Commons Sitting of 22 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Reported.—Maxwell's Restitution; Scientific Societies.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Alexander Hastie, from Electors of Glasgow, and a great Number of other Places, for an Extension of the Elective Franchise.—By Mr. Cowan, from Members of the Free West Church Congregation of Perth, respecting Quoad Sacra Churches.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Members of the Presbytery of North Isles, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Blewitt, from Newport, and by other Hon. Members, from several Places, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Baillie, from Kilmorack, Inverness, and by other Hon. Members, from a great Number of Places, in favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. G. S. Duff, from the Parish of Urquhart, for Abolition of University Tests (Scotland).—From Justices of the Peace, Commissioners of Supply, and Freeholders of the County of Sutherland, for Inquiry into the Excise Laws.—By Sir William Clay, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Sir William Somerville, from Clerks of Petty Sessions of the County of Meath, complaining of the Insufficiency of their Remuneration.—By Mr. Cowan, from the Provincial Synod of Angus and Mearns, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.

IRISH FISHERY ESTABLISHMENT.
COLONEL CONOLLY inquired of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for

1235
Ireland whether the fishery establishments on the western coast of Ireland had answered the purpose, and paid their own expenses; and whether the Government would have any objection to communicate to the House the accounts of expenditure, &.?
SIR W. SOMERVILLE replied, that in the instance of the Killybeg station these fisheries had been found able fully to pay their own expenses; and that although other stations had not been so productive, yet that the object for which they were set on foot—as industrial establishments—the promotion of energy on the part of the fishermen—had been quite answered, and that they had acted as very useful stimuli to exertion.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
SIR DE LACY EVANS said, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose for Parliamentary Reform embraced four different points, in favour of every one of which he had himself already voted; but he wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would have any objection so to bring forward the subject as to put each of those heads or points to the House successively—each, in fact, as a different and independent resolution? It was the wish of many hon. Gentlemen that the hon. Member would adopt this course, as being calculated to ensure better divisions upon each proposition separately than could be expected if the House were to divide upon them as members of one general proposition.
MR. HUME had well considered the subject, and as he believed that no practical reform could be effected unless all his propositions were carried, he meant to propose them at once in the same resolution. In the event of further progress being made in the matter, each proposition would be made the subject of a separate Bill.

STAMFORD ELECTION COMMITTEE.
LORD J. RUSSELL understood that the nomination of the Stamford Election Committee, as the list of its Members stood, would lead to some discussion and to some difference of opinion in the House. He wished to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman having charge of the matter, whether any discussion on the subject might not be eluded by the General Committee of Elections being instructed to report to the House the names of such persons as they should think fit to have on
1236
the Stamford Borough Election Committee?
MR. W. P. WOOD was sorry that any difficulty had arisen, but he had no hesitation in agreeing to the proposition of the noble Lord.

THE SPANISH CORRESPONDENCE.
MR. BANKES wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further correspondence had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Ministry since that laid upon the table of the House; and, if so, whether the noble Lord would produce such correspondence before the subject was brought before the House, which he believed would be on Friday next?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON replied, that some further notes had been exchanged. Indeed, there had been, of course, a good deal of correspondence on the subject. Two other notes had passed, subsequently to those he had laid on the table, which related to the personal question between Sir H. Bulwer and the Duke de Sotomayor as to the manner in which the paragraphs had appeared in the Clamor Publico. That correspondence, however, had no bearing upon the note Sir H. Bulwer presented to the Spanish Government, enclosing the despatch which he had forwarded to Sir H. Bulwer. He was in daily expectation of a messenger from the British Minister in Spain, and it was very probable that he would arrive before this subject was again brought under the notice of the House.
In reply to a question from Mr. H. BAILLIE,
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON stated, that a correspondence, which was rather of a private than of a public nature, had taken place between Sir H. Bulwer and the Duke de Sotomayor; but, nevertheless, if he should receive any communication by the messenger he expected to-morrow, or the following day, which might appear to him to render it necessary that such correspondence should be laid before the House, he would wave the consideration of its being of a merely, confidential and private character, and would not object to its production.

