said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government intend to make any, and what, alteration in the existing Circuit arrangements; whether such arrangements will be completed before the next Summer Assizes, and will include a Winter Circuit, and in what places; and whether, on account of its extent and population, Yorkshire, like Lancashire, will have the privilege of Assizes in three towns, and, particularly, whether the Southern section of the County, comprising the Wapentake of Strafforth and Tickhill, will be allowed the privilege of an Assize Town?

said, in reply, that the alteration in the existing Circuit arrangements had been for some time under the consideration of the Government, and that some alteration should take place could not be doubted; but the difficulty was to determine upon the particular arrangements to be made. Various projects had been under consideration, and within the last few days a written statement had been received by the Lord Chancellor from the Lord Chief Justice and the two other chief Judges, containing important suggestions on the subject. These suggestions demanded the fullest consideration. Time had not been afforded for that consideration, and it was hardly likely that any arrangements would be completed before the next Summer Assizes. In this stage of the inquiry the other questions put by the hon. Gentleman were rather premature.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a written protest against the bombardment of Belgrade was not made and signed by the English and European Consuls, on the 17th of June 1862, which does not appear in the Blue Book on that subject; and, if so, whether it will be laid upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that a protest was sent to the Pasha commanding the fortress, but a copy of that protest was not sent to the Foreign Office. He had requested that a copy should be supplied to the Foreign Office, and he did not at present see any objection to lay it on the table of the House. Upon receiving it, however, he would communicate with his hon. Friend on the subject.

said, he wished to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Three Despatches had been received from Mr. Odo Russell on a matter involving the relations of this Country with France, and also involving questions of personal honour. The first of those Despatches was to the effect that certain brigands had crossed the Papal frontier in French uniforms. The second Despatch from Mr. Russell stated that he had been mistaken—that no such event had taken place, and withdrawing the statement. The third Despatch, of which they only heard the other evening, was, it seemed, to the effect that the second Despatch was incorrect. It reiterated the first statement, and informed Her Majesty's Government that what he (Mr. Russell) had first stated was correct. The question he (Mr. Hennessy) therefore desired to put was, Whether that third Despatch, of so serious a nature, had been communicated to the French Government?

The hon. Gentleman has given me no notice of his Question. Perhaps he will repeat it to-morrow.

said, he would beg to ask, Whether any final decision has been come to respecting the Throne of Greece, and whether Prince William of Denmark has accepted it or not?

There is no final decision, but I have reason to think that arrangements will be concluded to make Prince William King of Greece.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Act 44 Geo. III., c. 54, or any regulations for the conduct of the Volunteer Force, framed under the provisions of that or any other Act relating thereto, renders Volunteers amenable to a Military Court of Inquiry, or to Military Law, when they are not under arms, on duty, or in the uniform and accoutrements of the corps?

said, in reply, that no Volunteers, except members of the permanent staff, were amenable to military law, unless when they were called out for actual service, nor was a Volunteer amenable to a military Court of Inquiry. It was within the power of Commanding Officers of Volunteer Corps, if they thought fit, to summon a Volunteer Court of Inquiry, which had only power to take evidence and report for the information of the Lord Lieutenant of the County.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, What has been the average quantity of Gunpowder kept in the Castle of Edinburgh during the last twelve months, distinguishing the various forms in which it has been made up, and whether the quantity will not be diminished; and whether there will be any objection to furnish Copies of any Reports which may have been made on the subject of this magazine by Officers of the Royal Engineers during the last four years?

said, in reply, that he had not all the information asked for by the hon. Member, but the quantity of powder now stored in Edinburgh Castle was 250 barrels, which was to be the maximum. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh had been made acquainted with the arrangements.

said, that as one of the oldest chairmen of Quarter Sessions in the House, he could not but deprecate the charge imposed by the Bill upon the county rate. He represented a county in which there was, perhaps, more religious animosity than in any other in England, and the effect of the Bill would be to produce the greatest discord among the magistrates, and great antagonism again between them and the county ratepayers. He did not share in the sentiments of the Protestant Alliance, that the measure would undermine the influence of the Church of England; but he could not understand why the Government, in introducing it, should not have made it a condition that a gaol should be established in some central part of the kingdom to which Roman Catholic prisoners should be committed, where the necessary provision should be made for their religious instruction. He begged to move the omission from the clause of the words which provided that the payment of those chaplains should be made out of the county rates.

said, that the effect of the Amendment would be to take the payment out of the ordinary rule. At present the cost of the maintenance of prisoners was borne by the country, but the cost of the establishment was a local charge. If the Amendment were carried, an exception would be introduced to the general practice. As to the erection of a central prison, it would not get rid of the objection urged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Packe.) The cost of the establishment would still have to be borne by the different localities ratably in proportion to the number of Roman Catholic convicts sent by them to the central prison.

said, he apprehended that the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Packe) was to secure that there should be no power of paying those clergymen out of the county rates. What he objected to, and what he understood his hon. Friend to object to, was that the ratepayers of this country should be called on to pay taxes in the imposition of which they had no voice. Had the Amendment which he himself proposed on a former occasion been adopted by the House, the heart and soul of the Bill would have been extinguished. The same result would follow from the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He looked on the Bill as the result of a political cabal; and he believed it to be the stepping- stone to a great object which the Roman Catholic priests in this country had for years been endeavouring to accomplish—namely, that of putting themselves on an equality with the clergymen of the Church of England.

said, he was ready to go to a division; but if the object of the Amendment was of as comprehensive a character as it had just been described to be, notice of it ought to have been given to the House.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any ambiguity in the manner in which the word "they" was used in the end of the clause, which might render it doubtful whether the prisoners and not the justices might not order the payment of the clergymen?

replied, that he did not think there was the slightest possibility of any such interpretation being given to the word.

said, he also wished to ask whether any clergyman to whom the Bill would apply had asked for remuneration for attending a prisoner of his own persuasion? If not, the taxation proposed by the Bill was unasked for.

said, he desired to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had considered the question of having the money to be paid to those clergymen provided out of funds to be voted by Parliament?

said, that if the payment were made in the manner referred to by the hon. Baronet, that would be the establishment of a new financial principle in connection with the county gaols of the country. With regard to the question of the gallant Colonel behind, he presumed that no such application had been made, since under the existing law the justices would have no power to grant any remuneration.

said, that in the case of the repeal of the annuity tax a great deal of opposition was raised to the penny rate, the object of which was to support members of the Established Church of Scotland; whereas if it had been for the maintenance of Roman Catholic priests, it would not have been in the power of all Edinburgh to extinguish it.

said, he thought it was well worth the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether the small sums which would be required to carry out the provisions on the Bill might not be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. His hon. Friend, of course, could not move a clause to that effect, but it would have to be done by the Government, and it would certainly have great effect in preventing the heart burnings which would probably arise out of the operation of the Bill. He had supported it all through from motives of justice; but he thought it was wise to do everything to make it work as smoothly as possible. If the Government would give any hope of considering the point, he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he had opposed the Bill throughout, not on religious grounds, but on account of the administrative and social difficulties it would create. If it was desirable to pass the measure, it was desirable to carry it into effect by such means as would secure the result sought to be accomplished, and at the same time produce the smallest amount of irritation. He believed that the Bill as it then stood would in the majority of instances fail in securing the object for which it was framed; and, in the instances in which it might be successful, it would always encounter the greatest amount of opposition. The success of the measure did not depend upon the exigencies of the case, but on the particular reading of different bodies of magistrates; and if the subject had to be discussed by quarter sessions and boards of guardians, a great deal of irritation would be produced. It was a remark of M. Guizot, "There are some subjects on which publicity and discussion throw light, and some subjects on which publicity and discussion only throw fire;" and he (Mr. Scourfield) believed that the appointment of Roman Catholic priests to gaols under the Bill would be a subject of the latter class. He was sure that the Bill as at present framed would do the Roman Catholics more harm than it could possibly advantage them, and he should think that in those special cases where the appointment of Roman Catholic priests to gaols might be necessary they might contrive out of the existing elements to find a solution of the question; but he could conceive nothing more absurd than to make a man's spiritual welfare dependent upon the number of his own denomination in the same condition with himself. As a chairman of quarter sessions, he had always been anxious to prevent quarter sessions being made a debating society; but he was afraid that this subject must lead to irritating discussion. Majorities might sometimes in matters of action tyrannize over minorities; but in the matter of talking, minorities were very frequently still more tyrannical. His experience in that House did not encourage him to look with any pleasant anticipations to the effect of the measure on the deliberations of quarter sessions. He had never listened to a religious discussion in that House without going forth, not a wiser, but a sadder man. It was with a view of preventing these discussions in courts of quarter sessions that he supported the Amendment.

