said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Transport which conveys the troops from Cape Coast Castle to the West Indies is likely to pass through a belt of 600 miles, in which only calms and light winds may be expected; and if the mean limit of the north-east trade wind in August is now considered to be in the 13th degree of north latitude?

, in reply, said, he was obliged to his hon. Friend for having put the Question, and he would state on what grounds the Admiralty had given their orders for the transport to proceed in the way she was about to do. Captain Richards, hydrographer to the Admiralty, in a paper dated the 21st of June, 1864, says with regard to the passage from Cape Coast to the West Indies—

"The middle-passage is simply the passage across the ocean from continent to continent, and, of course, any ship crossing from Cape Coast to the West Indies must make it. Either a sailing vessel, or a vessel towed by a steamer, or a steamer alone, leaving Cape Coast in July or Au- gust, bound for Barbadoes would steer to the southward for 300 or 400 miles, until she got into the south-east trade and out of the Guinea current, which sets along the coast of Africa to the eastward, at the rate of thirty miles a day. She would, if towed, get into the south-east trade in two or three days, and the equatorial current would then set her at the rate of thirty or forty miles a day to the westward. The south-east trade reaches to the northward of the equator in July, and she would make her westing with that wind, hauling to the north—west when she got into the meridian of 30 degrees W. (having run from 1,200 to 1,500 miles), by which course she might expect to pass through but a narrow belt of variable winds, and reach the north-east trade in 7 degrees or 8 degrees N., perhaps with no greater detention than one or two days. The distance between Cape Coast and Barbadoes is about 4,000 miles, and probably either a sailing vessel or a steamer would take a month to make it. A sailing ship like the transport employed should certainly make the passage as quickly as a paddle steamer. She would get into the south-east trade in three days from leaving Capt Coast, and once into that wind experience has always shown that sickness contracted on the Coast of Africa speedily disappears."

And he says likewise—

"In the days of Horsburgh ships crossed the belt of variable winds too far to the eastward, and, consequently, were much delayed. Modern experience has shown that by crossing the line well to the westward no such delays are experienced."

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Sanitary Regulations for Field Service issued by the Secretary of State, were obeyed before the Army took the field for the Ashantee War?

replied, that the sanitary regulations referred to were included in the book of Medical Regulations which were directed to be, and he believed were, in the hands of every surgeon in the Army. It was specially laid down in these regulations, that the senior medical officer should be responsible for seeing that the sanitary regulations were carried out, and he had not received any Report to the effect that those regulations had not been carried out.

said, the Motion he had to bring forward was one perfectly devoid of party considerations. It was,

"That in case of any modification of the indirect Taxation of this Country the Excise on Malt requires consideration."

He hought he should be able to prove to every Member of that House, that the proposition was reasonable, just, and equitable. All he required and asked was, that every hon. Member of that House, be he of whatever party he might, would do him the kindness to listen to what he had to say, and see if what he said was not borne out by facts, and then, after listening, to say if he could conscientiously vote against his Motion. That seemed to be taking rather high ground; but he stood on the justice of his cause. He was not going into statistics, nor would he weary the House by reading lengthy papers, but he would rely entirely on the justice of his cause. Now, he thought no man would deny that of analogous taxes the excise upon malt stood alone in one respect, inasmuch as it was almost the only tax that had not been modified or in some way altered. Whilst analogous taxes had been dealt with in some way the malt tax had not been touched. That singularity of position was one reason for considering the subject. But the malt tax had another peculiarity, and it was this—that it was a tax levied on the soil of England, upon an article which we produced or manufactured, and that which we within ourselves consumed. It was a tax that no one would deny fell heavily on the poor man who drunk a glass of beer. It was a tax that fell extremely heavy in that respect on the poor. The rich people who drank wine had been relieved to a certain degree by the remission to some extent of the tax on wine, but the poor man was still taxed heavily through his beer. No one would deny the next assertion, which was this, that the malt tax hung like a millstone round the farmer's neck. It checked him in his industry; it prevented the due course through which he would cultivate his land, and it prevented him from furnishing to his poor labourer that which would be a luxury to him. These were simple facts that were well known; but he would draw them together, and exhibit them to the mind of every impartial person, and ask him if he did not consider that such a tax was not worthy of consideration. One or two remarks had been made on the malt tax, on which he wished to make some observations. It had been said that the malt tax should not be interfered with, because it fell on the class of persons who were the least heavily taxed, and paid the least for the public benefit. He denied that, for it fell most heavily on a class of people who paid most to the general benefit of the State— he meant the agriculturists. Who paid the poor rate? Who paid the highway rate? Who paid the county rate? And who paid the church rate? These rates were all paid by the land. No doubt there were large manufacturers who paid considerably to the revenue, but look at their profits. Considering the profits of various classes, the agriculturist paid more than any other person to the revenue. There had been another observation made by persons high in authority. It had been his good fortune to receive a piece of friendly advice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who advised him to consider that in any modification of the tax on malt the benefit would be greater to England than to Ireland or Scotland. That suggestion was made with a view, he presumed, to induce him to forego his Motion, but he was not disposed to do so, for certain reasons; and although that observation came from a gentleman whose every observation, from his experience and talent, would command respect, he did not think it was worthy of him. If the observation that they would be doing an injustice to Ireland or Scotland by granting a boon to England were worth anything, it must have been based upon the assumption that all the malt which was made in England was brewed in England, and that the beer was drunk in the same country. But the fact was that there was hardly a public-house in Ireland or Scotland in which you did not get English beer, and not many public-houses in England in which you did not get Irish and Scotch whisky. He believed that there was much more reciprocity of drink than was generally supposed. Even, however, if all the malt which was made in England was consumed in this country, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not a statesmanlike one. The tax, then, was levied on the poor, it was a burden on the agriculturist, it stood entirely alone, and it was levied on the producer and the consumer. He would say that if the exigencies of the State required that the tax should be maintained at its full extent—and if England had for the last few years a difficulty to make both ends meet—if the exigencies of the country had rendered this tax necessary, he would not for a moment have proposed a modification of it; but for the last two or three years they had been reducing the taxation, and that had been so done as to secure an increasing revenue, and as the surplus accrued it had been applied to the relief of various classes in the country; but the agriculturists had not yet had their share. What relief did the abolition of the paper duty give to the agriculturists? It gave relief to manufacturers in large towns, with whom it was no doubt a good thing to stand well at the elections; but fair play was a jewel, and he was anxious that if there was a surplus the agricultural interest should have a chance with the rest. It had been said that it was inexpedient to attempt to foreshadow the future, and that prospective legislation was inexpedient. He was prepared to admit that there was a good deal of truth in that; but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made use of such an argument he ought to be consistent, and abstain from fore-shadowings himself. He had not, however, done so. He had spoken of probable reductions of other taxes, and had foreshadowed, to his mind at all events, that the agriculturists would look in vain for any modification or consideration of the malt duty; and it was that circumstance which had induced him to bring forward his Motion and to take the sense of the House upon the subject. As regarded the requirements of the State, for the last two years they had been progressing steadily towards an increased surplus. That was no doubt to some extent brought about by the extreme good management of their financial Minister, for whose abilities he entertained the highest respect, but he thought it was very greatly owing to the extreme vitality of England herself. They saw around them on all sides evidence of increasing wealth. If they went out to Bayswater and Kensington and saw the magnificent houses built there and inhabited as soon as they were erected, they must feel there was an increase of wealth. In many instances it was derived from the colonies, but from whatever source it came there it was, and no doubt could be entertained of the increasing wealth of the country. They had been in flourishing circumstances in their adversity. Even during the cotton famine, and whilst paying so enormously for expensive ships and arms, they had bad a surplus. No doubt that had been diminished to the present time by the cotton famine. But though we had been under a dark cloud, light was breaking in on our horizon. We were now getting into better circumstances, unless it pleased God that we should be engaged in war; but if we should be so engaged, and if it should be necessary to sup- port the honour and integrity of England throughout the length and breadth of the world, he, for one, should never speak a word about the reduction of that or any other tax. But, under present circumstances, when we had a right to look forward to a constant, steady, and increasing surplus, he did not think he had chosen an inopportune occasion for bringing forward his Motion. It was in consequence of what had gone before that we had a right to expect, in case of any modification of indirect taxation, that the malt tax, instead of being treated with contempt, should receive due and proper consideration. He had thus endeavoured to convince the impartial mind of the House that his Resolution was a fair, an equitable, an honest, and a reasonable one. But there was one person in the House whom he would rather persuade than all the rest put together. He did not mean exactly that; but he would be proud, indeed, if he could persuade the right hon. Gentleman. He had heard it said that the constant contemplation of pounds, shillings, and pence—the adding up of accounts, the balancing of books, and the general endeavour to "make both ends meet," although it produced a great deal of cleverness and subtlety, did not ennoble the man nor enlarge his heart. Judging, however, from the general attributes and character of the right hon. Gentleman, he would fain believe and hope that in his speech the right hon. Gentleman would demonstrate to the House that his occupation had in no way sullied or clouded that clear insight—with which he must have been born—into the difference between justice and injustice, between right and wrong. He was quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman would allow his mind impartially to dwell on this subject, he would come to the conclusion that in future modifications of indirect taxes in this country, he having given a chance to every other class of taxpayers, the excise upon malt required consideration.

