reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had not received from Mr. Franklyn, one of the Members of the Committee on Group No. 15 A of Railway Bills, or from Mr. Pease, one of the Members of the Committee on the Hyde Park Gate Estate Bill, either the Declaration required by the 113th Standing Order, or any excuse in lieu thereof. At this period of the Session it was very difficult for the Committee of Selection to dispose of the remaining business of the House, and while every endeavour had been made on the part of the Committee to procure the attendance of Members, he saw by the Votes of the House last (Wednesday) evening that the Chairman of a Committee in the exercise of his discretion moved that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Franklyn) should be discharged from his attendance on the Committee, and the result had been that all parties attending the Committee had been subjected to great inconvenience and expense, the Committee being unable to sit in consequence of the absence of the hon. Member. He hoped that the hon. Members of the House would hesitate in future before they acceded to a similar Motion, and had he been in the House he should have moved that the hon. Member for Poole should attend the Committee forthwith. However, as the Motion had been agreed to, he should not go further into the matter, but he hoped for the future hon. Members would give all the assistance in their power to get through the private business of the House, and not lightly endeavour to excuse themselves from attendance.

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Captain Jervis), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any Despatch or Document from the Government of any Presidency in India, pointing out that the measures devised to redress the complaints of the Officers of the local service have created a grievance for the Officers of the Staff Corps, by causing not only supersession of the Staff Corps by local Officers, but even supersession of Staff Corps Officers by Staff Corps Officers; and stating that the supersession throughout the whole service has been aggravated fifty-fold by the Brevet promotion given to the local Service; if so, whether he will place the same upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that the Government of Madras had pointed out that which the Indian Government at home knew well before, that an uniform rule of army promotion would lead to the supersession of some officers who had been peculiarly fortunate in their promotion; and they had sent home a list of officers who would be superseded. It did not, however, appear that except in a very few instances the rule referred to had materially altered the position of officers.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it be his intention to continue in future the practice of bringing forward the Indian Budget a few days before the close of the Session, as heretofore; and, if not, what arrangements he has made for making up the Indian financial accounts to such a period as will enable him to lay them upon the table of the House on the meeting of Parliament, and to bring forward the Indian Budget in the early part of the Session instead of at the close.

said, in reply, that the day upon which he should bring forward the Indian Budget must depend upon the progress which was made with Supply; but he hoped to make his statement either on that day week or on Monday week.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to propose any Loan for the service of India during the present year?

said, that he had already stated that he entertained no such intention.

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet has said that he intends to bring forward Resolutions with regard to Indian Finance without laving the accounts upon the table?

replied that he had made no such statement.

said, he begged to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to the figures in the Stage Carriages, &c. Return (No. 309), just presented to this House, particularly at pages 2 and 3, as showing that the recent Act, 26 & 27 Vict., has afforded no relief from the grievous amount of Mileage Duties imposed on road conveyances carrying passengers at separate fares, in London and other large towns, in competition with Railway Trains and untaxed Steam Boats; and whether, as the population of large towns use to a very great extent Stage Carriages or Omnibuses, his consideration has been given to the justice of extending the provisions of the Act 26 & 27 Vict. to every description of vehicle?

in reply, said, he had no reason to suppose that any advantage would be derived by large towns from the extension of the provisions of the Act 26 & 27 Vict. There was no tendency in those towns to use vehicles carrying ouly a small number of passengers, but rather to establish large ones. The object of the Act was to accommodate small towns, villages, and minor railway stations, where the traffic was so small that it would not pay to establish large vehicles. With regard to the other portion of the hon. Gentleman's question, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could only refer to what he stated when he made his last financial statement—namely, that it might be desirable to re-consider the taxes on locomotion with a view to their reduction or omission when the state of the revenue would permit it to be done with justice and propriety, otherwise it would set aside claims of a more pressing character. Of course it was not in his power to take measures this Session with reference to the subject.

said, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. William Ewart), he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of the contemplated issue of a new Silver Coinage, it is intended to adopt the proportion of nine-tenths fine and one-tenth alloy, in conformity with the usage of most European countries, and the recommendation of the International Statistical Congress?

in reply, said, he was not in a condition at present to give a very distinct answer to the question of the hon. Member. No proposal had been made or matured up to the present time for the issue of a new silver coinage, or the composition of that coinage. He understood that the Master of the Mint, who had great and deserved authority on all matters connected with his office, entertained certain views with respect to the best composition for silver coins, but he had not yet made any proposition to the Government on the subject.

said, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If he is prepared to take any steps with a view to prevent the doors of railway carriages being locked in future; and if his attention has been called to the additional peril incurred by passengers travelling on railways from the objectionable practice adopted on many lines of fixing a bar across the centre of the windows of railway carriages, whereby the egress of passengers in case of accidents is effectually prevented?

said, in reply, that some years ago a circular was sent round to the railway companies, after a serious accident had taken place in France and loss of life had been caused by the circumstance that the doors of the carriages were locked. The circular asked the companies to take care that in future both doors should not be locked, and from the answers that were received it appeared that all the companies concurred in the necessity of having at least one door left open. It appeared that at the recent accident at Keynsham, on the Great Western Railway, both doors of some of the compartments were locked; but that he believed was the result of accident. Some of the carriages had been turned at the previous station, and the person whose duty it was to have unlocked what had been the off doors, but which had become the near doors, forgot to do so. He was also informed that the accident arose from the key having been dropped between the carriages and the platform just before the train started. As a rule, however, one door was always left open. With regard to the bars across the windows of the carriages, that arrangement was adopted partly in consequence of the Board of Trade, because some of the carriages were so broad that danger was likely to result in the narrow tunnels to passengers leaning out of the windows. The Metropolitan Railway had placed bars across the windows of their carriages, but of so weak a construction that the passengers could easily break them; so that persons wishing to make their escape through the windows would be enabled to break them down without very great exertion.

adverting to the answer of the President of the Board of Trade, said, he wished to ask, whether the practice which he seemed to approve, of locking one door only of a railway carriage, would not allow the locked door to be uppermost in case of the overturn of the carriage in certain cases of accident; and, if so, how the ready egress of the occupants from the carriage would be facilitated.

said, he could not answer the question. He was informed that the door locked was always the off door, otherwise persons might get out on that side and find themselves run over by the trains on the other line.

said, he rose to repeat the question which he had put on a former occasion as to the intention of the Government to fill up the office of Inspector of Charities, vacant by the death of Mr. J. Simons, jun.

said, in reply, that the Commissioners of Charities had considered the subject, and had come to the conclusion that the present state of the business of the Office did not enable them to reduce the number of Inspectors. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had therefore appointed Mr. Good, who had been chief clerk of the Office for ten years, whose special knowledge of the business of the Commission and whose other qualifications justified the expectation that he would fill the office of Inspector of Charities with efficiency.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the rumour that the negotiations for a new Anglo-Austrian Commercial Treaty has failed.

said, in reply, that there was no truth whatever in the rumour. On the contrary, the Commission had been improved by the addition of new Members of the Austrian Government. The Commission had adjourned for the hot months, during which most people left Vienna, but they would meet again in September, and there was every prospect that their labours would be attended by a satisfactory result.

said, that this Bill would, in his opinion, redress part of the just grievance of the barley growers, and he therefore supported it. He had declined to offer any opinion on the subject of the Malt Tax in the discussion on the Budget, as he entirely approved the remissions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman, though he had since modified his language, spoke so strongly against the policy of any future reduction of the Malt Tax, that he felt desirous of presenting some points on the subject for his consideration. He held that a tax which impeded the growth of barley was injurious to the agriculture of this country. Of all corn crops, barley was the most friendly to the farmer. It was the shortest time in the ground, was the least exhaustive of the soil, was sown at the best season for cleaning and cultivating it, while it formed the best preparation for grass, and was the most suitable to follow green crops. Independent of its own value, barley farming thus promoted good husbandry, and the growth of those crops which were necessary for the production of meat, dairy produce, and wool. Now, the production of meat in this country was becoming every year a matter of increasing importance. Previous to the great development of trade and industry, the consequence of recent financial legislation, a large proportion of the working classes in the country could not afford to eat meat more than once a week. It would be a most moderate computation to say that a million of persons were so circumstanced, and when by better wages these persons were enabled to eat meat daily the increase of consumption so far became at once sixfold. Prices were thus rapidly rising, and larger demands were yearly being made upon the farmer for fat cattle and sheep. It had been said that a penny in the pound of income tax made a difference to the revenue of the country of a million and a quarter, but a penny a pound on the price of meat was equal to one million and a quarter sterling on the annual consumption of the metropolis alone, and if they took that of the United Kingdom they would find that the increase of every penny on the pound of butcher's meat would cost the people not less than ten millions sterling. The rise in the price of meat during the last ten or fifteen years was equal to twenty millions sterling per annum. Here was far more than an equivalent for the loss of the Malt Duty to the revenue. If, by a change in our mode of agriculture, we could to some extent, even if not to the full extent, meet the increasing demand for butcher's meat, we should be fully compensated. And we must reckon not only on the increasing appetite of the existing population, but on the demands from the increase of population. That went on at a rate which would absorb every three years the whole of the fat stock produced in Scotland. Foreign countries could not meet the demand. The imports of foreign stock seemed to have reached their maximum. The same causes were at work abroad as at home in producing an increased demand for butcher's meat. Increased wages everywhere were followed by increased consumption. Now, the substitution of barley for wheat in his course of crops would at once enable the farmer to increase his production of meat. In former times, under protective duties, wheat, from its comparatively high price, was unduly forced into culture. On clay land especially it was looked to exclusively, so much so that many farmers thought such land unsuited to barley. But the gradual rise in the price of barley, and the fall in that of wheat, had encouraged the growth of barley on clay soil, to the great advantage of the farmer and the more economical and better cultivation of his farm. The strong clays, which were formerly thought not fit for barley, would in fact produce heavier crops, though not of the finest malting qualities, than the best barley lands. In the neighbourhood of Home Bay no less than ten quarters of barley per acre had last year been grown upon the stiffest of clay soils. Wheat required to be sown in the autumn; and it was obviously a great advantage where, as in the case of barley crops, the farmers could take a green crop, say of mangolds, off the land before it was wanted for sowing in the spring. He could plough and sow in better season, and might grow green crops in many instances, and thus feed sheep and cattle where, under the old wheat system, that was impossible. A barley farmer could scarcely be a bad farmer. His corn crop not only was less severe upon the land, but it was preceded and followed by green crops and grass, which restored fertility. He, therefore, maintained that it would be an immense advantage to British agriculture, and to the increased production of meat, dairy produce, and wool, if barley could, to a large extent, be substituted for wheat. He was quite aware of the fact that barley had risen in value more than any other kind of corn, and of the force of the argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had based upon that fact. From 1800 to 1850 one bushel of wheat was worth two of barley. Since 1850 barley had more nearly approached the price of wheat, and the moment barley became nearly equal to wheat in value it would be largely substituted as a crop for it. There was another reason: the farmer could grow a much larger crop of barley than of wheat on the same land. The amount would probably be from 5½ to 6 quarters of barley instead of 4 quarters of wheat, besides giving to the farmer greater facilities in the production of butchers' meat. It was no satisfactory answer to say that this advance in the price of barley had taken place under the disadvantages of a heavy exceptional tax. The owners and occupiers of clay land in this country needed all the fair play they could get. The fact that barley could, even with a heavy malt duty, be grown with more profit than wheat, was no reason for continuing an exceptional tax. Barley was the wine crop of this country. As the people became better off they took more of that which was the produce of it, and that was the reason that the price had risen more than that of any other crop. But it would rise still further, and be still more remunerative but for this heavy duty. Agriculturists did not ask any class advantage— any return to protective duties or legislative encouragements. They asked simply to be placed on the same footing as the hop grower, the potato grower, the coal-owner, or the ironmaster, that our raw produce should not be subjected to exceptional taxation. The farmers of the heavy clay lands especially deserved the sympathies of the Legislature. They wanted no protection; but what they did ask for, and this they had a right to demand, was that no exceptional taxation should be laid on the articles which they produced, the effect of which would be unfairly to limit their use. Though it was true, as recently remarked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the price of barley had of late been enhanced more than other portions of the agriculturist's produce, the rise would have been still greater without the present burden on the cultivation. The right hon. Gentleman, in arguing the question on a former occasion, had referred——

Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a fitting occasion to reply to a speech made in a former debate and on another subject. This is not the continuance of a debate on the same Bill.

said, he would avoid any reference to the former debate, and would confine his observations entirely to the effect of the Malt Tax upon the agriculture of the country. With regard to the argument of injustice to Scotland in the matter of the spirit duty, that had not been advanced by any Scotchman. The consumption of whisky in that country was decreasing, and that of beer steadily increasing. He was informed that the quantity of malt used in Edinburgh in brewing beer had risen from 32,000 quarters in 1854 to 150,000 quarters in 1864, and that from two causes—first, the increased price of spirits; and secondly, the improved quality of the beer. A change from raw spirits to beer was one which all wise men commended, and any policy which would tend that way would not be unjust to Scotland. One word with regard to the interests of the consumers of beer. In every country, except England, milk was much used as an article of food by the mass of the people. In Scotland, Ireland, on the Continent, and in North America milk was much used. But it could not be had by the people of this country, and every year milk was becoming more scarce and dear. Home-brewed ale was an excellent substitute. An hon. Friend of his, who had had much experience, told him that he never knew a bad or inefficient labourer who brewed his own beer. He had not the temptation of the beerhouse to spend his money, and take him away from his family. He must for these reasons venture to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he should again have a surplus to dispose of—in the interest not only of the agriculturist, but of the consumer—the great advantage there would be in the removal of any impediment which the present malt duty might produce upon the extended cultivation of barley in this country, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give to the question of the repeal of this tax his most favourable consideration. A heavy tax on an article of home growth—the wine of the country—which in England drove the people to the public-house, and which impeded the best and most reproductive system of farming, could not but deserve the most careful consideration of the House.