said, that though he had supported the Bill, he could not but join with the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) in thinking it would be desirable that the payment of those clergymen should be made out of the Consolidated Fund. He wished to remind the right hon. Baronet that no Amendment had as yet been made in the Bill, consequently no Amendment of the nature proposed by the hon. Member for Leicestershire could be made upon the bringing up of the Report. If, therefore, the right hon. Baronet wished to postpone the consideration of the question until the Report, it would be necessary for him to make some verbal alteration at all events, in order to enable the matter to be discussed.

said, it would be perfectly easy for any private Member to raise the question by moving that the expenses should be paid out of monies to be voted by Parliament; and if notice were given of such a Motion on the Report, he should be ready to give it his best consideration. Until the suggestion was before them in a definite shape, they were hardly in a position to consider it; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that it would be very easy for him to frame an Amendment with the object he had in view. He, however, thought that such an Amendment would be very inconsistent with the provision which gave the magistrates at quarter sessions the power of appointing those ministers; so that if such an Amendment were agreed to, the Home Secretary would be called upon to provide remuneration for those ministers over whose appointment he would have no control.

said, that the difficulty suggested by the right hon. Baronet could be easily removed by providing that the appointment by the local authorities should be subject to the approval of the Home Secretary.

said, he confessed that he had heard with great pleasure the observations just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). His right hon. Friend, however, must permit him to express the regret he felt on hearing him declare his intentions to support that most remarkable Bill. His right hon. Friend seemed now to be fully impressed with the difficulty of the case. The only ground upon which his right hon. Friend said he was prepared to support the Bill, was the ground of justice. Now, justice to Roman Catholic priests might be a very desirable object, but the ratepayers of England had also, he thought, some claim to justice. He should wish to know whether it was distinctly understood that an opportunity would be afforded by the right hon. Gentleman of raising the question of payment upon the Report?

said, he should certainly be willing to facilitate any arrangement for the purpose; but as regarded the question as between a local rate and the annual Votes of Parliament, it was competent to any hon. Gentleman to raise that point at that time, and it was one that should be discussed in Committee, and not upon the Report?

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand his (Mr. Bentinek's) object. What he wished to ascertain distinctly was, whether the right hon. Baronet would give them an opportunity of discussing the question upon the bringing-up of the Report?

said, he understood, that if a Motion were made to that effect, the right hon. Baronet would oppose it [Sir GEORGE GREY assented], and that if the words proposed to be left out were omitted, it would not be competent for any hon. Member to move upon the Report that the payment should be made out of the public funds.

said, he was of opinion that it would be objectionable that the appointment of those chaplains should be made by one authority, and their payment by another. If, therefore, the ministers were to be appointed by the magistrates, they ought to be paid out of the local rates.

said, that that was the reason why he objected to the Bill all along.

said, the greater portion of those who got into gaol were offenders not so much against real as against personal property, and the Government, by what they were now proposing to do, were adding unfairly to the burdens of real property.

said, the Amendment which had been moved would, if carried, prevent payments being made from any source whatever. If the words were omitted, there would be no room, for substituting general for local funds on the Report.

said, there would be some difficulty in adopting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire—namely, of paying the Roman Catholic priests appointed to those prisons out of the Consolidated Fund; because, in that case, the people of Ireland would have to contribute to the payment besides paying for the ministers who performed such duties in Ireland out of the local rates.

said, he thought there would be great difficulty in adopting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. He was not inclined to press upon the ratepayers, but he would remind the Committee, that inasmuch as the appointment of a minister would only be made when there was a certain number of Roman Catholic prisoners in a gaol, it was not at all likely to furnish a subject of discussion amongst the local authorities, except in a few large towns.

said, many hon. Members, though supporting the Bill, confessed that the measure was likely to create much difficulty, inconvenience, and heart burnings throughout the local boards of the country. He believed that it would give rise to much unpleasant feeling amongst the people of England generally. If, however, those ministers were to be appointed by the local authorities, and paid for by the State, he should like to know how any proper control over them could be exercised? He concurred with his hon. Friend near him in thinking that it was most disagreeable to have those religious questions raised, but it was not the fault of the party with which he generally acted that they were brought forward. They, however, objected to remain silent when they were raised. He should certainly feel it his duty to vote against the payment of those ministers, in any shape, under the Bill. He objected to the Bill on two grounds; first, that it was an invasion of a constitutional principle; and secondly, an infliction of tyranny on the Roman Catholic prisoners.

said, that he had been in hopes that the principle of the measure had been decided on the second reading, but from time to time hon. Members talked as if that question was still in abeyance. One hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to say that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were engaged in a sort of conspiracy against this country. The Roman Catholic priests were continually spoken of as being engaged in a plot with regard to the prison chaplains. The priests, no doubt, wished that Roman Catholic prisoners should be attended by a chaplain of their own creed, but it was not the priest alone who entertained that wish, for the Roman Catholic laity also had that desire. Seeing that there were Roman Catholic prisoners in the gaols, that they did not know there was any priest to look after them, that they could not have the attendance of a priest without preferring a special request, which course would not be adopted by those whose condition most required the assistance of a priest—believing, therefore, that great injustice was done to the Roman Catholic prisoners throughout the country, he wished it to be distinctly known that there was a reverend gentleman in those prisons who could administer to their spiritual wants. They wanted no external ceremony; they wished to reach the conscience alone, because he believed it was through the consciences of the prisoners that there was a chance of reforming them. That such was the case had been shown by what was already done in Ireland and England, in support of which he might refer to page 496 of the Rev. Mr. Kingsbury's book on Pentonville Prison, where it was stated that the period of imprisonment was the time to work upon the feelings of the prisoners, who were then in a subdued and softened state of mind; and if religious instruction was then communicated to them, they became enlightened. If the Roman Catholic prisoners were to be subjected to the control of the prison chaplain alone, who was not of their religion, but who had all the authority of a superior officer, he (Lord E. Howard) held that it was a hard position for them to be placed in. He could not suppose that the Committee would make any objection to the spiritual wants of these prisoners being supplied by the appointment of Roman Catholic priests.

said, he had no wish to utter a word against the Roman Catholic religion. The question before the Committee, raised by his Amendment, was whether the Roman Catholic chaplains should be paid out of the county rates.

said he should like to know from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Packe), whether he meant to suggest any other source from which payment might be made in lieu of the county rates, in the event of his Amendment being carried?

said, it was for the Government, not for him, to say what proposal should be made in that event. If his Amendment were carried, he supposed that the right hon. Baronet or his Colleagues would insert other words in the place of those struck out.

said, the noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) was under a wrong impression when he said that Roman Catholic prisoners had no one to care for them. He could mention two or three cases in connection with a gaol which he was in the habit of visiting, in which acts of great kindness had been shown by Protestant chaplains to Roman Catholic prisoners. He had two very strong objections to the Bill. The first was, whether the House would consent to permit a subject of that kind to be raised by every bench of magistrates in every county and borough in the kingdom? Again, as to payment, if payment were to be made to Roman Catholic chaplains, he thought it ought to be made by the State. But he thought there was a prior question to be decided; and that was how the chaplains were to be appointed. At present the country had a high class of chaplains, who gave the whole of their time to the discharge of their duties. But if there were to be two or three or more, the salaries must be on a lower scale, and there would be a different class of men offering themselves for the office of chaplain; and in consequence of the inferior salaries they would have to supplement their income by other employment, the consequence of which would be that the duty of chaplain would be performed in a less satisfactory manner than at present.

thought it would be a simple act of justice that Roman Catholic prisoners should be attended by a minister of their own religion. The system worked well in Ireland, and he saw no reason why it should not prove equally advantageous in England.

said, he objected to the payment of these salaries out of the county rates, but still more to their being charged upon the Consolidated Fund. On that understanding he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.

said, there was this serious difficulty in the way of charging the payment of these chaplains on the Consolidated Fund. The control in these cases was sure to be in the hands of those who furnished the funds for payment. If, therefore, these chaplains were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the magistrates would lose all control over them, which would create much greater evils than any which were likely to result from the Bill as it now stood.

said, he would suggest that the question as to the mode of payment of the chaplain should stand over until the Bill was in a more advanced stage. Hon. Members who were in the habit of attending quarter sessions were aware that the Prisons Act provided a superannuation for ministers of the Established Church who performed the duties of chaplains in gaols; and he ventured to suggest, that as the Act stood, if the justices in pursuance of the Bill appointed a dissenting minister or a Roman Catholic to attend to prisoners as chaplains, they would have not one, but two or three persons, claiming compensation on their superannuation fund.

said, he was glad to hear an Irish Member say the system proposed by the Bill worked well in Ireland. But the Committee should remember that the circumstances of the two countries were different. In Ireland gaol chaplains were appointed by the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, a large body of the population belonging to each of these three Churches. With regard to England the case was different; and appointing a Roman Catholic chaplain to a gaol in England would but be analogous to the appointment of a Wesleyan as gaol chaplain in Ireland, should there be in any gaol a small number of prisoners from the Wesleyan body.

