The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-31 00:00:00

rHE SUN LoNi)Orti, TUESDAY EvENtNG, JANUARY 31, 1860.-

ly
p, " •
The CHANCELLOR of the'EXCHEQUER, in reply
to hon. members, said that from the retuiel, received from
the War Department,, the excess of expenditure over the
amount voted in the estimates would be about £470,000.
ST. MARY IN RYDAL (MARRIAGE VALIDITY)
BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
PETITIONS • OF RIGHT BILL.
The second reading of this bill was postponed.
ANNUITY TAX ABOLITION (EDINBURGH).
The LORD ADVOCATE moved that this house do re-
solve itself inter a committee for the purpose of introducing
a bill to abolish the annuity tax in Edinburgh, and to make
provision in regard to the stipends of the clergy in that city.
The house having gone into committee,
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the subject had been
often under the consideration of the house, and a short state-
ment only would be necessary of the provisions of the bill.
As the house had been often told, the annuity tax was a
rate amounting. to 4/ per cent. upon the rental of houses
within a certain limited area of the city, an& which was laid
upon the occupiers of those houses, the proceeds, being
paid to 18 ministers of Edinburgh. He must also explain
that-the congregations covered a much larger area than the
districts taxed. Nor did the tax extend to all the occupiers,
inasmuch as there was a special exemption of a large and
wealthy class, consisting of members of faculty, judges,
barristers, and solicitors. Without entering into the ques-
lien whether the principle of this taxation was right or
wrong, no one could deny that. it was very unjust in the
mode of its imposition. Several plans for modifying- it
had been introduced into the house, and he would now pro-
ceed with a new attempt in the same direction. His hon.
friend and colleague the member for Edinburgh had twice
introduced a measure, which on,bothoccasions had received
the assent of the house on the second reeding. By the pro-
visions of those bills the ministers of Edinburgh, when the
last vacancy had occurred, would be dependent on seat-
rents, church-door collections, and a sum of £2,000, which
was drawn from the Exchequer, being part of a rent-charge
levied from the City of Leith. That proposal had twice re-
ceived the sanction of the house. Therefore, the question
was not now as to the continuance of the tax, or its aboli-
tion, but upon what terms and conditions itshould be abo-
lished. His proposal was not the same O. the bill of last ses-
aion. The result of that bill, if carried, would have been
that for 15 years the citizens of Edinburgh would have been
subjected to a payMent of £3 7s. 4d. per cent. The taxwould
have gone on for 16 years longer-31 years in all—and after
the payment of £3 7s. 4d. per cent. for 15 years, there would-
have been a further total sum paid of £63,000, 'so that the
burden would not have been extinguished for a very.consi-
derable period. In the present year two contingencies had
occurred. One of the ministers had been appointed to
a professorship, and another had been translatedto another
benefice. These contingencies might happen in years to
come, but they were things that could not be calculated on.
The proposal of last year, leaving the clergy to a great ex-
tent dependent on voluntary contributions, would in all pro-
bability
have met with very strong opposition.. It occurred
to him that their time and money might be used with more
economy; and the proposal he had, now to make would at
once relieve the ratepayers of Edinburgh, extinguish the
tax in a more limited period, and provide an...equitable and
just substitute. Formerly there was a fund, payable by the
railway company, as the peace of Trinity College Church.
A committee which sat in 1851 recommended that it should
be applied in extinguishing this tax; but. a law, suit had
prison as to the right of the town council to deal with this
money, and it was not now available. There was also a
sum payable to the deans of the Chapel Royal, which it had
been proposed to apply to this purpose; but these funds
also were new beyond reach, the University Commissioners
hiving recommended thatthey should be applied in endowing
more professorships. The third source was Geverntnents
money, but he was happy to say he did not propose to have
recourse to that. His proposition was one by which the citi-
zens of Edinburgh would be enabled to redeem the tax ; mid
et all events it contained the materials for an amicable set-,
t lei aen t of the question. Great scandal resulted from the pre-
sent mode of collecting the tax. The other day there was atrial
for resieting the officers in the execution of their warrants, in
which the" prosecutor failed to get a verdict and it was most
desirable that the question should be settled. At. present the
ministers were IS in number. Three of the churches were
collegiate: It eefpeared to him that they were not bmind to
previde for the second charges in those colleslate churches.
lie did net prepese to abolish one of them ; but in providing
a substitute for the annuity tax, and providing far existing
interests, Ite did not chink thet it would be ,necessary to pro-
vide for those second interests; and that opinion was shared
by many members of the Established Church. That would
have lei ministers—a larger proportion for Edinburgh than
v.-as provided for in oter towns. He thought it too
,auoh. He-wished to say nothing invidious ageirest the
Established 'Church; but still his measure was a practical
one. In 1837, when the E :clesiastical Commissioners re-
ported, the attendance at the Established Churches of Edin-
lurgh was very nearly equal to that of all other donomina-
: iens put together. In 1843 these wl3 an unfortunate dis-.
motion in the Chereli ; end in the census of 1851 it was
feend that of 43,C.H attendants on divine service in the
teeming-, about, 8,003 only belonged to she Established
Church—elm:vi:ie. that tee attendance had greatly fallen
if. The sett rents, in too five years from 183d-7.amountcd
to et:5,335 ; in the five years free' 1853-8, they yielded only
The eurplue derived front that source its the former
relied was 13,400, against £1,0(..10 in the latter. Ho hid no
wish to pare down the. revenues of the Established Church
proportion to the,number of attendants; but. it s'iould be
-a;:rnb,,f,,,t4,,,t_they :were :%aling- with an equitable art.-
In the 0.71 ITenseeete, Teeineetryb there were-only
1 Gil uniet,—(ltear)—and the o-dinai.y at-
' not TO. Of the 47 seats let, only
The 01 l Church was uuder
unurch, and the gigh Church was It
I'lle Toibooth Church had only 14 seats
e, unlet. Ho did not propose to abolish the
The p: wont incumbent would- retain the right to
the annuity tax as long as he lived ; but they were
bound to make provision for future incumbents of those
'the Old Church was vacatt at present • and
onokl:that the minister to be appointed ehoubi not
:tie the right to share in the annuity tax. He should
,:eeeefere give power to the commissioners to be appointed
by this bill to nominate one of the ministers in the collegiate'
church to the Old Church. His proposal was to the fallow-
ing etfeet ceeleeia.stical commission to be appointed
-ender the bill; tw.eor three members to be appointed by
tl;e Presbytery, two by the Town Council, one by the Fa.
