so. For this clause made arbitration compulsory at the will of either party, and would apply not only to lands held by Church lessees, but also to those which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners held at rack rent. If it were agreed to, every one of their tenants might claim to have their lands valued and enfranchised. The question of arbitration, as proposed in this clause, was a compulsory dealing with property, which every person said should be voluntarily dealt with. MR. MULLINGS did not read it as a compulsory clause, but at all events the words could be altered to prevent such a construction being put upon them as had been suggested by the right hon. GentleHe hoped that the noble Lord the President of the Council would sanction the clause, and he would take care, before the third reading, words should be introduced to make the arbitration permissive. man. MR. INGHAM supported the clause, and did not consider that the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, were well founded. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that the clause was one to which he could not ask the House to assent. He did not know whether, if it were agreed to, it would act harmoniously with other Acts upon the same subject, but he objected to the practice of taking occasion, when a Bill was introduced upon one subject, to introduce a clause that had reference to quite a distinct subject. It was not fit that they should introduce in the Bill a rule with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commission more stringent than that which was applied to the Church Estate Commission. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member for Malton to postpone his clause until the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission came properly before the House. MR. J. A. SMITH supported the clause, and trusted his hon. Friend would press it to a division, as he would rather see the Bill lost than that the clause should be rejected. Question put, and negatived. Amendment made; Bill to be read a third time to-morrow. CUSTOMS ACTS. Order for Committee read. MR. J. WILSON moved the following "That from and after the 1st day of August, or Mortars of Iron, not mounted nor accompanied munition, viz., Machinery, Wrought Castings, cwt." MR. FREWEN asked upon what principle the proposed hop duty of 1. per cent until the 1st of August, 1855, and 21. 5s. per cent after that date had been framed ? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that there had been reason to anticipate a great scarcity and high price of hops. This would have an injurious effect upon those interested in the growth and sale of barley, as well as upon the consumption of malt, and the large revenue which depended upon that consumption. A scarcity being anticipated, LORD JOHN RUSSELL opposed the Parliament had been invited to do that clause, on the ground that it gave too which in cases of scarcity it generally did, large a power to the lessees and was a sometimes by immediate reference to the departure from the intention of the Bill, House, and sometimes by the discretion of which had worked beneficially hitherto, the Government, with the subsequent apbut which he considered it would be un-proval of Parliament, to remit for a time wise to extend to the whole of the property under the management of the Church Estate Commission. Mr. Goulburn a portion of the duty, in order to facilitate in times of exigency the supply of a necessary article to the consumer. Ile had seen three Gentlemen representing the he reduced the import duty on foreign county of Kent upon this subject, and at hops. The right hon. Gentleman had that period the proposition was, that the said that he had no intention of making duty should be reduced until the 1st of a permanent alteration in the duty this November, 1855. They represented, how- year, and he supposed he would not have ever, that that would be going beyond the departed from that determination had he occasion, and he had yielded to their re- not been justified by some extraordinary presentations, and had altered the date to circumstances. It was not possible for the 1st of August, 1855, so as, he thought, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any completely to remove their objections. He other person at the present moment, to believed that those Gentlemen were satis- form a judgment upon the probable crop of fied with the alteration. hops until a very advanced period of the year. In 1849 the duty paid was only 75,000l., but no interference was then thought necessary. He had this morning received a letter from a person in Kent well acquainted with hop plantations, who said that a very great improvement had taken place in them within the last few days, and that, in his opinion, a duty of from 80,000l. to 100,000l. would be paid if this weather continued. He, therefore, contended that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in calling for the alteration he now proposed. Supposing it were necessary that something should be done, were the grounds of the right hon. Gentleman fair and just towards all parties? Why was the relief to be given entirely at the cost of the home grower, and the advantage, if any, that attended the measure, be put into the hands of the foreign grower? The consumer would get nothing by the proposed change. The foreign grower would be the only gainer. If, however, the state of the crops justified the change, the right hon. Gentleman might carry it into effect by means of an Order in Council. MR. FREWEN said that, some years ago, the Customs duty upon hops had been 121. 