinion that the expenses of the Copyhold Commission ought to be paid by those who benefited from their labours.

said, a portion of the expenses of the Copyhold Commissioners was defrayed by the parties interested, and the Vote now proposed was for such portion as was not so defrayed.

wished to know why there was an item of £11 6s. for newspapers and railways guides, which did not appear in connection with any other office?

explained that the charge had reference to advertisements. Papers were certainly not purchased for the clerks to read. Vote agreed to. (10.) £12,190, Imprest Expenses under Inclosure and Drainage Acts.

objected to the largeness of the charge.

said, that the whole of the money would be repaid to the Exchequer. Vote agreed to, as were also following:— (11.) £47,163, General Register Offices in London, Dublin and Edinburgh. (12.) £10,482, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office. (13.) £3,120, to complete the sum for Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissions. (14.) £6,975, Commissioners in Lunacy. (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,223, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the General Superintendent of County Roads in South Wales, to the 31st day of March, 1862".

said, in Ireland they paid their own Superintendent, and moved that the charge for the Superintendent be omitted.

explained that these roads owed a debt to the Government, and that the Superintendent was appointed by the Government to see that the roads were so managed that the money should be repaid.

bore testimony to the excellence of the system that was now practised under the surveyor.

wished to know what was the amount of the debt?

said, that owing to the "Rebecca riots" which had some years ago taken place in South Wales, in consequence of the system of turnpikes then prevailing there, a re-adjustment of the system had been effected, and arrangements made by which the money advanced for the purpose by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, which amounted to £250,000, was made re-payable in the shape of a terminable annuity. It was quite obvious, therefore, that the public had an interest in the matter, and it was under those circumstances deemed desirable that a small salary should be paid to a competent Superintendent, whose duty it was to see that the money was duly repaid.

asked what was the amount of the debt which remained to be paid?

could not answer the question offhand, but the hon. Gentleman would find all the particulars in the library.

stated that in fourteen years from the present time the whole of the debt would be paid up.

said, that a sum about £11,000 was paid annually.

complained that, for a sum of £11,000 per annum, the country should be called upon to pay £12,000. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Vote agreed to. The following Votes were then agreed to:— (16.) £2,273, Registrars of Friendly Societies. (17.) £14,398, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission. (18.) £5,055, Local Government Act Office. (19.) £1,192, Agricultural and Emigration Statistics (Ireland). (20.) £1,113, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Record Office (Dublin). (21.) £1,644, Quarantine Expenses. (22.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £32,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services, to the 31st day of March, 1862."

remarked that last year the House voted an equal sum for the same object, and as up to the 31st of December only £23 had been expended by the Government, he wished to know why they now asked for £32,000 more?

stated that although only £23 had been expended at the end of the year, the balance on hand at the beginning of the present month did not exceed £8,500.

thought the Vote was excessive, and moved its reduction by £20,000.

hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. Most of the claims upon the fund arose after the 31st of December. They consisted mainly of pensions for services performed in past times.

reminded the Committee that in the Civil List there was a further sum of £10,000 for Secret Service, so that the whole amount placed at the disposal of the Government was very large. He would withdraw his previous Amendment, substituting another for the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.

suggested that the pensions paid to spies should be distinguished from the other charges upon the fund.

said, it was of course impossible to give an explanation of the manner in which the Secret Service money was applied. He hoped the Committee would not be put to the trouble of a division.

expressed an opinion that a searching inquiry ought to be instituted with a view to see whether some reduction might not be effected in this Vote.

could only say in general terms that the Comptroller of the Stationery Office was well skilled in the business of his department, and was very attentive to all matters which were likely to reduce the expense of providing the public offices with stationery. The great expenses of the Stationery Department arose from the printing for the Houses of Parliament, and that was a matter which depended far more upon the discretion of hon. Members than upon the Comptroller of the Stationery Office. It was occasionally the duty of Members of the Executive Government to remonstrate against very voluminous returns which were moved for the suit the tastes or wishes of individual Members, but which contained very little information of a generally interesting character. Upon that matter the House itself was quite competent to form a judgment, and it was only be an exercise of the discretion of hon. Members that this large item of expense could be kept within moderate limits. During the last two Sessions the practice had been in- troduced of printing the evidence taken before Committees in double columns and in small type. That change had been made at the suggestion of the Comptroller of the Stationery Office, and it had tended to considerable economy. He might also state that the Executive Government sought, as far as it could, to diminish the bulk of the appendices to the Reports of Commissions, but after those Reports had been presented it often happened that Motions were made in that House for the production of supplementary papers which the Commissioners had omitted from their appendix. There was consequently great difficulty in the Government keeping this item of printing within moderate bounds.