said, he felt bound to express his great satisfaction that a Gentleman so eminently qualified to deal with the subject, and so familiar with it in all its details, should have directed his attention and that of the House to the bearing of the tax upon the agriculture of the country. There was another point in connection with the question, the importance of which could scarcely be overrated—namely, the effect of the Malt Tax upon the price of meat. All who had experience and had fairly and impartially considered that branch of the subject, were perfectly satisfied that it was one which bore upon the interest of the entire community, but more especially that portion of it who were unable to indulge more than once or twice in the week in the—to them—luxury of a single plateful of butcher's meat. The kindred Bill, for taking off the duty upon malt for feeding cattle, had been framed, he had no doubt, in an excellent spirit; but, unfortunately, it had been hampered by every sort of restriction and complication, and, moreover, had come before the House accompanied by the report of a gentleman of great experience, which went to show that the Bill would be almost entirely useless. He hoped, therefore, the time was approaching, and he believed it was, when the attention of Parliament would be directed to the distinct point whether this question of the repeal of the Malt Tax was not a labourer's question —a question concerning the interests of the lower and poorer classes of the community, rather than those of the agriculturists and the owners of land. With regard to the Bill before the House there was very little to be said on the one side or the other. It was well meant, he had no doubt, and in those periods which occasionally occurred, sometimes one or two years in succession, when from causes connected with the weather the greater quantity of the barley produced was light and inferior in character, the Bill would have the effect of giving considerable relief to the producers of barley and the manufacturers of malt by indirectly doing that which he and others had vainly called upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to do by a partial mitigation of the tax. He would also say, in passing, that the standard of 531b. was wisely selected by the right hon. Gentleman both for the growers of barley and the manufacturers of malt. But here his commendation of the Bill must cease. He might, however, add, that it rather tended to create a faint and shadowy hope in the minds of those who had laboured for the repeal of the tax that in thus, without solicitation, framing this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman entertained some misgivings in his own mind and conscience as to the extent of the justice which he had meted out to the agriculturists and the consumers of beer. He feared, however, that it was a sentiment, he might almost say a principle, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that "the repeal of the Malt Tax would be the death warrant of indirect taxation." If that were so, if they had reason to fear that that principle had been adopted —not merely by a "prominent" Member, but by the most distinguished and potential Member of the present Government, they could not but apprehend that it was a principle which the Government, as long-as they might be intrusted with power by that House, would endeavour to carry into effect. This was not a question in which the farmers were exclusively, or even mainly, concerned. It was one directly affecting the poorer classes of the community, and he once more re- minded the House of the challenge he had offered to the right hon. Gentleman — namely, that if a Committee or a Commission were granted upon this subject he pledged himself to demonstrate that while the revenue derived only £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year from the malt duties, the sum paid by the beer consumers by reason of this tax was one-third of the entire price paid by them for beer. In the three kingdoms together this amounted to £60,000,000, and thus £20,000,000 per annum were paid by the consumers for every £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 which passed into the Exchequer. If such a Committee were granted, he would show besides that while the consumers of beer were taxed to the extent of 33 per cent, wine consumers were only taxed to the extent of 10 or 12 per cent, and tea, under the reduced duty, 25 per cent. Yet tea and wine were articles of foreign production, and wine was drunk only, or chiefly, by the wealthier classes. He hoped the time was come when those who stood forward as advocates of the interests of the labouring classes would remember, in addressing their constituents, to ask them whether they did not desire a remission of taxation in respect of the only article of luxury in which they could indulge, and which to them was almost one of the necessities of life. He hoped that the advocates of the repeal of the Malt Tax on the Government side of the House would hear upon the hustings that farmers' and labourers' true friends were not those who gave an isolated vote for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and then followed up that vote by a thick-and-thin support of a Government resolved that it should never be repealed. The tax on malt was, he repeated, not so much one on the farmer and producer as it was a tax affecting the working man. That the labouring classes should have to pay in taxation so great a proportion of the whole price of beer as one-third was inconsistent with the principles of free trade and destructive of every principle of taxation upon which this House had acted for the last twenty years. He was now ready to go into Committee upon this Bill. Small as was the boon conceded, he still welcomed it, and would regard it as an earnest of something more and better hereafter.

said, he did not wish to criticize this Bill, or the other financial measures, which afforded a very considerable remission of taxation; but he would mention one point in which they had fallen short of his expectations, which were very moderate. Last year they had a Malt for Cattle Bill; and although it might not have been as widely operative as could have been wished, the good intentions which framed it were not the less apparent. This year he was in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would have brought in a Malt for Man Bill, or a Malt for Home Consumption Bill, and that they would have had to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a prospect of relief held out to the agriculturists in that direction. It would be said that the great brewers extended their operations everywhere, and that the days of cottage and home brewing had passed away. That was so, probably, in the immediate vicinity of towns; but there were very many rural districts where the concession of such a privilege would be highly appreciated. It was considered by the working men a hardship, that after rising early, late taking rest, and eating the bread of carefulness after laboriously tilling the soil "from morn to dewy eve," after superintending all the rural operations, from the introduction of the seed into the ground to its final germination in the year, an almost penal legislation intervened and prevented and intercepted them in the enjoyment of the fruits of their labour to which they were so well entitled. He believed that a measure such as this, far from increasing intoxication would, by withdrawing them from the public-houses, and by promoting more domestic habits, make a change in the opposite direction. The inhabitants of the vine-growing countries were generally considered the most sober; and it would be in accordance with the voice of nature. In every country and in every age it had been held to be the inalienable birthright of the tiller of the soil to gather its fruits free from the visits of the tax collector, and without even the intervention of the tradesman. The poets in the early ages told us—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his abundant scholarship could no doubt supply them with quotations without end—of the happiness of the hospitable old man, of whom it was said—

"Dapibus mensas onerabat inemptis."

Indeed, the poets were never weary of painting the amiable picture—

"Quod si pudica mulier in partem juvet

Domum atque dulces liberos;

Sacrum vetustis extruat lignis focum,

Lassi sub adventum viri—"

And now they came to what would answer to the home-brewed—

"Et horna dulci vina promens dolio,

Dapes inemptas apparet"

—then he said his exultation would know no bounds. He was portraying the age of nature, and they could not improve on that. The greatest and most consummate artists always said, "Follow nature." Afterwards, as civilization advanced, wars commenced, and taxes were imposed as their natural result; but, unfortunately, when the wars ceased the taxes, which were their offspring, like the malt tax, remained, and some of them seemed to endure for ever. Of late years there had been a large remission of taxation pressing principally on the manufacturers, but in which the agriculturist, as a member of the community, had shared. He recognized no antagonism between those two great bodies. Their interests, in this country, at least, were inseparably united, their prosperities and adversities were ever the same. But he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the malt tax pressed rather exceptionally on the agriculturist. He had hoped that it would have been reserved to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have removed some part of this anomaly. He believed it was the right hon. Gentleman's ambition to be the Finance Minister, not only of a party, however great and powerful, but of the whole country, and his ardent admirers would willingly have seen him reviving old sympathies and old amities, and effecting a reconciliation with his former friends who once followed him with so much devotion. That should have been done before the dissolution, which cannot now be far off—

"Neque enim plus septima ducitur æstas."

That opportunity had been for the moment omitted or forgone. The financial harvest had passed; the financial summer was ended; and they were not saved—

"Invidisse Deos, patriis ut redditus aris Conjugium optatum, et pulchram Calydona videret!"

But he would not despair of him yet. He hoped the day would come when he would do something (for he could do it) either in this or in some other way, which should send a thrill of satisfaction and exultation through the honest and manly hearts of the agricultural constituencies of the Empire.

said, the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) bore the mark, as all his speeches did, of a most careful abstinence from the imputation of hostile motives and the most liberal appreciation of the efforts which had been made on the part of the Government to mitigate the inconvenience which attended the pressure of the Malt Tax. In the case of the Malt Feeding Bill it was said that the limited operation of that measure was owing to the cumbrous restrictions of the Excise and the disparaging Report which had been made by an officer of the Government. Now, he apprehended, that neither the maltsters nor any other traders were made of such materials as to be debarred from pursuing a profitable trade by any disparaging report. With respect to the statement that the restrictions of the Excise had impeded the operation of the measure, he could assert that not one single person conversant with the working of the Bill had expressed any such opinion. On the contrary, he had in his possession letters from numerous gentlemen testifying from their practical experience that the restrictions of the Excise had not impeded the operation of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that a challenge which he had thrown out had not been accepted. Now, he could not admit the truth of that proposition; but he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of a challenge which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had thrown out, but which had not been accepted. The hon. and learned Gentleman had undertaken to prove that the Malt Tax, which only produced £6.000,000, cost the consumers £20,000,000, and he likewise undertook to prove certain points with regard to the percentage of the taxation on malt. But the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that the Government had afforded him facilities of proof he desired, and had offered him the re-appointment of a Committee which had sat on that subject. The non-renewal of that Committee was owing to the circumstance that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not do what the Committee itself had recommended—move for its re-appointment. The hon. and learned Gentleman therefore had not accepted the challenge which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had thrown out. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the sum expended annually by the people of this country on beer was £60,000,000. What a deplorably op- pressed trade that must be in which Englishmen were forbidden to invest to a greater extent than £60,000,000 annually, whilst, according to the best estimate that could be formed, the outlay for all other purposes—physical, material, political, moral, social, intellectual, spiritual — was £600,000,000; so that a full tithe only of the expenditure of the country found its way to that oppressed article! The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the present Government was formed on the principle of supporting the Malt Tax, and that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had asserted that "its repeal would be the death warrant of indirect taxation." Now what he did say was that the repeal of the Malt Tax without the imposition of some tax on beer would be the death warrant of all indirect taxation, and would be the most likely means of greatly disturbing the whole incidence of our financial system, and the relation of one of its parts to another, and he was bound to say that the present contentment of the country was connected with the maintenance of that system. But it was as far as possible from accuracy to say that on Her Majesty's Government rested the responsibility of maintaining the Malt Tax. Taxes were imposed to meet the expenditure of the country, and those were the true opponents of unnecessary taxation who endeavoured to promote the economical expenditure of the public money and that wise legislation which enlarged the public means. He would not dwell on the interesting speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pugh), with all the refreshing recollections which it revived of the happy period when rural and domestic images were more familiar to our minds. The hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle not only that the beer of the people ought to be untexed but unbought. The hon. Gentleman must that it should be taken from the stores of the brewers without compensation, or he must mean that the land should by some agrarian law be so distributed as that every man should grow his own portion of barley. Now, he did not think the pleasing vision of the hon. Gentleman could be realized. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) was so anxious for the reduction of the Malt Tax, he might have set about it in the present year. Why did he not set up his proposition against that of the Government for the reduction of the income tax and the duty on tea? The hon. and learned Gentleman represented a powerful party who were supposed to be unanimous in their desire to relieve the farmer from the crushing burdens to which he was subjected, and to put the repeal of the Malt Tax against the reduction of the income tax, and a considerable number of hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were willing to maintain the income tax at sixpence, and if they had joined the hon. and learned Gentleman he would have been sure of having a majority. Now, if the Malt Tax was not repealed it was because the advocates of the repeal did not place it against the reduction of the income tax. It was useless to expect that the people of England would believe in the earnestness of the advocates of the reduction of a particular tax when they would not make themselves responsible for pitting the repeal of that tax against the repeal of another tax. What was the use of giving the farmer barren words, fine periods, prolonged debates, repeated Committees, and calling public meetings of the Central Malt Tax Repeal Association, when their Friends in Parliament declined to bring forward the question as a definite and practical reform?

said, that he had not hinted at any agrarian law. All that he wanted was that the farmer should have unbought beer—unbought because home brewed.

said, he did not share in any reproach which might be thrown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the advocates of the repeal of the Malt Tax. He did not wish to place the reduction of the Income Tax and the Tea Duty in competition with the repeal of the Malt Duty.

said, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going a little too far when he said that indirect taxation would be utterly destroyed by the reduction of the Malt Duty, since all they asked for was that it might be reduced one-half.

said, he spoke of repeal and not reduction.

said, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no fear then as to the effect upon indirect taxation by merely reducing the Malt Duty, why did he not try the experiment by reducing the duty to one-half of the present amount. He wished also to observe that the present mode of levying the duty led to an excessive amount being paid. He was intimately acquainted with a house which had, during the last six months, paid £3,500 more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entitled to receive. As he was informed, all that was ever intended by the law was that the duty should be levied upon the dry barley steeped; but the maltsters now paid at least 2½ per cent more than they would be charged with upon that system. If the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) would assist in the reform of two or three apparently small matters like that, he would be doing something for his constituents. He could not altogether agree with the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Caird), because he did not understand how meat was to be cheapened by increasing the price of barley from the strong lands. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would next year consider this question of the reduction of the Malt Duty, and would do something to give to the agricultural interest that relief to which it was so well entitled.

said, he gave the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for having given a most important intimation. He had stated that the Malt Tax could not be repealed without the imposition of a tax on beer. It was most satisfactory to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had been considering the solution of the difficulty which existed, for a tax on beer would produce one-half of the tax upon malt. Although he had supported the Motion for the repeal of the Malt Tax, he gave the preference to the scheme proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and preferred the reduction of the Income Tax and the duties on Fire Insurance and tea. He drew from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the augury that in a more favourable condition of the revenue the Malt Tax would be considered in the sense which he had pointed out.

