LORD BROUGHAM was of opinion, that if a public prosecutor were appointed, grand juries would not only be unnecessary, but positively mischievous. In this respect, the law of Scotland offered a most favourable contrast to that of England. He considered that this Bill was a step in the right direction, and should have wished that it had gone further. LORD CAMPBELL, in reply, expressed his gratification at the very favourable reception which this measure had obtained from their Lordships. When it was considered in Committee, it might receive such Amendments as they deemed necessary. He quite agreed that when a man had been examined before a responsible magistrate, who was used to the sifting of evidence and the examination of prisoners, the interposition of a grand jury between the committal and the trial was unnecessary; at the same time he admitted, with his hon. and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth), some doubt as to the expediency of doing away with that interposition throughout the whole country at the present time. the Chief Justice did not dispute that pro- | London police courts, to be heard again by position-he only proposed that it should grand juries was puerile to the last degree. be put in force in a particular manner, in He felt rather doubtful about the expeorder to put an end to a system of extortion diency of extending the provisions of the and oppression. Now, how did the grand measure to all parts of the country, but, jury system work at present? A party on the whole, he was in favour of the was accused before a magistrate, who con- second reading. ducted his inquiry in public, and, having ascertained that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further inquiry, sent the accused for trial. It might naturally be expected that the trial would take place without any further preliminary examination; but instead of that the case was taken before an irresponsible body, sitting in a secret chamber, probably quite unaccustomed to legal proceedings, and they determined whether there should be any further trial. The result frequently was that in cases which had been heard before a magistrate and sent for trial, the grand jury, to the astonishment of the magistrate and all persons concerned, threw out the Bill. A few days since he had been told by his learned Friend, who presided at the Middlesex Sessions, that in three cases where the grand jury had thrown out the Bills he had examined the depositions, and found that they were not only sufficient to justify a further trial but even to secure convictions. In one instance he directed a fresh Bill to be presented, which was returned found by the grand jury, and the man was convicted. In another remarkable case one Bill was ignored by the grand jury, but a second being presented and found, the accused at once pleaded guilty of the offence. Under those circumstances he thought their Lordships would agree that it was desirable to abolish grand juries, at least within the metropolitan districts. He himself had made several attempts to pass a measure for that object, but from various causes he had not been successful. He had hoped that his noble and learned Friend would not have confined himself to what he must call so partial and narrow a measure as the present, but approving as he did of the Bill as far as it went, he should give his vote in favour of the second reading. LORD CRANWORTH recommended that the provisions of the Bill should, in the first instance, be confined to the Central Criminal Court; because, no doubt, in the metropolitan districts, every person had sufficient security in the responsible magistracy. He agreed that sending cases which had been inquired into by experi enced magistrates at Bow Street and other Motion agreed to. Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday, the 28th instant. House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, March 1, 1859. MINUTES.] NEW WRITS ISSUED.-For Bury St. PUBLIC BILLS.-10 Endowed Schools (No. 2); Ap- 3. Inclosure of Lands. MERSEY DOCKS, LIVERPOOL AND MR. SAMUELSON said, he also was LIVERPOOL CORPORATION PROPERTY disposed to support the Bill; there was a RATING BILL. SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. HORSFALL said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill. The select Committee which sat last Session to consider the general question of the rating of public property had stated in their report with reference to the peculiar case of the Liverpool Docks Trust Property, that its exemption from rating depended on the special provisions of a local Act, and on the construction which had been put thereon by the Court of Queen's Bench, independently of the general law upon the subject; and that therefore if there was an injustice in that particular case it should be dealt with by a private Bill. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.' MR. HEADLAM said, he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Its object was to make the docks liable to pay rates from which they were at present exempt. There was no body of shareholders or other persons having a beneficial interest in the funds derived from these docks, but all those funds were applied solely to defray the cost of maintaining the docks, and if after that there was a surplus of income the charges for the admission of ships were to be lowered. The effect of the Bill would thus be to impose on the merchants, manufacturers, and shipowners interested in the trade of the port of Liverpool, the payment of a large sum, to the advantage of the rate-payers of that place. There was no special reason why these docks, any more than others, should be rated, and within the last year £1,500,000 had been paid by the dock trustees, virtually to the corporation of Liverpool. MR. TURNER seconded the Amend ment. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months." MR. J. C. EWART said, he should support the Bill. The Birkenhead Docks were rated, and the dock warehouses of Liverpool were rated, though no one had a beneficial interest in them. By a late decision of Lord Campbell's, the Tyne Docks were also rated. It was desirable, in his opinion, to let this case go before a Committee up stairs. beneficial occupancy, if not a beneficial ownership, in the Liverpool Docks; they were the only docks in the kingdom exempt from poor rate, and he did not see why that exemption should not be removed. SIR JAMES GRAHAM said, that having in the Select Committee devoted much toil to a thorough investigation of the Mersey Docks question, he apprehended the state of the matter to be thisthe Court of Queen's Bench, by a decision of Lord Tenterden's, had declared that there was no beneficial interest in the dock trustees, rendering them, as the law now stood, liable to the rate. If that were a false interpretation of the law, the remedy was to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, and try whether Lord Chief Justice Campbell was of the same opinion. But a Bill was now introduced by the Government to alter the general law, and render trust property liable to rating. If that alteration of the general law were made, the special question as to whether these particular docks were not exempt under the local Act might be afterwards raised; but until then he thought it would be a hard and extreme measure to charge the Liverpool Docks with a liability which the gene. ral law did not impose; and he therefore thought that the Bill should be withdrawn. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, that in the unfortunate absence of his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Trade, it fell to him to express what he believed had been the views of his right hon. Friend upon the subject. The Government entirely coincided with the views just expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The general question of the exemption of property of this description from rating should be considered by the House in connection with the Bill which had been introduced by his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor-law Board. It would then be a further question, with regard to the Liverpool Docks, whether, in consideration of the great expenditure which had been incurred upon them, and with which the trade of the country was burthened, they should not be allowed some exemption; but it would be unjust to prejudge this special case, in which the objections to making the property liable were stronger than elsewhere, before the general question had been disposed of. MR. TURNER said, he wished to re mind the House of the long and painful contest between Manchester with the manufacturing districts of the north of England on the one side, and the Liverpool Corporation on the other, about the town dues, which the Corporation had levied upon the trade and shipping of the port, and had applied to the benefit of the ratepayers of the town of Liverpool. That question had finally been settled by the grant of £1,500,000 of property to the corporation of Liverpool, instead of those town dues; yet in the following year the Corporation introduced a Bill to reimpose those dues in the shape of dock rating. There was already a debt of £6,500,000 on the docks of Liverpool, in addition to what was provided as compensation for the town dues, and to complete the docks £5,000,000 more would have to be expended, so that the bondholders might have reason to look to the credit of the dock trustees. They already paid for the lighting of their docks and of the streets adjoining; they paid a large sum for their own police; and they ought not to be called upon to pay one third of the rates of the town of Liverpool in addition to their present charges. MR. HORSFALL, in reply said, that it was an utter fallacy to represent that the Liverpool Corporation had received £1,500,000 of property from the dock estate; the fact being that the dock estate had received an advantage to the amount of £3,000,000. If the Bill were to be rejected, he did not see how the House could afterwards sane tion any general measure for rating similar property. Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Bill put off for six months. ANNUITY TAX (SCOTLAND). MR. BLACK said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate if he is prepared to bring in a Bill to relieve the towns of Scotland now subject to the Annuity Tax for payment of the Stipends of the Ministers of the Established Church; if he will provide the same relief for Scotland as the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposes to give to England in the case of church rates, namely:- "That when the rate has been imposed the collector shall take round certain papers, one of If he would bring in his Bill on an early day? THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that in answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, he had to say that the matter was under the consideration of the Government, with a view to seeing, whether they could apply a remedy; but he was not at that time prepared to say that any Bill on the subject would be introduced. In reference to the second part of the Question, he could not at present state the course the Government intended to pursue, and consequently he could not name an early day for bringing in such a Bill as that referred to by the hon. Member. SUPERANNUATIONS.