said, he would ask leave, before the Committee went to a division, to say a word or two. The noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) rattier implied that in discussing the question, there had been a want of becoming courtesy with regard to the feelings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Speaking for himself—and he thought he might also speak on this point for the House—he would say that there was no man in. it who would willingly say a word against any man on account of his religious convictions. The noble Lord misunderstood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire when he understood him to say he had charged the Roman Catholic heirarchy with conspiring to obtain spiritual assistance for Roman Catholic prisoners. What he (Mr. Bentinck) understood him to say was this—in which he (Mr. Bentinck) joined him—that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were combining in a plot to obtain in this country a position of equality with the Protestant clergy. He (Mr. Bentinck) attached no blame to them for being engaged in that plot; but he held that it was the duty of the British House of Commons to take care that the plot should fail. Therefore, it was in no discourtesy towards the Roman Catholics that hon. Members opposed the Bill before the House. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain one point. He understood him to say that that was the time to decide whether the money should be levied on the county rate or on some other fund. The question before the Committee was, whether the money was to be raised by a levy on the county rate. If it should be decided that the payment was to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund, that would entirely alter the character of the Bill. It would then become a question of Imperial legislation, and there ought to be ample time given, in order that the proposed charge on the Consolidated Fund for that purpose should be understood through the length and breadth of the country.

suggested that the object of the Amendment would be attained by t e simple omission from the clause of the words "the justices may award him payment."

said, he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He would remind the Committee that it was proposed to place upon the county rate a charge the nature and extent of which they had not fully considered. If the "minister" to be appointed under the Act was placed upon the same footing as the chaplain of a gaol or prison, in common justice he ought to be placed on the same footing in a pecuniary point of view. He must receive not only the same allowance, but the same amount of retiring pension. That change would eventually become a serious charge upon the counties. Now, he was one of those who thought it most unconstitutional to raise taxation from those who were wholly and entirely unrepresented. If such a course of proceeding were adopted, the House of Commons had bettor abrogate its functions altogether and delegate its powers to the magistrates in quarter sessions. He protested against the adoption of the principle, because he considered it unconstitutional. It might be said that it was a question of very small importance, and that probably the Bill would be a dead letter in almost every county. He believed that would be the case, for he did not think there was a county in England which would take advantage of the powers conferred by the Bill, except Lancashire. The measure would, however, if carried, cast upon the magistrates an amount of responsibility and an amount of odium which it was unfair to impose upon them. The House shrunk from that responsibility, and wanted to get rid of a disagreeable question by effecting a compromise which would prove to be worthless. As a county magistrate, he begged to protest against such a course of proceeding, and against making courts of quarter session the arena for polemical discussions. Perhaps his Amendment would hardly touch the grievance which he had shadowed forth, but it was the best suggestion which he was able to make. At present there was no organized body by which the opinions of the ratepayers could be elicited, but he thought it would be possible to ascertain the opinions of the ratepayers by means of the boards of guardians; and if they should consider it right and proper to adopt the provision made by the Bill, no one would rejoice more than himself. But he did think that if some protection was not given to the ratepayers, an amount of discord and disaffection would arise which it would be very unwise to create. Again, he did not see how it would be possible to limit the principle laid down by the Bill. If adopted, it must be extended still further, and larger demands would, from time to time, be made upon the ratepayers. He would say to those hon. Gentlemen who opposed him that when on their return to their different counties they were asked their reasons for their opposition, they would have to declare that it was right and proper to tax those who were unrepresented, and that they had not sufficient confidence in their constituents to intrust them with the power which he (Sir L. Palk) proposed to give them. To carry out the sentiments which he had expressed, he proposed to insert in the clause after "think fit" the words, "with the consent of the boards of guardians of any county wherein the said gaols, prisons, and houses of correction are situated."

observed, that the effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to prevent the justices from paying any money without the consent of the boards of guardians. That principle, if sanctioned by the Committee, would not stop there, but would eventually become applicable to every discretionary payment made out of the rate, so that the county justices would be deprived of that administration of local funds which was now in their hands. Now, it might be right or it might be wrong to do that, but it would not be proper to bring about such a change by a short Amendment in this Bill.

expressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment to a division.

said, he would then propose to add to the clause the following proviso:—

"That when the justices or other authorities of any borough or separate jurisdiction commit persons to a county prison, any expenses incurred under this Act shall be paid by the treasurers of such boroughs or separate jurisdictions in proportion to the population of such places and the county."

said, he thought it would be much better to allow the matter to come under the general and ordinary arrangement of the law.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet. It would be impossible to divide the expense in these cases.

said, he wished to express his belief that some misapprehension prevailed in the last division, many hon. Members having been frightened at the idea of the expense falling on the Consolidated Fund. He did not seek to raise any vexatious opposition to the Bill; but as he wished to take the opinion of the Committee on the principle involved in the clause, he would move its omission.

said, he wished to move the insertion of words to provide that in case the visits of any minister admitted to a gaol under the provisions of the Act should have been discontinued for the period of fourteen days, then the existing law, with reference to the duty of the chaplain of the Established Church to visit all the prisoners, should again come into force in respect of the prisoners to whom such other minister had been admitted.

said, that the attendance contemplated by the Bill was a regular one, and therefore he saw no objection to the words proposed by the hon. Member.

said, he would suggest the introduction of the word "licensed," or the word "ordained," in reference to the ministers of dissenting denominations, so as to provide some security for the character and position of the ministers visiting a prison.

said, that in framing the Bill the term used in the old Gaol Act had been adopted. He thought the justices would find no difficulty in dealing with the clause as it stood.

pointed out, that as a prisoner was not to be compelled to receive instruction from the minister of a denomination to which he did not belong, a prisoner might altogether escape religious instruction by saying that he was of no religious persuasion.

said, he understood that the Church of England took credit for all prisoners who made no declaration of their faith.

said, that a Return relating to Shrewsbury Gaol showed that eleven prisoners had asserted that they were of no religion; and he maintained, that if the clause were passed as it stood, those eleven prisoners could claim to be excused from attending any religious service at all.

said, the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman would be met by the insertion of the words, "any prisoner belonging to any church or religious persuasion," which would exclude prisoners belonging to no religious persuasion from the operation of the clause.

said, that the matter was a serious one, as it affected the discipline of the prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Church of England claimed those who were of no church at all, and he hoped that that was correct; but the Bill would prevent her doing so. In his opinion, the Bill, which seemed to be the worst Bill the House ever passed, had one redeeming quality—it would be perfectly innocuous, because he did not believe that there was a single county that would carry out its provisions. In one or two cases it was possible there might he furious fights at the quarter sessions, and perhaps occasionally a chaplain might be appointed, to be discontinued at the next sessions; but in the majority of the counties and boroughs of England he was convinced that the Bill would be a dead letter. The principle of the Bill was so bad that it would render all prison discipline impossible. But there should be no ambiguity in regard to the matter which was under consideration.

said, he wished to point out that in all probability prisoners would enter themselves as of no religious persuasion, for the mere purpose of getting excused from attendance at chapel.

said, that if the clause were amended as he proposed, the Bill would not affect them at all.

said, that the right hon. Baronet's Amendment would not meet the case of a person representing himself as a Mormonite. Or, suppose there was a single prisoner of one dissenting denomination, and no minister was appointed to attend him, he might refuse the ministrations of the chaplain and get no religious instruction at all.

said, the case was exactly met by what occurred with Roman Catholic prisoners, who objected to attending the regular chapel service. They were locked in their cells while the service was going on. In practice it was found that prisoners belonging to Protestant denominations did not object to attend the religious services in the chapel.

said, the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would meet his objections.

said, he wished to ask whether benevolent ladies who, following the example of Mrs. Fry, were in the habit of visiting prisoners in gaol, would still be allowed access to them. He was of opinion that a Mrs. Fry would do more good than half-a-dozen different chaplains, who, after the Bill had passed, might object to their particular preserves being poached upon.

said, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent visiting justices continuing to authorize the admission of these ladies.

asked, whether it would be competent for county boards to engage chaplains for each of the ten denominations which had recently been enumerated.

said, he saw no reason why they should not, if any gaol should happen to have 500 prisoners of each of these different denominations.

said, he doubted whether the last words of the clause were necessary. It was competent as the law stood for the keeper or the visiting justices to exempt prisoners from attending chapel if they objected to it. The rule generally was that they were locked in their cells while the service was going on, and it was overloading the statute book to no purpose to insert the words.

said, the object was simply to make the law accord with the general practice.

said, he wished to propose a clause enacting that a salary should not be given to any chaplain appointed under the Bill, except to Roman Catholic chaplains. The Bill gave free access to all prisoners, and that was all Protestant Dissenters required. Whatever differences there might be in regard to ecclesiastical matters between Dissenters and the Church of England, there were no differences between their doctrinal views which would warrant the payment of separate chaplains.

said, the clause was unnecessary. If a Protestant Dissenting minister volunteered his services to attend prisoners in gaol, no doubt the visiting justices would accept them.

inquired, whether in prisons, where ministers of other persuasions than that of the Church of England were appointed, it would be lawful for persons who might volunteer to visit the prisoners with a view to religious instruction to do so.