said, that he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not allowed this debate to pass without indulging in the taunt which he had directed against those who advocated the abolition of the Malt Tax. It would have been in better taste, and he was sure that it would have been truer, to have let it alone; because, what were the facts? Before the right hon. Gentleman's financial scheme was made known, but when it was understood that there would be a considerable surplus, a plain, straightforward Motion was made for the abolition of the whole or a part of the tax, and the right hon. Gen- tleman knew perfectly well that after the House had come to a definite decision upon that Resolution it would have been idle to oppose his proposals. Therefore the observations which the right hon, Gentleman had just made were entirely uncalled for, and were not calculated to conduce to the amicable transaction of the business of that House. The Bill before the House had attracted no attention whatever in his part of the country (Oxfordshire). He had heard nothing either good, bad, or indifferent about it, and therefore he should say nothing, but he must protest against the insinuation which the right hon. Gentleman had made that those who advocated the abolition of the Malt Duty did not act in good faith. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a gesture of dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman shock his head, but that was the meaning of his remark, that they addressed long speeches to anti-malt-tax associations, but made no attempt in that House to carry the repeal of the duty, because they preferred the abolition of other taxes. He, for one, took no part in the proceedings of anti-malt-tax associations, but he did not like to hear such insinuations, and must enter his protest against them.

said, that in the borough which he represented (Wallingford) there was so much diversity of opinion with reference to the repeal of the Malt Tax that it became a question entirely for the private judgment of the Member. Now, although he voted for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly), on account of the moderation of its terms, he pointed out to his constituents that the maintenance of the revenue was of more importance than the repeal of the Malt Duty. He, like every one else, approved the reduction of the income tax and of the duty on fire insurances; but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not right in reducing the tea duty. Nobody expected such a reduction, and the surplus which he had in hand ought to have been devoted to a reduction of the Malt Duty, which was being loudly asked for by a large number of persons in and out of Parliament. As the agricultural interest had expressed so decided an opinion on the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman had not granted them a boon for a long time, he hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman had a surplus next year, he would avail himself of the opportunity of carrying into effect the Resolution which had been proposed by his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he would now state what he thought to be the practical operation of this clause, which was the material and operative clause of the Bill. He was far from saying that the effect of this provision would be that which, in point of fact, was desirable—namely, to apportion the weight of the Malt Tax in every instance to the real malting value of the barley. There were malting qualities in different kinds of barley which this Bill would not touch, such as colour, skin, and the friable quality of the farine, which ingredients helped to determine the price. But one great quality ran through all barleys, which, other things being equal, was of great importance in determining their value, and that was weight. As far as weight was concerned, he hoped the Bill would have the effect of placing light barley on as fair and equitable footing, as far as the tax was concerned, as that in which heavy barleys stood. Most of the Amendments he proposed were verbal, but he had to propose an important one, and that was to fill up the blank in the clause with "531b.," which was to be taken as the standard of weight. If they were to fix the pivot weight too high they would give no relief, and would diminish to a considerable extent the revenue from malt. He had endeavoured to ascertain from the best authorities what were those barleys which ought really to be considered light with reference to malting, and what should be the point of division between these and the heavy barleys. What they aimed at curing by the present Bill was the defect that the amount of the Malt Duty was made to depend on measure. The problem of the maltster was to get out of a given bulk as much malting power as he could. In order to do that he looked to the quality of the bailey, and the better the barley the greater would be the amount of extract it would yield from a given bulk. The bulk of malting barley did not differ in any great degree, but the amount and value of the malt produced from them differed greatly though it was subjected to nearly the same tax. He believed that to a limited extent the better barley gave a greater bulk of malt than the lighter barley did. The difference in the value of this malting product of barley was what they sought to deal with in this Bill. If they took the parcels of barley equal in other respects, but differing in weight, when these parcels were malted the difference in bulk would be small, but the difference in value would be great. The lighter barley would give a malt of much less value than the heavy barley, and therefore he wished to put the holder of the lighter barley on a footing on which he would be less subjected to the disadvantages of the operation of the present law, and more on an equality with the holder of the best malting barley. The mode of effecting that object was this:— They took the standard of barley at 531b., and he would show how it would operate in relation to light barley used for malt weighing, say 501b., though he believed that some qualities of even lower weight were sometimes used for malting purposes. He would suppose a quarter of that malt put into the cistern to steep. The process would then go on precisely as at present, the only alteration being that the top of the cistern would have to be covered in such a way that though the process could be watched the barley could not be changed for a heavier barley. It was gauged then as now before it was taken out of the cistern to be put on the couch, and also after it was put into the couch. That was the period when it was supposed to have attained its greatest swell or bulk. He would suppose that it had swollen in that case from eight bushels to ten bushels. A process was then applied to rectify the in crease—which was said to be insufficient. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) had referred to the case of a house which had been mulcted in the sum of £3,500 by an in accuracy to the extent of 2½ per cent. The operations of that house could not in that case be inconsiderable. According to established rules, when the bulk reached 10 bushels an allowance was made of 18½ per cent, and that was reckoned decimally—namely, a reduction from 10 to 8·15, but as the practice was to strike off the second decimal figure the result was that 8·1, or 8 l–10th, was charged. That was the rule as it now stood. By the operation of the present Bill, what was done was that the bulk, or 8 l–10th, was multiplied by the weight of barley and divided by the stance dard weight, and the quotient, 7·6, would be the amount of barley to be charged for duty. This would be a relief of from 6 to 7 per cent, varying in proportion to the weight of the barley. He need not trouble the Committee with regard to the Bill, because it was admitted that as far as the regulations were concerned they were what they ought to be if the main feature of the Bill became law.

said, he had been requested to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of raising the average to fifty-four and not to fifty-three, if he meant to benefit the growers of barley on strong lands.

said, that would be to go too low, and the result would be to introduce the very poor foreign baileys. The figure of 531b. was the full weight of the average of malting barley.

said, that various inquiries had been carefully made, and the weights not only went below fifty-three but also fifty-two and even fifty-one. The result of the alteration would be that foreign barleys would receive the main portion of the benefit of the Bill.

said, the object of the Bill was to give effect to a treaty which had not yet been ratified, and therefore could not be presented to the House in the usual form by command of Her Majesty, but for the information of the House, as the treaty required legislation, a copy had been presented as a return from the Treasury. The treaty was an attempt to establish a practical equality as far as regarded sugar duties between four European countries, which among them comprised a very large share both of the import and consumption and the refining trade in sugar; namely, France, England, Belgium, and Holland. It was very well known that for a length of time it had been a matter of complaint in certain of these countries that the legislation of the other countries was so regulated in relation to duties and drawbacks as to operate unfairly upon them, and the refiners in particular in this country had loudly complained that a large bounty was practically granted to the refiners of sugar in Holland under the name and title of drawback. We believed in this country that our drawbacks were fairly adjusted to the duties paid by our refiners, but complaints were made against us in France and Holland that our drawbacks included in them the element of bounty. The French Government made to Her Majesty's Government a proposal three years ago that we should endeavour to arrive, on this great article of commerce which was the subject of so much exchange between the respective countries, at an uniform system. Her Majesty's Government, replied, that it would be impossible to think of inducing Parliament to enter upon any system of duty on sugar which should cripple or restrain the liberty of Parliament with regard to making that article a vehicle for its financial purposes; that they could not by any international convention agree to part with their liberty of raising or lowering the duty upon sugar; but still it was urged that what might be done was this, that our Government might agree to establish a certain relation between their duties on sugar and their drawbacks, which should come as near to absolute equality as science and experience could bring it, and that they could also undertake so to adjust the duties on sugar that if they did not think fit to make them uniform on all qualities of the article, yet the relative duties should be so accurately adjusted to the value for refining purposes that whatever the amount was, so long as that proportion was observed, it might move up and down so as not to interfere with the principle that all on sugar going out of the country should receive back neither more nor less than the duty it had paid on coming into the country. In pursuance of this view of the French Government, to which Her Majesty's Government acceded, they went into the matter, and the result was the treaty to which he had referred. With regard to the scale of duties on sugar that treaty provided that careful and elabo- rate experiments should be instituted on behalf of the four Powers in common, and subject to verification by the representatives of every one of those Powers. That was the mode by which it was proposed to fix the relative amount of duties to be levied on different classes of sugars; and so far as that part of the treaty was concerned, which was the most important part, the operation of the treaty would remain to be determined according to the result of those experiments when verified and accepted by Her Majesty's Government. But, in the meantime, the representatives of each of the Powers, in their examination of the present state of the law, became judges of the justice of the legislation of the other, and, of course, in each case of legislation three of the Powers might be considered to be impartial, and in some degree competent to pronounce on the legislation of the fourth. The effect of that was that various flaws were found in the scales of duties of the other Powers, and important boons would consequently be conferred on our refiners by the rectification which, under the treaty, would at once take place without waiting for the result of the experiments in the laws of the other contracting parties. But these contracting parties, when they came to be judges of our law, laid their finger on what they unanimously held to be two decided flaws. One was, that our drawbacks were too high, and contained the element of bounty; the other was, that in addition to our varying tax on sugar, to which in principle they did not object, and our separate duty on molasses, we had a duty on an article anomalous in character, being neither molasses nor sugar, namely, the article called milado, which was supposed to be a mixture in given proportions of sugar and molasses; and the representatives of the other Powers had made our concession of these two points an absolute condition of their acceding to the treaty. Her Majesty's Government had done what they could to ascertain how far they could proceed safely in this matter. There was no fiscal question involved; there was no question of competing claims between the Exchequer and the trade. The sole object was to make a convention which would tend to the enlargement and prosperity of this great trade. They found, as regarded the drawback, in which the refiners were principally interested, that there was a decided and general willingness to assent to the reduction proposed. They found that as regarded the duty on milado, what was demanded by the other Powers, was that they should abolish that as a separate duty, and raise it to the standard of the duty which they now levied on the lowest class of sugar. The arguments that were used by the other Powers in support of this course were two. One of them was that it would be manifestly almost impossible, by ordinary methods and experiment, to ascertain the actual constituents of milado. The second argument was that it therefore followed that there would be proportionate facility for fraud, by the introduction, under cover of that title, of quantities of sugar larger than ought to come in in proportion to any rate of duty fixed upon it. In the first place they were not able to deny the force of these arguments, and in the second place they had to deal with this state of things, that the representatives of the other Powers might say, "Accept these terms, or else we are not able to enter into this engagement." Therefore, the question was whether it was desirable in the interest of this trade to carry this treaty into effect. Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that it was. That was the proposal they now made. One or two words more. Let it be clearly understood that there was nothing in this convention to prevent Parliament from taking whatever steps it thought proper with regard to raising or lowering the duty, and there was nothing in the treaty to fetter their dealing as they thought fit with that part of the subject which was called refining in bond. That was a matter in respect to which great difficulties were apprehended, and he did not think that any mode of overcoming those difficulties had yet been discovered, but there was nothing in the international obligation that affected it. It had been represented to the Government that in altering this separate duty on milado some hardship would be inflicted on the owners of part of the article that was on its way or was in course of preparation for coming here, and they were disposed to think that there was some equity in those representations. They had consequently made a request to the other Powers, who entered into this convention, that the new duty on milado should not take effect immediately, but should take effect on and from the 1st September next.

said, he approved the proposed convention generally, which would be exceedingly beneficial to the trade of the country; but he was exceedingly sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to imposing a lower duty on cane juice. Some day the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped, would see his way clear to the only proper solution of this perplexing question of duties and drawbacks upon sugar, which was by allowing refining in bond. If the right hon. Gentleman gave the necessary directions, he believed the Customs Board would soon overcome the difficulties connected with the question, and he would thereby confer upon the community a greater boon than if he were to reduce the present sugar duty by one-half.

said, this was a limited and partial measure on a subject of considerable extent and importance. In 1857 a Committee of great weight was appointed to consider a subject of wide range, and was called the Committee on Public Moneys. This Committee recommended a large extension of the duties and powers of the Board of Audit. They added—

"If these suggestions be adopted it will be necessary that the composition and relative position of this Board, as a great Department of State, should be re-considered by the executive Government. The Board of Audit is responsible to Parliament alone; and the station and emoluments of the person at the head of it should be equal in the importance of the duties to be performed, and not second in rank to any permanent officer presiding over our other principal Departments."

