Commons Sitting of 9 August 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Petty Sessions (Ireland); Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland); Consolidated Fund £10,634,087 2s. 4d.; Militia Pay; Metropolis Sewers.
3° South Sea and other Annuities, Provision for Payment, &c.; Defacing the Coin; Linen, &c. Manufacturers (Ireland); Female Convicts; Apprehension of Offenders Act Amendment; Marriages, Holy Trinity Church, Hulme, Validity; Hackney Carriage Duties.

TRANSPORTATION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, there was no subject more important or more difficult to deal with than the question of secondary punishment. In the early stages of society crimes produced in the minds of the community but one feeling—that of resentment; and the sole object of legislation was one almost simple, namely, vengeance. In those more barbarous ages that vengeance was carried to such an extremity that not only was the punishment of death inflicted for almost every offence that could be imagined, but for graver offences the actual extinction of life was not considered sufficient unless accompanied by varied and exquisite torture inflicted upon the offender previous to death. Where death was not inflicted, imprisonment for a long period, attended with every severity that human ingenuity could inflict, was awarded to those whose lives were not actually taken away. As civilisation advanced, and as milder feelings had prevailed in legislation, the punishment of death had in principle been restricted to offences of the most serious and flagrant character, and secondary punishments had been substituted in the greatest number of cases. But the question of secondary punishments was also one of extreme difficulty. You want to make the punishment penal upon the offender, to make it a deterring example to prevent others from committing similar crimes, and yet at the same time you wish to avoid shocking the feelings of the community by sights revolting to mankind, and you ought to endeavour, if possible, to do that so as to
1536
combine a system of reformation with the principle of punishment. In the countries which had not had large colonial establishments such as we had, whither offenders might be transported, a great variety of practice bad prevailed—offenders had been punished on the secondary system within the limits of the country in which they had committed the offences. We, however, owing to our extensive colonial possessions and advantages, had hitherto been enabled to dispose of our offenders who were subjected to secondary punishment by transporting them beyond the seas after having undergone a certain period of preliminary imprisonment at home. We had now been reduced to the necessity of altering that system, by circumstances which were not within the control of the Government. In the first place, those colonies to which hitherto our offenders were transported, were become thriving and wealthy communities, and their feelings had led them to revolt against being made, as they conceived, the receptacles for criminals deemed unfit to be left in the mother country. Whether those feelings were well founded or not, it was unnecessary for us to inquire, for we had conceded to those Colonies the principle and the right of self-government, and, that cession being made, we must adopt and submit to its consequences; and the refusal of those communities to receive henceforward criminals sent from this country, would of itself compel us to alter the system which we had hitherto pursued. Independently of that consideration, a great event had happened in those Colonies which had hitherto been the places to which criminals under secondary punishments had been sent; and, even if the colonists themselves had not made any objection, that great event would necessarily have led to the reconsideration of our previously existing system. Because, though it might be advisable to send the criminal out of his native country to pass a certain period of qualified servitude in a foreign country, and to follow up that qualified servitude by a conditional pardon, involving of necessity perpetual banishment from his native land, and although that punishment was one which had great influence upon the minds of men—on the criminals themselves, on their families, and on their neighbours—yet when it turned out that those lands to which these criminals were sent, were places where wealth abounded beyond the previous imagination of man, where the

1537
exercise of a small amount of manual labour was likely to create a splendid fortune for the man who would employ it, it was quite clear that the great discovery of gold in those Colonies which had hitherto been the places to which criminals had been sent, so entirely changed the character of transportation to those Colonies, that it no longer continued to be a banishment, but henceforward must be looked on as a reward to be aimed at; and, if a free passage could not be obtained by honest means, a man would commit crimes for the simple purpose of being sent to that wonderful and gold-producing land. The attention of the Government had been therefore unavoidably directed to the revisal of our penal system. The first result to which the Government was led was the necessity of ceasing to send those offenders to the Colonies abroad at all. He believed, however, that there was one portion of the Australian continent to which the twofold objections to which he had adverted did not apply. There was a part of Western Australia to which, for some time to come, at least, offenders might continue to be sent; but the bulk of offenders hitherto sentenced to transportation must henceforward be dealt with in a different manner. The Bill now before the Committee therefore proposed, as hon. Members would perceive, to empower the Courts of Law to alter the nature of the sentences. That which was intended to be done might be generally described in the following manner:—For a considerable period the practice had been, when a culprit was sentenced to transportation for a given term of years, that he was confined, in the first instance, for a certain period, varying, according to regulations, from eighteen months to a less period, in separate confinement; be was then transferred to the public works, and, next, upon good conduct., was sent out to the Australian Colonies, on what was called "a ticket of leave," which placed him in a condition of qualified servitude; and at the end of another period, if his conduct deserved such indulgence, he received a conditional pardon. As offenders could not now be sent abroad—except, at least, that small portion who might go to Western Australia—it was proposed that a period should be taken—which it would be perceived was token into the Bill—after the preliminary imprisonment in separate confinement, corresponding with the period of the voyage out to the Colony, and the ticket of leave servitude; and that after such period the offender should be capable of re-
1538
ceiving a ticket of leave, not in a foreign Colony, but in this country, liable to be called back to complete the full term of his sentence if his conduct during the period should not be such as to warrant the further continuance of his leave. He was quite aware there might be objections to the course which the Government had been compelled to pursue; but it was not sufficient to point out objections, unless at the same time those objections could be enforced by showing that another and a different course was practicable. The Colonies must be considered as shut to us, and it was needless to inquire whether it was desirable or not that offenders should be released under certain conditions at home. Many persons had thought that new penal Colonies might be established. It had been suggested that the Falkland Islands, for instance, and other places which had been named, might be substituted for those Colonies which hitherto had been places to which criminals had been sent; and, in the first instance, those suggestions appeared plausible. But the Committee would see, upon a little reflection, that however plausible in the first instance, such an arrangement would not accomplish the purpose hitherto aimed at and accomplished by transportation. If the only object were to provide a place of detention for offenders during the period in which they were to be kept, he might say, under qualified imprisonment, there could be no difficulty whatever. Nothing could be easier than to establish such a penal colony in the Falkland Islands, or even much nearer home, where the expense of sending out offenders would be infinitely less, and the expense of keeping them also not so considerable. For that purpose we should not require penal settlements at a distance from our own shores. There were islands which might be obtained upon the various coasts of the United Kingdom, which would answer perfectly well as places of detention for criminals during the periods of their liability to qualified confinement; but the object which had hitherto been sought for by transportation, and which he thought he might venture to say had, to a great degree, been attained hitherto, had been the subsequent reformation of the culprit. It had been felt that when the transported man had undergone his sentence, and had passed through the preliminary or transition state, which consisted in the ticket of leave commission, his habits became changed, his mind became more reconciled to

1539
habits of order and conformity to the law, and when he got his conditional pardon he merged into the community of the country to which he had been transferred, and he became one of that community, harmless at all events, and very often, it was to be hoped, a useful member of society,. If, however, our new Colonies were established, say in the Falkland Islands, where there was no free population, where the great bulk of the inhabitants would be themselves convicts, this last process of amelioration could scarcely be hoped for or rarely attained. There would be no free population into whose mass these reformed offenders might be absorbed, or who would be the means of educating them to habits of order and industry; they must be set free in a colony of convicts, and it was obvious that that would not accomplish any beneficial purpose either to themselves or to the country where they were. Then it had been suggested that they might be sent to the neighbouring countries—to the continent of South America for instance; but he was afraid that those countries to which they might under those circumstances be sent, would not view without prejudice or disinclination an influx of what they might consider bad subjects into their community, and difficulties would unquestionably arise out of that consideration. No doubt there are objections to the course which we are prepared to recommend, and difficulties are easily started in our way; but he was afraid that we were so circumstanced as to have no choice, at present at least, but to make up our minds that that portion of our offenders who might be sentenced to transportation, and who, under a former system, might be sent out to the Colonies with tickets of leave and the hope of a conditional pardon, must be dealt with, partly at least, in some similar manner at home. He could assure the Committee that the great subject of reformation had not been lost sight of either by the present Government or those who had preceded them. He could not but think that, with regard to a great portion of the persons sentenced to transportation, reformation was by no means a hopeless object to be aimed at. There was nothing that had struck him more forcibly, in the short time during which he had had the honour to preside over the department of which he at present had charge, than the great diversity of punishment allotted by different authorities to offences, he might say, of the same kind,
1540
or rather the extreme variety of judgment exercised by different Courts in allotting for punishment for offences. What he meant was, that, on the one hand, he had frequently observed very severe punishments, lengthened periods of transportation, inflicted for what appeared to him trifling offences; while, on the other hand, to offences of a much graver character were awarded punishments of a much lighter description. This was an evil which must necessarily arise from the varied judgments of men; and when they considered the great number of Courts before which criminals were from day to day brought, it was impossible that they should not expect, either from diversity of judgment, or circumstances known to the Court at the time, which could not be recorded in their proceedings, but which nevertheless influenced their judgments, that there must be an apparent inequality in the, sentences pronounced. For that inequality the constitution fortunately provided a remedy by an appeal to the Secretary of State, whose duty it was to investigate all such appeals, and if necessary to advise the Crown in cases where he might think that the severity of the punishment was injurious to the public interest. The inference which he wished to draw from this was, that a great number of persons sentenced to transportation had not committed crimes of a magnitude which indicated such a degree of moral depravity as to prevent us from hoping that during the period of their confinement a great reformation might be effected in their minds and character. At all events, every effort would be made to accomplish that object. When those persons were to be released upon this conditional ticket of leave, the grave question immediately arose—what were they to do? Where were they to go, and how were they to be employed? Because there was, of course, in the minds of men a disinclination to employ, by preference at least, persons who had been sentenced by law for their offences. Men would prefer, if they could find such agents, those against whom no charge or delinquency had been established; and the apprehension was, that if persons of this description were so released, though they might carry with them some small accumulation of the wages which they had earned during their detention, that would soon be gone, and the difficulty they would find in supporting themselves by honest employment might perhaps drive them back to their old associates and to their old course

1541
of life, which had rendered them amenable to the law in the first instance. Upon consulting persons, however, who had charge of these departments, and whose experience and reflection on questions of this nature would enable them to judge, he had every reason to believe that there would be found means of giving all these persons employment upon the public works, separate from the convicts, at suitable wages, thus placing them in this country in a state of transition in some degree analogous to that in which they would have been had they been transported to the Colonies. Thus, these released convicts might, during the period of their ticket-of-leave service, find employment which would not attach any stigma their character, and from which they might easily slide into the ordinary avocations of the industry of the country. So far as that went, he should hope that means might be found for smoothing their passage from the condition of convicts to the condition of free and hottest labourers. Another objection had been urged, that the detention of so many more convicts in this country would entail additional expense upon the counties, by the necessity of providing places for their accommodation. Upon that point Her Majesty's Government felt it their duty to relieve the apprehension of the counties, because it would be the duty of the Government, and it would also be in their power, to provide, at the public expense, that additional accommodation which this altered system might require for the custody of the criminals during the period of their confinement. It would be perfectly unjust that a change which the counties had not originated, and in which they had no hand, should fix upon them an additional annual expense. There was no reason, therefore, for the counties to be under any apprehension that this additional expense would fall upon them. This, generally speaking, was the change which the Government proposed. It was a change, as he had before said, not resulting from choice or from the will of the Government. It was a change imposed upon the Government by the course of events, and one which appeared to him to be a mode of meeting that course of events the least, of any of which he was aware, liable to objection. There were a great number of public works connected with the harbours of refuge, and with the defensive works on the coast, in which employment might be found, for a great length of time, both for those convicts who were still work-
1542
ing out their sentences, for those who were sentenced to hard labour, and for those who might be in the condition of ticket-of-leave men. Those operations would be well performed by these men; and he thought that in that way habits of industry might be created in them which would tend eventually to their future reformation. With regard to the general expense of providing additional accommodation, the change, he thought, would be attended with a considerable saving of public money, because, if they set on the one side of the account the cost of erecting places for the accommodation of the increased number of convicts, and the cost of maintaining them, and on the other side the great cost of sending them abroad, and the cost of maintaining them there, it could be shown that a very considerable annual saving would in the end result to the public. That, of course, was not an ingredient in the decision to which Parliament might come, but, at all events, it was an incidental circumstance, which was so far satisfactory as showing that the charge which other necessities imposed would not be attended with additional expense to the country. In conclusion, he would invite the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the Bill, which had been drawn with great care. The whole system must be considered as an experimental one to a great degree, and if in the working of it fresh suggestions should occur, and other improvements appear likely to be easily accomplished, Her Majesty's Government would be most happy to receive any such suggestions from others, and profit by the lessons of experience. He believed, however, that, on the whole, this was the best mode that could be devised to meet that great change in circumstances which prevented us from pursuing that course which had hitherto been followed.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he entirely concurred in almost everything which the noble Lord had said; but there were one or two points to which he desired to allude before they considered the clauses seriatim. It was clear that the present system of transportation could not be continued on the same footing as heretofore—that some new arrangement must be adopted—and that the object should be to inspire convicts with that feeling of dread which the existing system of transportation no longer excited. Numerous cases could be mentioned in which crimes had been committed by persons who desired to be sent out to Australia, and those cases ought to be borne in mind when they considered how far and to what