said, the law in that respect would remain exactly on its present footing. The visiting justices might still allow the prisoners to be visited just as they were at present.

said, he wished to give notice that on the bringing up of the Report he would move that any persons appointed as chaplains under the Bill should have a list of the prisoners whom they were entitled to visit shown them by the gaoler, but should not have access to the prison books, or be at liberty to raise any question as to whether A or B was of any particular persuasion.

said, he wished to move an Amendment on Clause 2, the object of which was to relieve railway companies from certain grievances, one of which was that they were not assessed to the income tax by the local authorities, as other parties were, but by the special commissioners in London. He could not but complain of the rigorous way they were dealt with, and of the trouble and expense to which they were put in having to correspond with the Court of Commissioners in London. In his opinion, railway companies ought to be put upon the same footing as other companies as to assessment. Another grievance was, that railway companies were made responsible for the income tax of their servants. One man might be employed at certain wages, and another succeed him at different wages, but under any circumstances that might occur the companies were made liable for the recovery of the tax.

said, the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had given notice of an Amendment in the interest of the smallest class of taxpayers which involved exactly the converse of the objection which had been made by the hon. Gentleman to the assessment on railway companies, and showed that the trouble of corresponding with the special commissioners was not so great as he feared. For his own part, he thought that railway companies ought to be re-assessed year by year. That would not entail any inconvenience or expense to the companies, as special commissioners were sent down from London for the purpose. He believed the real objection of the hon. Member was to the course taken by the commissioners in deciding what were profits and what were not. The servants of railway companies were already placed on the same footing as other servants in respect of being placed under schedule E, which ought to include the servants of all incorporated and joint-stock companies. With regard to railway companies and their servants, the liability rested, so far as regarded engine drivers, upon the principle that the engine driver was so essentially and rapidly migratory, that it was practically impossible to touch him, unless through the company. It was true that £100 and £150 were the two sore places in the working of the income tax, and when he ventured to make to Parliament the proposal for easing that class of incomes, the engine drivers was one class that he had specially in view. He hoped, therefore, there would be no disposition to press for a change until they had had a year's experience of the working of what he might call the new system with regard to incomes between £100 and £200 a year.

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position of the local assessors, whose receipts in the shape of poundage had, owing to recent changes, been so greatly reduced as to render their case one of considerable hardship. Those officers were possessed of the requisite local knowledge for making the assessments, and had given no offence in the discharge of their duties. It was not desirable, therefore, that they should be driven to grow disgusted with their situation. With reference to the question of re-assessment, he had since he last addressed the House upon the subject ascertained that in one county of Scotland as much as £1,500 had been lost in consequence of there being no re-assessment under schedule A. In another county there actually was a re-assessment last year.

said, he desired to ask whether he was right in supposing that there was to be no re-assessment under schedule A that year.

said, that there was no intention of making a re-assessment that year under schedules A and B. The rule had been to have a re-assessment under those schedules every three years, and he was so convinced of the trouble, vexation, and annoyance which would be caused by an annual reassessment, that he would not recommend to the House a departure from that rule. He was not acquainted with the case referred to by the hon. Baronet. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: It was Haddingtonshire.] As to the payment of assessors, all he could say was, that while it was of course desirable that they should receive a fail-remuneration for the labour which they performed, it was undesirable to pay them in the years in which they had little or nothing to do for those in which they had duties to discharge.

said, he fully agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the trouble occasioned to the taxpayers by the re-assessment of a whole county, and hoped that no alteration would be made which would render re-assessments more frequent.

said, that in Scotland, where there was a valuation roll, the re-assessment was made without difficulty or trouble. He hoped that when a fresh assessment took place there would be no disposition to depart from the usual practice of assessing by local officers.

said, he had no hesitation in giving that assurance; and if any change should be considered necessary, the fullest notice would be given.

said, he rose to move the insertion of a clause altering the mode of appeal in the case of persons assessed under £150 per annum. He should not have troubled the Committee had not petitions in favour of his clause been presented from numbers of small tradesmen in the City of London, Westminster, Marylebone, Tower Hamlets, Bilston, Brierley Macclesfield, Nantwich, Crewe, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Birmingham, Manchester, Darlington, Sunderland, and many other places. The complaint of those Petitioners, who were persons having incomes of less than £150 per annum, was, that having been charged as if they possessed a sum which would bring them under the whole weight of the income tax, they had to go a considerable distance to defend themselves before the local Commissioners; while, if they had the same power as was possessed by other classes, they might appeal in writing to the special Commissioners, who, if they were not satisfied, would have to go to them instead of their going to the Commissioners. They also wished for that opportunity of appealing to the special Commissioners, because they, like their neighbours, were interested in keeping their affairs to themselves, and were as liable as their betters to be injured in their trade by any sudden and indiscreet revelations. It was on these grounds that he moved the clause of which he had given notice. He could not resume his seat without pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suspicion which his words tended to refute, but which had been suggested to him from many quarters, that there was a great deal of hardship in the mode in which the income tax was levied. He had received complaints both from the borough which he represented and from other parts of the country of the severity with which the surveyors carried on the business of surcharging; and if such complaints were allowed to continue unnoticed and unredressed, they could not but produce a most injurious effect. It was very unwise to bring the income tax into so much disrepute by the disagreeable manner in which it was levied. In order to illustrate the feeling which prevailed concerning it, he would quote the following protest of seventeen taxpayers in the northern division of the county of Northampton, which was contained in a recent return which had been made on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt):—

"We whose names are hereunto affixed beg to express our surprise at and condemnation of the arbitrary manner in which our returns made under the requirements of the Property and Income Tax Acts have been surcharged, whereby in many instances agricultural tenants have been necessitated either to pay tax on a much higher rental than they pay to their landlords (or than their land will bear), or to appeal against their assessment, at great loss of time, inconvenience, and expense. We are willing to allow all reasonable latitude to the officers having charge of the collection of the revenue of our Government, and to allow that it is right to guard against all attempts to defraud it, but submit that it is neither reasonable nor just to put the taxpayers of this part of the country to such great, and in many instances unnecessary, inconvenience as is involved in the present proceeding of the surveyor of taxes of this district."

He believed that the discontent thus manifested, instead of being exceptional, was very general. He moved the following clause:—

"On and after the passing of this Act so much of section 130 of the Act passed in the fifth and sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chap. 35, intituled 'An Act for granting to Her Majesty Duties on Profits arising from Property, Professions, Trades, and Offices until the 6th day of April 1845,' as relates to persons assessed to the income tax under £150 per year shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and every person sc assessed or charged shall, if he think fit, appeal to the Commissioners for special purposes, upon giving notice thereof in writing to the inspector or surveyor within the time limited for notices of appeal, and thereupon every such appeal shall be heard and determined by two or more of the Commissioners for special purposes."

said, he had heard many complaints similar to those stated by the noble Lord, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would admit the clause, and so remove some of the difficulties attending the imposition of the tax. Under the existing system persons had to travel many miles to have their appeals attended to, and in consequence of the large number to be disposed of, they had some- times to perform the journey twice. It was enough for people to have to pay the tax without being put to unnecessary inconvenience in obtaining just treatment.

observed, that the clause would remove two hardships of which taxpayers now complained—that of having to expose their affairs publicly before their nearest neighbours, and that of having to travel a considerable distance to attend the court. In his own county considerable discontent existed as to the existing system, especially on the part of small freeholders who did not come within the income tax. He would suggest that much inconvenience would also be obviated if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would direct the assessors to ask in their papers whether or not property was mortgaged, and would consent, that when there was a new assessment, the first collection should be under the old one.

said, he could confirm the statement made by the noble Lord with reference to the discontent which existed in Norfolk on occount of the manner in which the tax was levied.

said, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), that great inconvenience would be saved if the question were distinctly put whether or not a property was mortgaged.