(mite- of Advecete.s, and ow.) by the Society of Writers to the-
..Sgnet. To thane commissioners would be transferred tine
property in the churches. the right to the seat rents, and
,ia liability for repairs. The seat rents, now amounting to
.e. 1,630 a year, would be collected by them ; it was -quite
certain the amount was fur below wh%t it ought to be ; in all
probability there would be an increase of about MO a year.
It is proposed that that fund of £1,600 a year. should be accu-
mulated for 15 years •at-31 per cent. interest ; and supposing
-1.10 fund to increase at the rate of £6O a year, the whole-
' amount would be £33,600 at the end of that time. -Then
there was a sum of £2,000 a year paid from the Exchequer,
part of a rent-charge derivable from the docks at Leith. • It
had been said that. if the annuity tax,. were abolished; this
charge ought to be remitted; but he 'saw no sound reason
for doing that, and proposed that it should be continued. He
would allow it-to accumulate in the same.way for 15 years,
at 31 per cent. interest; and the amount of the two funds at
the end of that period wouldbe about £BO,OOO. He proposed
that the annuity tax should be abolished, but that there
should be laid. on by the Towd Council for that 15 years an
assessment of fro n Bd. to 10d. in the pound. The latter was
lo wer than the present rate. The rate, if levied: on the pre-
sent police law assessment along .with the police rate, and
paid by alboccupiers, would give a surplus produce in the
y-ear of £1,494,- after paying the stipends of the ministers
now chargeable on the fund. This annual surplus, accu-
mulated in the way he htd described, would yield at the
end of 15 years a sum of £34,000 or £35,000. Then he pro•
posed that the exemption in favourof the lawyers should-be
abolished—an exemption which ought never to have existed.
(A lauch.) If the lowest 'anmount of rate were taken-Bd. in
the pound—the capital accumulated at the end of 15 years
would amount to £106,000. If 10d—the highest rate —were
exacted (and that was lower than the existing rate) the
capital would amount to no less than £160,000. .That, how-
ever, would be more than sufficient, and .what he proposed
to do was, either to take the stun to be collected at £120,000,
or the sum to be furnished by the town at £42,000. The
two things would be very nearly th same, and the result
would be that at the expiration of 15 years there would
be an annual income to the ministers of the interest of
£120,000 at 31 per cent.—£4,2oo. There would be
£2,500 from the seat rents, and £2,000 from the Leith Docks,
giving £8,700 a-year. To give £6OO a-year to 13 ministers,
.£7,800 was all that was necessary, and there would still
remain a balance in the hands of the commissioners appli-
cable .to expenses. The plan would have this advantage; it
wt
shaenuiedn db
et o
foundth e t a
txhaaltt otgheethaesrsaets
stmheenent doo 15 y
nf
theteoawr years,
had not yielded £42,000, but he thought this was sure to be
ae hhaid madegherr no allowance
, nor () r fHoethfoanr the 4 per cent.
of the
realised.teobwntened on the accumulation. This proposal would not lay
a greater burden on the ratepayers than the plan of last year,
far Rd. in the pound was only £3 6s. per cent instead of
£3 78., and the whole amount of £60,000, payable on the
other scheme, would be saved. He certainly
that this measure would satisfy general or abstract expect
seetf
tteyo pfepalyre;ar
tdsohi
Ince considered
overd,
a°
otheror sooner,
du"
ehtg
greater
enet radaht,:t
they
irctmsayogovhn over
desirablet.
reduce 2 olf insteadt theoit
terminate r,
this troublesome question, but at all events itea;ol;ded?a
tnthonoe meansh
beteahrvooynfu'fegt hxyhteetrya
could do it by making the rate 10,1. instead of Bd. Much
depended on churchmen themselves ; the incomes of the
clergy might be increased and yet diminish the rate mate-
rially. It had been suggested before, and again to him n
-that occasion,.that the salaries of the ministers might be re-
duced from £6OO to £5OO or £550. If the members of the
Established Church thought that a more desirable plan, and
proposed that reduction in order to maintain the two churches,
he had no objection. But he had not made the proposal, be-
cause he thought it infinitely better for the Church that 13
clergymen shmild be fiilly paid, though they had to extend.
their strength over a larger surface. The learned lord-con-
cluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
Sir R. FERGUSON said that any bill introduced on
such a subject was deserving of the utmost respect from the
house. He therefore did not rise on that occasion to offer any
objection to its introduction. He was glad to find that the
learned lord adopted a different principle in framing this
measure from that on which others had framed their bills.
He was glad to find that the learned lord recognised the
duty of the State to support the Established Church of the
country, and the obligation that lay on the city of Edinburgh
to provide for the payment of the ministers of that church.
'The tax which was the subject of the present bill had been
levied for two centuries and a half, and he could not under-
stand why the clergymen of the city of Edinburgh should
be dependent on voluntary support, any more than the
clergy in any other pint of the country. The learned lord
endeavoured to find a substitute for this tax which had been
so munch complained of, though lie confessed he ,could not
see the justice of those complaints. The measure Was en-
titled to respectful consideration, but. he saw one 'or two
difficulties to its*progress. In the first place it seetned.hard
that the Established Church in Edinburgh should
•te -a6-
Prii,e4l at • one swoop of no less than five of it ti;tinisters,
especially when t' t 'twas • •
da ci y increasing in population.' It
had been found
necessary to build what in Seetl;ind were
called quoad
the sacra churches to meet the spiritual Annts•of
to reduce populationthenirdb it seemed rather inconsistent, therefore,
.tant objection mer of clergy. - There was a more inipor-
'continue the im affectingosit the bill, inasmuch as it proposed to
deprive the poot?p,
classes
of the seat rents, and thereby-to
Estblished Chureh'v ..,S(SCS of church accommodation. The
they were unable to d were anxious to reduce those rents, but
0 so because they were the property
of the corporation of Edinburgh.
open to grave objection on that n_The bill, therefore, was
friends of the Established Chumfi'Tund. He hoped the
support the friends of the Church o_n_this country would
Scotland in guarding

'c

und iu

x:ts e..A•tainly
let t parishioner

itte c'Quroli

l„:ll';

..vo

lurch from any attack upon its principles or revenues.