In the spirit of that recommendation the Government entirely concurred, and from time to time various steps had been taken with regard to the extension of the Department piecemeal; but there had not been yet any general re-construction, as it might be called, of the duties of the Department upon the broad principles which the Committee undoubtedly contemplated. Before the commencement of the present year it was made known to the Government that the late Chairman of the Board of Audit had definitely determined on applying for retirement, and his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) was called upon to appoint a new Chairman to the Board. It then became the duty of the Government to consider whether the time was not arrived for taking measures for a general consideration of the subject of audit and of the functions and composition of the Board. The question then arose whether it was necessary to burden the public in increasing the emoluments of the officer at the head of the Board, and while the Government thought such an increase necessary, they also thought they saw their way clear to that arrangement without increasing, and, indeed, with a diminution of public burdens. Their proposal was to unite the functions of the head of the Board of Audit with those of the Controller of the Exchequer in the same person. They were of opinion that the combination of those offices would have many advantages besides the mere substitution of one salary for two. The Controller of the Exchequer was at the head of an ancient office, and exercised duties very various in their character and dignity. He had the custody of the standards of weights and measures, a duty entirely inconsistent with and unsustained by any of the analogies at the Department; and better provision could be made for the performance of that duty. The Controller of the Exchequer used to be the manufacturer every year, and, indeed, twice a year of the new sets of Exchequer bills which it was formerly the custom to renew annually. The superintending the manufacture of these bills and affixing the signature to them was one of the more considerable duties of the office. But some years ago an Act was passed providing that these bills should only be renewed once in five years. The financial engagements and the arrangements connected with them varied from year to year and from six months to six months; but the Bill itself was only renewable once in five years. At the time this Act passed it was distinctly in the contemplation of the Government, and, he might say, of Parliament, that the manufacture of those bills should be carried over from the Exchequer to the Bank; for it was provided in the Act that the remuneration given to the Bank for the payment of Exchequer bills should include any charges connected with the renewal of the bills. There were several other functions of the Controller of the Exchequer with which it was not necessary to trouble the House, but the function of the greatest importance and dignity was that called the Exchequr Control. It was the duty of the Controller of the Exchequer to note all the issues of public money that were authorized to take place under warrants from the Treasury, and to see that those issues were within the amounts voted by Parliament. This was a duty entailing very little labour, occupying very little time, and far from demanding or justifying the maintenance of a separate establishment. The office was invested with dignity and with considerable emolument, was of the very highest station in the permanent Civil Service, and comprised functions which required entire independence of the Executive Government. The headship of the Board of Audit was a very responsible office, and one involving duties of much greater amount than the Controllership of the Exchequer; but there was nothing in the duties of either which would render their combination in the hands of the same person in the slightest degree inconvenient. By this union the station of the head of the Board of Audit would be elevated, the independence of the Controller of the Exchequer would be maintained, and the charge to the public would be reduced. The present Controller of the Exchequer, well known to the Members of this House as a very distinguished person, and as an old public servant, was disposed to retire, and it was the intention of his noble Friend at the head of the Government to advise the grant to Lord Monteagle of one of the pensions now in abeyance, and due to him for political services in two of the offices he formerly held as Secretary of State for the Colonies and Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the life of Lord Monteagle, therefore, an increased public charge of £500 a year would result from the new arrangement; but this would be only an individual tenure. The consolidation of the two offices would effect a prospective economy, and this would not be the sole advantage of the arrangement. There was a great and obvious advantage in obtaining from Parliament authority to place at the head of the two offices one and the same person, who would give his assistance in making those arrangements with respect to the filling up of vacancies in the Audit Office which would be most economical to the public. He did not say that in point of law the Government would not be able to combine the two offices in a single person without coming to Parliament; but he was afraid that the person appointed would in such case be entitled to draw the salary of each office separately, and that was not a state of things which the Government desired. The Audit Office was at present large, and might, with an extension of duties, probably become larger; and it would be advantageous to be enabled to effect these combinations during the present Parliament. Power was taken under the Bill to make one appointment to the office of Controller General, and to make provision for the duties of the Assistant Controller, who, in fact, simply acted as the substitute of the Controller during his necessary absence. With regard to the officers of the Department, provision would be made in that considerate manner which was usual in regard to arrangements of this kind. One of them, he took occasion to mention, was a Gentleman of great merit, Mr. Chisholm, the head of the establishment of the Exchequer, than whom no more competent person was to be found in the whole Civil Service, and it was to be hoped the country would long continue to have the benefit of his valuable services. By the third clause the salary of the Controller was fixed. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought he had shown sufficient cause why the appointment should not be postponed, it being understood that the present legislation would not interfere with the reconsideration of the subject of duties. He was anxious to obtain from the House liberty and sanction for objects which were strictly of a practical character, and which involved the public economy, and, he believed, the principles of good legislation. It had occurred to him that possibly it might be the feeling of the House to confine the measure to making some provision for the present, and not to legislate at once for the whole of the future. In that case he would have no objection to alter a few words in the Bill to give effect to that desire. He moved the second reading of the Bill.

said, that any one might suppose from the state of the House, and from the period of the Session at which the Bill was brought forward, that it was a matter of petty detail or official routine, whereas it was a measure for the abrogation of one of the most ancient and honourable offices in the King- dom. The office of the Exchequer dated from the Norman Conquest; its birth was coeval with the birth of the Kingdom of England. Yet the end of this Bill, if passed, would be that this ancient institution would be utterly swept away. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not now persevere with a measure of such magnitude. If this were a common Session, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had waited until the 15th of June to introduce such a Bill, we should hold that he had not dealt fairly with the House, nor with those Members who had been driven, by weariness and lassitude, to seek repose and solace at their country seats. But this is not the close of a usual Session. This Bill has been thrust before a moribund Parliament now panting at its last gasp. So many Members had left town, so many had gone down to their constituents to solicit support at the approaching general election, and were already canvassing through the country, that the Government had the greatest difficulty in keeping a House for their own business. It was counted out last Friday during the Committee of Supply. Was it, then, fair or decorous in the right hon. Gentleman now to introduce a matter of such stupendous magnitude and paramount importance? He desired not to oppose the principle of the Bill, but to have the subject amply and deliberately discussed. The arguments in favour of it should be carefully weighed; those against it should be thoroughly investigated; they should then balance them and arrive at a mature, a sound, and permanent conclusion on the whole question. Any decision they could now arrive at, in this superficial and hasty manner, would not have weight with the country, and would be scorned and tossed aside by a new Parliament. This was not a matter of great urgency, and as Lord Monteagle had not yet resigned, he did not see why there should be such haste. Why not wait for three little months until the meeting of the new Parliament? What loss could accrue to the country? What damage would thereby be caused to public business? Would the accounts be thereby thrown into confusion? Would the revenue of the country be diminished by postponing this measure? More was to be feared from hasty legislation than from prudent delay. This measure had been hustled up to its present position. It was introduced on Monday night without explanation; it was printed and delivered yesterday; and they were asked to affirm the principle today. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Bill was brought in to effect a saving, but at the end of his speech he destroyed his own argument by stating that it would cause an additional expenditure of £500 a year. Supposing, however, that it would make a saving, the House should consider whether, while saving a paltry sum of £2,000 on the one hand, there might not be a loss of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 sterling on the other. Nay, more; they must remember that they lost far more than money could represent in sweeping away an ancient institution, if they thereby caused a violation of constitutional practice by freeing the Minister from the check and control which existed at present. Every man sought to increase his power. Ministers were no exception to the common condition of humanity. They very naturally kicked at every instance of control, and endeavoured to disburden themselves from every check. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would be inconvenient if the Bill did not pass, because, in the event of Lord Monteagle's death, a new appointment must be made, and that this appointment must be for life. This, therefore (he would have us believe), must postpone sine die the proposed reforms in our financial laws. But the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that, by the 3rd clause of the Exchequer Act, the appointment was always made subject to abolition or regulation by Parliament. This argument ah inconveniente had therefore no force. The principle of this Bill was to unite the offices and combine the functions of the Controller of the Exchequer and of the Chairman of the Board of Audit. Before the House could come to a judgment on the principle of the Bill, it was necessary to define clearly what were the functions of the Controller of the Exchequer, and what were the functions of the Commissioners of Audit, And if the functions of those officers were, as he maintained they were, inconsistent and incompatible, they could not be so hastily combined. It had been represented that the function of the Controller of the Exchequer was to watch the appropriation of the money voted by that House. This had been so often repeated, so frequently whispered, that it came at last to be regarded as a fact, and received as an indisputable truth. Then those who were anxious to abolish the Exchequer pointed out that the Controller could not really perform that func- tion. But the fact was that the Controller had nothing to do with appropriation; his duty was to watch over the issues. He (Lord Robert Montagu) distinctly denied that the Controller of the Exchequer was ever intended to follow money to its appropriation; he asserted that it had been devised as a check over issues; and the Exchequer had not failed of performing its function. That that was the case was explicitly stated in the Report of the Committee on Public Moneys, which sat in 1856 and 1857, and of the Commission which preceded it. The Commissioners of Public Accounts reported in 1831 that the functions of the Exchequer consisted in—

"(1.) That of the receipt and safe custody of the public treasure. (2.) That of control over the Crown and its Ministers. (3.) That of record."

In all this there is not a word of appropriation. How, then, could it be argued that because the Exchequer was no check on appropriation, it was therefore a useless office, and failed of its intention? Lord Monteagle, before the Committee of Public Moneys, was asked—

"(605.) Do you consider it as a part of the functions of the Controller of the Exchequer to see that the Paymaster in any way makes a proper use of the money when once paid to him?— Certainly not; when withdrawn from the Exchequer account I have no such authority."

The Controller of the Exchequer, therefore, distinctly repudiates such a function as that which some had ignorantly or designedly endeavoured to saddle upon him. Mr. Anderson, the Chief Clerk of the Treasury, admitted to the same Committee—

"(1034.) The Exchequer can have no control over the final appropriation of the public money."

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire, who was examining him, then said—

"(1035.) I am not inquiring about the final appropriation of the public money; be so good as to confine yourself to the issue of money into the hands of the man who has to appropriate it. Do you consider the control now exercised by the Exchequer a sufficient check for that issue?—It is the utmost that you can have."

It had been said, also, that that check was unreal and a mere fiction. That cry had not been echoed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He doubtless repudiated such an assertion, and refrained from using it in argument. It would have been very inconsistent if he had done so. For if the function of the Controller of the Exchequer is an unreality, why transfer it to the Board of Audit? Why insult them by imposing upon them a fiction? Why delude the nation in thinking that a check was maintained in their behalf when no control existed? Why make the Board of Audit lend themselves to this hallucination? But it might be granted that the check was not often required: but that was no argument against its maintenance. Three-deckers were not often wanted, yet they were built and maintained. The fortifications in England which were now being constructed at great cost, might never be used, and yet we paid large sums for building them. It was a fallacy, therefore, to say that because the check was not often called into exercise, it was therefore inoperative and useless. Its fallacy was proved by the Report of the Public Moneys Committee. In the Appendix, there was a list of about 200 cases in which the Controller of the Exchequer had exercised a real authority over Ministers of the Crown. Among other payments which that officer had prevented was one of £90,000 which the Treasury had endeavoured to draw out of the Consolidated Fund. To this the Controller objected; his objection was valid; the Treasury had to give way. At another time the Treasury attempted to draw out of the Consolidated Fund a sum in excess of the salary of the Lord High Chancellor. This again the Controller prevented, and saved that sum to the country. At another time the Treasury wanted to draw out of the Consolidated Fund the amount of the pension of a man who was dead. This was also effectually resisted and prevented by the Controller. The fact was that the Controller of the Exchequer exercised a real and very important control over issues. First, there was the check which he exercised over the issue from the Consolidated Fund of salaries and moneys drawn under Acts of Parliament; secondly, he prevented more money being issued from the Exchequer than the gross total of the annual Votes; and, thirdly, he permitted no money to be issued until the Appropriation Bill had been passed. If the Exchequer were abolished, which would be the ultimate effect of this Bill, money might be employed by the Treasury without the sanction of Parliament at all. Money might be drawn out of the Exchequer without assembling the House to vote it. The same might occur in this country which was now passing in Prussia. The contest of the 17th century in this country might again be renewed. The only two Acts which rendered it absolutely necessary that Parliament should meet every year were the Mutiny Act and and the Appropriation Act; because, by the expiration of the former Act, the army was dissolved at the end of the year, and the Controller of the Exchequer would allow no money to be issued until the latter Act had been passed. Until the last two or three years no one troubled themselves about the Mutiny Bill. The Appropriation Bill had likewise been gradually ground down and attenuated; but the check had been restored to it within the last three years, and it was saved for a time. What now were the functions of the Board of Audit? The functions of the Board of Audit were entirely different from those which he had described as belonging to the Controller of the Exchequer. It was a detective society; it could not interfere with the action of the Government—it could not arrest Ministers in a course of misappropriation—it could in no way fetter the action of the Executive. Its business was to discover, not prevent, misappropriation. It had to search and investigate, and if it discovered that money had been misappropriated it could only report the circumstance to Parliament, and leave Parliament to deal with the Administration as they thought proper. By this Bill the functions of the Board of Audit would be entirely changed, and it would fetter the action of the Government and receive authority over issues with which the Commissioners of Audit had now nothing to do. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER shook his head.] Then, the effect would be to substitute for the existing two checks—the one operating before the issue of the money, and the other afterwards—the merely one-sided check of the Board of Audit. You abandon all control over the issues before expenditure, and trust alone to the Appropriation check which comes into operation after the money has been spent and the accounts rendered. That that check was practically very slight was proved by the circumstance that, although the Board of Audit had reported that the Board of Works had misappropriated £176,000, not a word had been said about the matter in that House. The Board of Audit reported the misappropriation of an enormous sum, and yet the Minister had not been called to account for it by the House. Hence the check was not very severe. But if they were to trust to this subsequent check alone, then it should be made co-extensive with the present cheek of the Exchequer. It should be extended to all the accounts; it was wrong to leave some accounts free from all check or control whatsoever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had rehearsed a portion of the Report of the Committee of Public Moneys, wherein they recommended that the powers of the Board of Audit should be extended, that the rank of the chairman should be exalted, and that he should receive an increased salary, and should be made independent of Ministers, and amenable to the House of Commons alone. That portion of the Report was familiar to him (Lord Robert Montagu), for he had adopted it in 1862 as the substance of a Motion which had been opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That matter wa3 now not touched by the Bill before the House. But before those important functions were conferred upon the Board of Audit it must be dealt with. The Board now audited a few accounts, but they ought to audit all. Then it would be possible to make some requisite changes in the Exchequer. Every witness who testified in favour of a change in the office of the Exchequer in 1856 and 1857 had put this forward as the necessary prelude. This formed the basis of Sir George Lewis's famous memorandum. He recommended some changes in the Exchequer, preceded, however, by the extension of the sphere and powers of the Audit Board. In the year 1860 there was a Motion carried by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring), which went the length of saying that all accounts should be audited by the Commissioners of Audit. That had not been done, and yet the House was now invited to alter the constitution of the Exchequer. The Committee on Public Accounts in 1861 had again entreated and urged the Government to extend the sphere of the Board of Audit. But all had been in vain. He had referred to a clause in the Act which said that the Controller of the Exchequer should hold no other office, and there was another clause which decreed that Exchequer Bills should be prepared only by that officer. Exchequer Bills were, in fact, a creation of public debt. They were securities transferable from hand to hand, like bank notes, and payable to bearer. If this Bill passed, who would draw Exchequer Bills in future? Was it to be the Audit Office? It was not consistent with their proper functions to increase at pleasure the amount of the public debt. Was it to be the Treasury? What, then, would prevent them from issuing Exchequer Bills beyond the amount authorized by Parliament? Was it to be left entirely in their hands to increase the Public Debt, without check or control? That the Commissioners of Accounts of 1831 regarded this as a real danger is proved by the following passage in their Report:—

"To prevent the issue of any Exchequer Bills beyond the amount authorized by Parliament, it should be provided that every such Bill be countersigned at the Exchequer before it can obtain a legal currency."