said, it was the desire of the Government not to multiply re-assessments, but to go on for two years at a time, at some loss to the revenue, rather than subject people to unnecessary inconvenience. He was anxious that all who had complaints against the revenue officers should bring them forward, in order that they might be inquired into. The taxpayers happily possessed the power of keeping the ministers in order by calling upon their repretatives to bring their grievances before the House. With regard to the particular point under discussion, he came to a conclusion very different from that of the noble Lord and his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams). Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that it was in the power of the Government to levy the income tax in such a way as to be perfectly agreeable. That was quite a mistake. The process of extracting money from the pockets of the ratepayers was much more analogous to the operations of the dentist on the mouths of his patients than to any proceedings which could be carried on in an agreeable manner. That would sound like heresy to hon. Members who held, that as soon as all taxation was direct, it would become easy and pleasant, That was a view to which he could never attach himself. Long experience showed that vigilance was necessary on the part of the revenue officers, because the bulk of men were endeavouring to escape from the payment of taxes. They must not forget the disclosures which were frequently made, as in the case of the people in Cannon Street, who some years back made returns to the income tax exactly one tenth of the amount of those which they laid before a jury when claiming compensation. He felt bound to say that definite complaints against revenue officers were exceedingly rare. All that could be done by judgment, prudence, and moderation on the part of the officers of Inland Revenue ought to be done. Those gentlemen always laboured in that sense, and would not be honest if they did not; and he believed that the spirit in which the officers of the revenue endeavoured to act was a spirit of moderation and forbearance as well as vigilance. With regard to the particular proposal of the noble Lord, he would observe, that notwithstanding that the sum of £150 was mentioned in the clause, the Committee, as the limit of the income tax was carried down to £100, were now really concerned only with the case of persons having incomes under £100 a year. He felt some difficulty in meeting statements in regard to points of detail connected with the special working of a tax, when the parties never thought fit to lay those statements before him. He heard of them for the first time on a proposal being brought forward in that House, and thus no opportunity was afforded him of discussing them with the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue. He felt great difficulty in committing himself, by a conversation in that House, to any alleged facts or proceedings. At the same time, he was sure the noble Lord would feel that it was not desirable to press upon the Committee such a change as he proposed in what, from the first, had been a standing rule in the administration of the income tax, until an opportunity was afforded of fully investigating the statements on which the proposal was founded. With regard to persons claiming exemption on the ground of having less than £100 a year, he apprehended that they were probably under some misapprehension as to the kind of relief they would obtain in any case from being: allowed to appeal to special commissioners. The principal point of complaint was, that they had to travel many miles to exhibit the state of their affairs to the local commissioners. He quite admitted that the travelling was a serious inconvenience to persons of small means, but that would not be avoided by the adoption of the noble Lord's clause, for it would not be possible for special commissioners to hold a meeting in every village; and they could not be carried nearer to the doors of the people than the spots where the local commissioners at present sat. The noble Lord truly said that many of those persons were very anxious that there should be secrecy as to the state of their affairs; but he wished to point out the distinction between the case of people claiming total exemption and that of persons endeavouring to ascertain in discussions with the commissioners the precise amount they were to pay. A man paying the income tax might have £100 or £100,000 a year, and it might be of the utmost importance to him that it should remain hidden from the world on which of those two sums he paid, or that the point between them at which his income stood should not be known. The case of a man who claimed exemption was totally different; and if his income was less than £100 a year, the commissioners did not inquire whether it was £90, £80, or £70. With regard to the fact of exemption there could be no secrecy. The tax gatherer, in collecting the income tax, called at the doors of A, B, and C, and not at the door of D. Consequently, it became known that D did not pay income tax, and therefore no secrecy existed as to the only fact within the cognizance of the commissioners—namely, that D had less than £100 a year.

said, all he wished was to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the grievances which he believed the Bill would inflict upon certain classes of the public in the hope that they would be taken into the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. It was not the mere disclosure of his income that a man disliked, but what he disliked was to be compelled to make that disclosure before a number of persons who were sitting around him in order to secure his liability to as high an income tax as they could exact upon the evidence which was forced from him. Now, a man naturally did not like the world to know his circumstances when he was going down in the world. There were many little details in connection with, his affairs which it might be important for such a man to keep from the public eye. The grievance of such a person might not, however, be so great as that of individuals whose transactions were on a much more extensive and important scale. The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of £150 a year, as the point at which, exemption ceased, was no longer in existence. Now he (Lord Robert Cecil) had looked most attentively into the two Acts on the subject; and, as far as his judgment went, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman incorporated the clause of the Act in which £150 a year was made the lowest point for taxation Consequently, some confusion upon the matter would, he thought, arise. Passing from that point to a much narrower question, he wished to explain the reason why he could not lay before the right hon. Gentleman those specific cases of hardship to which he had referred in general terms. When a man was going down in the world, he naturally felt the hardship the greater, and the injustice or over-zeal of the surveyor pressed upon him with peculiar severity. That was the very time at which least of all he wished to have his circumstances published to the world; that was a time when he felt it was all-important to his interests to have his affairs kept as secret as possible. Under such circumstances, he (Lord Robert Cecil) should never think of divulging the details of his case. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not draw from the mere absence of details, or the facts not specifically mentioned, the conclusion that there were no grounds for the complaint, or that the officers were working the Act as quietly and as gently as possible. He believed that the taxpayer was perpetually trying to escape from the hands of the surveyor, and that such cases caused a reaction on the part of the surveyor, who, in the excess of his zeal to counteract such a system, allowed himself sometimes to be betrayed into acts of hardship and injustice.

said, he thought his noble Friend was under some misapprehension. The Income Tax commissioners did not hold an open court. Three commissioners, or two at all events, sat in a small room with their clerk and surveyor, and those gentlemen were sworn to secrecy. As far as the commissioners were concerned, they did not take much interest in small incomes, and there was no reason why the recipients of those incomes should not state freely their complaints. The surveyors had very difficult duties to discharge, but they readily paid attention to suggestions by the commissioners. The proper check was in the hands of the commissioners, who had only to intimate with firmness their opinion when they found the surveyors acted harshly, as he had known them sometimes do in assessing profits under Schedule D. He thought, however, that, upon the whole, the tax was levied with as little trouble and as much care as money could possibly be extracted from any one.

said, he was sure the class of persons who had small incomes would feel very much obliged to the noble Lord for calling attention to the subject. He was glad to hear the assurance which had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was convinced that if the pain was reduced to a minimum, the object of the noble Lord would be realized.

asked whether any encouragement was given to those officers who collected the tax without harshness, and whether any discouragement was given to those who added unnecessarily to the irritation of the persons assessed.

said, that those officers who made unjust charges were placed in an unfavourable position with regard to promotion. The hon. Member for Northampton had suggested that a column should be inserted in the Schedule in order that reductions claimed in respect of mortgages might be specified. Now, he asked the House to consider what would be the consequence of calling upon those who possessed property to declare the amount of their mortgages. He thought such an arrangement would not be regarded with approval.

said, that his experience as a Commissioner convinced him that instead of the surveyors too strictly discharging their duty they were too lax in that respect. He never knew an instance of a person being really charged too much, and the mistake not rectified.

said, he was not sorry that his noble Friend had called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject. He could not say that he was hopeful of any of the difficulties to which he had referred being amended; but the right hon. Gentleman had promised to turn his powerful and acute intellect to the matter; and as he could split hairs better than 19–20ths of the House of Commons, he might devise some mode, in consultation with the officers of Inland Revenue, by which some of the irritation produced by those blisters might be lessened. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeded, he should give him unusual credit for it, but his own opinion was that the irritation was incidental to the tax itself. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, the greatest difficulties occurred in cases of exemption; but when persons claimed exemption, they ought not to grudge a reasonable amount of trouble to secure it. He had never seen anything unfair, harsh, or capricious in the conduct of the surveyors, but it was easy for any one to send a letter by post, calling attention to any particular case, when the wrong would probably be remedied. The surveyors were sure to be hated by every one, and he thought they went out of their way to relieve the public as far as possible from a good deal of trouble in connection with this odious tax. The commissioners had to find out whether the butcher, the baker, or candlestick-maker had an income of £98 or £100 a year. A Chancery suit was nothing to it. They had to find out how much profit was made out of a sack of flour, or when a beast was killed how the profit was affected by the weather and by the state of the markets, to say nothing of that blessed item bad debts. Or, perhaps, these wretched commissioners had to discover how much profit a schoolmaster with nine children made out of his boys, by an inquiry into how many pounds of meat were consumed by the boys, some of whom had large appetites, some small appetites, and some no appetites at all, and how many maid servants were necessary for the boys and how many for the nine children. All these questions had to be discussed, and he was bound from his experience to bear testimony to the ability and forbearance with which the revenue officers carried on their work and assisted the commissioners in arriving at a decision.

said, he would move to leave out "one halfpenny" in line 26, and to insert "one farthing," and to add to the end of the clause the following words:—

"And for and in respect of every mile which any stage carriage licensed to carry more than eight passengers at one time shall be licensed to travel, the duty of one halfpenny."

