lic in consequence deserved consideration; | Jersey, which we understood him to say 1,478 prisoners had to be maintained in amounted to not less than twelve tons of jail, at a cost of more than 5,000l., with- tobacco per month. He also adverted to out reference to the cost of prosecutions the quantity of Dutch snuff sold in Lonand other incidental expenses. It was don, none of which was legally imported. grievous to see, also, that the greater por- On the whole, he estimated that not less tion of the parties convicted of smuggling than 21,747,000 lbs. of tobacco were tobacco were British sailors. In Hull, fraudulently introduced every year. No out of 85 persons, no fewer than 57 were doubt chemical and microscopic arts had sailors. At least one-third of the seamen much advanced of late years, and had from the Baltic, and employed in crossing been employed in aid of the revenue to the Atlantic, were habitually engaged in detect adulterations of tobacco; but the ildefrauding the revenue. The hon. Mem-legal trader was also able to avail himself ber next called attention to the amount of of the assistance of science; and he (Dr. tonnage of shipping he supposed to be Bowring) contended that in many cases more or less concerned in this illegal trade; | innocent dealers, who had been the dupes maintaining, on evidence taken by the of others in the purchase of adulterated Committee, that there was scarcely a ves- tobacco, had been unduly convicted. It sel engaged in coasting that did not to was known that in some cases the Excise some extent contribute to the smuggling had been obliged to make ample restituof tobacco. Testimony of the most re- tion to parties, as it appeared afterwards, markable kind had been obtained to show falsely accused, but duly convicted on the in what way whole cargoes were clandes- mistaken evidence of philosophers employtinely, yet openly, introduced into the ed by Government to detect the adulteravery heart of the metropolis. One gentle- tion of tobacco. This was one of the man had imported geese and fowls from many evils arising out of the present sysabroad, in crates; and these crates were tem, and calling loudly for a large reduccomposed of nothing but twisted tobacco, tion of duty. There was a general feelwhich were seen and handled by the cus-ing, in which he concurred, that tobacco tom-house officers without detection. He was a fit object for taxation; but that dilated upon the seminaries for smuggling taxation must not be so high as to existing in various parts of the Empire, maximise the motives of the smuggler and upon the manner in which children to defraud the revenue. While people were employed in the contraband introduc- were considering how many millions stertion of tobacco; beginning as smugglers ling were paid into the Treasury, they and ending as thieves. He contended that forgot the amount of crime and wretchedpublic opprobrium did not attach to of-ness produced by this species of legislation. fences of the kind; nay, that sympathy was often felt for the parties accused, and that smuggling was carried on by wholesale as well as by retail, in cargoes or in small quantities; and that it employed the rich as well as the poor, the merchant as well as the beggar who could only muster a few pence to risk in an adventure. He adverted also to the heavy cost of the coast-guard, amounting to 600,000l. or 700,000l. per annum, much of which might be saved if the duty were lowered, and the inducement to smuggle thereby diminished. It was the general belief that the amount of smuggled tobacco was at least equal to that on which duty was paid. In one district there were introduced 26,686 lbs., in another 48 bales of 60l. each. Having called the attention of the House to a table that had been prepared with great care, containing the results of the evidence the Committee had taken, he went on to notice the smuggling from In 1843 the number of sailors employed in the Baltic and United States' trade was 96,920; and of that number there was scarcely an individual who was not more or less a user and importer of illicit tobacco. To these were to be added 131,462 sailors engaged in the coasting trade, most of whom contrived to get tobacco similarly introduced; and between both some idea might be formed of the number of persons employed under the existing system of duties in defrauding the revenue by the use of illicit tobacco. He thought these facts were sufficient to justify him in saying that the Government were called upon to institute an inquiry into the operation of these duties, more especially at a time when a general investigation of the financial affairs of the country was thought advisable. He would appeal to the noble Lord whether he would allow the enormous mass of offence and misery exhibited by this return to be passed over, and whether he would not be ready to put an end to it, | bers were apt to object to some of its even by some small sacrifice to the revenue, clauses. He proposed a clause enacting by a reduction on the tobacco duties. He, that copyhold and customary lands may be however, entertained strong doubts whe- exchanged with the consent of the lord of ther such a reduction would be followed by the manor. This was in analogy with the any loss to the revenue whatever, as he Tithe Commutation Act, with this differbelieved it likely that a reduction in the ence, that the exchange under the Tithe duty would be made up by the increased Commutation Act was compulsory, whereas consumption to which it must lead. He this Act proceeded upon an opposite prinhoped that if the House agreed with him ciple, that of agreement. Another clause on these points, they would permit him to authorized boundaries of leasehold to be move that "it is the opinion of the House declared in award, setting out the boundathat the tobacco duties require an early ries of copyhold or customary lands, or by inquiry into their operation and effects." distinct award. MR. HUME seconded the Motion. Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN rose to address the House, when An HON. MEMBER observed that there were not forty Members present. House counted; when only thirty-four Members being present, it was adjourned. Bill passed through Committee. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. MR. HUME moved the Second Reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill. As serious objections had been taken to this measure, he thought he should best fulfil the object in view by merely retaining those clauses which secured the accountability of those who had charge of public money. It was the duty of the House, after the expense MINUTES.] NEW MEMBERS SWORN. For Perth, Right which had been incurred in inquiries, to HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, July 15, 1846. Hon. Fox Maule.-For Hertford, Hon. William Francis Cowper. have some accounts available that would PUBLIC BILLS.-20. Charitable Trusts; Administration of show how the revenues of each trust had Justice. Reported. Commons Inclosure (No. 2). 3o and passed. Battersea Park. been expended. It was not his intention to include the Bible Society, and other re PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Colonel Thomas Wood, from ligious trusts or charities where the found Farmers, Gardeners, and other Persons interested in preserving Good and Commodious Public Roads, residing in the Western Part of Middlesex, and the Counties Adjacent, for Alteration of the Highways Bill.-By Captain Pechell, from Inhabitants, Householders, Traders, and Residents in the Vicinity of Westminster Abbey, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo and other Bridges. COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL. House resolved in Committee pro formá upon the Commons Enclosure Bill. MR. HUME thought it would be better to repeal the former Bill and re-enact it, with the additions, in the present, so that the whole measure would be made to harmonize together, otherwise ordinary men would be unable to make it out. SIR J. GRAHAM agreed on principle with the hon. Member that, generally speaking, it was advisable to consolidate the law when alterations were made in antecedent Acts of Parliament. But he could not say that this was a Bill to which that general principle applied. The antecedent Bill passed only last Session; the present Bill extended and enlarged its powers, but it was not necessary to repeal and re-enact them. When an Act so recently passed was brought again before the House, Mem ers were alive, but those only where the individuals were dead. The principle of the Bill was to secure the accountability of persons intrusted with public moneys. SIR G. GREY should not offer any opposition to the second reading of this Bill; but the House must not suppose that this was a substitute for another Bill, which had been thrown out in the other House, or for a more general measure. MR. BROTHERTON considered this a very valuable Bill, and one which would give great satisfaction to the country. MR. T. EGERTON inquired whether, in the case of mixed funds, it was intended to require accounts of all the moneys? MR. HUME: My object is, that there should be in that case a balance-sheet of the moneys received and expended, whether the parties were dead or alive. MR. BERNAL said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) perhaps had not considered the sea of difficulties he would have to encounter, though his intentions were good. If he attacked the city of London, he would find that a very strong body to deal with, and would meet obstacles at the very outset. Did he contemplate meddling with the Rugby charity, or the grammar school | at Bedford? He recommended his hon. Friend to leave legislating upon the subject, which would be better done by the comprehensive measure referred to by the right hon. Baronet. ought to be clearly informed how far it was intended to go; they ought to be informed whether or not they were to have all the different foundations brought within the scope of the Bill; for example, were they to have King Edward's foundations comprehended within its operation? The House, he hoped, would bear in mind that all the larger charities were subject to the Court of Chancery. He would not say that the House did not possess the right to interfere, because Parliament could do anything; but he did think that a Bill of that MR. STAFFORD O'BRIEN agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, that this measure might interfere with the comprehensive measure referred to by the Secretary of State, which, as he (Mr. O'Brien) understood, was in the contemplation of the Government. He protested against any great principle like this being deter-importance ought to be introduced into the mined by the House on the representation of merely a private Member. He did not consider that the Bill was so worded as that it could be safely allowed to make so great a change in the charities of this country. It was certainly true that those charities were liable to great abuses, that some had been abused; but he protested against the assumption of the principle that the House of Commons had a right to interfere with every charitable body. Every one that supported the Bill did so under the condition that changes would be made in it in Committee. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. MR. B. ESCOTT said, the hon. Member for Northamptonshire was inconsistent in saying that this Bill should not be introduced by a private Member, and then that the House of Commons was not entitled to interfere with charities in the administration of which he admitted there were great abuses. The great bodies who were the trustees of those charities either considered themselves unaccountable, or acted as if they thought so, and applied the moneys to their own private purposes. He knew of charities that were so managed. When the House came to consider the great and comprehensive measure, let them come to the consideration of it with all the accounts before them. He tendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Montrose for having introduced this Bill; and he hoped the House of Commons, with the knowledge of the abuses before them, would read this Bill a second time. MR. BUCK observed, that if such a measure as the present had been brought fairly before the House, he should have no objection to go into it; but he protested against questions of so much importance as the Bill involved being decided in so thin a House. MR. SPOONER thought that the House House of Commons upon the responsibility If the Bill in SIR DE L. EVANS could not help remarking that it might be all very well to say that the Court of Chancery possessed the authority necessary for taking cognizance of these matters; but it should be remembered that proceedings in the Court of Chancery were inordinately expensive. There was little use in telling a poor man that the courts of law were open to the poor as well as the rich; they certainly were open, but so was the London Tavern; both were open to any one who could pay for expenpensive luxuries. To him it appeared that the objections to the present Bill were by no means well founded-it was merely a Bill to enable the Government, the Legislature, and the country, to obtain clear and exact information upon subjects of great public importance. Every one acknowledged that great abuses were committed, and the Bill then before the House MR. ESTCOURT said, that the hon. Member for Montrose had told the House that there were some charities to which it was intended that the Bill should not apply. Now, if that observation included some of the charities which were then present to his mind, he confessed that it took away no small portion of the objection which he felt towards the Bill. Nevertheless, the subject was one of so grave a character that he really thought the Government ought to take it into their own hands. The Bill as it now stood appeared to him to be very crude, and he did not think it was likely to be carried into effect. It demanded that there should be certain accounts annually produced; but at whose expense? There were many charities, the trustees of which administered large funds; but they had no funds wherewith to pay clerks. No doubt, Parliament had the power of insisting upon those accounts being furnished; but he put it to the House whether it was fair to call upon trustees to employ clerks at their own expense for the purpose of preparing those accounts? He did not deny that means might be found whereby that difficulty might be obviated, and in most cases he believed there would be no objection to the publication of accounts. But he could not help observing that the measure was one of much importance; that the Bill ought not only to be printed, but very extensively circulated, before Parliament finally decided on its merits, and he feared that that could not be done at this advanced period of the Session. For these reasons he thought that the hon. Member for Montrose would do well to withdraw the Bill for the present, and introduce it in a modified form at the commencement of the next Session. was merely a preliminary step, the purport | them to him before he obtained leave to of which was to clear the way for a more bring it in, and, after all, it was only a comprehensive measure. small portion of a measure which Lord Lyndhurst, then Lord Chancellor, had laid upon the Table of the other House of Parliament. His noble and learned Friend, as the first law adviser of the Crown, did on the part of the late Government bring into the House of Lords a Bill which included all, he believed, that the hon. Member for Montrose proposed to effect by the present measure, although it comprehended a great deal more, and it would, if it had become law, have effected, as he thought, an extensive and salutary change. The Bill introduced by Lord Lyndhurst required that trustees should furnish annual accounts; but it made certain exceptions, and he thought that similar exceptions ought to be contained in any Bill introduced upon the subject. That Bill unhappily, as he thought, was defeated in the other House of Parliament; and thereupon the hon. Member for Montrose inquired of him (Sir J. Graham) if he would consent to a single enactment requiring trustees of charities to present to Parliament a statement annually of their accounts. He told the hon. Member that which he then repeated-namely, that he very much regretted the loss of the larger measure, adding, at the same time, that a single enactment requiring the annual production of accounts would, in his opinion, prove a salutary check upon the conduct of trustees in the administration of charities. hon. Member for Northamptonshire told them that the passing of such a Bill as the proposed measure, would be an arbitrary assumption of power on the part of the House of Commons. Now, he was quite of a different opinion: if the measure were agreed to, it would not be any assumption of authority by the House of Commons: the proposition could only be made binding by its becoming an Act of Parliament, and then the authority of proceeding in such matters would be vested in a responsible servant of the Crown. It would be monstrous to suppose that the House of Commons could entertain such a project as that of taking upon itself such a power. If it were found that the trustees of certain