denied that the enormous amount of this Vote was mainly attributable to the Houses of Parliament. The charge for the War Department alone was £69,000; for the Admiralty, £24,000; Inland Revenue, £40,000; Post Office, £38,000; Patent Office, £24,000; While the increase in the whole amounted to £69,000. They ought to have some explanation of the grounds of that increase.

observed that if the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to read the explanatory note of Mr. M'Culloch, Comptroller of the Stationery Department—a very rigid economist—he would see that the increase of charge for the War Department was not so great as might have been expected from the extraordinary development of that branch of the public service.

thought the Executive Government should themselves decide what ought to be printed and what not, and not throw the reproach or responsibility on private Members.

took the liberty of suggesting that if Members who moved for Returns communicated with the department as to the form in which they should be made out, taking extracts instead of documents in extenso, both bulk and expense would be materially diminished.

thought there was a great deal of unnecessary printing for the House. He had, himself, moved lately for two Returns which he had copied in the library, thinking they would not be generally useful, and had paid for the copying of them. He thought there was one item in this Estimate which was very objectionable, and without explanation he should vote against it. He referred to the sum of £1,550 for the Ecclesiastical Department.

suggested that there should be only one uniform edition of the Statutes or, at most two, instead of three, as at present.

complimented Mr. M'Culloch, the Comptroller of the Stationery Department, as one of the most efficient public servants to be found in any Department. If his advice were always followed this Vote would be considerably reduced. But for his economical exertions, the Vote instead of £416,218 would be £500,000 or more. Upon the recommendation of that gentleman he had placed a notice on the paper for commuting the allowance of penknives and pencils to clerks into a small money payment. He could not exactly state what the saving would be, but he considered it an important measure of administrative reform. He should propose, just to try the question, to reduce the Vote by £218.

thought there was one Return the Government ought to give—namely, the amount of printing occasioned by particular Members, with their names. The printing for both Houses of Parliament cost only £84,000, while that for the Government offices cost £114,000.

moved that the Vote should be reduced by £1,550 charged for the Ecclesiastical Department.

moved the reduction of the Vote by £218 for small articles of stationery supplied to the clerks in Government Offices.

thought that a saving might be effected by diminishing the bulk of the Votes of that House, and not supplying Members with blue books which they never read.

, said that the expense of printing for that House was unnecessarily increased by putting Bills on the paper on a day on which they could not come on, and thus rendering necessary the printing of Amendments.

said, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh had made out no case for the reduction which he proposed.

had rested himself upon the authority of the Controller of the Stationery Office.

said, that great injustice was done to Parliament by the way in which the matter was treated that night as well as on other occasions. The amount for Parliamentary printing was not one-fifth of the whole. Hon. Members should be too wise to run at small matters when there were such glaring abuses to be looked after. That valuable public servant, Mr. M'Culloch, said that there was a want of control over this expenditure, and obviously he had no control. The question was who had? The War Department spent £70,000 in printing, the Admiralty £24,000, and the Patent Office nearly the same amount. [Sir GEORGE LEWIS: It is all repaid.] He wished to know who had the check or control over the printing of the various departments? Take for instance the calendering of wills, who authorized the printing of the 250 copies, which cost between £4,000 or £5,000? That was the way those sums rose to the enormous figure of £416,000. Who were responsible for the papers which were said to come there "by command?" He would undertake to say that since he entered the House no waggon would be able to carry away the papers that had been presented on the slave trade.

said, as regarded the item for the calendering of wills, it was Parliament that was chiefly responsible, because the 20 & 21 Vict. required that a calender of all the grants of probate and administration should be annually printed.

said, that he found for the War Office not only £9,000 of increase, but subsequently amongst sums, to make up deficiencies of former Estimates, £10,000 more, so that there was an actual addition of £19,000 for the War Office. He wanted to know whether that increase had arisen from the action of the House and not of the particular Department? He believed that the Stationery Office was admirably managed, but the fact was the House had no control over the Department which made the expenditure. That rested with the Treasury, which, unfortunately, did not keep strict watch in this matter.