Since he had had a seat in that House he never knew a clearer case of justice than that which he had to submit to the judgment of the Committee, and to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Continual attempts had been made, ever since the introduction of railways, to obtain a fair and uniform duty on passengers travelling by stage coaches and railways. The difficulty was to say in what manner these taxes should be levied consistently with equality. In 1837, when a charge of one-third of a penny was paid by railways, and a farthing by stage coach passengers, a Committee was appointed to consider the subject. They reported that great inequality existed, the travelling by animal power being heavily burdened, while travelling by steam-motive power was lightly taxed by comparison. They recommended the abolition of all the taxes on public conveyances at the earliest possible period. That Report produced no result, and in 1839 the subject was brought under the notice of the House, but the state of the revenue did not admit of a change. Lord Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that there was an inequality in the rate of taxation, which it behaved Parliament to consider. The late Sir Robert Peel admitted that the owners of the older description of vehicles were suffering from the introduction of railways, and that it would be unfair on the part of the Legislature to give them an unequal share of taxation to contend against. In 1842 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day introduced a Bill to carry the principle that had been laid down, and the taxes on stage carriages and railways were re-adjusted. Stage carriages were charged1½d. per mile and railways 5 per cent on the gross income derived from passengers. That was thought to be a fair settlement of the question; but since then the equality had been again disturbed by the general Act which compelled railway companies to send one train a day to convey passengers at 1d. per mile. In 1855 the subject was again brought before the House in connection with a transaction which occurred in the north of England, where the owners of stage carriages had made a private arrangement to reduce their own rate of taxation. General Wyndham in that year moved a Resolution, that, in the opinion of the House, the law relating to stage carriages ought to be modified. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, Sir George Lewis, said, that if he had to submit a supplementary Budget, the question of the mileage duty would be entitled to a prominent place in it; that if a favourable opportunity arose for the re-consideration of that class of duties, he was quite alive to the objections which had been urged against them; and the right hon. Gentleman added, that these duties ought to be remitted whenever the state of the revenue allowed of their removal. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) concurred in the opinion, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who closed the debate, said, that seeing that the Government had the authority of the House for taking the matter into consideration with a view to the modification of the duties, he was not disposed to oppose the Motion. The consequence was, that the Government fixed the duty at 1d., and there it had since remained. Before the Committee, which sat two years ago, of which the late Sir George Lewis was a member, and of which he had the honour to be Chairman, attention was called to the mileage duties, and it was shown that there were altogether different rates upon the different railways. Some had a larger amount of cheap traffic than others; and whenever passengers were carried at a less rate than 1d. per passenger per mile, they claimed exemption from duty in respect of these earnings; and that exemption, although it was perfectly illegal, was allowed by the Government, in order to keep itself in harmony with the companies. The only deduction which could properly be made was in respect of what were called Parliamentary trains running once a day in each direction. The result was that the duty, instead of being 5 per cent as originally imposed, was reduced to less than 3½ per cent on the large railways, and even, in, some cases, to 1 per cent. What was the case of 'the omnibus proprietors? Since the establishment of a great concern in London, publishing its accounts, and carrying on business as a joint stock company, the most accurate data had been procurable. From these it appeared that the omnibus company was in receipt of £582,000 annually, out of which it paid a tax of £52,000 a year, being nearly 10 per cent on its gross earnings. Those persons who had stage carriages throughout the country were still more aggrieved; but although they might grumble, being isolated individuals, they had no opportunity of making known their case to the public. It was only now, when the circumstances of the country enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a Budget not provoking much discussion or opposition, that he felt it his duty to enter into special questions of grievance or injustice connected with finance, and to some extent, he might therefore say, that he brought forward the subject at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. The Resolutions affecting the railway companies seemed rather to have fallen behind, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was waiting for detailed statistical information. When those accounts were received, he would see that the charge on the railway companies was really taken at 3 per cent, while the charge on stage carriages might be taken as ranging at about 10 per cent. He had never heard but one reason suggested for the inequality to which he referred, and that, although specious, was unsound. It was said that railways were the owners of the road, while omnibuses ran upon the public roads. But, because the railway companies had made a complex machine of an iron road, and a steam engine, which they said was more economical than horses upon a common road, that was not a matter with which Parliament had anything to do. As well might a different duty be levied upon long cloth manufactured by handloom to that which was levied upon the produce of great and expensive machinery. The proper test of taxation was the gross earnings. The railways had obtained a large exemption, from duty upon the plea that they convoyed passengers cheaply, at the rate of 1d. per mile. But he had a long list of omnibus fares which did not exceed that rate; and if the omnibus proprietors possessed the same influence as was enjoyed by the railway companies, they would be wholly exempt from taxation. The duty, no doubt, in its origin was a sumptuary tax paid by the richer classes, and as such was a legitimate source of revenue But the incidence of the tax had changed, for it was not the rich who rode in omnibuses, but to a great extent the working classes, who were thus conveyed from the districts where they lived to the places where they worked. The amount involved was not such as to indispose the Committee to deal with the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some rather weak appeals, that his surplus should be regarded as a sacred fund, but he had had already to re-consider his propositions upon one or two points. It was true that upon those points greater influence had been brought to bear than he could boast of; but the right hon. Gentleman, the other evening, made an appeal to the justice and firmness of the House, which had so powerful an effect that all considerations of party were abandoned, and all concurred in condemning that with which every one was satisfied before. He hoped that upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman could see that there was a necessity for dealing with the grievance, and would yield to the appeal made to him. The effect of his Amendment would be to reduce the duty paid by stage carriages by one-half, and accordingly he moved to reduce the sums inserted in the clause in that proportion.

said, he had hoped, from a conversation that he had had with the right hon. Gentleman, that he would agree to some remission of the tax. He had laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the case of a coach which, in the county which he represented, travelled forty miles a day, and afforded the only public conveyance which the inhabitants of the villages through which it passed possessed. That coach paid £52 a year in taxes; and as the gain was very small, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not be indisposed to make some remission in favour of that class of vehicles, in order that they might not be obliged to stop running.

said, when appeals such as were made by the hon. and gallant Member were presented to his notice, he was naturally desirous of meeting them as far as lay in his power. There were, no doubt, many taxes which it was desirable should be remitted; and, certainly, it would be a happy state of things if, as far as locomotion was concerned, there were no taxes at all. But it was his duty, in the office he held, to measure his acts by his necessities, and he would endeavour to state those necessities to the Committee. It must not be supposed that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman was limited by the terms in which it was couched. He could not look at the duties upon locomotion with regard to one portion only. The first effect of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would be to deprive the revenue of £70,000 a year, and the Government were not prepared, under existing circumstances, to acquiesce in that proposal. But the duty upon stage carriages was only one portion of the revenue derived from locomotion, which amounted to £775,000 a year. The railways paid £387,000 a year; stage carriages paid £144,000; hackney carriages, £104,000; and post-horse licences, £138,000. With regard to the duty on hackney carriages, the case, no doubt, was peculiar. Some years ago Parliament compelled hackney carriages to reduce their fares, but omnibuses still charged what they pleased. During the Exhibition period there was a great augmentation of traffic, and the consequence was the omnibus fares were raised. The hon. Member had omitted to point out, that owing to the peculiar nature of the control which the omnibus proprietors had over the traffic, the immediate consequence of an increased demand was increased fares. Therefore, if the House considered the case of stage carriages they must also consider the hackney carriages and the post-horse licences. The railway companies would also fairly be entitled to raise a question for themselves as they were in immediate competition with stage carriages all over the country. The four branches of revenue were associated together, and it was impossible to open one for the purpose of reduction—first, because of its direct effect upon the revenue; and next, because its indirect effect would be to give rise to fresh demands in other quarters. The hon. Member had stated that his arguments in favour of maintaining the surplus were very feeble; and, as inroads had already been made upon that surplus, the hon. Member tranquilly inferred that further inroads might be made upon it without detriment to any one. The surplus which he had proposed to maintain was about £530,000, and lie had stated on the part of his Colleagues their intention steadily to resist all invasion whatever of that surplus. But he did not presume to place revenue arising from proposals which he intended to make, and which had never received the approval of Parliament, on the same footing with revenue arising from established sources. The surplus stood at about £400,000; and he trusted that the Committee would not think, with the hon. Member, that his arguments for its maintenance were weak. He did not speak of the revenue from locomotion as a revenue which ought at all times, and under all circumstances, to be retained. But he thought that the intention of the country was not to fritter away public revenue at the present moment by minute remissions in favour of this or that class, but rather to husband its resources with a view to the attainment of objects in which the whole public had an interest. These taxes upon locomotion were taxes with regard to which every reasonable and enlightened man would say that the more they could be reduced the better. But how stood the case? The statement of the hon. Member on the subject, though able, was not, quite fair and impartial. He said that stage carriages were subject to a payment of 10 per cent, while railways only paid about 3 per cent; and he added that it was not a legitimate argument to justify the distinction by any reference to the peculiar circumstance that railways found their own roads and stage carriages ran on roads provided for them. By an ingenious artifice, the hon. Member mixed up together bodies of stage carriages, which were very differently circumstanced indeed. The country stage carriages, for which the hon. and gallant Member near him (General Buckley) had pleaded, helped to make their own roads, since they paid turnpike tolls. But the country carriages were by no means the chief clients of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton). His London clients, in their published statements, objected to the partial reduction proposed to be given in the Bill in the case of smaller carriages. They declared, that if the reduction were carried out, many large vehicles paying £3 3s. a year and a penny a mile, would be replaced by smaller ones, paying a licence duty of 10s. yearly and a halfpenny per mile. Well, it was rather hard that in the exceptionally favourable condition which the London omnibus proprietors enjoyed, having their roads made for them, they should object to the relief proposed to be given, upon no exceptional or arbitrary principles, to smaller carriages, which did help to make their roads. It was commonly said that misfortune tended to soften the heart and make us compassionate towards brethren in affliction; but the clients of the hon. Member seemed in this respect to be rather in the rear of the average of mankind. He would, however, grapple with the real argument of the hon. Gentleman by saying, that the comparison between the percentage upon railways and that upon stage carriages in London, must obviously be unjust, because the tax upon stage carriages fell upon rolling stock alone, while that on railways fell on rolling stock and on roads. The hon. Member contended that the road was no part of the instrument by which the passenger was carried. It seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) an astonishing doctrine, for they did not travel in the air. To justify the comparison of the hon. Member, a proportion of tax ought to be imposed in respect of the roads traversed by stage carriages, for probably three-fourths of the expenses of railway companies had been incurred in laying down their permanent way, and only one-fourth in providing the rolling stock. The hon. Gentleman also said, that the remission of duty made to railway companies was illegal, and he complained that railway companies, being influential and powerful bodies, obtained a degree of favour which their competitors did not. The hon. Member was wrong in that statement; for if he referred to the Act of 1844, he would find that these exemptions were made in favour of the low-priced trains, and were not limited to a single train a day—the Parliamentary train. He wished to call the attention of the; Committee to what had been done at various times in regard to these duties. Down to 1839 the rate of duty on carriages conveying above fifteen persons was 3d. a mile. Since that time the size of stage carriages had been greatly increased, while the amount of the tax upon them had been greatly reduced. Prom 1839 to 1842 the duty was2½d. per mile. From 1842 to 1855 it was 1½d. In the latter year, Parliament considered the incidence of the tax upon railways and stage carriages respectively, and remitted one-third of the tax upon omnibuses. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets argued, that as railway trains travelled at less than a penny a mile, omnibuses ought to go free; but when a train travelled at a penny a mile, it did so from station to station, and a passenger, by counting the number of miles he wanted to go, was able to tell the amount of his fare. That was not the ease with an omnibus, because, though for the whole journey the rate might be under a penny per mile, the vehicle did not travel from station to station at that rate. For instance, a passenger entering an omnibus at Charing Cross and travelling only as far as Regent Street certainly would not be carried for the rate of a penny a mile.