PRIVILEGE—SLIGO ELECTION.
MR. ORMSBY GORE rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter of the petition of John Delany, which was presented upon the 18th day of this

1237
instant May, complaining of certain proceedings for effecting a compromise in the case of the Sligo Election Petitions. The allegations of this petition were stated clearly and broadly; and he thought it was for the dignity and independence of the House that it should receive a full investigation. The document stated that—
"At the late election for the borough of Sligo, Charles Townley, esq., was returned as a Member to serve in Parliament by a majority of seven; that two petitions have been presented to the House complaining of said return on several grounds, but especially on that of gross and undisguised bribery; that said petitions and the recognisances thereto were sent over for presentation to the House in charge of Mr. William Kelly, of Castle Lodge, in the county of Sligo, who undertook to have the usual preliminary forms complied with, and that one (being the petition of the petitioner and Dominick Henesy) was presented on the 19th day of April; but that the other, in consequence of an informality in the recognisance, was unavoidably delayed for several days, but was eventually presented on the 1st of May; that, from certain proceedings which took place before the examiner of recognisances on the 9th instant, while examining objections urged against the sufficiency of the surety to first said mentioned petition by James Coppock, of No. 3, Cleveland-row, Saint James's, Parliamentary agent, acting on behalf of said Charles Townley, it appeared, by the admission of the said James Coppock, that certain overtures were made to said William Kelly, by said James Coppock, at the instance, and with the consent and cognisance of said Charles Townley, with a view of inducing said Kelly to compromise the trust reposed in him regarding the due presentation and prosecution of said petitions; that, in consequence thereof, the petitioner instituted a searching inquiry, and finds the facts to be, that on the 29th of April last, said James Coppock called at No. 4, Shaftesbury-terrace, Pimlico, London, the residence of said William Kelly, and, having sent in his card, introduced himself as the Parliamentary agent of said Charles Townley, at whose instance he stated he called to negotiate an arrangement for the withdrawal of said petitions, and proposed that if said Kelly would either give him (Coppock) authority to withdraw the petition already presented,and withhold the other, or could point out any other way in which the proceedings on said petitions could be stopped, nullified, or rendered abortive, that he (Coppock) would make it well worth his (Kelly's) while, as his client (said Townley) had ample means and was prepared to make any reasonable sacrifice to retain his seat and prevent the damaging revelations that should take place before a Parliamentary Committee; said Kelly said that the proposition was so very unexpected that he would require some time for consideration, but agreed to wait on said Coppock next day, which he accordingly did, when said Coppock wrote out two letters and handed them to said Kelly for perusal, stating that if said Kelly would furnish him with copies of said letters to be used as originals in withdrawing said petition, he (Coppock) would give said Kelly one thousand pounds, and procure from said Townley a letter, pledging himself to use all his Parliamentary influence and obtain the co-
1238
operation of his brother, the Member for Beverly, and Lord Camoys, to secure a good government appointment for him (Kelly); it was then arranged that said Kelly would call next day with the copies of said letters, when said Coppock would be prepared to conclude the arrangement; said Kelly did accordingly call, when said Coppock handed him the promised letter from said Townley, which contained the required pledges, which said Kelly satisfied himself was genuine, from the strict similarity of the handwriting to a letter of said Townley's, addressed to John P. Somers, esq., the unsuccessful candidate at the said late Sligo election, which said Kelly happened to have in his possession; however, said Kelly said as the contingency of an appointment was rather doubtful and remote, he would rather abandon that part of the compact for a money consideration, when it was agreed that a further sum of five hundred pounds should be given in lieu of said letter, and that said Coppock and said Kelly should meet the same evening at seven o'clock in Bellamy's dining-rooms in the House of Commons, and finally conclude the matter; they did accordingly meet, and retired to Fendall's Hotel, when said Coppock proposed that instead of said Kelly's writing him (Coppock) a letter, authorising him to withdraw the said petition, that said Kelly should write a letter himself to the Speaker withdrawing said petition; this, after some hesitation, said Kelly did, from a copy written out at the time by said Coppock, and on said Kelly's handing over said letters to said Coppock, together with the said unpresented petition, said Coppock handed said Kelly one thousand five hundred pounds in Bank of England notes; but on said letter of withdrawal being handed to the Speaker, it appeared that said Kelly was not the authorised agent so to do; whereupon said Coppock hurried back to said Kelly, informing him of the circumstance, when said Kelly refunded the money; said Coppock since called and left his card on said Kelly, who declined having any further communication with him; that petitioner humbly submits that the conduct of said Charles Townley, and his agent said James Coppock, has been corrupt and illegal, and a gross infraction of the privileges of the House; and praying that a Select Committee of the House may be appointed to inquire into the matter, and take such other and further cognisance of it as it may deem fit and proper, in order to uphold the dignity and purity of proceedings before the House."
The hon. Gentleman continued: There was no vagueness in those charges—each of them was specific and distinct. The hon. Member read the correspondence which passed between the agent, Mr. Coppock, and the Speaker's Secretary, relative to the notice given for the withdrawal of the petition, and the warning to the latter Gentleman not to accept such notice. He had avoided all subjects of an acrimonious or party nature; but the mere statement of the facts was quite enough to satisfy the House that the matter could not rest here. A full inquiry into the truth of these statements was not only due to the Gentlemen implicated, but absolutely necessary to uphold the dignity and character of