said, that it was quite impossible that the head of the Stationery Office should control the expenditure of stationery or of the amount of printing, because that was connected with the amount of business. It was very true there had been a great increase in the printing of the War office; but thought there was an actual increase of charge, yet there was a great economy as compared with what would be the increase if writing were substituted for printing. There were a vast number of circulars and Returns which it was far cheaper to print than to copy in writing. He must say that everybody in that House must have discovered that a large amount of Returns were moved for which were really unnecessary. Nothing was more common than this. A Member had got a particular case of some claim on the part of some individual in some branch of the service which, in his opinion, had not been duly attended to, or some hardship which had been inflicted, and in order to bring that case before the House the Member called for Returns of very large range, embracing a large number of matters that had no reference to the particular case. Well, it was said that the Government ought to check that. But it often happened that they did object, and then it was said that the Returns ought to be granted unless there were some good reasons against it; and then up started hon. Members, saying that there must be something behind, some job, or some abuse which the Government wanted to conceal, and the Government were obliged to give the Returns in order to avoid misrepresentation. But if hon. Gentlemen would follow the example of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), who had obtained the information which he wanted without putting the public to expense, there would be some diminution of the cost, though but a slight one.

said, that, with respect to the calendaring of wills, the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to throw it upon the statute book, but it clearly appeared that it was by Treasury letters that a vast amount of the expense was incurred. Who ordered the back papers of 1856 and 1857, which had added largely to the expense? It was by a Treasury letter. He hoped, then, some explanation would be given whether there was any control over the Departments, or might they spend what they liked?

suggested, that in future Sessions of Parliament there should be a Printing Committee, which should have power to question Members of Parliament as to the reason why the papers they were about to move for were required.

thought that there might be very great improvements in the way in which Returns were furnished by the Board of Trade, and that great economy might be effected if they took a leaf from the practice of the Senate of the United States. There they had certain annual Returns affording information to every Member with respect to matters likely to come before the House, and they were presented at the commencement of the Session. If we had our Returns presented at the same period, it would prevent many Motions for Returns by private Members. As to local taxation, which amounted annually to £16,000,000, they would not have the Return for three weeks to come, and there was, in fact, scarcely one of the annual Returns which was presented at the commencement of the Session.

suggested, that blue books might be printed in smaller type and in double columns, as this would save much expense. Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:— Original Question put, and agreed to. (24.) £100,148, Postage (Public Service) (25.) £32,395, Law Charges. (26.) £147,000, to complete the sum for Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions. (27.) £224,575, Police, Counties and Boroughs. (28.) £3,020, Crown Office, Queen's Bench. (29.) £7,950, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court, Dublin. (30.) £6,176, Insolvent Debtor's Court. (31.) £55,980, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate, &c. (32) £140,320, to complete the sum for the County Courts. (33.) £15,355, to complete the sum for Police Courts (Metropolis). (34.) £101,204, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police. (35.) £3,500, Queen's Prison. (36.) £17,850, Revising Barristers (England and Wales). (37.) £2,342, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General (Scotland). (38.) £14,713, to complete the sum for the Court of Session (Scotland). (39.) £8,071, to complete the sum for Court of Justiciary (Scotland). (40.) £4,000, Criminal Prosecutions (Scotland). (41.) £1,620, Exchequer (Scotland). (42.) £25,000, Sheriffs and Procurators Fiscal, &c. (Scotland). (43.) £13,935, to complete the sum for the Procurators Fiscal Salaries (Scotland). (44.) £11,730, Sheriff Clerks (Scotland). (45.) £2,200, Tithes, &c. (Scotland) (46.) £14,457, to complete the sum for the General Register House (Edinburgh). (47.) £1,025, to complete the sum for the Commissary Clerk (Edinburgh). (48.) £1,528, Accountant in Bankruptcy (Scotland). (49.) £51,634, to complete the sum for the Law Charges (Ireland). (50.) £2,363, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery (Ireland). (51.) £18,851, Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer (Ireland). (52.) £3,932, to complete the sum for the Registrars to Judges, &c. (Ireland). (53.) £4,000, Manor Courts (Ireland). (54.) £2,319, Registration of Judgments (Ireland). (55.) £300, High Court of Delegates. (56.) £5,888, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland). (57.) £5,380, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate (Ireland). (58.) £11,311, Landed Estates Court (Ireland). (59.) £1,253, to complete the sum for the Consolidated Office of Writs. (60.) £450, Dublin Revising Barristers.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether it was intended to make may change with regard to the remuneration of Revising Barristers?