seconded the Amendment.

said, as it would appear from negative indications given by the House, that the debate was to be restricted within the narrow limits of a duel between the hon. Member (Mr. Morritt) and himself, he could wish that whether he succeeded or not in dealing with the argument in support of the Motion, he should be able to imitate the temper in which the hon. Gentleman had brought the subject before the House. The questions before the House were, on the one side, that in any future modification of indirect taxation the malt tax required consideration, and, on the other, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. In point of fact, the Motion of the hon. Member was met by another, which, according to the forms of the House, was equivalent in this instance to the "Previous Question;" and those who voted that the Speaker should leave the Chair would not pronounce a negative on the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, but would indicate in a Parliamentary way that they doubted whether the House should be called upon at present to pass any opinion upon the hon. Gentleman's Motion. It was not a negative of the proposition that the Government asked the House to pronounce, and he should be very sorry to go the length of putting a negative on it. The hon. Gentleman admitted that it was generally unwise to pledge the House beforehand to make a selection of subjects for remission of taxation at a period when they must be necessarily in the dark upon many questions which ought to bear upon the matter. The hon. Gentleman thought himself justified in the course he had taken by assuming that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as the representative of the Government in matters of finance, had endeavoured by anticipation to exclude the malt duty from consideration. But such had not been his intention. It was quite true that in presenting his financial statement he offered a partial argument against the remission of the malt duty; but that was strictly and exclusively from one point of view—namely, from the competition in which the malt duty stood at that moment as the favourite subject of an important movement in the country, and with reference to the actual surplus at the time. It was not, therefore, that he wished the House to arrive at any conclusion with respect to its future course in regard to that tax. He would admit that, for a man standing in his position, it would be ten times more objectionable to endeavour to exclude the malt duty from the consideration of Parliament than for a private Member, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that, when he spoke upon the question, he was reviewing several taxes which were thought fit subjects for reduction on account of the then existing surplus, and it was with respect to a comparison of the malt tax with the duties on sugar and tea alone that he used the argument. He trusted that he had disposed of the main ground which the hon. Gentleman urged as his justification for asking the House to do that which on general grounds was scarcely defensible—to pledge itself in a certain degree as to the disposal of the surplus not at present existing. The hon. Gentleman would not deny that the effect of his Motion was to establish that doctrine. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted that it was capable of being alleged that the Motion, considered as an abstract proposition, in its terms, in the literal and grammatical meaning of its terms, was not only admissible but that it was incontrovertible— that in case of any modification of the indirect taxes of the country the excise duty on malt required consideration. Nothing could be more fair than to admit the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. But there were a great many propositions which were most fit to form the subject of an expression of opinion not only by private, but even by official men, which would assume an entirely new character when under peculiar circumstances they were placed on the Journals of that House, because it would be said, that though the propositions were true, yet it was not the business of that House to place upon its Journals all propositions that were true. And then the question would arise why, if the House thought fit to inscribe those pro-positions upon its Journals, it was not also fit to inscribe others equally true land pertinent to other matters? The duties upon tea and upon sugar were worthy of consideration, for though they had made a very large reduction in the duty upon tea it was still much heavier than the malt duty. He admitted the tea duty was a Customs duty, and therefore, as far as regarded form, was easier than a duty of Excise. But as far as restraint was concerned, a Customs duty on tea of 100 per cent was more restrictive than an Excise duty upon malt of a much lower amount. The meaning of the hon. Gentleman's proposition, as far as it was unexceptionable, was that it was the duty of the Government and of Parliament, from time to time when they had a surplus, to make an impartial review of the claims of various taxes for reduction. But, if the House were to affirm a Motion of that kind at once, it would carry it out of the region of literal truth, and render the declaration open to every objection which would lie against it as practically untrue. It was intended to anticipate a judgment on the subject, not wholly, but partially; and he put it to the impartial opinion of hon. Members whether such a decision ought to be anticipated at all. It was a great mischief to anticipate. It led to the creation of expectations which were in the nature of promises—promises from Members to constituents, from the House of Commons to the people. It might, perhaps, be said that he himself had made such promises. He could not admit that. It might be necessary, in support of particular proposals, in order to let the House comprehend their nature, that the consequences to flow from them should be indicated: but he had always protested, and he must always protest, against the practice of making a promise, or anything like a promise, in regard to such matters, as detrimental to the character and dignity of the House. He was sure the hon. Gentleman did not wish to lay up, for the future, causes of unnecessary dispute and contention. Experience, however, had shown that declarations of the kind, made in anticipation of circumstances which had not arrived, tended very considerably to aggravate political controversy when the time came. There was the case of the paper duty, for instance. It stood on record that the Resolution with respect to the paper duties, although of a very open character in its terms, was felt, in the result, an important Motion, though not a sole or conclusive one, in the selection of that measure of remission for a proposition to the House. But so far was it from being admitted that the declarations on that subject bound Government or Parliament in any degree, or justified the proposition which he made, there was rather absolute resentment at its being quoted, and the effect of it was to embitter the debate. He was not, of course, saying who was right or wrong in that case, but merely stating the effect of the abstract declaration. And now, he would ask, what sort of a surplus would be required in order to deal with the malt tax in an effectual manner? The House had for several years shown a strong inclination, not to lay down an unbending rule, but to adopt as a general practice the method of dividing any surplus between the subjects of direct and indirect taxation. He did not suppose the hon. Gentleman opposite would wish to commit the House to a Resolution to forego altogether the claims of the income tax, in order to apply the whole surplus to the reduction of the malt tax. [MR. MORRITT: I limited my Motion to indirect taxation.] But if the hon. Member desired to deal with the malt tax, of course it must be in a manner that would produce some sensible effect on the price of the commodity. He would not be content with a reduction of less than a half. [MR. MORRITT: I said a third.] The hon. Gentleman must take care that in trying to strengthen he did not weaken his argument, and lay his plan open to the objection, that while greatly diminishing the revenue it would leave all the evils of Excise restraint in force, and would not diminish the price of the commodity. He thought the general opinion was that the reduction of the malt duty by half was the minimum of change which it would be worth while to make. But for a reduction of between a half and a third they must have at command about £2,000,000, as the share of the surplus applicable to the diminution of indirect taxation. They were not so happy, however, as to have every year such a sum available for the purpose. Even a million, or half a million, was a large sum to have at command. The hon. Member spoke of millstones round the neck of the agriculturist, but they must take care not to impede the House of Commons in the discharge of its difficult duties by hanging millstones like that round its neck. They must take care not to expose the House to the reproach of bad faith, if it did not give preference to the malt tax, when it had at disposal a surplus capable of effecting great good if applied in other directions, but quite inappreciable and worthless when applied to the malt tax. They should endeavour to keep their honour clear and their words unambiguous in the face of the country; but the Motion was open to the objection of ambiguity, which was the most serious disadvantage which could attach to a legislative declaration. When it was said that in the reductions which had taken place of late years no relief had been given to malt, he must remind hon. Members of what took place thirty-five years ago. The country came out of the great war with France with a system of Customs duties wound up to the highest point on every article, oppressing, restraining—aye, in many cases, extinguishing trade and industry. In 1829, it was the good fortune of Parliament to possess a surplus of £3,000,000. Had that surplus been applied in the same manner as subsequent surpluses, for the relief of trade and industry, instead of being devoted to the reduction of the taxation on beer, a greater benefit would have been conferred on the country at large, and even that particular class which was interested in beer would have gained more by the increased strength and prosperity of the country through the general relief of trade. The repeal of that duty was a very strong measure, and certainly tended to weaken very much any residue of claims which might be made on behalf of that commodity to further relief. No other article had been relieved to the same extent as beer. In general terms, half of the duty weighing upon it was removed at once, and thus a benefit was given to England almost exclusively among the three kingdoms, and to a particular interest almost exclusively in England. The reduction of that duty was no doubt an advantage to the consumer, but it was a small advantage, indeed, compared to that he would have derived from the application of the money to the removal, in a more general manner, of the fetters on the trade and industry of the country. The hon. Gentleman had said that the malt duty was a millstone round the necks of the agriculturists; but, if so, he wanted to know what was to be thought of the duty upon spirits, which had an operation upon barley the same in principle as the malt tax, but in amount far more severe. Notwithstanding the repeal of the Corn Laws, the price of barley of late years had moved upwards instead of downwards, and while the malt tax was from 50 to 60 per cent upon malt, though not more than from 20 to 25 per cent upon beer, the spirit duty was from 400 to 500 per cent upon spirits. It would thus be seen that the millstone argument, if it had any weight at all, was far more applicable to the case of the spirit duty than that of the malt tax. The hon. Gentleman, again, had said there was no force in the argument derived from the pressure of the spirit duty and malt tax upon the three kingdoms. Every one knew that the great bulk of the malt tax was paid in England, but that, it had been said, was no reason why the tax should not be repealed. Certainly not, if the question was looked at in the abstract, and if the malt tax were an exceptional duty levied upon a commodity used in England, while the corresponding commodities used in Scotland and Ireland paid no duty at all. For example, if Scotchmen and Irishmen consumed not whisky but cider, upon which there was no duty whatever, the case against the malt tax would be immensely enhanced by its exclusiveness; but the truth was, Scotland and Ireland were far more heavily taxed in respect of their favourite liquor than England. Perhaps it was wrong that Scotchmen should drink whisky, but they must be allowed to judge for themselves, and he must say that whisky, when diluted into toddy, in which shape it was largely consumed, ought not to be made the subject of any very severe or sweeping condemnation. On the whole, then, he thought the House should pause before it gave a very large amount of public revenue to a commodity almost exclusively used in England, and, at the same time, left the corresponding commodities used in Scotland and Ireland under an overwhelming weight of taxation. But he did not think it desirable on the part of the Government that he should discuss this question at length. He had objected to embodying premature and unnecessary declarations of opinion in the shape of Resolutions, and he felt that the argument against the Motion of the hon. Gentleman had a tendency to lead him further than he should wish to go with respect to the merits of the question itself. It was desirable that the whole question of the malt tax should remain open and unprejudiced. At present he could not undertake to say what might be expedient for Parliament to do in future years. He had no means of ascertaining what sums might be at its disposal for the relief of the taxpayers, though on that point, apart from great convulsions, apart from special and extraordinary causes, he thought we might be justified in humbly entertaining sanguine hopes. It was to be hoped, therefore, that the House would carefully avoid embarrassing its future action by any premature declaration of opinion respecting the malt tax, and with the view of enabling it to do so, he had no hesitation in moving, as an Amendment, That the Speaker should now leave the Chair, which might be taken as equivalent to the previous Question.