1239
the House. He sincerely trusted the hon. Member would be able to vindicate himself. But, in addition to the charges made against him, an officer of the House, executing his important functions at their pleasure, was accused on no light grounds, and on a chain of evidence not one link of which was wanting, of conduct which deserved serious and searching inquiry. After the recent conduct of the House in assenting to an inquiry into the interference of a nobler Peer with the course of an election, they could not refuse their sanction to a Select Committee to investigate charges, involving not only the honour of the House, but the most sacred privileges of the electors. The hon. Member read extracts from the speeches of Lord John Russell and Mr. W. P. Wood on the Motion for an inquiry into the interference of the Marquess of Exeter with the Stamford election, and called on them, in compliance with the principles they had laid down and advocated, to support him in this Motion. From the high character of the hon. Member for Sligo, he hoped and expected he would be able to clear himself completely; but he could not express the same opinion with respect to Mr. Coppock. If these facts were true, every opportunity should be afforded for their substantiation; if false, the calumniators of honourable men should be exposed to that punishment which they so richly deserved.
COLONEL CONOLLY seconded the Motion. He was so satisfied that the feeling of the House would lead them to consent to immediate inquiry, that he would not say one word to induce them to sift a charge of this kind, which implicated one of their officers, the character of one of their Members, and the dignity of the House itself.
SIR R. H. INGLIS said, he had been requested by the hon. Member for Sligo, against whom this petition had been presented, and of whom he should for the present speak as Mr. Charles Townley, to state in his place to the House, that Mr. Townley had assured him, on his honour, as a gentleman, that he had neither act nor part in the matter to which this complaint referred, and that he was perfectly unconscious of any portion of the transaction. He was not only personally free, as he assured him (Sir R. H. Inglis), of any taint in the matter, but he was totally ignorant of the transaction itself. Mr. Townley desired him further to state to the House, that he shrank from no investiga-
1240
tion, and would do that which was most honourable to himself as well as to the House—which was, he might be permitted to say, stigmatised in his person by the terms of the petition—and consent to the inquiry. He felt the House owed it to itself not to yield without the fullest consideration to the honourable and generous impulse on the sitting Member for Sligo. Had not an election petition been lodged against the return of the hon. Member, and bad not the Speaker declared to the House, but on their very last sitting, that the securities were unobjectionable with respect to the prosecution of the petition? Might not the matter of which this petition complained come under the consideration of the Election Committee appointed to try the former petition? Even if that were not the case, would it be fair to any hon. Member; and in saying this, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) need not state he was quite impartial, and led away by no party spirit, for he did not concur in all the sentiments of the hon. Member who had entrusted to him the duty of making these few observations—would it be fair, he asked, that while the election petition was about to be decided before the regular tribunal appointed by law and by the constitution of the country, another Committee should be sitting simultaneously to inquire into charges of a different nature, which should not be made until the first Committee had made its report to the House? He hoped, notwithstanding the feeling of Mr. Townley in favour of such an inquiry, that the House would not consent to it—at least not until the Election Committee had reported, and that they would consider whether it might not be fitting to refer the present petition to the Committee of Privileges. But he protested against two Committees sitting at the same time, with concurrent jurisdiction, to inquire into charges against the same individual—one with power to examine parties on oath, and to sift truth from falsehood by a searching inquiry; and the other carried on, perhaps, with too much party spirit, and with no security for a fair adjudication, nor for that inquiry which might take place before an Election Committee. He dissented from the Motion on the plain grounds that the law having provided a remedy for offences alleged to have been committed in respect to the election of Members of that House before a proper tribunal, it was fitting that the House should wait until that tribunal had investigated the charges before them.