1543
extent they could prudently do away with transportation to our colonial possessions. But then came the greater and more difficult question—how were they to deal with their convicts at home? He believed, with the noble Lord, that it would not be prudent, upon the whole, to establish any new penal settlement at a distance from this country, because, if they intended to aim at the reformation of offenders, they could only effect that object by putting them into a country where the usual character of the greater part of the inhabitants was superior to that of the convicts themselves. Another reason against the establishment of another penal settlement abroad, was the question of expense; and he was bound to say that the mode in which the noble Lord proposed to deal with the convicts at home was upon the whole an excellent arrangement. If they looked to the reports upon the subject of secondary punishment, they would find that the system of employing criminals upon public works had not only proved highly beneficial to the convicts themselves, but had also contributed to the lasting advantage of the country. The cost of transportation was little short of 200,000 l. a year, including the expenses incurred in the Colonies; the cost of the prisoners at home was also very great; but the works at Portland paid themselves at the present moment, besides producing a noble harbour, and he was satisfied that, if similar works were prosecuted in other parts of the kingdom, great public good would be done to the country, and great progress would be made in the improvement and reformation of criminals. In the year 1849, the profits arising from the labour of the convicts employed at Portland amounted to 7,214 l.; in 1850, it produced 14,067; and in 1851, 20,541. During the past year the earnings of the convicts had exceeded the cost of the establishment; and there was no reason to doubt that, wherever the same facilities existed for the employment of offenders, the same results would follow. He hoped, therefore, that the plan now before the House would be vigorously prosecuted by the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, as they would thereby attain a lasting benefit to the country, while they would do more to reform criminals than they could do by any other system whatever. It was for that reason that he cordially concurred in almost everything which the noble Lord had said; but perhaps he might be allowed to make one or two observations which had occurred
1544
to his mind in reading the Bill. By the first clause it was proposed to do away with transportation altogether where the sentence was for a shorter period than fourteen years. He bad great doubts whether they ought to have framed the clause in that manner. He thought it would have been better simply to have given to the Crown, acting under the advice of the Home Secretary, the power of commuting all sentences of transportation for a shorter period than fourteen years for a period of penal servitude at home. There were still cases in which a colony might desire to have convicts; but if this Bill was passed into law in its present form, it would be impossible to pass sentences of transportation for seven or ten years. What he would suggest, therefore, was, that the first and second clauses should be left out altogether, and that a necessary alteration should be made in the third clause, so that offenders might be sentenced either to transportation for a shorter period than fourteen years, or to a corresponding period of penal servitude at home. He doubted also whether in Western Australia, which contained only a small population, sufficient employment could be found for those convicts whom, according to the proposition of the Government, it was intended to send to that Colony; and with reference to that part of the measure, he thought some alteration might very properly be introduced. The second observation which he had to make referred to the mode in which they were to deal with the ticket-of-leave convicts, who were to enjoy, under licence, an opportunity of reforming themselves in this country. To work out that system they must have great control over criminals; and if a man had once, through the indulgence and mercy of the Crown, had a portion of his punishment remitted, and if he committed during the time when he was enjoying that conditional pardon a similar offence, then a higher grade of punishment ought to be awarded in such circumstances. What he ventured to suggest, therefore, was, that a proviso to the effect stated should be inserted in the Bill; and he had only to say, in conclusion, that he concurred with the noble Lord in the propriety and good policy of this measure, and that he hoped it would contribute not merely to the peace and contentment of our Colonies, but likewise to the reformation of the offenders themselves.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he would suggest that at the Isle of Man a

1545
large number of convicts might be advantageously employed. There was a great depth of water at Douglas, in the Isle of Man, where the Government had some idea of forming a harbour of refuge, which would be a great advantage to the Scotch coasts and to Liverpool. He recommended this work the more because the Isle of Man contributed a large sum to the revenue of this country, on condition that a harbour of refuge should be built. Besides which, by the recent Consolidation of Customs Act, a ninth part of the revenues of the Isle of Man was to be employed on her harbours. There would be great advantage in the Government carrying out such a work.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTwould be glad to know what were the intentions of the noble Viscount with regard to the adjustment of the employment of convicts. The noble Lord had mentioned public works, and as far as it went that plan was excellent. He wished, however, to call the attention of the noble Lord to the prison at Cork, where malefactors were so beneficially employed that they obtained funds for their own sustenance, and were enabled when set free to obtain an honest livelihood. The farm system, the separate system, the aggregate systems and the manufacturing system—were all combined in the system at Cork.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, this was a subject in which he had not only taken a great interest and assisted in discussions in it in that House, but which in discharge of the duties of his office last year, had met with his serious attention; he hoped, therefore, that he might be allowed shortly to address the Committee on the measure. He thought there was reason to complain of the Government in bringing forward a subject of such extreme importance, and which had caused a strong feeling in the country, at so late a period of the Session as to preclude the possibility of a satisfactory discussion either to themselves or to the country. The late Government had made up their minds for various reasons as to the impossibility of transportation to Van Diemen's Land, the only one of the Australian colonies to which practically criminals had been transported of late years. There had been remonstrances on the part of the Colonies, and it was not only a question whether the Colonies could receive convicts, but whether with prudence they could be sent there. In addition to other grounds upon which they had based their opinion upon that point, he might mention that one not the least important
1546
was the circumstance that transportation to Australia had begun to be regarded by the criminal rather in the light of a reward than a punishment; cases had occurred in the Ionian Islands, in which the officer commanding the troops was obliged to inflict the punishment of death because offences were committed by the men in order that they might get transported to the land of gold. In another place, however, those who were most competent to judge had intimated a strong opinion that transportation ought to be continued as a secondary punishment. He (Sir J. Pakington) had always advocated the value of transportation as a secondary punishment; he had seen its effects, and under different circumstances he thought it admirably answered the purpose of the first secondary punishment after that of death. But, as things were, he thought the Government, he was going to say, lead acted wisely; but, as had been said by the noble Lord, the Government had no option than the course they had taken. Notwithstanding the necessity which he believed existed for such a measure, he thought the Government ought to have come forward with it earlier. He had often in the course of the Session put questions to the noble Lord as to when such a measure would be brought on. The late Government, in the Queen's Speech, virtually put an end to transportation; and the Judges were embarrassed with regard to the sentences which they were to pass; and when this Bill came down to this House and stood for a second reading, at two o'clock in the morning, when he (Sir J. Pakington) was fortunately in bed, but when the noble Viscount was still watching over the affairs of the country, it was read a second time sub silentio. It might be said that anything was justifiable by the Government in the month of August; but still he thought that even exceeded the licence of that period of the Session. The noble Viscount had now made a statement which though satisfactory, was not so full as it ought to have been; for which, perhaps, he would have the excuse of a morning siting in the month of August, and therefore under circumstances which rendered it impossible that the Bill should be discussed as it ought to be, so as to inform the country by means of their deliberations how this great question of secondary punishments was to be settled. One thing was quite certain, and that was, that the plan did not originate either with the late or the present Government, but was caused by the course of events comprised in the

1547
objections of the Colonies to receive convicts, and the discoveries of gold, which rendered this course imperative. Under the separate system of imprisonment the term was practically only a year and a half, although the law recognised three years as the term. The next step in secondary punishments was transportation for seven years, which was, in his opinion, too great a jump from one sort of punishment to another. He had placed this point before the Committee on Prison Discipline which sat in 1850, and they adopted the outline of a plan by which district prisons were to be erected at the cost of the Government, and an alteration made so as to substitute large periods of imprisonment for transportation. He had prepared a memorandum for the late Government, which he left in the Colonial Office, in which he recommended a gradation of secondary punishments, and the employment of prisoners in great public works, so as to make them self-supporting. That was the outline of the plan which the noble Viscount had adopted. He need not say, therefore, that he was in favour of the plan of the Government. Experience showed that there was no reason to despair of the reformation of offenders who had been guilty of the milder offences; and by means of an amended prison discipline they might look to the reformation of the larger proportion of criminal offenders, and also remedy the evil, which was so much dreaded, of turning loose on society persons who had been criminal offenders. Great alarm was felt on that point, but he thought it an unnecessary alarm; for the public was not aware that when at one period transportation was suspended, a great many persons who had been sent to the hulks were let loose at the expiration of their terms of imprisonment; and that after a by no means reformatory training. By the adoption of such means as were now proposed, transportation might be got rid of. There had been a great increase in the number of criminals who were sentenced to less than ten years' transportation, and who consequently did not go abroad. It appeared by the returns for the years 1848, 1849, 1850, and 1851, that the average in each year was 573 persons who were transported for more than ten years, and 5,249 who were transported for less than ten years. For this latter great majority of cases the plan of the Government fully provided; and he believed that such reformation would be effected that society would have no cause to
1548
regret the change; for the law would be as well administered and crime punished as heretofore, while looking to the minor element of expense, he believed the noble Lord was right in saying that punishment would be carried out at a far less cost to the country. He here came to a part of the statement of the noble Viscount, in which he failed in explaining the system of imprisonment intended. The noble Lord had told them that there were means of accommodating prisoners; but he had not stated so fully as it ought to have been stated what that system was to be. Now, when a prisoner was transported, the first period of punishment was passed in separate confinement in gaol. In the case of a prisoner in future to be sentenced to transportation for seven years, how was the first period of punishment to be passed?—was it to be passed in separate imprisonment? [Viscount PALMERSTON: Yes.] But when that period was passed, where was the man to go? [Viscount PALMERSTON: To the public works.] That might be; but the noble Viscount had presented no calculation on the point, and it was doubtful whether there would be public works sufficient to absorb the great amount of labour which would be at the disposal of the Government; and the noble Lord should afford the House some more accurate information on that point. The Committee on Prison Discipline which sat in 1850 had recommended that district prisons should be erected, winch should be self-supporting. He was of opinion that such prisons could be made self-supporting, and he hoped that they might understand that the Government would be cautious in seeing that there would be no want of accommodation, and that sentences were not abridged merely to get rid of prisoners, for by that means the ends of justice would in a great measure be defeated. The late Government intended to do away with transportation, but not until proper prison accommodation was provided; and his (Sir J. Pakington's) own idea was, that it should cease on the 1st of January, 1854. The public had a right to expect from the Government that in putting an end to transportation so suddenly, they at the same time had the means of accommodating prisoners at their command. There was another important part of the subject that was most worthy of their consideration, and that was how they were hereafter to deal with a class of persons convicted of grave crimes, the punishment of which was only short of death, and who had hitherto

1549
been punished by fifteen or twenty years' transportation. The number was comparatively small, he had already shown; but what was to be done with them? At present they might go to Western Australia, He should suggest that if they were sent there, the system adopted in that settlement should be altered. Hitherto it had been a settlement for convicts generally, but now it would be reserved only for the worst criminals, and care should be taken to make the state of such men penal in exact proportion to their guilt. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had mentioned that the population of the Colony was small; and he (Sir J. Pakington) thought you could not long make Western Australia an extreme penal Colony, and the time must be contemplated when you could no longer even send this class of criminals there. Would the Government found any other penal Colony? He did not think it so impossible as the noble Lord appeared to anticipate, and therefore, there ought to be fuller information afforded on this point. The Falkland Islands might be open to the objections stated by the noble Lord; but that was not the only place which might be taken for the purpose, and when he was Colonial Secretary he had received overtures on the subject from other places. Mention had also been made of Moreton Bay; but that could not be made a penal settlement without a breach of faith towards New South Wales, that district being now included in the Government of that Colony. When the impossibility of founding a new penal Colony was talked of, it should be remembered that the magnificent Colony of New South Wales had its origin in a penal Colony. The noble Lord had also spoken as to the variety of sentences which were awarded to nominally the same crime, and he referred it to the variety of characters existing among those who administered justice in our Courts of Law; but the real state of the case was, that in all the Courts, whether of assize or quarter-sessions, the variety of sentences was the result of the endless variety of guilt, although the crimes were nominally the same. He should conclude by stating that it was his intention to support the measure.
MACARTNEYsaid, that if this Bill was passed immediately, it would produce the greatest inconvenience in Ireland, where there was not sufficient accommodation for the present number of convicts, to say nothing of the increased number who would have to be provided for under the
1550
new system. What Ireland wanted was, an improved system of prison discipline, and the Government ought, at all events, to have given them eighteen months or two years to prepare for the change. At the present time there was suitable gaol accommodation in Ireland for no more than 3,434 persons, but the number of prisoners was actually 5,246. Moreover, the ticket-of-leave system would have a worse effect in Ireland than anywhere else, for in that country the state of morals among the labouring classes was very low indeed, and the people were easily corrupted. The turning loose 200 or 300 of these convicts among the lower orders was a very serious consideration. He had always heard that the Government could send as many convicts as they pleased to the northern part of New Holland.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he fully approved the proposition of the Government. The right hon. Baronet the late Colonial Secretary (Sir J. Pakington) had told the Committee that it was the intention of the late Government to put a stop to transportation at the beginning of next year. There was, therefore, only six months' difference between the propositions of the two Governments in point of time, but in every other respect the difference was very much greater in favour of the present proposition. Did the right hon. Baronet mean to say that, knowing the feelings of the colonists on the subject, he would have landed convicts in Van Diemen's Land during the remainder of the period which he had fixed, because, if such were the intention of the right hon. Baronet, he would take leave to tell him that he would have run the risk of signalising his reign at the Colonial Office with as mischievous an éclat as had marked his predecessors. If there was any peculiar merit in the proposition of the Government, it was the promptness, readiness, and decision, with which they had recognised an urgent and palpable necessity. The reason for the introduction of the Bill was perfectly clear—that whereas the system of secondary punishment had consisted of three different stages—separate imprisonment, employment on public works, and transportation—the third of these stages had been rendered impracticable by recent circumstances. The only argument against the Bill was, that transportation was a desirable punishment; but it was useless to consider what was desirable when it could not be obtained. But even supposing it were still matter for argument, he considered transportation the least desirable punish-