said, he accepted, with pleasure, the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the subject of the malt tax was entitled to serious consideration, but he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have subsequently hinted, by his mysterious allusion to the tea and sugar duties in the present, and to the beer duty in the past, that in his opinion the repeal of the malt tax would be inexpedient for many years to come. There could be no doubt whatever as to the impropriety of the House of Commons pledging itself beforehand to the diminution or repeal of any particular duty on financial grounds, but in the case of the Malt Tax there were social and political considerations which might render a departure from that general rule both justifiable and expedient. The Motion of the hon. Member for the North Riding was merely a supplement to that past system of fiscal re-arrangement which commenced in 1842, but which, in the opinion of those who represented the agricultural interest, was not carried far enough. Since 1842 every tax which was thought to press upon the springs of industry, or which affected any branch of our textile manufactures, had been altogether repealed. The particular ground on which these great changes—changes which caused great distress among the agricultural classes—were justified, was the broad political ground that if they were once adopted, all causes of dissension between class and class would be removed, and that henceforth the agriculturist and the manufacturer would not be divided into hostile camps. But so long as the malt tax remained untouched was it true to say that there was no class of producers, no class of manufacturers, affected—and unjustly affected—by our present system? It was impossible to deny but that on the producers of barley on the one hand, and the manufacturers of meat on the other, these restrictions pressed harshly and unjustly. It was often said with respect to the growers of barley on good barley land, that the malt tax did not operate in a prejudicial manner towards them when they had a good harvest. But what was that but saying that with a bad harvest, and on indifferent ground, the malt tax did operate injuriously? And is it for free traders to justify a tax which punishes producers for a bad harvest in the one case, and for managing their business as they think best in the other? He now came to the other class—the manufacturers of meat. Perhaps no occupation now open to the farmers of England, Ireland, or Scotland was more profitable than the manufacture of meat, but it was quite evident that the malt tax did operate as a great hindrance and drawback on the manufacturers of meat. That was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in the Bill which he introduced to allow malt free of duty to be used for the feeding of cattle. It was said, and said truly, that that Bill was a dead letter. The grievance was admitted but not remedied, and never would be remedied, until the producer of barley could apply it to the production of meat in the way most likely to benefit himself in his trade. The right hon. Gentleman went on to consider the question as affecting the general producer, and said that unless the House abolished one-half of the malt tax he did not see that any good would result to the consumer of beer. It was not necessary to take into consideration at present the proportion of the malt tax which might be reduced in a future year. It was sufficient that the Resolution was sound in principle, and on that ground they were justified in supporting it. He believed that in the case of the malt duty, as in the wine duty, and all that class of duties, where there was a considerable reduction in the amount of duty there would be a considerable relief to the consumer, and that there would be a recovery of the revenue. Two years ago his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) whose absence, and particularly the cause of it, the whole House would regret, said, and said truly, that what wine was to the upper classes beer was to the lower, and consequently they had a right to argue by analogy from the effect of the diminution of the wine duties what would be the effect of the diminution of the malt tax. One of the most eminent and able permanent servants of the Crown, Sir Emerson Tennant, had, published an elaborate treatise to show that if the wine duty was reduced the revenue would be permanently reduced; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not deterred by that prediction. In 1860 he reduced the duty, and in that year the total amount of gallons entered for home consumption was 7,272,308, and the amount of duty received was £1,828,998. He would pass over the next year, because the duty was then in a transitory state. The first year the new duties came into full operation the consumption had increased to 9,756,705 gallons, and the duty had fallen to £1,107,420. No doubt that was a most important and serious loss. But in 1864 the consumption had risen to 10,664,250 gallons, and the revenue to £1,233,824, showing an improvement in the revenue to the extent of £125,000 in three years. There was no reason to believe that a similar recovery would not follow a reduction of the duty on malt; à priori there was every reason to say that it would be more immediate and satisfactory. Every gallon of wine had to be produced abroad, and the consumption was liable to fluctuations from caprices in taste and habits; but beer and ale, which were produced at home, were as deeply rooted in the affections of the English people as anything could be. A writer in the first century had described the Britons as a people drinking fermented liquor made from barley, which was not known to any other people in Europe, and the earliest records of Parliament showed that one of its first Acts was to fix the maximum price of beer. There was no reason to doubt that the increased consumption of beer which would follow the reduction of the duty on malt would be greater than most people imagined. He was told that that might be so, but that the increased consumption of beer would decrease the consumption of spirits. He did not believe that in the least, and for the truth of that he would appeal to the figures which had been presented to the House. When the duty on wine was reduced and the consumption increased, did the consumption of beer or spirits fall off? Just the contrary. The duty on spirits during that period had increased about half a million, but the revenue on malt had remained stationary owing to the exorbitant duty. The House should remember this other illustration—that whereas in the first half of the last century the duty on malt varied from 7d. to 2s. 7d., and the population never exceeded 8,000,000, the consumption of malt was quite as large as the consumption during the first sixty years of the present century, when the population had risen to 20,000,000—and why? Because in the interval the malt had been quintupled. This showed that the duty on malt kept down the consumption, and the moment the malt duty was reduced there was every reason to believe that there would be a greatly increased consumption of beer and other articles produced from malt. The right hon. Gentleman had touched on what might be called the geographical or nationality argument. When he (Lord John Manners) first heard the argument he was startled. He had no idea that the principle of nationality had made such way in that House, and that we had to apportion our taxation by geographical considerations. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have been oblivious of geographical considerations in 1860, for he stood confessedly guilty of what he must now deem the great national crime of adding £2,000,000 of taxation on Ireland and Scotland, without imposing one halfpenny of taxation on England. In 1860 the right hon. Gentleman raised the duty on spirits to 10s. per gallon on 20.000,000 gallons, thus imposing the £2,000,000 of additional taxation to which he had referred. He presumed that at that time the light hon. Gentleman was not so impressed with his nationality argument; or perhaps, indeed, that he had not invented it. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about cider, and reminded the House that it was an untaxed drink. But how did that apply to the argument of nationality? There was a duty of 10s. per barrel on cider previous to 1830. It was then abolished, and what was the result? In fifteen years the consumption of cider had exactly doubled itself. Was the right hon. Gentleman, to redress the grievance of Scotland and Ireland and nine-tenths of England, to turn round on the cider counties and impose a duty of 10s. per barrel on cider? Let the House look for a moment into the question of nationality as it affected Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said that in Scotland ardent spirits were the national drink. It was not a fortunate thing perhaps for Scotland that such was the case. But if spirits were the national drink of the people of Scotland, when and why did they become so? He had no doubt the House would remember the authentic ballad of King Arthur's Court, and the character of the servants he entertained, and the melancholy fate that befel those servants—