MR. G. BANKES believed this question could not be referred, as the hon. Member seemed to desire, to the tribunal which sat on disputed elections; for it did not in any way bear on the decision they were called on to give. The Election Committee could only try the validity of the return, and could not inquire into such charges as those of the petition. He should prefer an inquiry before some other tribunal, with full power to investigate the whole affair. The character and experience of Mr. Coppock were no doubt high; but such charges as these could not be allowed to drop to the ground in silence.
SIR R. H. INGLIS explained. He had proposed to refer the matter to some other body, as the Committee of Privileges, for he did not think the charges should be passed over; but he protested against the sitting of any Committee of Inquiry on this matter concurrently with that of the Committee appointed to try the validity of the hon. Member's return.
MR. V. SMITH thought it was quite clear the petition was not one which could be referred to the Election Committee, for though in the wording it bore some resemblance to an election petition, the mode in which it was brought forward disentitled it to that character; and the clerks of the House, who were naturally the best authorities on such a subject, had not considered it in that light. He did not understand the ground on which the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis) founded his objection to the Motion; but he could easily understand him if he opposed it on the principle that the House had ever been jealous of appearing to anticipate in any way the decision and fair judgment of their Committees. The petition did not impute any direct charge against the hon. Member for his own conduct, but stated that he had, through his agent, endeavoured to make a compromise for his seat in order to evade the petition presented against his return. There was no analogy between the Stamford case, to which the hon. Mover referred, and the present, because in the former instance the petition was signed by 210 persons, whereas here there was only one individual who came forward with most serious charges against a Member of the House. The petition did not state that a compromise had been effected—that the petition had been withdrawn, or that justice had been evaded—on the contrary, it appeared that the whole affair had failed in consequence of one of the gentlemen
1242
accused handing over the money to the wrong person, and getting it back from him as soon as he discovered his mistake. He must say it was rather unusual for rogues, if rogues they were, to act in this way, and return the money they had got for their pains. The whole of the case might be tried before the Election Committee, for it was most likely, after what had transpired of the facts, that the cross-examination of witnesses would elicit the fullest statement of the whole subject. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division, but would withdraw it till the report of the Sligo Election Committee had been received.
SIR G. GREY said, that, after the statement made by the hon. Member (Mr. Gore), he certainly thought some inquiry was necessary; and if the compromise alluded to had been actually effected, and the petition withdrawn in consequence, he would have agreed with the hon. Member in thinking also that the present was the time for considering the question. He hoped that the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis)—though he (Sir G. Grey) agreed with him in thinking that, pending the inquiry before the Election Committee, the subject should not be investigated—would not ask the House to place a negative on the Motion of the hon. Member for a Select Committee, for, by so doing, he would, if successful, prevent his being able to bring it forward in the same form again. Believing with the hon. Baronet in the inexpediency of bringing forward his Motion while the Election Committee were sitting, he still thought if that Committee were not able to institute the inquiry, that the hon. Member would have a right to ask the House for a further inquiry, in which be (Sir G. Grey) for one would gladly concur. He would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion on the present occasion, and to bring it forward after the report of the Election Committee had been presented to the House.
MR. F. FRENCH rose to say a few words in consequence of the remark which had fallen from the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. V. Smith) respecting the gentlemen engaged in this transaction. The hon. Member stated that among "rogues" it was an extraordinary thing to find such honesty as to induce them to return the money they had acquired. He wished to state to the House the part taken by Mr. Kelly in the business, as he had it from himself just before he came