charities had proceeded in a manner the effect of which was to defraud those whom the donors intended should have the benefit of those charities, then surely it would not be an undue assumption of power if a statute were enacted compelling the annual preparation and publication of ac SIR J. GRAHAM said, he wished to state briefly to the House what took place between himself and the hon. Member for Montrose on the subject of the Bill then before them. But previously he wished to observe, that if his mind had now for the first time been brought to bear upon the question at present submitted to the consideration of the House, he should have hesitated before he gave his consent to the second reading of the measure which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Montrose, So far, however, from his being unacquainted with its provisions, the hon. Mover of the Bill had communicated The counts, setting forth the funds which the trustees received, and the mode of their application. Such was the object of the measure then before the House, and so far, at least, it must be admitted that the Bill was not too comprehensive. The hon. Member for Montrose appeared to him to be right in the principle of the measure; there was one part of it, however, which perhaps might be thought somewhat too wide in its operation-the Bill provided that all persons in whom property was vested for charitable purposes, or who held property appropriated to charitable uses, should be compelled to produce their accounts annually. That appeared to him to be an extensive enactment. It was very wide. It might extend to various trusts which the author never intended; it might comprehend Dissenting places of worship, and he believed that almost all Dissenting places of worship were held upon terms that this Bill would reach. He doubted if any one connected with charitable trusts could, under the Bill, avoid making annual returns, and that he believed was not the intention of the hon. Member for Montrose; however, when they went into Committee, the phraseology of the Bill might be deliberately considered. Of this, he entertained no doubt, that the general rule of accountability ought to be enforced. Great abuses were admitted to exist, and he knew no remedy for these abuses so efficient, so clear, so obvious, as that which accountability presented. If they wanted analogy or proof, they might find both in the case of the turnpike trusts. With respect to those, an enactment similar to this had been passed. Each turnpike trust was compelled to render its accounts, and a more salutary enactment could scarcely have been devised. Debts, jobbing, and abuses prevailed. The debts of those trusts were now 8,000,000l.; and if the Bill to which he referred had been passed twenty years earlier, not one half the debts of those trusts would now exist. Even if no more were done than to enact the one provision now proposed, it would have the effect of bringing public opinion to bear upon the subject-if no more than that one measure were enacted, one-half the objects contemplated by the larger Bill would be accomplished. He was quite aware that considerable exceptions ought to be introduced; but he should object to admitting among those exceptions charities connected with the corporation of London. Lord Lyndhurst, in another place, showed that they would not bear public investigation. They were such as if an annual revision took place, the practices which prevailed in their administration would not be suffered any longer to exist. Upon these grounds, he should not hesitate to vote for the second reading of the Bill; for the late Government, in introducing the larger measure, certainly recognised the principle of the enactment proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose. Although he contended for some exceptions, he warned the House that they ought not to be too large. If they proceeded carefully, he did not doubt that considerable advantage to the public must accrue; and, therefore, he was willing to vote for the second reading. MR. NEWDEGATE: The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) expressed it as his opinion that there was, with certain exceptions, a necessity for the present measure; but any man who gave his attention to the charitable trusts of the country, must at once see that the exceptions which would be absolutely necessary would form such a catalogue as could not be comprehended in a small bit of paper. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) also stated that the great question was accountability, and to secure that an enactment was necessary; while the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, said that the principle involved was such as to require a great and comprehensive measure: surely mere accountability did not deserve so large a term as that. He thought the House would do well to seek information before it proceeded further; but it had rarely sought information on the subject. If information were required and asked for, it would, in his opinion, be afforded without any legislative enactment. From the consideration he had given the subject before them, he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill. MR. TATTON EGERTON said, he did not object to the principle of accountability; but he certainly did object to the Bill on account of the form in which that accountability was demanded. He wished to know whether the measure would apply to the charitable trusts of the Wesleyans and the Unitarians, and all the other Dissenters, including the great Catholic schools at Oscot and Stonyhurst? MR. HUME explained, that the subject had for many years been under the consideration of the House; and if they visited the library of the House, they would find numbers of volumes having reference to |