And yet, in defiance of all these recommendations, the Exchequer Office was to be swept away. There were anomalies which this Bill would not touch. According to the present law the Controller only allowed money to issue for the use of certain specified services, and in his warrant he declared that the money so issued should be applied to those particular services, and to no others. The Paymaster was strictly forbidden to apply the money drawn for one purpose to any other purposes. Nevertheless, as soon as he received the various sums, he threw them all into one drawing account and one balance, and applied the whole indiscriminately for all the services. He did not deny that there might be a necessity for such a proceeding, hut certainly it was illegal, and any Bill professing to deal with this subject should deal with anomalies such as that. Many remedies had been suggested. One was that instead of haying one Paymaster, there should be an accountant for each service, who should draw what was required for that service, and keep a balance for that service alone. A great injury would thus result. The total of all the balances in the hands of this multitude of Paymasters would amount to far more than the balance which lies idle in the hands of a single Paymaster. The difference between these sums did not now lie idle, but was used in reducing Deficiency Bills. He admitted that something ought to be done, but he doubted whether this was the right time for doing it, A far better course would be to wait three months, when a new Parliament would consider the whole subject of the constitution of the Board of Audit and its duties. The whole Exchequer question could be simultaneously debated; and then, after careful consideration, a sound, a definite, and a permanent arrangement could be effected. Impressed with that belief, he should move that the second reading of the Bill be deferred for three months.

said, he seconded the Motion. In one respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into an error. The right hon. Gentleman had rightly said that the present office of Controller of the Exchequer included very heterogeneous matters, but the union of that office with the Chairmanship of the Board of Audit would entail duties very little homogeneous. It must be an anomaly to unite in one person the duties of exercising control over issues and of presiding over a body which performed the duties of audit. Lord Monteagle, in his evidence, had stated that the most important manner in which the Controller of the Exchequer acted was when he acted by way of prevention, and the knowledge of the existence of that check prevented any necessity for the use of it. If there was not some control there would be great confusion in the appropriation of the sums voted by Parliament. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the office of the Chairman of the Board of Audit was held quam diu se bene gesserit. What was the effect of such a tenure? Some said it meant that a man was to hold his office as long as he had good health; but he took it that an appointment quam diu se bene gesserit continued as long as the holder of the office behaved himself properly, was guilty of no misconduct, and was under no incapacity; that it was an office to be held for life. An hon. Member near him (Sir David Dundas) said, there must be some conviction against such an office before he could he removed; but perhaps the Attorney General would enlighten them on that point. His own belief was that the tenure quam diu se bene gesserit was not quite so secure a tenure as the hon. Member near him supposed. He thought a writ of supersedeas might still issue, and that it must be granted upon some cause stated in the writ, and then the Minister would be responsible to Parliament for the justice of that cause; but he did not understand it to he the law that a writ of supersedeas would not issue except upon a conviction. He wished to know whether the tenure of the office of Chairman of the Board of Audit was not less secure than that of the office of the Controller of the Exchequer, who could not he removed except upon an address from both Houses of Parliament; because, if that was so, and if they happened to have an unprincipled Government which wanted to remove a man, it might find out something against him, so that the office would not he as positively secure as a freehold office. These were important points, which he would like to have cleared up before they passed that Bill. If they joined to an office known to the Constitution, and having a permanent tenure, another office the tenure of which was not so permanent, they went in the teeth, if not of the letter, at least of the spirit, of the third clause in the Exchequer Act, the object of which was not only to make the Controller of the Exchequer irremovable, but to prevent him from holding any other office not equally permanent. He thought it highly undesirable that the Controller of the Exchequer should hold any other office at all; because, although the duties of the Controllership might not he numerous, the post was one of such responsibility as to require the entire attention of one man. Another point which he desired to have cleared up in connection with that Bill was—Did the measure positively unite the office of the Controller of the Exchequer and that of the Chairman of the Board of Audit, and make them so closely associated that the Government of the day could never confer the office of Controller of the Exchequer on any one except the Chairman of the Board of Audit, and vice versâ? A small saving to the public from the amalgamation of these offices would be a very poor compensation for the evil of fusing into one office functions which, if not absolutely incompatible, were very inconsistent and heterogeneous, and the union of which would pro tanto affect the dignity, independence, and the insulated position, as it were, of an officer who was the guardian and custodian of the public money, and had in fact to see that the Votes of that House were properly and rigidly carried into effect.

said, he could assure the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) that there was no truth whatever in the reports to which he had referred in respect to this question. He wished that that Bill had been brought forward when there was a better opportunity for its discussion. It was a short Bill, but it dealt with a matter of far greater moment than the mere saving of a small sum of money by a union of these offices. He had long been of opinion that the office of the Controller of the Exchequer and the Audit Office required some revision. The office of the Controller of the Exchequer was originally a very important one, but it had now become very inefficient. Everybody who went through the evidence taken by the Public Moneys Committee would be satisfied that the check which that officer exercised in former times was now gone. It was very desirable that check should be revived. He used to issue his warrant to each particular department, the Army, the Navy, or the Ordnance, and the Treasurer of those Departments could not expend money upon anything not connected with his own service. Some new arrangement was needed, and it was of the utmost importance that the Audit Office should be strengthened. In the Report, which had been referred to, the late Sir James Graham had declared that in his opinion the Audit Office required strengthening; and every examination which he (Sir Francis Baring) had made when he was on the Committee of Public Accounts satisfied him that the Audit Office was one of the greatest importance, and ought to be strengthened. Sir James Graham proposed a plan by which the two offices might be consolidated, but it was not adopted by the Committee. He had no hesitation in saying that he preferred two separate offices, because he thought their union might be found to be attended with much danger. A contrary opinion, however, was entertained by so many gentlemen whose position entitled their views upon the subject to respect that he had not such confidence in his own opinion as to lead him to oppose what might ultimately be regarded as the wisest course to pursue. He had no objection to the Bill if it were to be regarded as a temporary measure only, and he saw no reason why it should not be so altered in Committee as to render it purely temporary in its character. The House should be careful how they gave their sanction to the principle of the abolition of the office of the Controller of the Exchequer without previous inquiry, and he thought it would be better to provide for a temporary arrangement than for the present Parliament to sanction the union of the two offices once for all. He was particularly desirous that no remark of his might appear to cast any reflection upon the Treasury or any of the heads of that Department, because a great deal had been done of late years in the improvement of the public accounts, and that improvement had more especially been visible during the period in which the right hon. Gentleman had held office. He hoped, therefore, that some arrangement might be made to drop some part of the Bill, or that the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an assurance that Parliament itself should be called upon at some future time to deal definitely with the subject.

said, he could not refrain from expressing his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing this measure, should have laid so much stress upon the small saving which would ultimately accrue from the amalgamation of these two offices, because the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had, he feared, conveyed the impression to some hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the debate that the Bill had been introduced for the purpose of effecting a saving of one or two thousand pounds a year. If that were so it was a strong reason for not proceeding further with it. It seemed to him, however, there was a more important object to be obtained by the measure. To some extent he differed from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring), and he was in favour of what he understood to be the principle of the Bill. The real subject for consideration was what should be the arrangement for securing the right appropriation of public money. They had at present three offices—the Treasury, the Exchequer, and the Audit Office, with certain functions divided between them, those functions being derived from very ancient times. As those functions, however, had of late years from the condition of affairs, become greatly changed, he thought it was advisable that their position should now be revised. It was especially worthy the consideration of the House whether there any longer existed any real necessity for keeping up the department of the Exchequer at all. If, as he inferred, the object of the Bill was to put an end to the control of the Exchequer as a distinct office of the estate, while, individually, he was willing to consent to such a course he felt scrupulous at adopting, at the present stage of the present Parliament, a measure contemplating such an object. The question was one of great importance, and one upon which, as they could perceive, different opinions were entertained by high authorities. The final settlement of such a question ought therefore, in his opinion, to be left to the consideration of a new Parliament, where it would receive better attention than it could possibly do under the present circumstances. If they looked for a moment at the real question between Parliament and the Government, they would see that Parliament granted to the Government certain sums of money for executive purposes, and that Parliament possessed two pieces of machinery—the Exchequer and the Audit Office, intended for the control of the Government in the expenditure of the money which had been placed in its hands. The consideration and adjustment of any changes in these modes of controlling the expenditure of the Government was a matter, therefore, of great importance, and one with which the present Parliament was scarcely in a position to deal satisfactorily. Out of respect to Parliament these changes should be produced at a time when in a full House they could be fairly and fully considered. Another objection to their proceeding with this Bill, as a final measure, was, that in the system of these two offices it was desirable to introduce a variety of improvements. It was, no doubt, true, that a good many improvements had already been introduced, and that this had especially been the case with regard to the Audit Office; but the passing of this measure would lessen those inducements which at present existed for proceeding with the improvement of the system generally. He should wish to see introduced, at the earliest possible moment after the sitting of the new Parliament, a measure containing provisions not merely for the re-construction of the Exchequer, and, if necessary, of the Audit Office, but also for dealing with those questions affecting the superintendence of the appropriation of public moneys which required solution. That being his feeling, he still thought it would be unfortunate if they rejected the Bill, and he could not, therefore, support the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu), because he felt that, if a vacancy were to occur during the recess in the office of the Controller General, without any alteration having been made in the law, it would be the duty of the Government to appoint a new Controller of the Exchequer, and such an appointment would create new difficulties and increased expenditure in the final settlement of this question in case the abolition of the office were deemed necessary. He thought, therefore, that as the matter now stood it would be desirable to frame such a provision as would meet the contingency which would arise from such a vacancy. He might, he believed, say that such a vacancy had already arisen, and for his own part he should not at all object to an arrangement by which the present Chairman of the Board of Audit should be appointed to the office of Controller General in conjunction with the office which he at present held, and that a proper addition should be made to his present salary, but he objected to their deciding at once that such should be the course proposed on all future occasions. He should like, therefore, to see some proviso annexed to the third clause to the effect that any person holding the office should hold it subject to any arrangement with regard to salary or duties which Parliament might hereafter determine upon. His object, in suggesting the insertion of such a proviso, was a desire that the hands of Parliament should not be fettered in the future discussion and settlement of the question. Another alteration which he thought he was fairly entitled to ask for in the Bill was the omission of the second clause. He could not see the necessity for introducing such a clause. It was prejudging the question, although he was rather prepared to go in the same direction; but it would be more respectful to Parliament to omit it from the Bill. He would therefore support the second reading of the Bill; but, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested some other mode of accomplishing the object, he should propose the alterations to which he had referred. This was a matter of really very great importance. It had been for a long time under consideration, and although he was anxious to see it settled it would be a great pity to hurry it at the last. At the present time the attention of the public had been called to the defects of our system of audit. The question was also being considered by a Committee upstairs on the public accounts. They ought to deal with the Exchequer and Audit Office in a way which would satisfy the public that every reasonable precaution was taken for preventing the misappropriation of public money and other frauds and irregularities, and to settle the relations between the three great departments—the Treasury, the Exchequer, and the Audit Office—on a much more satis- factory footing than at present. His noble Friend had stated his views with great ability, but he disagreed with him to a great extent in some parts of his speech, and he appealed to him whether it would be worth while to press his Amendment to a division, It would be better to make the necessary alterations in Committee and to leave the matter to be discussed more fully in another Parliament.