1243
into the House. When Mr. Coppock called on him (Mr. Kelly) he did not see him, but referred him to the agent of the petitioner, Mr. Walker, and told that gentleman that Mr. Coppock wished to see him. Every circumstance in which Mr. Kelly took a part was with a knowledge of the agent of Mr. Somers, and he wrote the notice to the secretary not to take any paper from him with respect to the withdrawal of the petition. Mr. Coppock might have fallen into the snare, but he (Mr. Kelly) was not responsible for it.
MR. GORE said, that after the wish expressed by the House and by the right hon. Baronet, he would withdraw the petition on the understanding that he should be allowed to bring it on as soon as the report of the Sligo Election Committee had been presented to the House.
Motion withdrawn.

HEALTH OF TOWNS BILL.
House in Committee on the Health of Towns Bill.
On Clause 60 (power to compel the paving, &., of private streets),
LORD G. BENTINCK objected to that portion of the clause which makes the following provision:—
"If any land fronting, adjoining, or abutting upon the parts of any street so sewered, levelled, flagged, paved, or channelled by the said local board, be unoccupied or unproductive, and the owner thereof shall, for the space of twelve months after demand, refuse to pay the expenses due from him, or if he be bankrupt, insolvent, or unknown to the said local board, or cannot be found, it shall be lawful for them, after the expiration of three months' notice in this behalf, affixed or placed on that land, to take possession of, and piece off, and let the same or any part thereof for any term not exceeding ten
years."
He thought it was rather hard that the owner of the unoccupied or unproductive piece of land should be compelled to see his entire property seized for the maintenance of sewers from which they derived no benefit, and in which they had no interest whatever.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL explained that it was not intended that the clause should apply to highways where the public had a right to the land. But if private landed proprietors chose to open communications with public thoroughfares, their object in so doing being manifestly that of speculation and profit, it was right that they should understand the liabilities they were incurring—liabilities which it was optional with them to incur or not, and
1244
which they therefore ought not to shift upon others.
The EARL of LINCOLN observed that the clause, as at present worded, would have a retrospective as well as a prospective operation. Perhaps it would be better that it should only operate prospectively.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented. If the operation were to be thus limited, proprietors who had already opened their streets, but had not dedicated them to the public, would have their sewering done at the expense of the public; whereas other proprietors, who might hereafter pursue a similar course, would have to pay the expenses of sewerage out of their own pockets.
MR. HENLEY: It was quite possible that cases of hardship might arise under the clause, but he feared they could not be avoided. On the whole he thought that the best course the Committee could pursue was to assent to the clause as it stood.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 63, relating to the width of new streets,
MR. S. CRAWFORD moved to expunge the words granting a power of appeal from the local to the general board.
VISCOUNT MORPETH thought it would be best to leave the question of width in the first instance to the local board; different towns having recommended the adoption of different widths. He thought, however, that there should be a power of appeal, and that it should be vested in the general board.
The EARL of LINCOLN said, that much as he was opposed to central control, except in cases in which it was absolutely necessary, he thought the Government were perfectly right in providing for the power of appeal in this case. That power was necessary to guard against undue favour or prejudice on the part of the local board; and he regretted that a similar power had not been given in the succeeding clause.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL thought the appeal to the general board should exist for five years. At the end of that period there might be an alteration, but an appeal to the quarter-sessions would be very expensive, and would be attended with great delay.
MR. HENLEY supported the Amendment. He agreed with the Attorney General that the court of quarter-sessions was a most unfit tribunal for appeal; for

1245
the result must always be either a reference to a barrister, or an appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. He was in favour of leaving the whole matter to the local board.
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 85; Noes 19: Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Lacy, H. C.

Arundel and Surrey,

Lincoln, Earl of

Earl of

Lushington, C.

Bagshaw, J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Baines, M. T.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Maitland, T.

Bolling, W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Bowring, Dr.

Morpeth, Visct.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Napier, J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Busfeild, W.

Parker, J.

Butler, P. S.

Patten, J. W.

Carter, J. B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Perfect, R.

Clay, Sir W.

Pilkington, J.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Power, N.

Clive, H. B.

Price, Sir R.

Copeland, Ald.

Romilly, Sir J.

Courtenay, Lord

Russell, Lord J.

Cowan, C.

Salway, Col.

Disraeli, B.

Sandars, G.

Drummond, H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Duncan, G.

Sidney, Ald.

Duncuft, J.

Slaney, R. A.

Dundas, Adm.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Stanton, W. H.

Egerton, W. T.

Stephenson, R.

Foley, J. H. H.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Forster, M.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Fox, W. J.

Thompson, Col.

Grace, O. D. J.

Turner, E.

Granger, T. C.

Turner, G. J.

Greenall, G.

Vane, Lord H.

Halford, Sir H.

Verney, Sir H.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Hayter, W. G.

Willcox, B. M.

Heywood, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wyld, J.

Hood, Sir A.

Wyvill, M.

Howard, P. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Tufnell, H.

Kershaw, J.

Bellew, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

Locke, J.

Arkwright, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Scholefield, W.

Christy, S.

Smyth, J. G.

Cubitt, W.

Spooner, R.