thought that a judicial officer should be paid by a fixed salary provided by Act of Parliament rather to ask by fee. He, therefore, proposed to ask the House for leave to introduce a Bill providing that the revising barristers of Dublin should receive a salary of 200 guineas, which was about equal to the amount they received by fees. Vote agreed to; as was also the following:— (61.) £26,051, to complete the sum for Police Justices, Dublin. (62.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £571,947, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expense of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1862."

moved the omission of the item of £3,400 for postage and stationery. These expenses were provided for in other parts of the Estimate.

moved that the Chairman should report Progress, for the purpose of enabling him to remark upon the division that had just taken place. The objection to the item of postage and stationery in the previous Vote was simply this, that it had been already voted at a previous part of the evening, and, therefore, the last was a double Vote of the very identical sums for postage and stationery.

had no doubt that the item was correctly included in the present Estimate. It was exactly the same sum as was voted last year for the same purpose. What was comprised in the item mentioned in the Stationery Office Estimate he did not know, but inquiry should be made before the Report, and if it were found that any portion of the expenditure was voted both on account of the Stationery Office and of the Department the matter should be set right on the Report.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the same sum might have been doubly voted last year.

hoped that his hon. Friend would persevere in his Amendment that the Chairman report Progress. It was no use proceeding with the Votes wholesale, as it was utterly impossible for hon. Members to keep pace with the rapid way in which they were being hurried though the House. Motion, by leave,withdrawn. The following Votes were then agreed to: (63.) £2,717, Four Courts Marshalsea Prison (Dublin). (64.) £17,695, Inspection, &c., of Prisons. (65.)£306,879, to complete the sum for Prisons and Convict Establishment.

said, that since this Estimate was prepared he had read the Report of the Committee of this House on Transportation, and had communicated with the Directors of convict prisons in this country and in Ireland, with the view of seeing whether some reduction might not be made. The Estimate was for 8,100 convicts at present in England, and the average daily number of the last two years had been 7,350. It had always been the practice to allow for a considerable numerical margin. But, as he was informed that the number of persons sentenced to penal servitude was steadily decreasing, it was unnecessary to retain this marginal allowance. He, therefore, proposed to reduce the Estimates for English prisons by the sum of £15,000, and that for prisons in Ireland by £7,000, making in all a reduction of £22,000.

said, the House owed much to the Government, and his hon. Friend who represented them, for the just and equitable manner in which they had come forward to make this deduction. It afforded a striking instance of the beneficial results in an economical point of view which followed from the well-directed labours of a Select Committee.

acknowledged the meritorious exertions made by the Select Committee; but said the House must not be led away by the idea that a saving had been effected. A diminution in the margin had taken place, but the expenditure which was limeted to the actual cost of the prisons would remain exactly the same. Vote agreed to. (66.) £191,976, to complete the sum for the Maintenance of Prisoners, &c.

said, a sum of £14,000 had been hitherto paid for the expense of maintaining convicts in county gaols. Of the 520 cells which they rented, a large proportion could now be dispensed with, and he, therefore, proposed to reduce that item by £2,000.

said, the cost of prisoners under sentence for felony and misdemeanour in Irish county gaols for the year ending the 31st of March, 1861, was £22,500. In the present year it was only £9,000; and he wished to know to what cause it's great decrease was to be attributed?

said, the decrease of crime in Ireland was very satisfactory; but the disparity in the figures was attributable to the fact that the sum taken in the former estimate was meant to cover two years, while the item in the present Vote dealt but with one year. Vote agreed to. (67.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £15,776, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the Transportation of Convicts, &c. to the 31st day of March, 1862."

proposed to reduce the Vote by £6,000. He thought it better to abandon transportation altogether; but the majority of the Committee of the present Session, of which he was a Member, acted on the advice of Mr. Waddington, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, who thought it would be safer to continue a very small amount of transportation in respect to the worst men, and that out of the 500 or 600 men every year sentenced to transportation a ship load might be advantageously sent abroad, and could be profitably employed in Western Australia, where they would be gladly received. We had a great convict establishment at Bermuda, where the convicts were employed in the construction of public works to strengthen the fortifications; another at Gibraltar, where the employment was the same; and a third in Western Australia. With the number of convicts discharged every year there would not be enough to keep up these three convict establishments. The Committee, therefore, recommended that for the present the convicts transported should be sent to Western Australia only. He proposed to the Committee to carry out the views of Mr. Waddington and the majority of the Committe; and he, therefore, moved to reduce the Vote by £6,000, so as to provide only for the 250 transports recommended by Mr. Waddington to be sent abroad. The number included in the Estimate was 750.