said, he hoped they would have a very distinct explanation of the views and intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the suggestions made by his hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) before his noble Friend consented not to press his Amendment to a division. The functions of the Audit Board and the Exchequer were different. The duty of the one was to look into the accounts, that of the other was to be a positive and absolute check. In matters of finance, he had always found that the last thing they should give up was any salutory check. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Francis Baring) who had taken so much pains, and had so much experience in this matter, he hoped his noble Friend would press his Amendment unless they received a satisfactory answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

said, he thought the question whether the offices of Chairman of the Board of Audit and Controller of the Exchequer could well be held by one individual a matter of much less consequence than whether, according to the impression he, in common with his hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), derived from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, it was meant to do away with the Controller. That was a most important question. No doubt one man might hold both these offices as head; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, throwing out as he did that the abolition of the office of Controller would be done with that tenderness always exhibited in these matters, it was pretty clear that it must be meant to do away with that office altogether. If the functions of the office regarding the present control over public moneys were still to be performed, there must be a staff for each office to assist the holder, whether he held one or two offices, to do that duty. Now, the office of Controller of the Exchequer was to prevent improper issues of public money. It was perfectly true that the Audit Office might discover a year or two afterwards that such issues had taken place, but it would then be too late. The moneys would have gone out of the Exchequer, and once gone it would be like trying to catch hold of an cel. They might blame individuals, but the money was lost. Although quite disposed to give full credit to the Lords of the Treasury, the Controller of the Exchequer was a constitutional officer, placed between them and Parliament to see that moneys directed by Parliament to go in a particular direction should go in that direction only; and he must say what he saw in the Public Moneys Committee had convinced him that considerable value belonged to the functions of the Controller. Some of the officers of the Treasury, in giving evidence, showed that the office gave them a little trouble. It made them look to their P's and Q's. They did not like it, and evidently wanted to get rid of it. They might again fall on bad times; and he should be sorry to see this wholesome check abolished. No public advantage would be gained by doing away with it. His hon. Friend below (Sir Stafford Northcote) had suggested what was not an unreasonable course. The question had been brought before them so suddenly, the Bill being only circulated yesterday, that some reasonable time should be given for its consideration, and he should be quite content if the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted the course suggested by his hon. Friend. He hoped he would not drive them to oppose the second reading of the Bill by persisting in portions of it, which, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Francis Baring), should be expunged.

said, a great portion of this debate had arisen from the importation into it of what he had endeavoured to exclude — that it was the design of the Bill to abolish those duties which were now performed by the Controller of the Exchequer. That had been assumed by the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu), by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Francis Baring). Now, he had stated, as clearly as he could, that that was not the intention of the Bill. He said in express terms that all the duties of the Controller of the Exchequer should continue to be performed precisely as they were now performed, until Parliament had had the opportunity of considering the question. He had asked for power to prevent the neces- sity of maintaining offices useless to the country, due provision being made for the performance of necessary duties. But of all classes of men politicians were by far the most suspicious; they sometimes, however, outwitted themselves, and fell into error by their over suspicion and determination to see motives which did not exist. He did not say a word in disparagement of Exchequer control; but if he were asked his opinion, he would say this, that Exchequer control had become inefficient, anomalous, and unreal to a very great degree. Whether it should be, however, entirely abolished or modified was a question of great importance and delicacy, which he had not examined with that coolness and precision which would enable him to come to a positive conclusion upon it. His desire was that these separate duties should be maintained as at present, and with the fullest liberty on the part of Parliament to extend these duties by restoring the efficiency of the Exchequer control. It appeared to him that the practical differences between himself and those who had taken part in the debate were very small. He differed from his right hon. Friend (Sir Francis Baring) on one point, for he was fully convinced that the duties of Exchequer control were not duties sufficient in themselves to occupy the time of a public officer. It was, therefore, he thought, the duty of Parliament to remove the anomaly of what approached to be a sinecure. Nor would he admit the doctrine that had been urged of incompatibility of function in these two offices. He would repeat what he had before stated, that if there should be a desire on the part of the House to reserve its ultimate decision upon the union of these offices he had no objection. The only object he had was the practical one of laying the foundation of an improvement which would be permanently effected if Parliament should approve a reduction of useless and unnecessary offices. One suggestion would be met by altering the first two lines of the first clause, "on the occurrence of a vacancy in the said office," and substituting the words, "on the occurrence of the next vacancy in the office of Controller General." In the third clause the words "for the time being" might be struck out, and he would not object to the insertion of the words proposed by the noble Lord at the end of the clause. He could not agree to the omission of the second clause. The proper way would be to introduce some words making provision for the performance of all the duties that were now discharged, and he would not say more than that he did not think the performance of these duties required the maintenance of the Exchequer establishment as it now stood. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) appeared to think that the tenure upon which the Chairman of the Board of Audit held his office — quam diu se bene gesserit —was a weaker tenure than that of the Controller General, who was only removable upon an address by both Houses of Parliament. Practically, there was a difference between the two, but the union of these two offices would be a reason for placing the tenure of both on the same footing, and the recommendation of the Select Committee that the Chairman of the Board of Audit should be considered to hold one of the first positions in the Civil Service was a reason for raising, not only his salary but his office, to the highest position of dignity and independence. The only subject he felt justified in pressing upon Parliament at the present time was the practical one of laying the foundation of an improvement which could be made permanent if Parliament should think fit— that, namely, of effecting one of the plainest duties of a person in his position—the relieving the public from the burden of an unnecessary expense. Some of the suggestions thrown out he should take into consideration. Though he could not say that the Bill would be productive of immediate economy, yet its tendency was towards economy. The notion that this Bill entailed an additional charge of £500 upon the public was entirely without foundation. He begged to disclaim any intention of questioning the motives of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu).

said, he would take that opportunity of making some general remarks upon the Bill, and would take a short retrospect of the law. During the many centuries in which justice had been administered in the Law Courts of this country, no one, up to a very recent period, could be a witness in any suit or proceeding in which he had the slightest pecuniary interest. At length, in 1828, Lord Brougham in his celebrated speech upon Law Reform called the attention of Parliament to this subject, and from that time until 1842, several successive efforts were made by Lord Brougham himself, by other members of the legal profession, and by Members of Parliament, to qualify and improve the law, but those efforts were made in vain. At length, in 1842, Lord Denman brought a Bill into the House of Lords, the object of which was to remove the disqualification of witnesses on the ground of interest. Lord Denman was opposed, he believed, by every Judge upon the Bench and by almost every Minister of the Crown, especially those who had filled the office of Home Secretary, hut his Bill was passed. For nine years after this the subject was agitated from time to time, and at length, in 1851, Lord Brougham brought into the House of Lords a Bill to make all parties to civil suits competent witnesses. Lord Brougham introduced that measure in a very memorable speech, which had the effect of doing away with the prejudices and objections of most of his hearers. He was, however, opposed by Lord Chancellor Truro, whose authority was the greater because he had been a leading advocate at the bar and had filled the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; he was cautiously and timidly sanctioned rather than supported by Lord Campbell, but was earnestly sustained by another high authority, Lord Cranworth. The Bill, however, became law; and he believed that no change effected in our law procedure during the present century had been attended with more beneficial results. The Bar, the Bench, the Press, and the public were agreed as to this. But in that Act two exceptions of quasi-civil cases had been inserted, owing to the perseverance of those who had opposed the measure altogether. With the first of these exceptions—cases for breach of promise of marriage — Clause No. 1 of the present Bill was intended to deal. He did not deny that considerable objections might reasonably be made to the examination of the parties to this description of action; because loose conversations between two persons might be greatly exaggerated by one of them if a desire existed to establish a contract, and there was the danger of the sympathies of the jury being unduly exercised in favour of the lady. But it should always be remembered that the great object of all judicial proceedings was the discovery of the truth. He thought that the proviso of his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), which would provide that there must be a promise in writing, would go far to remove the objections.

said, he was aware that in referring to those breach of promise cases he was touching on delicate ground; but he hoped he should avoid giving offence to any one in that House or in higher regions. He thought that the Legislature had shown its wisdom by making cases of breach of promise an exception to the general rule, for a person who was anxious for a good match would not stick at a trifle. If a man were with a woman without witnesses, what was he to do? Let the House imagine the case of a young man who was supposed to be a desirable catch, who had happened to meet a young woman of an imaginative or designing turn, and who had happened to be alone with her. After such an occurrence she might go into the witness-box and swear he had made a proposal of marriage to her which she had accepted. The defendant might go into the witness-box and say he had not; but if the woman was clever, designing, and, above all, good-looking, the great probability was that she would get the jury on her side, and the defendant would find considerable difficulty in extricating himself from the scrape. Cross-examination would not be very effective in such a case. He was afraid that the clause would lead to a good many marriages which would not he productive of domestic happiness. If the clause of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) should be adopted, he thought it would nullify the clause altogether. To be consistent, his hon. and learned Friend should entirely do away with the law of evidence. He admitted that in civil cases the rules of evidence had been carried too far; but if he under-stood this Bill rightly, it was founded on the principle that every possible sort of evidence ought to he laid before a jury. Was his hon. and learned Friend prepared to go the length of admitting hearsay evidence? It was said that the parties who knew more about the matter than anybody else did ought to be heard. That might be true in some cases, but not in others; and in this particular instance the principle was, in his opinion, a dangerous one. It should be remembered that it was the interest of the parties concerned to deceive the Court. If the clause passed, at all events there should be a retrospective limitation; it ought not to apply to promises of marriage given before the passing of the Act, and then after the Act passed men would take care not to put themselves in a dangerous position, and would take care always to have a witness with them to state what really did happen. He objected to the clause and should certainly vote against it.

said, the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend against the clause were just those used against Lord Brougham's Bill, the merit of which, by the way, belonged not to Lord Brougham hut to Jeremy Bentham. He could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend (Sir George Bowyer) that in a breach of promise case the man was as likely to be the injured party as the woman. It was much more probable that the man was the deceiver. He assured his hon. and learned Friend that he only spoke of women as he had done because he did not know enough of them. His hon. Friend feared that if women were allowed to tell their own story in the witness-box justice would be defeated, but could it be thought possible that if a woman swore, for instance, that his hon. and learned Friend had promised her marriage she would be believed? It was so unheard-of a proposition that it would be sure to be scouted. And why did his hon. and learned Friend think that he would be in a different position from any other defendant in such an action who would have the opportunity of being heard on his own behalf. With reference to the proposition which he understood was about to be made, that the contract should be in writing, it would be a substantial alteration of the existing law, and it was one to which he could not assent. It would, he believed, lead to great wrong and injury being done to women by deep designing men. Let them imagine a young, inexperienced, and pretty woman of eighteen, having listened to the honied words of such a person, addressing him in commercial language, and requesting that he should put his proposal to marry in writing, and duly sign it. If that proviso were adopted, the effect would be that there would be no such thing as a valid promise to marry.

said, he pitied the unfortunate man who ever defended an action for breach of promise when persons like his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck) were on the jury. He could not admit that men were always deceivers and women never; and certainly juries did not deal out anything like equal justice between them. The other day a lady brought an action against a gentleman who was lame and unable to take care of himself, and though her position would have been that of a nurse rather than of a wife, she recovered heavy damages for the loss of that position. In another case some years ago a lady with a large fortune made a solemn promise of marriage to a gentleman, and when he, being jilted, brought his action for the damage he had suffered by losing the material comforts he supposed he was going to obtain, he was dismissed with a farthing damages, amid shouts of contempt. Was this a reciprocal action; if so, was it treated fairly by juries? In the former case, the lady nurse received several thousand pounds; in the latter case the gentleman, after being kept several years waiting, was dismissed with a farthing damages, amidst the laughter of the people in court. Yielding in no respect to his hon. and learned Friend in devotion to those among the fair sex who did not bring actions for breach of promise, and having the greatest contempt for those who did, he would treat these promises in the way which promises of a much less serious character were treated under the Statute of Frauds. Because people were apt to construe that into a promise which was never meant to be one; the Statute of Frauds required that certain promises should be in writing; and if there was any one class of cases in which this precaution became necessary, it was in cases where marriage was in question, and promises were extorted, or imaginary promises were framed by mothers and sisters anxious for the match out of innocent conversations. Lord Brougham had himself made an exception, in allowing the action for breach of promise, the evidence of the parties, and it did not appear that Lord Brougham had changed his mind. No doubt, juries very much resembled in feeling his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Roebuck). When a young and pretty lady was set before them as having been deluded there was no holding them in. He remembered hearing an old member of the Northern Circuit, who had been a barrister in India, tell the story of a Circassian slave who had murdered the master of a harem there. He, as counsel, had to defend her. It was a bad case, but he said, "Put her in her best dress, the more transparent the better; set her opposite the jury, and I'll answer for the result." And the result was exactly what he predicted. She had stabbed the man, but the jury pardoned the crime for the sake of the interesting woman they saw before them. So in the case of an action for breach of promise. A young and interesting woman would get damages; but if a man was ever so young and interesting be got no damages, but had to pay heavy costs and get scouted besides. For his part, he thought this action might well be abolished, for he did not believe in the broken hearts of young ladies, who, di- rectly they got a dowry in the shape of damages, got somebody else to console them. If, however, you must have the action, why not treat it as a serious matter? Why should not these promises be placed on the same footing as promises under the Statute of Frauds? In a class of cases with which magistrates at petty sessions were very familiar (bastardy), material corroborative evidence of the woman's statement was required, and the law was altered specially to require that, in consequence of the iniquities which had been perpetrated. The alteration which was proposed by this Bill was to create new evidence under circumstances which would make almost a new action, and if it were carried the class of cases to which he had referred would come into the courts as actions for breach of promise of marriage, instead of being as now settled before magistrates at petty sessions. He did not intend to oppose the clause; indeed, he should not vote upon it all, but he should move the addition of the following proviso:—

"Provided always that no such action shall be hereafter brought unless the promise be in writing, signed by both the parties."

It was quite a mistake for the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) to suppose that when a promise is made the young lady must sit down on the spot and write it out, and then call on the gentleman to sign it. This was not the case, nor was it the case under the Statute of Frauds. If the promise could be made out from any number of letters or other documents between the parties that was sufficient.

said, that in the City of London the Statute of Frauds was practically a dead letter. A vast number of transactions took place without any writing at all, the security being merely the character of the parties.

said, he should support the clause.