Gwyn, H.

Stuart, Lord D.

Heald, J.

Sullivan, M.

Henley, J. W.

Williams, J.

Henry, A.

TELLERS.

Hudson, G.

Crawford, W. S.

Humphery, Ald.

Urquhart, D.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 66 (local boards to provide sufficient supplies of water, and may erect water-works, &.) being put, a long conversation ensued as to the literal construction of the clause.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM said, that he had hitherto abstained from taking an active part in the debate. But he could not help saying that he thought the measure had been much improved by the suggestions of the hon. Member for Oxford; and the noble Lord had done well in agreeing to those amendments, and diminishing the power of the central board. But in the clause under consideration, he feared that the powers given to the local boards would be very objectionable. If they looked to the provisions of the following Clause (67), the Committee would see that the local board was to be invested with the power of entering any one's premises; and having satisfied themselves upon the correctness of the report of their surveyor, that the premises were not adequately supplied with water, of furnishing what they should deem a requisite supply, and for the levying a rate upon the premises at their own valuation, as if the owner or occupier had of himself demanded the supply. Now he saw no security whatever that those local boards might not have a pecuniary interest in some local water company, whose interests they would be thus enabled to advance to any extent. Surely those powers were too great. Unless he heard some very good reason for retaining the 67th Clause, he should oppose it.
MR. SLANEY thought a power should be given to compel a proper supply of water to the habitations of the poorer classes; but he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the proposed mode of doing it was objectionable. The question really was, whether or not they should retain the portion of the clause providing for the constant supply of water at high pressure, and make it permissive only, and not obligatory.
VISCOUNT MORPETH was aware the powers taken by the clause were of a stringent and somewhat tyrannical character; and before the Committee decided upon it, he would show them the ground upon which he founded his belief that something of a very stringent character was required to meet the extensive privation under which the poorer classes suffered. The noble Lord read extracts from the evidence given before the Sanitary Commission appointed by the late Govern-

1247
ment, in which the great destitution of the dwellings of the poorer classes in point of supply of water was dwelt upon; and he contended from those statements that a supply should be made obligatory. He, however, admitted the truth of the observations of the hon. Member for Oxford, that the objects of the Bill would be best promoted by not forcing any system not yet ascertained, but by rather leaving matters which were doubtful to experiment, to ascertain what was the best mode of carrying them into operation. He would, therefore, propose in Clause 66, that instead of making the constant supply obligatory, it should be merely recommended; and, that instead of the words "duty of the local board," the words "lawful for the local board," should be inserted.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 67,
SIR JAMES GRAHAM renewed the objections he had previously made to the powers to be given to the local board, who would be empowered to purchase the waterworks, to compel the laying on of water to their own property, to fix the price, and finally to tax the people for the supply. Besides, the rate would be one on the occupiers and not upon the owners.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that with regard to the rate, there was another clause, which provided that of houses under 10 l. all the rates should fall upon the owners, not the occupiers. As to the provisions of the clause, he thought the powers ought to be given with some qualifications, the habits of the poor requiring alteration, especially in the matter of cleanliness, as exemplified in the evidence just read by the noble Lord. He suggested some verbal amendments in the clause.
SIR J. GRAHAM did not think the proposed amendments would meet his objection. And as to the rates, even if paid by the owner, they would be laid upon the occupier in the shape of additional rent. But the hon. and learned Gentleman rather shocked him by his defence of the clause; for he said he was not satisfied with the domestic habits of the lower orders. So that he evidently intended by this minute legislation to interfere with the domestic habits of the lower classes; and one of the great objections to that Bill, excellent as it was in many respects, was, that it had that vice. It was on that account that that was the first clause which he (Sir J. Graham) thought it necessary to interfere
1248
with. He wished not to obstruct, but to advance the Bill, and he therefore should go through the clause line by line, and state his objections.
SIR W. CLAY acknowledged that the words objected to would give extraordinary powers to the local boards; yet the House must bear in mind that, under the present remiss system, there were hundreds and thousands of occupiers of small houses in London whose landlords positively refused to provide them with any water, although there were the means of obtaining it very easily in the immediate neighbourhood. The landlords would not listen to the demands of their tenants, and the municipal authorities had no means of interfering. It was, therefore, necessary, for the sake of thousands and thousands of the industrious poor, that some compulsory power should be given by this Bill for the purpose of enforcing the performance of the landlord's duties in this matter.
MR. MILES rather thought that the Tower Hamlets had got a little interest in this Bill. It was quite delightful to hear the hon. Baronet dilate on the insufficient supply of water in his own borough. But the theory of this clause might be very admirable, whilst in practice it would assuredly create such a host of evils as the noble Lord had no conception of. It was all very well to talk of diffusing cleanliness throughout the whole of the community, but this was not the way do it. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) strike out the objectionable words.
VISCOUNT MORPETH suggested the postponement of the clause, as the questions involved in it were very difficult, with a view of seeing whether a provision could be introduced to limit the price at which the water should be supplied, or at all events to put the clause into such a shape as would suit the views if all.
Clause postponed.
SIR J. GRAHAM said, that the noble Lord's postponement of it was only in accordance with the conduct which he had all through pursued, and which had so materially conduced to the success of the Bill.
Clauses from 72 to 78, inclusive, were then struck out of the Bill.
On Clause 80, which provided for the prevention of interment in burial-grounds dangerous to the public health, being read,
MR. HENLEY wished to know what the