Neither would he be carried for such a distance in any railway train at the rate of a penny a mile, because there is an Act which provides that railways need not take anything under a four-mile fare.

said, he was showing that the principle of distances was a test in the case of railway fares, whereas the distance the passenger was carried was not a test in the case of omnibuses, and that therefore the cases were different. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the low earnings of the London General Omnibus Company; but he ought to have entered into some explanation with the view of showing how far the low profits of that company were to be accounted for by the expenses which it had gone to in driving competitors off the line, because it was a matter of notoriety that the drivers and conductors of independent proprietors made frequent complaints against the managers and drivers of the London General Omnibus Company for driving them off the road. He observed that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets shook his head at that statement, which showed that the hon. Gentleman did not read the police reports in the newspapers. However it was, competitors to the London General Omnibus Company disappeared after a short time. That was a matter of which the House of Commons could take no notice, but it was one which ought to engage the hon. Gentleman's attention when he made an appeal for the company on the ground of their low earnings. The point, however, to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished specially to call the attention of the Committee was the general position of the finances of the country. If the Committee thought it right to go on without a surplus—if the Committee thought the claim now made was the only claim on the surplus which existed—let them support the hon. Gentleman. But as there were abundance of other claimants, with good cases, calling for reduction, and as the claim now put forward directly menaced a very considerable sum, and indirectly menaced a considerably larger sum, the matter deserved their serious attention, inasmuch as it involved the maintenance of that moderate revenue which was necessary for the public service. Still, the Government had looked into the case of the proprietors of omnibuses, and had endeavoured to relieve them as far it was possible to do so without detriment to the revenue of the country. No doubt the greatest pressure in respect of the charges on those vehicles was felt in the case of lines where there was but small traffic, such as those from small railway stations, and where the omnibuses were also taxed for the road they travelled on. The Government had endeavoured to meet that case by a considerable remission of taxation. At present, a licence of three guineas and a mileage of 1d. per mile were charged under all circumstances, no matter what the size of the vehicle or how small the traffic. Besides, the licence must be paid for the whole year, though the traffic might be only for a portion of the year. In the first place the Government had drawn the distinction between small carriages—carriages carrying not more than eight passengers—and large ones; and it was to be remembered that omnibuses used in the North and in London carried from twenty to forty passengers. They reduced the licence on small carriages from three guineas to 10 s.; and they were further justified in doing that because they believed that the present high rate of licence duty in respect of these small vehicles had the effect of checking enterprise. Then they reduced the mileage from 1d. to ½d. per mile in the case of that class of vehicles to which he was referring; and the 10s. licence might be divided into fractions, according to the portion of the year for which it was paid. He did not think that these reductions would result in any loss to the revenue. He calculated that an increased traffic would recoupe the revenue on the reductions. In respect of large carriages they had endeavoured to do justice also. For the future it would not be necessary for that class of carriage to pay the whole three guineas before obtaining a licence. The licence year would expire on the 31st of October instead of the 30th of September, and licences might always be had at any period of the year for the period of the licence year then unexpired. In some parts of the country the season closed at the end of September, and the Bill therefore provided that licences might be taken out for any of the four quarters of the year. He had said that he expected an increase of traffic from the remission in the case of the taxes on small omnibuses in rural districts; but he hoped no hon. Member would argue from that admission that an increase might also be expected if similar remissions were made to the London General Omnibus Company. In the former ease the pressure of expenses confined the traffic; but in London the omnibus traffic was a large and increasing one. For these reasons he could not consent, by agreeing to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to weaken those financial arrangements which he thought the House had allowed to be reasonable—looking to the actual and possible wants of the country—to the necessity of maintaining the solidity of our finances, and to the general condition of the world, which could not be separated from financial considerations.

said, that long as he had been in the House, he never remembered a Chancellor of the Exchequer giving up a tax without a struggle, nor had he ever heard a Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the relief proposed by any private Member was exactly the relief which ought to be given. A great deal of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been devoted to the praise of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do for carriages in the rural districts; but the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not only relieve the rural carriages a great deal more, but would relieve those in towns altogether. If the right hon. Member justified his taxes on town omnibuses in excess of railways, because they had not to find their own roads, surely he ought to hand over the excess for the benefit of those who did supply the roads. But the truth was the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to stick by his Budget—as far as he could. He did not wish to say a word in favour of additional tayation on railways, but omnibus proprietors could scarcely help complaining of the manner in which they were treated in comparison with railways. In London they were exposed to competition with railways. The opening of the Metropolitan Railway, for instance, had reduced the earnings of four omnibuses starting from the neighbourhood of the terminus from £2,960 in 1862 to £786 in 1863. The loss must fall, after all, on the public, for the omnibuses, if they were unfairly burdened, would be worse horsed and worse managed altogether. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had shown some little consideration for the rural districts, as opposed to the metropolitan, and he regarded it as a rather remarkable concession. He did not wish to take any part in the combat between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but he was very much struck with a remark that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, to the effect that, in his opinion, taxes on locomotion ought to be low. Now, if there was any one point to which taxation might be directed, without prejudice to anybody, and with benefit to the community at large, he (Mr. Bentinck) thought it was on locomotion. Locomotion was one of two things. It was either a matter of luxury, or a matter of business. It was agreed on all hands that luxuries of all kinds ought to be taxed. If a tax on locomotion for purposes of business, without detriment to that business, could be levied, it was desirable that it should be done with the least possible inconvenience. It might be said that excursion trains ought not to be taxed. Now, he believed they were the source of nine-tenths of the accidents which occurred, and he doubted whether they really tended to promote the health of those who profited by them. He did not think that going 120 miles at a cheap rate, was the best way of disposing of a man's time; and believed that it might be spent in a much better way. He did not think that there could be any better tax generally speaking than that on railway travelling.

said, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for he regarded cheap locomotion as one of the greatest boons that could be conferred upon the public. He had always been in favour of low fares and speedy communication between all parts of the Empire; and he therefore trusted that the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed at no distant day the liberation of locomotion from all taxation. With respect to any rise of fares in the metropolis, that might be traced to the high licensing duties, and he was of opinion, that if there was an entire free trade in omnibuses, high fares would be avoided.