"Usquebaugh burnt the Irishman,

The Scot was drowned in ale."

He apprehended that there was nothing more clear than that at the commencement of the last century beer and ale were not only the drink of Scotch men but of Scotch women. In 1742 the Lord President Duncan Forbes addressed a memorial to the English Government complaining of the melancholy position into which the finances of Scotland had fallen, in which he said—

"The cause of the mischief we complain of is evidently the excessive use of tea, which is now become so common that the meanest families, even of labouring people, particularly in boroughs, make their morning's meal of it, and therein wholly disuse the ale which heretofore was their accustomed drink, and the same drug supplies all the labouring women with their afternoon's entertainments to the exclusion of the two penny."

Why was the twopenny driven out of Scotland? The answer was that it was driven out by tea; but how came it that tea drove it out? The malt tax was imposed in Scotland in 1710, and what was the result? Why, in Glasgow, Leith, and all the great towns of Scotland there was bloodshed, and there arose a resistance of so formidable a character that the Peers of Scotland in London carne together, and proposed a repeal of the Union between the two countries, and they were within an ace of succeeding, as they were only beaten by one vote. Therefore it was quite clear that in twenty years the people had been, against their will, driven to give up the drink they had formerly used, and taken to tea, upon which no duty was imposed until 1723. Therefore it was legislation of a fiscal character that had forced the people of Scotland to give up their old accustomed and popular drink to take refuge first in tea and subsequently in whisky; and, as legislation had done the mischief, Scotland had a fair right to ask that legislation should undo it. A few years ago he was walking in the classic groves of Keir with his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire, when they came upon some men who were felling trees. He saw among the trees what he took to be an English cask, and, upon inquiring what it was, was informed that it was a cask of beer, which the men had asked to have instead of whisky. This was a most excellent change of taste, and for the sake of Scotland he wished that a great deal more beer was consumed there, Every hon. Member from Scotland ought to support the Motion of his hon. Friend, which might have the effect of substituting for the excessive use of ardent spirits the consumption of a wholesome beverage like beer. Let the House also look at Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary told them the other night that even in spite of the crushing effect of the malt tax, and the deleterious character of the beer supplied, the consumption had so largely increased that during the time he had been in the Irish office about 300 beershops bad been opened in Dublin alone. That showed that the national bent of the Irish people was not exclusively towards spirits, and that if they could get beer they would be glad to consume it. Was there an Irish Member who had at heart the social improvement of the Irish people who would not gladly see the consumption of spirits considerably reduced by the substitution of beer? Then let them hear no more about the question of nationality. That which was good for England was good for Ireland and Scotland, and he sincerely trusted that all who had at heart the social, moral, and political welfare of the people of the three kingdoms would join together and present a firm front in favour of diminishing, and, they might hope, ultimately abolishing the tax, which was unjust in principle, unequal in operation, and productive indirectly of the worst effects in promoting the intemperance of the people. Another argument which he had heard used in the course of these debates was, that so great was the improvement in the beer brewed by the great brewers, and so great were the facilities which railway communication gave for the transmission of beer from the great brewers to different towns and villages, that there would be little recourse to private brewing even if the malt tax were repealed. To a certain extent that was true. Wherever there were large towns and convenient railway communication, it was probable that many of the class who fifty or a hundred years ago brewed would not now do so. But that was not true of many rural districts and places which had yet no railway communication. He was himself acquainted with a district in Shropshire in which, even under the disadvantages of the existing tax, the labouring people had never given up the habit of brewing. In that district every cottage that was built was provided with a proper brewhouse and copper. The farmers were in the habit of offering the labouring man 1s. a week extra, or half a bushel of malt once a month, and every labourer who had a copper chose the malt and rejected the shilling. If in any portion of the country they revived the habit of private brewing they would revive one which tended directly to increase the morality, happiness, and comfort of the labouring people. He would not now enter upon the question of the evil influence exercised by beerhouses upon the population. It was sufficient to say that every man who lived in the country knew that a great proportion of the smaller and a considerable amount of the greater crimes which afflicted the rural districts had its source in the beershop. He did not press that argument, but anything which tended to diminish the resort of the labouring man to the beerhouse did good to himself, to his family, and to the community among which he lived. He had to apologize to the House for having said so much, but on all these grounds of financial justice, of morality, and of increasing the comforts of the poor, he besought them to give a favourable hearing to the modest proposition of his hon. Friend.

observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exhorted them not to pass abstract Resolutions; but he would remind the House that the repeal or diminution of the duties on paper, advertisements, and wine had in each case been preceded by a Resolution of that character. There must be a considerable difference of opinion on the subject between the right hon. Gentleman and some of his Colleagues. Some years ago when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to reduce the duties upon wine, he dwelt with great force upon the adulteration to which wine was subjected. The argument was equally applicable to beer, and if it supplied a good reason for reducing the duty on wine, then it ought to be good for the reduction of the malt duty. He thought that free trade agriculturists had been too long treated on the principle of "Heads, I win, and tails, you lose." He therefore hoped that at the next opportunity the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take their case into consideration and do them justice.

, who had the following Notice on the paper:—

"That the owners and occupiers of land, by reason of the immunities from Taxation which they now enjoy, and the comparative lightness of the burdens to which they are subject, are not entitled to any priority of consideration on any review of the Taxation of the Country,"

said, he had to apologize for not being present to move the Motion of which he had given Notice; but he had been under the impression that the House would not meet till six o'clock. He admitted that he had placed his Notice on the paper as a kind of challenge to the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and he regretted that he had not been in his place to make it good. If he had had an opportunity of moving his Resolution, he should have observed that he could not regard the agitation for a repeal of the malt tax in any other light than as one intended for the benefit of the landed interests. It was true that it had been argued as a consumer's question; but he confessed he did not think the party opposite as the quarter where any great anxiety would be felt for the good of the consumer. Now he proposed to show that the agricultural interests enjoyed a great immunity from taxation. The most serious burden upon the land was no doubt tithe; but as to the poor rate, about which so much was said, he did not see how it was more a burden upon land than upon any other property. The agriculturists complained of the exemption of stock-in-trade; but, after all, what good would it do the agriculturists if that exemption were repealed? If there were a National poor rate there might be something in the question; but when the stock-in-trade of a parish was all of the same kind, it could not make any real difference; it would only make the difference between rating half or the whole of each man's property. No doubt land did contribute something, but it did not contribute to the same extent as personal property; and he thought it ought to pay up the arrears which were due from it in consequence of the unjust exemption it had so long enjoyed from the payment of probate duty. The land was in fact in the position of a man that presented a very small account to some one that had a very long account against him. He would do much better not to stir in the matter. One of the great questions that the next Parliament would have to consider would be that of direct as against indirect taxation. Now, the malt tax served as a buffer to shield the land from any attack; but if it were ever removed it would leave it defenceless against inquiry into inequalities from which it now benefited. ["Divide, divide!"] Did hon. Members who were crying out "Divide" really mean to act in the spirit of this Motion when they crossed the House? He believed they did not; and it was unworthy of a great party for mere electioneering purposes to hold out expectations which they never meant to fulfil.