1249
noble Lord intended to do with the dead. The clause provided that the dead were not to be brought into certain churchyards; but there was no provision in the Bill for having them brought elsewhere; and surely it would not promote the sanitary condition of the public to leave the dead above ground.
MR. MACKINNON said, that his hon. Friend who had just sat down had shown great talent and discrimination in the amendments which he had suggested during the progress of this Bill; but his usual sound judgment appeared to have forsaken him on the present occasion. There was no clause in the Bill more called for by the condition of the country than that now under consideration; but at the same time there was no doubt but that Government should go much further in providing a remedy for the evils of intra-mural interments than was suggested by the present clause. It was clear that if burials were not allowed in full churchyards the parishioners would find cemeteries elsewhere. It should be recollected that at present it was only members of the Church of England who had a right to interment in the parochial burial grounds, and yet no one heard of Dissenters complaining of being unable to find places of burial for their dead. He trusted that his noble Friend would not modify this clause, as he could assure him that a strong feeling existed on the subject throughout the country, and that the clause was regarded by the clergy and the public generally as only a part of a much more extensive measure to be brought in hereafter.
VISCOUNT MORPETH said, that this clause was only a portion of an arrangement intended orginally to be introduced into the Bill, which would have enabled local boards to purchase sites for burial grounds; but it was felt that this subject would involve an amount and a complicity of legislation which would be most injurious, if not fatal, to the Bill, and which it would be desirable to avoid, considering the many other objects of utility found in it. This clause would only come into operation when there was danger to the public health, and in cases where he imagined an action would lie at common law. In such cases it was open to the parishes affected by this clause to purchase new burial grounds; but at the same time it was to be remembered that in all large towns where this clause was likely to apply, there were already public cemeteries
1250
in existence. Besides, the clause would only come into effect on a certificate from the general board of health; and the board would naturally inquire into all the circumstances of the case before issuing that certificate; and one branch of their inquiry would clearly be whether there was another available place of burial in the neighbourhood.
MR. HENLEY inquired whether the noble Lord had any objection to introduce words limiting the power of restraining the use of these burial grounds to cases where the parishioners had a legal right to bury elsewhere? He admitted fully the propriety of putting an end to burials in certain places; but he thought that the restriction should be confined to localities where the public had a right by law to go to other burial grounds; and if the noble Lord did not assent to an arrangement to that effect, he should certainly feel it necessary to take the sense of the Committee on the matter.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL was aware of the difficulty which the hon. Member felt in passing this clause, without any provision being made for opening new burial grounds. Every one agreed in the necessity of putting a stop to interments in churchyards, when such interments were obviously dangerous to the public health; but, at the same time, there were no legal means by which the parishes could be compelled to provide new burial grounds. It then occurred to his noble Friend that the local boards might be authorised to provide cemeteries; but this difficulty arose—that they did not want new burial places within the district, which would be only increasing the nuisances, and the moment they went out of the parish legal difficulties arose, which it would require considerable trouble to get rid of. In fact, the subject was surrounded with so many difficulties, that unless they had a Cemetery Bill with almost as many clauses as the Bill now before the Committee, a full remedy could not be provided. The question then remained, whether they would not put a stop to interments in certain burial grounds where such interments were found to be dangerous to the health of the living?
MR. MILES said, that he thought it better, where such nuisances existed, to leave them to be suppressed by indictment under the common law.
MR. HENLEY said, that there were hundreds of places where no cemeteries ex-