-QUESTION. MR. NICOLL said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if Poor Law Officers are included within the provisions of the proposed Superannuation Act? He also wished to know whether Stipendiary Magistrates are to be included within the provisions of the same Act? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply said, that the provisions of the Bill would apply to officers who were paid out of Imperial funds, but not to those who were appointed by local authority, and paid out of local funds. With regard to both parts of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry, there had been so many doubts expressed and so many communications addressed to him (Sir Stafford Northcote) on the whole subject, that he purposed on some future occasion to make a general statement which would embrace all the particulars. FISHERY LAWS (IRELAND). QUESTION. MR. J. D. FITZGERALD said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he proposes to introduce the Bill for the Consolidation of the Fishery Laws, prepared under the direction of the Fishery Commissioners, and referred to in their last Report, or any other Bill on the subject? LORD NAAS said, he hoped to introduce a Bill in the course of the Session to consolidate the Fishery Laws, but he could not at present state at what period. MANNING THE NAVY. QUESTION. ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is his intention to bring the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Manning the Navy under the consideration of the House; and, if so, at what time? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he was afraid he could hardly give so definite an answer to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend which he should desire to do. The subjects involed in that Report were of such immense consequence to the country, and involved so great an expenditure, that Her Majesty's Government had thought it necessary to give them the most mature consideration before they determined upon the course they should adopt. But he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that there should be no delay in giving the subject the consideration it deserved. TORTURE OF A FOX. CONSULAR OFFICES IN JAPAN. MR. MONCKTON MILNES said, he rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, for the future, persons appointed to Consular Offices in Japan, will be submitted to the ordinary examination by the Civil Service Commissioners, or to a special training similar to that now in practice in the Consular Establishment in China; and when they will be prepared to lay on the table of the House the revised scale of consular salaries recommended by the Committee of last year. MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I must confess that I was in hopes, after the very satisfactory statement I was enabled to make on Friday, that we should not have heard anything_more of these appointments in Japan. I own I cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having left the system of open attack which was perfectly fair, and now having recourse to the less direct method of putting these questions. I can only inform him that it is intended for the future that there shall be a special training for those who receive appointments to the Consular service in Japan. They will not be instructed in Chinese, but in Japanese, and also in Dutch, the European language chiefly spoken there. I may here observe that, in fact, this system has al interpreters have been appointed in Japan. That system is best exemplified by a note which, though unsolicited and unexpected, has been written by Dr. Jelf, Principal of King's College. Dr. Jelf says, MR. C. C. CLIFFORD said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his at-ready been commenced, and that student tention has been called to a case brought before the Bench of Magistrates in Hamp. shire, concerning the torture of a fox, which which had excited great disgust in all classes of the community, especially among foxhunters. And whether, in his opinion, it would not be advisable to extend the provisions of the Act 12 & 13 Vict., c. 92, by making penal the torturing of other animals besides domestic animals. MR. HARDY said, that in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question he begged to state that his attention had not been drawn to the matter officially; but, in consequence of the intimation he had received of the question, he had looked into the newspapers, and had there read an account which, if true, certainly disclosed a case of the utmost cruelty and barbarity. At the same time the obtaining of evidence of cruelty to animals was attended with so much difficulty, that, although he could not undertake to bring in a Bill on the subject himself, he would be happy to consider the provisions of any Bill introduced by any private Member. "I cannot help feeling that, in