10s. per cent. It had then been reduced to 81. 11s., then to 4l. 10s., and it now stood at 21. 5s. The Excise duty, during the same periods, had remained the same, and he believed that it was the only tax which had been never either mitigated or repealed since 1805. In 1834 the appearance of the hops was much worse than at present; and, although it was expected that not more than 3 cwt. or 4 cwt. an acre would be produced in Sussex, some of the plantations there had produced more than a ton an acre. There was always much speculation as to what the duty on hops would be, and at that period the old duty had been put down at less than 60,000l., whereas it produced nearly 190,000l., and the old and new duty together produced 329,9417. He disapproved of the lowering of the Customs' duty, unless the Government agreed to a corresponding lowering of the Excise duty to four-ninths of its present amount. A reduction of the duty on foreign hops would be unjust towards the English planter, unless accompanied by such a reduction. From information he had received from the hop plantations in all parts of the kingdom, and from the great improvement which had taken place during the last ten days, he believed that the crop would turn out very different from what had been expected a fortnight ago. He had not brought forward his usual Motion for a repeal of the excise duty on hops this year, in consequence of the war, but his opinion with respect to it remained unchanged. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that hops be omitted from the Resolution. MR. DEEDES denied that he had expressed himself satisfied with the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given him, as he had pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of also lowering the excise duty if MR. MASTERS SMITH contended that all the advantage of the proposed reduction of duty would benefit the holders in bond, and that neither the revenue nor the country would derive any benefit from it. The lowering of the duty had caused great dismay throughout the hop districts, and would, if sanctioned, have the effect of throwing the hop grounds of the country out of cultivation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought not, without great deliberation, to come to any decisive determination on this subject. When the Excise and Customs duties were combined he considered it was a wise arrangement; and that was the opinion of those hop-growers whom he represented. As to the Customs duty, it had from time to time been lessened to a great extent, whilst nothing was taken from the Excise duty. They were now about to inflict a blow on an interest in a state of panic. They were, in fact, about to take a crutch from a falling man. It took two years to prepare a hop ground, and the hop-growers were now in great doubt, owing to the measures of the Government, as to what course they ought to pursue. [The hon. Gentleman read seve. ral letters, detailing' great improvements that had taken place this year in the growth of hops all over the country.] He would leave the matter in the hands of the Government, but hoped the measure would be modified. of the officers of the Inland Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said the reason for the measure had been removed by the improvement which had taken place in the probable yield of the crop. In 1852 the duty was 244,000l., and the price was 41. 5s per cwt. In 1853 the duty fell to 150,000l., and the price rose to 11. 11s. What then would be the effect if it fell again to 80,000l., or 100,000l., which was the most flattering estimate that had been made. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the hop-growers were losers by bad SIR JOHN SHELLEY felt satisfaction crops. On the contrary they were large at seeing that the county of Kent thought gainers by a deficient yield in consequence the hop duty was a bad one, as evidenced of the enormous increase of price. by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who reduction of the duty, however, 11. 5s. had just sat down; for that was what it would just render it possible to introduce proved, if it proved anything. He would the fine Bavarian qualities. The effect of support the proposal of the Government, the proposal would only be to place hops because, at length, he saw some prospect for a single year on exactly the same footof the duty being done away with altoge-ing as every other article of home producther. The hop duty had no beneficial tion, and surely such a modest proposal effect whatever in any district except the ought to receive the support of the House. county of Kent. He was a hop-grower in the county of Sussex, and he felt sure that the Sussex hop-growers generally would feel grateful to the Government for the re-duty as the crop progressed, it was asking duction. The MR. NEWDEGATE said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take the responsibility of reducing this a great deal of the House to expect them to relieve him from the responsibility. He would be no party to a reduction of the Customs duty upon hops unless there was, at the same time, a reduction on the Excise duty. SIR EDWARD DERING admitted that there was not that scarcity of the crop that was anticipated. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not listened to the suggestion of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Deedes) to carry out the change by an Order in Council. The House at present were not in a position to legislate. If the crop should turn out as had been anticipated, and the right hon. Gentleman advised an Order in Council, he would have the support of all the hop-growers. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, this was not a Kentish question alone. He was connected with the county of Worcester, and there the feelings of the hop-growers coincided with those in Kent, and felt it was most injurious to them to have these tamperings and sudden changes made at the end of a Session, by which the whole trade was affected. There was a strong suspicion current that although the consumer would not benefit by this change, there were a large number of persons who were holders of foreign hops, and who would benefit largely by the alteration; amongst whom he supposed, was the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), having observed him to be in close communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury, but hoped those Members of the Government would not be carried away by the blandishments of the hon. Member for Derby. He thought there was no adequate ground for the re-tunity would be lost of purchasing these duction, and he hoped either that he would reconsider the question, or if a reduction in the foreign duty was necessary, that he would answer that other proposition they had to make to him, namely, a similar modification of the Excise as of the Customs. MR. J. WILSON said, that the measure had been introduced at the instance Mr. M. Smith MR. BASS thought it would be unsafe for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wait, because the duty was not declared until the end of November, and as foreign hops came earlier than this, the oppor hops. Seeing that hops were only grown upon 50.000 acres, while barley was grown upon 2,000,000 acres, he did not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to oppose the proposal of the Government to increase the quantity of hops available for the consumer. MR. CAYLEY was a representative of barley growers, and wished to see hops cheap. He was willing to vote for the reduction of duty on foreign hops, if the Government would only reduce the Excise duty. MR. FREWEN asked the hon. Member for Derby if he had not betted that the duty would this year exceed 150,000l., and if he had not made that bet within the last few days? [Mr. Bass: Certainly not.] He believed the hon. Member for Derby had betted upon this duty on former occasions, for the hon. Member had told him so himself. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, August 4, 1854. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Militia (Scotland); Militia Pay; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Militia Ballots Suspension; Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges (No. 2). 2 Duchy of Cornwall Office. Reported-Bribery, &c.; Stamp Duties. 3 Medical Graduates (University of London). TRANSPORTATION-TICKETS OF LEAVE. LORD ST. LEONARDS rose to call the attention of the House to the present system of granting tickets of leave to convicts. The question, "What are we to do with our convicts?" was one of the most important social questions of the day. Previous to the introduction of the system by which transportation was in effect abolished, the practice, as their Lordships were well aware, was, after keeping a conviet in prison in this country for a certain time, to send him to one of our colonies under sentence of transportation, but with a ticket of leave, which assured them of the means of earning a subsistence. The advantages of this system were numerous. In the first place, the convict was cut off from his old associations, and could not therefore in the new country to which he was transported come into contact with his former comrades or be led into the commission of crime by their companionship and example. In the next place, he found himself, on his arrival in the colony, under the control and supervision of the Government of the colony to which he was consigned. He was certain of being provided for, because, if no other employment offered itself, he was employed on the public works at good wages and liberal rations. He had at the same time perfect liberty to engage in private service whenever he found an opportunity; and such an opportunity was sure to offer itself almost immediately, because the demand for labour was always much greater than the supply in the colonies to which he was sent. He was employed at a fair rate of wages, excellent rations were insured, and he had a good prospect of bettering his condition. At the same time there was no objection to the granting of those tickets of leave, inasmuch as there were numbers of persons in the colony desirous of the services of convicts, and who took them with the full knowledge of their being ticket-ofleave men. He had thus every prospect of bettering his condition; and it was not unfrequent for men who went out in this capacity to become tradesmen, or in some instances to accumulate large property. Under this system there was, therefore, no impediment to the granting of tickets of leave. They had not the effect of turning a man loose into society without any means of living, or without the Government having any check upon him. On the contrary, he was sent to a new part of the world, where he was sure at once to meet with full encouragement for his labour and with full employment. Circumstances had, however, arisen, which had rendered it necessary to abolish convict transportation, and to