Commons Sitting of 7 June 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Drainage and Improvement of Land Advances; Trustees. Reported.—Judges of Assize.
The House met at Twelve of the clock in the New House of Commons.

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND ADVANCES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. TRELAWNY MR. TRELAWNY moved as an Amendment that they should go into Committee that day six months. He looked upon the Bill as but the re-enactment of protection in a different shape, and he would oppose any attempt to tax the body of the people for the benefit of any particular class. It was not discreet, wise, or even honest, to dispose of the money of the nation to the landowners; and if the measure was intended to give them compensation for any loss they had sustained by free trade, the gain would be contemptible, while the principle would be utterly objectionable. Besides, it was an unnecessary increase of the functions of Government. They would soon have all trades, businesses, and manufactures thrown on the hands of Government, and calling for assistance. The money already advanced had not been repaid, and for all these reasons he would give the Bill his most strenuous opposition.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six. months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
COLONEL THOMPSONwas not disposed to press hard on the object of the Motion; but he would second the Motion, in order to bring out some explanation on the principle of the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid his hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Motion had not been quite so attentive to his Parliamentary duties as he usually was, or he would have understood what was the object of this Bill. It was no new purpose, it was a purpose which had been sanctioned more than once by the House, and which he thought most desirable in the present
880
state of things. He thought it exceedingly desirable, in order to facilitate the change from one state of things to another. He was sorry that he could not go on with the Bill before, but other business had interfered. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the House on this occasion.
MR. SLANEYwas personally aware of the benefits which arose from the system which this Bill proposed to enforce. He considered that the Government might extend the machinery of the Bill, and thereby permit the landed interest to borrow money upon landed security. He could bear testimony to the utility and advantage which resulted from parties being enabled to obtain advances to set persons at work in their particular districts in drainage operations; and as that was the object of the present measure, it had his hearty support. There was one suggestion, however, which he wished to throw out to the Government. It happened that parties were earnestly desirous to borrow money for the sake of permanent improvements, and that other parties in the same neighbourhood were anxious to advance that money; and he thought that the Government might, under such circumstances, enable the one party to borrow, and the other to lend, by means of similar machinery to that contained in this Bill. At present, great trouble and expense were occasioned by the investigation which had to be made into the title of the borrowing party. He called upon the House to relieve the borrower from the useless perplexity of the law. There were innumerable parties ready to advance money; but the man who wanted it for the improvement of his estate and the employment of his labourers was precluded from borrowing by the absurd intricacies of the law, and he, therefore, called upon the Government to take the matter up.
SIR J. TROLLOPEsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Tavistock, he was not aware that a single one of his hon. Friends around him had made any representation to Government on this subject, and he must say, for himself, that there were great objections to the principle of this Bill. Government was to advance money to landlords, constituting them debtors to the State, and giving Government, probably, a great influence over them. There were also many objections to the details of the Bill, which he would state when the House went into Committee. The hon. Member for Tavistock reproached landlords for

881
coming to Government for advances on their estates. If he referred to the last loan of two millions, he found that the English landlords gave small encouragement to it, inasmuch as they got but a very small portion of it. Scotchmen had a different view, for he found that four-fifths of it was advanced in that kingdom. The landlords of England had made their improvements at their own cost, and if the tenantry of England were encouraged by a fair tenant-right, the greater part of this work would be undertaken by them; but he denied on the part of the landlords of England that they were petitioners for the bounty of Government.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was opposed to all Bills of this nature, believing, as he did, that all landowners who had good security to offer would find no difficulty in obtaining money; but he had been told that in many parts of the united kingdom difficulties of that nature did exist, and he therefore could not object to the measure now. Besides, the House had already adopted the principle, and he did not think any hon. Member, after that approval, could resist the Motion for going into Committee. Still, though he did not now feel himself called upon to oppose the principle, he was bound to state that there were details in the measure which he never could agree to. For instance, it would appear that some of this money might be expended on farm buildings, or provisions, which he thought ought not to be agreed to, and, therefore, when the House got into Committee, he should endeavour to get it expunged from the Bill.
MR. ROCHEwished it not to go to the country that the landed interest was the only interest that had loans. They had been granted for railroads and for other purposes.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 4: Majority 69.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
Clause 1.
MR. F. MACKENZIEwished to know what arrangements were to be made as to the proportion of the money under this Bill to which Scotland would be entitled? He hoped that the present grant would be made on the same unfettered principle as the last one.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas very glad the hon. Gentleman had raised this point, because he could assure him that he did not at all wish to take from England its fair proportion. He wished to do justice to the enterprise of the Scotch proprietors, but at the same time there was a great object to be attained. It was very desirable to extend the drainage of land throughout the country, and over as wide a surface as possible. Of the last 2,000,000 l. the Scotch proprietors had rather more than 1,600,000 l. The money was all appropriated on the principle simply of priority of application. The sum allotted to England was 373,000 l, and the six northern counties got 191,000 l., the whole of the rest of England and Wales having only 182,000 l. He thought that reward should be given to superior energy and sharpness, but then the great object of obtaining the benefit of drainage throughout the length and breadth of the land was not attained. Without any invidious distinction, he thought it desirable to extend the benefit of this loan to every portion of the kingdom. He proposed that applications should be sent in to a given day; he would apportion the money to different counties, and then he would give the preference to priority of application in each of those counties; and then if any was left it would be advanced to parties either in Scotland, or elsewhere, who made application.
MR. DRUMMONDcontended, that as Scotland required draining to a greater extent than England, the proposed preference to be given to English counties in the application of the fund was inexpedient and objectionable. He hoped that some facilities would be given to small owners for the drainage of their lands, an arrangement which would be of great advantage to the labouring population, as well as to the smaller proprietary classes.
LORD H. VANEsaid, it was expedient that some measure of this kind should be passed in the present Session, because there was great distress amongst the small proprietors, and it was most desirable to afford them the means of carrying on improvements. He differed from the hon. Member for West Surrey with respect to the land improvements which were going on in the country. His conviction was that there were greater exertions than ever made to meet the difficulties of the times. He much doubted the policy of making the grant available for farm build-

883
ings, because the amount allowed would not be sufficient for even drainage purposes. The case of Ireland, however, might form an exception. On that he would give no opinion. He also thought it a prudent restriction to limit the amount which could be received by any one applicant to 5,000 l.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that hon. Gentlemen would not discuss the principle of the Bill, but would confine themselves to the clause before the House.
MR. K. SEYMERsaid, that he had applied for a sum of 1,000 l, which he expended upon a farm, and after doing so he advertised to let the land, but only one person offered to take it. The farm was now on his hands. Perhaps this fact would cool the ardour of his Scotch friends in making applications.
MR. ELLISdid not think there could be a better way of applying the public money than to lend it on good security for the purpose of improving and increasing the produce of land. It was much better to have two millions spent for such a purpose than that it should go to California or to South America.
SIR H. W. BARRONsupported the Bill. Unless measures of assistance were rendered to Ireland, the country would sink deeper and deeper into a state of distress and wretchedness. He was bound to tell the House that, although he had borrowed money under the Irish Act, which he had expended in improvements on his farms, the farms themselves had been thrown upon his hands. The former holders, who had rented them at moderate rates, would not pay the increased rent which the drainage had rendered necessary, and the consequence was the land had been unoccupied for the last nine months. The fact was, farming had become unprofitable, and, unless something were immediately done to arrest the progress of destruction that was now going on, he could not answer for the consequences in Ireland. Never had so much distress been felt amongst the agricultural labourers of that country—it was impossible for them to find work anywhere; and, however useful Bills of this nature might be in a limited sphere, it was hopeless to expect general prosperity or contentment amongst the agricultural interests of the united kingdom till some extensive measure were passed for their especial relief. Without some measure of relief, the landlords in Ireland were in such a condition as not to
884
be able to give employment to the mass of poor people in that country. He would support the clause.
MR. TRELAWNYhoped that nothing would be done, and that no further discussion would take place calculated to foment jealousies between the countries which formed the united kingdom.
Clause 1 agreed to; as were
Clauses 2 and 3.
Clause 4.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this was the clause on which perhaps the principal discussion would arise; and so far from wishing to deprecate that discussion, he was anxious that the clause should be fully discussed. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that up to the present time advances had been made for the purposes of draining only; but really all that the Government had to do was to see that there was adequate security for the money advanced. In bringing this clause under the notice of the Committee, he was bound to say that they must not only look for adequate security, but they were at the same time bound to look to the interest of other parties not now in possession of landed estates; they were bound to do justice to those who were to come after tenants for life. The most difficult case with which they had to deal would be that of the tenant for life; and he was quite ready to say that persons interested in a property where there was an estate for life ought not to be charged for improvements from which they might possibly derive no advantage whatever. Against such unfairness he trusted that the Bill would sufficiently provide. As to the probable rate of advantage, he might speak of that as being 6½ per cent; thus, if a man having land which yielded him 100 l. per annum borrowed 100 l. for the purpose of draining it, then his income would at least be augmented to the extent of 106 l. 10 s., and thus there would be ample security for money laid out, provided the Government had a certificate, as he intended they should have, that the contemplated improvements on the land would be likely to yield a return of 6½ per cent. So much for the general features of the Bill. With respect to the particular clause before the Committee, he admitted that it was open to considerable objection. He believed that in many cases it would be found advantageous to consolidate the small farms, and to have larger buildings on the farms so consolidated. But who was

885
to decide upon that? and were the country Gentlemen prepared to say that they would submit to the interference of a Government inspector in carrying out this clause? For himself, as an owner of land, he would do no such thing. If farm buildings were erected under this clause, it would be necessary that precaution should be taken for keeping them in repair, and also for insurance; for it would be very hard upon the remainderman if he were to be saddled with au annuity when the buildings had been allowed to be dilapidated, or when they had been burnt down. Means must, therefore, be taken to compel the tenant for life to keep the buildings in repair, and to insure them; but would it not be necessary for the inspector under the Act to see to this? This difficulty in regard to the necessary interference constituted in his mind a great objection to the clause, although it might perhaps be got over. It was clear that the interests of the remainderman could not be protected without some power of interference and supervision, however unwilling he was to institute it. He had inserted the clause in deference to the opinions expressed by many hon. Members, and he now left the matter to be discussed by the House.
Sir J. TROLLOPEwould move that the whole of the clause be expunged from the Bill; and this, notwithstanding the advantages which followed the warping of land. In some parts of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the waters from the rivers being suffered to cover the land, an alluvial deposit was left when the water was drawn off, which enabled the farmers to grow wheat and potatoes in alternate years upon land that, before it was thus enriched by warping, was of very little value. This practice had been so extensively adopted on the banks of the Trent and the Ouse, that the potatoes supplied to the London market were almost exclusively grown in that part of the country. The warping of land being so beneficial might safely be left to private enterprise; and with regard to any portion of the loan being devoted to farm buildings, the objections were so numerous that he would not enter upon them. The hon. Member for West Surrey was favourable to small farms; but his successor might wish to consolidate them into larger holdings, and then what would become of these farm buildings? The country would be covered by inspectors to see if the buildings were kept in repair; and the objections urged by the Chancellor of the Eschequer were so valid, that he hoped
886
to see the right hon. Gentleman voting for his (Sir J. Trollope's) Amendment, and against his own clause.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould agree to expunge from the clause all reference to "warping," and "farm buildings" would then stand alone.
MR. F. FRENCHcould not agree to leave out the word "warping" in the 4th clause, although the clause referred only to Great Britain; because, if it were struck out from this clause, he had but a small chance of seeing it retained in the 8th clause, which referred to Ireland. The process of warping was not confined to Lincolnshire and Yorkshire; it had been most advantageously introduced into Ireland. Some streams had been retained, and diverted upon land of small value, where they had left a rich alluvial deposit of two feet deep. It would be desirable, he thought, to retain the word "warping" in the clause, because it might be the means of introducing the practice in many quarters where it was at present unknown.
The words relating to warping were then struck out of the clause.
MR. DRUMMONDthought it would be far better to expunge the whole of the clause.
SIR H. VERNEYwas in favour of retaining the clause, now that it applied solely to farm buildings. Who certified that the drainage was kept in an efficient state, and why not object to the inspection of drainage? The inspector would certify the necessity for new farm buildings, and he would see that the works were properly executed.
MR. W. MILESthought that the difficulty arose from the Chancellor of the Exchequer having deviated from what he himself believed to be the proper course. The advances for drainage had been found so beneficial, that Government ought to have objected to any portion of the loan being appropriated to any other purpose. The process of warping was found to be advantageous in the part of the country alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member fur South Lincolnshire, because the waters of the Humber and the Ouse left behind them a peculiarly rich deposit; but he knew of no other part of the country where the same advantages had been obtained by this practice; and if it were supposed that by constructing sluices and canals for warping elsewhere on the same plan, the same benefits would be obtained, people might be greatly mistaken. He thought