1551
meat that could be inflicted. There were three grand objections to transportation as a punishment: that it was impossible to be carried out; that it was utterly detestable in itself; and that it was perfectly inefficient for the purpose in view. That it was impossible as a permanent system was manifest from the fact, that no settlement could be fixed as a permanent penal settlement; and the run after new settlements for the purpose, if not exhaustion, was extravagantly expensive. It was detestable as a punishment, by which Governments sought to get rid of the responsibility of their criminals by removing them out of sight, and by placing on their Colonies the burden for which they themselves ought to provide; and it was, moreover, a cowardly punishment, because no one ever thought of throwing this burden upon any but the weaker Colonies, who could not help themselves. No one ever suggested, for example, that Canada should be made a penal settlement; yet Canada, according to the noble Lord's theory, was peculiarly adapted for a penal settlement, by reason of the superior class and number of the population. It was inefficient as a punishment, because it was simply regarded as a means of enabling a man to remove to a place where his position would be infinitely ameliorated, as a transference, at the public expense, from poverty here to wealth in the gold regions of Australia. It must be borne in mind that the effect upon the lower classes of quitting the shores of England for a distant land was no longer what it used to be ten or twelve years ago, when all beyond this island was a terra incognita, regarded with doubts and fears; whereas now-a-days these classes knew as much or more about the Antipodes than they knew about their own country, and the effecting, somehow or other, of a removal thither was matter of general desire. Earl Grey himself, the most energetic champion of transportation remaining, had, out of his own mouth, condemned the system as an efficient punishment, when the other night he described transportation as absolutely a boon, which criminals had been taught to look forward to, and of which it was not fair to deprive them. A fine secondary punishment, truly!—a substitute for death itself! Most truly rejoiced was he to see in the measure now under consideration the termination of this system of punishing criminals with boons. He was satisfied that, by the effective operation of this measure, and by the application of reformatory processes, the sources of crime might be so narrowed
1552
that, before long, our ordinary prisons would amply suffice for all the convict criminality of the country. Much had been said of the opinions of the Judges. Now, he did not think Judges the persons best qualified to form an opinion as to the terrors of a sentence. It was a matter of absolute necessity that transportation should cease. And what was to be done in lieu of it? The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had darkly hinted at some other penal settlement. He seemed to linger about the precincts of Botany Bay, as if that Colony having been adopted first for penal purposes, had no right to disclaim being used for these purposes still. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: No, no!] He certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to intimate that the region of Botany Bay, having been a penal settlement, we had a sort of lien upon it for its original uses.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had been quite misunderstood.
ADDERLEYsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman repudiated that argument; and was glad to find, also, that both sides of the House acknowledged the propriety of endeavouring to cut off the spring of crime in this country, rather than of providing a depository for it in other countries. There was now a prospect of being so able to deal with criminals in this country, and especially the young, by a reformatory process, as to lead to a hope that it might be practically dealt with by the extended use and application of various kinds of prisons in this country. The system of detention was more in the nature of real punishment than transportation, and yet we had never dealt with the question of perpetual imprisonment as the nearest substitute, in the worst cases, for the penalty of death. The Duke of Newcastle had been taken up rather warmly for saying that they were singing the requiem of transportation; but he (Mr. Adderley) believed that system had come to an end of itself, and all that it was necessary for them to do was to prepare for the inevitable result. He rejoiced to think that this measure carried in it the seeds of the entire cessation of transportation, and that it was the germ of the transfer to this country very speedily of the whole system of secondary punishment. If, however, any transportation remained in operation, it ought to be conducted on principles diametrically opposed to those of the Bill, by which the most atrocious criminals were to be sent out to enjoy all the ad-

1553
vantages of the gold regions of Australia, and to demoralise the population; while minor criminals, who might be sent out with enormous benefit to themselves, and with, perhaps, slight, if any, injury to the colony, were to be kept at home, to be thrown hereafter into the misery and the vice which had involved them in punishment. The proposed gradation of punishment leaving the narrowed means of transportation to supply the highest instead of the lowest stage of sesondary penalty, evinced the lingering ignorance of statesmen that transportation has ceased to have terror in it, as a sentence, in this country, while the new sentence of penal servitude to be used for the lighter offences will carry much greater terror with it, and the order of punishment will become inverted.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he entirely concurred in the proposition which had been made by the noble Viscount the Home Secretary, whom he heartily thanked for a measure which he had been long desiring to see. He did not himself admit the expediency of the entire cessation of transportation which hon. Members opposite advocated. Western Australia, for example, so far from rejecting convict labour, required it as a means of developing her resources; but, undoubtedly, the convict labour to be supplied to Western Australia should be of the best and not of the worst description, as had been suggested by hon. Gentlemen. The worst classes of convicts, he felt, should be dealt with elsewhere. Colonel Jebb, to whose unwearied and most able efforts the country was so much indebted on this matter, in his Report on the Discipline and Management of Convict Prisons and Disposal of Convicts, (1852), observed—
"In considering the means necessary for giving effect to any change of system affecting the continuance of transportation, it is deserving of consideration whether it would not, in many respects, be desirable to form a penal establishment in this country for convicts convicted of the worst classes of crime, and for incorrigible convicts; and, if any are sent abroad, to make a selection of the best and most deserving of the convicts, instead of the very worst."
It was highly desirable that this suggestion should be carried out. There were many modes in which the labour of convicts could be made use of in this country with much public advantage. The entire system of our convict labour required amendment. Mr. Inspector Hitchins, in his Report on the State of Government Prisons in Ireland (1852), said, with re-
1554
gard to the public works in Spike Island—
"Serious complaints are made, however, of the limited number of prisoners appropriated to these public works, and the ineffectiveness of their labour. Fort Camden contains five small rooms leading out of each other. 132 prisoners are detained there. Fort Carlisle consists of two rooms fitted up to receive 84 convicts. The entire number of convicts contained in Spike Island and forts is 2,380."
With respect to the manufactures and employments carried on there, Mr. Hitchins said—
"While no difficulty will be found in providing employment for a portion of the prisoners confined in Mountjoy and other prisons, there is a large section of the convicts of Ireland quite unsuited for any trade or handicraft. The disposal of this class is a matter of serious moment; and I would again beg to bring before your Excellency the necessity of establishing an agricultural depôt either on the mainland or on some island. This is a measure which cannot be too speedily taken into consideration."
He trusted that the noble Lord would take these recommendations into his earnest consideration. The establishment of an agricultural depôt would be, in many ways, most beneficial, giving the convicts knowledge of an occupation and habits of industry, and, at the same time enabling them to save the State the cost of their maintenance. Another most beneficial employment of convicts might be in the construction of such public works as harbours of refuge. With comparatively small outlay, convict labour might be made to create, for example, a packet station and a harbour of refuge in Galway—an object, confessedly, of great public importance, and productive of largely valuable results. One great feature in the measure was the fixing the absolute period of punishment, instead of having, as now, one period named in the sentence, and another practically inflicted on the criminal. At present, an offender might be sentenced to seven, ten, or fourteen years' transportation, and yet, after all, not be transported at all—an uncertainty, notoriously productive of the worst effects upon the criminal classes, too well disposed to regard a sentence so passed as a form, if not, indeed, a farce. He trusted that the attention of the noble Lord would be applied to the best mode of dealing with convicts after the period at which they should be released, in this country, with conditional pardons or tickets of leave. It was a subject, no doubt, of great difficulty, and one upon which he had very serious doubts as to the propriety of carrying out as proposed at pre-

1555
sent. Upon this point Colonel Jebb observed—
"The class of convicts requiring assistance in this country would, probably, be most difficult to deal with; but if they were released with conditional and not free pardons, and some systematic efforts were made to enable them to meet the difficulties of their position, I should confidently expect a much more favourable result than might be generally anticipated. Rather than leave them to their fate and to the chance of Government being again burdened with the cost of a trial, and other attendant evils, I believe it would be desirable to retain the services, on public works, of such well-conducted convicts as could not readily find employment."
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he hailed this measure as a great improvement in our penal legislation, so far as regarded the system of secondary punishment. Transportation, as a punishment, was notoriously inefficacious, operating neither as an example to others—the main object of punishment—nor for the reformation of the offender, nor for his punishment at the most economical rate to the State. He fully concurred in the propriety of the objection that had been urged against sending out to the Colonies—if convicts were sent out at all—convicts of the worst, instead of those of the best description. There was, however, one great defect in the Bill, that it did not provide any means by which the convict, discharged from his imprisonment, should be placed in a position for putting to account the industrious habits and the reformed principles he might have acquired during his punishment. It was highly expedient that these unhappy persons, that they might not, of necessity, fall again into their evil associations and their evil courses, should be enabled, in some way, to proceed to a distant Colony, or to apply their reformed sentiments and their improved habits to the purpose of an honest livelihood. Another great object to be attained was the effective superintendence of the convicts who were to be retained at home with tickets of leave, instead of being transmitted to the Colonies.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, the question had hitherto been argued as a convict question and a colonial question, and the effect of the measure upon our social system had almost been lost sight of. The 9th clause was of immense importance to this country, and must materially affect our various institutions. Looking at the accommodation to be provided for convicts in this country, it appeared to him that, in the course of a short period, a large number of men with tickets of leave would be thrown upon the industry
1556
of the country, together with those who had fulfilled the term of their imprisonment. These people would be brought into direct competition with well-conducted industry, and there was no saying how much injury might not be occasioned to the latter by this circumstance. He believed that such a plan would force upon the country a general system of police. The noble Lord had not explained the mode in which the ticket-of-leave system was to be carried out. On that point a considerable amount of discretion must be given to the Government, and he did not see how they could carry out the scheme, except by some general system of police. He thought the carrying out of the system would also involve the necessity of a full consideration of the law of settlement, and he was not at all satisfied that it would not cause a considerable additional expense to counties.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, that whatever doubt might be entertained as to the effect produced by sentences of transportation now, there could be no doubt they were formerly considered a very serious matter. As to the inequalities of sentences, they were occasioned by various matters brought to the knowledge of the Courts relative to the former conduct of the prisoners. He hoped to see the measure carried into a law, and trusted that both this country and the Colonies would greatly benefit by the change.
MR. MICHELLwished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to allow persons under sentence of transportation to be employed at harbours of refuge—works greatly required on many parts of our coast—provided no additional expense was incurred beyond the usual maintenance of the convicts.
MR. FLOYERsaid, it appeared to him that the classes exempted in the 11th clause were the very classes who, of all others, should be sentenced to transportation. He was not one of those who would do away altogether with the punishment of transportation. It placed the convict in a new country, removed him from the scene of his dissipation and guilt, brought him into communication with a new class of people, and opened up to him a new and more honest course of life. He wished to ask the noble Lord a question. One of the present depôts of convict labour—that at Portland—was situated in the county which he had the honour to represent. An apprehension prevailed in that neighbourhood that if, under the system, the ticket-of-leave men were to be dis-

1557
charged at the prison gates, a large addition would thereby be made to the surplus labour in the district, and, without doubt, the morals of the community around would suffer. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would adopt precautionary measures, in order to prevent such results?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in the first place, I have to express, on the part of the Government, the great gratification which they have felt at the general acquiescence in the leading principles of this measure; and, in the second place, I have to express our gratitude for the many valuable suggestions which hon. Members have thrown out in the course of this discussion; and which, bearing upon the execution of the measure, will receive our full and attentive consideration. I think that almost everybody seems to have come to the conclusion that this is a measure of necessity, that transportation to our Colonies could no longer be carried on. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) suggested that we should look back to the origin of New South Wales as a Colony founded by convicts; but I think his object has been somewhat misunderstood. I imagine that what he meant was this—not that the example of New South Wales gave us any claim upon other Colonies, but rather that we should found a new Colony in the same manner in which that Colony was founded. Now, I do not quite concur with the right hon. Baronet in the inference to be drawn from that example. I am disposed to think—what was stated by another hon. Gentleman—that if you look back to the infancy and childhood of New South Wales, however much it may have improved in its manhood and maturity, you will not see anything to induce you to follow the steps of those who founded that Colony as a penal settlement. I think there is one consideration which must have occurred to the mind of every person who has reflected upon the subject—that in founding a penal Colony in which you look to the enlargement of the convicts after a certain period of detention, you ought to provide that there shall be a due proportion of the sexes; and that is hardly possible if you begin a new penal Colony in the same manner in which New South Wales was founded. The right hon. Baronet said, that the statement I made was not perhaps as ample as might have been wished, in regard to the detailed means of execut-
1558
ing the different arrangements consequent upon the adoption of this principle. The fact is simply this—in explaining to the Committee a measure perfectly new, I thought it better to confine myself to those general principles upon which the Government had come to a final determination; but in regard to the detailed arrangements, which might be modified by experience as we go on, and by valuable suggestions, which may be and have been made to us from all sides, I thought it was not desirable for us to pledge ourselves as to what course we should finally pursue. But several points have been mentioned, to which I think it necessary to allude. First of all, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Floyer), I may repeat what I have already stated, that we hope to be able to give employment on public works, not with convicts, but separately and for wages to those convicts to whom tickets of leave may be granted. I think that the greater number of those to whom tickets of leave are given, will gratefully accept such employment as a transition, by which to get back to the ordinary employment of the country; and those who are so employed will invariably be taken away from the immediate neighbourhood of the depôt from which they received their discharge. With regard to the question how far we can expect that public works will be found to give employment to the convicts, I have only to say that, as far as we can look forward, I think no apprehension need be felt upon this subject. There are numerous applications for harbours of refuge and for works of great utility on the coast, which could be performed cheaply and advantageously by the employment of convict labour. Then it was said it would not be right to send our worst criminals to Western Australia. I admit that; and the Committee ought to remember that there are means of employing such persons upon public works within the United Kingdom, as well as at Bermuda, Gibraltar, and other places, where offenders undergoing a long servitude might be sent, instead of to Western Australia. All those who have spoken, have expressed but one opinion as to the desirability of so improving our system of treatment for prisoners, that we should endeavour not only to reform them morally, but to instil into them a consciousness and perception of the value of industry, and of the fruits which it in-