substitute penal servitude for it. No one could find fault with the Government of the day for this change in the mode of punishment, because as the colonists had refused any longer to receive our convicts, it was clearly impossible to send them there. It was, indeed, a little singular that while the colonists as a body refused to receive our convicts, there was always an ample demand on the part of individuals for the labour of such of these men as were sent. When the late Government was in office, the subject of the change to be made in the mode of punishment necessarily occupied much of their attention, and it was their determination still to retain transportation as far as possible. They did not, indeed, intend to attempt to force convicts upon any colo- | nies which objected to receive them; but they desired to keep some remote island as a penal settlement, and thus to maintain both the terror and, to a limited extent, the use of transportation. Under the system adopted by the present Government, convicts, after remaining in prison for a certain time, received a licence to reside in any part of the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands, under such conditions as the Crown might think fit to prescribe, the licence being subject to revocation at the pleasure of the Crown. Now, when their Lordships considered the great difference in the state of things under which tickets of leave were formerly granted and those under which they had been granted since the late Act was passed, he thought they would see how difficult it must be to bring the old system to bear upon the new state of things. After the Act was passed there was no penal colony where a convict could be sent to, and where he would be subjected to the inducements to lead an honest life which he (Lord St. Leonards) had already described; on the contrary, he was let loose, without any check or control, into a field where the demand for labour was much less, and where no human being would employ him if it was known that he had a ticket of leave. The Government had no means of employing him on Government works. Let them just consider in what a different position an unfortunate man turned loose in this country was from one who was sent to a colony under the old system? As he had already said, such was the unhappy condition of society here, and such was the unwillingness to give employment to a convict, that he must start with a falsehood. He must conceal his real condition, and invent some story as to where he had been and what he had been doing. Nor was it only to his employer that he must give this account of his past life. No man could go to work with his fellows in any workshop or manufactory without giving an account of himself; and if he gave a false account, he was almost sure to be discovered. An unfortunate man in this position was, therefore, almost without resources, and could hardly be expected to continue in the paths of honesty. Then with regard to the course to be pursued towards these men, it was no doubt difficult for the Government to decide what should be done. As their Lordships would remember, a short time ago, considerable Lord St. Leonards discussion took place with respect to the case of a convict named Brown, who had been discharged with a ticket of leave, who stated that he was dogged by the police, who prevented his getting or keeping work by telling his employers that he was a discharged convict. On inquiry, the reverse turned out to be the case, and that the man had returned to his old habit of misconduct-but contrast the situation of such a man in this country with that of the ticket of-leave men in a convict colony. They used to be under the control and protection of the Governor, and their ticket of leave, being a proof of good behaviour, obtained them employment instead of being a disqualification for employment, as in this country. It was, however, no doubt very difficult to know what to do with respect to these unhappy men, for if they were to be protected from interference on the one hand, society must also be protected on the other. He had not the slightest intention to bring any charge against the Government for the manner in which they had administered the present system; but he certainly did wish that he could say that they appeared to have applied themselves earnestly and seriously to the discharge of the duty imposed upon them. He had lately moved for certain returns stating the number of tickets of leave granted, and the number which had been revoked; also the number of convicts who had been convicted of any crime after receiving tickets of leave. From those returns it appeared that 1,200 tickets of leave had been granted during the last year; yet it was stated that no communication had taken place between the Home Office and the prison authorities with respect to the ticket-of-leave men committed for fresh offences. It also appeared that no condition was attached to the grant of these tickets, nor any regulations made with regard to the conduct of those holding them. It was, indeed, notified to such persons that the power of the Crown to revoke these tickets would be exercised in case of misconduct, and that if they wished to retain the privilege they enjoyed they must prove themselves worthy of it. Now, if this notification was intended to be considered as a condition attached to the ticket of leave, it should have been placed on the back of it, and then the convict would always have it present to his mind whenever he looked at his ticket. But, |