(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BLACK said it was not his intention, to oppose the
introduction of the bill, but ho must say that, perhaps with
something of the natural fondness of a parent, he preferred
the bill which he had introduced himself last session. He
was se anxious to see an accommodation of this vexatious
question that he had supported almost every measure
which had been brought in for its settlement, and, would
even submit to many inconveniences to get rid
of it. He believed the opposition to its settlement had
proved injurious to the cause of religion. It could not be
advantageous to the interests of religion when ministers who
called themselves the ministers 'of peace sent messengers
with manacles in their hands for the purpose of handcuffing
men who conscientiotely refused to pay this tax. (Rear.)
He thought it unjust that the present generation of citizens
in Edinburgh should have to bear the whole burden of the
measure proposed by the learned lord. He was willing to bear
his portion of the burden, but he doubted whether the inha-
bitants generally would submit to it. With regard to the
seat rents and their effect in keeping away the poorer classes,
it was notorious that half the seats were vacant, and were
open Athout the payment of any money at all. With regard
to the historyof this tax, it was first imposed by Charles 11.,
and the people of Edinburgh, instead of deriving any benefit,
felt it to be a burden and a grievance. For himself, he
should be prepared, on the proper occasion' to show thatthe
I right hon. and learned lord was wrong as to the history of
this tax. He thought that by making some alterations the
measure might be made more acceptable than it was at pre-
sent, as well as more useful to the Church.
Mr. MILLER thought that the inhabitants of Leith had
good right to complain of this measure. This tax bore
heavily and unjustly on the shipping interest of the town
which he represented. If the citizens of Edinburgh had
cause to complain of the oppressiveness of this tax, much
more had the inhabitants of Leith reason to complain of it,
for they derived no benefit whatsoever from it. He should
1 object to that part of the bill which affected ihe Town of Leith
at a future stage, and he hoped he would receive the sup-

port of the house. -
Mr. BLACKBURN would not object to the plan for the
abolition of this tax in 15 years; but with regard to the
proposal on the subject of the seat rents, he thought consi-
derable objection might be urged. He thought it very de-
sirable that the question should be settled.
In reply to Lord W. Gne.HAer,
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the proposed com-
mission was to be an unpaid one.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
CORPORATION OF LONDON.
Sir G. C. LEWIS, in moving for leave to bring in a bill
for the better regulation of the corporation of the City of
London, said the house was doubtless aware that when the
Municipal Corporation Actwasintroduced an exception was
made in favour of the corporation of the City of London. That
exception was mainly founded upon the. generally popular
character of the local municipal government of that corpo •
ration. Before the Municipal . Act was passed a very largo
number of the corporations of England were practically
Close. The governing body was confined and limited in its
character, and' frequently the vacancies which occurred
-were filled up by self-election. The main object of the Mu-
nicipal Act was to popularise the constitutions of the cor-
porations of this country. But the Common Council of the
City of London was already a popular body and well known
in former times. The City of London exercised great influ-
ence, and generally assisted the populir patty in this coun-
try. It was not considered necessary, therefore; -that the
corporation of the City of London should be included in the
general act. lint a separate report was made soon after with
regard to the City of London. Some time ago a commission
was issued of which he bad the honour to be a member, to
inquire into the state of the corporation of London. That
commission made a report, and a bill was introduced into
the house founded upon that report. At a later period that
bill was referred to a select committee, who reported upon
it, with amendments. The Lill which he now asked leave to
introduce was practically and to all intents and purposes
1 the bill reported upon by that select committee, and'reight
be considered as the recommendations of the commission,
whose report was referred to the select committee. The bill
se framed eves limited to the present state of the corpora-
tion and its officers. It did not include the question of the
coal tax, for this reason, that as those duties would shortly
expire, he should have a future opportunity of dealing with
thAt tax. At present he should merely ask the house for
leave to introduce the bill.
Mr. AY IRON opposed the motion. The queetion of
the corporation of London had engaged the attention of
• the house and the metropolis for a great many years, and
he did not ccenplein of the candour of the right hon. gen-
tleman in now introducing the question. No doubt the
right hon. gentlemen had for many years past been a very-
strenuoucesupporter of liberal ideas and of the liberal party,
but the question whibh they had to consider was, whether
lire services to the liberal party were a satlicient reason for
maintaining an institution which was not only said to be
no practical utility,but a'as in truth a very serious public
inconvenience. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman
had introduced a bill- of a . very curious ,character. The
house was aware that a bill was-introduced by the late Go-
vernment to regulate the franchise, and they as well as
'others before them maintained that the franchise should
not be lower than £lO. Yet, though the Whigs declaimed
against that, it, was singular that they should now come to
the hence and propeso a L'lo franchise for the municipality
of London. (Hear, hear.) One was et a toes to know how-
to deal with such -a Government. (A. laugh.) 'lle wanted
to know what induced the Government to hold up this.par-
ticular franchise withiwthe limits of this antiquated cor-
poration. lie could discover no solution except -that this
corporation attached itself so affectionately to the Whig
:arty, and consequently it became necessary for that party
to think more of the influence of the corporation in a City
electien than to consider those great -political principles 1
N.:hi-eh-they professed. The corporation of London was in
ies origin a mere local corporati,M,conliued to the walls of
hondon, and to all engaged in trade in -the City. The '
livery companies subsequently combined in one great cur-.
peration, and that was the eery:rani:ion of Lendrra, there-
:,,rd it ir,t, not a mere I'c--it .... • ' ••• (11,' but a-great t-ad -0
ltih corporation also, the reerceenee:
trade of the metropolis—that the theory—anti without
him. nothing ceuhl be done. 'eel- was this bill to do ?