1559
variably produces. I am not the least afraid that the industrial employment of the convicts, whether it be in agricultural occupations, or in the construction of public works, or in other descriptions of labour, could have any prejudicial effect upon the general industry of the country. That alarm I believe to be perfectly groundless; and, on the contrary, I think the public benefit which will accrue from the employment of convicts upon works of utility, and from impressing them with the conviction that it is better to live by industry than by the fraudulent and dishonest exercise of their intellect, will infinitely counterbalance any little jealousy which any trade might feel at the competition of persons so situated and so employed. I think these are the principal points which have been touched upon. I shall feel it my duty to carefully consider the different suggestions which hon. Members have made in the course of this debate. The detailed arrangements for the execution of this measure are matters which require attentive consideration; and I am happy to say that in the consideration of these details, as well as in carrying them out, I have every reason to rely on the most able officers, such as Colonel Jebb and others who have been referred to. I therefore feel that it will be my own fault if I am not able to make such arrangements as will at once satisfy the public, and accomplish the purpose which Parliament has in view, in giving its sanction to the present measure.
Clause 1.
Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he hoped the two first clauses would be omitted, in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole).
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas not prepared to accede to that proposition.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwould suggest the substitution of the words "period of imprisonment" for "penal servitude," because if, by the latter words, the Government meant to distinguish that punishment which was to be a substitute for transportation, then larceny, which could not be punished with transportation, would not be brought within the scope of this Bill.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the object of the Government was this. They did not intend to touch the law by which confinement within the walls of a prison was
1560
awarded for a certain limited period, not exceeding three years, but to deal simply with sentences of transportation, which constituted a different punishment altogether. If Parliament should think it right to deal with sentences of imprisonment, it might do so, but that would require a separate measure.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know if the noble Lord would have any objection to alter the clause so as to do away with transportation for less than ten years, instead of for less than fourteen years?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was not prepared to consent to any alteration in the Bill.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
MR. BOUVERIEbrought up the Report of the Committee of Supply.
Resolutions 1 to 4 agreed to.
(5.) Naval Coast Volunteers.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could assign any reason why rum should be the only spirit selected for consumption in the Navy? During the last thirteen years, various tenders had been made to supply the Navy with spirits, the produce of British corn and British labour. In 1841, this question was submitted to the consideration of Parliament, and the Board of Admiralty at that time gave the House to understand that, acting in accordance with the advice of medical authorities, the heads of the victualling department were about to introduce some other spirit beside rum for the use of British sailors. Since that period, the question had not been much mooted; no steps had been taken to carry out the promise of 1841; and he understood that at this very time a contract was being executed for supplying Her Majesty's Navy with 30,000 gallons of rum. Now, it certainly was a very surprising fact, that free-trade Ministries, which had carried the principle of unrestricted competition so far as to accept tenders for supplying the British Navy with foreign beef, pork, and bread, had endeavoured to prop up the colonial monopoly in supplying the same Navy with rum. The parties whose interests he was then advocating did not ask the Board of Admiralty to take British

1561
spirits at a higher rate or of a worse quality than the colonial spirit. On the contrary, they contended that they would supply a better article at a lower price. An application had lately been made to the Board to the effect that sailors in the Royal Navy should have the same privilege extended to them in that matter which was enjoyed by sailors in the mercantile navy, and that they should be allowed to use rum, or other spirits, just as they themselves might prefer. But that application was met by a decided refusal. He had been informed that the spirit which was supplied to the Royal Navy was what was called "the sweepings" of the rum in the market, and that it had been sold at the rate of 2s. 1d., while the price of good rum varied from 2s. 8d. to 3s. But even at the price of 2s. 1d., he believed that a better article could be obtained from the manufacturer of British spirits. It was evident that the public in general preferred British spirits to rum; for while the annual consumption of the former in the United Kingdom amounted to 24,000,000 of gallons, the annual consumption of the latter amounted to only 4,000,000 of gallons. He wished, therefore, to know whether the right hon. Baronet could offer any explanation of the course taken by the Admiralty upon that subject; and, also, whether he would have any objection to lay before the House the correspondence which had taken place with respect to it between the Board of Admiralty and the representatives of the distillers of the United Kingdom?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he must confess that he must plead ignorance of the precise expressions with reference to the rum market to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. He did not know what the "sweepings of the rum market" were, and he could not, therefore, offer any explanation upon that part of the subject. He really must beg leave, however, somewhat to doubt whether this question had originated from any desire to promote the comfort of the sailor, or whether it had not rather some more immediate connexion with the distilling interest of the United Kingdom. But, whatever the reason, he could only answer the hon. Gentleman in one way—namely, that it was the opinion of the Board of Admiralty that it would not be conducive to the good of the service or to the discipline of the troops if there were an issue of more than one kind of spirit on board Her Majesty's ships. From almost time immemorial rum had been the spirit
1562
in use in Her Majesty's Navy. Every effort had been made to induce the sailor to prefer the use of other stimulants to spirits. Coffee and other liquids had been introduced in the hope of leading to a diminished use of ardent spirits. There was now, therefore, only one issue of spirits daily, and it would occasion the greatest possible inconvenience if there was to be an issue of more than one description of spirit. Then came the question, what the spirit should be; and considerations both of habit and taste, and, as he believed, also the health of the sailor, had induced the Board of Admiralty to give the preference to rum. The subject had been brought before various Boards of Admiralty, and all had concurred in the opinion that it was the preferable spirit. If the hon. Gentleman wished to see the correspondence between the Board of Admiralty and the distillers, he had no objection to produce it.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he would be prepared to lay before the House a copy of the medical report which had been made upon that subject? He understood that the question had been referred by the Board of Admiralty to the medical officers of the Navy, with a view to ascertain whether in a medical point of view rum possessed any advantage over home-made spirits. He was given to understand that the Report of those officers was in favour of native spirits, and that, in their opinion, rum contained deleterious qualities which those spirits did not possess, while it did not contain their good qualities. He believed that if a choice was given in this matter to the sailor, he would invariably prefer British to Colonial spirits. There was no doubt that the movement against the existing practice in the Royal Navy had originated with the distillers of the United Kingdom; but those gentlemen were perfectly justified in seeking to obtain the abolition of a monopoly which was a direct infraction of that principle of unrestricted competition which had of late years been adopted in the commercial policy of this country.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that that was not a question of free trade or of monopoly; it was merely a question of what was most conducive to the discipline and the comfort of the men in Her Majesty's Navy. He was not aware whether the question of health, as regarded the use of any particular kind of spirits in the Royal Navy, had been under the consideration of

1563
any medical officers. But he should say that if the Board of Admiralty were not competent to decide a case of that kind, or if their decision were to be set aside by the House of Commons, the sooner the Board abandoned its functions and was abolished, the better.
Resolutions agreed to; as were also Resolutions 6 and 7.

SUPPLY—ROMAN CATHOLIC PRISONERS.
(8.) 407,667 l., Government Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home.
MR. LUCASsaid, he had been in communcation with the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) on a subject connected with this Vote, and he had to thank the noble Lord for his great attention, courtesy, and frankness. Referring to the form of the Vote, hon. Members would find that there were sixteen Government prisons, of which eight in Great Britain were entered on one page, and eight in Ireland on the other. It was an extraordinary fact that two systems of prison discipline, as respected one very material point, were enforced in those prisons—that the system in the prisons which were included in one-half of the Vote, was different from the system in the prisons which were included in the other half of the Vote. He referred to the provision made for the religious instruction and moral reformation of prisoners, and particularly of Catholic prisoners. In Ireland there was one practice and arrangement, and in England another which was totally different. The House would see that this was a question which was of the greatest importance, in consequence of the change about to be made in the manner of treating criminals. The system of transportation had been abolished, or nearly so. The treatment of prisoners was to be almost entirely at home, and therefore their discipline and management had relation to the system of transportation, as that system was carried out in the Colonies. What had been the system pursued in the Colonies with respect to religious instruction? It had been that of perfect religious equality. No difference whatever had been made in the religious treatment of convicts in consequence of differences of religion. That system originated with the Earl of Derby when Secretary for the Colonies; and, with the permission of the House, he would refer to what that noble Lord said in 1847. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract in which Lord Derby expressed the opinion that it
1564
was a scandal and a shame that we had not appointed ministers of religion to attend to the spiritual wants of criminals, and that it was a matter of satisfaction to him that he had sent out Protestant ministers and Roman Catholic clergy, whose efforts had been attended with beneficial results.] It was while Lord Derby was Colonial Secretary that a commencement was made of sending out both Protestant and Catholic chaplains to Sydney, and Van Diemen's Land. The same arrangement bad continued up to the present time, and been attended with the best possible results. Seeing that the system of transportation was to be stopped, and that the prisoners were going to spend their time at home instead of in a penal settlement abroad, the question he (Mr. Lucas) had to put was, whether a system which had worked so well at the antipodes was to be introduced into the prisons of Great Britain? He said Great Britain, because the system pursued in the Colonies had long been in operation in Ireland. In the Irish Government prisons the arrangement was simply this—that the prisoners were all, on being admitted into the gaols, entered according to the religion they professed, whether Protestant, Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Catholic, as professing that religion whatever it might be. There was a chaplain for each religious denomination who received a salary. In die county gaols, as well as the Government prisons, the same system prevailed. In the Irish prisons the prisoners had all the religious services they required, the weekly services on Sundays and holidays, and every comfort and accommodation which persons in their situation needed. In Ireland so completely was the system of religious equality carried out, that the Catholic chaplain gave his services to the Catholic prisoners, and the Protestant chaplain his to the Protestant prisoners. There was no temptation put in the way to induce Catholic prisoners to practise hypocrisy from the moment of entering the prison. In the English prisons, however, nothing was known in law but a Protestant chaplain. If a prisoner chose to ask for the services of a Catholic chaplain, he could do so, and might receive those services; but the person whom he must try to please, if he wished a character for good conduct, was the Protestant chaplain; and the system worked so that it was, in point of fact an inducement to the Roman Catholic prisoners to act hypocritically in order to obtain the favour of the Protestant chaplain, though at the same time he

1565
did not mean to say the system was intentionally worked so. He had that fact from the very best authority, namely, the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Kingsmill, who for many years had been chaplain of Pentonville prison, and who was examined before a Parliamentary Committee on the 22d of March, 1847. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract from the evidence, stating that there was no difficulty in a Catholic prisoner seeing his friends; that there were seldom in Pentonville prison more than 200 out of 500 who professed, at entrance, to be Catholics; but that many Catholics entered their names as Protestants, lost some feeling should militate against them if it were known that they were Catholics.] It must be obvious that those numbers could not be true as respected the Catholics who entered Pentonville. The Right Rev. Dr. Wilson, Bishop of Hobart Town, whose name was well known as connected with the Colony of Van Diemen's Land, and for the great services he had performed with reference to convicts in that settlement, stated the result of his experience to be, that he had always found, with respect to the numbers who attended Catholic services, that every ship from England carried from 15 to 20 per cent of Catholics, and every ship from Ireland not more than 10 per cent of Protestants. Dr. Wilson had been visiting several prisons in this country, and he found that at Portland only-forty were visited by a Catholic clergyman, who was permitted to visit once a fortnight, receiving 10 s. for doing so, and was required to give his receipt. At Parkhurst the visit must be paid from one to three o'clock, so that Catholic prisoners had not the usual service on Sunday. The number attended was stated as being only twenty, and as sometimes having been only one or two; and the gentleman who attended never received one farthing for his attendance. The House would see that there was an immense difference between the apparent percentage of Roman Catholics in the gaols here, and the real percentage in Van Diemen's Land, where equality prevailed, and where there were no motives for hypocrisy. Great sums were devoted to the reformation of criminals; but the worst basis for their reformation was hypocrisy practised even from the moment of entering the prison. There could be no desire in any part of that House—there could be motive—for continuing a system which was at variance with their practice in Ireland and the Colonies, and which was
1566
maintained here only because attention had not been sufficiently directed to the subject. There was, he believed, no difficulty in preventing the correction of the abuse complained of. Though the vote referred only to Government prisons, yet he might be permitted to remark that the same abuse and grievance extended to all county gaols, the difference between the Government prisons and the county gaols being, that the former were under the direction and control of the Home Office, while the latter, although he believed under its supervision, were more difficult to be dealt with. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department would perhaps inform him whether there was a statutory obstacle to the control of county gaols by the Home Office. Of course, there were some prisons where the number of Catholic prisoners was small; but the same case occurred in Ireland, where it was met without the smallest difficulty. From returns of the Protestant and Catholic prisoners in the Government prisons of Ireland, it appeared that in Mountjoy prison the average number of Catholics was 480; of Protestants, twenty; and of Presbyterians, seven or eight; yet there were three chaplains. In Smithfield prison the average number of Catholics was 280; of Protestants forty-five; and of Presbyterians, eight or nine; and so with respect to the others, such were the proportions that notoriously prevailed. The difference between England and Ireland was, that whereas the larger proportion of prisoners in Ireland was Catholic, the larger proportion in England was Protestant. The difficulty differed not in kind, but only in respect that it was a Catholic difficulty in the one country, and a Protestant difficulty in the other. As the practical difficulty had been overcome in Ireland, in Van Diemen's Land, and in New South Wales, so ought it to be in England. He had received particulars from various prisons, showing the great neglect and difficulties which the Catholic priests had to undergo who were obliged to attend to the spiritual and moral instruction of Catholic prisoners. They were required by their position to act really as Government officers. They were doing a service which the Government paid a Protestant chaplain largely for performing when it was rendered to Protestant prisoners. But in almost every prison the Catholic chaplain was not thought worthy of any remuneration; in others they received remuneration almost involving de-

