ing law contained words to the effect that any new sums of money granted hereafter should pass through the same channel as the rest of the revenue. MR. BOWYER thought it satisfactory that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had called the attention of the House to the importance of the gross revenue of the country passing through the Exchequer. It was said that there was 5,000,000l. or 6,000,000l. of money which never found its way into the Exchequer at all, but which was disposed of by different departments without being ever voted by Parliament. He thought the system of auditing the public accounts required reconsideration, with a view to the reconstruction of that branch of the public service. Clause negatived. MR. VINCENT SCULLY proposed the addition of a clause, to the effect that nothing in the Act contained should have the effect of facilitating any changes in the existing establishments of any of the superior courts of law in Ireland, without a certificate from the Judges to the Treasury having first set forth the circumstances rendering such changes necessary. If the clause was not carried, he should give notice of Amendments to place the English courts on the same footing as the Irish courts. He should also move to put in the English Court of Chancery, which was entirely omitted in the Act, but he trusted his clause would be so received as o render his Amendments unnecessary. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER would not complain that the hon. rentleman had brought forward this clause vithout notice, because he felt it was deirable that all Amendments should be rought forward now rather than on the hird reading. It was, however, impossible for him to agree with this clause. The purpose of the clause referred to by the hon. Gentleman was to impose restrictions upon an increase of salaries. The purpose of the clause, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, was to fetter the discretion of Parliament, whether in the increase or in the diminution of salaries. The only argument used by the hon. Gentleman which was of any weight was, that the Bill, as it at present stood, dealt unequally with the English and the Irish courts. The fact, however, was, that owing to the difference of circumstances, it was necessary to create a nominal inequality in order to do substantial justice. În Ireland they had proceeded further in the abolition of fees than they had done in England; and, therefore, the clause was accommodated to that altered state of things. When the fees in the English courts were dealt with in the same manner as the fees in the Irish courts, they would be put upon the same footing also with regard to this Bill. MR. VINCENT SCULLY said, that he did not mean to increase, but to diminish, the charges, and his clause would have no other effect. Clause negatived. MR. DISRAELI proposed the clause of which he had given notice 66 Copies of each of the Quarterly Warrants of the Treasury, issued under the Act 57 Geo. III. c. 84, and the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 15, to the Controller General of the Receipt and Issue of Her Majesty's Exchequer, shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within ten days after such Warrants shall be issued, if Parliament shall then be sitting, otherwise within ten days after the commencement of the next Session, together with a Copy or statement of the disbursements actually made in virtue of the Trea sury Warrant during the antecedent quarter." When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this measure he impressed the importance of a periodical inspection or supervision, on the part of the House of Commons, with regard to the charges on the Consolidated Fund. That was a feature of this measure of financial reform. Now, the Committee would observe that in the Bill before them there was no provision at all to effect this object. The object of the clause he proposed was, that quarterly warrants of the Treasury should be laid upon the table of the House, so that they might know every three months what were the charges on the Consolidated Fund. This was the only mode he could see by which they could attain the object in view, and he was sure the House of Commons must wish to exercise the power and the supervision to which he had alluded. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, it was a very invidious task to oppose proposals of this kind, but he must say he entirely objected to this proposal. Before he proceeded further, however, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman under what section or sections of the Acts of the 57 Geo. III. and the 4 & 5 Will. IV. he referred when he spoke of these quarterly warrants being issued under these Acts? as MR. DISRAELI said, he had not those Acts then by him. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Here they are, at the service of the right hon. Gentleman. I took care to have them at hand for him; for I am rather curious to learn under what sections the right hon. Gentleman finds the authority for the issue of those warrants. MR. G. A. HAMILTON asked, whether it was not the fact that these warrants were issued under the authority of those Acts of Parliament? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER declined to be the interpreter of the law as stated by others, but wished to know the authority for the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these quarterly warrants were issued under the Acts in question? MR. DISRAELI referred to the 12th section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCIIEQUER would assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was entirely misinformed as to the application of the Act. The section quoted by the right hon. Gentleman referred to ordinary Treasury warrants, which in every case were required before an issue of money could take place. But these quarterly Treasury warrants which the right hon. Gentleman said were issued under the Act 4 & 5 Will. IV. were warrants of an entirely different deseription, and did not, in point of fact, cause the issue of any money whatever. He therefore again asked the right hon. Gentleman under what portion of the Act referred to so authoritatively by him it was that he considered these quarterly warrants of the Treasury were either authorised or required? As at present informed, he demurred altogether to the recital of the right hon. Gentleman that these quarterly Treasury warrants were issued under the authority of these Acts. His opinion was, that these warrants were not required by the law. They were certainly issued in principle; and he would go further, and admit that the form of the warrants and the words of the warrants might certainly be construed in favour of the position that they were issued under the authority of the law; but he knew of no ground for stating that they were either required or authorised by the law. What he said was this-that these were documents of a description the most complex, the most antiquated, the most absurd, the most calculated to maintain deception and mystification in matters of public accounts that this House could possibly conceive; and he did not hesitate to state-whether it were the object of this clause or not to do so he did not know, but its effect would be to give a legal sanction and authority to these Treasury warrants, which, in his judgment, at the present moment, they did not possess. MR. DISRAELI would withdraw his clause, as it was wrong in point of form; but this he clearly saw, from every observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to put an end to the restriction which at present existed as to the issue of public money from the Exchequer, which restriction he believed to be of the greatest importance, and which he applied to these 4,000,000l. of new revenue which was to be brought under the control of the Exchequer. Of course, it was useless to attempt to come to any decision now upon any particular point, but he begged the Committee to bear this in mind— that the principles of the right hon. Gentleman would render it impossible for him to go on for another year without bringing forward some Bill, the object of which would be to diminish the restriction upon the issue of public money which at present existed. Clause negatived. MR. DISRAELI had now to allude to another point of great importance. They were all agreed that the object of the great change which, he might observe, he had had the honour of first bringing forward, was, that the gross revenue of the country should be brought into the Exchequer. The fault he found with this Bill was, that it evaded this great object. It certainly brought into the annual statement of public accounts a large amount which hitherto had not found its way there, but it still left a great portion of the public revenue under the name of charges, pensions, and superannuations, at the disposition of the Treasury, free from the control and cognisance of Parliament, and which amount of public money was still under the immediate control of the Treasury alone. Now, he proposed that the preamble of this Bill should express the meaning of Parliament upon this subject, and therefore he had placed upon the paper a preamble which should state that "It is expedient that the gross revenue of the Departments of Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post Office should be paid into the Exchequer, with the exception of such sums as may be necessary to be retained in order to defray the charges of drawbacks, repayments, pensions, and superan-nue departments-that was to say, the nuations heretofore charged upon and paid out of great bulk of all the pensions and superthe said branches of the public revenue." annuations paid throughout the kingdomNow, this was a simple and clear declara- something like five-sixths of the whole tion. He proposed to have a public expres- amount-should not be brought under the sion of the opinion of Parliament on the control of Parliament. Now, he demurred subject. He wanted, and he understood altogether to that object of the right hon. the House of Commons wanted, that the Gentleman, and he thought the right hon. gross revenue of the Departments of Cus- Gentleman ought to have stated it, and to toms, Inland Revenue, and Post-office have made the House acquainted with the should be paid into the Exchequer. He omissions which were included in his had been informed since he entered the Amendment. In stating what he (the House that the preamble of the Bill was Chancellor of the Exchequer was not becouched, if not in identical, in similar lan- fore aware of, that the right hon. Gentleguage to his own. He begged the Com- man was the first to bring forward a mittee would observe the remarkable differ-change like that now proposed, the right ence between the language in the preamble of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that he had proposed. The preamble of the Bill said hon. Gentleman should have declared that his object was to remove from the control of Parliament pensions and superannuations chargeable upom the revenue departments, and which amounted, he believed, to something like 500,000l. or 700,0007. a year. On this ground he objected to the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee of the House of Lords had made in this Bill a most injudicious change, founded upon most insufficient grounds, for they reported that they had not sufficient information before them in order to enable them to determine whether it was proper that these pensions and superannuations should remain upon the gross revenue, or whether they should be voted in the Esti "And whereas it is expedient, in order to bring the gross income and expenditure of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man under the more immediate view and control of Parliament." Now, he said, that the object of the House of Commons was not that the gross income and expenditure of the United Kingdom should be brought "under the more immediate view