said, he should vote for the Resolution, although he should not have done so if it had proposed an immediate interference with the revenue With regard to the proposition of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), implying that special exemptions were given to land, exceed in value the special burdens resting thereon, he had to say that whenever that hon. Gentleman should think fit to raise that issue, he (Mr. Newdegate) would be prepared to controvert the proposition. He should vote for the Resolution before the House, not merely with a view to the repeal of the malt tax, but with the intention of recording an opinion, that when ever a revision of taxation might be again considered, whenever there should be a surplus, which would render a reduction of taxation feasible, the subject of the malt tax should be considered not merely with reference to a repeal of the malt tax, but with reference to the position of the agricultural interest and the consumer as affected by the malt tax, and with a view to the adjustment of other taxation to the inequality produced by the malt tax if the malt tax is not repealed. It was for that purpose he gave his vote with the hon. Member for the North Riding in order to mark his sense of the injustice that would be done unless the incidence of the malt tax were considered in any future adjustment of taxation.

said, he rose to call attention to the system pursued of removing paupers and persons under sentence of banishment from Jersey to the seaports of England, especially Southampton. He had previously brought the Question before the House upon a memorial from the corporation of Southampton, complaining that people under sentence for crime, and paupers, were provided with a free passage from Jersey, and shipped to Southampton and other ports, where they became a burden to the ratepayers. He had been happy to hear that with regard to Guernsey that statement was not correct, but with regard to Jersey he was fortified with documents in support of the complaint he made on behalf of Southampton, In 1847, the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the criminal law of the Channel Islands reported against the practice in question The Jersey Civil Law Commissioners of 1859 also stated that strong representations had been made to them of the hardship to which the poorer classes who were not natives of Jersey were liable—of being at once removed from the Island to the place of their birth if they should become chargeable upon the rates. That was, they added, not only a great hardship upon the labouring classes, by whose industry the Island had for a long series of years been benefited, but also upon the port of Southampton, to which these paupers usually found their way. He had placed himself in communication with the authorities of Southampton; and by a letter from the clerk to the Board of Guardians, dated the 1st of June, 1864, it appeared that there was no doubt that since July, 1861, to December, 1863, no less than thirty-two persons either under sentence of banishment, or paupers who had no settlement in Jersey, had in this way been deported, become chargeable to the rates, and in that time cost the parish not less than £250. He had also been favoured with a letter from a resident in Jersey, whom he had asked whether persons belonging to the criminal class were allowed the privilege of a free passage. That gentleman replied that occasionally in cases before the Royal Court persons on promising to leave the Island were allowed to go without being sentenced, or after receiving very slight sentences. Another gentleman, who had published a work on the laws of Jersey, wrote to him stating that banishment from Jersey meant simply transportation to England; and that though the law had in practice been somewhat modified, so far as the severer penal cases were concerned, yet it might be revived and put in force at any time. That gentleman also mentioned an instance of some persons from Jersey being sent to the English hulks, where they were disposed of according to the English practice, and at English expense. Free passages were given to paupers, who were thrown on the shores of this country, and became chargeable to the English rates; but he admitted that the paragraph in a petition he had formerly presented, stating that burglars and offenders of a high character were banished to England, was inaccurate. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he has received any Report upon the subject from the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey?

said, that when the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward the subject some time ago he (Sir George Grey) stated that he had only received a report from the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey, but not from the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey. He had, however, recently received a report from Jersey, upon the memorial of the corporation of Southampton. The memorial referred to the removal of persons charged with some crime to this country—he did not think it entered into the question of the removal of paupers—and therefore the Report of the Lieutenant Governor related only, he believed, to criminals or persons charged with crime. The best way of affording the House full information upon the subject would be to produce the memorial of the Town Council of Southampton, the letter referring it to the authorities of Jersey and Guernsey, and the Reports of the Lieutenant Governors of those Islands. If the hon. Gentleman would move for those papers they would be produced. But there had been in addition a correspondence conducted by the Poor Law Board with reference to the removal of paupers, which was quite a distinct question, but he had no doubt that that might be produced also.

said, he would beg leave to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the discrepancies which, he contended, existed between the Bill and a Bill introduced last Session with respect to brewers. On a former occasion the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that it would not be wise to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland on this subject; but in the present Bill there was a proposal for uniformity. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state why the Irish brewers were included in the measure. He also wished to ask for explanation as to the 16th clause, which deprived magistrates of the power of allowing a person convicted of illicit distillation a few days for the payment of the penalty.

said, that hon. Members would readily understand why he had not made any statement on the Bill. It consisted of twenty clauses; but as no two of them related to one subject, he thought the better course would be to treat the Bill clause by clause. With reference to Clause 16, objected to by the hon. Member for the King's County, he would agree to postpone it, and the discussion could be taken on it when bringing up the Report. The 9th and 10th clauses merely facilitated the execution of the law; they imposed no new burden, and did not interfere at all with the provisions of the new Beer Act. One of them, indeed, would confer a great benefit upon licensed victuallers in Ireland, for it would allow them for the first time to brew their own beer.

referred to an understanding with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion, that upon the introduction of the present mea sure the half yearly licences of Irish hawkers should be obtainable on the same principle as those obtained by English hawkers.

said, that the clause must interfere with the Beerhouses Bill, because the Government recommended that Bill as exceptional legislation, which, they said, was necessary for Ireland, while the clause declared that it was expedient that the laws relating to brewing should be made uniform throughout the United Kingdom.

said, that as the Bill was only delivered to hon. Members on the 18th inst., and no opportunity had been given to the brewers of Ireland to see and consider it, he should like to have some explanation as to its objects.

said, he could only repeat the explanation which he gave before the Speaker left the Chair. He was willing, however, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired it, to take care that there should be an opportunity of discussing on the Report any clauses the meaning of which he did not understand. The Bill had nothing to do with the Beerhouses Bill, one being of a fiscal character, and the other relating only to police regulations.

said, he wished to ask for some explanation.

It is comprised in what I have said.

See how the Chancellor of the Exchequer is treating me! What is "comprised?"

The statement which I made related to both clauses. They have both the same subject-matter.

That was a little irregular. The clause extended to Ireland certain sections of various Acts of Parliament, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House what would be the effect of them when applied to Ireland.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had taken a course which was totally without precedent in that House. The regulations under which trades which were liable to revenue inspection were conducted were of the most voluminous character, and to call upon him to make such a statement as he had been asked for, and to read, as the hon. Member had done, to the House clauses which did not in the slightest degree explain themselves, was an abuse of the time and patience of the House. The hon. Gentleman had not raised a single definite objection to the clauses. When he stated that he objected to Clause 16, he immediately offered to postpone it, and he would have done the same with these clauses if any reason had been shown for taking such a course. Legislation of a complicated character could not be discussed in all its details, and he must decline to enter into all the details. He had already stated the general effect of these clauses. If objections were taken he would gladly meet them, and he would postpone the clauses if necessary; but he hoped the time of the House would not be wasted by pursuing the present discussion.

said, he had gone through the clauses, and could say that there was nothing objectionable in any one of those which it was proposed to extend to Ireland.

said, he thought this a peculiar mode of legislation. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to state the effect of the clauses.

The effect has been stated.