1567
gradation. That state of things was very objectionable. He had read an extract from evidence given in 1847 by the Rev. Mr. Kingsmill, of whom he did not wish to speak except in terms of respect. But it was obvious that Mr. Kingsmill had got a very wrong notion of the duties which attached to his functions. He had published a book, in which he took notice of having made that invaluable discovery that the Catholic Church was Antichrist, and the Pope the Man of Sin. He had published that book in the character of chaplain (there was not the least objection to his publishing it in his personal character), and he expressed his rejoicing on account of persons being brought over to the service of the English Church who had lived so long in Ireland that they knew better than others how to deal with the Man of Sin and Antichrist. It was not meant to say that he put it in an offensive way; but he certainly had a wrong notion of his functions, and he acted on that wrong view as a man who was anxious to fulfil his duty. He evidently believed that his duty in the prison was to make proselytes, to convert the benighted Papists into the profession of the Protestant faith, and that nothing could be done for the moral improvement of Catholic prisoners till he had done the work of a controversialist. It was only recently that this fact happened at Pentonville prison. Last Easter twelvemonth the Catholic priest who was accustomed to attend that prison, made inquiry as to the number of Catholic prisoners, with the view of attending them for their Easter duties. He got a list of eighty. Some weeks before last Easter he was informed that such a list would not be furnished to him in future. He was to have a list only, it should seem, of those who were bold enough, in the face of temporal interest, to make a demand for the services of the priest. Last Easter he got a list, but it contained only fifteen names. He had moved for returns of the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively in all the prisons of the United Kingdom; but he would like to know whether the returns were to be made up on the principle of putting down all Roman Catholics, or on the other principle of inserting only those who had the courage to demand the services of a Roman Catholic clergyman? The subject which he had brought before the House was one of extreme interest, and if the Government were to take the management of all prisoners at
1568
home, it became of great and increasing importance. He should not presume to anticipate what answer the noble Lord would give to his appeal; but it was an appeal to which only one answer could be give among rational and fair-minded men—and that was an assent to the demand which he now made. He apologised for the time he had taken in making his statement, and he left it to the noble Lord to state what course he intended to pursue.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was sure the hon. Member who had just sat down did not need to make an apology to the House for having brought under their consideration a matter of such great interest and of such deep importance. For his own part, he had to thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which in private he had communicated the views he meant afterwards to state to the House. Perhaps, as regarded the difference to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted, between the proportion of Catholics and protestants, as appearing in the returns of prisons here, and the proportion which appeared in the Colonies, he was not sure whether he understood the statement exactly as the hon. Gentleman had put it; but if he understood it rightly, that difference might be accounted for by the fact that the convicts in the Colonies included all those who came from Ireland as well as those who came from England.
MR. LUCASsaid, in explanation, that the statement he had made was, that the Catholics coming to New South Wales from England were 15 per cent of the convicts thence, while the Protestants coining from Ireland were 10 per cent of the convicts thence.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, however that might be, he had taken precautions to prevent mistake on that point in future. He had issued directions that, on entry to prison, a prisoner should be called on to state to what religious persuasion he belonged. Therefore, the declaration of the prisoner on his arrival at the gaol would be taken as evidence whether he was a Protestant or a Catholic; or, if a Protestant, whether he was of the Church of England or a Presbyterian. Beyond that, he was ready to admit to the hon. Gentleman that the prisoner who made that declaration ought to know that nothing in regard to his comfort in gaol would depend on whether he declared himself of one religion or another; that he ought to be equally sure of receiving religious in-

1569
struction from a clergyman of his own creed, and equally sure that the testimony with regard to his conduct in prison, so far as his conduct depended on his religious instruction, should be given by an instructor of his own religion, and not be dependent upon the opinion of one who was hostile to his creed. He thought that this was a matter which really required only to be stated, in order that everybody might arrive at the same conclusion; for what was their object in the treatment of prisoners? Their object was, of course, reformation, as far as that reformation could be effected; and how could that reformation be adequately effected if religious consolation were given to a man by a clergyman of an opposite creed? In the first place, if a prisoner who was a Roman Catholic came into the prison and declared Himself a Protestant, thinking that that declaration might turn to his advantage, he began with an act of hypocrisy; and if a Protestant clergyman should proceed in his own way to administer instruction to him, the heart of that man would be hardened against such instruction, which would conflict with his originally imbibed opinions. They would therefore be scattering seed on a sterile soil, which would necessarily lead to no good result. On the other hand, if the prisoner, having declared himself a Catholic, had no instruction afforded him but that of Protestantism, the time which ought to be spent in religious instruction might be wasted in theological controversy—the clergyman, in endeavouring to convert the man to a different religion, would spend the time, which in all probability would be more profitably employed in attempting to give him that religions instruction which he was ready to take, and which was in accordance with the opinions in which he placed confidence and trust. It was therefore quite evident that they would be defeating their own object if they did not give to prisoners of all religious denominations instruction in that shape and from that quarter which would render it most useful to the purposes of moral and religious improvement. The hon. Gentleman had asked for certain returns, which he (Visct. Palmerston) should grant with great pleasure, and which would afford in detail all the data for the foundation of an improved system. As far as Government prisons were concerned, he was quite prepared to state that he should feel it to be his duty to take steps for carrying into effect the views which the hon.
1570
Gentleman had just now so properly expressed to the House—that was to say, that in every Government prison there should be religious instruction given to every Catholic and Dissenter, as well as to every member of the Church of England, and that the person who gave it should receive that treatment which was consistent with a due respect to his character, and such reward as might be adequate to the duties which he had to perform. He thought that this was a necessary ingredient in the improved system of convict treatment; and he quite agreed in thinking that this was the more essential in proportion as we kept our convicts at home, instead of sending them to our Colonies. In regard to county prisons, he was rather inclined to think that some legislative alteration might be necessary. He was not then quite prepared to say to what extent the State had power with regard to them; but, as far as he was informed, their power to sanction regulations applied only to the discipline of gaols, and did not apply to appointment and remuneration for duties such as those now in question; and, if that should be so, it would be his duty early next Session to prepare and submit to Parliament a measure for the purpose of placing religious instruction in county gaols on the same footing as religious instruction in prisons more immmediately under the control of the Government. He hoped that this statement would be satisfactory, not only to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), but also in like manner to the House at large. He was quite sure that in matters of this sort there was no difference between Protestants and Catholics as to what was the proper course to pursue, because it was quite obvious that, as in a country like Ireland, where the great proportion of the people were Catholics, provision ought to be made for the instruction of such prisoners as were Protestant; so in England, where the great proportion of the people were Protestants, provision ought also to be made in like manner for the instruction of such prisoners as happened to be Catholics. We ought not to make our gaols arenas of theological discussion, or schools of proselytism. They ought rather to be made places of reformation, and moral and religious improvement; and therefore, that the administration of religious instruction should be given in the manner to which persons had always been accustomed.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he hoped the noble

1571
Lord would bear in mind the principles which he had so satisfactorily announced relative to the reformation of juvenile offenders, not only in the prisons, but also in the workhouses throughout the United Kingdom.
Resolution agreed to; as was also Res. 9.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS ACTS CON- TINUANCE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYpresented a petition from a Sanitary Committee at Stoke Newington, praying that, as the Bill only continued the existing Commission for one year, such borrowing powers only should be given them as was necessary for the execution of works which were urgently demanded.
Lord DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that in point of fact the Commission expired on the 7th of August, and he wished, therefore, to inquire whether it was possible to continue a thing which had no existence?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his noble Friend must not be surprised to be informed that Parliament had the power of continuing an Act which had no existence. The Act of 48 Geo. c. 106, provided specially for cases of this sort. He might here state that, he had given notice that he should move an instruction to the Committee, which might appear an enlargement of the powers of the Commission, but which was, in point of fact, a restriction of them. By the law as it now stood the Commission had unlimited powers of borrowing. He originally proposed to restrict the power to 500,000 l., of which 100,000 l. was the sum already borrowed. A number of the metropolitan Members, however, having urged that their constituents were alarmed at the large amount of new debt to be contracted, he had desired the Commissioners to revise their estimates, and to strike out from the works which they had intended to do within the twelve months everything but that which was urgently necessary for the comfort of the inhabitants. The Commissioners had done so, and he had now to propose to diminish the borrowing powers of the Commission from 500,000 l. to 300,000 l., that was to say, the 100,000 l. formerly borrowed, and 200,000 l. additional. With respect to the sewerage at West Hackney, he begged to state to his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Sir W. Clay) that before the works were undertaken, he (Lord Palmerston) should be
1572
happy to receive a deputation from the people of West Hackney, composed of those who were most competent to form an opinion, and to judge of the matter, and to invite the Commissioners of Sewers to meet them at the Home Office for the purpose of having the matter discussed between them; and he could assure his hon. Friend that nothing should be undertaken which was not considered as adapted to relieve the district from the inconvenience of which the inhabitants loudly complained. With regard, also, to drainage works in other districts, if the inhabitants thought that they were not calculated to afford them relief, they would not be proceeded with. He knew that in many parts of the metropolis the greatest inconvenience was now suffered from the want of drainage; and that the reduction which he had thought it right to make, in deference to the wishes of the metropolitan Members, would still leave unaccomplished many works which were most urgently necessary; but if he should be able in the early part of next Session to reconstruct the Commission, and put it on a different footing, there would probably be time to make provision for those works without any material inconvenience being sustained meanwhile.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, if he rightly understood the noble Lord, he would take the opinion of the inhabitants of the district in which the outlay was to be made; but if the result were only to be that, after a conference of that nature, the opinion of the Committee was still to be maintained, then he should object to so much of the expense as would be occasioned by converting Hackney Brook into an arterial sewer.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, if he found the people of West Hackney did not wish to improve their sewers, he did not apprehend the Commissioners would wish to force them.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the noble Lord was mistaken, in supposing that at present the Commissioners had power to raise money to an unlimited amount. He was quite aware of the clause in the 11 & 12 Vict. which appeared to have conveyed the impression to the noble Lord; but the noble Lord would find, upon inquiry, that the power of borrowing was so restricted and hampered by other clauses in the same Act, that, practically, the Commissioners had no such power as the noble Lord imagined. His noble Friend, therefore, instead of restricting the powers

1573
of the Commissioners, did, in point of fact, propose to give them powers which they did not possess. He must say, that he thought the noble Lord had pursued a course with reference to this Bill which was hardly fair towards the House, and was most unjust towards the inhabitants of the metropolis. Previous to the Easter recess, he (Sir B. Hall) asked the noble Lord what he intended to do with the irresponsible Commission of Sewers? The noble Lord stated frankly, that it was utterly impossible to answer the question until the great London Drainage Bill was disposed of. That Bill was disposed of on the 14th of June, when he again asked the noble Lord what course he intended to take. The noble Lord replied, that he intended to bring in a Continuance Bill. In pursuance of this statement, a Continuance Bill was brought in on the 14th of July, and read a first time. It was read a second time on the 18th of July, about two or three o'clock in the morning, and without the slightest opposition from the metropolitan Members, because they placed confidence in the assurance that was given them, that the Bill should be a mere Continuance Bill for one year, and they could not for one moment suppose that any clause would be proposed, empowering the Commissioners to raise money by mortgage on the rates of the metropolis. But no sooner was the Bill read a second time, than a clause was circulated, enabling the Commissioners to raise 500,000 l. by mortgage of the rates. This course of proceeding was not fair to the House or the metropolitan Members. He complained that the privilege of managing their own local affairs, which was enjoyed by the inhabitants of every borough in the kingdom, was denied to the inhabitants of the metropolis, who had no control over the expenditure of rates, levied by irresponsible Commissioners. He might state, with reference to the history of the Commissioners of Sewers, that in 1851, when the Act under which they were appointed expired, great discontent with regard to their proceedings existed in the metropolis, and a measure was eventually adopted, continuing the Commission for one year, and appointing a salaried Commissioner to preside over the body. The Metropolitan Sewers Act required the clerk of the Commissioners to keep a record of their proceedings, which was to be open to the inspection of the ratepayers. He must remind the House that the Commissioners possessed very extensive powers, for they
1574
were enabled to levy a taxation of about a quarter of a million annually, without any control on the part of the ratepayers, upon property of the annual value of about 9,500,000 l. He, as a ratepayer, applied at the office of the Commissioners to inspect the Minutes; but he found that there was no entry of the proceedings at the board meetings from the 11th of October, 1850, to the 13th of May, 1851. He asked for the manuscript Minutes of the proceedings of the Court, and he was shown rough papers, some of which were without date or signature. On the 11th of April, 1851, the Court had met and made a rate of 6d. in the pound; but that order had not been entered in the Minute-book on the 13th of May. It appeared, indeed, that only rough Minutes, or rather heads of Minutes, had been taken of the proceedings; and the secretary trusted, in a great measure, to his memory to draw them out. On the 29th of April, the Court determined upon borrowing 10,000 l., and such was their difficulty in obtaining it, that they were obliged to pay 5 per cent interest; but even that transaction bad not been entered in the proceedings. When he left the office the secretary said, "I admit that from January to the present time no Minute has been entered in conformity with the Statute," This was the manner in which the Commission, which it was now proposed to inflict upon the metropolis for another year, had discharged its duties. He (Sir B. Hall) was at the office for two hours and a half, and eight clerks, the secretary, and one of the legal advisers of the Commissioners, were employed in collecting the small amount of information which he obtained. In 1851, the noble Member for the City of London brought in a Bill to continue the Commission for one year, and giving power to the Government to appoint a salaried chairman; but the distrust which Parliament entertained of the Commissioners was shown by the fact, that a clause was inserted restricting them from levying a rate exceeding 3d. in the pound. In 1852 there was a change of Government—there was great anxiety to get through the Session that a dissolution might take place—and the then Chief Commissioner of Works brought in a Bill to continue the Commission, which gave the Board power to make a rate of 6d. in the pound, the noble Lord giving at the same time a positive pledge that a Bill should be brought in during the present Session to do away entirely with the exist-