887
that the objections made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the present clause were unanswerable.
SIR G. STRICKLANDsaid, that the money to be appropriated under this Act was a limited sum, and the question was, how to make the best use of it. Now, if the House determined to cm-ploy it in erecting farm buildings all over the country, they would so far limit the outlay for drainage that they would do no good with it. It would be much better for the Government to lay out a sum for arterial drainage, and leave the proprietors of laud to drain into it. It was not a becoming thing to see the landed gentry of England coming before that House in formâ pauperis to borrow a little money wherewith to erect farm buildings upon their estates. They were not so hard pressed as to be unable to raise this money for themselves.
CAPTAIN PELHAMapproved of the omission of warping; but the question for the Committee was, whether the proposed arrangements could be practically carried out. Before advances were made for farm buildings, plans of the contemplated erections ought to be submitted to Government, and the expense ought to be strictly limited in each case. He hoped the Committee would not consent to expunge farm buildings from the clause. The operation of the Act would be somewhat complicated where reversionary interests existed; but means might be found to protect those.
MR. RICEsaid, the money could not be devoted to repairs of existing farm buildings. It must be expended in the erection of new buildings, and these would be constructed under efficient inspection.
MR. BUCKsaid, no assistance like that proposed by the present Bill would effectually remove all the difficulties under which the farmers of this country now laboured. Mere buildings alone would not extricate the farmers from the position in which they had been placed by recent legislation. There were many instances in which neither the application of capital, skill, nor labour could enable the agriculturist to meet the present fall in prices. He thought, however, it would be better to confine the object of the Bill to drain-ago alone.
MR. SLANEYsaid, that facility ought to be given for small proprietors to get a portion of these advances. Many of them did not know how the application was to be made; it would be better that it should
888
be done through some county officer. As to farm buildings, a custom had prevailed in the north of England and Wales of building them very much together in small villages. The increased liability to fire had shown the impolicy of this plan; and many farmers were anxious to have their buildings on the middle of the farm, which these advances might enable them to do. At present, a person having only a life interest could not possibly spend anything on improvements; and he trusted the case of those parties would be considered. The cost of conveyance of landed property ought to be reduced, for its burden was greater than that of the local taxes.
MR. MOODYwas of opinion that it would be improper to give the power of charging property with the erection of new buildings. He thought, generally speaking, it would be found that the erection of buildings would follow the improvement of the land.
MR. DEEDESthought all interests might be sufficiently protected if care were taken that good and substantial buildings were erected; for in that case they would last long enough to be of benefit to the reversioner. But, seeing the feeling of the House, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consent to withdraw the clause; and perhaps on a future occasion he might be able to urge the matter with greater force.
MR. C. BRUCEbelieved that great advantage would arise to the extensive new farms which had been brought into existence under the late Act if they were allowed to apply to the erection of buildings on those farms part of the money advanced by Government. As he believed that advances would be made in future years, he hoped that this point would then be taken into serious consideration; but in the meantime he would not insist upon the clause being retained.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad inserted the clause in the Bill for the purpose of eliciting the opinion of the House; but his own opinion coincided with that of the majority of Members who had spoken, that it would be bettor to expunge the clause altogether. He would therefore vote for the omission of the clause.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 107: Majority 62.
Clauses 5, 6, and 7, were then agreed to.
Clause 8.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this was a similar clause to the one that had just been struct out, only that its operations were applicable to Ire-land, and, as before, he would hear the opinion of Members before he came to a decision on the clause. It might be that the same objections did not apply to the case of Ireland as to that of the other parts of the empire.
MR. ROCHE,seeing that the House was inclined to assent to the clause, would move that in addition to "farm buildings," there should be inserted the words, "including buildings for the steeping, drying, and cleansing of flax, and also such machinery and apparatus for the abovementioned purposes as may come under the denomination of fixtures." In the present unfortunate state of the people of Ireland, he looked upon the proposal he had now to make as one of very great importance. Viewing the subject entirely as one of labour, he found that in Ireland the expense of cultivating an acre of corn was 2l. 1s. 6d., and an acre of flax, 4l. 13 s. The quantity of flax imported from abroad amounted to what would be grown on 400,000 acres of land, so that if it was cultivated in Ireland there would be expended upon it in labour, a sum of 1,860,000 l., while for the same number of acres of corn the expenditure would be only 830,000 l., making upwards of one million in favour of flax. When they had the prospect of such results as those from the encouragement of the growth of flax in Ireland, he thought he was warranted in bringing the matter before the House. At the present rate of wages in Ireland, this would support 125,000 heads of families, or, at the average rate now expended in support of paupers in one Irish workhouse, it would feed 500,000 souls. He was confident that if due encouragement was given by Parliament, Ireland would become a large exporter of flax; and if there could be no doubt of the benefits which would flow to Ireland, as little could there be that an increased growth of flax would be of the greatest importance to England. The prospects of Manchester, as regarded the price of cotton were at present very gloomy; but here was a better article to be had at a cheaper rate, the produce of native industry, and for the supply of which they had no reason to depend
890
upon foreigners. If, as he had shown, it was important to extend the cultivation of flax in Ireland to any great extent, it would be necessary altogether to separate the two processes of cultivation and preparation, leaving the former to the farmer, and confining the latter to a class called factors. It would be necessary to bring into operation the new system of steeping and scutching at present in vogue in some parts of Ireland, and it was to facilitate the erection of these concerns on Irish estates that he now proposed this addition to the clause.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that, considering the limited sum he had to appropriate to the purposes of drainage, he was not prepared to ox-tend assistance to other objects, especially as he found it to be the fact that in the west of Ireland persons who had used machinery for scutching flax had dispensed with it, and had adopted working by hand as a better and more economical system. With regard to granting loans for the construction of farm buildings in Ireland, he was willing, as it appeared to be the general wish of Gentlemen conńected with that country, and as there were possibly circumstances in relation to Ireland which did not exist in respect to England, to assent to that proposition.
Amendment withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported as amended.

RIGHT OF PETITIONING—POST OFFICE PATRONAGE.
MR. C. ANSTEYpresented a petition from about 130 of the clerks in the Money Order Department of the Post Office, complaining of a gross grievance they had recently suffered in respect to the dispensation of patronage. It appeared that there had lately been a vacancy in the presidency of the department, to which the chief clerk was promoted, and he had stated to the senior clerk that he should recommend him to succeed him. Soon after, however, he had informed him that Mr. Rowland Hill, the Postmaster General's Secretary, would not recommend any one of the clerks to the vacancy in that department, unless they all signed a written statement to the effect that a certain memorial they had presented was untrue.
MR. HAYTERrose to order, urging that the hon. Member ought not to be al-

891
lowed, on the presentation of a petition, to enter into all these statements.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had a right to state the substance of his petition, and then to read its prayer.
MR. C. ANSTEY: The clerks of the department had previously signed a document, expressive of their apology for anything that might have offended the Postmaster General, but naturally declined to declare that their memorial was false in fact, because it was, in fact, true. However, the vacancy was afterwards (contrary to the usual course of practice) filled up by a person brought from Edinburgh, who stood ten grades lower in the office than the senior clerks passed over, and who had been declared unfit on a former occasion for promotion. The hon. and learned Member, having brought up his petition, gave notice that he would bring it before the House, and he moved that it be printed "with the Votes" for that purpose.
MR. THORNELYsaid, it was very important for the House to consider whether they would put the country to the expense of printing for parties who might consider themselves aggrieved by the conduct of their superiors, in any of the Government departments, no matter whether it were the Customs, the Excise, or the Post Office. It was for the House to consider whether or no it was right to make Parliament a court of appeal in matters like this. For his part, he did not think it was, and he therefore put it to the House if it would not be better to leave the petition to be printed in the ordinary course of business, when it had come before the Committee on Public Petitions?
MR. DISRAELIhoped the House would hesitate before they accepted the views of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He had always understood that any party who felt himself aggrieved by the conduct of a public department could appeal to that House for redress, if there was no other channel open to him; and he thought it would be exceedingly dangerous to interfere with that principle. The right of appeal, indeed, was part of the liberty of the subject.
MR. FORSTERagreed with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that the House ought to hesitate in this matter. The House held the head of each public department responsible for all its proceedings; but if the House interfered between
892
them and their employés, how could they insist on maintaining that rule?
MR. J. STUARTsaid, that was not quite the correct view of the matter. The question was not whether the House would interfere, but whether it would listen to a complaint. He understood that one ground of complaint was, that the claims of these parties had been rejected because they had refused to work on a Sunday.
MR. W. PATTENthought it would be better to defer this Motion till the petition had been before the Committee on Public Petitions.
MR. HAYTERsaid, the great inconvenience which resulted from stating the contents of petitions like this was, that they went forth to the world as if they were founded in truth. Now, so far from that being the case in this instance, he could assure the House that many statements in the petition were founded upon error. He should not properly discharge his duty if he did not say that most of those statements were founded in error.
COLONEL THOMPSONsuggested that the House was bound to receive petitions, but not to print them.
MR. W. BROWNconsidered that the House ought not to entertain such petitions.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the hon. Member seemed to imply that there had been an objection to the reception of the petition; that was not so, the petition having been received, and the only question now was, whether it should be printed with the Votes. The Chairman of the Committee on Petitions had stated that it would shortly come before them, and they would have to decide whether it should be printed or not, before it was competent for the hon. Member to bring a Motion on the subject before the House. That was a practice which he (Sir G. Grey) thought it was very desirable the House should follow, and he hoped the hon. Member would abide by it on the present occasion.
MR. DISRAELI: But the Chairman of Public Petitions and several hon. Members opposite have even objected to the reception of such petitions.
MR. BARNARDhoped no limitation would be imposed upon the right of Members to present petitions, or to state the substance of them, for the present rule was a restriction of the liberty that formerly prevailed in this respect, and under which any Member might originate a discussion on the presentation of a petition.