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) that this was a very exceptional kind of action. Why it happened he could not say; but his experience in courts of justice was that in actions for breaches of promise of marriage the women had it all their own way, and the men had no chance. The lady was well got up, placed in a conspicuous place, and the attention of the jury directed to her, and, of course, she was generally in tears. If she were placed in the witness box and cried under cross-examination, as they always did, it would be all over with the man. The jury, to show their chivalry, their admiration, for the fair sex, and their contempt for their own, would immediately return a verdict for her. If this amendment of the law were sanctioned, it would be found that a certain class of attorneys would come into Court with a crop of actions for breach of promise, which no single man could stand against except he had the advantage of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), and could protect himself by the vow of celibacy.

put the Question, that the Proviso be added to the clause, and declared that "the Ayes have it."

said, he saw no necessity for the words "signed by both parties." They might be omitted without any disadvantage. Love-letters which would be written evidence of a promise were not usually signed, or were signed generally with initials or with some fancy or assumed name.

said, he thought the purpose of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) would be answered if it were provided that the promise should be "under the hands of the parties charged therewith."

assented.

said, he understood that the Proviso had been agreed to.

said, he rose to Order. He was against the Proviso, hut he wished to see their proceedings carried on with order. He believed the Proviso had been declared to be carried.

said, that was not so. The Proviso was not carried. He had put the Question, taken the Ayes and Noes, and had said in the usual manner, "I think the Ayes have it," when that expression of opinion was challenged by the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly).

said, he opposed the clause. He said he could conceive nothing more repugnant to the feelings than that any reckless individual should be allowed to call into the witness-box a woman, whom he had perhaps deceived, and subject her to examination and cross-examination as to the nature of her entire past life. The instincts of gentlemen revolted at this action being treated like an action on a bill of exchange or the sale of a bale of goods. He thought that the clause would have a detrimental effect, instead of being a protection to the sex, of which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was so chivalrous a champion, and for whom he had exhibited more feeling than he was ever known to display for any other portion of the human race.

said, that this was a most important clause. The object of it was not to compel parties in a suit for adultery to come forward and give evidence, but it gave the parties—the man or the woman—the option to come forward and deny the charge. In the Bill of 1851 this clause was not adopted. So great was the inconvenience felt in consequence of that omission that the learned Judge who presided over the Divorce Court had expressed his opinion that a clause like the present should be introduced into this Bill. When he introduced the Bill he took the liberty to read to the House a letter from that learned Judge to that effect. The clause in the Act of 1851, which disallowed parties in such suits to be called as witnesses, had given rise to some strange anomalies. In a suit for adultery neither party was competent as a witness, but if the suit was one instituted by the wife for cruelty and desertion, and if the husband should plead the adultery of the wife, then both parties were competent as witnesses either to prove or to disprove the adultery. Again, if the husband or wife instituted a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, and if the wife should plead adultery, both parties were competent witnesses. The inconvenience was so great that an Act was introduced which provided that the wife or husband might be a witness in a case for cruelty or desertion, but not for adultery. When these three charges were combined, desertion, cruelty, and adultery, the Court and the jury, so far as regarded the evidence, were obliged to keep them distinct. It was a great injustice that a lady should be charged in court with the crime of adultery—that she should hear a friend, he might say a false friend, swearing to conversations which she was capable, perhaps, of directly contradicting or satisfactorily explaining—and that she should be unable to go into the witness-box to give her evidence. There might be cases of suspicion against a woman so strong as would satisfy a jury of her guilt, but she, who knew more than any other person in existence of all the surrounding circumstances which might tend to explain away what was suspicious, or qualify or give them a colour consistent with innocence, was excluded by our law from saying a word in her own defence. This question they knew had been much considered, not only by the learned Judge who presided over the Court of Divorce, but the most eminent members of the bar who practised in that court, and they all agreed in the policy and justice of the measure he now submitted to the Committee—a measure which he hoped would now meet the approval of Parliament. He moved in line 14, after "adultery" insert "in which any question of adultery shall arise."

said, that by this clause the hon. and learned Member proposed to give this power of offering evidence not in the ordinary way and subject to the ordinary rules of evidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to make husband and wife competent to appear as witnesses, but not compellable, so that he or she need not appear unless they saw fit. He (the Attorney General) looked with apprehension on the practical working of this; and if it were not for the high reputation of the learned Judge who recommended it, and a practical anomaly which existed in the present system, he should have great difficulty in making up his mind to agree to it. If, however, the law was to be altered, why should it be done in a manner wholly without precedent? Why should not the giving of this evidence be made compellable as well as optional? Such an exception to the general rule made the proposal condemn itself. If the reasons for the change were sound, why not go the whole length, and put evidence of this kind on the same footing as all other evidence? The argument which weighed most in favour of the change was that under the present law we had an anomalous and extraordinary state of things. If an action was brought, in which adultery was charged, neither party could be examined; but if the action was based, say upon cruelty, and in the proceedings a charge of adultery should arise by way of defence, both parties could be examined either voluntarily or compulsorily. If hon. Members could make up their minds to the enormous addition to the terrible scandals of these proceedings which would result from making husband and wife come into the box and give the past history of their whole lives from their own lips, the House would of course pass this clause; but if so, let them be consistent, and let not the examination or non-examination depend any longer upon the question whether the proceedings were commenced for adultery or for cruelty. This would only be adding to the existing anomaly, which it was the object of the clause to rectify. He should certainly vote against the clause if it were not altered so as to make such witnesses compellable as well as competent to give evidence.

said, he could not consent to make it compulsory upon husband or wife to give evidence as to their own adultery. The learned Judge of the Court also strongly objected to it. It was true that adultery was not an indictable offence, but it was a crime; and it was a well-known maxim of our law that no person, whether in criminal proceedings or in guasi-criminal proceedings, could be compelled to give evidence against himself. Under those circumstances he should take the sense of the Committee upon the clause as it stood; but he should propose a proviso, which would perhaps lessen the difficulties of the Attorney General. It was as follows: —

"Provided always that no person though competent shall be compellable to he called as a witness on any issue which raises the question whether such person shall be guilty of adultery."

said, he rose to ask for an explanation. If a husband or wife presented himself or herself as a witness, were they to be subjected to cross-examination on points tending to criminate themselves?

said, that if they offered themselves as witnesses they would then open the door to cross-examination to any extent.

Would they be compelled to answer questions to criminate themselves?

Undoubtedly.

said, he approved of the proviso, but could not support the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman had bet- ter keep them separate, and then, if any clauses at all were left in the Bill when it came out of Committee, he would vote for it.

moved the omission of the clause. He need add nothing to what the Attorney General had said as to its adding greatly to the enormous scandals which attached to these proceedings; and he could not be a consenting party to anything which would increase those evils. He admitted that great weight was due to the views of the learned Judge of the Divorce Court (Sir James Wilde); but in such a matter as this he felt bound, as a Member of Parliament, not to surrender his own judgment even to the opinion of one for whom he entertained so much respect.

said, that with respect to this being only a permissive clause its effect would be the same as if it were compellable. A person accused might or might not tender themselves to give evidence; but if they did not, what would be said by the learned counsel on the other side? Would not absence from the witness-box be held to be a direct admission of guilt? He had opposed the creation of this court from the first; and he deplored its existence now as one of the greatest public calamities of the country. He would consent to nothing which would increase and aggravate the evils arising from it, and he should, therefore, vote against the clause.

said, he felt some difficulty as a layman in offering an opinion on a subject of that kind; but he must take leave to say that he thought the arguments urged against the clause wore by no means satisfactory. His hon. and learned Friends, the Attorney General and the Member for the University (Mr. Selwyn), had spoken in very strong terms—although in terms, no doubt, which were not stronger than were deserved—of the gross scandal to public morals to which divorce cases gave rise. But in a question of that nature what they had to look to was not whether more or less scandal or disgrace would be produced by the operation of that clause, but whether or not it would facilitate the ends of justice by eliciting the truth, and so tend to prevent innocent persons from suffering cruelty and wrong. These divorce cases were in themselves scandals, that was an evil inherent in their very nature, and it could not be helped. But if the effect of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir FitzRoy Kelly's) clause would be to assist in promoting the interests of justice, that, and that alone, would be his reason for supporting it.

said, that after the opinion just expressed by the Committee on the first and second clauses of the Bill he thought it would be an act of disrespect on his part towards the majority if he were to proceed any further with the measure.

said, that he must oppose this Bill as he had opposed the original Act when it was brought in. A Return for which he had moved some years ago showed that the counties and baronies in Ireland were proclaimed upon the most ridiculous and frivolous pretexts. Cork, for instance, was proclaimed, not because of any crime or outrage which had been committed, but on a charge of disaffection, in the year 1848. The fact that peace and tranquillity were observable throughout the county rendered the renewal of the Act perfectly unnecessary. When a barony in Ireland was proclaimed under the provisions of this Act no person was allowed to carry a gun without a licence, and it was an easy thing for any person to make a representation to the authorities that an outrage had been perpetrated, in order that a proclamation might be issued. The Chief Secretary must have seen that persecutions had taken place under the Act. In order to show the tyranny which had been practised under its provisions he might instance one or two cases which had occurred, In Tipperary a young lad possessed a toy dagger of the most harmless description, hut his possession of this dangerous weapon having become known to the police they entered the house in which he lived and arrested him, and the boy was subsequently sentenced to a severe term of imprisonment. A short time since, in the same county, a man who had been to a fair and had become intoxicated was arrested. Four percussion caps were found in his pocket, and he was sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour on the charge of being in possession of munitions of war—the lawyer by whom he was sentenced, and who acted in the absence of the barrister of the county, sapiently remarking that percussion caps were necessary for the use of fire-arms. In another case two boys taking part in the theatrical representation of Douglas were engaged in a mimic combat with old foils, when a sub-Inspector of police rushed upon the stage and took them into custody. The two lads were dragged through the streets and detained in prison during the night. No murder had taken place for a considerable time in the country, and it would be a graceful act on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Motion, and to leave the act to drop, at least for this year.

said, he had always opposed these Algerine Acts for Ireland. Such a thing would not be tolerated for one moment in England. The Bill was entitled, "An Act to continue and amend the Peace Preservation Act," a complete misnomer. He should like to know what amendments would be introduced by the Secretary for Ireland? Tipperary was always under the Peace Preservation Act. During the garrotting times in London he found it necessary to provide himself with a weapon, but when he went to Tipperary he was in danger of being arrested by an officious policeman for carrying weapons in a proclaimed district without having a licence, so he got a licence—a document printed in red ink—a sanguinary affair, giving him leave to carry one gun and two pistols. But this did not prevent bad characters having arms, and if a Member of Parliament passed through Tipperary with a fowling-piece and stopped at Goolds' Cross Station he would be liable to be arrested. Lord Lismore, the lord lieutenant of the county, happened to send his gun by his servant to the gunsmith for repairs, and the policeman finding him with a gun in a proclaimed district — it was the town of Nenagh—brought him before the magistrates. And sometimes it was difficult to get a licence; the landlord of one of the police barracks, who was a tenant of his, applied to the resident ma- gistrate for leave to carry arms, and he was refused on the ground that they were all thieves in that district. And in this Bill an arbitary power was given to the Lord Lieutenant to impose taxation in any district which was proclaimed a most objectionable thing.

said, he hoped it was by accident that the Bill was not brought forward at an early hour, when English Members could see the nature of it. No such law as this was ever thought of for England or Scotland: and there was no pretence for it in Ireland where there had been no recent agrarium outrages. The Peace Preservation Act had been made a source of great oppression and injustice. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland (Sir Robert Peel) would state to the House clearly the necessity which existed for the Bill, and what clauses he considered it imperative to pass.

said, he must deny that Ireland was in a state to require the renewal of this Act. The gaols were almost empty. At the last assizes in the North Riding of Tipperary the grand jury disposed of the business in about an hour; and the judge who presided got rid of all the criminal cases in about six hours. He hoped the Bill would not be pressed.

said, he objected to Bills of this nature, which were only intended to meet cases of disturbance and agrarian outrage.

said, that the charges delivered by the Judges during the last two or three years showed that there was no necessity for any such measure as this. Instances had occurred in almost every county in Ireland in which, without its being so intended, these Acts had operated oppressively, and he, therefore, trusted that, under existing circumstances, the right hon. Baronet would not think it necessary to press this Bill. The state of the county which he represented was conclusive against the necessity for such a measure, and the opinion of Irish Members was decidedly against it.

said, he was quite ready to admit that the state of the country was vastly improved from what it was in 1860. He believed that Tipperary was as peaceful and as quiet as the streets of London. Still there were certain districts which were considered dangerous and which had been proclaimed. In conjunction with the authorities at the Irish Office he had gone carefully through the proclaimed list, and with respect to certain districts of Armagh, to which the hon. Member for Wexford had referred, it was true they were proclaimed, but the proclamation had been withdrawn, and no part of Armagh was now proclaimed. The same might be said of the counties of Wicklow and Wexford. There was a proclamation in existence since 1861 for some part of the county Mayo, but he had consulted with the Irish authorities, and to-morrow he proposed to write to inform the Lord Lieutenant that there was no longer any necessity to continue the proclamation in that particular barony. But he appealed to the House to support him in giving power to the Government of exercising this power on occasions when it might be necessary. Certainly there were instances in which the Act had been carried out with great indiscretion, especially where some young men were interfered with who were acting the part of Norval. It was much to be regretted that there had been any interference on the part of the police, who had exceeded their duty and been severely rebuked. Stories were current which he did not believe, and alarm existed in the minds of some persons which he did not share, that there were some persons of the name of Fenians who were disaffected to the Government, and it was desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power of exercising this power of proclamation when necessary. Parts of the counties of Antrim and Down were proclaimed in consequence of the disturbances at Belfast, and there the measure was not taken in order to insult the inhabitants, but as one necessary for the preservation of peace and tranquility. As soon as the state of things permitted it would be revoked. He trusted, therefore, the House would support the Government in this matter. The measure had been originally passed in 1847, and had been in force for nearly eighteen years. He should be the last man in the House to get up and support the measure if he thought it not necessary for Ireland. In this country it certainly was not necessary; but everybody must admit there was great difference in the circumstances of the two countries. This power had always been exercised in the most lenient manner. The Act would, if this renewal Bill were passed, continue for two years longer, and at the end of that time it would be competent for any hon. Members who might be then in Parliament to oppose or support the Government who might ask for its renewal. But meanwhile he thought it absolutely necessary to place this power in the hands of the Government, and he hoped the House would assent to the Motion.