1575
ing Commissioners, and establish a new Commission based on the representative principle. He would briefly state to the House the liabilities of the Commission. The new works in one year cost 11,750 l., and the expenses of management and supervision were 16,870 l. In 1850 the debt was 25,900 l.; and in 1851 it was 56,832 l., although the receipts had increased from 91,000 l. to 129,000 l. The debt had gone on gradually increasing, and at this moment, according to a late return, the debt and liabilities of the Commissioners amounted to no less than 174,196 l. In 1852 the new works and repairs cost 70,546 l., and the management and supervision cost 21,000 l., or 30 per cent upon the work done. In the half-year ending June last the expense of works and repairs was 31,454 l., and of management and supervision 12,000 l. He knew that in the case of works of this kind the supervision must be expensive; but works for which such large sums of money were paid ought to be properly executed. The Commissioners had executed only one great work, and that was the Victoria sewer, which was as great a nuisance to that part of London as the boards of health had been. The estimate of the surveyors for that sewer was 13,854 l., the contract price was 12,000 l., the actual cost was 28,000 l., besides which there were claims for compensation amounting to 16,400 l. According to the recent estimate of a person employed by the Commissioners themselves, this work, which was originally estimated at 13,854 l., would cost 59,823 l., or, deducting the compensation claimed by the Duke of Northumberland, 48,823 l. He (Sir B. Hall) had admitted that the expense of supervision must be great; but he would now show that the money had been wasted, and that the supervising engineers had either neglected their duty, or were wholly ignorant, for it appeared, from an examination of the levels in this sewer, that out of thirty-eight no less than thirty-seven had not been built according to the design. In another part of the sewer eight lengths had been examined, and in only one of those lengths had the work been constructed according to the original design. Another surveyor employed by the Commissioners had also reported that the Whitehall sewer was in an unsound and dangerous state, and expressed his opinion that there was no mode of rendering any of the sewers between Whitehall and the Thames perfectly safe without entirely reconstructing them. He
1576
(Sir B. Hall) thought, then, that the ratepayers of the metropolis had reason to complain that when these irresponsible Commissioners had completed works at an extravagant price, those works were perfectly useless and required entire reconstruction. A return before the House gave a sketch of the state of the sewers laid down by the Commissioners. A survey had been made of 122 pipe sewers, and out of that number sixty-nine were found to contain two and a half inches of deposit, while some were cracked, and others entirely broken; yet the Commissioners were still laying down these pipes, which were perfectly useless, at an immense cost to the ratepayers. He (Sir B. Hall) would ask the House to contrast the position in which the metropolis was placed with regard to the management of matters of this kind, with the position of provincial towns. To elucidate this he would instance the case of four corporate towns in the county of Dorset, and contrast them with four boroughs in the county of Middlesex. He would give the names of the boroughs, the number of houses paying duty, the amount of duty paid, and the population in each of these towns. They stood as follows:—

Houses paying duty.

Duty paid.

Population.

Poole

143

£126

9,255

Shaftesbury

55

59

9,404

Wareham

41

42

7,218

Bridport

165

201

7,566

404

£428

33,443

The inhabitants of these small boroughs were allowed by the Legislature to manage their own affairs. He would now turn to the county of Middlesex, and exhibit the case of four of the largest boroughs in the empire.

Houses paying duty.

Duty paid.

Population.

Marylebone

34,569

£76,835

370,957

Finsbury

27,208

42,534

323,772

Tower Hamlets

25,001

25,522

539,111

Westminster

20,146

67,396

241,611

106,924

£212,287

1,475,451

The inhabitants of those important boroughs had no voice with regard to the imposition or disposal of a large amount of taxation, which was entirely under the control of irresponsible commissioners. He thought this was an injustice of which the ratepayers of the metropolis were entitled to complain, and which the Government should take measures to remove. He regarded the proposal of the noble Home Secretary

1577
as very objectionable, but it had been materially modified since its first introduction; and he thought the assurance given by the noble Lord that the money would not be expended without some communication being made to the inhabitant ratepayers, was very satisfactory. If no new works were undertaken which were not absolutely necessary for the welfare and health of the inhabitants, and if some means were adopted of ascertaining the views of the inhabitants before such works were carried out, he thought some of the main objections to this measure were removed. But the injustice of not allowing the inhabitants of these great boroughs to manage their own affairs was so monstrous, that he must vote against the instructions to the Committee, for he could not sanction a proposal by which it was intended to permit an irresponsible Commission to levy 300,000 l. as a mortgage on the rates of the metropolis, and more especially so as that Commission had proved itself quite unequal to the discharge of the duties intrusted to it.
MR. PETOsaid, as he had been connected for two years with the Sewers Commission of the Metropolis, he wished to say a few words respecting this Bill. When that Commission was originally appointed, it consisted of thirty-two or thirty-three individuals, and there was a violent schism between them, one party headed by Mr. Chadwick being in favour of sumpts and pipe drains, and the other led by Mr. Phillips, advocating the plan of conveying the sewage by main drains so far below the metropolis that it should not be brought back again by the tide. The Board of Works, the then head of which was the Earl of Carlisle, appointed a Commission of practical men to investigate into the sewerage system in the metropolis, and, if possible, to propose an efficient plan for effecting that object in a complete and substantial manner. When he (Mr. Peto) was called upon to take a part in the affairs of that Commission, the Board was composed of practical men, and he had associated with him Mr. Robert Stephenson, Sir William Cubitt, Mr. Rendell, Sir John Burgoyne, Captain Veitch, Sir Henry de la Beche, and other eminent persons. They at once told the First Commissioner of Works that they could not consent to act, except on the express understanding that they were to undertake the formation of a plan to give a complete and efficient drainage to the metropolis; and to advise the Government as to the best mode of carrying that plan into execution. An under-ground
1578
survey of the metropolis had been previously ordered; and although it was not ready when they first took office, they afterwards found it of very essential service to them. At their first meeting they laid down certain rules upon which they should act in the formation of the plan they had in view; the first being, that the whole Sewage of the metropolis should be taken such a distance below London that it would be impossible for it ever to return. Their second principle was, that wherever they could form sewers in which the matter by its own gravitation and by proper flushing would be swept away, they would adopt them in preference to pumping; but that in other cases they would use pumps. The Commissioners bestowed the greatest labour and pains upon their plan, and when it was at length completed it received the unanimous sanction of the whole Board. They placed it before the Government, and they also laid it in the shape of a Report before Parliament; but up to the present moment not a single step had ever been taken for the purpose of carrying it into effect. The Commissioners feeling, therefore, that they were placed in a hopeless position, and that they would only be suspected of incompetence to fulfil their duties, placed their resignation in the hands of the Government, and the Commission ceased to exist. A temporary Commission was then appointed, consisting of men, many of them of the very highest character and talents; but placed in the situation they were, it was perfectly impossible that they should satisfactorily discharge their functions. Without being at all wedded to their plan, the members of the former Commission begged to assure the noble Lord that he might command their time at any period during the recess, and that the best advice they could give him on this difficult question they would always most cheefully render. He thought the metropolitan Members had good cause to be dissatisfied; but the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) was a little in error with respect to the management charges. He (Mr. Peto) had taken particular notice of those charges, and he found that in one year, when the total expenditure amounted to 122,098 l., they were only 21,209 l., or 17½ per cent; and if it had not been for local superintendence of works, they would have been only 12 per cent. The fact was, those charges comprised a great many items besides the management of new works. As to the Victoria-street sewer, they had the statement of Mr. Simpson (upon which

1579
they might entirely rely) that they could not have selected a better line or a better outlet, though in its execution there had been much to be regretted. The Commissioners, however, were placed in a very unfortunate position. Mr. Forster, who had been appointed engineer-in-chief, was taken seriously ill, and died during the progress of the works, which presented many unforeseen difficulties; and he believed that the parties left to superintend them were not equal to the task. With respect to Mr. Forster himself, as he had had the entire management of the Kilsby tunnel, on the London and North Western Railway, and of the tubular bridge over the Menai Straits, the Commissioners Were surely quite justified in having originally appointed him. With reference to pipe sewers, to which allusions had been made by the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), he must inform the House that the Commissioners with whom he (Mr. Peto) had acted, had at once condemned pipe drains under thoroughfares and places where there was much pressure. If they wished to see the results of dilettanti engineering, they could not have a more striking example than Croydon. The pipes used there, so far from conducting the sewage from the houses into the drains, had only conveyed the effluvia from the drains into the houses; and that which, according to Mr. Chadwick and others, was to have been a sort of Arcadia, was made a public pest-house. With respect to the present condition of the metropolis, nothing could be more painful. For sixteen hours out of every twenty-four, the whole district south of the Thames was one huge cesspool. Nothing could be the source of more anxiety to the Commissioners than the medical reports they had daily received from these and other bad localities, which they felt perfectly unable to remedy. In the north of the metropolis the case was not much better. While he was on the Commission, numbers of cases of typhoid fever, arising from insufficient drainage, and all of the most painful character, were continually coming under his notice; and the Commission was unable to do what was necessary even for giving temporary relief. The question was, what was to be done? He should advise his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) to take up the question—no man was more able to do so—and, by applying his masculine mind to it, complete the conception of some plan by which the metropolis might be relieved from the stigma which at present attached to it.
1580
He believed that a course of proceeding might be devised which would enable the noble Lord to come before Parliament in the ensuing Session to ask for such a sum of money as would be necessary for effectually draining the whole of the metropolis. The present state of things was a disgrace to the country. The noblest works completed by the States of ancient times—by Rome, for instance—were those connected with the supply of water and the drainage of large towns. With regard to the sum of money which it was now proposed should be granted, he would suggest to his noble Friend not to allow the money to be spent without a certificate from the consulting engineer to the Commission, and Mr. Robert Stephenson, that the works were really required for objects of urgent necessity, and that the plan on which the works were to be carried out had been inquired into and accepted.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that there was no doubt the members of the present Commission of Sewers were men of eminent ability; but still when his hon. Friend (Mr. Peto) said that they were on that account entitled to confidence, he could not help calling the attention of the House to the infrequency of their attendance. Thirty-four Courts had been held during the years 1852 and 1853; out of these Sir John Burgoyne had only attended six, Mr. T. Hawes nine, Captain Veitch six, and Mr. L. Gordon two. Of fifty-five committee meetings held during the same time, Sir John Burgoyne, had attended eleven, Captain Veitch eight, and the other members in proportion. Now, if that was so, it was evident that the eminence of these gentlemen was not a sufficient reason for public confidence being reposed in the Commission, but that we must look to those who actually did the work. The plan which the hon. Member had so strongly recommended for effecting the drainage of the metropolis was not that which was now proposed. It was proposed under the former to carry the whole of the sewerage of the metropolis to such a distance below London that it could not be brought back by the tide; but by the present it was proposed to cover in and make use of Hackney Brook for the purpose. That, he thought, would prove to be quite ineffectual, and, as a practical man, acquainted with draining, he had no hesitation in saying that it would be found to be absurd. He believed firmly that no one out of that House had the slightest confidence in the present Board of the Sewers Commission,

1581
and he attributed a great deal of its blundering to Mr. Chadwick, in discharging the whole of the officers who were employed by the previous Commission, and substituting for them ill-informed men, who were quite ready to carry out all his own foolish designs. Another cause of the failure that had attended the efforts to effect good sewerage was the appointment of Commissions for brief periods. One set of Commissioners were superseded by another before they had time to carry out their own plans. Nothing at all, it seemed, was to be done for poor, miserable Lamboth, much as that district needed sewerage. 1n fact, nothing was to be done on the south side of the Thames, and the Commissioners had had the audacity to propose that, against the opinion of such a man as Mr. Robert Stephenson. But the great objection to these Commissions was that unfit men were appointed. They were mere lawyers, and how should lawyers know anything about sewerage? But in this world there was always some compensating good for every evil. Bad as this Commission was, badly as it was constituted—of men totally devoid of any practical knowledge, as their work showed—yet there was one man who was worse, and to be avoided in every way in this matter. They had known him in the agricultural districts for some time. He trusted that the present Commissioners—bad as they were, having by their works shown their total inability to grasp with the great work they had to achieve—yet he trusted they would beware of Mr. Chadwick. He was a pest wherever he went. He feared the noble Lord had been misled on this subject; he would not say whether by Mr. Chadwick or any one else. What was required was a great and proper scheme to be carried out over the whole metropolis, and not an attempt to effect the object by this sort of pettifogging drainage, which would do more harm than good. He should be most unwilling to grant the power asked for by the noble Lord to these men, to whom he would not intrust the laying out of one single sixpence.
MR. CHARLES S. BUTLERsaid, that as the question of the sewerage of the metropolis was of great importance to his constituents, he hoped that he might venture to trespass upon the indulgent forbearance of the House. He was sorry to say that the ratepayers of the Tower Hamlets had no confidence in the Commission of Sewers as
1582
at present constituted, and he must, therefore, protest against the proposed extension of their powers in order that they might raise 300,000 l. on the security of the rates. He thought it a grievance that every housekeeper in the metropolis should be taxed for the benefit of the very few who had sewerage, and it was unjust that rates should be levied on poor parishes, and expended in other localities. Tins grievance would not exist if the Commissioners of Sewers were elected by the ratepayers: when they should be so elected, he (Mr. Butler) would be willing to entrust them with ample borrowing powers. With the permission of the House, he would endeavour to show what had been done with reference to sewerage in some of the parishes in the densely populated borough of the Tower Hamlets. He would first explain the present position of the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, the inhabitants of which, he had been informed, had paid sewers rates for nearly a century. Many of the leading thoroughfares were entirely destitute of sewers; in that parish there were thirty-six miles of densely populated streets, and the sewers extended only between six and seven miles, so that nearly thirty miles of streets were drained by means of cesspools. Now, in 1848, the Sanatory Commissioners reported, that "any delay in the abolition of cesspools is a delay in the removal of the most extensive sources of disease and mortality;" and, although five years had passed, positively nothing but a trifling work in a back street celled Collingwood-street had been done in that important parish, which, perhaps, more than any other in the metropolis, required vigilant attention, for, in 1849, there were 1,000 deaths from cholera and diarrhœa, principally caused (he would quote the language of his official correspondent) "by the want of drainage, which remains to this day in the some condition as at that dreadful time." Now, was it not lamentable that in the parish of Bethnal-green, containing 13,500 houses, with an industrial population of 90,193 inhabitants, nearly 60,000 should be without the means of efficient sewerage. Surely, some exertion might have been made by the Commissioners of Sewers after the last dreadful visitation of cholera. He feared that it would be found that rates levied on many poorer parishes had been expended in the sewerage of more wealthy localities; but he would turn to the adjoining parish of