.The corporation was now I, n. mere local 'municipa-
lity, supported for these tred iee- • •haracterist ics which would
be found -in-any other corpora! i• el in the conntry.; and if '
the bill proposed to deal with it in that way, it must aban-
don all theneretensione it had hitherto enjoyed. rio could
not understand how thi-r Government, though commending
a majority in the house of Commons, should bring forward
e little trumpery measure. which w-as totally inadequate to
the occasion. ThSy had left, out of 'tire question the tax
upon coal, which was a greet injury to the manufacturers
of London and those living. within 20 miles'of it, whilst
Oey announced with great satisfaction that they had got
the taxer token off the manufacturers of Paris who were- to
deal with us. (Hear.) The right- hon. gentleman was a com-
missioner to inquire into the state of this corporation, and
Le knew, Si was often aFverted, the fact that the City of
London had.no real tight to levy the smallest tax upon coal,
or to levy any other tax whatever upon the tnetropclis.
That tax was granted without any restrictions in past
times; but it was for-specific -purposes and objects. Those
objects and purposes had been more than fulfilled, and, in
point-of fact, the corporation of London was now levying
coal tax which had long since accomplished the objects- -for
which it was originally imposed, which.was must injurious"
to the coreniunity, and yet the Government did netlike to
quarrel with the-corporation, because it had influence at the
electiene. (Hear.) He hoped every effort would be used
against this bill, and that they would appeal to the justice of
the HOuee of Comnions, and ask whether they would allow
Ministers to'use their influence for such legislation els- was
shadowed forth in this bill. They wouldeno doubt, have
the noble lord the member for the City of London telling
them that this corporation was as ancient as Magna Charta,
but he hoped the housewould not be led away by any such
views as these. It was a remarkable thing, that-the house,
having a few years ago determined upon a system of muni-
cipality for the metropolis, the right hon. gentleman did
not adhere to that course, but. went out of his way to revive
a system which everybody out of the house condemned. He
hoped if the right hon. gentleman was not prepared -to con-
- sider whether he would allow a useful municipal body to re,
main Fide by side with this plaything, some gentleman con-
nected with the metropolis would do so, and pet upon the
table of the' hetise a bill ;which would deal with the-all-im-
portant questions which would arise; Tho metropolis ought
to be a county of itself ; it ought to have the legal as well as
municipal institutions; it ought to have a recorderfor itself
ao:one sheriff instead of half-a-dozen, so as to secure a
general harmony of administration of one uniform character,
which would afford great relief to the inhabitants and an im-
partial administration of justice.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was of opinion that the measure
had.better be altogether postponed, and from what he knew
of the right hon. gentleman oppose (Mr.• Walpole) he
-thought it more -likely that' his measure of reform would
have bean more efficient. The City of London did not
comprehend one-twentieth part of the population of the
metropolis, and he could see no reason for framing a mea-
sure for London on principles totally different from those
which governed every other great corporation in England.
For his own part he was aware that- the convivial meetings
of the corporation of London had triumphed over the good
intentions of the Government.
Mr. Alderman CUBITT observed that in the bill of-last
year the livery of London, a large and influential body of
ten or fifteen thousand persons, was altogetheieignored. As
to reforming the corporation its members were of opinion
that this question ought to be, once for all; set at 'rest. He
hoped the livery might be in the position they now
occapied, with the power they now enjoyed of electing the
Lord Mayor and some other functionaries, and this he
thought would, on the part of the Government, be a very
wise concession.
Mr. JOHN LOCKE remarked that the livery of Lon-
don ought not to be forgotten. They were not confined
within the walls-of the City of London, but were scattered
throughout the metropolis, and this formed a strong rea-
son 'why the. Government should not be alliewed •to carry
through a bill of this description, for it only dealt with a
comparatively small portion of the metropolis. The Metro-
politan Board off 'Works was intended to be some-
thing like a corporation for the whole of London, controlling
its municipal government in an essential respect, having the
power of levying rates for improvements—a body, too, which
he felt bound to say almost everybody disliked. When this
bill of the Government passed we should have two kings—
the Lord Mayor and the chairman of the Board of Works.
Was tbis- expedient ? Why not instead adopt the course for-
merly adopted, and extend had enlarge the corporation—
dividingww Commonhoilhe o
o:oflefaLtd
pectdensaoruredmuliaostceanueitn
telr
acioennbupnet.
raotiolmbaiwards,tsnhp:deeorthe
ibuthl:ten
dehay:Qniacnuwadoei
corporation
alpneiecopethr
aune
rpt
stih(siao.
oheni,
ndoahLunt
eoholdrdfra dtchLbgAraoyolotnvanosdeyevorooes
inurn,
doingoa tut nhhl( ddaee
houses
be
laugh)—but for these apprehensions there could be no
grounds. Let the corporation have the taxing power over
rho metropolis and they would soon be unpopular enough.
The corporation of the city of London was newer, powerful
s os efdt
aaxlerse,rea(nlidtawryhi- reehvtehneuye
ceofu od,oooaoB
ba oydeya,r:bne coat uasrei
siitnpgocsasiet
The . bill now brought in by the Government
ue it
ietibl.
orat
becomeion wae
professesrmeoesxt t
ue
snoedtfeju, del
citbn:athe
d inthleoympelres;ae:gvisttehd.
tiliefyth:ocoulrdp
r
oh no' asise measurei so
os
tiCi a ot
laid
11
moos.y ho
sk.
unworthyW to o
htaol
pl totally
tthoeseinconsistentceobnesi)ri.before
e.teeNrvsalitotteihnodgni
againstt
ass.
foSirre
xrt h. eFm: (QHue aHr ,
Alter
v.
f
taxing-the coal of the city he represented (Hertf6rd), be-
cause" it_ehrtnced to be within a radius of twenty-ono miles
6f 1,11 c,, maroptql.s. That was surely a great injustitscaetxaa,ten:flnoadr
vete), fereat -hardship. He trusted that when the. proper
the
ono nme thee
that lie.'wouldliPllagyrhetitrarhepn°rnto.enivboiasurelodtnonettohttahrteee-Sfriemeeeprteo.teaerythisf
Sir. G. C. LEWIS, in reply to the request just. made to
him by the hen.-gentleman the member for llertford, said it
iv:l4 quite true-that Hertford was included in the coal tax.