893
The public were apparently content with the present moderate system, but would not be likely to acquiesce in its further curtailment.
LORD D. STUARTthought it was very desirable and important that they should know what the rule of the House was with regard to the printing of petitions. He understood that if an hon. Member wished to found a Motion on any petition, it was the practice to allow him to move that it be printed with the Votes. The petition under discussion appeared to refer to a subject of some importance; and, as he thought it very proper that clerks in the Post Office should be enabled to state their grievances to the House, it seemed to him that the best way of allowing them to do so was to print their petition with the Votes.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, the only question was whether, the hon. and learned Gentleman having presented a petition, and wished it to be printed with the Votes, it was not desirable to do what they had done in other cases, rather refer the petition to the Printing Committee than to print it at once, on the ground that it would be printed by the Committee before the hon. and learned Gentleman would have an opportunity of bringing forward the subject of it by notice. There was no doubt as to the rule. If the hon. and learned Gentleman should bring forward a Motion on the subject before the petition was printed, the House would agree to the Motion for its being printed. The only question, therefore, now was rather one of expense. It must be in the discretion of every hon. Member, whether he thought he could bring forward such a Motion as to justify him to ask for the printing of a petition.
MR. THORNELYsaid, it was a question for the House to consider whether the complaints of the clerks in the Post Office, in the shape of a petition, should be printed or not.
SIR R. PEELthought the usual practice had been, if an hon. Gentleman considered the allegations of a petition were well founded, that he would bring forward a Motion upon it, to permit the petition to be printed with the Votes; and it would be a very unwise rule to lay down, that because a petition proceeded from clerks in any office, the House would not print their petition. The question now to be considered was, not whether that House was to be constituted a court of appeal in such a case against the superior officers of any
894
establishment, but whether they should depart from the general usage of the House with regard to a petition to which the hon. and learned Member stated he would call the attention of the House.
COLONEL RAWDONreferred to a similar case in the last Session of Parliament, on which he had consulted Mr. Speaker. It had always been in the power of the House to prevent the printing of a petition, although it was in the power of the hon. Member at any time to move it.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, it was considered the better plan to refer the petition to the Printing Committee, and then the Member was not put under the necessity of giving notice of a Motion which he never intended to bring forward, merely to get the petition printed.
MR. C. ANSTEYsaid, it was his intention to bring the petition and the allegations connected with the subject, under the serious consideration of Parliament; but he thought that the petition ought to be printed, and ought to be printed soon, so that the question might come under their consideration in the most convenient shape. Unfortunately, if the House now decided against him, he should have the power and influence of the Chairman of Petitions against him; for the hon. Gentleman thought that this was not a subject on which the House ought to encourage petitioners. He (Mr. Anstey) hoped that the Motion would not be rejected, and that they should not set the first departure from what had hitherto been the practice merely because Gentlemen had the honour of being clerks in the Post Office.
MR. THORNELYsaid, that he had given no opinion whether the petition ought to be printed or not.
MR. HORSMANsaid, it appeared to him the question was whether they should depart from the usual rule. Although it was a petition from clerks in a public office, yet they must remember that that was an important class, and he thought it very unwise that they should hesitate about printing the petition.
MR. HUMEapprehended that if the petition went upstairs it would be printed as a matter of course. If it was not, the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring forward a Motion that it be printed; but he took it for granted that in forty-eight hours the petition would be in the hands of every Member.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, if the hon. Gentleman's object was to have the peti-

895
tion printed with the Votes, in order to draw more attention to it, that object was not in conformity with the Motion. If, on the contrary, he wished the petition to be printed in order to found a Motion upon it, though he (Lord J. Russell) thought it an unnecessary expense, he did not think the House would object to it. Motion agreed to.

THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
COLONEL RAWDONbegged to put the following questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government:—Whether the inquiry which was instituted respecting the state of the pictures in the National Gallery, with a view to their better preservation, had terminated; and, if so, would the information be given to the House? 2. Whether any proposal had been made by the Government to the Royal Academy, with a view of obtaining for the public collection of pictures the entire of the National Gallery building; and, if so, what answer had been given? 3. Whether any supplemental vote in the present Estimates would be called for to carry out the proposition? 4. Whether it was the intention of Government, before taking final steps for permanently locating the pictures on the present site, to institute an inquiry, by a Committee of this House or otherwise, in order to ascertain whether or not it would be expedient to allocate the pictures in Trafalgar-square? He wished to direct the attention of the noble Lord to the following allegations:—That it was in evidence before Committees of that House that the present building in Trafalgar-square was insufficient to its purpose as a national gallery, and unworthy of this metropolis; that half of it was not fireproof; that there was not height for placing properly works of art which were now or could be put into it; that there was no room for arrangement of schools; and that individuals were deterred therefore from, rather than invited, as they ought to be, to become contributors to our national collection.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that an inquiry had been entered into with respect to the state of the pictures in the National Gallery with a view to their better preservation, and the gentlemen appointed to conduct the inquiry had made a report on the subject. The report described the present state of the pictures, and offered suggestions for their better preservation; but its authors requested time to prosecute
896
further inquiries on the subject, more particularly in connexion with pictures on the Continent. The report had been referred to the trustees of the National Gallery, and would shortly be laid before the House. In the next place, he had to state that, in conformity with the opinion expressed by a Committee of the House, which took into consideration the use to which the building in Trafalgar-square was applied, he had made a proposal to the Royal Academy, which had for its object the obtaining of the whole of the building for the exclusive exhibition of the national pictures. The Royal Academy had returned an answer expressing a general desire to comply with the wishes of the Government in that respect. With the information now before the Government relative to the state of the national pictures, it appeared desirable that before proposing any vote on the subject, further inquiry should be made as to whether it was desirable finally to allocate the national pictures in Trafalgar-square. For that purpose, he would, early next week, move for the appointment of a Select Committee, composed, as far as possible, of the Members who served on the former Committee, who would be required to state their opinion as to the best mode of preserving the national pictures, and as to whether Trafalgar-square offered the best site for a National Gallery.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
MR. J. STUARTrose to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government connected with the administration of justice in the highest court in the kingdom. A few days ago the noble Lord announced the resignation of Lord Cottenham, by which the Court of Chancery was deprived of the Judge who presided over the administration of justice there, and the Cabinet of one of its most distinguished Members. The noble Lord also stated upon that occasion that a successor to Lord Cottenham was about to be appointed, who would accept that great office subject to any regulations as to salary which the Committee on Salaries now sitting might think proper to recommend. Without warning, it had been for the first time announced that day, during the sitting of the courts, that instead of an individual being appointed to preside in the Court of Chancery, and instead of the Cabinet being supplied with the aid of the greatest officer in the law, it was the inten-

897
tion of Her Majesty's Ministers to put the great seal in commission. He begged the noble Lord at the head of the Government to consider the enormous inconvenience to the public which must result from the arrangement that day announced. It was proposed that the custody of the seal should be given to a commission composed of a common-law Judge and two Judges at present presiding over different branches of equity. The effect of this arrangement would be, to withdraw these two equity Judges for three or four days in the week from their own courts, which were already overburdened with business. This must be eminently inconvenient to the suitors who resorted to those courts for justice. Under these circumstances, he begged to ask the noble Lord how long the new arrangement might be expected to continue, and whether the members of the great profession of the law generally and the law officers of the Crown, whom he looked upon as at the head of that profession, laboured under such incapacity as not to be able to supply the Government with one individual fit to fill the office of Lord Chancellor?
LORD J. KUSSELLsaid: I stated formerly that my noble Friend Lord Cottenham, owing to the state of his health, was unable to continue to hold the great seal, and that consequently he had announced his intention of resigning it as soon as he had given judgment in the causes which he had already heard. I further stated that any person who might be appointed to succeed Lord Cottenham must accept office subject to any Act which Parliament may pass—whether in accordance or not with the report of the Committee on Salaries—for regulating the salary of the office. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am very sensible of the great public inconvenience that must result from putting the seal in commission at the present moment. At the same time, I had to weigh that inconvenience against the evil which, I think, would accrue if the great seal were intrusted to any individual before the Government has decided upon the course to be pursued with respect to the future duties of the Court of Chancery, the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and the administration of the functions which appertain to the Lord Chancellor as a Member of the Government. The result was, that I advised Her Majesty to put the great seal in commission; and I assure the hon. and learned Member
898
that it shall continue in commission for as short a time as possible. I hope to be able, in the course of a fortnight, to communicate to the House the plan to be proposed by the Government with respect to the matters which I have mentioned, and with respect to which I have been in communication with Lord Cottenham and other persons, who, I think, are competent to give an opinion on the subject. As I said formerly, the subject is of vast importance, and if I fix Monday fortnight as the day on which I will announce the result of the deliberations of the Government, I believe it will be the earliest moment at which it will be possible to do so.

AMERICAN EXPEDITION AGAINST CUBA.
MR. DISRAELI: I wish to know whether the Government has received any official information of the invasion of Cuba by a bucaniering expedition from the United States of America? I also beg to ask whether, previously to the sailing of that expedition. Government received information that it was probable such an enterprise would be undertaken, from our Minister at Washington, or from any of the other agents employed by Her Majesty in the United States; and, if so, whether the Government felt it its duty to communicate the result of such information to the Court of Madrid?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: It is well known that a considerable time ago—I think it was about two or three months ago, or more—an expedition was understood to be preparing in the United States for the purpose of making a descent on Cuba. It is also well known that the Government of the United States issued a proclamation, forbidding the expedition, and also took measures at the time which put an end to the proposed undertaking. I received, a few days ago, a despatch from the British Minister at Washington, informing us that suddenly, and, as it appears, without the knowledge of the Government of the United States—without information obtained by them beforehand—an account reached Washington that an expedition had sailed from the southern part of the United States, for the purpose of making an attack on Cuba. First, a detachment, supposed to consist of about 2,000 men, sailed on, as far as my memory serves me, about the 6th of last month; and a further detachment of 4,000 or 5,000 followed some days after. The

899
President of the United States immediately despatched a naval force in search of the expedition for the purpose of intercepting it, if possible, before it landed, and, if otherwise, to take such measures as were fitting under the circumstances to carry into effect the friendly intentions of the Government of the United States towards Spain. This information having reached the Government only a few days ago, of course no communication on the subject could be made to the Court of Madrid; indeed, the Spanish Minister arrived in London only a few days since. I, however, saw the Spanish Minister yesterday, and informed him of the intelligence we have received.

UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION—THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.
On the Question that the House, at its rising, should adjourn to Monday,
MR. HORSMANsaid: I rise to give notice that I will next week address some questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Government respecting the Bishop of Llandaff. A memorial has been published, signed by the resident members of the Senate of the University of Cambridge, on the subject of the Royal Commission which the First Lord of the Treasury has announced that it is the intention of Her Majesty to issue for the purpose of inquiring into the state of the Universities. The first signature attached to this memorial, to which my attention has recently been drawn by the admirable reply given to it by the illustrious Person who fills the office of Chancellor to one of the Universities, is that of the Bishop of Llandaff. As this memorial professes to be signed only by resident members of the Senate, I, of course, conceived, when I saw the Bishop of Llandaff's name, that it was a mistake—that the right rev. Prelate's attention was so thoroughly engrossed by the episcopal duties of his diocese, that he had not had time to read the memorial; and that, perhaps, in a moment of impatience at having his attention diverted from spiritual concerns, he signed the paper without reflecting on the truth of the statement made at its outset. On inquiry, however, I find that although the bishop was appointed to his diocese last year, he is not resident in Wales; that he never has resided there; and that at this moment he is, as I am informed, a resident of the University of Cambridge. The first question I shall have to ask of the noble
900
Lord next week is, whether it is a fact that the Bishop of Llandaff has never been resident in Wales; and, if so, what reasons the noble Lord can give in justification of such a deporture from ecclesiastical usage and the obligations of episcopal duties? At the time of the bishop's appointment the noble Lord received praise for having taken especial pains to select for the office a prelate who was familiar with the language of Wales. Now, I find that last week the foundation-stone of a church was laid in Wales, on which occasion an address composed in the Welsh language was presented to the Bishop of Llandaff, who was present; to which that right rev. Prelate replied in English, stating that he was unable to speak Welsh. It is true that the bishop had previously gone through the form or task of preaching a Welsh sermon; but at the close of the proceedings he apologised for being perfectly unable to converse in that language. As the public was led to believe that the noble Lord was desirous of selecting a prelate to fill the see of Llandaff who was well acquainted with the Welsh language, the second question I intend to ask is, whether the supposed familiarity of the present bishop with it was one of the reasons for his being selected, and, since a grave deception appears to have been practised on the noble Lord, whether he will state by whom that deception was practised? I will ask those questions on Thursday next.
LORD J. RUSSELL: Sir, the hon. Member might have taken one of two courses with reference to this matter. He might now have given notice of his intention to ask some questions with respect to the Bishop of Llandaff, and there have ended, or, having given me notice privately that he meant to ask these questions, he might have made the attack on the Bishop of Llandaff of which he has just delivered himself; but, for the hon. Member to come forward and give a notice, and to avail himself of that opportunity to make an attack on a right rev. Prelate, is not quite in accordance with the fairness the House has a right to expect from one of its Members. I certainly am unable, at this moment, to give an answer applicable to all the particulars to which the hon. Member has adverted. All I can say is, if it be necessary to explain the reasons which induced me to recommend Dr. Oliphant to the Crown for the see of Llandaff, is that having heard—in common with the rest of

901
the world—that many complaints were made in Wales, that when bishoprics in Wales became vacant, persons unacquainted with the Welsh language were appointed to fill them (a charge directed, not against any particular Government, but against successive Governments), when the see of Llandaff fell vacant, I made inquiry, not of one or two, but of many persons who, I thought, were able to give me the information I desired, whether they were acquainted with any divine who, with eminent learning, and those other qualifications which are generally sought for in a person filling the office of bishop, combined a knowledge of the Welsh language? I deemed myself fortunate in the result of that inquiry, because I found that Dr. Oliphant had been the head of a college in Wales, and that for several years during which he filled the office of principal of that college, he had given satisfaction to the inhabitants of the diocese in which the college was placed. I found, likewise, that he had acted as parish priest in a benefice in Wales, and in that manner had become acquainted with the language and habits of the people of the principality. I found, too, that to this special fitness for a see in Wales, Dr. Oliphant joined eminent learning. Upon making inquiry of two high authorities—namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Winchester—I ascertained that Dr. Oliphant was known to the Primate generally, and to the Bishop of Winchester particularly, from the circumstance of his having resided for a considerable time in Winchester; and from both those right rev. Prelates I received the highest testimonials as to Dr. Oliphant's qualifications. I heard from the Archbishop and the Bishop of Winchester, as well as others who knew Dr. Oliphant, and who thought that they were in fairness bound to acquaint me with the circumstance, that he had never been known to hold the political opinions to which I am attached; but I felt that if I could obtain for Wales the benefit of a bishop possessed of the eminent qualifications which belonged to Dr. Oliphant, I ought to waive any consideration of that kind, and, therefore, I recommended him for the appointment to the Crown. I had never seen Dr. Oliphant before, and I have not had much personal communication with him since; but all the communications which have passed between us have been directed to the object of obtaining for him a residence in his diocese. Some
902
difficulty may have existed on that point with which I am not acquainted, but I shall, perhaps, be better able to explain it in answering the hon. Member's question on Thursday. I must state, however, that there is no reason for doubting that it is the intention of the Bishop of Llandaff to reside permanently in his diocese, and that all the expectations which influenced me in recommending him to the Crown will be realised. The hon. Member has referred to what I, as well as he, saw in a newspaper respecting the bishop's answer to an address presented to him in Wales. I observe that the bishop, having preached a sermon in the Welsh language, an address in the same language was subsequently presented to him, whereupon he said that he was not sufficiently master of the Welsh language to make an impromptu reply to a formal address of congratulation and kindness. I think that is very likely to be the case with a person who is not a native of Wales, and therefore cannot be expected to speak the language with the ease and fluency of a native. Notwithstanding all the hon. Member has said, I have not the least reason to believe that I have been deceived in the information I received respecting Dr. Oliphant. I have no reason to repent of the advice I gave the Crown to place Dr. Oliphant in the see of Llandaff, and I believe that he will prove an ornament to the bench of bishops, and likewise be of the greatest service as a spiritual instructor of the people.
MR. GWYNbegged to express his thanks and those of the clergy and inhabitants of the diocese of Llandaff for the appointment of Dr. Oliphant, A more excellent appointment it was not possible to make. He was a prelate of the greatest piety, and was acquainted with the Welsh language. Having been present on an occasion when Dr. Oliphant, on laying the foundation-stone of a school, preached a sermon in Welsh, "he (Mr. Gwyn) could state that it was a sermon which every one understood, and that the country people went away expressing their admiration. It was no fault of Dr. Oliphant's that he was not resident at present; a house had been bought for him, and was in course of preparation; and it was his intention to go into residence as soon as he possibly could.
MR. HORSMANhad said nothing of the personal qualifications of the Bishop of Llandaff, but had asked, first, whether since his appointment he was not resident;

903
and, secondly, whether he was acquainted with the Welsh language or not? On these points he should feel it necessary to repeat his questions to the noble Lord on Thursday next.
Subject dropped.

METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 27.
LORD D. STUARTobserved that the question raised by the clause was, whether the conducting of funerals should be left to free competition, or whether authority should be given to the proposed board to intermeddle. It was no sufficient ground for abandoning the sound principles of free competition, that in certain cases advantage had been taken of relatives by undertakers. There might be instances of extortion; but no inconsiderable portion of the charges made by the undertakers consisted of charges for scarfs, &c., which went to the clergyman; and in 1842 the Bishop of London had stated before a Parliamentary Committee that a large portion of the emoluments of clergymen were derived from that source. But whether the undertakers were extortioners or not, was it right for Parliament to interfere with free competition? Why should not the people be left to protect themselves? It was by encouraging free competition that the public interest would be best promoted, and not by reducing the number of people engaged in the trade; for the effect of the clause would be to reduce the number of undertakers. The Board of Health were empowered to obtain tenders for conducting funerals; but if that board did not invite a man to make a tender, was he to be excluded from undertaking funerals? Would not the consequence be a system of favouritism and jobbing? Was there any fairness in such a proceeding? Again, it was proposed to enact that if any undertaker offered to contract for conducting funerals, and his offer was accepted, it should be open to any person to call on him to perform a funeral, and that he should be bound to perform it. But no provision was made for paying him. At present an undertaker might make inquiries relative to his customer, and might decline to execute the funeral. Under the Bill, however, those who contracted with the Board of Health would be compelled to execute a funeral when called upon, as if they had made a special contract with
904
the party requiring their services. That was an exceedingly oppressive arrangement. The whole clause might be omitted without interfering with the rest of the Bill; and he was prepared to divide the Committee on the question.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYrepeated the objection to the clause that, whilst it compelled undertakers who contracted to take funerals, it made no provision for their being paid. With respect to the charges of undertakers, all that the House of Commons could deem incumbent on it was to protect the defenceless; but the inquiries he had made led him to believe that the charges of undertakers were not exorbitant as regarded either the pauper class or the artisan population. In a parish with which he was intimately connected in the city of London, where formerly the undertaker was allowed, under his contract, 14 s. 6d, for each funeral of a pauper, the undertaker now found a conveyance and carried the body of the pauper a distance of four miles for an additional charge of only 4s. In the case of a better class, the undertaker found a coach for six mourners, supplied pall-bearers and attendants, cloaks, scarfs, and everything, and conveyed the corpse a distance of four miles for 3l. 10 s. When that was the case, and parishes were enabled to have their paupers conveyed the same distance for 18 s. 6d., he really did not see the necessity for the Board of Health interfering, as proposed by the present clause.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the object of the clause was to invite tenders from undertakers, to distribute the business as much as possible, and to enter into contracts with the trade to perform funerals at certain specified rates. From communications which he had himself received from members of that body, he knew that there would be many willing in the different districts to undertake to conduct funerals at a given price. If the Board of Health considered those prices reasonable they would publish them, and would state to persons who wished their relatives to be buried at that rate that Mr. So-and-So, an undertaker, had contracted with them, and would bury at that rate. That was the object of the clause, it having been deemed desirable, when the places of interment were removed to a considerable distance from the abodes of the poor, to provide, if possible, some means by which they could lessen the expense of funerals to those parties; and he believed the operation of

905
the clause would be that there would be found members of the trade willing to contract at a much lower rate than was charged at present. At the same time the clause did not make it compulsory upon the public to employ the undertakers who contracted.
MR. WYLDasked what the effect of the clause would be upon parishes? At present the great mass of the working classes employed undertakers who would give credit; but if this clause were compulsory, and the poor had not the means of paying cash for the funerals of their relatives, it would at once fall back upon the parish, who would be compelled to bear the whole expense. Was the clause to be permissive or compulsory?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was both permissive and compulsory—permissive, inasmuch as the public might go to any undertaker they pleased; compulsory, inasmuch as the undertakers who contracted with the Board of Health were bound to bury at the rates specified in the contract.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, that there was nothing to prevent a poor person ordering an expensive funeral, if the contract was to be on credit prices; and if, as was most likely, the undertaker gave in his prices for ready money, the consequence would be in numerous instances to prevent the poor from providing themselves for the funerals of their relations, and throwing the burden on the parishes.
MR. BRIGHTthought the incessant attacks which had been made upon the undertakers by the friends of this Bill, both in and out of the House, were scarcely justified. No doubt exorbitant charges were made in connexion with funerals; but were there not exorbitant charges in other trades? If every trade were to be put down because of exorbitant charges, what, he should like to know, would become of architects, lawyers, medical men, and other professions in which such charges prevailed? [Mr. WAKLEY denied that medical men charged exorbitantly.] He would withdraw the remark, then; so far as the medical profession was concerned, of which of course his hon. Friend knew much more than he did. But what he wished to say was, that the exorbitant nature of undertakers' bills arose from the foolish pride—the vanity of people in ordering expensive funerals. He saw coming down to the House that day a funeral procession, consisting of a hearse, some half-a-dozen
906
mourning coaches covered with velvet trappings and feathers, a man marching in front with a sort of platform on his head, out of which appeared to grow a whole forest of black plumes—all was needless pomp and foolish pride—there was the semblance of woe, perhaps, but none of the reality. What reason had the person who gave orders for such a funeral as that to complain of the exorbitance of undertakers' charges? The sect to which he belonged took a very different course. They never put on mourning when any of their relatives died—they never encouraged or permitted—(he did not mean to say there was any positive law against it, but opinion was against it)—these semblances of woe, and so far as the undertakers were concerned, they never succeeded in practising their extortion upon them. But besides the funeral, a great and principal charge on the working classes, when a member of a family died, was the necessity the survivors felt themselves to be under of dressing all the other members in black. He had known cases where parties had borrowed money for this purpose, which had taken them years to repay. If persons of intelligence really desired to put an end to the unnecessary expenses of funerals, they should begin by abandoning this foolish custom. The blame of the heavy bills for funerals was due not so much to the undertakers themselves, as the desire for vain, useless, and meaningless ostentation, and the ignorant prejudices of the public. And this was an evil which he scarcely hoped Parliamentary interference would ever remove.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, the sum and substance of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down appeared to be, that much vanity was to be found in human beings, which was perceptible in various shapes, but that in persons of the hon. Gentleman's persuasion there was none; but, surely, a peculiar sort of dress, a difference of demeanor, in manners and language, might arise from vanity in those individuals by whom it was practised—quite as great vanity as might be found in the funerals of the great, to which allusion had been made. The hon. Member had stated that the Legislature had no more right to interfere with the undertakers than with architects, or with any other class of the public. He (Mr. Mackinnon) denied that, because, when a husband lost his wife, or a wife lost her husband, there was a peculiar, it might be a