said, it was now under the consideration of the Government whether any more convicts would be sent to Bermuda. It was probable that none might be sent there this year; but he believed that if there were any change it would be only in the distribution of the convicts, for Sir Joshua Jebb had assured him that he thought 750 convicts would be transported this year. Under those circumstances he could not consent to a reduction of the Voted.

entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had proposed the reduction of the Vote. As there was unused accommodation in the prisons at home for a great number of convicts, he did not see why the expensive system of transportation should be continued.

wished to put a question to the Home Secretary in reference to the repeated and frightful outbreaks of mutiny at the convict stations. Did it arise from mismanagement, or was Sir Joshua Jebb an incompetent officer?

did not admit that the outbreaks at Chatham, Portland, and Portsmouth had been frequent or frightful. No doubt some time since there was a formidable riot at Chatham, and there has also been a few escapes from Portland and Portsmouth, but there had been nothing that deserved the description of a general outbreak or mutiny. The mutiny of the convicts at Chatham had been carefully investigated; but it was very difficult to ascertain precisely the causes and origin of outbreaks of this sort. It was not easy to say what were the precise causes of the Indian mutiny. The outbreak at Chatham had been attributed to some laxity of discipline and deficiencies on the part of subordinate officers transferred to the establishment from the hulks—a portion of the prisoners came from the hulks also; but the mutiny was speedily put down. There was no loss of life. Some corporal punishment was necessarily inflicted on the ringleaders; but, all things considered, the outbreak was suppressed with as little difficulty as could be expected under the circumstances. He believed the convict system of England was a very good one, founded on sound principles, and administered with great care. He had the greatest confidence in the judgment of Sir Joshua Jebb and his colleagues, and, without disputing the justices of the praises bestowed on the Irish system and its superintendents, he doubted whether any portion of it could be advantageously transferred to the system adopted in England.

believed the ourbreak at Portland was only suppressed by the aid of the military force, and in the convict establishment at Portsmouth a surgeon was murdered. Sir Joshua Jebb was not the person who ought to have been sent to conduct the inquiry into the mutiny at Chatham, but some one who would have made a searching investigation. It was most unsatisfactory that these outbreaks should only have been suppressed by force and severe flogging. In answer to Sir JOHN PAKINGTON,

explained that the number of convicts to be sent to Bermuda this year would be reduced; the number to be sent to Gibraltar and Western Australia would be about 700. Vote agreed to. (68.) £145,590, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments (Colonies).

proposed to reduce the Vote by the sum of £10,000, which would not be required for the establishment at Bermuda.

asked, what was the cause of the different cost of almost equal numbers of convicts in different colonies? He believed that all the convict labour might be employed at home in completing Portland, and then on the other large public works.

said, the question involved the distinction between transportation and penal servitude. The convicts sent to Gibraltar were employed, in captivity, on public works, and at the end of their term returned to England. Those sent to Western Australia remained there, and became part of the colonial population; they were disposed of for life, and this country got rid of them. There was that advantage in the system of transportation. It would be difficult to enforce imprisonment for life; men were likely to become desperate under it. It was not advisable to give up the system of transportation altogether.

had hoped, after the strong statement made in "another place" by the Secretary for the Colonies, that no more convicts would be sent to Bermuda. He trusted that some assurance on this point would be given.

said, that the noble Lord's statements last Session relative to Bermuda were derived from the testimony of the chaplain. Upon inves- tigation that testimony was found to be considerably exaggerated, and it appeared that the moral and physical state of the convicts was not so bad as was represented. Nevertheless, it had been considered advisable to suspend the shipment of convicts to Bermuda, and no convicts had accordingly been sent there for some time. With the prisons at home, the convict establishment at Gibraltar, and the opportunity of sending a few convicts to Western Australia, no difficulty was felt in disposing of the present number of convicts. Vote agreed to. House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

renewed his objections to the proposal that the Mayor of a town, who might be inexperienced, should preside ex officio over magistrates of great experience appointed by the Crown. Whenever the Mayor had had magisterial experience, no doubt precedence would be cheerfully accorded to him. He must take the sense of the House against a provision which would not add to the dignity of the Mayor, but which would cast a slur on the municipal administration of justice. He moved that the clause be expunged.