The house.was.Probably aware that the coal tax consisted of
three portions amounting in the whole to
.131 per ton. A
lax of -id. per ton was for the benefit of the City. They
claimed it as their -property, and it stood upon the same
footing as the town dues of Liverpool. The fourpence was
charged with.a certain capital sum raised upon it for metro-
politanimprovements and other purposes, which would not
be satisfied for some years to come, 43 to the other portions

of the coal duty, tho eightpence and the penny were not
applied to City purposes : they were collected by the officers
of the City, and handed over to the Board of Works, and
were applicable to the payment of any debts created by ad-
vances for general improvements. The purposes for which
the penny duty was levied had already been satisfied, and
the sums arising,from it were now paid over to the accoun-
tant at the Bank of England, there to accumulate under the
control of the Commissioners of Works. The purposes for
which the eightpenny duty was levied would expire in April,
1861. In saying what he had said he must be understood'
as not expressing any opinion, but merely stating for the
information of the house how the coal dues stood. As for
Hertford and towns situated like it, what the advocates•of
the tax said was; that those towns by their proximity to the
,metropolis derived a corresponding advantage from the im-
provements in the means of communication, &c., and that
the value of their land was raised by their contiguity to
London. (A laugh.) .This view he did not defend. (Hear.)
Mr. E. JAMES deprecated this sort of piecemeal legisla-
tion and would much prefer seeing the whole question of civic
rights and civic finance placed on a broad and intelligible
footing, and dealt with in one. comprehensive measure.
(Hear, hear.) The present state of things was most anoma-
lous. One clay the Cotirt of Common Council sat at Guild-
hall, another day ,the Board of Works, both possessing large
powers. He must designate the bill of the Government as
a paltry bill, and, one unworthy of the subject with which it
proposed to deal and of the sanction of the House of Com-
mons. (Hear, hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose
to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire
into the manner in which contracts extending over periods
of years. have from time to time been formed or modified by
hers Majesty's Government with various steam packet com-
panies for the conveyance of mails by sea ; andlikewise into
any agreements or other arrangements which have been
adopted at the public charge, actual or prospective, for the
purpose of telegraphic 'communication beyond sea, and to re-
port their opinion thereon to the house ; together with any
recommendation as to rules to be observed hereafter by the
Government in making contract services whick, have not
yet been sanctioned by Parliament, or which extend over a
series of years ; with power to report from time to time.
The right hon. gentleman had little to say beyond propos-
ing to the house the re-appointment of the committee. The
motion carried its own recommendation, and he was not
aware that there existed any intention to oppose it. For a
considerable number, of years this department had been under
the charge of the Ad iniralty, but the Government considered,
after due examination of the subject, that it would be desir-
able to make a change in that respect, and transfer it to the
Post-office department, which was Immediately connected
with.the receipts from the packet service. Upon the whole,
ho thought this .would be the more- suitable arrangement.
The Treasury would then have Control; and in respect to
the maritime portion of the duty they would be assisted by
the marine department of the Board of Trade, and, where
necessary, would call •in the advice of the Admiralty.
Such a change would, in the opinion of the Government be
conducive to public,advantage. (Hear, hear.) The com-
mittee upstairs would, however, deliver such opinion as it
thought fit. With respect to the notice given by the right
hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, it would be of course
open to him to make what remarks he pleased upon the oon-
duet of the committee which sat last session, nor would he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) attempt by any defence
of the committee to anticipate the remarks of the right hon.
gentlomen, nor indeed was he aware of any ground for im-
peaching it: HiWasnOt himself a member of the committee,
but had understood that the committee, so far as regarded
the subject-matter before it, was unanimous. He did not
mean to say that the committee was unanimous upon all
questions, but hehad not understood there was any differ-
ence of opinion with regard to questions which it was corn-
potent for them-to decide, and to which it was bound to ap-
ply its attention. The Government would not be Under-
stood as either casting any censure upon that committee, or
-joining others who thought fit to censure it,. With these
few observationslic would leave it to the right hon. baronet
to address such. remarks to the house as ho might think fit,
only placing his motion in the hands of the Speaker.
The motion was then read from the chair.
Sir J. PAKINGT 0 N said he rose, according to the notice
which he had given, to submit to the house certain considera-
tions witin egafd to the manlier in which the inquiries before
this cowlli:tee had bsen conducted in the last session of Par-
liament and the manner in which he thought it desirable
they elionld be conducted in the pre3ent year. Before statin 7,
ti Jose con, ideritions he wished to clear the-ground, by stating
that he did not clesire toienter into the evidence, nor to touch
upon the contract of Mr: Churchward, made by him with the
late Government to convey the mails from Dover to Calais.
A notice had, been given that a motion would be made next
Week upon that subject, and it was not quite clear whether
it would be consistent with the rules of the house that that
question should he raised upon-this motion. Whether the
house Would-confirm orviolate the contract made with Nil..
Churchward would be considered at a future time, and he
did not intend to notice the matter further. Nor did he
intend to touch upon the grounds ups' which the commit-
tee in their report had passed a censure upon Mr. Murray.