907
mawkish feeling of delicacy, which induced them to avoid whatever might have the appearance of a deficiency of respect for the dead: and hence they were led to sanction a more expensive funeral than was perhaps consistent with their means. But he did not think that that could justly be described as proceeding from vanity. The great advantage of this Bill would be, that it would check the existing custom, and would enable parties who had the misfortune to lose their relatives to say in what way they should be buried, according to scale No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, or No. 4, instead of leaving the matter, as at present, to the discretion of undertakers, who, taking advantage of the feeling of affection for deceased relatives, induced often a more expensive display than the means of the parties could justify.
The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREYsaw no reason why the hon. Member for Manchester should attribute to vanity, or to any other improper motive, the degree of respect which in all ages every religious sect, except, as it now appeared, his own, had been in the habit of paying to the burial of the dead. It was, of course, easy to impute to vanity the trappings and display of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, just as it was easy to ridicule anything. He (the Earl of Arundel) had himself heard the strait dress and peculiar costume of the sect to which the hon. Member belonged attributed to vanity. So far from regarding as vanity the extreme anxiety which he had often witnessed in poor persons to purchase even the smallest quantity of black clothing to pay respect to the memory of their deceased relatives, he considered it as a degree of reverence highly commendable; and he believed that when the feeling of reverence for the dead totally ceased, there would be very little reverence left for the living.
SIR H. VERNEYentirely concurred in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, and thought he had read a most useful lesson both to the House and to the public. He (Sir H. Verney) would say nothing with respect to the hon. Member's friends, the undertakers, except that after what he had said they might well exclaim, "Save us from our friends!"
MR. T. BUNCOMBEwished to ask the noble Lord the Member for Bath what was the reduction he expected to effect in the price of funerals? For that was the real question after all. He had seen a scale of
908
prices advertised by an undertaker, which, as far as he could judge, did not appear exorbitant, notwithstanding what had been charged against the extortionate practice of that trade; and he wished to know whether the noble Lord's scale for funerals—for the noble Lord was now the official undertaker—would be lower or higher than this. Mr. Shillibeer, in his advertisement, told them that the Metropolitan Interments Bill was founded on his system, that of undertaking funerals at fixed, moderate, and inclusive charges. Mr. Shillibeer said, that by applying to him 30 or 40 per cent would be saved from the usual charges on first-class funerals. Now, what would the noble Lord do it for? Here was Mr. Shillibeer's scale—a nobleman's funeral, 30 guineas; a gentleman's, not a nobleman's, 10 guineas; and an artisan's, 4 guineas, and no extra charge if within ten miles of London. Now, what was the noble Lord's scale? The noble Lord, unlike Mr. Shillibeer, made an extra charge out of London; for they were told that some extra expense would be incurred in taking the funeral four or five miles out to some public cemetery in the country. Mr. Shillibeer would undertake an artisan's funeral, and bury ten miles in the country, providing the one-horse hearse, postboy, and all, for 4l.—would the noble Lord do it cheaper? According to the hon. and learned Attorney General this clause was to be both permissive and compulsory—permissive as to those who entered into the contracts, and compulsory as regards the public. But when all the undertakers were knocked up, which was the real object of this Bill, and that of the Committee of Whitehall, the whole undertaking business would be in the hands of the board and three or four undertakers, and what security would they then have that the prices of funerals would be confined even to their present limit?. The report signed by Lord Ashley, Dr. Southwood Smith, and Mr. Chadwick, stated that the whole burial business of London might be done, as they thought, by four persons. Mr. Shillibeer had offered to undertake the whole himself, and to do the whole business of the funerals consequent on the 60,000 deaths which occurred annually in this metropolis. There were now about 700 furnishing undertakers in London, besides a large number of tailors, cobblers, upholsterers, and others, who undertook funerals, and by whose intervention the charges to the pub-

909
lic were so enormously swelled up. The apothecary, too, did a little in the same way occasionally, and had his favourite undertakers, whom he recommended, and from whom, of course, he drew a fee. When they had knocked up the undertakers, he wanted to know, supposing they could not find so many Shillibeers, whether they must not bury the dead themselves? And, if they were going to do that, let them do it at once, and boldly. He thought the latter part of the clause ought to be expunged, because, supposing a dispute to arise between the contracting undertaker and the relatives of the de-ceased, recourse must be had to the Board of Health, or, as they might be more properly designated, of Trade, as arbitrators, and an unseemly wrangle must ensue relative to the proper performance of the interment. He wished to know what reduction the noble Lord the Member for Bath expected to effect under the Bill in the charge for funerals?
MR. BRIGHTwished also to ask whether the Board of Health intended to restrict the number of undertakers, or whether every undertaker might come forward and say that he would furnish the funerals in his district according to a certain prescribed scale of fees?
LORD ASHLEY,LORD ASHLEY, in reply, said, that there was no intention to limit the number of contractors. He believed that the board would contract with every undertaker who had capital invested in the business. The hon. Member for Finsbury had stated the number of metropolitan undertakers as upwards of 700. That, however, was hardly the fact. Mr. John Bedford, one of the witnesses examined by the board, was asked—
"What proportion of this number of 700 persons whose names are given in the Directory, calling themselves undertakers, can be said to share the principal amount of business?—I suppose nearly one-tenth, perhaps nearly 100. Of that 100, how many are principal houses?—Nearly 20 from the first class of undertakers; the lower classes in the trade are very different. Can you give any notion what is the average amount of capital employed by the first class of tradesmen?—I should say some 3,000 l. And the average capital of the next 20?.—Something like half that amount of capital for the next 20 or 30. Then the remainder, what sort of capital have they?—The largo proportion are poor indeed."
The hon. Member for Finsbury said truly that the great sources of extortion were the intermediate tradesmen. Most of these were nothing more than upholsterers, who, being in the neighbourhood, managed to get the order and carried it to the city to
910
those who had capital invested in the business, and who alone could perform the funeral. It was with these intermediate parties that the extravagant charges originated. The hon. Member for Finsbury had asked him to state the scale of prices for the different classes of funerals. He begged to say that it would not be possible to give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer to that question until they had had an opportunity of contracting with the undertakers and seeing their terms; but of this he was perfectly certain, from the minute inquiries he had been enabled to institute, that, in comparison—not with the scale of prices 10 years ago, but with the reduced scale which had been put out since the agitation on this subject commenced—he firmly believed that they would be able to find parties ready to contract for funerals at 25 or 30 per cent cheaper. Before sitting down, he bogged to express his hearty concurrence in the remarks which had been made by the hon. Member for Manchester. He only wished that he had spoken upon this solemn subject with a little more forbearance. If he had considered the subject a little more maturely, he would have found that the idle folly which he had condemned was the result of au evil custom, rather than the indulgence of a feeling of vanity. It ought to be remembered that there were moments when people could not enter into a bargain; when they were obliged to take whatever was placed before them; and it was also to be borne in mind that people did not like to be charged with dealing irreverently with the remains of their friends, and were thus naturally led into an evil custom. He hoped, however, that one result of this Bill would be to abolish that pernicious custom; and hero he begged to say that that good and illustrious woman the Queen Dowager, who was now "gathered to her fathers," had, in dying, as in living, conferred an inestimable benefit upon the country by her admirable example, in having expressed her wish to be interred with all the simplicity which became the member of a Christian community.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that he also fully concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester. Still, be believed that the fault respecting costly interments did not altogether he with the undertakers. On the contrary, that body seemed to him to have been very grossly calumniated. He had now been acting as coroner for a period of ton years, and during the whole

911
of that time he had never heard of a single case of complaint against an undertaker. The morbid feeling on the subject lay with the public, because, if in street A or B a splendid funeral took place, the relative of the deceased in a neighbouring street must have an equally splendid funeral. He hoped that the discussion of tonight would put an end to that morbid feeling, without, at the same time, destroying the reverence which ought ever to be shown to the dead. He regretted that his hon. Colleague should have made any remarks respecting the medical profession, inasmuch as that hon. Gentleman was indebted to that profession for his ability to attend the House upon the present occasion. There was, in fact, no difference between the practical physician and the apothecary. An invalid took physic from the latter, but as soon as the undertaker walked in, the apothecary walked out. In fact, the dead man was the very worst patient an apothecary could attend. Now, he was desirous of knowing what security there was in the present clause that the existing race of undertakers would be the parties to perform the funeral duties in future? He was anxious that in such changes as were now proposed, individual interests should suffer as little as possible. What objection could there be, then, to give to the undertakers of the metropolis some sort of security against loss? He had been informed by that class of men that if private speculators were allowed to furnish future funerals, they and their families would be involved in irretrievable ruin; and, therefore, he was desirous of proposing the insertion of certain words in the clause which would give to the undertakers a preference with reference to the contracts. He begged to move as an Amendment—
"That the Board of Health may invite and receive tenders from furnishing ironmongers—he meant undertakers—of three years' standing in their business."
MR. T. DUNCOMBEexplained. He had not said that the apothecary was in partnership with the undertaker, but he believed that in some cases funerals had been conducted by apothecaries. His hon. Colleague had observed that the worst patient an apothecary could have was a (dead body; he (Mr. Buncombe) hoped that his hon. Colleague did not mean to extend that observation to coroners.
SIR G. GREYhoped the Committee would not entertain the Amendment, which,
912
even with reference to the hon. Gentleman's own views, was a contradiction in terms, since, purporting to benefit the undertakers of London, it absolutely excluded from that benefit all undertakers who had not been in business three years.
MR. WAKLEYwould not press the Amendment; but he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Bath would give an assurance that if he continued a member of the Board of Health, he would take care that the undertakers should have the preference in making these contracts.
Amendment withdrawn.
SIR G. GREYhoped that his noble Friend would give no such assurance, simply on the ground that it would be quite wrong for an individual member of a board to say in his place in Parliament what should be the decision of the board with respect to particular powers about to be conferred upon them.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that unless great precaution was exercised, the system of contract might be grossly perverted, and produce the very evils of which complaint was now made. He thought it would be best for the parish to make arrangements and contract for the interment of its own poor. Then there would be a wide competition, and cheapness would be more likely be secured. He disliked the system of classification which was adopted by the Bill. A great deal had been said about the vanity displayed by persons in the condut of their funerals; but would there not be as much vanity in having a funeral belonging to Class 1, or Class 2, or Class 3? For his part it seemed to him that this classification would act as a premium on vanity, and he must say that he felt strong objections to the clause.
MR. COBDENsaid, it was not very often that he rose to endorse any opinion utttered by the hon. Member for North Warwick-shire, but he certainly did coincide with him on the present occasion. Complaints had been made of the ostentation of those who employed undertakers. This arose from our being a people of caste. Each caste was trying to emulate the caste above them; and, while attempting to discourage this system, the Government were, by putting into the present clause different degrees of caste, encouraging the very thing they deprecated. The clause contained a list of payments for the interment of masters and serfs, the very thing which ought to be rendered obsolete. What would be the effect of this? Why, that every one