No description of them whatever was given.

said, that if the Attorney General for Ireland would state that he had gone through all these Acts and could say that they were unobjectionable, he should be satisfied.

said, all that was wanted was that there should be a plain statement of what the Act would do.

said, he would postpone the clauses until the Report if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would promise in the interim to read the sections and make up his mind whether they were objectionable or not.

said, the proposal was merely to substitute the precautions practised in England for those practiced in Ireland, and he really could not tell which were the more effectual. The chief objection seemed to be that so short a time had elapsed since the Bill was before the House that the Irish brewers really would not have time to consider the effect of those provisions.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when appealed to for an explanation, had said that those clauses referred to some fiscal regulation; but he would inform the right hon. Gentleman of the scope of his own Bill. The effect of it would be in one instance to repeal an Act which prohibited adulteration, in the face of a recent statement by the Government that the adulteration of beer was increasing in Ireland. That was one mistake, and another was that a Bill only brought in on the 17th of June, which proposed to inflict on Irish brewers all the regulations existing in England, should be forced on by the Government without explanation, while, when a humble Irish Member asked for explanation, the right hon. Gentleman adopted a tone which was unworthy of his high position. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of looking into the Acts whose provisions he had incorporated in the Bill, but which he had evidently not read, he would move that the Chairman do report Progress.

said that, having appealed in vain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an answer, he now put the question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, rather misunderstood his own position, and ought to have taken a lesson from what occurred not long ago. Having put upon the Notice paper several Amendments to one of the fiscal measures of the right hon. Gentleman, when it came on for discussion at a late hour a Motion of adjournment was made, and the right hon. Gentleman said—

said, the hon. Member was not in order in referring to what was said in a former debate.

said, he thought that he was speaking strictly to the question. With regard to a Bill imposing restrictions similar to those contained in that at present before the Committee, he had ventured to move the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion said, that "an hon. Member who knew nothing of the subject had moved the adjournment of the debate." What was the result? On the very next stage the Bill was thrown out by a majority of four. It was a much more satisfactory mode of conducting business, that when explanations were asked for, they should be given at the time.

said that, bowing to the decision of the Speaker, that it was competent to re-commit the Bill, he intended to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. When the Attorney General for Ireland fixed the Bill for a morning sitting, objections were raised by Irish Members on that (the Opposition) side, from the feeling that they would be deprived of the attendance of English Members, upon whose good sense they relied to defeat what they considered to be a job. All the Irish Members who had given notice of Amendments were also engaged upon Committees, and then no fair opportunity for discussing the Bill would be afforded at morning sittings. It could not be expected that they would make a House to carry a job by which the Irish Members of the Administration were to be benefited. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not consider the motives he (Mr. Longfield) had urged sufficient to induce him to alter his arrangement; but he fixed the Bill for a Tuesday morning sitting, when there were several Orders standing upon the paper. With some difficulty he (Mr. Longfield) left his Committee with a view of moving, if possible, the Amendment of which he had given notice. The Speaker, with his usual punctuality, was ready to take the Chair, but a House was not made till after half-past twelve. He could not longer absent himself from his Committee, which had not a quorum in his absence, and he had no option but to surrender. Defeated by the adroit generalship of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not then bring forward the; Motion of which he had given notice, and was obliged to reserve himself for another occasion. He had now, therefore, to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He entirely agreed with an able writer in the leading journal, that such was the only course, and it was quite a competent course for the House to pursue. The Bill contained 192 clauses, and embraced all manner of technicalities referring to the constitution, practice, procedure, and administration of the Court of Chancery in Ireland. The House was incompetent to deal with such a subject. Unhappily it involved also questions of patronage and jobbing, which a Select Committee upstairs was most competent to deal with, but which a Committee of the whole House, backed by all the power of the subterranean brigade, could not force through. If the Bill were really a bonâ fide measure, intended for the improvement of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, the House might feel assured that the Government would have no hesitation in referring it to a Select Committee. The Bill consisted of five different parts. The first and most important was the nomination of a Vice Chancellor, and the abolition of the Masters of the Court of Chancery. The others related to the procedure and practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and to the superannuation and patronage of the different departments connected with the Court. The Bill, if passed, would add about £10,000 a year to the expense of the administration of justice in the Superior Courts in Ireland. At present the staff of Judges in Ireland numbered, as in England, twenty-two, with only one-tenth of the business. Besides, in Ireland they had the advantage of the four Masters, who were, in truth, Vice Chancellors, though with but small salaries, with which they appeared to be content. Shortly after the Court of Chancery in England had been reformed it was thought good to attempt to reform the Court of Chancery in Ireland on the English model. An Address was moved in the other House praying for the issuing of a Commission to inquire into the practice and procedure of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, with a view to diminish the cost to the suitor and the expenditure of the public money. In 1855 a Royal Commission sat, and recommended among other things the abolition of the Masters of the Court and the Commissioners of the Incumbered Estates Court, and the appointment of two Vice Chancellors. In 1856 a Bill on the subject was introduced into that House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and a second Bill was at the same time brought in by the Government. Those Bills, involving the question of patronage, were referred to a Select Committee, on which sat Sir J. Graham, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Henley, the Law Officers of the Crown, and other eminent men; in fact, an abler Committee could not have been found for the task intrusted to them. The Committee was unanimously of opinion that those Bills were unadvisable, and they were accordingly dropped, and the country cheerfully acquiesced in the decision of the Committee, virtually superseding the unfortunate recommendation of the Royal Commissioners as to the appointment of Vice Chancellors. That Committee recommended, instead, a plan that was acceptable in Ireland and more economical. In 1861, however, another Royal Commission on the same subject was issued; and, to show the House how these things were managed, he might state that the new Commission included six of the very same Gentlemen who had sat as members of the former one. Of course, under those circumstances there could be but one result, namely, that the Commissioners would adhere to their preconceived opinions, and arrived at the conclusion at which they had an interest in arriving. He imputed to those Gentlemen, two of whom were in that House, nothing but what the House imputed to every Member in it when his interest was one way and his judgment was likely to be in the same direction. It required a declaration from every man before it allowed him to sit on the most insignificant group of railways that he had no personal interest himself, and that his constituents had none in the matter referred to him. The House knew that its Members were of the human race, and it took proper precautions against the operation of natural bias on their judgments. That, however, was not done in the case of the Royal Commission of 1861, which was so constituted that it was impossible it could be impartial. But that was not all. The English Commissioners knew nothing of the Irish Court of Chancery, and the Irish Commissioners knew nothing of the English Court; yet they had to consider how they might reduce the cost to suitors, keep down the expenditure of public money, and devise the best system of Chancery procedure. Not being competent themselves to do what they had been appointed to do, they began by at once selecting from the Irish Bar a gentleman of the highest capacity and skill to enlighten their confessed ignorance by drawing up for them an essay on the practice of the Irish Court of Chancery; and the same course was taken in regard to English Chancery practice. It certainly did seem ludicrous that when Royal Commissioners were chosen to inquire into a subject they should get other persons to do it for them. When the essays were printed they formed an octavo volume of some 400 pages, and he would charitably assume, though there might be room for doubt on the point, that all the Commissioners had read it. The Commissioners also sent a number of queries to some forty members of the Irish Bar, most of whom, having something else to do, took no notice of them. To reduce the cost of the suitors, or the expenditure of the public money, was wholly forgotten; but they did not forget the assimilation of the practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland to that of the English Court of Chancery, because that assimilation would involve the abolition of efficient Judges in Ireland and the creation of new ones. But they did not ask a single question of any person who was acquainted with the practice of the English Court of Chancery. The Attorney General had frequently told the House that the proposed change would result in a saving, but there were such awkward things as facts and figures, and he would be a sanguine and a credulous man who should think that there would be any saving whatever, even a prospective one. The new offices immediately contemplated, of one Judge, half-a-dozen chief clerks, and half-a-dozen junior clerks, would form a present addition to the burdens of the country of £10,000 a year. The superannuations would be upwards of £11,000, for the influential gentlemen would be superannuated on full salaries, while the others would have to be content with two-thirds. And all that was irrespective of the building job. At the end of fifteen or twenty years, when those gentlemen who lived at home and enjoyed either their full salaries, or two-thirds of them died, then a saving to the public might, perhaps, commence; but that was problematical, because there was another clause in the Bill which authorized the creation of additional clerks from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury. If there was one way in which money could be spent mischievously and corruptly in Ireland, it was by adding to the Irish Judges. No one believed that new Judges were wanted; it was too absurd. But they were told that such was the recommendation of a Royal Commission. But how had the House dealt with the recommendations of various Royal Commissions before? The recommendations of the Royal Commission that sat ten years ago were afterwards referred to a Select Committee, which did not sanction them. They had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for refusing to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Harbours of Refuge, on the ground that it was not impartially constituted, and that its members had an interest in carrying out a particular plan. And then there was the instance of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into certain public institutions in Dublin, who recommended the extinction of the Museum of Irish Industry.