The, evidence was _such that, it he were to go into it, it
would bring onadiscussion which might at present beincon-
venient. He proposed therefde to limit himself to the ob-
ject which he had given notice of, vis., "to call the atten-
tion of the house to the manner in which the inquiry in,
trusted to the committee in the last session was conducted,
and to the neceesity that the proceedings of the . elect com-
mittees should he strictly limited to the matters referred to
them by the-house." The question was whether the mode
upon which the examination was conducted, especially the
manner in which the committee ha '.3 drawn up their report,
sva.,4 eonsis!eet with justice, consistent with parliamentary
practice, and more especially whether it was consistent with
the coeetant practice of tYs house in relation to all matters
which involved anything like a charge of personal miscon-
duct He would submit his views in the most temperate
manner, and he very much desirgi not tie express anything
which might excite or give rise to angry faaltnga, for in the
' discussion which tool{ vlace last year there was mixed up
a g'uoti (ic:;1 oi" :iii Cy 1i,,,,i:16 asal party acrimony, and it was
very desireble- to avoid everything of that sort at this
'time. (il e sr, hear.) He would remind the house of the
acknowledge] rule of parliament, which might perhaps be
considered as part of the lex non scripta of parliament; and
in the very valuable work of Mr. Erskine May—which
was accepted its the asithorised rules of parliamentary prac-
tice—the necessity was pointed out of confining the com-
mittees to their orders of rCerence. The rule stated that
" the select, committee were restrained from considering
matters not. specially referred to them by the house, and
when it was necessary to extend the reference a special
authority ought to be given fur that purpose." Such an
authority was necessary when select committees had to con-
sider questions touching the character and honour of indi-
viduals; and the house should remember that the honour
and character of men were the moat precious things they had.
No doubt it,•sometinies became their duty to consider the
conduct of Men ; but no man would deny that when it did
become the duty of, the house to entertain charges of per-
sonal misconduct, it behoved them and the committees of
the house to be scrupulously cautious that all charges should
be dealt with in strict regard to the requirements of justice..
(Hear, hear.)
~ He wishe to call the attention of the house
to the ordereot reference, or rather that portion of it which
u
related to the midi-pullet contract. It was to this effect,
"thaa committee be appointed to inquire into the manner
in which contracts extending over a period of years have
been from time to time framed or Modified by the Govern-
ment for the conveyance of the mails by sea; and to make
recommendations as to what ought -to be observed by the
Geyer= ent., i n making contracts for services' not sanctioned
by Parliament and which extended over a series of years."
He would next read a passage from the report of the cora-
enittee from which it seemed to him that the conduct of the
committee had not been limited to the terms of the order of
• The reference, passage was this—" It appears to the com-
mittee that neither the Admiralty nos Treasury officers were
influenced by corrupt or political motives in granting a re-
newal of the contract for the mail service. The conduct of
Mr Murray, the secretary of the First Lord of the Admiralty,
was open to, grave censure, but there was not sufficient evi-
dence to show that any member of the Government Was cog-
ni zalit of thecommunicationswhich passed between Mr. Mur-
ray, Mr. Churchward, and Capt. Carnegie." Now, he would •
submit that that paragraph was not consistent with the
terms of the.order of reference, nor did the order justify the
committee in acquitting, or convicting, or censuring any
gentleman for personal miseonductt. He expected—indeed,
be desired, that the committee would institute a full and
searching inquiry into the principles and the policy upon
which these contracts had been made ; and he further ex-'
posted that the committeewould investigate and report their
opinion to the house upon the wisdom and prudence with
which successive Governments had made these contracts ;
but he did not expect that they would enter into questions
of personal corruption and personal misconduct which had
not been referred to them, and they were not competent to
deal with. :Tithe committee had possessed a right to deal
therewith, why of course they would have authority to ac-
quit, and convict, and censure. Perhaps he ought, on be-
-half of himself and colleagues, to say that they were thank-
ful they had been acquitted of political corruption. But
they had not been before the committee, and no charge had
been preferred against them, and consequently the commit-
tee had no right, morally or legally, to entertain those
charges. "The right to atnuit and convict involved a trial,
and in order to have a fair trial two things were necessary
—a distineteaccusation and competent tribunal. (Hear.)
In this case both these elements were wanting.' (Hear, hear.)
It had been said that it was quite true the committee had no
authority to, try the question of misconduct or corruption on
the part of any individual, but that there was a sort of un-
derstanding in the house that they should enter into these
questions. He denied the existence of any such understand-
ing. (Hear, hear.) But if there was any, he must enter his
'protest against the idea that the conduct of any Man, or a
charge against any man, might be referred to an incom-
: petent tribunal, unless, indeed, the person charged were a
party to it; and therefore it .appeared to him that
the committee went beyond the powers which the
house had entrusted to them. (Hear, hear.) When the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
moved for the committee, he did so upon public grounds, and
did not intimate.to the house that the committee was to be
made an engine of attack upon individuals. The hon. gen-
tleman the member for London (Mr. Crawford) strongly
approved 'of the appointment of the coraraidee, and dwelt
upon its expediency, but he did not suppose that it was ap-
pointed to pass a censure upon this or that Government,
and he (Sir J. Pakington) was justified in saying that the
.tone of the debate was entirely in harmony with the view of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the object of the com-
mittee was to inquire into questions of public policy alone.
Subsequently another debate arose in consequence of a peti-
tion being presented on behalf of Sir Wm. Russell, which
prayed that the committee might be restrained from enter
ing into an inquiry respecting, the Dover contract, which
might prejudice his interest on the inquiry of the petition in
reference to the return of members for that borough. The
hon. member for Kilmarnock. (Mr. Bouverie) expressed a
strong opinion that the committee was not a fit tribunal to
investigate personal charges, if any should be preferred, and
the right hon. gentleman the member for Hertford (Mr.
Cowper) also expressed an opinion that if personal charges
were to be brought forward in connexion with these contracts
they ought to be referred to a judicial tribunal, and in con-
sequence of these speeches, the Chaneellor of the Exchequer
particularly referred to them, and to the unfitness of the com-
mittee to enter upon judicial duties. -The Chancellor of the
Exchequer said "the committee was not appointed • tOcon-
duct cases of criminatory accusation against any Govern-.
ment in particular, nor to try the oases of the Dover
and 'Galway
,contracts in any other spirit than that
of examining into all cases of contract which might
come before thorn." He had no 'hesitation in - saying
that the construction which he put upon those words
was, that it was the intention of the Government, and the
right hon.-gentleman in moving for the committee, that
they should 'enter into the questions of public principles and
public policy, and nothing else ; and he would add this,
that he felt convinced that this must hale been the mean-
ing of the right hon. gentleman, because if the right hon.