913
would be ashamed to have his friend interred in the lowest class of charges. Where was the necessity of taking any care of the higher classes at all? Surely they could bury their dead. He contended that the poorer class was the only party for which the House ought to care, because if the upper classes were cheated a little, they would not thereby be ruined. He wanted to know why the Board of Health should not make some provision that they would keep a register of the certain prices at which funerals would be conducted with decency and solemnity for the lower classes?
SIR B. HALLsaid, that great alarm had been excited among the tradesmen of Marylebone, in consequence of what they conceived to be the excessively high price at which an artisan was to be interred, according to the statement recently made by the noble Lord the Member for Bath. He wished to ask the noble Lord what would be the whole expense, from the time the contracting undertaker entered a house to the time the earth was thrown upon a body, for the interment of a mechanic residing in any part of London? Suppose a person died in the neighbourhood of St. Pancras, and was buried in any cemetery the noble Lord pleased, what would be the cost in such a case?
LORD ASHLEYsaid, it was quite impossible for him to answer the question at present. He could only repeat that the reduction upon existing charges would be very considerable indeed. He begged to add a word. On the previous evening the hon. Baronet had informed the Committee that the fees paid upon interments in St. John's Wood church, were only 7s. 10 d., an amount which the hon. Baronet contrasted with the 25 s. which it was stated would be the maximum fees upon interment under this Bill. In the first place, the hon. Baronet took no account of the fact that the maximum in question was susceptible of very great reduction; and, in the second place, the hon. Baronet was wrong in his own figures. He (Lord Ashley), in the course of the day, had made inquiries in the parish referred to, and he had found that the hon. Baronet in his statement had entirely left out of his calculation the very heavy foe paid for the ground, the churchwarden's fee, which in that parish amounted to no less than 1l. 8s., making with the 7s. 10 d. stated by the hon. Baronet, 1l. 15 s. 6d. instead of the maximum of 1l, 5s. under the Bill—.
SIR B. HALL: Was the ground fee stated by the noble Lord for parishioners or for non-parishioners?
LORD ASHLEY: For parishioners. For non-parishioners the fee was 2l. 2s.
SIR B. HALLcould only say that he had received his information from the officers of the parish. There was, however, as he had since learned, an additional charge of 4s., making the fees 11 s. 10 d. With regard to St. Pancras, he had overstated the facts. A pauper buried in that parish paid 4s. 6d.; a parishioner 7s. 6d., and there was a further fee for the ground of 3s., making 10 s. 6d. in all. He had before him a copy of a bill to the directors of St. Pancras for the interments ending December quarter, 1849, one of the items of which was "67 poor, at 2s. 6d.," which was the sum be had stated.
MR. SADLEIR MR. SADLEIR moved a proviso to the effect that no contract should be entered into by the board, the expenses of which were to be more than 5l. The object which he had in moving the proviso was this. He understood that the system followed in burying the humbler classes in this metropolis was one partly of cash and partly of credit, and he wished to preserve the continuance of this system, which was considered to be a great boon by the humbler classes. He named the sum of 5l., because he understood that under the operation of this measure a very respectable tradesman could be interred for that sum with all becoming solemnity, whilst the funeral of a labourer or artisan could be performed for 1l., 1l. 10 s., or 2l. Now if the clause passed without the proviso, the contractor would stipulate for cash payments as his protection against a poor person calling upon him to furnish an expensive funeral. The friends of the deceased might not be prepared with ready cash, and the consequence would be that the expenses of the funeral would fall upon the parish in many cases.
SIR G. GREYsaid, he did not see the necessity of placing any restriction of the kind on the Board of Health.
Proviso negatived.
MR. BRIGHTthen proposed a proviso to the effect that the Board of Health should be bound to give its sanction to undertakers other than those who had obtained contracts to undertake the performance of funerals, at the same rate as the contracting undertakers. Suppose that there were 100 undertakers, and that it was estimated forty could perform all the

915
business, sixty would be extinguished, although the forty might not execute the work cheaper than the 100. He did not think it necessary that there should be any limitation of the number, and therefore he considered that if any undertaker chose to signify to the Board of Health that he was willing to undertake the performance of funerals on the terms published by them, such undertakers should receive the authorisation and sanction of the board for so doing. Otherwise the public would be led to the inference that there was some advantage in going to the contracting undertakers, from their connexion with the Board of Health, and an injustice would be done to the undertakers who were not contractors. He much doubted whether this measure would ever be a popular one; but the adoption of this proviso would at all events remove one objection to it.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that there was nothing to prevent other undertakers from performing funerals at as low or lower charges than the contractors. There was nothing to prevent their entering into competition with the contractors, and they would have this advantage, that, knowing the price of the contracting undertakers, they might undersell them if they thought proper.
MR. BRIGHTthought the undertakers who were supposed to be in alliance with the Board of Health would possess an advantage which might operate somewhat injuriously upon others engaged in the same trade.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, if it was intended by this Bill to restrict the trade of undertakers, he thought the Committee was bound to repudiate such an obnoxious principle; for he did not see why a particular class of tradesmen in London should be debarred by Act of Parliament from that competition which existed in all other trades.
LORD ASHLEYsaid, that the object was to distribute the business as widely as possible.
COLONEL THOMPSONcould not perceive the difference between these and any other contracts. Would not the fair and reasonable course be for the board to give information of the terms they would give for burials, according to certain specifications, and then accept the best contract that was offered?
SIR DE L. EVANSwished to know if the tenders were to be publicly advertised for?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the Bill implied that they would be sought by public advertisement.
The ATTORNEY GENERALopposed the Amendment, on the ground that if every one might come in and do the work which one man had contracted to do, there would be no contract or competition at all, and no one would enter into such a contract.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that what he wanted was the sanction of the Board of Health, if he might so express it, to all undertakers, and not to particular undertakers only, who were willing to perform these funerals. He would not divide the Committee.
Proviso negatived.
LORD D. STUARTfelt the clause to be so objectionable that he must divide the Committee against it. Many attempts had been made to amend it, but all had been fruitless. The feelings of the poor ought to be considered, as well as those of the rich and great. He had on the preceding night said, and he now repeated it, this was not a poor man's Bill, for its effect would be to violate the feelings of the poor in the matter in which they were most susceptible. There were few things that poor people regarded with greater horror than the burial of their deceased relatives by charity. Surely that feeling deserved respect and consideration, yet by this clause hundreds of poor persons, who, if they had the advantage of a little credit for a funeral, might be able to proceed as they did at present—paying a small sum down, and the balance by instalments—would be forced by this clause in its present state to that resort which was the most abhorrent to their feelings—a pauper's funeral. Upon this ground he objected to the clause, and he opposed it also as being a gross and objectionable interference by the Government with the freedom of trade, and with matters in which they had no business to interfere.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 25: Majority 79.
Clause 28.
MR. STANFORD MR. STANFORD moved that the following words be added:—
"Provided always, that nothing herein enacted shall be construed to authorise or empower any officer or servant of the said board to enter any house or room for the purpose of removing any dead body, or for any other purpose of this Act, against the will of any relative of the deceased."
SIR G. GREYapprehended there could be no necessity for the proviso. The removal could not take place against the will of the relatives.
SIR W. CLAYbelieved that there were persons out of doors who would be glad to have a distinct assurance that it was not to be compulsory, and that the officer was to have no power to interfere except on the expressed request of the relative or executor having charge of the funeral.
SIR G. GREYhad not the slightest hesitation in giving the assurance, but should have thought the language of the clause made it unnecessary. It was not intended to give any power of entering a house, or removing a body, with out the consent of the executor or relatives, the parties in fact whose duty it was to see to the decent burial of the deceased.
Proviso withdrawn. Clause agreed to as was Clause 29.
Clause 30.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that since the Bill was first introduced, he had inserted two amendments in this clause. Representations had been made to him that if no fee was allowed on the burial of those bodies which were interred at the expense of the union or parish, with the exception of those cases where the deceased parties had been members of the Church of England, there would be no minister in attendance to perform the service over them. He therefore proposed to insert in this clause, and again in the 38th clause, the following-words:—"And where such body is buried at the expense of any union or parish, a sum not exceeding one shilling." The only other amendment was in line 24, the effect of which would be to prevent any fee being taken in respect of the removal of a body.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that this clause and the two following ones were new ones; and before they were discussed by the Committee he wished to hear the reason of the alterations that had taken place. In the original Bill it was proposed that an average of years should be taken, upon which the compensation to the present and future incumbents should be fixed. That had been abandoned; and the proposition now was that a fee of 6s. 2d. should be paid upon every burial to the present and all future incumbents.
SIR G. GREYsaid, he had thought that, upon the whole, this was the best mode of affording compensation. The other plan
918
proposed that an average should be taken, for three or five years before the closing of any burial ground, of the receipts in that parish from burial fees, and that a sum should be awarded to the existing incumbents during their incumbencies, and continued to the future incumbents, subject to any deduction that might be directed by the bishop. There were great difficulties with regard to this compensation. No doubt it was perfectly just and equitable that some compensation should be made; and as regarded the existing incumbents, he had not heard any objection made. In many of the London parishes the income of the clergyman was derived in a great measure from these burial fees. In the course of his communication with those re-presenting the interests of the clergy, he had found them ready to make a fair concession of their interests to their public good. The clause now proposed gave them a less amount of compensation than they would have received under the former clause. The principle on which the compensation was fixed was identical with that embodied in the different Cemetery Acts, but the amount was much less. The principle had been recognised and adopted by Parliament in all those Acts, the law being that, in respect to every body brought to any of these cemeteries from any parish in London, the clergyman of that parish, in some cases the clerk and churchwardens also, should receive certain fees, varying in amount at the different cemeteries. An average had been taken of the receipts in a given time on account of burial foes for the great majority of the parishes in London: it amounted only to 8s. 2d.; 6s. 2d. was the average of a more limited number; and 6s. 2d. was the amount with which he believed the great body of the clergy would be satisfied, though it did not reach the average, and in many cases fell very far short of the incomes they were now receiving. But there was this new principle embodied in the clause; that the payment of the chaplain for performing the duty at the burial ground was to be deducted from the amount of fees payable to the several clergy. The duty, therefore, would be performed at the same charge as was now the average of a largo number of parishes in London. He thought this the most equitable mode of apportioning this compensation. No additional charge was thrown upon the public, in respect of the payment of the chaplain, or the incumbent; at the same time there was a provision that