and control of Parliament;" their object was that the gross national income should be brought into the Exchequer. Such words as "the more immediate view and control of Parliament,' might bring a large amount of that reve-mates; and, instead of sending to the nue under their control, but it would leave a very large portion beyond their control. The words which the Committee ought to adopt were the simple and plain words, that they would bring the gross income of the country into Her Majesty's Exchequer. The words in the preamble of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were so essentially evasive and equivocal that you might really draw almost any meaning you pleased from them, and he thought it would be much better to adopt the plain, straightforward language he had placed on the paper. He, therefore, begged to propose the alteration in the preamble of which he had given notice. Treasury for the information they required, they struck out of the Bill these clauses altogether. Now, he must say, that unless his anxiety had been so great to carry out what remained of this Bill, nothing would have induced him to acquiesce in such a change introduced into a money Bill, not by the House of Lords, but by a Committee of the House of Lords. This change certainly left the Bill incomplete. These pensions and superannuations would be left chargeable on the gross revenue. On another occasion it would be necessary to attempt to make clearer work upon this point, but the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman would tie the House, as a matTHE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-ter of principle, to that which the House QUER said, he felt bound to take the of Lords had forced upon them as a matter same course with this as with the right of fact. But another point was involved in hon. Gentleman's previous Amendment. the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman. There were two important points, which, When this Act was introduced it was met so far as a declaration of law was concern- by this objection on the part of those who ed, were raised by this Amendment. The wished to adhere to, the present system. preamble which the right hon. Gentleman Those persons always said it would be most proposed enunciated the principle that pen-inconvenient to have all the money received sions and superannuations upon the reve- at the various outports sent up to London, VOL. CXXXV. [THIRD SERIES.] 2 T matter of account, while the authority of Parliament was applied to the expenditure through the machinery of the Votes. MR. HUME suggested that every accountant, and every other person who had any public money in his possession, should render his accounts regularly, in order that they might be settled. If this had been done, the country would not have lost so much by Mr. Swaby. He ought also to be called upon to give security, and that the securities ought to be revised from time to time. He submitted that it was the duty of the Government to have all public charges, whether fees, prize-money, or other payments, brought into the Exchequer. and then to send back again that part of it | in distinct terms that the expense of colwhich was necessary for the maintenance lection was to be defrayed at the ports, of the establishments at those outports. leaving the balance to be settled as a Thus, at Liverpool, something like 70,000l. was required to pay the charges of the establishments there, and this amount, it was said, would be most irrational to send up to London from Liverpool and then back again. Now, nobody had ever said it was rational to do so. All they wanted was the control of Parliament over this money. That being settled, they left the money received at the outports to be dealt with in the most economical manner in which it could be dealt with. It might be paid where it was received, but it would have to be accounted for, and a balance struck between the local and the central fund. That was the principle on which his Bill was framed. Lord Monteagle, who had always been a steady opponent of this change, had stated before a Commission, which was appointed to investigate the subject, this very objection, and urged the absurdity and expense of sending more work forward in this way. It was to avoid this absurdity and expense that he had framed the Bill in the way he had done. The inconvenience of the plan objected to by the noble Lord would be very great, and nobody-he was going to say was foolish enough to propose it; but as the right hon. Gentleman had now proposed that very plan, he must withdraw the word "foolish," though he hoped the House would not adopt the Amendment. Motion negatived. MR. BOWYER said, he had seen a report published by some persons who were anxious for a reform in the Customs in which credit was given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing to transfer the whole gross revenue of the country to the Exchequer which formerly has not been so paid into the public Treasury. The Commissioners of Public Accounts, in 1831, laid it down as a principle that the whole of the public revenue ought to be paid into the Exchequer, and then paid out of the Exchequer for the public service. No doubt there might be particular instances where it might be convenient that small local payments should be made on the spot; but the general principle ought to be that the whole of the receipts should be paid into the Exchequer. It would be satisfactory to know whether it was intended that this should be the case. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was not surprised to hear his hon. Friend advert to this subject, and in reference to which he hoped the Committee would bear in mind that that case was one of the consequences of the mode of dealing with public money which had been fashionable in past years-that of disposing of it either by placing the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, or by some permanent Act of Parliament which effectually removed it from the control of the House of Commons. That was a lesson which he hoped would not be forgotten. It also illustrated another dangerous practice which the House ought to correct-that of entrusting the management of public money to persons who were appointed for other purposes. It was not fair to cause large sums of money to be held under the responsibility of the Judges of courts of law. Their duty was to administer the law-a duty difficult enough for any man; and they ought not in any way to be responsible for the control and management of public money. With regard to the immediate question, the case did not admit of being dealt with upon a general rule. In some instances the amounts were too large to be dealt with by way of security, and other modes must be adopted; but certainly he thought there ought to be some review of the securities under which public money was held. House resumed. Bill reported without Amendment. MEDICAL GRADUATES (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL-ADJOURNED DEBATE. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- Order read, for resuming adjourned DeQUER thought he had already explained' bate on Amendment proposed to Question The Chancellor of the Exchequer 1285 Episcopal and Capitular {AUGUST 3, 1854} Estates Management Bill. 1286 [22nd July], "That the Bill be now read | tinctly understood that the whole question the third time;" and which Amendment was left open. was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months." Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman. who had charge of this Bill (Colonel Dunne), considering the late period of the Session and the nature of the measure itself, would allow it to drop. Her Majesty's Government intended to take up the general question at the commencement of the next Session, when he thought either a Commission or a Committee ought to be appointed, consisting in either case of gen: tlemen not belonging to the medical profession; and on the result of their inquiries some general measure might be framed, satisfactory to the wants of the profession and the interests of the community at large. The House, therefore, would agree with him that it would be scarcely advisable to lose time in discussing a Bill which had no chance of passing this Session. COLONEL DUNNE said, he had, of course, at this period of the Session, no alternative but to comply with the request of the noble Lord. He was glad to hear that the Go. vernment meant to take up the subject, for he felt sure that if it were left to medical men it would be a long time before it was settled. His (Colonel Dunne's) object was to place the Irish and Scotch Universitics on the same footing, with respect to medical degrees, as the University of London. Question put, and negatived; Words added; Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Bill put off for three months. MR. WALPOLE entreated the noble Lord the Home Secretary not to consider the passing of the Medical Graduates (University of London) Bill as a pledge on the part of Parliament, that in considering the question the University of London was to have the power of conferring degrees with the consequential licence that followed from those degrees. That question was left open. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON considered the object of the Bill referred to was simply to place the degrees of the University of London upon the same footing as those of Oxford and Cambridge. Parliament dis EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES MANAGEMENT BILL. Bill, as amended, considered. MR. EVELYN DENISON moved the addition of the following clause "That in all dealings between the Church Esastical Commissioners for England, as to lands tate Committee acting in behalf of the Ecclesi- ' now vested or which shall hereafter become vested in the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the reasonable claims of such holders of land under holders of such lands, the said Church Estate Committee shall pay due regard to the just and lease or otherwise arising from the long-continued practice of renewal, and in every case where a treaty has been entered into between the said land, it shall be lawful on the application of either of the said parties to such treaty to the other of them, to refer to arbitration the finding of the annual value and of the value of the fee simple thereof, subject to the exceptions and reservaand such finding shall be adopted in computing tions, if any, to be excepted and reserved thereout, the terms of the sale, purchase, or exchange of such lands, or of any interest therein, and the said last-mentioned parties shall for the purpose of such arbitration, be subject to the provisions arbitrators and the payment of costs. hereinbefore contained as to the appointment of That the provision in the herein before recited Act as to information being required respecting the proceedings under it, shall extend and be held to apply to all proceedings respecting land vested, or which may become vested in the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners." Church Estate Committee and the said holders of The object of this was, that all ecclesiastical property, whether held by bishops and chapters, or by the Commissioners, might be brought under the same management. It had been supposed by the House that a clause to this effect was in the former Act; but the Commissioners had held that it did not apply to the property which they held. A further object of the clause was to give the power of arbitration to the Commissioners in certain cases. Clause brought up, and read 1°. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time.' MR. GOULBURN opposed the clause, which he said was irrelevant to the object of the present Bill, and should have formed the subject of a separate enactment. The hon. Member who proposed the clause seemed to assume that it went no further than the one which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Shields (Mr. Ingham). That, however, was not |