mere justice to Lord Malmesbury, some one ought to state that his Lordship has made his appointments of Chinese student interpreters upon exactly the same principle as his predecessors." [A laugh.] That statement seems to provoke a smile; but I believe that Lord Malmesbury, like his predecessors, has strictly adhered to the understanding-namely, that the student interpreter should, as far as possible, be selected from those who had undergone previous training in King's College. Iwish, with the permission of the Housethough it may, perhaps, be somewhat irregular-to advert to the appointment of one gentleman as a student interpreter to Japan. It has been said that the noble Lord appointed a man who had been a dependant of his own. The facts of the case are shortly these. Mr. Fletcher was living in very humble circumstances in the north of in his letter of the 30th of October last, addressed to Prince Napoleon, the negotiation relative to the immigration of Indian Coolies into the French Colonies was resumed; and, if so, whether it has resulted from such negotiations that Her Majesty's Government has entered into any engagement or understanding with the French Government for permitting or facilitating the deportation of Indian Coolies into the French Colonies; and also whether there will be any objection to lay the Papers relating to this subject upon the Table of the House? Scotland, and having been employed as a | Affairs whether, in pursuance of the desire gilly to those engaged in sporting, he was expressed by the Emperor of the French known to be constantly absorbed in some studious pursuit, always having a book in his hand. It came to the knowledge of those employing him that he was absolutely denying himself food and raiment that he might place himself at school and thus advance himself in life. With the assistance of some friends he did go to school, where, in a very short time, he learnt both Latin and French. This attracting the notice of those above him he was sent to college at Glasgow. There he displayed the same industry and aptness for acquiring languages, and the consequence has been that he so distinguished himself that he was sent out as a student interpreter to Japan. I make this explanation because it shows how Lord Malmesbury has been made the object of detraction in a matter which does him the highest credit. MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, in reply to the first part of the Question, that the negotiation relative to the immigration of French Coolies had been resumed and was concluded; and, in reply to the second part of the Question, that MR. MONCKTON MILNES:-What Her Majesty's Government had entered is the answer to my second Question? into an engagement with the French GoMR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD.-vernment for the purpose referred to. He The revised scale of consular salaries has apprehended that there would be no objecbeen a work of the utmost labour, requiring tion to lay the Papers on the Table. communications to be made with a great number of parties. It is not yet quite completed, but it will be laid on the table at the earliest possible moment. THE RIGHT OF VISIT-QUESTION. MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, he wished to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Correspondence with the Government of the United States on the subject of the Right of Visit will be laid upon the Table of the House; and also whether those Papers will include any instructions given during the year 1858 to the Commanders of our cruisers, with respect to the treatment of vessels suspected of Slave-Trading and showing the American flag? MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said, that the Papers had been moved for in "another place," and that when obtained they would also be laid upon the Table of that House. Those Papers would include the instructions given in 1858 to the Commanders of our cruisers, with respect to the treatment of suspected vessels bearing the American flag. MINISTERIAL RESIGNATIONS. EXPLANATIONS. MR. WALPOLE: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed to the business of the evening, I trust I shall be allowed, for the first time in my life, to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I make some explanations with reference to a matter which is more or less personal to myself. The House will have observed that yesterday evening I forbore from taking my usual place, because I thought it would be more convenient to my colleagues-my former colleagues-that they should not have any personal matter mixed up with the important measure which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce. I am not certain whether I should not have forborne from taking my seat again in this House until my successor was actually appointed; but as I find that some misconceptions have arisen, and been circulated, with reference to the reason which led to my resignation of office, I am sure the House will not think I am taking an improper IMMIGRATION OF INDIAN COOLIES INTO course in venturing now to set myself right THE FRENCH COLONIES. QUESTION. MR. KINGLAKE said, he rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign VOL. CLII. [THIRD SERIES.] with it. In doing this, I must carry you back, if you will permit me, for one year. It is just a year since I was asked by my noble Friend at the head of the Government 2 M |