. gentleman had at that moment in his mind the notien'that
they would be at liberty to asperse the character of indivi-
, duals and to prefer charges of corruption the right lion.
, gentleman was bound to state it to the house. (Hear, hear.)
, Having accepted that construction, he made no objection to
the appointment of the committee ,+ and he thought it a
1, most propel...step on the -part of • the. Gtovernment to take;

but if -he had had the idea that the committee were not
going to investigate the public policy of these contracts,
but to deal with the characters of individuals, and with
charges of misconduct and corruption, nothing would have
induced him to' agree to the appointment, constructed its if
was. He strongly objected to the committee as being fitted
to'undertake the duty of inquiring into personal charges.
He would-admit that the committee was most carefully
selected, andit would be difficult to select nineteen men
more fitted to carry out the object in view ; but at the same
time he could not find nineteen men more unfitted to enter
into an investigation or trial of questions affecting charges
against the character of individuals, and for this reason, that
he found scarcely one gentleman who was acquainted with
the rules of evidence, or conversant with the business of the
court of law, or in any way accustomed to judicial inves-
tigations, or the way in which examinations of witnesses
ought to be conducted. The chairman (Mr. Cobden) was
no doubt a'very acute and able man, and there could not
probably be found a better man to undertake an investiga-
tion into a case of public conduct; but, on the other hand,
-there could not be a worse man to conduct an investigation
into charges against individuals; and he would appeal
to any lawyer of eminence to look through the printed evi-
deniei upon the personal parts of the case, and to say
whether one half of the questions would not have been dis-
allowed by any court of justice. (11;ear.) He made no
charge against the committee, except that they old been
led into the error of assuming powers which they did not
legally possess, and of discharging a duty for which they
were not competent. On the grounds he had stated he
should object to a repetition of the committee of last ses-
sion; but, no matter what might be the determination of
her Majesty's Government, he thought it desirable that,
before any committee were appointed, tho opinion of the
house should be taken as to the extent of its duties and
jurisdiction. If the inquiry were to be one within the
general principles of parliamentary committees, he should
not object; but if it was to be a judicial inquiry he should
demand two conditions—first, a specific accusation ; and
secondly, that such specific accusation should be referred
to a competent tribunal. (Hear, hear') There was no lack
of precedents to guide their deliberations, and any gentle-
man .who had sat any time in that house must recollect
how cases involving charges against individuals had been
dealt with. In such cases, the house had always selected
persons who were flt for the duties of investigation ; arid
three conditions had always been observed—first, that
instead of being unusually large, the committee should be
unusually small, in order to give greater concentration
and responsibility ; secondly, that at least some of its
members should belong to the legal profession ; and,
thirdly, that'the'remaining members should be chosen as
free from party bias as possible. He trusted that a
similar line, would 'be observed in this case, and that a
competent committee would be appointed. He begged
to disclaim any ill-feeling against the committee of last
session, but he must repeat his strong conviction that the
course they had followed had not been consistent with the
order of reference, and he trusted that in whatever course
might now be taken due regard would be had for the inte-
rests of the public, and for the interests and character of
that house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. T. BARING was sorry that the unfortunate ab-
sence of the chairman of the contract committee cast upon
him the duty of.making some observations in reply to those
of the right bon. baronet. He did'not complain of the right
hon. baronet's strictures, as all public men were fairly open
to comment; but he wished thoroughly to understand the
issue which the right hon. baronet put to the house At
present, he believed it' to be, whether the committee were
Justified in the course they had pursued, and whether they
had been fitly constituted to conduct such an inquiry. He
(Sir F, Baring) was glad that this question had been
brought forward, because it related not only to the past but
to the future, seeing that another committee was about to
beAppointed to inquire into iho general system of Govern-
ment contracts, and it was desirable that such committee
should know whether it was to go fully into the inquiry, or
whether it was to avoid every question connected with per-
sonal character or misconduct. So far as he could under •
stand the right hon. gentleman, his objections to the com-
mittee were, first, that it was not competent to a judicial
inquiry ; and, next, that the order of reference did not per-
mit them to go into certain subjects. He was not prepared
to say that any committee might not be open to a similar
objection, for the fact was that it was almost impossible to
get a committee in that house which rose to the strict
iudicial standard of impartiality. Their only expedient
was to take half from one side and half from the other, and
trust to the truth coming out in discussion between them.
'But it was not his business to defend the selection of the
committee. The house had selected it, and the time for
objection was when the names were being put from the
chair. -But committees selected according to the right lion.
baronet's notion had not been more satisfactory. In the
Adiniraly inquiry were four legal gentlemen; in fact, no-
thing could have been more judicial. They came to an
unanimous decision, but that decision was received with
anything but unanimity by the house. But the point to
which he (Sir F. Baring) had to look was, whether the
House of Commons had a right to inquire into' what the
committee now complained of had inquired into. No diffi-
culty on that point had struck any member of the committee
durir g its sitting If they looked back to the minutes of
that committee they would find that not the slightest objec-
time to the course of proceeding had been taken by any of
its members. He was surprised that the right hon. gentle-
man, -after the discussion on Sir Wm. Russell's petition;
should imagine that certain matters would not be incliftreel
into. On that occasion the late Secretary to the Treasury de-
manded inquiry, and said that it must not be "skin-deep."
The Attorney-General for Ireland demanded for the late
Government an investigation of the charges which were
made
.against them, and Mr. Henley said that there were
many allegations, every one of which demanded investiga-
tion. How then could the right hon. gentleman blame the
Committee for acting strictly in the spirit in which it had
been, appointed? He maintained it was quite right that com-
mittees should know whether they were precluded front in-
quiring into questions of character, unless they had a lawyer
amongst then, and ho trusted the right hon. gentleman
would take the opinion of the house on his motion. For hims
self he had no wish to remain on the committee, in which a
:treat deal that was disagreeable to him had occurred, nor had
he the slightest desire to say anything offensive respecting
rely of the matters which had been brought before:them.