said, that the hon. Member had spoken as if the Mayor of a borough had nothing to do but preside over petty sessions. But this Bill was to give him precedence, not only at petty sessions, but at meetings of magistrates held for a variety of purposes, such as the licences of public-houses, and at goal sessions. The goals were erected and maintained by the borough, and who so fit to preside at such sessions and at licensing sessions as the Mayor? He was the functionary responsible for the peace of the borough, and in times of excitement and disturbance the Government communicated with him on the best mode of preserving the peace. The intention of the Municipal Corporations Act clearly was that the Mayor should have precedence within the borough.

would remind the hon. Member for Birmingham that in the borough represented by him the magistrates did not refuse to accept the presidency of the Mayor until a person was elected Mayor to whom the hon. Member knew they had reason to object. A licensed victualler had once been Mayor of that town, and surely the hon. Member would not wish to see a person Chairman of the licensing sessions on licensing day.

supported the Amendment, and said he did not see what necessity there was for introducing the Bill at all. So far as Birmingham was concerned, he believed that at great personal inconvenience the justices of that place had opposed the measure. He thought that as there was a strong objection on the one side, while on the other it was a matter only of sentiment and pride, the House ought to have some explanation from the Secretary of State why they should be called on to agree to this clause.

said, the Bill was only intended to continue a practice that prevailed in every municipal corporation in the kingdom except Birmingham. If the Mayor was not to be ex officio president, they must have the inconvenient system of annual election, else the Mayor, who might only be magistrate for the year of his office, would have no chance of being president at all.

gave notice that as he found many hon. Gentlemen were not aware the division on this clause would be taken to-night, he would move the rejection of the clause on bringing up the Report.

said, that this clause proposed to alter, in a manner which he thought most objectionable, the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act with reference to Borough Justices. By that Act it was provided that every person assigned by Her Majesty's Commission to act as a Justice in and for a Borough should reside within the Borough for which he should be so assigned, or within seven miles of the Borough, or some part thereof, during such time as he should act as a Justice of the Peace in and for such Borough. By this Bill it was proposed that every justice should be deemed to reside within such Borough, if he occupied any house, shop, warehouse, or other premises within the same, or within seven miles thereof. A person, therefore, who resided eight, ten, or fifteen miles away from a Borough might, if he occupied a tenement within that Borough, no matter how insignificant its value, be so assigned to act as a Borough Magistrate. He thought that such an alteration would introduce a class of persons not contemplated by the Municipal Corporations Act, and that in a political point a view it was open to very serious objections. He had received a letter from an old and tried friend of the Liberal party as regarded the effect of the change proposed, and with the permission of the Committee he would read a short extract from it, in the spirit of which he entirely concurred—

"As to Section 3, by which a Justice is to be deemed to reside within a borough, if he occupies a house, &c., within seven miles thereof, it would, if I were in Parliament, be opposed by me tooth and nail. Justices are now appointed by the Crown, in other words, by Her Majesty's Ministers, through the medium of the Lord Chancellor. To a certainty, if such a clause becomes law, the great man of the neighbourhood, if he be in favour with the Ministers of the day, will, in reality, have the nomination of Borough Justices. Now, being a magistrate gives, as it ought, a position and an influence—which, if possessed by country gentlemen, will be extraneous and adverse in most instances to Liberal principles Boroughs have always been the strongholds of Liberalism. I cannot, for my own part, imagine what Her Majesty's present Ministry can (if they really be Liberals) be thinking of. My strong impression is that, if this clause passes, such of Her Majesty's Ministers as are really and truly Liberals will live to regret it."

He would not trouble the Committee with any further comments, but he would move the omission of the clause.

certainly had not proposed the clause from any political motive. In some large boroughs various persons resided more than seven miles from the town, but were virtually citizens of it, and came there to their place of business daily. Being, however, at present excluded, whatever their other qualifications, from the magistracy by the present law, this clause was framed to remove their disability. The provision was, he believed, not liable to abuse, and would effect an Amendment in the existing law.

suggested that a portion of the proposal of the hon. Member for Chichester should be adopted, and that the words at the end of the clause

"or within seven miles thereof" should be omitted.

said, he had been informed that the object of this provision was to authorize alterations in the arrangement of wards with a view to party purposes. He, therefore, hoped the Home Secretary would explain whether there was any real necessity for it.

, as far as he was concerned, was totally unconscious of any party object in proposing the clause. It had been stated to him that since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act changes had taken place in the population of certain wards, which rendered their boundaries unsuited to their present requirements. The power taken by this clause, if discreetly exercised, would be beneficial; but if any jealousy was entertained on the subject, and the power was shown to be capable of abuse, he should not insist upon the clause.