919
a sum not exceeding the same amount should be paid at the request of parties to a minister of any religious denomination, who attended to perform the burial service at the place of interment.
COLONEL THOMPSONhoped the question of compensation would be decided simply with reference to the status in quo. If the Church insisted on forcing an examination into whether she was the Church with which the State had made a compact or not, the ease would be altered. But it was time enough to act on this when it came to pass; and till then, the only way the matter was to be viewed, was, that the Church was about to lose certain sources of revenue she had heretofore enjoyed, and for those, it was the shortest and fairest way that compensation should be given.
MR. LUSHINGTON MR. LUSHINGTON moved an Amendment to the effect that the compensation to be awarded under the 30th clause to incumbents and others shall not be perpetual, but shall he limited to such incumbents and others only as shall be in actual possession of their respective tenures at the period of the passing of this Act. Although he did not mean to oppose compensation to the existing incumbents, in order to strengthen his case he would set out by endeavouring to show that payment of fees for burials to the clergy was not justifiable by law. As to the right to compensation he could not concede, nor did the Legislature recognise, it in such a case. The proprietors of Gatton and Old Sarum were not compensated after the Reform Bill, nor innkeepers and postmasters after the establishment of railways. In Willis's Reports, 18th George II., there was a case where Mr. Justice Abdy pronounced a claim for burial fees on the part of an incumbent to be untenable, and laid it down that it was the clear duty of a parochial priest to bury the dead according to the 68th canon, by which he was liable to suspension in case of refusal, as well as according to common law, by which he was made liable in a temporal court for any nuisance arising from his neglect; that neglect, in Linwode's opinion, was simony. Sir Henry Spelman called the claim of burial fees "abominable," and other harsh names; and Milton, in quoting him, used words so intemperate, that he (Mr. Lushington) was prevented repeating them by his regard for prelacy. It was but a custom—an oblation to the pastor by the relatives of the deceased. He now came to a point upon which consider-
920
able stress had been laid. It was stated, that the alterations made in the Bill were founded on the practice of the cemetery companies. When one of those companies purchased a large piece of land, they desired to have a portion of it consecrated by the bishop of the diocese; but the bishop told them that he would not consecrate any portion of their cemetery unless a high wall were raised between it and that portion of the ground which it was proposed to leave unconsecrated; and, further, that he would not do it unless they agreed to pay certain fees upon every burial to the existing incumbents, as well as to all others who might succeed them. When the cemetery at Kensal-green was opened, the proprietors of that ground, at the instance of the bishop, agreed to pay to the incumbents of parishes and their successors 5s. for every burial in a vault, and 2s. 6d. in the open ground, and a further fee of 2s. 6d. to the incumbent of the parish of Maryle-bone for every such interment. It was subsequently thought by the bishop that this was rather a had bargain, and when other cemeteries came into existence they were compelled to pay still higher prices—the Western Cemetery to pay 10 s., and another cemetery subsequently established 20 s., and all this for the sake of increasing the incomes of the clergy! He would put a case the force of which he had no doubt would be felt by the House. He did not like to anticipate unpleasant casualties, but suppose his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton were to die at this place, he could not be buried in the cemetery at Brighton unless the incumbent of the parish were paid a sum of 2l. 2s. When the incumbents asked for compensation, he (Mr. Lushington) desired to know, was no compensation due to the public—no compensation to those who in the late pestilence lost so many of their friends and relations? It was well known that when propositions were made for the removal of interments from the metropolis, the main opposition was offered by the clergy, and mainly on account of the fees which accrued to them from the practice of Intramural burial. He would ask emphatically was there no compensation due to those who had suffered by the pertinacious refusals which the clergy gave to any proposition for putting an end to intramural burials? Then, with respect to the Dissenters, he was bound to say that when the members of the Church made those payments, they only assisted an es-

921
tablishment with which they were themselves in communion. Now the condition of the Dissenters was the very reverse of this. He was acquainted with a gentleman of the bar, who was a rigid Dissenter; his wife, a member of the Church, was dead, and had been buried in consecrated ground; but her widowed husband, however desirous he might be to direct that his remains should repose beside hers, could secure to himself no such melancholy satisfaction; for, he being a Dissenter, the burial service of the Church could not be read at his interment. It happened to him to mix very freely in various classes of society in this metropolis, and he could undertake to say, that in almost every class there existed a certain degree of disaffection to the Church of England, which was expressed in the most violent, often in the most furious manner. In the year 1817, when the cholera morbus raged in Bengal, numerous bodies floated down the Ganges, and vultures were seen perched upon them and tearing their flesh with their obscene talons. There were those who might refer to the habits of eastern birds of prey to illustrate their ideas of western voracity, but he should not seek to establish any analogy of that kind, because he was willing to pay due respect to every class of men; but, from the language used out of doors, he should not be astonished if Her Majesty's Ministers were accused of committing Her Majesty's subjects to the rapacious clutch of an insatiate hierarchy. Such or similar language was frequently used, and he must say, that if they wished to secure the failing attachment of the Dissenters, they would agree to the Amendment which he had proposed.
Amendment proposed, page 11, line 9, after the word "compensate" to insert the words "the present."
SIR B. HALLsaid, the proposition he and hon. Gentlemen who thought with him wished to place before the House was, that compensation should be given only to the existing incumbents, and not to those that came after them. Now, he wished to put the matter before the House on this broad principle, whether the people of that metropolis, those that were to come after the present generation, should pay for the interment of their relatives and friends large sums of money, and to a class of gentlemen for doing nothing. At first, in the former Bill, it was intended to give compensation in perpetuity to clergymen, as at present, on an average of five years;
922
but it being thought that the incomes of clergymen would hereafter become too large under that regulation, a clause (the 31st) was introduced, which empowered the Commissioners of the Treasury, or other official persons, having the sanction of the Bishop of London, to reduce the incomes of incumbents lest they might become too great. He was prepared to show to the House, that the incomes which would be derived by them under the present Bill, would be much larger than were contemplated in the former Bill, by 175 per cent, on an increase of the population at the rate of 45 per cent. On a former occasion, he asserted that the Bill altogether was redolent of the Bishop of London and Mr. Chadwick; and he had it from unquestionable authority, that the Amendments now sought to be introduced by the Government emanated from the bishop and metropolitan incumbents, with a view to maintain and increase their incomes. A notice appeared in a Sunday journal, which he was in the habit of reading, and which journal might be considered a very fair exponent of Ministerial views and intentions in reference to the Bill, in which that measure was characterised as a most perfect piece of legislation; and it being so perfect, he thought it marvellous that the Government should have altered it. What induced them to make the alteration? What but the agitation that had taken place, because the Bill had caused great dissatisfaction amongst the labouring classes, who could only see that if the management were given to a Government Board, they were certain to be charged heavier fees than heretofore. It was all very well to say the agitation had been got up by interested parties, by funeral undertakers. He, however, believed the clause they were then discussing had been the cause of the greatest opposition, and created not alone the greatest discouragement, but also the greatest disgust. He had asserted that the Bill, as amended, spoke strongly of the interference of the Bishop of London; and what was the official announcement? That the Bishop of London headed a deputation to the Secretary of the Home Department, and suggested the changes. One change was, that, instead of having their incomes fixed at an average of five years, they should have a fixed fee of 6s. 2d. on every interment that took place in consecrated ground. What would be the effect of that alteration? Why, that as population increased, so would their incomes in-

923
crease in an equal ratio. On a former occasion, when he cited the population of St. Pancras and Marylebone parishes, he was told by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary that he had selected these parishes as telling more for his case. But he begged then to say that he cited them not only because they were parishes which he had the honour to represent, but also because they comprised a sixth of the population of the metropolis, and were assessed at some two millions sterling. In 1801 he found the population of the parish of Marylebone was 64,000, whilst in 1841 it rose to 148,000. In 1801 the population of St. Pancras was 31,179, and in 1841 it increased to 145,238, or, on the whole, more than 200 per cent. Now, if they fixed the fee at the rate of population given, they would find it would increase in the same ratio. He would next take the case of deaths. In 1845, in Marylebone, the number of deaths was 3,200, which, at 6s. 2d. each, would give 587 l In 1846 they reached 3,472, which, at 6s. 2d., would give 1,070 l. In St. John's Wood, in 1823, there were interred 1,260 bodies, which, at 6s. 2d., would give 388 l. 10 s. In 1846 there were interred there 2,063, and that number, at 6s. 2d., amounted to 666 l. 19 s. 4d., showing an increase of 278 l. 19 s. 4d. The object of the clergy in going to his right hon. Friend was evident. The bishop as pastor pastorum had made as good a case as he could for the shepherds, requiring that a positive fee should be fixed for them; but when the representatives of the flock in Parliament demanded a schedule in order that the flock might not be fleeced by the shepherds, the Government said that nothing of that kind could be granted. [The hon. Baronet then entered into a number of details with regard to the burial grounds of St. Giles's and other parishes, to show how insufficient was the space, and what numerous evils had arisen from that cause.] Let the House consider the position in which the Church was placed, the schism which existed within her communion, and the propositions recently made and happily rejected in the House of Lords, for the purpose of giving power to the clergy; and let them ask themselves whether respect would be paid to the dignitaries of a Church who asked that the community should be taxed in perpetuity, for those who would not, under the provisions of the Act, do anything in return?
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Ba-
924
ronet the Member for Marylebone, and the hon. Member for Westminster, had made a severe attack on the clergy; and the latter hon. Member had read some disgusting details of what he said had taken place in some of the churchyards of the metropolis. So foul seemed his collection that his courage failed him, and he did not inflict the whole of it upon the House. When the hon. Baronet laid the blame of the crowded state of the churchyards to the clergy, he ought to have recollected that they were not so much in fault as the inhabitants themselves, and those who represented them, whose duty it was to have moved in the matter, and attempted to remedy the abuse by legislation. The hon. Baronet ought also to have recollected that the fees were only the means of paying the clergy; and when he complained that the fees would increase as the population increased, he ought not to have forgotten that, as the population increased, the duties of the clergy must also increase. It seemed to him that the clause was a proper provision for the future spiritual duties of the Church. The attack of the hon. Baronet on the clergy was for a state of things which they could not remedy. Was not that the case?
SIR B. HALLsaid, if the clergymen had made representations to the parochial authorities that the burial grounds were insufficient, the evils might have been remedied. But nothing of that kind had been done.
MR. NEWDEGATE: But if these evils were notorious, representations were unnecessary, and it was the duty of the vestries, and the Members representing these boroughs, to see to their removal. He was not so conversant with the position of the London clergy in this respect as he was with that of the clergy in some other towns. In Birmingham there were cures of souls where the remuneration did not exceed 150 l., more than half of which small stipend depended on burial fees. It was not correct to say that these payments were for the act of burial; but they were official fees, not for the mere performance of the act, any more than fees to some law officers were payments for the mere act of signature, where, upon no other man's signature but that of such officer, such fees would acrue; any more than fees for burial could acrue to any but the clergymen of the parish; they were a part of the stipend. Objection might be made to the form of payment; but unless other means were