Lord J. MANNERS concurred in the opinion that it was
important the opinion of the house should be take;as a guide
fir future committees. At the same time he must say that
his impression as to the unanimity of the late committee was
different from that of the right hon. gentleman. He remem-
bered much dissent from the course that was being pursued,
but as four of the committee had been members of accused
Government they could not have diVided without exposing
themselves to all the malevolent insinuations of party rancour.
He agreed with his right hon. friend that when the commit-
tee was appointed, it was understood that these personal
questions were not to be referred to it. But the complaint
was that the committee travelled beyond the legitimate
terms of reference. The committee did navel out of itsbeaten
course, and did implicate the conduct of private individnals
not members of the late Government, in a way quite unpre
cedented, and, as he thought, in a manner unprecedentedly
unfair. ..41a; a member of the committee, ho felt he should be
out of plesSe innn investigation of that nature. If, therefore,
it was the pleasure of the house that this eommitteci should
be re-appointed, and that the same painful circumstances
should be again referred to, ho trusted the house would be
rod enough to relieve him from th e necessity of attending it.
Sir F. BARING explained that all he meant to siiy was
he did not recollect there being any difference of opinfon
with reference's the matter of inquiry itself, but that there
was sortie difference of opinion as to whether certain ques.•
tions should be put. .•
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that there was this great pecu•
, liarity about the speech of the noble lord (Lord J. Manners),
that he had taken 'the opportunity to protest against the de-
cisions of a committee of which he had been a member—he
during the whole time sitting patiently by, voting on it and
making no protest. He confessed, although he had a great
temptation to go very fully into thecase, he should resist it,
and he thought the right hen, gentleman the member for
Droitwitchwould have acted a wiser part if, instead of being
a party to create two debates on this question, he had left
the matter in the hands of the members of the committee,
who had given notice of a motion for next week, because it
Was most inconvenient that they should have two debates
raised on this question. Now, the right hon. gentletaan said
this was not a competent tribunal, and he (Mr. B. Osborne)
fully agreed with him, although not for the same reasons.
He thought the late Government, or rather the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, was greatly to blame for the formation of
that committee; but the right hon. member for Droitwich did
not take exception at the proper time to the constitution of
that committee. What were the circumstances of the forma-
tion of that committee? Instead of having the usual number
of 15 meral9ers, 19 were appointed, and what was the /Teamn
given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that appoint-
ment? The right hon. gentleman said his chief difficulty arose
because he was obliged to put four extra members on the
committee, and those four, members of the late Govern-
ment, were accused. The right hon. gentleman said 'to-
night, where was the man who would bring forward any
specific charge ? He (Mr. B. Osborne) took au opportu-
nity of bringing forward a specific charge. He said he had
strong grounds for suspecting the right hon. gentleman had'
been tampering with the elective franchise of Dover to oust
him. Sir William Russell made that allegation in his pe-
tition. If the right hon. gentleman wanted an accuser let
him turn to the election petition for the borough of Dover,
which pointed directly to the conduct of the right hon.
gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and his
private secretary. The committee itself was manifestly an
attempt to hush up the inquiry altogether, as if the whole
matter were proceeding on the Scotch principle of "scratch
me, and I'll scratch you." (Laughter.) To that end- the,
four members were appointed. The hon. 'member for Bir-
mingham protested at the time against the ponstitution of
the committee, and declared that it was improperly consti—
tuted, saying that if the house wanted a committee that
_would bring respect to its judgment they should get it ap-
pointed by the committee of selection. The right hon.
-gentleman talked of there being no lawyers on the com-t
mittee I Why, one-fifth of the members sat in judginefhor
on their own case. Why, the right hon. ember
Stamford could not sit on the committee meant they
came to vote, and left the room., (Laughter.) now,e;
Thew-
noble lord, however, voted manfully throughit and li
forsooth, he would not serve on any tr.furth ommittee.
t san at-
(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
tempt to whitewash the private secirVeatasrynoo; tl(sernigr,hthehnorn).
gentleman the member for Dreitwichhe
Don't tell him (Mr. B. Osborne) that
what
privatesecre-
hisright honour-
able gentleman was not aware of whha
tary was about. There never was sutchea
verdict had been
committee as that
on the Dover contract; and when
returned -the right honourable sewfarsamdiesdconat;anitne.d4
and said, "Don't have a committeegentleman
u see through the veil
Surely the house and the country
bßy ntthhee sgahidt
ri
attempted to lie thrown over
hon. gentleman the member the
r Dt rrnehi tswa lion
the committee did not act in accordance with tie forms of
reference. He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman,
since he spoke on almost every
of all members of the house,ast the right time against this
occasion, had not protestedrglit hon. gentleman's political friends
irregularity.'
lad presented hTihinelatel with. a splendid gold shield, but in
its compartments of. colonies,y justice, and mercy, he (Mr. B.
e that tere was any view of Dovei eee
Osborne) did not
(langhter)—or isneedfallion of his private secretary. (Re-
newed laughter.) I a suPPlementary shield should be pre -
ou have
seated to the right hon. gentlem.an, hoped he W d
the defect remedied. and get a view of that seaport. On the
7th of July, when the subjece was first mooted, dr . Glad-
stone said it would be the study of the Government to select
the names of members who were to constitute the commit-
tee, and to see that there should be an impartial and thorough
going inquiry. Now, Mr. Gladstone was net always so
clear and plain spoken, but no one could misconceive what
a thorough going inquiry meant. '(Hear, hear.) The right
hon, member for Droitwich did not object on that occasion
to the functions of the committee so described. But on the
12th July, when a committee was nominated, the Secretary
to the Treasury, the right hon. gentleman the member for
Stamford, was exceedingly- animated, and even indignant,
and declared that he would not submit to any
skin-deep
inquiry. He said it must be a full and proper inquiry, ob-
servine- that the further it was earned the more it would
redoundq to the credit of the late Government. He made
no protest at to the line the committee was to take, but he
put as able questions as any lawyer, and refused to vote.
(Hear, hear.) the ctramittee, from first to last, had a