1583
Stepney or Mile End Old Town: this parish contained 75,000 inhabitants, there were 20,000 houses, and twenty-five miles of streets, of which there were about one-fourth drained, one-fourth partially drained, and one-half entirely without drainage. There were sixty streets having sewerage, sixty partially drained, and 112 streets entirely without drainage. Now, only about 300 yards of sewers had been formed by the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers in Mile End Old Town, although they had by their last two rates raised from that hamlet alone no less than 8,000 l. beyond and in addition to their portion of the 12,000 l. handed over by the local Tower Hamlets Commission to the Metropolitan Commissioners. Would any person, having a knowledge of local management, assert that if the sum of 8,000 l. taken from his (Mr. Butler's) constituents of Mile End Old Town, had been expended by local commissioners, elected by and responsible to the ratepayers, that only 300 yards of sewers would have been formed, or that the parish would have been permitted to remain in its present state? He thought not. With the indulgence of the House, he would refer to a memorial that had recently been presented by his constituents of West Hackney to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He would, however, first mention that the parish of St. John, at Hackney, contained 9,502 houses, and 53,589 inhabitants; but the West Hackney, Stoke Newington, and Stamford Hill districts extended over an area of 11,000 acres, containing a population of 23,000, and rated to the poor at 110,000 l. Now what did these memorialists to the Secretary of State say? They complain that they had paid sewers' rate for 80 years; that on some occasions it had amounted to 1s. 6d. in the pound on the amount rated to the poor: that notwithstanding the heavy amounts they had from time to time contributed, they had no sewers within their district; and that they did not, nor did they ever, derive any benefit from the operations of the Commissioners of Sewers, but on the contrary they had been seriously injured by the conversion of the Hackney brook, once a clear stream, into an open sewer for the benefit of another district, that of Holloway. They state that they have no means of drainage other than into cesspools, which exist in such great numbers that the whole substratum had become impregnated with the elements of contagion and disease, and yet this district was
1584
rated equally with other districts having the benefit of covered sewers. He would not stop to remark upon this grievous state of things, but would read to the House an extract from Dr. Sutherland's Report to the Whitechapel Union of October, 1852. This Union, he might observe, contained about 9,000 houses, and between 60,000 and 70,000 inhabitants. Dr. Sutherland says—
"I have made an inspection of a considerable portion of Spitalfields, a part of Mile End New Town, most of the north part of Whitechapel; and have witnessed scenes that would have appeared almost incredible without personal examination. I have seen court after court, and house after house, which in a sanitary point of view are scarcely fit in their present state for the abode of man. The history of populous courts and neighbourhoods may be summed up in a very few words; bad paving, cleansing defective, no efficient drainage, cesspools or open privies over drains loaded with putrescent deposit. There is a high rate of mortality. Preventible zymotic disease is always cutting off its victims; great epidemics come and go at their will, and the ratepayers are taxed for consequences which might by prudence and foresight be averted."
Now he (Mr. Butler) would ask who were responsible for this fearful state of things? Were the Commissioners of Sewers? Who were to exercise this prudence and foresight? He insisted that it was the duty of the Government. He would not trespass on the time of the House by detailing the sewerage statistics of other parishes in the borough of the Tower Hamlets; it would be a repetition of the same sad tale, to the truth of which the Registrar General, in the weekly returns of mortality, abundantly testified, clearly evincing how large a proportion of deaths in the metropolis were due to imperfect drainage. He considered that it was impossible to overrate the importance of this question, and he trusted that Her Majesty's Ministers would introduce a comprehensive measure in the next Session. He felt bound, however, to say, that he should record his vote against any measure for perpetuating the present system: it was really too bad at the end of the Session, when so many Members had left town, that the noble Lord should, under cover of a Continuance Bill, ask Parliament to give these Commissioners power to raise and expend 300,000 l. What had they done to warrant such an extent of confidence? Had they performed works to an equal extent with the works executed by the local commissioners who were resident in the districts for which they acted? To his (Mr. Butler's) knowledge the local com-

1585
missioners had covered miles of open sewers in the Tower Hamlets during the last five years of their existence; and from the years 1838 to 1847 inclusive, the late Tower Hamlets' Commission executed fifteen miles of new works. He did not say that the old system was perfect; but the House would bear in mind that the local commissioners were acting under ancient, almost obsolete, statutes; they had difficulties to contend with which modern legislation had cleared away for their successors; nevertheless large works had been performed by them. Had the Metropolitan Commissioners been more industrious? He thought not. In 1847 a Commission was appointed, of which the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex was the chairman; it was called in the Tower Hamlets the Chadwickian Inquiry. He would not trouble the House by remarking upon the evidence; it was in consequence of the Report of this Commission that the Government superseded the several local commissioners, somewhat unceremoniously, considering that many of these gentlemen had been acting in the gratuitous performance of a public duty, and that, had they been allowed to remain in office one week longer, their commissions would have expired by efflux of time; but the Government of the day were so anxious to place the management of the sewerage of the metropolis in proper hands that they could not wait the week, and these local commissioners were accordingly sent to the right-about;—and who were the experienced and practical men that succeeded? The first was an hon. Baronet, Sir Edward North Buxton, for whom he (Mr. Butler) entertained the highest esteem, and he desired to speak of him in terms of great respect; but what did the hon. Baronet know about sewers? and what time could he, being then Member of that House, devote to the duties of a Commissioner of Sewers? Again, there was the Rev. William Stone, a highly respected minister of the Church, the rector of a densely-populated metropolitan parish, conscientiously active in the performance of his own sufficiently arduous duties. Now, if the question had been whether Mr. Stone should be appointed to a bishopric, he would have at once concurred in the propriety of the appointment; but to make that rev. gentleman a commissioner of sewers was really most ridiculous. The House would see that the effect of these appointments was, to throw the management into the hands of Mr. Chadwick and Dr. Southwood Smith, gentlemen who had taken an active
1586
part on the Royal Commission, which recommended the supersedeas of the several local commissions. These gentlemen were superseded in turn, and eventually the present Commissioners were appointed. Having felt it to be his duty to speak of the past and present management in the language of complaint, he would now venture to suggest a plan for the future, which he thought would be approved by the great body of ratepayers. His scheme was to divide the metropolis into levels. District courts to be formed for each level, the ratepayers in the several parishes electing the Commissioners. The number of District Commissioners to be determined by the extent of the population. The District Commissioners to make rates upon all property within the level for the maintenance and extension of the drainage within their jurisdiction, but not for the formation of outlets. The District Commissioners to have power to communicate with the outlets under proper regulations, and to borrow money on the security of their rates. The several chairmen of the District Courts to have seats at the central or outlet commission. He further proposed the appointment of a central court of Commissioners, whose powers should be confined to the important duty of providing and maintaining proper outlets for the sewerage of the metropolis, with powers to make rates and to borrow money on their security; these powers were of course necessary to enable them to perform the extensive works so much required. He would not object to these Commissioners being appointed by Government, because it was necessary that they should possess great practical experience; but, as he before mentioned, the several district chairmen of the levels should have seats at that court, He trusted that the noble Lord would, during the recess, apply his gigantic mind to the maturing a comprehensive measure with reference to this important subject; for it must be obvious to all that one set of Commissioners could not properly attend to the local requirements of the enormous population, and at the same time mature and carry out a great scheme of outlets for the sewerage of the metropolis.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he must express his surprise that the great pains already lavished on this subject had not been attended with a more beneficial result, and trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department would turn his at-

1587
tention to the important subject of the formation of local boards.
MR. EVELYNsaid, he had listened with much pleasure to the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) at the Mansion House, when the noble Lord had expressed a hope that the Thames would soon be as clear as the waters of Blandusia, and trusted the noble Lord would take immediate steps to free their parent river from its present pollution. He thought the noble Lord was particularly bound to do this, as permission had been refused to two private companies which had proposed to do so. If the necessary works were not commenced at once, he would suggest that a clause should be inserted to give to some private company the power of undertaking this highly necessary measure. He considered the Thames would never be freed from pollution except by the results of some private enterprise; and he would support any measure which would give to the metropolitan parishes the power of self-government. Nay, more, if no other Member did so, he would himself venture to bring forward a measure which would confer the power of self-government on all the towns of England.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he most strongly objected to any such instruction being given to the Committee as that which the noble Lord had proposed. The inhabitants of the metropolis had no objection to make any pecuniary sacrifice in order to provide for the public health of the population. Show them proper measures, and they would do what was required of them; but what they feared was, that they would be put to great expense without obtaining any corresponding benefit. They believed that all the talk about cholera and the public health was merely a mystification, and that after a large outlay they would find themselves in a worse condition than they were in before. He strongly suspected that if the proposed money were taken, the country would be burdened without receiving the slightest advantage, just as it was now burdened with the expense of an Army and a Fleet, which were of no use whatever, because they were never suffered to go where their services were required. So little confidence had the public in this Commission, that he believed, if the metropolis were polled, rather than assent to the proposition of the noble Lord, they would gladly give 50,000 l. to get rid of the Commissioners altogether. He admitted that the noble Lord had somewhat
1588
modified his plan; but, although what the noble Lord now proposed was a mitigation of the evil, he still believed that it would not meet the approbation of the public.
MR. MALINSsaid, it could not be doubted that the proceedings of the Commissioners of Sewers hitherto had resulted in a miserable failure. He was not indisposed, however, to give the noble Lord the power of raising 300,000 l., provided the House had an assurance that that money should be properly expended. But he did not understand that, up to this time, there had been any agreement as to the mode of drainage which was to be adopted. There were at present two systems under contemplation, and, as yet, neither had been determined upon. 300,000 l. would suffice to construct an immense amount of drainage, and he should be quite ready to grant that amount, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Pete) were acted upon, and the money were only to be laid out under the authority and sanction of such able and practical men as Mr. Stephenson and Sir William Cubitt. He trusted that we should now have a properly constituted Commission of Sewers; and, above all, he hoped that the noble Lord would not be led away into putting upon it merely "ornamental" names. It should not be a Commission composed of a large number, or of elements which could not work together, but should really consist of a few efficient practical, able men. Let the noble Lord first make up his mind whether the system to be adopted should be the deep system, or the shallow system; and, his mind once made up upon that subject, let it be carried into operation as speedily as possible, in order to secure to the inhabitants of the metropolis the necessary comforts of cleanliness and wholesomeness.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision in the Bill, as to monies borrowed or to be borrowed under the said Acts."
The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 32: Majority 39.
House in Committee.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he had no wish upon that occasion to enter upon a long answer to all that he had heard. He was sure that at that hour of the night it would be undesirable that he should do so. He would merely say that he was desirous to act upon the suggestion which had been thrown out by his hon.

1589
Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Peto), and that he would take care that nothing should be done in the way of the employment of this money which was not approved by the consulting engineers of the Commission, Sir William Cubitt and Mr. Stephenson, on whose judgment he was persuaded both the House and the country might safely rely. He perfectly agreed, also, with those who said that nothing would be satisfactory until some general system of draining the metropolis should be decided upon, which should relieve the Thames from the ignominious duty of being the common sewer instead of the ornament of London. With that also might be combined the application of those side sewers, which in that respect would be the substitutes for the Thames, and he should hope that means might be adopted to convert those tunnels into what miners would call downcast furnaces, so that instead of all the bad air rushing up to the houses from the drains, it might be carried the other way, and the atmosphere thus be relieved from that source of pollution. He thought, upon the one hand, that the ratepayers had had good reason to complain that they had been left hitherto without relief; but, on the other hand, he assured the Committee that the Commissioners also had had reason to complain because they had been placed in the situation, being men of great ability, and seeing what ought to be done and anxious to do it, but they were unable to accomplish it because they had not the funds necessary to carry into execution the works which they knew to be desirable. The only wonder, he believed, was, that those Commissioners had not struck work altogether, and refused to be any longer apparently responsible for what was considered to be neglect, but what really was the impossibility to do that which they were asked to do. He should consider it his duty to see that no works were undertaken which were not in the first place approved by those two eminent men whose names he had mentioned; also, that the works should be of such a nature as to connect places that were not drained with existing outlets; and that all the works should be such as might be brought into keeping and harmony with any general system that might hereafter be adopted. He would only add that he believed there were about 2,000 miles of street in the metropolis; and he understood that there were only about 900 miles of drains. There were therefore at pre-
1590
sent 1,100 miles of street without drains; and, as Milton had described the evils of a populous city, when he said that it was a place where
"Houses thick and sewers annoy the air,"
he asked the Committee to consider what must be the annoyance where there were "houses thick" without any sewers at all; yet such was the condition of a great part of the metropolis.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYtrusted that the noble Lord would take care that no money should be laid out in any district without previous communication with the best informed persons in that district. He begged to state that he had voted in the minority against the noble Lord, because he feared that the money would not be expended as the noble Lord had since stated that it should be.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwould suggest that the Commissioners of Sewers should at once be directed to have a plan prepared on which they should delineate their propositions, and that it should be put forth in such a manner as to be accessible to the ratepayers. He was convinced that this would prove a great facility to the operations of the noble Lord.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the noble Lord should be careful how he trusted Sir William Cubitt too much, because that gentleman had stated in evidence before a Committee of that House that the Thames was the best drain, and, in fact, the natural sewer, for the metropolis. He would prefer leaving the case in the hands of Mr. Stephenson alone.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Amended to reduce the borrowing powers of the Commissioners from 500,000 l. to 300,000 l.)
MR. PETOsaid, he would suggest that the expense of the formation of the sewers should be spread over a period of thirty or forty years, which might be said to be the natural life of a sewer. By this means the expense to the metropolis would be less than the actual cost of maintaining the present crazy sewers. He wished also to call the attention of the noble Lord to the unfair mode in which the rates were levied. For example, the inhabitants residing near Hyde Park and other districts in the outskirts of London, and who were mainly rich people, paid no sewers rate; while the inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets and other districts through which these outlying places were drained, and who were

1591
mostly poor people, paid for their own drainage, and the drainage of the others besides.
VISCOUST PALMERSTONsaid, it was the intention of the Commissioners to raise money on annuities in the manner which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported as amended.