resumed: The Royal Commissioners who investigated the subject, recommended the abolition of the masters in Chancery, and the substitution for them of a vice chancellor and chief clerks. That they had done entirely regardless of the cost to the country. They had not reported any evidence showing that the assimilation of the Irish and English practice would be judicious; but the Report exhibited on its very face that the idea was a preconceived one. The result would inevitably be that three of the Royal Commissioners would be provided for under the present Bill, Was that a Commission whose recommendations ought to be attended to? In that way the Royal Commissioners were voting themselves placemen to be paid by the public money, which they were told to save. He conceived that the House ought not to refuse to send the Bill to a Select Committee, the Member of which would be able to judge by evidence whether the measure would effect a public saving or not. It had been said that the Bill was for the good of Ireland; but there might be dif- ferent opinions on that point, though it was certainly good for the Royal Commissioners. Indeed, when the Commissioners took upon themselves to declare the wishes of the people of Ireland, he was reminded of that French monarch who said, "I am the State," or the three gentlemen in Tooley Street, who claimed a right to speak in the name of the people of England. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin had shown that the Bill would be attended with a great increase of cost to the suitors, and was the House to be told that it must swallow the measure, which increased the public expenditure and disregarded the interests of the suitors? He contended that it was a case which ought to be submitted to the investigation of a Select Committee. He had on other occasions voted with some hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House to frustrate jobs. He had had the pleasure, in that way, of frustrating the South Kensington job; and if the result of sending the present Bill to a Select Committee was to postpone it, he would be glad, and still more glad if the Bill was altogether frustrated. A more senseless or extravagant project he never knew, and he moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

said, he rose to second the Amendment. Considering the thin state of the House, he thought that they were performing a most solemn farce in now pretending to discuss the Bill. An hon. Member connected with Ireland had twice or thrice moved that the House be counted in order to get it fuller, for it was well known that the subterranean brigade were ready, upon the usual summons, to emerge at any moment from the infernal regions. So far as a reform of the Court of Chancery, which the Bill proposed to effect, was concerned, he could only say, speaking as a country gentleman, that the mode in which the business of that Court was at present transacted in Ireland was perfectly satisfactory. Theoretically Chancery business might be better transacted in England, but Irishmen wanted no change in their system of Chancery procedure. There were in Ireland three masters, men of high legal attainments, and he saw no good reason why those three men should be paid salaries for retiring while others were put in their places who could not give greater satisfaction. He, for one, objected to the change, and should oppose the Bill in every shape and form.

said, he did not propose to discuss the merits of the Bill, but simply wished to enter his protest against the mode of proceeding which its promoters had adopted, believing them, as he did, to be acting in contravention of the established usages of the House. The Bill having been disposed of as it had been on Tuesday last, in Committee of the whole House, ought not, he thought, to be brought forward again in the present Session. On the occasion to which he referred the hon. and learned Member for Clare had, it seemed, voted by mistake with the majority, but he could say for himself, and he believed also for one or two other friends of his, that they were likewise the victims of a mistake, inasmuch as they thought the bell which rang two minutes before four o'clock on Tuesday could not be the division bell, and did not in consequence come into the House and vote in favour of the Chairman's leaving the Chair, as he at all events intended to have done. If a Bill were referred to a Select Committee and that Committee pronounced against it, it was not, he believed, usual to proceed with it in the House, and he did not see why the case in which a Bill happened to be disposed of by a Committee of the whole House should stand on a different footing. He recollected that in 1861, when the second reading of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was moved by Mr. M. Milnes, who had since been translated to a higher, and he hoped a happier sphere, he (Mr. Hunt) had moved a Resolution pointing out particular defects in it, but not amounting to its rejection, in the same way as the usual Motion made for that purpose. That Resolution he had carried by a small majority, and the Bill was disposed of for the time, but Mr. Milnes a few days after appealed to the Speaker to say whether he would be in order in proceeding with the measure that Session, and the decision was, that it was competent for the hon. Gentleman to appoint another day for the second read- ing; the Speaker, at the same time, however, informed him that when a Bill was defeated, as his had been, it was usual to take that defeat as an intimation that it should not again be pressed on the attention of the House. Now, the principle which governed that case applied, he thought, to the measure under discussion, and he hoped, therefore, its promoters would withdraw it from the cognizance of Parliament during the present Session.

said, that as the House had already heard on two or three different occasions the same statements and imputations made in almost the same words as they had listened to that evening, and as he had on those occasions replied to those statements and imputations to the best of his ability, he should not go over ground again which he had before trodden. As to his own position in regard to the Bill, he could only say that it was not a measure of his, or, properly speaking, of the Government. In submitting it to the House he was simply endeavouring to carry out the recommendations solemnly made of a Royal Commission of the highest authority. Complaints having been made for many years of the gravest character with reference to the constitution and practice of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, all men belonging to the profession, and all persons outside the profession competent to form an opinion, felt that a change was necessary. At the instance not of the Government, but of a noble Lord who, as far as his Resolution went, was acting not in community with, but in opposition to, the Government, it pleased the Crown, upon an Address from the House of Lords, to appoint a Royal Commission. The fact that he, as one of the Law Officers of the Crown, was a Member of that Commission would not preclude him from bearing testimony to the eminent men, the highest in their respective professions at either side of the Channel, of whom it was composed, among them being the Master of the Rolls, the Attorney General, Sir W. Page Wood, and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns), whose recommendations seemed to meet with but scant approval from his political friends. The Commission, after full and conscientious inquiry, reported that Ireland ought to enjoy the benefit of those successive changes in the law which in England had been attended with great advantage, and have worked so satisfactorily for many years past. It then became a matter not of discretion but of duty with the Government to act upon their recommendations, and to produce a Bill carrying them into operation. As Attorney General for Ireland he was now discharging that duty; and the Attorney General for England would stand forward in due time to propose a measure giving effect to the Commissioners' recommendations regarding this country. He asked the House to believe that the measure had been framed for the general welfare, and not for the benefit of this man or that man. In fact, he felt ashamed to listen to the miserable insinuations that were put forward. The Bill had not come by surprise upon the House, It was introduced many months ago, and at the request of his hon. and learned Friends opposite had been postponed week after week to afford ample time for consideration. He thought it rather hard under such circumstances that he should be met with a suggestion to withdraw it on account of the advanced period of the Session. In its various stages it had been encountered with most obstinate, most unreasonable obstructions; not even the ordinary courtesy of being allowed to introduce it without an elaborate statement had been accorded to him. The clauses of the Bill, with the exception of 20 or 25, were all clauses copied from English Acts, working with the utmost satisfaction in Courts of Equity. The Bar of Ireland were most anxious to see the measure passed into law, the committee of the Incorporated Society had adopted resolutions in its favour, and only the previous day a meeting of the profession determined unanimously to support it. Representing, therefore, not only a Royal Commission, but the Bar, the solicitors, and the public of Ireland, he asked the House to adopt this Bill. Undoubtedly, he had endeavoured to press on the Bill at a day sitting, but it was well known that he had endeavoured ineffectually to obtain Friday and not Tuesday for the purpose. He trusted the House would pass a measure intended to give the country relief to the extent of £4,000 or £5,000 a year, and to confer upon Ireland the benefit of the English system.