925
provided, the depriving the clergy of them would be simply robbing them of a part of their income. He thought the hon. Baronet had not scrupled to pervert the circumstances for the sake of making an unfair attack on the clergy.
MR. HUMEsaid, the question was, whether the burial fee was a vested right or not, and whether the incumbent had any legal title to it. He thought it had been proved that the clergy had no legal title to a fee upon interments, and he should be glad to hear the hon. and learned Attorney General say whether there was any truth in the statement that by law the claim could not be maintained. The moment that burials ceased in the present churchyards, the clergy became sinecurists so far as they were concerned, and therefore their claim to compensation could not be supported. He contended that the clergyman of a parish was bound to bury without any fee, and if he refused he was liable to punishment. He thought it was fair to give present incumbents, compensation; but he denied the justice of extending it to their successors.
SIR DE L. EVANScontended, in opposition to what had been said by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that the metropolitan Members were not to be blamed for not remedying the abuses that prevailed in churchyards. The interests of the clergy, in fact, stood in the way of any effectual remedies being applied. Had the bishops applied their influence to the removal of the enormities that existed, they would have ceased long ago. As to the proposal of the hon. Members for Westminster and Marylebone, he should like to hear what was unreasonable in it. They had what was called a "perpetual annuity" in the first Bill; and, though the phrase had been ingeniously withdrawn, the reality had not. There were 52,000 burials in the metropolis annually; and, assuming that all these took place in consecrated ground, no less a sum than 17,000 l. per annum would be received. From this sum the stipend of the chaplains would be deducted, and the surplus would go, in all time coming, to the incumbents of the various parishes. Now, he asked, on what good ground could they propose such a compensation as this?
LORD ASHLEYsaid, that he must say a few words in favour of the clergy, and in favour of the demand which they made. In the first place, he would state to the House that when the cholera existed to the
926
fullest extent in this country, the Board of Health was called upon to act in an arbitrary way in a great many instances, and compelled the poorer clergy to close their graveyards: they agreed to do so without a murmur, although involving serious loss, for which they could never receive the slightest compensation. Then, if they looked at the compensation now offered, they would find that it was considerably less than the annuity based upon the five years' average which was proposed in the first draught of the Bill. Even supposing that the compensation was to be the amount of fees deriving from the burial of 52,000 persons per annum, it would not be much more than 16,000 l; but it was manifest that they would not receive the fees upon the whole of these, for a considerable proportion of the interments would go into the unconsecrated ground, and into the ground set apart for Roman Catholics, and therefore all these would have to be deducted from the sum of 16,000 l. The clergy, when they proposed the system of fees, likewise proposed that a deduction should be made for the services of the chaplains. This would amount to 2,000 l. or 3,000 l., and therefore not more than 13,000 l. a year would be left for compensation. Now, taking the estimate made in 111 parishes, the sum to which the clergy would be entitled as a fee was 7s. 9d., while the fee which they had appropriated to themselves was 6s. 2d., subject to the deduction he had mentioned for payment of the chaplains. There were good reasons why they preferred this mode of payment to that of the annuity. There was a precedent in the case of the cemetery companies; and then they had this advantage, that they received their payments out of the interments ill consecrated ground only, and therefore were not exposed to the charge of receiving the contributions of Roman Catholics and Dissenters. So far as he could gather the opinions of the Committee, there seemed to be no very strong opposition to the compensation of the existing clergymen; but decided objections had been expressed to the perpetuation of the scheme. Now, these fees were not to be considered as mere payment for particular services; they were to be taken as a stipend for the performance of the general services which the clergy had to perform, there being in many instances little or no emolument beyond what was derived from churchyard fees, while in others fifty per cent of the clergyman's income was de-

927
rived from that source. The clergymen of the various parishes would still have the charge of the poor, and the duty of visiting from house to house. All the duty taken from them was that connected with the burial of the dead—their other clerical duties remaining the same as before; and that was the ground on which it was thought right to grant the continuation of the fees. As the population increased, the duties of the clergyman would, of course, also increase; and therefore he thought there was no weight in the argument which had been founded on that circumstance.
MR. HUMEwished to hear from the Attorney General what was the state of the law regarding fees?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the authorities quoted by the hon. Member for Westminster were not at all in point. No fee could be recovered either by the common law, or the canon law, for a duty not discharged by the individual; but there was a custom for claiming a fee on account of duty performed by a party himself.
Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 126: Majority 38.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Freestun, Col.

Adair, R. A. S.

Glyn, G. C.

Alcock, T.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Arkwright, G.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Baldwin, C. B.

Harris, R.

Bass, M. T.

Hastie, A.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Hastie, A.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Headlam, T. E.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Henry, A.

Bright, J.

Heywood, J.

Brotherton, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Hume, J.

Carter, J. B.

Hutt, W.

Clay, J.

Jackson, W.

Clay, Sir W.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Cobden, R.

Kershaw, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Colvile, C. R.

Matheson, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Matheson, Col.

Crawford, W. S.

Melgund, Visct.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Duff, G. S.

Morris, D.

Duff, J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Duncan, Visct.

Mowatt, F.

Duncan, G.

Nugent, Lord

Duncombe, T.

O'Flaherty, A.

Ellice, E.

Oswald, A.

Ellis, J.

Pearson, C.

Evans, Sir De L.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Evans, W.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Forster, M.

Perfect, R.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Pilkington, J.

928

Ricardo, O.

Trelawny, J. S.

Rice, E. R.

Villiers, hon. C.

Rebartes, T. J. A.

Wakley, T.

Romilly, Col.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Sidney, Ald.

Wawn, J. T.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Willcox, B. M.

Smith, M. T.

Williams, J.

Smith, J. B.

Wilson, M.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wrightson, W. B.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wyld, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Tenison, E. K.

TELLERS.

Thornely, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Lushington, C.

SIR B. HALLsaid, that the burial foe now charged in the parish St. Pancras was 2s. 6d.; by increasing it to 6s. 2d. would be adding 175 per cent to the present income of the clergyman, so far as regarded burial fees. The population of that parish, according to the last census, was 118,000, and it was supposed now to reach 130,000; so that, in a few years, the income derived from those fees would be trebled. At St. John's Wood church, the burial fee was 4s. 4d.; so that the increase there would be 45 per cent. It was a perfect farce, therefore, to talk of a deduction from the clergyman's income. Unless Government were determined to make the Church and the clergy unpopular by exacting from the people these large sums of money, what the noble Lord should do was to secure to these large parishes the advantageous position they at present held, and in respect to the smaller parishes, where the fees were high, to reduce them to the sum named in the clause, or even to a lower amount. He and his hon. Friends who acted with him on this occasion did not desire to act with any unnecessary pertinacity against this Bill; but, seeing as they did that the Government were pertinacious in their determination to impose this heavy tax upon the metropolitan constituency, and were resolved to carry out the Bill without making any concessions whatever, it was the duty of himself and his Friends to persist in dividing the House again and again until they succeeded in obtaining what they considered to be just to those whose interests they represented. He should therefore propose that instead of the sum of 6s. 2d. being the amount of the fee to be paid to the incumbent, it should be 4s. 4d.
Amendment proposed, page 11, line 15, to leave out the words "six shillings and two pence," and insert the words "four shillings and four pence."
SIR G. GREYsaid, he had been informed that there was a graduated scale of

929
fees charged in the parish to which the hon. Baronet had referred, and that 4s. 4d. was the lowest fee in the scale, the average amount of the fee which had been received during the last five years being 6s. 2d., or 7s. higher than what was now proposed to be paid to the incumbent.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that the fee of 4s. 4d. was paid for about 70 per cent of the persons who were buried in Maryle-bone; and the 2s. 6d. fee was received for about the same proportion in the parish of St. Pancras.
LORD R. GROSVENORthought that as the clause now stood a great number of incumbents would be losers.
MR. HUMEasked why the House should not have before them a list of what was paid in each parish? Let an average be taken of what had been paid. Let the present incumbents have full compensation. What he objected to was a perpetual annuity to those who did no duty for the same, to which they were not entitled by law, and which tended to make the Church odious in every point of view. He wished to know whether the average was made upon the deaths or the rates, without respect to the number of deaths.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the average was made with reference to the deaths.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEcould not offer any opinion as to whether 6s. 2d. or 4s. 4d. was the just amount; but he thought that it was most unjust to make compensation, not in proportion to present value, but to what it might be when the population was doubled.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that if the average were struck upon the whole number of burials it would come to one sum, and, if made according to the number of parishes without reference to the actual number of burials, it would come to an entirely different sum. The House, he must say, was asked to do what would bring a great amount of odium upon the clergy of London, and likewise on the measure itself; and, taking both these circumstances into account, he thought the Government would only be acting a wise part if they postponed this clause for the present with a view to its being reconsidered. The day of reckoning for the Church was not far distant, and would prove a still heavier undertaking, if, in the interim, the Government did not take the side of the people and of justice, instead of allowing themselves to be browbeaten, as he believed they now were, by the Bishop of London.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that before he divided, he wished to know if there was any objection to postpone the clause?
SIR G. GREYdid not see what was to be gained by postponement, and declined.
SIR B. HALL: Then I withdraw the Amendment, and move that the Chairman report progress.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet cannot withdraw his Amendment without the consent of the Committee.
MR. HUME: Then, Sir, I move that you report progress.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Whereupon, Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 144: Majority 92.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that the burial fees in the district with which he was acquainted were—in St. Bride's, 3s. 4d.; in St. Sepulchre's, 4s.; and in St. Bartholomew the Great, 1s.; and these charges included the cost of digging the grave, and registering the death. In fact, the charge of 6s. 2d. was greatly in excess of the average of the fees paid to clergymen for burials; the matter required further consideration. He should, therefore, move that the Chairman leave the chair.
MR. HUMEsaid, that there ought to be a table of the fees at present charged laid before the House, and a calculation made founded upon it*.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that at the rate hon. Gentlemen were going on, discussing every line of every clause, the Bill would take six weeks to get through Committee, if every other Bill were postponed in its favour. However, he would not oppose at that hour the Motion that the Chairman should report progress, and have leave to sit again at twelve o'clock on Monday.
MR. HUMEopposed the sitting at twelve on Monday, he having to attend a very important Committee of the House at that hour on the same day.
LORD J. RUSSELLdid not see how it would be possible to get on with the Bill otherwise. If they left it to take its chance with the other business before the House at five o'clock, it would take the whole of the present Session to get it through Committee, unless hon. Gentlemen would give more facility to the passing of the clauses.
SIR B. HALLhad to attend a meeting

931
of his constituents upon this very subject at twelve on Monday. He, therefore, should oppose a twelve o'clock sitting. If Government brought in a measure of such a description, they must expect the representatives of the people, who would have to pay the taxes, to sift its provisions carefully. Nothing like a factious opposition had been given to the Bill.
MR. D'EYNCOURTalso opposed the sitting at twelve o'clock on Monday, he having to attend a Committee of the House at that hour.
MR. LUSHINGTONsaid, that his constituents were exceedingly disgusted with the precipitation with which the Bill was being passed through the House.
LORD J. RUSSELLproposed that the Committee should be adjourned to twelve o'clock on Tuesday.
House resumed.
Committee report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock, again resolve itself into the said Committee."
MR. BOUVERIEopposed the sitting at twelve o'clock. He moved that the words "twelve o'clock" be struck out.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the words 'at Twelve of the clock.'"
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that the effect of striking out those words would be, that Tuesday being a day on which Motions took precedence of Orders, the Committee would be thrown completely out. He, therefore, hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Aves 136; Noes 23: Majority 113.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Committee to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next.