1251
isted, and where the parishioners might be prevented from burying their dead in other parishes.
MR. WYLD said, that it had been ascertained that in the large manufacturing towns two-thirds of the mortality arose from the overcrowded state of the burial grounds. He thought that much credit was due to Mr. Walker for his exertions in procuring the suppression of the frightful nuisances of Spafields and Enon Chapel in the metropolis. The hon. Member was understood to express his regret that the Bill did not go farther in providing a remedy for such cases.
Clause, with Amendments, agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again.

POST OFFICE REVENUES.
MR. MACGREGOR, moved—
"That there be laid before this House, a Return of the services of the undermentioned persons, who receive the following sums from the Penny Post Office revenue, being deducted therefrom in its progress to the Exchequer, and stating the names of the Heirs of his Grace the Duke of Schomberg:—

His Grace the Duke of Marlborough

£

4,000

His Grace the Duke of Grafton

3,407 10

The Heirs of his Grace the Duke of Schomberg

2,900 0

———

£

10,307 10

being the amount of the gross postages on 2,473,800 letters, and of net postages, deducting the expense, of 7,321,400 letters."
LORD J. RUSSELL scarcely thought the Treasury, or any other public department, could be called on to give an account of the services of the Duke of Marlborough, or of the Duke of Schomberg. There was a book called Coxe's Life of the Duke of Marlborough, and several histories of the reign of Queen Anne, in which the services of the Duke of Marlborough, for which he received a certain pension from the hereditary revenues of the Crown, were stated in detail. As to the services of the Duke of Schomberg, they were known to any one who had read the history of the period. The Duke of Schomberg, to whom the money was paid in the first instance, was well known; and if the hon. Member wished to know the names of his heirs, he (Lord J. Russell) believed they could be procured for him. These sums were paid out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. When the House of Commons took these hereditary revenues, and gave the Crown a fixed sum in return, the House of course took upon itself all the burdens
1252
which fell upon the revenues as well. He did not see how they could well avoid those burdens, or rid themselves of the obligations then incurred. He hoped the House would not consent to the Motion.
MR. MACGREGOR said, he regretted exceedingly that the noble Lord should have so far trifled with the taxation of the country, as to have opposed his proposition in such a way. He had brought on this question altogether as one which bore on the profuse expenditure of the public revenues. He did not want to know to what Duke of Marlborough the money had been paid at first, but for what services the pension was paid to the Duke now living. If a former Parliament had been so corrupt as to grant this pension in perpetuity, the present Parliament had a right to inquire for what the money had been granted. The pension was passed in 1723, and since that time 600,000 l. had been paid to the family, which at simple interest was more than a million sterling. If the noble Lord treated the taxation of the country so lightly, Her Majesty's subjects would take a different view of it, and hold him to account for his conduct.
Motion withdrawn.

SUPPLY OF SEAMEN.
CAPTAIN HARRIS moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the Supply of Seamen from the commercial marine to Her Majesty's Fleet, and into the effect of the Registry and Navigation Acts on that supply. He had no intention of obstructing the discussion on the Navigation Laws; but this Committee would not necessarily sit more than a fortnight, it would afford important information, and would bring to a conclusion the labours of the Committee of last Session. He disclaimed all intention of delaying the progress of the Government Motion on the Navigation Laws; but he considered the Committee he moved for was essential, in order to complete the evidence taken before the Committee on the Navigation Laws last Session. The Committee need not sit longer than a fortnight.
MR. LABOUCHERE said, that had the hon. and gallant Officer made his Motion at the commencement of the Session, there would have been something in the plea of continuing the evidence of the Committee of last Session. He should, therefore, oppose the Motion, as likely to lead to obstruction to the Government measure on the Navigation Laws.
MR. BROTHERTON moved that the House do now adjourn.
CAPTAIN HARRIS said, that was rather sharp practice. The hon. Member had sat quietly enough until a quarter to one, while the Ministerial measures were under discussion; but the moment a Motion came from the Opposition side of the House, although quite as important, the hon. Member moved the adjournment of the House. He should have moved for the returns earlier in the Session, but he expected the information would be elicited by the Committee of the House of Lords.
Motion negatived.
House adjourned at a quarter past One.