HACKNEY CARRIAGE DUTIES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he thought the House and the country were greatly indebted to the noble Lord the Home Secretary and to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy) for the active part they had taken in promoting this measure. He considered, however, that some additional regulations were still necessary. He had frequently seen the lives of persons jeopardised from the practice of taking up or setting down passengers in the centre of the streets. He considered that the proprietors of public vehicles ought to be made responsible for the misconduct of their servants; and he believed if such a regulation were adopted they would not be very likely to hear of violence or insult on the part of the drivers. He thought it was desirable that drivers should be prohibited from sitting in their carriages, for he had frequently seen drivers smoking in their cabs, and the smell was not very pleasant, especially to women who might afterwards engage the vehicles. He would therefore beg to propose four clauses to remedy those defects.
MR. LOWEsaid, he could not consent to the clauses proposed by the hon. and gallant Member, which did not appear to him to come within the legitimate scope and meaning of the Bill. He considered that as the clauses, which were highly penal, would materially affect the interests of a large body of persons, they ought to have been brought forward when the Bill was in Committee. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Member that it was not right that omnibuses should set down passengers in the middle of the streets; but the police had power to prevent such a system, and that power was exercised every day in the metropolis with regard to all carriages, whether public or private. He must say the clauses were drawn in a very informal manner. They provided for the infliction of a penalty of 40 s., or one
1592
month's imprisonment, but they did not say who was to adjudicate. As the clauses stood, he apprehended that proceedings could not be taken before magistrates, but that the penalties must be sued for by the Attorney General in the Court of Queen's Bench. The second clause would entail great hardship, for if a driver got drunk and were discharged, the proprietor could not send out the carriage next day. The third clause was one of the most objectionable he ever saw. The fourth clause made the police judges upon the spot. In the plenitude of their wisdom, they were either to rectify the matter at the time, or make t report; but what was to be the consequence of making a report was not stated. They were also to act as referees; but whether with or without the consent of parties, did not appear.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had more confidence in the "plenitude of the wisdom of a police officer than in the wisdom of half the Treasury Bench. He would rather submit to his decision and impartiality than to the wise Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He was no lawyer, but he had put a plain common-sense proposal before the House. He had done his duty, and the responsibility must rest with the hon. Secretary to the Board of Control and the Government.
Clauses negatived.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to move a clause having reference to the new fares proposed by this Bill.
MR. LOWEsaid, he could not agree to the clause, which was liable, in the first place, to the objection that it was legislation of a too minute character, which ought to be left to some subordinate authority. The House had passed a law that the distances published in the book of fares, signed by the Commissioners of Police, should be conclusive, and that with regard to other distances they should be measured. The clause proposed that the magistrate should measure the distance by the Ordnance map. He might do so now. ["No!"] Yes, he might measure the map and give his opinion, and then if that were disputed, the parties must abide by the measurement. The rule of law was, that the best evidence, where it was procurable, should be taken, and it would not to be right to deprive a party of his appeal o actual measurement. The hon. Baronet had correctly anticipated that the magistrate might not know exactly where to begin his measurement; but the mode pro-

1593
posed of beginning with the first intersecting street or public building might be extremely unjust to the cabman, and might lead to his being wrongfully imprisoned for overcharge.
Clause negatived.
MR. F. SCULLYthen moved the insertion of the following clause:—
"That the proprietor of every hackney carriage or metropolitan stage carriage, licensed to ply for hire within the limits of this Act, who shall withdraw his carriage from hire for two consecutive days, or for any two days in one week, without just cause, of which the magistrate before whom the complaint is heard shall be the judge, shall be liable to a penalty of a sum not exceeding 20 s. in respect for every carriage for each day he shall so withdraw the same; and the licence of such proprietor shall be suspended or recalled and taken away at the discretion of the said commissioners of police: provided always, that it shall be lawful for such proprietor, upon giving ten days' notice to the commissioners of police, to withdraw his carriage from hire."
It would prevent the very great inconvenience to the public that occurred a short time since, when the strike took place, and would not operate unfairly to the proprietors or owners of cabs or carriages.
MR. FREWENsaid, he would admit that the greatest inconvenience had been sustained by the public during the late strike, particularly by persons arriving by railway from the country. But he was informed that the loss sustained by the cab proprietors in consequence of the strike was so great, that doubts were entertained whether they would ever try that experiment again. It had been calculated that the loss to the proprietors of cabs from the three days' strike amounted to 2,500 l. [Sir J. SHELLEY: 2,000 l. a day.] This, he thought, would be a sufficient caution to them how they struck work again.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he should oppose the clause, which he thought would have a tyrannical effect. It was, besides, an interference with free trade. Several cab proprietors had a number of cab licences, but it did not always suit their interests to continue the same number; and, if this clause passed, they would be unable to withdraw their cabs without ten days' notice, which would inflict a serious loss upon them. He saw no security that there would be any appeal; and, considering the manner in which magistrates had of late exercised their power, he could not consent to vote for this clause.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he entirely differed from his noble Friend. It must be recollected that the House had not only
1594
the cab proprietors to protect, but the public out of doors; and he must say that the cab and omnibus proprietors had shown they had more power than it was thought they possessed, and had exercised that power to the great inconvenience of the public, who could not protect themselves. He thought the proposed clause nothing more than a reasonable one, and should cordially support it.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he would add, that there was a third class of persons who needed protection, and that was the cab drivers. When the proprietors took their cabs off the stands, they deprived the drivers of their work and wages; and it was within his knowledge that many drivers (who were entirely dependent upon their masters) were very much annoyed as well as injured by the strike which had lately taken place.
MR. LOWEthought, recent events had shown that the proprietors of public carriages possessed a great and important power, with which it was not safe to intrust them. A more unwarrantable annoyance to the public than the recent cab strike could hardly be imagined. On the Monday those who represented the cab proprietors had seen his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Fitzroy), and had obtained from him assurances of concession on two points to which they attached much weight, and both of which had been since carried out. Notwithstanding, however, the assurances these persons obtained, they had not chosen to wait and see if they would be carried out, but "struck," and by withdrawing their vehicles produced the greatest possible inconvenience to the public, and much loss to the drivers. All they had got by the strike they had been promised before, and yet after it was all over they met together and congratulated each other upon the triumph they had achieved. He knew also that it had been in the contemplation of the omnibus proprietors, who could not pretend that they had any grievance, and who had the power of regulating their own fares, to strike, he supposed out of mere gaiety of heart, for the purpose of assisting the proprietors of cabs. Now, he did not want to take any measure in a retaliatory spirit; but he thought it was only just that the public should be protected from combinations like these, entered into not so much for the purpose of carrying any point, as of showing the power of the proprietors, and of producing public inconvenience. His hon. Friend the Sec-

1595
retary to the Treasury approved of the clause proposed by the hon. Member, and he therefore hoped the House would agree to it.
Clause added.
Mr. V. SCULLYmoved to substitute for Clause 13 the following clause:—
"Where any hackney carriage shall be discharged beyond the circumference of a circle the radius of which shall be four miles from Temple Bar, it shall be lawful for the driver of such carriage, in addition to the fare now directed to be paid under the Act of the present Session of Parliament, chap. 33, to charge a sum of 6d. per mile for each mile, or part of a mile, in respect of the distance between the place where he is so discharged and the nearest point of such circumference."
SIR WILLIAM CLAYseconded the Motion, but said he must complain that the East and West India Docks, and the important districts clustered around, were cut off from the circle of four miles which was proposed, while Hampstead-heath and part of Tooting-common were embraced within it. In his opinion it would be much more advantageous to have an ellipse than a circle.
MR. SPOONERwould suggest that there should be two points of departure—Charing-cross for the cabs going west, and St. Paul's for those going cast.
MR. LOWEsaid, he did not consider it necessary to reopen the question of the two centres, which had already been thoroughly discussed. He was quite willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. V. Scully), provided several verbal amendments were made in it.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTbrought up a clause to establish an appeal in certain cases. Though he condemned the recent strike of the cabmen, he thought that some palliation was to be found fur their conduct in the manner in which the previous Bill on this subject had been discussed. The consequence of that hasty and inconsiderate measure had been to give satisfaction to no one. It would have been much better if that Bill had been referred, as was proposed, to a Committee upstairs. He now proposed, that, in cases of refusal of licences, there should be an appeal from the decision of the Police Commissioner to the Quarter Sessions; but, to prevent any inconvenience, he thought that the refusal of the licence should be valid until the final decision of the appeal. He proposed further to give an appeal from the decision of the police magistrates. The want of this appeal was considered a peculiar grievance
1596
by the trade and by the drivers, and that feeling had been increased in consequence of a late decision, by which a cabman had been sent to prison because he could not pay down a certain sum to have a disputed distance measured. He knew that the case to which he alluded had been denied in that House, but he believed the fact was as he had stated it. The objection to the appeal was, that it would sometimes frustrate the ends of justice, because the cabmen would immediately appeal in every case from the adverse decisions of the magistrates; but the clause he proposed so fenced round the power of appeal that it would seldom be exercised. The cabman would have to give notice of his intention to appeal within twenty-four hours; he must also enter into recognisances for the payment of double the amount of the penalty and costs awarded against him; and he must be bound over to pay the reasonable expenses of all the witnesses in the case, together with any other costs. Although the power of appeal would be very seldom exercised under these circumstances, it would place a salutary check upon the decisions of magistrates. The omnibus proprietors, who also desired a power of appeal, had waited on him to ask his advice when the cab strike had taken place. He advised them to relinquish all intentions of striking, and to endeavour to induce the cabmen, if possible, to resume work. He also advised them to petition Parliament, and to lay their case before the Home Secretary. Now that the strike was at an end, he had consented to bring forward their case, as he considered that their demand fur a power of appeal was but reasonable. In the cases of licences to public-houses there was en appeal to the Quarter Sessions. Why, then, should there be no appeal in the cases of cab licences? He had copied these clauses, with regard to the appeals, out of an Act which had passed through the House for regulating hackney carriages in Dublin. Why was an appeal just in Ireland, and unjust in England? They were often asked for justice to Ireland. He now; asked for justice to London. He felt a great respect for Sir Richard Mayne, who, he was sure, would not feel hurt at there being an appeal given from his decision. A police magistrate had written to him on the subject of this Bill, and had argued that there ought not to be any appeal from a police magistrate to the Chief Commissioner of Police; but he had no intention to give such an appeal, and there was no ob-

1597
jection expressed to an appeal from a magistrate to any competent tribunal.
MR. LOWEsaid, he had strong objections to this clause. His first objection was, that this matter had been brought forward by the noble Lord in the Committee on the Hackney Carriage Bill, and then fully argued and negatived. And now, on the third reading of another Bill, at the end of the Session, the noble Lord came forward and asked the House to repeal that decision. But the case did not rest here. Let the House only think what the effect of this power of appeal would be. These gentlemen had already shown what they could do in the way of combination, and if the appeal were granted it would be the virtual repeal of everything done by Parliament for the regulation of the public conveyances. Everybody knew that there was great difficulty in inducing people to come forward and make complaints in the case of cabs and omnibuses, and that numerous delinquents in consequence escaped; but, if to this they added the appeal, the difficulty would be greatly increased of reaching a class of men not very observant of the law, and not very decorous in their conduct. It would be found that the appeal would be universal; for the proprietors of hackney carriages would form a fund, and, by appealing against every decision, secure themselves from punishment, for attempts to bring them up before the magistrates would soon cease to be made. He might state, that the general opinion of those who administered the law was against the appeal, and he thought their objections were well founded. The noble Lord objected to the decision being left with the police magistrates; but they were, nevertheless, as intelligent and learned a body of men as could be found; and he would not retort upon the noble Lord the argumentum ad hominem that the very gentleman who presided over the Court to which the appeal was to be made was the gentleman whose salary the noble Lord lately refused to raise some 300 l. a year.
MR. I. BUTTthought a strong case should be made out before they refused the right of appeal. He proposed that the magistrate should reduce the evidence to writing when an appeal was taken, and remit such evidence to the Court before which the appeal was to be heard.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be brought up."
The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 41: Majority 14.
Bill passed.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.