said, his proposition applied to the stage coaches in the country as well as to the omnibuses in the City. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have it that the tax in question was a tax upon coaches and the rolling stock of railways; but in that he was opposed to all financiers, who regarded it in this light, that it was a tax upon passengers—a point which had been admitted by all the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office, and by the late Sir Robert Peel. It had nothing whatever to do with the tax whether passengers were carried by one mode of conveyance or by another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell the Committee that the omnibus proprietors besides that tax paid £18,000 a year for the roads; and if they paid less tolls, it was because the inhabitants generally preferred to pay a house tax for that purpose. But the right hon. Gentleman thought himself entitled to levy a heavier tax on the omnibus proprietors on that account. It was a fact, that the omnibus proprietors were not able to make a fair profit by their business at present; and surely, when the railway below the road was exempted from taxation, it was not just that the omnibus running above should be heavily taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an imperfect denial to his statement that those railway exemptions were illegal. But the law required that the exemptions should take effect only when the railway company ran a train at a penny a mile, allowed a certain weight of luggage to be carried free, and the train stopped at every station. But excursion trains, as they were carried on, were not exempt by law; and he would say more, the Government were aware that they were not exempt; and more than that, the exemption was given in order to make matters work smoothly between the railway companies and the Board of Trade. The consequence was the railway companies were not paying their full share of taxation, while the burden was borne by other parties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indeed thrown out an indefinite hope that the tax would be done away with. But why were they to be amused with those sensation propositions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that if he yielded in that case, he would be obliged to remit £700,000; but his (Mr. Ayrton's) demand was limited to £70,000, which would be recouped by the increase in the number of omnibuses. If the House took off a duty which was so excessive as nearly to sink the traffic, it would be sure to give a new impulse to it by the remission. That was a well established fact, and one which had been often dwelt on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. But now the right hon. Gentleman said, if the tax were taken off, nothing would be recouped. The right hon. Gentleman made this distinction, that the train carried its passengers from station to station, while the door of the omnibus was always open and one might get out of it when he pleased. But what difference did that make. The omnibus conveyed passengers at a penny a mile, and the railway company professed to do the same; but while the railway company charged for part of a mile as for the whole, the omnibus charged for part of the distance in the same way. In short, it was a case of the simplest justice; but the right hon. Gentleman was frightened about his surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looked upon his surplus just as a mother after several miscarriages looked upon her production. It was the most extraordinary creature, the most lovable creature in the world; everything would injure it, it was to be cherished as the most admirable thing in nature. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that he would take the matter into his consideration, or, if not, that the Committee would give such practical suggestions, with a view to the removal of those inequalities, as would induce him to do so.

said, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman again into the general question, but would merely point one error into which he had fallen in the repetition of his vague assertions. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that the exemption granted by the Government to certain railway trains was illegal. The hon. Gentleman had read the 6th section of the Act, but had stopped there. If he had read the 8th section, he would find that a discretionary power was given to the Executive to dispense with any of the conditions required with regard to the conveyance of passengers by any such cheap trains as aforesaid. [Mr. AYRTON: Yes, Parliamentary trains.] The words were, "by any such cheap trains."

said, he wished to ask an explanation of the changes which were contained in the clause.

said, that when the occasional licences to publicans for a certain temporary purpose were passed, a good deal of jealousy had been expressed; indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was one of the principal organs of that jealousy, and the consequence was, that the clause had been made a good deal too restrictive. Very possibly he might have to propose some further relaxation before the measure got through Parliament. The clause removed restrictions on the sale of liquors after sunset and before sunrise, but only on the occasions specified—for instance, on the occasion of any public dinner or ball—and it enacted that under an occasional licence liquors might be sold during such hours before or after sunrise or sunset as should be allowed and specified in that behalf in the consents to be given by the justices of the peace for the granting of such occasional licence. It had been mentioned to him that in some other cases the restriction to sunset was rather too severe. For example, a cricket match was carried on within a few minutes of sunset, and it would be hard to require absolutely the cessation of the sale of liquors at the moment the sun set. In such a case he proposed that a little discretion and some small margin should be given. With regard to Clause 22, it was intended to remedy an error into which he had been led from over-confidence in the judgment and too great a-readiness to acquiesce in the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton). Before the Act 25 & 26 Vict, passed, publicans were permitted, without an Excise licence, to sell liquors at fairs and races. The hon. and learned Gentleman took away that privilege from the publicans without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it became unlawful to sell liquors during fairs and races without a licence. The object of Clause 22 was to restore to publicans the privilege they before enjoyed with respect to fairs and races.

said, the effort had been to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider moral questions in connection with Excise licences. He had heard that a good deal of debauchery had been repressed by the change to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Now, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Act relating to public-houses in Scotland the matter had been carefully considered in reference to the question of occasional licences; and he trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman meant to enlarge those licences, as he was now doing, he would also alter the law by which they were to be issued.

observed, that the conditions under which occasional licences could be obtained were rather oppressive to the publican, it being sometimes very difficult to procure the consent of two justices residing in the same district as the person seeking for the licence, as was required. He would suggest that it would be sufficient if a licence were signed by one magistrate living within seven miles of the place for which the licence was required.

said, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken in thinking that an unnecessary amount of restraint was imposed on those publicans who, as a condition of obtaining a licence to supply certain articles on a particular occasion, were compelled to travel over the country to find two justices both acting in their district of petty sessions. He would therefore be disposed to accede to such an Amendment as had been suggested if the hon. Member moved it, or he would propose it himself on bringing up the Report. He had not received any complaints of the abuse of occasional licences. A letter had been published complaining of a great amount of drunkenness on some public occasion in the West of England; hut, on careful investigation, it appeared that the gathering, which was a large one, had been conducted in an unusually satisfactory manner, and that the cases of drunkenness were remarkably few.

said, he hoped Scotland would be excluded from the operation of the clause.

said, he thought that Scotland was already without the operation of the enactment

, in moving the second reading, said, that as he intended to accede to a Motion on the paper for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, he would not trouble the House with many observations on the present occasion. The Bill aimed at the entire repeal of nineteen Acts of Parliament, and the partial repeal of seven more. Its object was to consolidate and reduce into a coherent and consistent system the material provisions of those Acts. Of course, some Amendment and alteration had been necessary; but the Bill was essentially one for the consolidation of the existing law, with only such modification as was requisite for producing harmony and consistency. The Bill had been prepared for him by a gentleman who perhaps had as much knowledge as any one living on the subject—namely, Mr. Stevens; and in revising it, it had been his desire to avoid any innovation, one way or another, with reference to the important and much disputed question of church rates. Accordingly, all the clauses in the present Church Building Acts which could be said to contain any positive or affirmative legislation on the subject were proposed to be left exactly as they stood in the old Acts. The Bill also steered clear of some questions connected with the working of portions of the acts consolidated, which had led to recent litigation in the courts of law, and as to the effect of which different opinions might be entertained. It would not have been proper, in preparing the Bill, to seek to alter the law; but it would he competent in the Select Committee, or afterwards for any hon. Member, to make any proposal that he might deem expedient.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion in resolving to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. So far from opposing the second reading, he thought every friend of the Church and of common sense was indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for preparing that elaborate Bill for the consideration of the House. He had some observations to make upon certain clauses, especially those relating to the subject of pew rents, but would reserve them till a future occasion.

said, he had to complain of the omission from the Bill of the 18th clause in Sir Robert Peel's Act, which contained a provision against the levying of church rates for the support of district churches. It was understood when the Acts authorizing the constitution of new districts were passed that no church rates were to be levied for the support of the churches to be erected under them. Doubts had lately been expressed by Dr. Lushington, the Dean of the Arches, whether, as the law stood, such rates might not be imposed; and it was therefore most important that no provision should be omitted from the Bill which would carry out the understanding upon which the House had acted in legislating for the constitution of these new districts.

said, he could bear witness to the existence of the understanding to which his hon. Friend had referred. Unless he received an assurance that a provision would be inserted in the Bill to carry out that understanding, he should move an instruction to the Committee upon the subject.

said, that it was no doubt understood that church rates should not be leviable for the support of these district churches. The question was one for the Select Committee, and no instruction would be necessary.

, in moving that it should be referred to a Select Committee, explained that the insertion of the clause from Sir Robert Peel's Act would not have met the views of the hon. Member for Wycombe, because it was upon the words of that clause that the doubts of the learned Judge referred to had arisen.

said, he was glad that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had acceded to the wish of several hon. Members to send the matter before a Select Committee, which was the only competent tribunal to deal with it; but he hoped that the question of church rates and pew rents would not be discussed by the Committee.

said, he had hoped to have seen a complete consolidation of the Church Building Acts during the Session, but at the same time he thanked the Government for having directed their attention to the subject, and expressed a hope that the labours of the Select Committee would not be thrown away.

said, it was not satisfactory that after a pledge had been given in 1856 that the districts which had been referred to should not be liable for church rates, that question should be referred to a Committee.

said, he thought it desirable that the Bill should not be read a second time without some explanation of its object.

said, that the object of the measure was to provide for the arterial drainage of Ireland through the instrumentality of drainage boards representing the proprietors of lands; and power was given to enable the drainage boards to obtain advances of money for the purpose from the Commissioners of Works in Ireland.

said, he thought the Bill a great improvement on the measure brought in by the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick county, and it was likely that under the provisions of the Bill works of great public utility would be undertaken.

said, he had no objection to the principle of the Bill, but in Committee he should propose one or two Amendments, as it was his intention to propose similar Amendments in the English law, in order to prevent certain irregularities in the removal of Irish paupers to Ireland.