said, his right hon. and learned Friend had spoken with unusual ardour, considering that the subject of law amendment was one that generally tended to composure of the mind. As a young Member he would take the sugges- tion in good part, that the House was not absolutely bound by the recommendations of any body of men, even though they might include the Law Officers of the Crown. The question was simply, whether a number of new places should be created and a number of old ones abolished? His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had determined not to be; bound by the decisions of the Committee and to persist in pressing on his Bill. He had rather attempted to take the House by storm than to persuade it by argument. It was quite true that a highly inconvenient day was fixed for the discussion of the question, when it was known that many Irish Members could not attend, and while he was collecting his books and papers Clause 11 was arrived at, and several good places created. He then exercised his undoubted right of stating his objections to the Bill, and the division was taken, in which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare got into somewhat of a scrape. He believed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been content with recording his own vote, and had been less zealous in canvassing for other votes for the Government, the accident would not have happened. His Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair, which he had no doubt he would have been very glad to do, was read early in the day, and he could not suppose that the Government were ignorant of its importance. The Committee knew what it meant, and after hearing the discussion decided in favour of it. He did not dispute the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was quite competent for the House to rescind what had been done in Committee; but Mr. May's book distinctly stated that, as a general rule, when the; Chairman of Committee had been moved out of the Chair, the Bill was supposed to be dropped for the Session. It was perfectly ludicrous to represent it as a wrong to Ireland that there should be any delay in appointing a vice chancellor and train of officers, when there was no place for them to sit in and no business fur them to do. Such a statement was too much for the patience of even so patient a man as himself. The names connected with the Select Committee which inquired into the subject carried with them as much weight as the names of the Commission. The Committee was not content with sending papers round to be filled up, but examined witnesses of great experience and au- thority; and, after a very careful investigation, decided that the existing tribunal was more useful and economical than the new one proposed. It was rather singular that the witnesses, whose evidence was not acted upon by the Committee, were appointed members of the Commission, and of course they supported their own testimony by reporting against the decision of the Committee. It had been supposed that the duties of the Commission were at an end; but he had, to his surprise, received a letter from Mr. Napier stating that the Commissioners were to meet in London in the first week of July to settle the official establishment of the Court of Chancery. Who could have imagined that such a measure as that now under consideration would have been introduced before the Commission had come to a decision on that part of the subject? Prior to the Commission coming to any conclusion on that point, the House was asked to appoint a vice chancellor, with £4,000 a year, in the interim, for doing nothing. Mr. Napier also mentioned that the Bill had never been shown to him, as, being a Commissioner, it certainly ought to have been. One of his right hon. Friend's own witnesses, a Queen's Counsel, was examined as to taking the accounts, and he stated that the practice to be adopted ought to be similar to that in the Landed Estates Court, which had worked admirably well. He therefore called upon the Attorney General for Ireland to recast his Bill, because the chief clerk was not wanted in Ireland. The Commissioners, no doubt, found the chief clerk system existing in England; but side by side with the Court of Chancery in Ireland was the Court which he had the honour to reconstruct, and in which the Judge who sold the estates disposed of the accounts and settled the question of the money. If the Bill were withdrawn for the purpose of being re-considered during the recess, he would recommend the right hon. and learned Gentleman to strike out every clause relating to the chief clerk, and enact that the Judge should do the whole business himself. It was a proper subject of inquiry—and if the Secretary to the Treasury did his duty, he would look into the matter and consider whether the Landed Estates Court might not give one of its Judges, with the staff, so as to save £6,000 a year, and at the same time accomplish the chief object in view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman declared that the whole profession as well as the public had called out for this Bill. He maintained, on the contrary, that the profession were generally opposed to it. It was stated in the draught of the measure that the chief clerks were all to be solicitors. He had the highest respect for the body of solicitors, but he doubted the wisdom of converting them suddenly into Judges. He was told that the certificates of the chief clerks in England were often very long, very complicated, and frequently objected to. Mr. Rogers in his evidence said, that the taking of accounts was often the most important part of the case, that it was of the most vital importance to the parties concerned, and that in dealing with it, points of law of extreme nicety were to be decided. Mr. Rogers added that it was better that these matters should be decided by the Judge himself. He challenged his right hon. Friend to read him one passage from the evidence in which it was stated, that the taking of these accounts would be better done by the persons on whom the duty would be thrown by the Bill than by the Judges of the landed estates, or by the present masters. A vast quantity of the business of the Court required to be transacted in a cheap, easy, and expeditious manner. The right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that the business would be more cheaply done under his Bill. He had, however, asked one of the most experienced officers of the Court of Chancery to give him in writing his opinion on the subject of cost. That gentleman stated his belief that the increase of expense would be more than one-third compared with the present system. Would the right hon. Gentleman point out in favour of his Bill one single scrap of evidence on that vital question in every legal reform—the question of cost? He felt confident that the Attorney General for Ireland would be able during the recess to draw up a more compendious and cheaper Bill for carrying out many of the suggestions of the Commission. Considering the character and size of the Bill, the differences of opinion which prevailed, and the late period of the Session, he appealed to his right hon. Friend to postpone the measure for another year. It was the opinion of the Master of the Rolls that more than one-half of the reforms in this Bill could be effected by general orders. Those orders might be drawn up in the recess, and Her Majesty's Attorney General would, no doubt, look them over. He warned every hon. Gentleman who cared a farthing for the public purse, of the increased expense which the Bill would cause. When some of the gentlemen whom it was proposed to pension off made their appearance before the Committee of 1856, it was shrewdly remarked that they seemed in very good health; and he was happy to inform the House that they were still alive and capable of work. As vacancies occurred among the Masters, he would recommend his right hon. Friend not to fill them up. Let the number fall down gradually to one, and if his right hon. Friend was determined to have a vice chancellor, let him take one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court—that admirable Englishman, Mr. Hargrave, or one of the others—with all his staff. There were many other questions of great importance which he should like to have discussed had there been time; but, in conclusion, he would suggest that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mallow should withdraw his Amendment, and he would then move his, which was more direct—that the Speaker leave the Chair that day three months.

said, he had no objection to adopt the suggestion, and would therefore withdraw his Amendment.

said, he hoped that the House would clearly understand before it went to a division, that the short question before it was, Whether reforms which had been carried on in England, and found to work most successfully, should be extended to Ireland?

said, that a Bill of 192 clauses, which proposed to alter the whole practice and procedure of the Irish Court of Chancery, required a great deal more discussion than it had received before it could possibly become law. The Masters in Chancery in Ireland fulfilled the very duties which they proposed to create expensive officials to discharge. The Commission of 1861 was composed of men of the highest character, but the Committee of 1856 was equally composed of men of the highest character. It was strange, how- ever, that no reference was made in the Commission of 1861 to the labours of the former Committee. Not a single English witness was examined by that Commission. The labours of the masters had been most valuable. Out of 14,400 cases decided by them in ten years there were only 137 appeals, and only forty reversals. He believed that the change proposed was unpalatable to the whole Bar of Ireland.

said, that after the very narrow majority by which the Government had defeated the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, he thought they should not press the Motion for going into Committee. He understood that eleven of the clauses had been agreed to when only four or five Members were present, and he therefore thought that they ought to re-commit the Bill de novo. As, however, he did not think they ought to be called upon to go into the clauses at that late hour (twenty minutes to twelve o'clock), he would move that the debate be adjourned.

said, it was true the majority just obtained by the Government was a small one, but it was larger than that by which the Motion for the Chairman to leave the Chair was carried on Tuesday last. If the House would allow the Speaker to leave the Chair, and would go into Committee on the Bill, the Government would not proceed with any of the clauses that night; and before the Committee on the Bill was resumed, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland would consider what course he should take with reference to the measure, regard being had to the circumstances which had already taken place, and to the period of the Session at which the House had arrived.

observed that, as it was obvious the Government could not carry the Bill during the Session, it would be more graceful of them to at once withdraw it.

said, the subject was one of great importance with reference to proceedings in Ireland, and he did not think that he ought to be called on to come to a decision off-hand as to the fate of the Bill, but he would give the matter his best consideration.

said, no doubt the hon. Member was a great authority in these matters, but he ought to have recollected that the Speaker, in answer to a question addressed to him, had declared that the course which had been pursued was strictly in accordance with the rules of the House.

said, he did not understand that such a proposition had been laid down. On the contrary, he thought the rule was that a vote that the Chairman do leave the Chair was regarded by any Gentleman charged with a Bill as a strong hint not to introduce it again. It seemed, however, that with right hon. Gentlemen opposite the strongest argument in favour of the Bill was that the opinion of the House had been pronounced against it.

said, that though the Speaker had decided that they might, according to the letter of the law, go on with the Bill, yet they all felt that it was sharp practice to go on with it with only a majority of two in favour of such a proceeding, while a majority of one the other day had stopped the progress of the Bill. The other day the Chief Secretary for Ireland was present, but to-night he was not in his place.

said, he would remind the House that the Bill had only been put into its present position by the operation of the letter of the law, for if there had been any Parliamentary equity, the vote of the hon. Baronet (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) would have been recorded according to his intention.

said, he did not understand the feverish anxiety of the Government to pass the Bill, and to cover their reputation at the expense of the sister country. He hoped they would yield to the undoubted feeling of the House, and take further discussion at a reasonable hour.

said, that his right hon. and learned Friend did not ask them to make further progress with the Bill that night, but he did wish that effect should be given to the Vote which had been twice taken. He protested against the assumption that a majority of the House in Committee was to prevent the House receiving the Bill. If that were so, measures of great importance might be frustrated by a casual Treasury Bench majority.

said, he wished it to be understood that he felt himself incompetent to discuss the Bill upon its merits, but having watched its varying fortunes, fluctuating as they did every five minutes, he would ask the Government if they intended to persevere with it. If it were right to reinstate it upon a technical objection, it was perfectly right also for that side of the House to urge technical objections against its progress. He begged leave, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, that there was one great difference between the objects of the two sides of the House. The Government desired to see the Bill discussed on its own merits, and to have it passed if the House concurred in the opinion they held of the advantages which they believed it would confer, while the other side of the House desired to prevent its passing under any circumstances—not to defeat it by argument, but to prevent its progress by offering every obstruction in their power. As, however, the point was not in reality one of great importance, the Government would consent to the adjournment of the debate.