said, he trusted that English and Scotch Members would give the Bill some further consideration. The Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted that the Bill was of an exceptional character. No substantial reason had been given for its introduction, and he was quite certain that it would not be tolerated for England. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the state of Ireland afforded no justification for the passing of such a penal measure. Some gentleman connected with the North of Ireland asked for the Bill, because Ireland was filled with peace and contentment, and the right hon. Gentleman asked for it because Ireland had vastly improved, and was free from outrages. Tipperary was as peaceful as London, and there was no necessity for such exceptional legislation. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe in the existence of the Fenians, and therefore this Bill must be passed. Surely the House would not support this reasoning. He blushed with shame when he saw Volunteers parading through London while they were not permitted in Ireland. If there were any reason for this Bill, he (Mr. Maguire) would readily agree to it; but in truth there was none. The Government had not pursued a generous policy towards Ireland; and he thought that it was time that they did so. England would not bear one-tenth of such severity as the Bill proposed to inflict upon Ireland which was now in a state of permanent tranquility. The wisest policy Government could adopt would be to trust the people rather than to exhibit this continual distrust of them. He was aware it would be absurd as well as factious to fight the Bill through its various stages, but it was the duty of Members who opposed it to take one division in order to show their feeling upon the subject.

said, he thought that Government would be very unwise if they did not press this measure.

said, that his experience was, that in places which were proclaimed the Government did not carry out the law, and he instanced Belfast, where, notwithstanding the locality being proclaimed, there were a great number of arms, as was proved by the firing which took place during the recent disturbance. He should vote for the Bill in the hope that the Government would enforce it where necessary.

said, he would vote for the Bill if it were necessary, but the fact was crime in Ireland had decreased. He thought that at all events the Government should give them some distinct assurance that there was a necessity for the Bill before the House was asked to agree to it. He should like to know what local authorities the right hon. Baronet had consulted before he framed the measure, for he (Colonel Dunne) had never heard of the magistrates being consulted upon the matter, and if it were the police only who had given their opinion he must say that he should distrust them. Mere stories about Fenians should not form the ground of penal legislation. Nor did disapproval of the acts of the Government form disloyalty.

said, what he had stated was that he did not believe in the disaffection of the Fenians, of which they had heard so much; neither did he believe that the loyalty of the people of Ireland would allow of an insurrection being attempted either by that or any other body of men.

said he trusted that in the course of a few years this Bill might be altogether done away with, but thought it would be premature to permit it to drop at present. When all disturbances in Ireland ceased the Bill would fall to the ground of itself. Of his personal knowledge he could state that the local magistrates had been consulted in reference to this Bill.

said, he regretted that the right hon. Baronet had not given some stronger reasons for the continuance of this anomalous law. He (Mr. Henley) had always been very much averse to the continuance of such legislation, especially in face of the fact that there was a decrease of crime in Ireland in proportion to the population. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think no more of the continuance of this legislation than of blowing his nose. He (Mr. Henley), however, thought that they ought to know the precise grounds upon which it was proposed, and why the Government thought that the common law of the land was not sufficient to keep the peace in Ireland. This seemed at first sight a very innocent Bill, but to repeat an expression which had been used, there was a great deal of white brandy in it. He was most anxious to see the same laws in England and in Ireland, and he repeated that before they proposed such an exceptional law as this they should have a statement of strong grounds for it.

said, he wished to refer to a very peculiar circumstance connected with this Bill—namely, that during the last Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel this Bill had been introduced and rejected by a largo majority, and Sir Robert Peel was turned out. Now that the state of Ireland had greatly improved the Bill had been again introduced. It did not come with a very good grace from the party who had before resisted it.

in moving the third reading of this Bill, said, at that late hour of the night he was compelled to ask the kind indulgence of the House whilst he made some brief observations in reply to the objections raised against the present measure. With regard to the objection so generally made that this Bill ought not to have been brought in by a private Member, he begged hon. Gentlemen to recollect that this Bill was not one to impose any now oath or burden, but it was one simply to repeal certain clauses in the existing oath taken by Roman Catholic Members. He hoped if the measure should be successful that it would lead to the adoption of one uniform oath for all. Such a Bill, he would admit, ought to be brought in by the Government; but it was perfectly fair that those who complained of certain clauses of an oath which they had taken should make their complaint to the House, and, if it were well founded, that their grievance should be redressed. But the real point to which he wished to draw attention was the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) in his opposition to the measure: because if this Bill should fail in arriving at that stage when it would become law, such failure would be owing to that right hon. Gentleman alone. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire who had rallied his party to endeavour to mutilate the Bill in its progress through Committee. If, then, the existing oath be preserved it would be owing to the right hon. Gentleman alone. Now, upon what grounds did the right hon. Gentleman oppose the measure? Why, the right hon. Gentleman said that the oath was of no use at all — that the Protestant feeling was so strong in the country. ["Order, order!"] He (Mr. Monsell) believed that he was perfectly in order in alluding to the statements made upon this question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. ["Order!"] He (Mr. Monsell) asserted that he was in order. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Protestant institutions of the country were so strong that the oath was of no use at all—that it was a mere sentimental grievance on the part of the Roman Catholic Members, and that it was better for them to allow the oath to remain as it was. Well, he (Mr. Monsell) wished to ask whether it could be a sentimental feeling on his own part when he declared that he felt deeply the grievance of being obliged to take that oath. He believed, from Arundel Castle down to the humblest habitation in which lived a Roman Catholic town councillor, that oath was looked upon as a grievance and an insult by him who was compelled to take it. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the University of Dublin and Belfast (Mr. Whiteside and Sir Hugh Cairns) said the oath was perfectly clear and simple, but Lord Althorp, Lord Campbell, and Sir Robert Peel entirely differed from them. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast quoted Mr. Sergeant Shee's statement with regard to the meaning of this oath, and said that he entirely agreed with it. Now, the fact in connection with that statement was, that immediately after he had made it— which he did in a note attached to a pamphlet pnblishing his speech—Mr. Napier, the then Solicitor General for Ireland, stated in that House that by the course he had taken he (Mr, Sergeant Shee) had broken the oath. Mr. Napier, therefore, charged Mr. Sergeant Shee on that occasion with perjury. Was not an oath, therefore, that could be interpreted one way by one gentleman and another way by another, ambiguous and a grievance to every honourable man who was called upon to take it? It had been said in the course of the debate that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was not obliged to take it, but he (Mr. Monsell) was. The other day, in looking over some petitions, he found that an admirable one had been presented to the House by the Commissioners of Supply of Aberdeen in favour of this Bill. Immediately following it was one from the congregation of Baptists, against the Lahore bishopric, signed by 2,000 persons, in which they said they were opposed on principle to any Church established by law, as being unjust and detrimental to the best interests of the nation. They (the Baptists) were not required to take this oath, but they required those who had no such feelings with regard to the Established Church to do so. Was that, he asked, just? Now, with regard to the constitutional part of the question, the late Sir Robert Peel did not impose it as a check on the legislative action of Roman Catholic Members. Was it, therefore, constitutional, or was there any other instance in which such a restriction was imposed? The object of tests was to exclude persons holding opinions considered objectionable. In 1675 an attempt was made to limit the legislative action of Members of Parliament, and a Bill passed the House of Lords, after seventeen days' discussion, which contained an oath which required Members to swear that they would not in any way alter the constitution of Church and State, but it was thrown out in the House of Commons. The Parliament of Scotland in 1681 passed a similar Bill, which the Earl of Argyle refused to take without giving an explanation of his meaning of that oath, and he was tried for high treason, and although he escaped at the time, was afterwards executed for that crime. That he believed was the only instance where a Member of Parliament had been interfered with in his legislative action, and it became the occasion of a foul and abominable crime. Under these circumstances, he did not think that he was asking anything unreasonable when he asked the House to abolish the present form of oath, and he contended the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who was the most powerful opponent of the Bill, had not adduced any reason why the oath should be retained. It would be much better for them to have confidence in each other, and act together in union. He thanked the House for the support they had given to the measure in that House, and he expressed a hope that it would meet with the same success in the other House of Parliament. The institutions of the country would in no degree suffer by such an act of generosity. It would confirm and strengthen them in the affections of the people, more than all the oaths the ingenuity of man could frame.

said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite invariably represented the oath as a case of grievance, and complained that its words were vague, obscure, and ambiguous. But the words were identical with those which were sent by the Catholic Archbishops and Bishops to the Government of Sir Robert Peel, and they were drawn up by those ecclesiastics in order to induce the Government and Parliament to consent to the passing of the Emancipation Bill. The instructions given to those who drew up the Emancipation Act were to throw aside everything that was offensive, and to frame such an oath as the whole body of Roman Catholics could take. In 1821, when Mr. Plunket endeavoured to frame an oath for all Members he failed, because the Vicar-General of the Midland District told him that he had misunderstood the principles of his (the Roman Catholic) Church. Accordingly, in 1829, an oath was framed which was voluntarily taken and welcomed with acclamation by Roman Catholics, and was now, after they had obtained by it all they required, discovered to be a grievance.

said, he did not ask the House to reconsider their decision; but he wished to remind them that this oath formed only one part of the protection to Protestantism which, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman who last spoke, was stipulated for and agreed upon when the concession to the Roman Catholics was made in 1829. Another portion was that certain institutions of the Romish Church, the order of Jesuits, should not be allowed in this country without registration; but, from returns which he held in his hand, it appeared that the latter stipulation had been altogether disregarded. The Government did not enforce the law, and there were now no less than seventy of these institutions in the country, illegal because unregistered. He thought that the Government ought to be called on to enforce the clauses of the Act of 1829 which contained what were regarded as protections to the Protestant Church.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) asked a pertinent question of Members on the Opposition side of the House—namely, why did they not insist on the Nonconformists taking an oath similar to that demanded by the existing law of Roman Catholic Members of that House. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the pastoral issued only that morning by Dr. Manning he must have perceived that the question which had arisen between the great body of Protestants in this country and the Roman Catholic priesthood, was not a question which could arise with regard to the Nonconformists. The Nonconformists had no foreign connection. The Nonconformists of the advanced school objected to all established churches; they did not seek establishment for their various religious opinions in the ordinary sense of that term. But it was obvious that the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic priesthood contemplated the re-establishment of the Roman Church in this country as a rival establishment competing with and endeavouring to supplant the Church of England; and therefore it was only right that the House should require a declaration from Roman Catholic Members that, in seeking to establish the Church of Rome, they would not disestablish the Church of England. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Limerick, though for a different reason than the one given by him (Mr. Monsell), that the grounds stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) for opposing the Roman Catholic Oath Bill were totally insufficient. The discussions in that House for years had shown that there were many grounds for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic oath, which were not adverted to by the right hon. Member for Bucks. In 1854, in 1857, and in 1858 the House deliberately rejected Bills similar to that now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) no doubt rejoiced at the great progress which had been made towards the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in this country; but he asked the right hon. Member whether, in the circumstances of the day, or in the documents recently issued by the Papacy to the authorities of the Roman Church, there was anything to show that the maintenance of the terms of the oath was less desirable now than formerly? It appeared to him (Mr. Newdegate) that there were reasons why the Roman Catholic laity would act wisely if they were to support the continuance of the oath, having before their eyes the examples of France and Italy. Only that day he had read in the Dublin Review an article on the recent encyclical letter of the Pope. The writer advocated the restoration of the temporal power of the Pope by force, justified the coercion of those who dissented from Rome, justified the intolerance which characterized the laws of Spain; and all he wrote in conclusion, by way of excuse, was that, under existing circumstances, it would be unsafe to attempt such coercion in this country. Under these circumstances he thought the right hon. Gentleman could not be surprised that a large minority of that House adhered to the course which had been theretofore the course of the majority—a course, which had been enforced by the majority even when the measure contemplated other objects as well as those of the present Bill, and was proposed by the Government. He trusted that he might thereafter meet with the indulgence of the House in the performance of that which he believed to be his duty, inspired by no spirit of intolerance, but acting, as he believed, in the interests, not only of the Protestant, but of the Roman Catholic Members of the House.

said, he wished that the fees in Ireland should not exceed those in England, and he begged to propose an Amendment to that effect.

said, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary.

moved the following clause:—

"That any person who has obtained from the Commissioners for the sale of Incumbered Estates in Ireland or from the Landed Estates Court a conveyance or declaration of title, or who shall hereafter obtain the same, may apply, every five years, by summary petition, supported by such evidence as the Court shall require, to be declared the owner, with registry of indefeasible title as originally granted by the Court; and upon the declaration of the Court, granted and registered or recorded as may be required by law, the person named therein shall be deemed owner as declared to all intents and purposes; such declaration shall not be chargeable with the percentage duty-provided by the Act."

He said the clause would be very beneficial to landed proprietors in Ireland.

said, he must decline to accept the clause.

said, he regretted the determination of the Attorney General; but he had the satisfaction of having done his duty in proposing the clause.

said, he would name Monday for the resumption of the debate.

said, he would appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the measure. He had made his speech, and he ought to be satisfied, and not give Members the trouble of coming down to the House to oppose it, because he had no earthly chance of carrying it this Session.